Redundant and unnecessary.

Awesome Movie

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

In 2004, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" was a landmark film in its unflinching look at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. "Son of God" operates in a similar vein, while also focusing on more of the ministry of Christ before his death and resurrection. The difference between the two? This is a four-star solid film, while "Passion" is five stars because it was first and because it had a little more "passion" (pardon the pun) behind it.For a basic plot summary, "Son of God" is pretty much a straight re-telling of the Jesus story. After a brief prologue about the Old Testament and Christ's birth, it begins with Jesus (Diogo Morgado) meeting his disciples as they are struggling to catch fish in the Sea of Galilee. The "walking on water" scene quickly commences and the film is off and running. It doesn't touch on every aspect of Jesus's ministry, but certain key moments are rendering in fantastic dramatic detail. About half way through the film, it shifts gears and becomes a crucifixion/resurrection story, beginning with the involvement of Pontius Pilate (Greg Hicks)."Son of God" is not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination. It is a faithful re-telling of the Jesus story...as simple as that. Due to the success of "The Bible" miniseries on television, the show producers wanted to get something up on the big screen. Considering the short time frame they had to work with, I would say they did a fine job of putting together the film.The reason it will always be second fiddle (at least to me) to "Passion", though, is because of two main reasons (in this case I won't even fault "Son of God" for being second, even though that does have at least some impact): First, in "Passion", Gibson quite literally poured his entire life into that project. That kind of energy and effort showed up in the final product. With "Son of God", one can tell that even though the cast/crew/producers were trying, the effort was not to make a masterpiece. Secondly, Jim Caviezel was just flat out a better Jesus than Morgado. Like Gibson, Caviezel lived his role and set and (until recently with the success of "Person of Interest") was practically known as Jesus in the film industry!So, while "Son of God" was a solid Jesus story flick, it will probably always play second-fiddle to "Passion of the Christ" for some of the reasons I listed above. I don't see it as a problem that the Jesus story is re-told every 10 years or so in a new dramatic setting, but looking at things purely from a movie-critic perspective it just doesn't quite measure up to Gibson's 2004 piece.

Son Of God was a movie taken from the ten-hour mini-series The Bible.It stars Diogo Morgado in the title of role of Jesus. The movie narrates the life of Jesus.The movie is practically divided into two parts.The first hour shows the important different events of Jesus' life during his public ministry that includes his teachings and the different miracles that he performed.The second hour presents to us the passion,death and resurrection. Apparently,it was obvious that the film has had some continuity problems as the film seems like a collection of different events from Jesus life particularly the first part.It was obviously edited to make it a two-hour movie.Despite of it,it was still worth watching as the second part provided great moments.Overall,it was still a decent movie about Jesus which would provide the viewer great appreciation for what he did for the salvation of mankind.

First, this series sucked, because it wasn't even accurately portrayed as if they were in Africa, because that's the truth to the bible and biblical fact. Second, the show only showed all the main people in the bible to be white, and then once again referring to the bible coming from Africa, obviously people weren't that light skin. The worst thing about this series was they don't show the true "Jesus". I also, think that the way the stories were put together in this series was really crappy. I hope I never see this show again! Quite honestly this show does not show a man of burnished bronze skin and probably never will. They never showed the man with the hair of lamb's wool! I will also be honest this show might have made me not be a man of Christianity I will tell you that much.

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.