I really liked the perspective of this movie. It's told largely through the eyes of a Roman tribune, Clavius - played by Joseph Fiennes. As the movie opens, Clavius is leading Roman soldiers in battle against a group of Jewish zealots led by Barabbas. Immediately after, he's sent by Pilate to oversee Jesus' crucifixion and then, after the body disappears and rumours of Jesus' resurrection begin to spread, Clavius is sent to find out the truth- specifically, to find Jesus' dead body to put an end to this nonsensical story that has the potential to be a real nuisance to the Romans. This was a different kind of take on the Easter story. It's told through skeptical eyes rather than through eyes of faith. It's mostly believable. It makes sense to me that the Romans would want to investigate these claims of resurrection. From a Christian perspective it's a stark reminder of how small and seemingly weak the original Jesus movement was - scattered, frightened disciples under constant threat, but increasingly emboldened by the growing realization of what had happened. Fiennes was very good as Clavius - a Roman who obviously doesn't believe in Jesus as the Messiah or in his resurrection but who finally has a dramatic experience when he discovers the disciples in the upper room. It was interesting to have Clavius form a sort of partnership with the disciples - sharing their journey to Galilee and experiencing the risen Christ along the way, to the point at which you'd have to say that he was converted. Jesus (or Yeshua as he was called in the movie) was played by Cliff Curtis. Yeshua's dialogue was somewhat limited (what was important in this context was not his words, but others' experience of him) but I did like Curtis' take on Yeshua. Yeshua came across as jovial and good natured; humble and compassionate. Strangely in a movie about the Easter event, Yeshua wasn't central enough to the story for Curtis' performance to rank among some of the fine actors who've played Jesus over the years, but given the limitations of the role in this movie I thought he did well.
The basic concept (inserting a Roman tribune among the disciples) means that there were several liberties taken with the biblical story. There was, for example, a healing miracle performed by the risen Jesus - but there's no record of such a healing in the New Testament. The movie also (and unnecessarily) buys into the wholly inaccurate portrayal of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. I saw no reason for that except perhaps that it gave an opportunity to insert some humour when Clavius burst into an establishment and asks the men inside "who knows Mary Magdalene?" - to which all the men put up their hands. OK. A quick laugh perhaps, but hardly worth perpetuating the false portrayal in my opinion. For the most part, though, the basics of the biblical Easter story were maintained, and the crucifixion story - while not as graphic as in, say, The Passion Of The Christ, was respectfully shown and appropriately difficult to watch.
Two other scenes that stood out to me as especially dramatic were one of the guards at the tomb explaining to Clavius what happened at the moment of resurrection with a mixture of shock, terror and wonder, and also the moment that Clavius burst through the door of the upper room to find the disciples but also coming face to face with the risen Yeshua - whom he knew was dead.
I liked the setting of the movie. It seemed very authentic to the time period and geography. Overall, this was a very well done movie, and for those who have a play list of sorts of movies they like to watch at Easter, this is probably deserving of a place on that list. (8/10)
