The Final Inquiry (2007)

As Good As It Gets

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

In 35 A.D., a Roman tribune is sent to Palestine to investigate the death and possible resurrection of a certain Jesus from Nasareth. The Final Inquiry must have been a pretty difficult task for action hero Dolph Lundgren but he somehow did pulled it off. The storyline is simple and not that hard to follow plus the acting was not that bad and some of the bing names like Max Von Sydow and F. Murray Abraham? I was amazed that even took their roles as well. It's definitely better than most faith and religion movies as well although no Passion of the Christ..

Hollywood used to enjoy doing Bible Movies, but the whole thing has fallen out of favor. This film, done as an Italian/Spanish collaboration, hearkens back to the old Bible movies.The plot is that a Roman Tribune has been assigned by the Emperor Tiberius to investigate the source of world-wide Earthquake. He goes into an investigation of the life of Jesus, only to conclude that Jesus was indeed the son of God. He reports back to Tiberius, who agrees with him, only to be snuffed by the mad Caligula before acting on this eternal truth.Of course, historical silliness abounds. We also get several really good actors (Max von Sydow as Tiberius- he played Jesus once), F. Murrey Abraham as a Jewish elder, and so on. But the plot line is simple enough. Jesus was real, and those who doubt him do so at their won peril.it's a fun movie, enjoyable for what it is.

First, I was unaware that this was a re-make. If the first movie is on DVD, I'll try it to see any difference. As to this movie (2006), I am going to write my usual bug-aboo about historical accuracy and the movies.I wish just once that a film set in the period of Yeshua/Jesus would depict the Jewish people with a less than jaundiced - read: historically inaccurate - eye. I was confronted at the very opening of this film with yet another scene of "crazed Jews" stoning a woman for adultery. According to some extensive research on this period, I have learned that the imposition of the death penalty in ancient Jewish society was rare and could only be undertaken under very controlled conditions. For example, a woman caught in adultery was not automatically put to death. Both she and her husband had to appear before the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem - and only this body, with the consent of every single member, could actually pronounce the death sentence. One "no" vote and there was an acquittal. The husband could forgive his wife and take her back and that was the end of it. Or he could divorce her. If she was freed and committed adultery again, then the matter would be returned to the High Court. Trials took three days: testimony and evidence on the first day; deliberation by the court on the second, and the third day reserved for the verdict. This third day was meant as a "cooling off period" to avoid a rush to judgment. The sentence upon conviction was not always death. None of this "crazed outrage" in the streets followed by an angry stoning as depicted in this film. It is also said that any Sanhedrin that passed two death sentences within 7 years was called a "bloody Sanhedrin." In other words, the Jewish people had made a deliberate attempt to provide justice in an orderly and civilized way. To depict them as simply a bunch of "crazies" running about the streets like blood-crazed savages is nothing more than pure propaganda.One other note on the trial, each member of the court had a small pebble - a stone - that they tossed (cast) into a large pot. The stones were then counted to reach a verdict. This is what is meant by the phrase: "Let those among you who are blameless (without malice; pure of heart) cast the first stone." Further, no Sanhedrin would meet to hold a "trial" - especially one involving a potential death sentence - within three days BEFORE and three days AFTER a religious holiday. This is because of the three-day trial concept. Therefore, Jesus couldn't be tried and convicted on the same day. As far as this movie is concerned, it is a standard Christian story told with some reverence for the faith, although it is not entirely original in it's story line. Compare it with "The Robe" (1953) where a Roman soldier (Richard Burton) is sent by the Emperor Tiberias to find the "true" story of what happened in Jerusalem. That Roman is cynical at first but, through the miracle of Peter saving a young woman (played then by Debra Paget), the soldier converts to Christianity.

When I got this movie it had quite a low score here on IMDb. But the subject seemed to be interesting, it was not an Hollywood production and had at least one big name in the paylist - Max von Sydow's. So I took the challenge and gave it a try. Big mistake... Though it's screenplay is written with some interesting plots and with quite an original ideas for a Jesus-related movie this is almost the only thing worth to be praised here. The first thing you will notice is the music of someone, who's surname is Moricone but his not "the one" but some other Moricone. So is his music - kind of Moricone's style but not "the one" - something is missing, it's to loud and generally does not fit. Then you will notice the performers and they certainly can help to forget about poor music since they performance is really stunning. Literatim. It's something like operetta filmed in the silent movie period with all those exalted movement and acting typical for those old times. Moreover my version was apparently dubbed in English although the movie was apparently made in English at the first place! I do not know why they did it - maybe some Italian actors had some problems with the language but then if you add voices to a already finished movie it is never perfect and the effect is rather ridiculous. Combined with aforementioned style of acting it looks just utterly stupid. And if this was not enough some of supporting roles are seemed to be written for computer RPG characters! You know, like for example those typical NPCs standing next to the town gates only to say something like "welcome to Jerusalem"... Some dialogues between those characters seemed o be intentionally written in Monthy Python style...But apart from that there is also an actor there who really stands out - Dolph Lundgren! By far it is the best of his performance I had a "pleasure" to watch. Of course as every barbarian he speaks with Scottish accent witch is really sweet, especially that he apparently is trying to imitate Sean Connory... Since he plays a barbaric Germanic warrior and he has not much to do there apart from being "strong, noble and wild" and of course of swinging his enormous axe everywhere. The movie is full of scenes where Lundgren is shown somewhere in the background or foreground performing this complicated tasks and I must admit he had really mastered it. Seriously - for someone who's performing talent is so, well, narrow I think he is a real star in this movie. Some say "there is no good movie without a love story plot". But this one could be definitely better without. I had mentioned before about some interesting and original ideas in the scenario but this is only to be observed in the first half of the movie. The second half is devoted mainly to love story plot and this just kills this otherwise would-be-weak-but-not-the-worst movie. It's just dull and absurd in the world of this picture and moreover it is completely redundant. See for yourself if you dare but there are better ways of spending time.