The screening of events somehow related to religious themes automatically causes a storm of debate. There are paintings, such as The Resurrection of Christ, which are exclusively for those who believe. Not only in God, but precisely in the events described in the New Testament. This is a key audience that may not just appreciate the efforts (if any) of director and screenwriter Kevin Reynolds, but will come out of the theater spiritually enlightened and refined.
However, Reynolds' output has absolutely nothing to do with other more controversial movies (for example, Noah or The Passion of the Christ), which put at the forefront not only (and sometimes not so much) truthfulness the events shown, but also the artistic value of the screen work, its cinematic integrity and the importance of the message. Simply put “ Resurrection of Christ ” it turned out to be a more insipid spectacle than a religious one.
In short, the movie turned out to be boring, despite the decent acting. It's all about attitude. Reynolds is not interested in demonstrating something new that would be worth thinking about, something that would be possible to feel. The story of the unbelieving centurion which investigates the disappearance of the body of Christ from a closed grave, could have turned into anything from a detective story to a parable about the importance of faith in miracles. In the end, on the way out, it turned out to be a short, confusing retelling with the participation of several well-known characters like Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the Apostle Bartholomew and others, appearing in much the same way as Stan Lee's cameo in the movies of the Marvel studio.
Moreover, the story itself, willingly or unwillingly, takes the side of Pontius Pilate and the centurion (Joseph Fiennes), to whom all believers seem to be insane fanatics, ready to do anything just to keep their fantasies alive. Language will not turn to call such a worthy adaptation of perhaps the main event in the history of mankind. Perhaps Reynolds' idea was to lead the viewer from disbelief to belief, but then his idea of what makes a person believe in something turned out to be very far from convincing. Pretentious chords to an equally specific, dry picture do not help to bring the viewer closer to those events for a moment.
Lack of a large budget (really, why invest in a religious movie about faith, if you can raise money without any risk from those who go simply because the movie is about Christ?) affects the quality of the product in the most sad way. The presence of several battles and chases, movieed exclusively in close-ups, does not save you from the barrage of boring and superficial dialogues designed to show that some people do not believe, they are bad, while others – believers – they are good. A long time ago, when Reynolds just took on the project, he promised a style like in the “ Gladiator ”. Well, now we know for sure that robbing Ridley Scott is not as easy as it might seem.
The actors honestly try to squeeze as much out of the material as possible. Tom Felton, of course, ended up in the movie just like that, with nothing to do, because he really doesn't have a role there. He walks back and forth after Joseph Fiennes like a dog on a leash, and makes an important face. On the contrary, Fiennes got a lot of things. He runs and doubts and believes and does not believe. The only thing the creators really surpassed themselves in is in the portrait of this man. It was much more interesting to watch him than to look at everything else, and Fiennes himself was the reason for that.
Peter Firth as Pontius Pilate became the highlight of the movie. It may be a little offensive to see an Oscar nominee in such a mediocre movie, but his participation, like the presence of Joseph Fiennes, at least in some way justifies the viewing of this creation.
The most offensive is that a movie with such a strong, important topic for many does not make one feel the delicacy of the political situation, which was represented by the disappearance of the body of the deceased messiah, nor the effect this event had on people. To endow such a rich topic with a boring narrative with the most superficial morality (and then, if you can call it that), seems more a crime than an art.
“ Resurrection of Christ ” eminently unworthy of either the title or the story the creators are trying to tell. an important topic for many does not make one feel either the delicacy of the political situation, which was represented by the disappearance of the body of the deceased messiah, or the effect that this event had on people. To endow such a rich topic with a boring narrative with the most superficial morality (and then, if you can call it that), seems more a crime than an art.
“ Resurrection of Christ ” eminently unworthy of either the title or the story the creators are trying to tell.an important topic for many does not make one feel either the delicacy of the political situation, which was represented by the disappearance of the body of the deceased messiah, or the effect that this event had on people. To endow such a rich topic with a boring narrative with the most superficial morality (and then, if you can call it that), seems more a crime than an art.
“ Resurrection of Christ ” eminently unworthy of either the title or the story the creators are trying to tell.seems more like a crime than an art.
“ Resurrection of Christ ” eminently unworthy of either the title or the story the creators are trying to tell.seems more like a crime than an art.
“ Resurrection of Christ ” eminently unworthy of either the title or the story the creators are trying to tell.
The Topic of Article: Review of the movie The Resurrection of Christ. Bury Back.
Author: Jake Pinkman |
