Jerusalem | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Jerusalem’

Into Thy Hands I Commit My Spirit

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Aramaic, Best Cinematography Nomination, Best Makeup Nomination, Best Original Score Nomination, Caiphas, Christ, Claudia Gerini, Claudia Procula, General Comments, Gethsemane, Golgotha, Gospel, Hebrew, Hristo Shopov, Jerusalem, Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, Jim Caviezel, Judas Iscariot, Latin, Low Moderate Movie Recommendation, Luca Lionello, Maia Morgenstern, Mary Magdalene, Mattia Sbragia, Mel Gibson, Monica Bellucci, Movie Reviews, Pontius Pilate, Reviews, Rosalinda Celentano, Satan, Simon of Cyrene, The Passion of the Christ (2004) — movie review on May 13, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Passion of the Christ” (2004) — movie review
Today’s review is for the historical / faith‑based drama “The Passion of the Christ”, directed by Mel Gibson and starring Jim Caviezel as Jesus of Nazareth, exhausted, resolute, and walking knowingly into the final hours of His earthly life; Maia Morgenstern as Mary, His mother, whose grief and strength anchor the film’s emotional core; Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene, the repentant follower who refuses to look away from His suffering; Hristo Shopov as Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect torn between political pressure and his own uneasy conscience; Claudia Gerini as Claudia Procula, Pilate’s wife, whose quiet warnings and troubled dreams add a layer of spiritual tension; Luca Lionello as Judas Iscariot, tormented by guilt and driven into despair by the consequences of his betrayal; Mattia Sbragia as Caiphas, the high priest determined to protect his people and authority at any cost; and Rosalinda Celentano as Satan, the androgynous tempter whose silent presence haunts the edges of Jesus’ suffering. The film focuses almost entirely on the final twelve hours of Jesus’ life, from Gethsemane to Golgotha, and it remains one of the most intense depictions of the Passion ever put on screen.

Background: This is my second viewing of this film. I saw it at the theater when it first came out in 2004, and I remember thinking it was one of the most physically difficult movies I’d ever sat through. Watching it again now, over twenty years later, the impact is still there — maybe even stronger because I’m older and more aware of what prolonged suffering actually means. Released in 2004, the film was a major commercial success and a cultural lightning rod. It received three Academy Award nominations (Best Cinematography, Best Makeup, and Best Original Score). Historically, it’s significant for its use of Aramaic, Latin, and Hebrew; for its intense, graphic depiction of the crucifixion; and for its influence on later Biblical films and series. Whether you view it as devotional art, historical dramatization, or cinematic endurance test, it remains one of the most talked‑about religious films of the last half‑century.

Plot: The story begins in Gethsemane, where Jesus prays in anguish while His disciples struggle to stay awake. Judas arrives with the temple guards, and Jesus is arrested and taken before the religious authorities. From there, the film follows a series of interrogations, beatings, and political maneuverings as Pilate tries (and fails) to avoid condemning Him. Jesus is scourged brutally, mocked by Roman soldiers, crowned with thorns, and forced to carry the cross through the streets of Jerusalem. Along the way, He encounters His mother, Mary Magdalene, and Veronica, whose brief act of compassion becomes one of the film’s quieter moments. The story builds toward the crucifixion itself: the nailing to the cross, the raising of the crossbeam, the final moments of agony, and Jesus’ last words. The film ends with a brief, silent resurrection scene — a moment of calm after nearly two hours of unrelenting violence and sorrow.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; strong to excellent; powerful and visceral; a few; no, but it’s not meant to be an easy “enjoy”.

Any good? Yes – with qualifications. “The Passion of the Christ” is a very uncomfortable film, but it is also powerful one. It focuses almost entirely on the physical and emotional suffering of Jesus, and it does so with an intensity that few films attempt. The pacing is deliberate, the tone is heavy, and the film is unflinching in its depiction of brutality and torture. Whether you view it as devotional, historical, or artistic, it succeeds at what it sets out to do: portray the Passion in a way that forces you to confront the cost of crucifixion. It’s not subtle, and in the end, it’s only moderately effective.

Acting: Jim Caviezel gives a committed, and what appears to be (and he claims was) a physically punishing performance as Jesus. He conveys exhaustion, pain, and quiet resolve without slipping into melodrama. Maia Morgenstern is excellent as Mary. Her reactions, especially during the scourging and the walk to Golgotha, carry much of the film’s emotional weight. Monica Bellucci brings a steady, sorrowful presence to Mary Magdalene. Hristo Shopov’s Pilate is conflicted and weary, and his scenes with Claudia Gerini (as his wife) add a human dimension to the political dilemma. Luca Lionello’s Judas is tormented and tragic, and his arc, though brief, is among the film’s most unsettling.

Filming / FX: The cinematography is dark, textured, and often beautiful in a grim way. The use of ancient languages adds authenticity, and the production design feels real rather than theatrical. The violence is graphic (extremely so) and the makeup work is both impressive and difficult to watch. The scourging sequence is infamous for a reason. The film uses practical effects, natural light, and close‑up framing to emphasize physical suffering. The brief supernatural moments (Satan, the crow, the earthquake) are handled with restraint. The resurrection scene is simple but effective, offering a moment of quiet after the brutality.

Problems: A few – and at least two major ones. The film’s focus on physical suffering is emotionally overwhelming, and some viewers (me for example) may find it excessive to the point of unbelievability (again, me for example). The near‑constant violence leaves little time for the broader context of Jesus’ ministry or teachings, which makes the story feel unbalanced if you’re expecting a more traditional Gospel narrative. Some of the stylized choices (Satan’s appearances, the demonic children) may feel distracting or interpretive rather than historical. The film also compresses and dramatizes events in ways that may not align with every viewer’s understanding of the Passion narratives. None of these issues ruin the film, but they do shape how it’s received. My initial reaction to viewing the film in a theater was that Gibson missed the point of Christ’s life – the Resurrection, not the Christ. I still feel that way, but I now also feel the bulk of the film is simple cinematic exaggeration for whatever personal reasons Gibson felt he was trying to express. He has repeatedly stated it is exaggerated because modern cinema and society have normalized violence and suffering and he wanted to visually communicate the sacrifice (in pain and suffering) which Jesus experienced to gain the forgiveness of sins.

Did I enjoy the film? No, because “enjoy” is a strange word for something this intense no matter how good the film may be cinematically. The film is emotionally powerful, visually striking, and feels deeply committed to its subject matter. It’s not a movie I would watch casually or frequently, but it’s one that stays with you. The scenes between Jesus and Mary are particularly moving, and the brief moments of compassion (Veronica, Simon of Cyrene) offer much needed relief from the near constant brutality and visual battering. Watching it again, I found myself more affected by the quieter moments than by the violence — which is saying something, given how much of the film is focused on violence.

Final Recommendation: Low moderate recommendation. “The Passion of the Christ” is historically significant, visually powerful, and emotionally intense. Its Academy Award nominations for cinematography, makeup, and score reflect the quality of the production, and its cultural impact is undeniable. It is not an easy film to watch, but it is an important one — especially if you are interested in faith‑based cinema, Biblical history, or films that take their subject matter seriously. It remains – for me – one of the most memorable depictions of the Passion ever put on screen.

.
Click here (13 May) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

And Now We Wait For The Light Of Day

Posted in Faith, General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Abe Bueno‑Jallad, Alaa Safi, Amber Shana Williams, Atticus Aemilius Pulcher, Austin Reed Alleman, Bethany, Catherine Lidstone, Crucifixion, Demetrios Troy, Elijah Alexander, Elizabeth Tabish, Erick Avari, Eucharist, General Comments, George H. Xanthis, Gethsemane, Ivan Jasso, Jerusalem, Jesus of Nazareth, Joey Vahedi, Jonathan Roumie, Judas Iscariot, Lazarus, Luke Dimyan, Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, Messiah, Movie Reviews, New Testament, Nick Shakoour, Nicodemus, Noah James, Palm Sunday, Paras Patel, Passover, Pharisees, Rabbi Shmuel, Rabbi Yussif, Resurrection, Reviews, Shaan Sharma, Shahar Isaac, Simon Peter, Sophia Cameron Blum, Strong To Very Strong Recommendation, The Chosen, The Chosen: Season 5 (2025) — TV series / movie review, The Last Supper, Yasmine Al-Bustami, Zealot on April 4, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Chosen: Season 5” (2025) — TV series / movie review
Today’s (2nd) review is for the historical / faith‑based drama “The Chosen: Season 5”. This is the latest in the projected seven part series about Jesus of Nazareth and his followers. The last two series are due out in late 2026 and sometime in 2027. The series was created and directed by Dallas Jenkins. It stars Jonathan Roumie as Jesus of Nazareth, now walking knowingly toward betrayal and death; Shahar Isaac as Simon Peter, the impulsive fisherman whose loyalty and fear collide as events accelerate; Elizabeth Tabish as Mary Magdalene, steady and compassionate as she tries to hold the group together and save Jesus; Paras Patel as Matthew, still meticulous and socially awkward, now racing to record what he knows are the final days of Jesus’ ministry; Noah James as Andrew, increasingly anxious as danger closes in; George H. Xanthis as John, the apostle whose quiet observations hint at the Gospel he will one day write; Abe Bueno‑Jallad as Big James, one of the “sons of thunder” and part of Jesus’ inner circle; Erick Avari as Nicodemus, the respected Pharisee whose private faith and public fear finally collide; Shaan Sharma as Rabbi Shmuel, the Pharisee whose opposition to Jesus hardens into obsession; Nick Shakoour as Zebedee, the father of Big James and John, now supporting the ministry through his sales of anointing oils; Joey Vahedi as Thomas, the apostle whose grief over Ramah and conflict with her parents continues and deepens; Yasmine Al‑Bustami as Ramah (in memory and flashback), whose death continues to haunt the group; Catherine Lidstone as Mary of Bethany and Sophia Cameron Blum as Martha, the sisters of Lazarus who provide refuge and emotional grounding in Bethany; Demetrios Troy as Lazarus, whose friendship with Jesus adds weight to the gathering storm; Austin Reed Alleman as Nathanael, the architect‑turned‑disciple whose quiet faith steadies the group; Alaa Safi as Simon Z., the former Zealot trying to reconcile violence with discipleship; Luke Dimyan as Judas Iscariot, whose personal ambition sharpens into the choice that will define his name in history; Ivan Jasso as Rabbi Yussif, the Pharisee whose conflicted conscience keeps him watching from the edges; Amber Shana Williams as Tamar, whose loyalty and courage continue to shape the women’s ministry; and Elijah Alexander as Atticus Aemilius Pulcher, the Roman investigator who seeks to protect Rome at all costs.

Background: This is my first viewing of Season 5. I watched Seasons 1 through 3 several years ago (and binged them recently) and Season 4 a few days ago. Season 5, titled “The Last Supper”, is available for free on “The Chosen” website, and since I’ve already invested this much time in the series, there was never any question I’d continue. LoL. (I will be purchasing a copy of season 5 when the price drops.) Released in 2025, Season 5 marks another tonal shift: the ministry is no longer expanding; it is narrowing, tightening, and funneling toward a single night and a single decision. Season 5 focuses on the final days before the crucifixion: the growing tension in Jerusalem, the Passover preparations, the Last Supper, Gethsemane, and the arrest. The series continues as an Apostle / disciple character‑driven approach to the telling of the New Testament, and (IMHO) it still works as effective Biblical‑based fiction. Historically, the series remains significant as the first multi‑season dramatization of the life of Jesus, funded largely outside traditional studio systems and distributed globally through streaming, apps, and word of mouth.

Plot: Season 5 picks up shortly after the events of Season 4, with Jesus and the disciples entering Jerusalem under the shadow of an approaching Passover feast (on what would come to be known as“Palm Sunday”) and the rising hostility of both religious and Roman authorities. The disciples struggle to reconcile the adoring crowds with the increasingly explicit warnings Jesus gives about his impending suffering and death. Judas begins moving in two worlds at once: outwardly loyal, inwardly increasingly entangled with those who want Jesus killed. Matthew continues to write, sensing urgency in every conversation. Peter wrestles with the fear that he will not be equal to what is coming. Mary Magdalene and the other women prepare for Passover while trying to keep the group from splintering under pressure. The season builds (via episodic interludes) toward the Last Supper itself: the washing of the feet, the institution of the Eucharist (barely veiled in the dialogue), the prediction of betrayal and denial, and the walk to and prayer in Gethsemane. The final episode focuses on Jesus’ prayer in the garden, the disciples’ failure to stay awake, and Judas’ betrayal with a kiss.

So, is this season any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the season? Short answers: Yes; strong to very strong; simple, dark, and effective; a few; yes, but with reservations.

Any good? Yes. Season 5 continues the series’ steady progression from early ministry to the brink of the “Passion“. The show leans into the personal cost of discipleship and the emotional contradiction of believing in a Messiah who insists on walking into suffering (and death). The pacing is deliberate, the tone is heavy, and the season feels like a continuation of what has come before. The series remains not melodramatic, but thoughtful and moving, especially in the quieter scenes around the table and in the garden.

Acting: Roumie continues to give a steady performance as Jesus, but here His warmth is layered with visible weariness, resigned acceptance and a very human fear of the suffering He will endure. Tabish brings quiet strength and grief to Mary Magdalene. Dimyan’s Judas is the season’s most confusing and arguably least successful arc: he is neither a mustache‑twirling villain nor a misunderstood hero, but a man whose compromises slowly become a choice he can no longer undo. Allen’s Pilate is more prominent, and his scenes with Alexander’s Atticus add a layer of political calculation and slight humor. The ensemble continues to evolve, and by this point in the series, the familiarity of the cast actually deepens the impact of their reactions.

Filming / FX: The cinematography remains grounded: natural light, textured sets, and outdoor locations that feel historically plausible. Much of the season is set in dim interiors (upper rooms, courtyards, the garden at night) and the use of shadow and lamplight fits the staged material. The triumphal entry into Jerusalem is handled with restraint, focusing on faces rather than spectacle. The Last Supper is filmed with an almost claustrophobic intimacy, emphasizing glances, hands, and small gestures. The arrest in Gethsemane is simply done. The production continues to be strong, and the filming choices support the emotional weight of the story.

Problems: A few. As has happened in each of the previous seasons, the pacing continues to feel slow in places as the Biblical / Apostle personal “stories” are fleshed out (made up). Some viewers may find the expanded backstories around Judas, Pilate, and the Pharisees too speculative. I continue to be (increasingly) one of them. The series again takes significant creative liberties with chronology, character backstories, and dialogue, which may bother viewers expecting a more literal Biblical retelling. None of these issues spoil the season or the series, but they are noticeable. Also, if you’re not familiar with the biblical background, some events (dramatizations of conversations and side plots) may feel real when they are not (because they ARE made up whole‑cloth). Example: My understanding is the “force-Jesus’-hand” theory behind Judas’ actions / betrayal is a recent (20th century) invention / explanation with NO direct basis in scripture. Two of the Gospels indicate Judas may have had a spiritual weakness which “Satan” took advantage of, but (again) there is no definitive Gospel statement this was THE reason. The “main” reason which I was taught as a child was greed, but in his regret for his actions, Judas returns the 30 pieces of silver, so this also seems an unlikely “simple” motivation. Bottom line: we don’t know the “why”…

Did I enjoy the season? Yes, but differently than earlier seasons. Season 5 is emotionally rich, well‑acted, and thoughtfully constructed, but it is also increasingly heavy — intentionally so. The character development continues strong, the emotional beats mostly land, and the season continues the series’ steady build toward the crucifixion and resurrection to come. This is not a fast‑paced season; it is a contemplative one, especially if you have invested in the characters from Seasons 1 through 4. At this point, I certainly have… The Last Supper, the foot‑washing, and Gethsemane have always been among my favorite New Testament moments, and here they are handled with respect and a fair amount of emotional punch. Still, I found myself slightly less moved than I expected in a few key scenes, and I don’t know if that’s the writing, the familiarity of the story, or just me.

Final Recommendation: Strong to very strong recommendation. “The Chosen: Season 5” continues the series’ Apostle‑driven approach to the New Testament with emotional depth, grounded cinematography, and strong performances. It offers a thoughtful, accessible portrayal of Jesus’ ministry, gathering of his Apostles and final days before the crucifixion. Rated TV‑PG, it is suitable for most audiences and worth watching for its emotional honesty, character arcs, and the steady build toward the larger story to come (Crucifixion and Resurrection) in future seasons. A repeated caution / note: this series is almost pure fiction / dramatization hung on the bones / framework of the New Testament. The vast majority of the character background(s) and dialogue are completely made up for dramatization / entertainment, and many of the occurrences are not in the order described in the New Testament.

.
Click here (4 April) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

First To Finish, Last To Die

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Ayelet Zurer, Ben-Hur (2016) — movie review, CGI, Esther, General Comments, Hollywood, Jack Huston, Jerusalem, Jesus Christ, Judah Ben-Hur, Judea, Lew Wallace, Messala Severus, Moderate Movie Recommendation, Morgan Freeman, Movie Reviews, Naomi Ben-Hur, Nazanin Boniadi, Pontius Pilate, Quintus Arrius, Reviews, Rodrigo Santoro, Roman, Roman Tribune, Sam Jaffe, Sheik Ilderim, Simonides, Timur Bekmambetov, Toby Kebbell on February 5, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Ben-Hur” (2016) — movie review
Today’s review is for the historical action-drama “Ben-Hur” (2016), directed by Timur Bekmambetov and starring Jack Huston as Judah Ben-Hur (a Jewish nobleman betrayed by his adopted brother and forced into slavery); Toby Kebbell as Messala Severus (the orphaned Roman, Hebrew-raised brother whose ambition and resentment drive the story’s central conflict); Nazanin Boniadi as Esther (Judah’s wife, holding the family together through faith and patience); Rodrigo Santoro as Jesus (a calm, steady presence whose brief appearances shape Judah’s arc); Ayelet Zurer as Naomi Ben-Hur (Judah’s mother, broken by imprisonment); and Morgan Freeman as Sheik Ilderim (the horse trader who trains Judah for the chariot race). With this ensemble, the film attempts a modern retelling of Lew Wallace’s classic story of betrayal, survival, and forgiveness.

Background: This is the third major film adaptation of “Ben-Hur“, following the 1925 silent version and the 1959 epic that won a record 11 Academy Awards (review here). I have never seen the silent version and doubt I will make the effort. This is the second time I’ve seen this version, but it’s been several years since I first watched it and I had no recollection of any of the film. I only remember it wasn’t as good as the 1959 version, but then I’d not seen the 1959 version in multiple decades. This 2016 version had a production budget reported between $100–110 million and grossed about $94 million worldwide, making it a financial disappointment. Historically, its significance lies mostly in being a modern attempt to revive a once-dominant Hollywood genre — large-scale biblical epics — at a time when audiences seem to have largely moved on.

Plot: Set in Roman-occupied Jerusalem, Judah Ben-Hur lives as a respected Jewish nobleman alongside his adopted Roman brother, Messala. Their bond fractures when Messala, seeking advancement in the Roman army, allows Judah to be accused of sedition, when someone from Judah’s house(hold) fires an arrow at Pontius Pilate. Judah is condemned to the galleys, surviving years of brutal service before escaping during a naval battle. Returning home, he discovers his family shattered and his city under harsher Roman rule. Consumed by anger, he trains under Sheik Ilderim to challenge Messala in the arena’s chariot race. The story builds toward their confrontation, followed by Judah’s encounter with Jesus during the crucifixion — an event that shifts the film’s tone toward forgiveness and reconciliation.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes-ish; mixed; uneven; several; somewhat.

Any Good? The film is watchable, but it never reaches the emotional or dramatic weight of earlier versions. It’s probably a “decent” film if you haven’t seen the 1959 version – or (maybe) seen it recently. This version tries to modernize the story with fewer minutes, faster pacing and more action, but the trade-off is a loss of story and character(s) depth. The themes of revenge and forgiveness are still there, but they feel rushed rather than earned. This version shortens the 1959 version by almost ninety minutes and much of that is background information which leaves unexplained most of the second hour of this version.

Acting: Jack Huston gives a steady performance as Judah, though the shortened script doesn’t give him much room to build the character’s inner life. Toby Kebbell is stronger as Messala, grounding the role with frustration and wounded pride. Morgan Freeman essentially plays “Morgan Freeman as a wise mentor,” which works but feels familiar. Rodrigo Santoro brings quiet dignity to Jesus, even with limited screen time. The supporting cast is solid, but no one (including the main cast) delivers a standout performance which might elevate this version.

Filming / FX: The cinematography leans heavily on handheld shots and fast cutting, especially in the chariot race. Some of the CGI is noticeable, particularly in wide shots of Jerusalem and the naval battle. The chariot sequence is energetic (and better explained) but edited so tightly that it loses some of the clarity and physicality that made the 1959 version iconic. The production design is serviceable, but nothing feels particularly lived-in or memorable.

Problems: Several. The film tries to condense a sprawling three-and-a-half hour 1959 version into a shorter runtime (2 hours for this version), and it shows. Character motivations feel thin, and major emotional turns happen too quickly. The decision to soften the ending — Judah and Messala reconciling almost immediately after the race — feels unearned – almost to the point of being completely unbelievable. The visual style leans on modern action tropes that don’t always fit the material. And while the film aims for a more grounded tone, the CGI undercuts that goal.

Did I Enjoy the Film? Mostly. It’s not a bad movie, but it’s not a necessary one – let alone a “good” one. The “story” still has power, but this version doesn’t add much to it. I didn’t dislike the film, but I didn’t feel much moved afterward either. It’s the kind of film you (probably) watch once out of curiosity and then move on. …And yes, I know I said this is MY second viewing. LoL.

Final Recommendation: Moderate recommendation (and that with reservations). “Ben-Hur” (2016) is a competent but uneven retelling of a classic story. It has moments of energy and sincerity, but it lacks the emotional weight, visual grandeur, and narrative patience that made the 1959 version memorable. It holds no Academy Award recognition and is historically notable mainly as a reminder of how difficult it is to revive old Hollywood epics for modern audiences. Watch it if you’re curious about adaptations of the story or if you enjoy biblical-era dramas, but temper expectations. This version is more “modern” looking, and its acting isn’t nearly as wooden (IMHO) as Charlton Heston’s performance, but it’s still not a better movie.

.
Click here (5 February) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.