More in-depth film festival coverage than any other website!
Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About 

Overall Rating

Awesome: 18.18%
Worth A Look: 9.09%
Average: 0%
Pretty Bad: 31.82%
Total Crap40.91%

2 reviews, 10 user ratings

Latest Reviews

Crazy Rich Asians by Peter Sobczynski

Meg, The by Jay Seaver

Island, The (2018) by Jay Seaver

Summer of '84 by Jay Seaver

BlacKkKlansman by Peter Sobczynski

Along with the Gods: The Last 49 Days by Jay Seaver

Along with the Gods: The Two Worlds by Jay Seaver

Mission: Impossible - Fallout by Jay Seaver

Stripped to Kill 2: Live Girls by Jack Sommersby

Ready Player One by Rob Gonsalves

subscribe to this feed

Gospel of John, The
[] Buy posters from this movie
by EricDSnider

"And it came to pass that I slept; yea, verily, I did sleep for three hours."
2 stars

I'll say this for "The Gospel of John": It's the most literal recreation of the Bible in film history. It is, simply, the Good News translation of the book of John, slapped onto the screen, unembellished and unaltered. The verses that are narration are spoken by a narrator (Christopher Plummer, to be specific), and the verses that are people talking are spoken by actors (no one you've heard of, to be specific).

I assume it sounded like a good idea at the time. I mean, you wouldn't make a movie if you KNEW it was a bad idea, right? But man, it sure turned out to be one. Whew! What a stinker this thing is! All due respect to the Bible, but just because a book is good doesn't mean it can be transferred directly to the screen without some streamlining, adapting and adjusting.

How literal is this movie? Well, it's three hours long, and the book of John is 21 chapters. At the one-hour mark, we're covering the events in chapter 7, and at two hours, sure enough, we're in chapter 14. No incidents are given any more attention in the film than they're given in the text, not for the sake of highlighting certain themes, not for the sake of focusing on a particular aspect of Jesus' life, not for nothin', no way, no how.

The result? It's boring. How could it not be? Does anyone sit down and read the book of John start to finish? No, you read certain passages or chapters. It doesn't make sense beginning to end, because it doesn't have a central plot. It has vignettes and episodes, culminating in a final sequence that is only somewhat straightforward, narratively speaking. In short, to make it work on the screen, one would have to adapt it into a STORY, with a beginning, middle and end.

Much of the narration is superfluous, at times laughably so. For example, there's a moment when the narrator says, "Jesus looked at him" while Jesus is, in fact, looking at someone. Thanks, narrator. Thanks for clearing that up. Why is extraneous narration left in like that? Because it's in the book. Everything in the book makes it into the movie, no matter how unnecessary. EVERYTHING.

Another problem is that John didn't write dialogue to stand on its own, and the Good News Bible doesn't exactly translate it into flowing, natural language. John condensed what must have been lengthy conversations into a few lines, to give us the gist. The film, since it doesn't add anything, just gives us those meager exchanges and expects it to look like a regular conversation, which it seldom does. It doesn't help that the acting is uniformly flat, the actors merely reciting lines rather than attempting to play full-fledged characters.

The director, by the way, is Philip Saville, a British filmmaker who made a few films in the '60s and early '70s (including "Stop the World: I Want to Get Off") and only sporadically since then, and nothing of note. The screenwriter, John Goldsmith, is equally undistinguished.

So it's a bad movie. Does it have any redeeming value? See, there's the tricky part. As a Christian, I believe anything that testifies of Christ -- and here is a movie that obviously has no agenda other than that -- automatically has some inherent value, if only for that reason. That doesn't necessarily make it good as art or entertainment, of course; it just makes it a good THING, a positive force in the world. A lovely painting of Christ could be described the same way, but I wouldn't want to sit and look at it for three hours.

link directly to this review at
originally posted: 02/20/04 16:29:55
[printer] printer-friendly format  

User Comments

10/25/13 Doctor Mabuse "Complete" 3-hr. version a draggy rough cut. 2-hr. DVD is dynamic drama, solid filmmaking. 4 stars
10/16/07 Mi This is an excellent, epic film with amazing music and outstanding performances 5 stars
8/18/07 christian terrible. why tell this story like this!!! the extras look like they are bored. 1 stars
12/19/06 Andrew Great movie. You're review is way off base. Cusick is a completely believeable Jesus. 4 stars
10/24/05 Amanda Excellent film. Long, yes, but for those not suffering from ADD, it's well-acted and moving 5 stars
4/20/04 Wendy Jones UNHOLY RIPOFF! Boycott this $55 DVD! Read the book instead! 2 stars
3/06/04 Pat Hudson Went to the himalayas.Awesome. Younger members of the group said they were cold and bored.. 5 stars
3/04/04 Star-Crosser Stick with "Passion". Even bible-freaks will be inimpressed by this. 1 stars
2/21/04 Brian quick! the passion comes out next week! get us another jesus flick! 1 stars
Note: Duplicate, 'planted,' or other obviously improper comments
will be deleted at our discretion. So don't bother posting 'em. Thanks!
Your Name:
Your Comments:
Your Location: (state/province/country)
Your Rating:

Discuss this movie in our forum

  26-Sep-2003 (PG-13)
  DVD: 15-Mar-2005



Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About Australia's Largest Movie Review Database.
Privacy Policy | HBS Inc. | |   

All data and site design copyright 1997-2017, HBS Entertainment, Inc.
Search for
reviews features movie title writer/director/cast