The Gospel of John is a three hour reenactment of the book of John. Word for word. The narrator (Christopher Plummer) reads the book of John while we watch the events taking place on screen. Where dialogue occurs, it is spoken by the actors playing that role.

Thus, the screenplay is nothing more or less than the book of John, which is both good and bad. I like the purity and the genuineness of that the word for word adaptation brings out. It allows for both a literal visual guide, verse for verse, as well as presenting a concrete interpretation of the text.

On the other hand, the story is much longer and much dryer than it might have been had it been crafted into a strong short story with a real plot and developing characters. But I appreciate the authenticity, and the acting keeps us engaged when there are long passages of sermon. Henry Ian Cusick, who plays Jesus, is fantastic in his ability to bring these speeches to life – often in a seemingly Shakespearian manner.

The only problem is that the film uses what is called the “Good News” translation of the Bible instead of the King James Version. Not only is this distracting for those of us who are more familiar with the KJV, but it just isn’t as poetic and thus not nearly as dramatically powerful as the KJV rendering would have been. But it works well enough. At first I was annoyed by the translation of things such as every single “verily” into “I am telling you the truth” but it eventually picks up momentum and again, Cusick makes it work when it seems like it couldn’t.

I also really like the way Jesus is portrayed in The Gospel of John, possibly more than in any other biblical film I’ve ever seen. He’s not mystical, feminine or passive, but strong, stable, human, and even has a sense of humor. The combination of humble humanity and high majesty seems impossible to really capture on film, but The Gospel of John does a pretty good job at it.

Though probably best seen on a quite Sunday afternoon, The Gospel of John manages to be as interesting and engaging as it possibly can be given the limitations it has put on itself.

Year: