I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Truly Dreadful Film

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

I guess there is no plot spoiler. Jesus dies in the end. The script attempted to be historical as opposed to religious, taking a smidgeon more than a dramatic license. The attention to detail of the period and costuming seemed superb. I enjoyed the fact they did the Last Supper correctly, minus table and chairs. The film grossly downplayed the divinity of Jesus, turning this into another film about the Bible that is more secular than following the script. Three members of the supporting cast were excellent as expected: Kelsey Grammer briefly as King Herod; John Rhys-Davies as Annas and Rufus Sewell as Caiaphas.Haaz Sleiman played a befuddled Jesus who had to be convinced of his divinity. His speech was slow, easy and broken, as I felt he was the guy from which I get my Slurpee. Many characters looked like they were from the region with sun aged skin.The film was about the life of Jesus and only a small part dealt with his killing, a title O'Reilly seems to be stuck on for better or worse. He attempted to make the film seem historical, and for that he should have hung closer to the Gospel of Luke, in my opinion. He omitted the courtyard disturbance right before his arrest, which many historians consider significant, while he included the "slaughter of the innocents" an event historians doubt.The role of Judas was confusing. Salome was interesting.This is a good film about Jesus, if you can get past a Bart Ehrman Jesus. Not as bad as the recent "Noah" or "Exodus..."

I thought the title was to describe the "crucifiction" of Jesus Christ, but instead, it was to crucify the truth about Jesus Christ himself. Now that I've watched the movie, I KNOW why they gave it the Title "KILLING Jesus".. It's because Hollywood is the one who is TRYING to kill Jesus" with this movie... If Agnostics were FORCED to tell you the story of Jesus Christ, it would go something like this movie.. One of the most APPALLING tales of Jesus Christ ever produced. This movie claims "accuracy" yet throughout the movie it absolutely denies even the most simplest known facts. Even more pervasive is the fact that with great "intent" they set out to make serious insinuations that are not true at all but certainly help the argument of any agnostic who would want to view Jesus Christ as just a man. If through a film, you could spit on the very history of Jesus Christ, this movie is a gesture in that direction. Christians who watch this will be appalled and agnostics will have the luxury of yet another falsified documentary to add to their belief, or lack thereof.

Well, I must admit I got sucked in because Kelsey Grammar was hyped in the ads as part of the cast. The made-for-TV film started out interesting, in a way, with Kelsey stumbling manically with throbbing boiled forehead o'er the ramparts of Jerusalem. OK. He is sufficiently disturbed, and does an OK job. What else do you want from Herod? Next, we get a believable-looking Jesus. Yeah, somebody who could be from that region of the world, not some white-washed European version on a holy card. Oh, some may say, but that ain't the Jesus I pray to. No? I think Jesus was Afro-Asian or Hamito-Semitic, not a bearded Caucasian. There is a difference. Anyway... Good casting, but his wig was frightful. Didn't look like real hair at all. Was that on purpose? The story actually started out pretty good. It seemed like this wasn't going to be just a simple parroting of the story many, many people know by heart. There was character development in the beginning and interesting interaction between the characters, but then as the story progressed, it was as if the plot got away with everyone and things were hurried up and sped up to get to the conclusion. One weirdness is that when Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter, one of the (what I thought was one of the lesser educated) apostles says in an aside to another apostle (and so the audience gets the reference) that Peter is the Greek word for "rock". Well, aside from the fact that there is some debate on the real Jesus' knowledge of Greek vs. poetic license of the authors of the gospels, it was interesting what the script writer and director "left in" and what they "left out" of this Biblical depiction of Jesus' life. I also found the last scene in which Peter gets a boat- load of fish like once before and deduces that "He is risen" or does he say "He's back!"? laughable.

Yes - as other reviewers have observed, Killing Jesus departs in some not insignificant way from NT accounts but depicting the humanity of Jesus more than A.D. or The Bible was thought provoking not insulting. Jesus is shown to laugh and be playful like a normal man - never profane but just "out of character" in certain scenes from the somber portrayals in other renditions. His anger in the Temple market even rises to the level of pushing a man away with force.Haaz Sleiman's portrayal of Christ was refreshing not only because he allowed us to identify with him more, but also because of his Middle Eastern accent and appearance. To the devout Christian reviewers that were offended by a Muslim playing Christ - rethink your position. What better way to learn about Jesus than to study and play his character? I for one will not cast a stone against this talented actor who as a Muslim no doubt suffered criticism from his own people for portraying Christ. "So it's an honor for me, as someone who was raised Muslim, to play's him. It's beyond an honor." Haaz Sleiman - Christianity Today.