Risen

Let me start off by admitting that I have seen virtually every ‘Jesus’ movie ever made. From King of Kings, to The Greatest Story Ever Told, to Jesus of Nazareth to The Passion of Christ—yep, seen ‘em all. Some were good. Most were reverent but tedious. Risen is nothing like any of these. Although about Jesus, His life is not the focal point. In fact, I don’t think I ever heard the name ‘Jesus’ once mentioned.Just as a reference, I also taught Hebrew and Roman history for many years, and I approached this movie wondering how accurate both would be—in presenting Jesus and His followers—and in depicting the Romans. While I have not read the book on which this movie is based, if it is reflected accurately in the film, it was certainly written with a skilled and knowledgeable hand. Someone knew these cultures well.First off, every Christian will note the inaccuracies in the movie. The healing of the leper and the Ascension are geographically and chronologically just wrong, and the Ascension itself is quite diappointing.Too, the Shroud of Turin linen in the empty tomb was a bit of a frown, but so be it. But other discrepancies, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies in Christian and Roman history are few and far between.Risen is not a polished and cheesy Jesus flick. If you are looking for the four-gospel story, the life of Christ, the inspirational Sermon on the Mount, or a strong evangelistic outreach, you will be disappointed. If you are looking for stunning special effects which have overtaken the celluloid world today, you won’t find many. If you’re looking for young, Hollywood starlets and Clooney-esque faces, they’re not there. What you will see is what Hollywood can really create—when it has unlimited resources—and when it can muster the best in acting, technology, and tight script-writing. In short, Risen delivers.This is a gritty, salty, and realistic film. The crucifixion scene is both accurate and graphic (not nearly in the ilk of The Passion of Christ, however). The disgust of rotting corpses in the potters' field is all too real, as is the heft of Roman crucifixion nails, the sordid description of that death, and the hurried disosal of crucified corpses. As a history teacher, what I especially appreciated was attention to detail in the meticulously accurate representation of Charon's coin (for crossing the river Styx) given to the dead, the Greco-Roman concept of Poseidon causing earthquakes, and depiction of the Roman seals which commanded authority of life and death.Risen is presented from a Roman point of view, through the eyes of the Tribune Clavius (Joseph Fiennes), Pontius Pilate, and the tomb guards. It reflects superbly the superstitious nature of the Roman culture, the classic Roman turtleshell defensive battle formation, as well as tribute offered in Roman (Mars) shrine-worship. The Latin terms used for crucifixion instruments and the Roman military paraphernalia are spot on. The Hebrew names for Jesus (Yeshua) and God (YHWH) are, thankfully, used exclusively. The costuming is first century Israel—not over-wardrobed and anachronistic Hollywood excess—and even the smallest referential detail—payment by Roman salt—is subtle and accurate.Without mentioning an array of individual performers (other reviewers will do that), let me just say that there are no weak links among the cast. Everyone is convincing, and obviously serious about the parts they portray. The disciple Bartholomew stands out, as does Fiennes, Pilate, and the tomb guards.Risen does not preach. It excels in depicting the contagious joy Christianity imparts—a joy reluctantly caught by Clavius himself in his personal quest for "...a day without death". The film is based upon strict evidence from which faith grows, not mere speculation which merely hinders belief. Christianity is portrayed as it was meant to be portrayed—spread through example, not mere sermonhood. The questions in the film are precisely the questions we would ask if we could transport back to first century Jerusalem. How is the missing body explained by unbelievers? What lengths would first century skeptics go to in order to disprove a miracle? How would those who beheld the resurrection firsthand describe it? And, in the film’s most memorable scene—what would a Tribune who participated in killing Christ say to Him in a private conversation?Finally, there is Jesus. The character says very little in the film. But the questions He asks are probing, insightful, and draped in love and joy. While the Christ role is secondary in this film, Jesus is portrayed exactly how He might have lived. He is neither distracted by the mundane, nor unsympathetic to those who seek Him. He is forgiving, and smiling, and His penultimate meeting with the Tribune is an understated masterpiece of conversation.Risen is a philosophical, evidential, and emotional pièce de résistance in the telling of one man’s journey to explain the contradiction of what he saw, and what he sees. It is undoubtedly the portrayal of what many skeptics endured the week following Christ’s death. The gospel message is presented ever-so-subtly, but is summed up near the end of the film in the question Jesus asks the Tribune Clavius: “What are you afraid of?” The answer is everyman’s: “Being wrong...going into eternity.”

*** MOVIE Spoiler Included ***This movie took ALOT of flack because none of the movie is bible based - uhm - that's the WHOLE idea - hello - do your research BEFORE you starting flan basting a movie ... if you do even the slightest bit of HISTORICAL research - you would realize the transformation which takes place in this movie - there is SO much historical data from the resurrection of Jesus - both Jewish & Historians at the time which all agree's - Jesus was crucified by hanging on a cross - was buried & was raised from the dead on the third day - you can scoff - you can try to deny these truths till your blue in the face - but - the raw - hard - cold data is there which clearly points to these events - place the bible aside - place your non-belief aside & just look at the cold hard historical data & then study the rank which Clavius held - Military Tribune - he was next to the governor at the time - earned a well heeled wage - lived well - had servants & wasn't even dared to be questioned - & when he first saw the resurrected Jesus - you just imagine the paradigm/shock shift in his heart & soul - thus this is were the movie really comes into it's own ...The Paradigm shift of a Roman Tribune ... that's the "wow" factor in this movie & it makes for one great movie ...

This may be difficult to put into words. I was moved to tears many times. Joseph Fiennes is excellent as the Tribune. His reaction and facial expression when he finds the risen Jesus is something I have watched over and over. It is powerful and impactful. This movie isn't slick, it's gritty, it's violent and it's honest from a non-believers point of view. Here is a man who prays to Mars but in his heart he knows there is no evidence of such a being. Now he looks into the eyes of the living God and as he says cannot reconcile what he has seen to the world he knows. Yet in the end he finds his peace and he is forever changed. This movie is great for every person of faith and very entertaining for those without it. Well-made, definitely not a B picture!

An outstanding, haunting faith-based film, brilliantly scripted and acted. Joseph Fiennes plays a cynical, worldly Roman tribune who is assigned by Pontius Pilate to supervise the Crucifixion, then to seal Jesus' tomb, and, subsequently, to investigate the rumors of the Resurrection. Everything about the film is surprising in a positive way: the apostles are portrayed as common, rather nondescript men, with nothing Hollywoodish about them; Clavius (Fiennes) is portrayed as a tough, skeptical veteran puzzled by the inexplicable events whose reality he cannot deny. He does not undergo any lightning-strike conversion experience, but his life is clearly changed by the results of his investigation. And the resurrected Jesus is shown as a real person, joyful and personable, without the usual Hollywood glow or angel choruses; he even actually looks *Jewish*, rather than like Brad Pitt! An amazing film in every respect.

Vorneweg: Ich bin eigentlich kein besonders großer Fan von Bibelverfilmungen. Entweder finde ich sie langweilig (weil: Story bekannt und komplett vorhersehbar; zu belehrend, voreingenommen und predigend) oder nervig, weil so viel verändert, verfälscht und auf „cool“ gemacht wird, dass ich aus dem Augenrollen nicht herauskomme. Von „Auferstanden“ habe ich daher auch nicht besonders viel erwartet. Ich hatte den Film zufällig auf Netflix entdeckt, eher gleichgültig gedacht: „Ich kann ja mal reinsehen. Ist schließlich kostenlos.“ und war dann am Ende so begeistert, dass ich mir den Film sofort auf DVD bestellt habe.Das, was den Film aus anderen Bibelverfilmungen herausstechen lässt, ist die Tatsache, dass die erzählte Geschichte nicht aus der Sicht einer der bekannten biblischen Figuren erzählt wird, sondern aus der Perspektive eines fiktiven Protagonisten und Beobachters. Dadurch wird eine neue und interessante Komponente zu der bekannten Handlung hinzugefügt, ohne die eigentliche Perikope zu sehr zu verändern oder gar zu verfälschen.Der Film beginnt mit Tod Jesu am Kreuz (also somit im Grunde nach der oft verfilmten und dargestellten Passionserzählung) und thematisiert die Auferstehung und die Problematik des leeren Grabes bis hin zu der Auffahrt Jesu in den Himmel. Die erzählende Hauptfigur ist der kluge, aber nicht vor Brutalitäten zurückschreckende, römische Militärtribun Clavius. Da der römische Stadthalter von Jerusalem, Pontius Pilatus, Angst um den wackeligen Frieden mit den jüdischen Einwohnern – und vor allem den Pharisäern – hat, soll Clavius den verschwundenen Leichnam eines gekreuzigten Nazareners ausfindig machen, damit dessen Anhänger nicht die Lüge verbreiten können, er wäre auferstanden, und eine Rebellion beginnen.Die Tatsache, dass die Geschichte aus Clavius Sicht erzählt wird, hat viele Vorteile. Neben dem bereits erwähnten Einbringen eines neuen, interessanten Elementes, erlaubt diese neue Sichtweise auch, den Film in Bezug auf das Storytelling auf eine für das heutige Publikum ansprechendere Weise zu sehen. Wäre der Film aus der Sicht z.B. der Jünger erzählt worden, hätte er sehr leicht langweilig werden können, da die Figuren durch die Bibel vorgezeichnet sind und gewisse „moralische Grundsätze“ erfüllen müssen, wenn man sie nicht verändern möchte.Bei Clavius hingegen ist es egal, ob er zynisch, abgehärtet und manchmal kalt ist. Er kann so dargestellt werden, wie es für die Geschichte und die geplante Charakterisierung sinnvoll ist, ohne dass irgendjemand daran Anstoß nehmen könnte. Er kann skeptisch sein, sich kritisch Gedanken machen und die Dinge hinterfragen. Er muss es sogar. Dadurch wird er zu einer Figur, mit der sich der zeitgenössische Zuschauer identifizieren kann.Auch erlaubt diese Sichtweise, die Geschichte mit der Vermischung weiterer Genres zu erzählen. Die ersten zwei Drittel des Films sind im Grunde eine interessante Kriminalgeschichte, in der der Römer versucht, zu ergründen, was mit dem Leichnam geschehen sein mag. Der Tatort wird untersucht und mögliche Verdächtige und Zeugen befragt, die kryptische Antworten geben.Auch handwerklich ist der Film gut gemacht. Die Kulissen und die Ausstattung sind eindrucksvoll und wirken realistisch. Es wird auf damalige kulturelle Details geachtet, die passend zur Geschichte eingearbeitet werden (z.B. das Verbrennen der römischen Toten und die Münze, die in den Mund gesteckt wird). Man kann sich leicht in die damalige Zeit hineinversetzen und sich vorstellen, dass alles tatsächlich so ausgesehen haben mag. Es gibt auch ein paar brutale Szenen und Bilder – zumindest im Zusammenhang mit Clavius Schlacht am Anfang, der Kreuzigung und der Untersuchung der Leichen. Ich persönlich empfinde aber nicht, dass dies effekthascherisch oder übertrieben wirkt, sondern dass das ungeschönte Zeigen dieser Bilder eher zu einem verstärkten Gefühl der Authentizität beiträgt. (Wobei ich zugegebenermaßen durch Serien wie „Hannibal“ und „Game of Thrones“ etwas abgehärtet in diesem Bereich bin.)Ein weiterer sehr positiver Aspekt, der den Film authentischer wirken lässt und mir sehr gefallen hat, war, dass man für Jesus den historisch richtigen Namen „Yeshua“ verwendet hat, anstelle ihn „Jesus“ zu nennen. Ebenfalls sehr erfreulich war für mich, dass man für den Darsteller von Jesus jemanden genommen hat, der nicht so kaukasisch aussieht, wie es in den meisten Produktionen der Fall ist (im schlimmsten Fall natürlich blondhaarig und blauäugig). Für mich sah er tatsächlich so aus, wie jemand, der damals in Judäa gelebt haben könnte. Wünschenswert wäre es dabei nur gewesen, wenn man dies bei den Jüngern auch ein wenig stärker berücksichtigt hätte, da einige von ihnen (wie z.B. Bartholomäus) doch ein wenig zu europäisch wirken. Doch das ist wirklich Jammern auf hohem Niveau.Das einzige, das mich an dem Film eigentlich wirklich gestört hat, ist, dass man anscheinend nicht darum herumkam, das alte und falsche Vorurteil aufzugreifen, Maria Magdalena sei eine Prostituierte gewesen. Zwar wird dieses Wort mit ihr im Zusammenhang nicht direkt verwendet, aber sie wird als „Frau von der Straße“ bezeichnet und als Clavius seine Männer fragt, wer sie kennt, meldet sich über die Hälfte von ihnen zögerlich, um zu implizieren, dass sie anscheinend „Kunden“ bei ihr gewesen sind. Das hätte wirklich nicht sein müssen und hat für mich in dem Moment ein wenig die Authentizität zerstört, da die Verbindung von Maria Magdalena – Sünderin – Prostituierte bibelwissenschaftlich längst widerlegt und somit falsch ist.Was das letzte Drittel des Films angeht, so hat mich die „Wendung“ in dem Plot nicht gestört. Ich kann verstehen, warum manche sich gewünscht hätten, dass man es bis zum Ende hin wie eine Kriminalgeschichte behandelt hätte und die Frage danach, ob der Leichnam nun gestohlen wurde oder ob an den Auferstehungsgerüchten doch etwas dran gewesen sein könnte, offengehalten hätte. Es wäre vermutlich etwas stringenter im Ton gewesen und hätte man sich für diesen Weg entschieden, hätte es sicherlich auch interessant sein können. Dennoch kann ich mich über die gewählte Vorgehensweise nicht beklagen. Ich fand sowohl die Flucht vor den Römern als auch das Begleiten der Jünger sehr interessant. Ja, manche Szenen waren etwas sentimental und der musikalische Einsatz drohte hin und wieder in den Kitsch abzugleiten, aber für mich hat es funktioniert. Ich war durchaus ergriffen von einigen Szenen und hatte eine Gänsehaut.Der Film hat es dadurch geschafft, mich auf mehreren Ebenen anzusprechen. Die ersten zwei Drittel waren für den Kopf. Man hat die Untersuchungen verfolgt und mit Clavius die Indizien gesammelt, während man immer wieder biblische Einschübe entdecken konnte, die intelligent in die Handlung verwebt wurden, und konnte sich an den gut recherchierten historischen Details erfreuen. Das letzte Drittel war für das Gefühl. Es hat mich glücklich gemacht und konnte die hoffnungsvollen Gefühle der ersten Christen gut vermitteln.Weil ich wegen der falschen Darstellung von Maria Magdalena einen halben Stern abziehen würde, würde ich dem Film 4,5 Sterne geben. Da das auf Amazon aber leider nicht möglich ist, runde ich es auf 5, weil mich der Film auch bei wiederholtem Ansehen noch genauso begeistern konnte. Ich finde, dieser Film ist mit seinem Fokus auf die Auferstehung Christi und die damit verbundene hoffnungsvolle Botschaft eine großartige Osterfilmalternative (oder -ergänzung) zu den eher bekannten Passionsadaptionen.

I ordered this film for Easter viewing and it arrived on Holy Saturday. Perfect timing.We watched it on Easter Sunday appropriately.A different perspective on a well known set of events surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus, told from the point of view of the Roman Tribune, ordered to oversee events and ensure that Jesus was actually dead.From the beginning the 'edge' was apparent. We viewed the resurrection from all sides.. The Sanhedrin wanted to hang on to their own power and control of the people and wanted rid of Jesus permanently, even after death. Pontius Pilate wanted to quel rebellion and save face in the eyes of the visiting Emporer. The disciples were scared of both sets of authorities.This was not a Holywood blockbuster but was gripping viewing.Great musical score that really underline the tension throughout.

I am not a religious person in any way, shape or form - but I do like a good film!Primarily on the recommendation of a couple of friends whose taste I trust, I purchased this blu-ray, and I have to say this was certainly one of my better purchases.Well made, good performances, and strangely atmospheric. Obviously a marvellous story to tackle, but also an intelligent script which makes such a change from the utter dross constantly turned out.I liked the film, so I can only thoroughly recommend it to all.

Decided to purchase following seeing half of the film on the television. It gives a very interesting perspective of the circumstances the that Roman Governor finds himself in, when the Jewish Leaders demand the 'body of Jesus' following his resurrection. It is extrelmely well produced, and the actors and actresses play excellent roles of the charactors known by Jesus, and interviewed by the 'Roman Officials.' It portrays the culture, political pressures, and the attitudes to the Roman Occupation of the times

Let me say straight off the bat that, like the vast majority of people, I buy and watch films purely for recreation (i.e. I’m an armchair cinemagoer). Nevertheless, if I pay good money to watch a film, then I want to watch a good film, and not be told by some advertising nitwit that the DVD I am thinking of buying is a good film. I have been ripped off too many times by believing the less than honest advertising hype splashed across the front covers of DVDs declaring that the enclosed DVD is a great movie, only to be bitterly disappointed after buying and watching it. Since then, I have determined to ignore the advertising hype and make up my own mind if a film is good or not. I am not interested in the ‘message’ producers and directors are trying to create in their work; I’m only interested the the aesthetics of the movie-making craft.Before I wrote this review, I watched the film while listening to the running commentary by Patrick Aiello and Paul Aiello to understand what they were trying to portray in the storyline. A lot of their commentary I agreed with (and I have written this below), but there were some aspects of their commentary that I didn’t agree with, simply because I couldn’t see the point they were trying to make. DVD movies cost a lot of money these days, so I always try to be as honest and as objective as possible when reviewing a film because if the film is rubbish then I will say it is rubbish and then proceed to tell you why I think it is rubbish. You can then consider my observations and make up your own mind. By doing this, I may be able to save someone from the embarrassment of being robbed of their valuable, hard-earned money. This has always been my motive for writing reviews.For the most part, ‘Risen’ is a really good film; it is one of many religious features that have appeared on the cinema/DVD market of late (since Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of The Christ”). I have not seen them all, I’ve only seen about four or five of them (‘Risen’ is number 5), but of the few I have seen, they all suffer from the same negative drawbacks and symptoms that the other four suffer from; symptoms which I call ‘modernisms’ (i.e. characteristics of modern life which have crept into the storyline and destroyed (if only in part) the illusion of the time period the film is trying to convey). The vast bulk of these drawbacks range from minor nit-picking mistakes (which, I suppose, can be ignored) to major errors of glaring inconsistencies (which can’t be ignored), and can all be categorised into four basic parts: costumes; sets; historical accuracy; and spoken dialogue.The trouble with portraying stories from the Bible is that it’s not so much the case of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, but more the case of the Gospels according to Hollywood! Unfortunately, this has always been the case (this is because Hollywood is more interested in making money rather than accurately telling a story). This has resulted in some really terrible examples of biblical storytelling. The movie-making ethos driving all of this has always been the same: if historical or scriptural accuracy conflicts with what is needed to sell the movie, then moviemakers will ignore historical accuracy and opt for what is needed to sell the movie because at the end of the day, producers and sponsors have to recover their financial investment at the box office. So, the unwritten rule is, if you want to recover your financial investment, you have to massacre a perfectly good Bible story! Not only will they massacre the story, but in some cases they will ‘hang, drawn, and quarter’ it as well in order to claw back their money! For proof of this, just check out the DVD ‘Noah’ (with Russell Crowe as ‘Noah’).Unfortunately, ‘Risen’, has not escaped unscathed from this negative drawback to moviemaking, but the good news is that ‘Risen’ isn’t trying to tell a Gospel story per se, but rather, it is telling a fictional detective story revolving around the frantic search for Jesus’ body after his resurrection; the Gospel account of the resurrection is merely used as the backdrop for telling this story. Unfortunately, in order to tell this first-century detective story, you have to provide some scriptural background information for your audience to relate to, and this is where ‘Risen’ falls down flat; its depiction of actual historical and scriptural events because in every case, they have got it wrong—AGAIN!The positive aspects of the film:A lot of time, effort, and money has been put into the production of ‘Risen’, and it shows! There are some terrific actors in this (Joseph Fiennes, Peter Firth, Tom Felton, Stephen Greif, etc.) and they all know their craft. Costumes, make-up, and hairstyles are all first-rate and really look authentic, realistic and convincing. Sets are also first-rate with their interiors looking suitably Roman and suitably Jewish in their respective scenes; colour rendering, photography, and camerawork are all excellent; locations also look authentic and convincing (the whole production was shot on location in southern Spain and Malta, both of which are on the same latitude as Palestine), giving the film a very authentic first century ‘feel’ to everything; you really do feel you have been transported back to First Century Judea.There’s a terrific battle scene at the beginning which is very well staged, choreographed, and edited. CGI special effects are also pretty good and effective. Joseph Fiennes is well cast as ‘Tribune Clavius’ (he looks suitably tired and battle weary); Tom Felton (of ‘Harry Potter’ fame) is also well cast as ‘Lucius’, Clavius’ doting, sycophantic, assistant; Peter Firth is also good as the politically frustrated and self-opinionated ‘Pontius Pilate’ the Roman Procurator of Jerusalem; Stephen Greif is perfectly cast as ‘Caiaphas’, delivering a tour de force performance that was particularly creepy and devious, projecting an aura of soft-spoken criminal treachery with an underlying feeling of threatening malevolence (an aura that could also be detected in the other Pharisees).The negative aspects of the film:I didn’t like the way Jesus was depicted in this film. He looked far too ‘ordinary’ and unimpressive both in His appearance and His character; He didn’t look anything like the special character He was supposed to be (if you are the ‘Son of God’ then you should at least look the part, if only a little, this is what distinguishes Jesus from everyone else). For more than three decades now, the prevailing philosophy among moviemakers regarding the visual depiction of Christ on screen seems to be to make Him look as plain, ordinary, and unassuming as possible (in some depictions, they’ve made Jesus look more like a dirty, scruffy, 1960s down and out Hippie who’s crashed out on skid row!); apparently the more ‘ordinary’ and dishevelled He looks the better. Personally, I don’t agree with this approach and I don’t think I will ever agree with it. Furthermore, the producers and directors tried to weave into the storyline the relic of The Turin Shroud. In my view, this was a silly mistake because no matter how battered and bruised they tried to make Cliff Curtis’ face, he just doesn’t look anything like the image on the Shroud!The character of Bartholomew (played by Stephen Hagan) came across more like a lighthearted, happy-go-lucky cartoon than anything else, which I thought was conspicuously out of place given the seriousness of the situation. I thought he could have portrayed his joy and elation over the resurrection a little more responsibly and down to earth.The earthquake scene was also wrong as well; the ‘earthquake’ occurred at the moment of Jesus’ death and at that time the whole region was covered in a supernatural darkness that was almost identical to night, whereas in the scene depicted in ‘Risen’ it was barely overcast and cloudy (doesn’t any of these producers, directors, or screenwriters ever read the scriptures?).The depiction of Calvary (or Golgotha) in ‘Risen’ is another major embarrassing blunder that every Christian would have spotted immediately! Calvary was a hill that had distinct sinister rock formations resembling the eye-sockets of a skull, and was situated right next to a main road artery leading into the city, not a cul-de-sac in a narrow gulley with an open grave at the back (where do these moviemakers get these ideas from?).The scene where Clavius and Lucius are searching through a pit of rotting corpses (amid a plague of flies) looking for Jesus’ body is another major historical blunder that would never have happened in real life; the dead bodies of criminals (together with the carcasses of dead animals and all of the other garbage of the city), would never have been left in an open pit to be covered with quicklime, instead, they would have been taken immediately to the local garbage dump, which was situated just outside Jerusalem in a long narrow ravine about two miles South West of the Temple Mount and about a mile South of where the crucifixion actually took place. This ravine was called the Valley of Hinnom, and it was here that the refuse dump of the entire city of Jerusalem was located. The garbage dump itself was called ‘Gehenna’ and was kept burning day and night in order to consume all of the trash of the city, thus avoiding diseases and plagues of flies. The bodies of the two criminals executed with Jesus would have been brought here immediately and burned (unless their bodies were claimed by friends or relatives), so the open grave scenes in ‘Risen’, fouling the air and stinking up the whole countryside, is historically inaccurate and pure fiction, and is done solely for dramatic effect. Interestingly, in scripture, Jesus used the rubbish dump of Gehenna as a symbol of everlasting destruction.I didn’t know the 10th. Roman Legion were all from London! Not only were London accents glaringly conspicuous, but they permeated throughout the whole of the film (for me, this clashed with the whole illusion of being in first century Judea), nor did I like the modern idioms that were used in some of the dialogue. I would have thought that the director would have at least had some of the main characters adopt a more suitable accent conducive to the time period the film was supposed to be set in.Lastly, I didn’t like the over-reliance on emotion and sentiment which the writers obviously felt they needed to sell their story. The film would have been a much better product if the director had corrected all the errors I have already pointed out and stuck to the detective story it was supposed to be, rather than have Clavius become an inadvertent convert and a supplement to the band of remaining disciples.Apart from all these annoying irritations, I actually liked this film. I thought it was very well acted, very well put together, well produced and well directed. It was a good idea and a new idea (a first century detective story) portrayed very convincingly. This film will more than likely become part of every Christian’s DVD library (if it isn’t already).Incidentally, American box office critics have criticised Joseph Fiennes ‘wooden’ acting. I didn’t think it was ‘wooden’ at all; far from it. I thought Fiennes acting was portraying a high-ranking combat soldier who was sick and tired and fed up to the back teeth of being stuck in a country (Palestine) he clearly didn’t want to be in (listen carefully to the dialogue between Clavius and Pilate, both of whom hated their postings to Jerusalem). Clavius was a combat soldier used to fighting wars all over the Empire, putting down major revolts and insurrections, not stuck in some sinkhole of a backwater province putting down the occasional tin-pot rebel skirmish [according to the Roman records that have survived, the two most hated places in the Empire Roman soldiers complained about were Palestine (too hot, dry and dusty) and Britannia (too cold, wet and windy). To add insult to injury, Clavius was now charged (by Pilate) to look for and find the dead body of a crucified criminal, in order to avoid political repercussions (for Pilate) and to alleviate or neutralise what Clavius thought was some sort of daft Jewish religious superstition; what was even worse was that he had to accomplish this in only a day or two before the body decomposed too much. Clavius weariness and frustration with all of this is written all over his face. I thought Fiennes acting was first-rate because he projected this apathy and frustration quite convincingly.