Review: “Son of God”

Home Culture Review: “Son of God”

In the Bible, Jewish religious leaders in Roman-occupied Israel scoffed at Jesus, a miracle man from Galilee, saying, “Can anything good come from Galilee?” Christians who said the same of Hollywood may now have an unexpected answer.

Mark Burnett, reality TV entrepreneur behind “Survivor,” “The Voice,” “Shark Tank,” and “The Apprentice,” teamed up with his wife, Roma Downey, to create the highly-rated mini-series “The Bible” on the History channel. The parts of the series dealing with Jesus’ life were compiled –– with a few added scenes –– to create the movie “Son of God.”

Aside from “Son of God,” other movies are taking after their own biblical inspiration. Russell Crowe is set to star in “Noah,” along with big names like Emma Watson and Jennifer Connelly, at the end of this month. Also, “Exodus,” starring Aaron Paul, Christian Bale, and Sigourney Weaver, is set for release in December. Especially since it is mostly a rerun of the television series, the fact that “Son of God”  could garner $26.5 million over the weekend –– distributor 20th century Fox only predicted $12-15 million — bodes well for the mainstream appeal of Bible-based movies.

Aside from the financial success, the film succeeded in presenting the character of Jesus in an approachable light, avoiding a common trope portraying him as a wimpy, moralistic, and kind of creepy –– the last guy you would pick for a game of kickball. But “Son of God” actually endears his character to you, the way a movie should. Jesus is quiet and sincere with a knowing smile that draws you in. When the nails are driven into his hands, he’s not just a religious leader, he’s the character you’ve come to know.

Novelist Cormac McCarthy once said “Where all is known, no narrative is possible.” “Son of God” has struggled to create a compelling narrative when everyone in the Western world already knows how the story ends.

The film’s portrayal of the messiah’s years of ministry feels a bit like “Jesus’ Greatests Hits” than a cohesive narrative. First we’re healing paralytics. Oh! Now we’re walking on water! Ooooh, Another iconic miracle. Now we’re feeding the 5,000.

However, the second half of the movie takes on a more cohesive narrative. From the Last Supper on, the pacing becomes smoother and conversations more natural. It is easier to connect with characters when Burnett leaves behind the film’s episodic quality and takes the time to carefully unfold the more important moments of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Creating a lucrative movie compiled mostly out of a television show repackaging while breathing life into the silver-screen conception of Jesus was certainly a success. Needless to say, their cup runneth over.

 

Loading