Son of God (2014)

Redundant and unnecessary.

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

I am a fan of movies about Christ and like to see how the various takes on his life go. I grew up on 1977's Jesus of Nazareth, and saw 1961's King of Kings through TV airings and DVD. Unsurprisingly, they were pretty dramatic.Then comes 2014's Son of God, which I found too dramatic.What is the difference between 2014's take and the earlier depictions? For the latter, you feel the message of Christ and the New Testament, very powerful in my opinion. For Son of God, I felt they were trying to cater to a "modern" audience. While I didn't think the acting was bad, I didn't feel the Gospel in this depiction. While I also thought there were some good additions or takes (like expanding the role of Mary Magdalene), I thought they dramatized too much some events from Jesus' time.If you are an atheist or agnostic, this can be an enjoyable fare for you. If you become a believer afterwards, more power to you.If you are a believer in Christ and into his teachings and regularly worship him, I'm not so sure you will feel the message of the New Testament and Christ in this movie.I for one could not feel the message. Again, too dramatic for me.See it and form an opinion for yourself.

I am disappointed in this film. I only made it through 37 minutes before shutting it off. I (reasonably) enjoyed The Bible miniseries and had high hopes for this movie, but they took way too much liberty with it. I understand about wanting to make it more in line with what his life may have been like and making Him more relatable to us, but this was too much liberty. They added words, and actions and just made it disappointing. Honestly, I'm surprised we sell it at the Christian store I work at.

Whether we are Christian's or not the message here is simple. No this movie is not like "The Passion of the Christ", with all the glitter and focus on key points to make money. So, if your looking for something like it you won't find it here. You will not find accurate quotes or word for word scriptures here. What you will find here is his birth, his teachings,some of his miracles performed, his crucifixion and resurrection. This is a simple heartfelt movie that shares the important parts of Jesus Christ message. Some of you are so negative about it, why? Next time you should do better in researching on it first and than make your choice and except your choice. And unless you have truly walk the path of being a true follower of Jesus Christ this is a perfect example of Jesus Christ. I loved it, it was touching, heartfelt, the actors all did a wonderful job.

I liked it. It did have my issues. For example, he calls Peter by that name right off, rather than Simon. Big issue. The name was changed so that Peter could be called "rock" to signify his deep faith as the Fathers teach us.Also the trial thing before Pilate is way off. And Pilate, who is a saint in the Orthodox tradition (he converted)is depicted too harshly. True, he was harsh before he converted, but in the case of Christ's Passion, he was mild, trying to avoid punishing him so far as possible. They depicted his wife, Claudia (St. Claudia) rather well, though not as clearly as they could have. Pilate seemed a mix of cruel and more kind. Gibson did a good job of balancing it out. Likely because he researched the oral traditions about Pilate and Claudia, who converted. There are a few accounts, generally positive, of this. The main point is that the whole trial is way off. It does not give the full account, and he was tried in private in this movie. Pilate asked the whole "what is truth" in some inner place in his palace. Totally off. How did the Gospel writers know this happened then? They wrote based on what they saw, which is why their are small discrepancies in the Gospel accounts, though yes they were guided by the Holy Spirit, etc.Then there is the Nicodemus thing. It's inaccurate how they depict his going to Jesus. He came a NIGHT according to St John, not day like in the film.Anyway, the good points. A thing many may not notice, but Mary is depicted in blue according the Catholic tradition--look at Marian art and notice this. Blue signifies her purity. Also, the bread and wine clearly are represented as literal body and blood.Some have said this is hippy love dovey. I do not think so. Maybe because they do not know the understanding of Christ according to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic tradition, but a fundamentalist one. They might do well to read the compassionate Desert Fathers, who though they lived strict lives, taught gentleness and love. There are many doctrinal accuracies in this movie first of all that the non-Christian watcher may not notice. Or the Protestant perhaps, that is someone who has no understanding of the Fathers of the Church. I do not see how Jesus was some hippy in this movie. I just do not see it. I think he is depicted accurately. I was very happy to see that this movie was not full of vile heresy. Hollywood's Jesus is often, well....Anyway, aside from the errors of Scripture on a superficial level, the substance of the Gospel and doctrine are followed. It is clearly a very Roman Catholic leaning film. Maybe that is why some Christians do not like it.