M
Mijoy2
Guest
Has anyone seen the Gospel of John? Did you enjoy it?
- Status
F
Faithful_2_Rome
Guest
I seen it and thought it was very dumbed down and boring.
B
Bill_A
Guest
I have it. I would rather see that one thatn the other movie. The other movie made plenty of money and has plenty of gore. There is one scene at the wedding I didnt like. I have it on DVD.
S
SHJ-BVM
Guest
I have watched this movie 5 times and here is my review.
The problem I have with the film is how Mary Magdalene is basically portrayed as the thirteenth apostle. She is present at the last supper(camera pan to her as Jesus disrobes to wash the disciples feet). She is present and receives the same laying on of hands as the disciples (another camera pan to her) when Jesus prays for them (Jn. 17:9-19) after the last supper. She walks besides Andrew(?) on their way to the garden. Granted, it doesn’t specifically say in the bible that she was not there for any of that, but Mark’s Gospel definitely gives the greatest support that she wasn’t: Mk 14:16 “The disciples (emphasis mine) went off. When they reached the city they found it just as he had told them, and they (again, emphasis mine) prepared the Passover supper. 17 As it grew dark he arrived with the Twelve.” Matthew and Luke also say it was the disciples who prepared the Passover meal, so one cannot use the argument that Mary or any other women were there for that reason. As to the garden, Matthew, Mark and Luke all state basically the same thing Lk 22:39 “Then he went out and made his way, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives; his disciples accompanied him.” The impression the film gives is that Mary is in fact an apostle, which caused my s-i-l to be confused as to her role/relationship with Jesus. For the life of me I cannot understand what the director/producer was thinking by including her in those scenes. Although that does not constitute any doctrinal error or heresy, I DO see it creating problems for either those weak in their faith or who have no religious background.
The movie was based on the Good News Bible translation of the American Bible Society. There were some minor word changes made throughout the movie, but they in no way altered the meaning of the gospel. My biggest annoyance with the film is, that it being word for word from the gospel, Jesus’ reiterance of “I tell you the truth” (although my Catholic bible says that the verbage is “I solemnly assure you”) becomes very grating. If I counted correctly he said this 25 times in a three hour period. That averages out to every 7.2 minutes.
There were also a few minor flaws which I will mention (but I need to note now that this is why people don’t like going to the movies with me…they say I nit-pick too much). The first one is during the wedding at Cana. You see all the wedding guests eating and drinking from pottery service. After Jesus turns the water into wine and it is brought to the waiter in charge in a pottery pitcher, he pours it into what I can only describe as similar to those not quite clear (frosted) dixie cups. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t an actual dixie cup, but I had to ask myself ‘What the heck was the prop guy thinking?’ The hubby and s-i-l also noted how out of place it looked.
Next problem I found is during the feeding of the five thousand. Andrew brings the child with the five loaves and two fish to Jesus. The loaves and fish are wrapped in a cloth, all fine and good. They unwrap them, hand them to Jesus, who moves behind a bush and prays to the Father. He then signals the apostles, who go to him to be handed baskets full of fish and bread. Ummm, did I miss something here folks; where did these baskets come from? Now I know the passage in the bible says that after everyone had gotten their fill the disciples gathered up 12 baskets of leftovers, so where do I think those baskets came from? Well, my take is, that much like todays wallets and pocketbooks, people used baskets to carry things around back then, so there were sure to be 12 baskets that the disciples could have borrowed from the crowd to gather the leftovers. The way they show it in the movie, the baskets appeared just as miraculously as the fish and loaves multiplied.
The next one is so dang obvious, I really had to wonder about those in charge of the wardrobe. As Christopher Plummer narrates “Pilate had Jesus scourged and the soldiers wove a crown of thorns and fixed it on his head, throwing around his shoulders a cloak of royal purple” you see Jesus being led out to the crowd with a robe of red around his shoulders. The old eyesight may not be 20/20 anymore, but even I could see he wasn’t cloaked in purple.
Their last boo-boo came at the very end of the movie. Jn. 21:7 “On hearing it was the Lord, Simon Peter threw on some clothes-he was stripped-and jumped into the water.” Now for the sake of modesty, in the film he was in fact ‘covered’; that’s not the boo-boo. The mistake is that he grabs his tunic as he jumps into the water, but when he emerges on the beach, he has it on. Now logically, he should have thrown his cloak on and then jumped in (that also would have followed what scripture said he did), or at least put it on after he reached shore. Sorry, I just can’t imagine him treading water to get dressed.
The rest of the movie was very well done.
Patricia
The problem I have with the film is how Mary Magdalene is basically portrayed as the thirteenth apostle. She is present at the last supper(camera pan to her as Jesus disrobes to wash the disciples feet). She is present and receives the same laying on of hands as the disciples (another camera pan to her) when Jesus prays for them (Jn. 17:9-19) after the last supper. She walks besides Andrew(?) on their way to the garden. Granted, it doesn’t specifically say in the bible that she was not there for any of that, but Mark’s Gospel definitely gives the greatest support that she wasn’t: Mk 14:16 “The disciples (emphasis mine) went off. When they reached the city they found it just as he had told them, and they (again, emphasis mine) prepared the Passover supper. 17 As it grew dark he arrived with the Twelve.” Matthew and Luke also say it was the disciples who prepared the Passover meal, so one cannot use the argument that Mary or any other women were there for that reason. As to the garden, Matthew, Mark and Luke all state basically the same thing Lk 22:39 “Then he went out and made his way, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives; his disciples accompanied him.” The impression the film gives is that Mary is in fact an apostle, which caused my s-i-l to be confused as to her role/relationship with Jesus. For the life of me I cannot understand what the director/producer was thinking by including her in those scenes. Although that does not constitute any doctrinal error or heresy, I DO see it creating problems for either those weak in their faith or who have no religious background.
The movie was based on the Good News Bible translation of the American Bible Society. There were some minor word changes made throughout the movie, but they in no way altered the meaning of the gospel. My biggest annoyance with the film is, that it being word for word from the gospel, Jesus’ reiterance of “I tell you the truth” (although my Catholic bible says that the verbage is “I solemnly assure you”) becomes very grating. If I counted correctly he said this 25 times in a three hour period. That averages out to every 7.2 minutes.
There were also a few minor flaws which I will mention (but I need to note now that this is why people don’t like going to the movies with me…they say I nit-pick too much). The first one is during the wedding at Cana. You see all the wedding guests eating and drinking from pottery service. After Jesus turns the water into wine and it is brought to the waiter in charge in a pottery pitcher, he pours it into what I can only describe as similar to those not quite clear (frosted) dixie cups. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t an actual dixie cup, but I had to ask myself ‘What the heck was the prop guy thinking?’ The hubby and s-i-l also noted how out of place it looked.
Next problem I found is during the feeding of the five thousand. Andrew brings the child with the five loaves and two fish to Jesus. The loaves and fish are wrapped in a cloth, all fine and good. They unwrap them, hand them to Jesus, who moves behind a bush and prays to the Father. He then signals the apostles, who go to him to be handed baskets full of fish and bread. Ummm, did I miss something here folks; where did these baskets come from? Now I know the passage in the bible says that after everyone had gotten their fill the disciples gathered up 12 baskets of leftovers, so where do I think those baskets came from? Well, my take is, that much like todays wallets and pocketbooks, people used baskets to carry things around back then, so there were sure to be 12 baskets that the disciples could have borrowed from the crowd to gather the leftovers. The way they show it in the movie, the baskets appeared just as miraculously as the fish and loaves multiplied.
The next one is so dang obvious, I really had to wonder about those in charge of the wardrobe. As Christopher Plummer narrates “Pilate had Jesus scourged and the soldiers wove a crown of thorns and fixed it on his head, throwing around his shoulders a cloak of royal purple” you see Jesus being led out to the crowd with a robe of red around his shoulders. The old eyesight may not be 20/20 anymore, but even I could see he wasn’t cloaked in purple.
Their last boo-boo came at the very end of the movie. Jn. 21:7 “On hearing it was the Lord, Simon Peter threw on some clothes-he was stripped-and jumped into the water.” Now for the sake of modesty, in the film he was in fact ‘covered’; that’s not the boo-boo. The mistake is that he grabs his tunic as he jumps into the water, but when he emerges on the beach, he has it on. Now logically, he should have thrown his cloak on and then jumped in (that also would have followed what scripture said he did), or at least put it on after he reached shore. Sorry, I just can’t imagine him treading water to get dressed.
The rest of the movie was very well done.
Patricia
F
Faithful_2_Rome
Guest
Like I said…dumbed down. The incessant narration by Christopher Plummer was MADDENING…um…er…yeah…I could SEE they are WALKING…ya dont have to tell me so… jeez 
…and I lost all respect for this movie and its “over narration” when Mary goes to say, “they have no wine”…and instead of HER voice saying this…her lips move but its PLUMMERS VOICE that comes from them! Help!..she’s possessed by a lip synching demon! ROTF!!! Dumb Dumb Movie.
…and I lost all respect for this movie and its “over narration” when Mary goes to say, “they have no wine”…and instead of HER voice saying this…her lips move but its PLUMMERS VOICE that comes from them! Help!..she’s possessed by a lip synching demon! ROTF!!! Dumb Dumb Movie.
S
stumbler
Guest
Same topic is also discussed here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1896
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=573
I have the DVD. I found it to be interesting but the low budget aspects were occasionally noticeable.
It’s based on a word-for-word depiction of the Good News Bible. So if you have a problem with that translation you’ll have a problem with the movie. But recognize that it’s a movie. You won’t be engaging in comparative word studies while watching.
And since it is a word-for-word retelling, there are lots of production difficulties. The frequent repetition of “I tell you the truth” becomes grating. Someone has to speak the narratives. The GNB translation trades inspirational “King’s English” for a more “vulgar” English. For example, I prefer “Behold, the Lamb of God” which they render as “Look. There is the Lamb of God.” IIRC. But having said that, I really only had a few quibbles with it.
Jesus walking on the water is excellent and wonderous.
The rest of John 6 is handled well. And Peter seems to be handled well.
Mary is downplayed. She becomes a dowdy, somewhat overweight, English redhead. Totally out of place to my eye.
Music and voiceovers are very good to excellent. On my DVD version, the lighting flickers slightly and unexpectedly. But I only notice that if I’m looking for it.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1896
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=573
I have the DVD. I found it to be interesting but the low budget aspects were occasionally noticeable.
It’s based on a word-for-word depiction of the Good News Bible. So if you have a problem with that translation you’ll have a problem with the movie. But recognize that it’s a movie. You won’t be engaging in comparative word studies while watching.
And since it is a word-for-word retelling, there are lots of production difficulties. The frequent repetition of “I tell you the truth” becomes grating. Someone has to speak the narratives. The GNB translation trades inspirational “King’s English” for a more “vulgar” English. For example, I prefer “Behold, the Lamb of God” which they render as “Look. There is the Lamb of God.” IIRC. But having said that, I really only had a few quibbles with it.
Jesus walking on the water is excellent and wonderous.
The rest of John 6 is handled well. And Peter seems to be handled well.
Mary is downplayed. She becomes a dowdy, somewhat overweight, English redhead. Totally out of place to my eye.
Music and voiceovers are very good to excellent. On my DVD version, the lighting flickers slightly and unexpectedly. But I only notice that if I’m looking for it.
B
Bill_A
Guest
The wedding scene it most certainly did appear that they poured the wine into a blue plastic cup. That was a big mistake.
In some of the gospels, Mary M cleans jesus feet and drys them with her hair, than she annoints him with oil. Judas says this money could have been used to feed poor people, namely me.
So we do almost get the impression that Mary M was present at the meal, even though by heretical implications she is not considered an Apostle. She is more so one than Judass.
In some of the gospels, Mary M cleans jesus feet and drys them with her hair, than she annoints him with oil. Judas says this money could have been used to feed poor people, namely me.
So we do almost get the impression that Mary M was present at the meal, even though by heretical implications she is not considered an Apostle. She is more so one than Judass.
- Status