jt4logos I noticed the colors of the film about half-way through. The muted, neutral beiges and browns, with an occasional soft blue or red, of the people's clothing seems so natural that I was suddenly and happily made aware that everything worked together: each scene's color scheme was deliberate. The Temple scenes with the beige crowds and the sharp contrast of the navy-and-crème Pharisees, and the crème-white of the Christ's clothing. The wedding banquet with the reds, oranges, deeper browns and blues -- any frame of any scene could stand alone as a classic painting. The music, the acting, the casting -- this is a first-rate film regardless of how you personally believe the message of John's Gospel.

fflowers-s-a This movie was remarkable and took my breath away. I have watched this movie a few times over. Even that the script was word from word from the bible. The acting was BRILLIANT. Henry Ian Cusick made you believe he was Christ himself. Cusick made you believe in GOD all over again. Christopher Plummer narration of the story made it exciting to watch. He put suspense in it even though you knew what was going to happened. Jeff Danna score to the movie FOLLOW ME made you cry at the end of the movie knowing that Christ will never been seen again unless he wanted you to. This movie touched my heart, and should be played every year in churches and homes through out the world. This was the best biblical movie I have ever seen.

Miles-10 For my own peculiar reasons, I am always looking for faithful adaptations of the gospels, so I am impressed with the relative faithfulness of "The Gospel of John." It's success, however, does NOT mean that it is perfect and rather says more about the failure of other adaptations of gospels, like the "Gospel According to St. Luke" (1979), that fall shorter of their hype than this movie does. (The "Gospel According to St. Luke" inexplicably puts some scenes in order according to Mark instead of Luke.) Over all, I think this movie is very well made. Despite a few quibbles that I will mention, it is as faithful to the text as I expect a middle-of-the-road interpretation to get. Henry Ian Cusick is not as bad in the role of Jesus as some have said, although I would have to agree with anyone who complains that his smile too often resembles a smirk. Otherwise, I found his portrayal sharp and professional. He risked giving Jesus just a bit of personality, but only a bit, which was a good choice; and, except for the smile that verged on a smirk, he wisely dialed it back and seemed to let the lines themselves guide him.There are arguable minor flaws with this adaptation of "John." There are some insupportably imaginative cinematic interpolations such as the scene where Jesus tells Nathanael that he saw him sitting under a fig tree just before Philip called him. The movie then stages a flashback of Nathanael under the fig tree and having an almost mystical experience. Not only is this flashback not supported in the gospel, but the movie has just staged the calling of Nathanael at his home: Philip knocks on his door and summons him. Evidently, we are to think that Nathanael was sitting under the fig tree quite some time before his summoning, but a perfectly reasonable interpretation based on the text is that Nathanael was outdoors, sitting or having just sat under the tree when Philip called him. Flashbacks are also used throughout to remind us of earlier events in the film. This keeps the pictures moving but does not add to the film's faithfulness to the text of the gospel; it rather gives us an extra-textual interpretation. There is plenty of interpretation of the text because it cannot be helped: the gospel authors did not write their books with the idea in mind of making their stories easier for a screenwriter to break down. Settings and time lines, for example, are not always clear from the text, and, so, dramatists must use their imaginations to connect the dots; this is not always going to be done successfully.Others have noted how this movie gives narrator Christopher Plummer too much heavy lifting to do. He keeps describing things that the camera has already shown to us. This is redundant and not, in my opinion, necessary to qualify as a faithful adaptation. Pictures can stand in for words. That is what movies are about. Sometimes the script even relies on the narrator to tell us what Jesus and others say instead of letting the actors portraying those characters have all of their lines. In the scene where Jesus and Nathanael meet, Jesus's first line is spoken by the narrator and his second by the actor playing Jesus.Since the earliest manuscripts of the gospels do not use punctuation of any kind, it is not only difficult to decide things like whether or not some words are supposed to form dependent or independent clauses but also which verses are intended to be quotations and which are part of the narration. (The style of Jesus's words and John's narration is often indistinguishable.) For example, the movie interprets John 3:10-15 as a quotation from Jesus, but other editors of this gospel have taken only verses 3:10-13 as Jesus's words and verses 3:14-21 to be entirely the evangelist's narrative. Still others think that the entire passage from 3:10-21 should be considered the words of Jesus.The filmmakers imaginatively show the last supper as being a movable feast with the dinner party moving from place to place while Jesus talks. This is not in the Gospel. It is rather the filmmaker's way of "making sense" of the fact that verse 14:31 quotes Jesus as saying "Rise, let us be on our way," (NRSV) but his discourse continues uninterrupted from the next verse, 15:1, until the end of chapter 17, following which Jesus and his disciples are described in verse 18:1 as going out (of what? where?) and thence to a garden.Finally, the role of John (Stuart Bunce) is handled in a traditional way that nicely shows up the insupportability of that traditional interpretation. John is one of Jesus's first two disciples, according to this production, but is not identified until the very end when he is identified without ever being actually named in the text! Verses 21:20-23 in which Jesus and Peter discuss the beloved disciple's fate refer to absolutely no explanation for why they are even discussing this. The author of the text is then referenced in the third person and identified with the beloved disciple (John 21:24-25) as if a later editor slapped these last two verses onto the text without knowing what he was talking about, and therein, alone, lies the identification of the beloved disciple with the evangelist John himself. The movie then ends with a full screen picture of Bunce as John. Well, it was really all about him, I guess.If you have never read the Gospel of John, but were just waiting for them to make it into a movie, you have little excuse now not to see this film. Despite its flaws, this is a good enough adaptation of John's gospel. It is far more faithful than the screen adaptations of most books (albeit, perhaps, way too faithful, especially in its overuse of narration), and the production and entertainment values are well above average.

jcvincent1986 It's a great movie. I've seen both The Passion of the Christ and The Gospel of John... I'll go for this movie. It's more of putting John's gospel into a movie so we won't be tired reading. It's a great movie and I watched it on a holy week back in 2005.I love the last part of the movie when they were all walking in the shore. That's the greatest part.I recommend it to everyone who loves to watch movies that are based on the Gospel. This movie will surely satisfy you.Great movie.