The Final Inquiry (2006) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
19 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
A Roman Tribune is sent from Capri to find out what happened to the missing body of Jesus
ma-cortes7 April 2012
In 35 A.D. , an overconfident Roman tribune named Tito Valerio (Daniel Liotti) is sent to a remote part of the empire called Palestine to on a bizarre investigation to discover the death and possible resurrection of a certain Jesus from Nazareth , only to attract the suspicion of the local governor Pontius Pilate (Shopov) . This is the thrilling tale of one man's quest accompanied by a hunk barbarian slave (Dolph Lundgren) to uncover the mystery of all mysteries and while an official cover-up is presumed . A Roman agent is sent by emperor Tiberio (Max Von Sydow) to Palestine to investigate rumors of the resurrection of an executed criminal . Sent to disprove the resurrection and on a spiritual quest , he discovers faith , love (to Monica Cruz who looks exactly like Penelope as physical as acting) and a revelation that could shatter the empire . The tribune is taken prisoner and submitted a set-up .

Interesting story treating the resurrection of Jesus Christ with intrigue , suspense , a love story and adding historical events . As appears several historic characters as Tiberius , Caligula , Pontius Pilate , Apostle Peter finely performed by Enrico Lo Verso , Saulus of Tarsus well played by Fernando Guillen Cuervo , Maria mother of Jesus and Maria Magdalena in a brief acting by Ornella Muti . I found the film's motif a timeless subject , engaging and handled very skillfully too . Being conceived as both a theatrical film and a TV movie and treatment by the famous author of best-sellers about ancient world named Valerio Manfredini . The story from Suso Cecchi D'Amico and Ennio Flaiano even had an exclusive one-week theatrical engagement in Dallas , Texas . It's an acceptable treatment of the political and religious thought-world of the time , convincingly developed and the intent of the filmmakers is ultimately both ambitious and entertaining . The biggest weakness of the movie is the acting . Daniel Liotti as hard-nosed investigator and Dolph Lundgren as bouncing illiterate both deliver some stiff line-readings . But Liotti ultimately rises to the occasion , especially in the crucial last half-hour . Max Von Sidow is a credible emperor Tiberio who sends Daniel Liotti off on a dangerous mission . The picture has a Christian point of view that holds interest , while the former adaptation had offbeat and ambiguous resolution . The production was supported of a 500,000 Euros grant from the European Council fund Eurimages . It's an European co-production among various countries but specially Italy and Spain by producer Enrique Cerezo . Atmospheric musical score by Andrea Morricone in similar style to her father Ennio . Colorful and evocative cinematography by Giovanni Galasso , the filming took place for eight weeks in Tunisia and one week in Bulgaria . The motion picture is professionally directed by Giulio Base . Giulio is an expert on Television religious biopics and Roman spectacles such as he has proved in ¨Padre Pio¨ , ¨Maria Goretti¨ , ¨San Pietro¨ , ¨Pompeii¨ and of course , ¨The final inquiry¨ .

The original version titled ¨Inquire¨ (1987) treated the Resurrection as a mystery thriller , directed by Damiano Damiani was starred by Keith Carradine as Tito Valerio and Harvey Keitel as Pontius Pilate and Phyllis Logan as Claudia Procula who in the recent rendition is performed by Anna Kanakis . This 1987 picture was engaging , thought-provoking , violent and gritty but but sadly was ultimately rather flat and dull and had box office flop , however this new retelling (2006) is more commercial , more amusing and aimed for all kind of public as teens as adults .
15 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Lundgren's the best movie I saw, but is it really a strong recommendation?
daeris25 February 2008
When I got this movie it had quite a low score here on IMDb. But the subject seemed to be interesting, it was not an Hollywood production and had at least one big name in the paylist - Max von Sydow's. So I took the challenge and gave it a try. Big mistake... Though it's screenplay is written with some interesting plots and with quite an original ideas for a Jesus-related movie this is almost the only thing worth to be praised here.

The first thing you will notice is the music of someone, who's surname is Moricone but his not "the one" but some other Moricone. So is his music - kind of Moricone's style but not "the one" - something is missing, it's to loud and generally does not fit.

Then you will notice the performers and they certainly can help to forget about poor music since they performance is really stunning. Literatim. It's something like operetta filmed in the silent movie period with all those exalted movement and acting typical for those old times. Moreover my version was apparently dubbed in English although the movie was apparently made in English at the first place! I do not know why they did it - maybe some Italian actors had some problems with the language but then if you add voices to a already finished movie it is never perfect and the effect is rather ridiculous. Combined with aforementioned style of acting it looks just utterly stupid. And if this was not enough some of supporting roles are seemed to be written for computer RPG characters! You know, like for example those typical NPCs standing next to the town gates only to say something like "welcome to Jerusalem"... Some dialogues between those characters seemed o be intentionally written in Monthy Python style...

But apart from that there is also an actor there who really stands out - Dolph Lundgren! By far it is the best of his performance I had a "pleasure" to watch. Of course as every barbarian he speaks with Scottish accent witch is really sweet, especially that he apparently is trying to imitate Sean Connory... Since he plays a barbaric Germanic warrior and he has not much to do there apart from being "strong, noble and wild" and of course of swinging his enormous axe everywhere. The movie is full of scenes where Lundgren is shown somewhere in the background or foreground performing this complicated tasks and I must admit he had really mastered it. Seriously - for someone who's performing talent is so, well, narrow I think he is a real star in this movie.

Some say "there is no good movie without a love story plot". But this one could be definitely better without. I had mentioned before about some interesting and original ideas in the scenario but this is only to be observed in the first half of the movie. The second half is devoted mainly to love story plot and this just kills this otherwise would-be-weak-but-not-the-worst movie. It's just dull and absurd in the world of this picture and moreover it is completely redundant.

See for yourself if you dare but there are better ways of spending time.
18 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Pretty good Biblical film if you ignore some big historical inaccuracies.
watrousjames17 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
A pretty good Biblical film if you ignore some big historical inaccuracies. This is actually a remake of a 1987 Italian co-production titled THE INQUIRY starring Keith Carradine and Harvey Kietel (as Pontius Pilate). I have not seen that film. It is a bit derivative of other films, such as RISEN and the film version Lloyd C. Douglas' THE ROBE. That being said it is one of the better Bible theme films I have seen recently. The acting, for the most part, is good. The sets, costumes, and cinematography are all good, too.

The basic plot is that Emperor Tiberius (Max von Sydow) sends a Roman genera, Tauro(Daniele Liotti) and his slave (Dolph Lundgren) undercover to Jerusalem to investigate the crucifixion of a "criminal" who rumor has it has risen from the dead. I wonder who that "criminal" could possibly be. I think we all know. He meets Saul/Paul of Tarsus before his conversion, making Saul a villain in this film. (I don't think Saul was persecuting Christians so close to the death of Jesus. It was probably a few years later.) He also questions Pontius Pilate (Histro Shopov, who also played Pilate in Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST). Of course the filmmakers have to throw in a love story. He falls in love with a Jewish Christian woman named Tabitha (Monica Cruz, Penelope Cruz' beautiful younger lookalike sister), whose anti-Christian Pharisee father (F. Murray Abraham) has arranged to marry a man she is not in love with.

My review makes this film sound cheesy and it is a little bit. But it is not nearly as bad as it could be. For some reason I found it compelling. Maybe I am just a sucker for these types of films. Even though the romance is derivative it was handled fairly well. It's worthwhile seeing once. I don't know that I would see it again. I am curious what the original 1987 film was like. That doesn't appear to be available on DVD or streaming.

This film was editing from a longer European tv version. That would also be interesting to see. It is not available in the United States.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Really bad
steven-22214 March 2009
The original movie, made in 1986 and starring Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel, is a little-known gem of an intellectual thriller, with a plot that takes numerous unexpected twists.

This "remake" (hardly that, since the title, basic premise, and name of the lead character are all that remain) is essentially a Sunday school movie made by hacks, full of pious posturing. It's pretty to look at, but utterly lacking in suspense, narrative drive, good acting, or just about anything else you might desire in a movie.

I am beginning to think that any movie with Valerio Massimo Manfredi's name in the credits is going to be very, very bad.
21 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Nice music , some potential , but in the end it's a snooze fest
Maziun28 December 2014
This is a remake of a 1986 film directed by Damiano Damiani, with Harvey Keitel , Keith Carradine and Phyllis Logan. Well , actually it's a very loose remake - the title, basic premise, and name of the lead character are all that remain. I haven't seen the 80's original , but some praise it as a clever little thriller.

When I look at the story here I see a potential for an intriguing and touching thriller about faith. Unfortunately what we get is badly acted and directed movie that it's almost impossible to watch. There is no suspense and the pacing is dreadful . The acting as I already mentioned is weak – only Dolph Lundgren and Max von Sydow give decent performances. It's interesting to see Lundgren here. He's well casted and does provide some action to the movie , even if he's a supporting character. I'm wondering what he is doing here. This movie has been produced by Nu Image – the same studio that Lundgren has been making his last crappy action movies. Was it part of his contract or did he simply wanted to do something different for his career ? I guess will never know. Not that it matters.

The music for this movie was composed by somebody named Morricone. Maybe he is related to Ennio Morricone ? I don't know. It's a really nice music and the best part of the movie. I give it 1/10.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not a remake...
sol_invictus-15 April 2008
I saw the brilliant original by Damiano Damiani (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093255/) about twenty years ago. This is not a remake. Compared to the original screenplay, the story in this film is a joke in the best tradition of Hollywood, and it utterly does not follow the original plot.

This is a propaganda movie, a failed copy of the masterpiece by Damiano Damiani and a poor attempt to substitute real world values by thin air speculation and candy, pure Hollywood style. Nevertheless the movie has a value of its own, I have never seen Dolf Lundgren in a role like the one he took in this movie, and I could say that Monica Cruz play is not worse than her sister's, not to mention that Monica is somehow prettier than Penelope. It is a shame that Ornella Mutti did not participate in the original by her compatriot Damiano Damiani.
12 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Sand and Sandles
JoeB1317 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Hollywood used to enjoy doing Bible Movies, but the whole thing has fallen out of favor. This film, done as an Italian/Spanish collaboration, hearkens back to the old Bible movies.

The plot is that a Roman Tribune has been assigned by the Emperor Tiberius to investigate the source of world-wide Earthquake. He goes into an investigation of the life of Jesus, only to conclude that Jesus was indeed the son of God. He reports back to Tiberius, who agrees with him, only to be snuffed by the mad Caligula before acting on this eternal truth.

Of course, historical silliness abounds. We also get several really good actors (Max von Sydow as Tiberius- he played Jesus once), F. Murrey Abraham as a Jewish elder, and so on. But the plot line is simple enough. Jesus was real, and those who doubt him do so at their won peril.

it's a fun movie, enjoyable for what it is.
15 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A fine 'Lifecycle' movie
stevepat9922 April 2008
Sometimes it is a matter of 'giving up two hours of your life.' Then, there is what I call my 'Lifecycle time' when I have donated my time to exercise and so no risk of lost time over a bad film. After reading the mixed reviews I expected a Romanesque Jerusalem based soap opera and the film delivered big time in that regard. Perhaps it begins with the cool art work on the DVD cover where Monica's troubled countenance begs one to 'rent me.' As for the film, I found it entertaining Lifecycle fare. Nice location shots in Bulgaria and Tunisia, decent choreographed battle/fight scenes, very good role/performance by Dolph Lundgren, Monica offers nice Miriam eye candy and well done job by Daniele Liotti as lead Tito Valerio Tauro. Also enjoyed Hristo Shopov as the scheming Pontius Pilate. Bottom line: Better than expected, have seen lots worse but some will regret giving up two 'real life' hours to see it.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Standard Biblical epic in which a Roman converts to Christianity
Turfseer18 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Similar to such films as The Robe and Ben-Hur, The Final Inquiry-a 2006 Italian release-introduces the usual trope of a Roman who journeys to Jerusalem where he finds Jesus and ends up converting to Christianity. Here Daniel Liotti stars as Titus Valerius Taurus, a high-ranking Roman officer who is summoned by Emperor Tiberius (Max von Sydow) to conduct an "inquiry" into whether reports of the resurrection of a mysterious Jesus in the Roman province of Judea are true.

Accompanying Titus is his manservant, Brixos (Dolph Lundgren), a soldier captured during Titus' campaign against the "Barbarians" in Germania. Brixos provides the bulk of the fight scenes during the less than action-packed narrative.

Only one problem with this whole idea that Titus hooks up with various "Christians" when he arrives in Jerusalem. Emperor Tiberius definitively died in the year 37 CE. Most scholars agree that the earliest New Testament writings-the Epistles of Paul-date back to the 50s. The first definitive mention of Christians in Roman Sources wasn't until the 2nd Century.

So Titus "meet and greet" with an already formed Christian movement that early on seems like wish fulfillment on the part of the film's scenarists. Even more questionable than the timeline discrepancies are the treatment of the Jewish people in The Final Inquiry narrative.

In all these Christian Bible stories (including those found in the original source material of The New Testament) the Jewish characters who become Christians never seem very Jewish at all. This is probably because the Gospel writers knew little about Judaism and only had a superficial knowledge about what Jewish people were like.

Judaism was a highly regarded religion at the time this film purportedly took place so to suggest that Christianity was supplanting Judaism as an "improved version" proved to be a highly effective strategy in converting the target population: eager pagans who were attracted to the egalitarian Christian philosophy.

Unfortunately the Jewish characters here who fail to convert however are basically depicted as a venal lot. Right away they're shown stoning a woman to death on grounds of adultery. As others have pointed out here, the death penalty in Judaism was rare and anyone accused of breaking the law had to go before the Sanhedrin, in effect the Jewish judicial body at the time, where deliberations were never conducted as a "rush to judgment."

More accurate is the depiction of Pontius Pilate (Hristo Shopov) who is rightly depicted as a tyrant. In this scenario he's the one who attempts to quell rumors of Jesus' resurrection by paying thugs to fraudulently pawn off another man's corpse as the "Son of God." Later he organizes a plot to cast doubt on the resurrection story by suggesting that "miracles" are concocted through the use of drugs that induce a coma-like state.

The main plot has Titus falling in love with Tabitha (Monica Cruz), a Jewish-Christian who is severely beaten by (wouldn't you know it) her JEWISH father Nathan (F. Murray Abraham). In an ex post facto resurrection tale, it's Jesus' main disciple Peter who comes and prays for the now dead Tabitha and she's resurrected (everyone seems to be getting in on the resurrection action, not only Jesus!).

It's sad that the Jewish people always seem to be presented as the usual bogeymen in Early Christian literature as well as updated chronicles such as this--and their Jewish-Christian counterparts (including the now converted Titus in this case), a bunch of saints!

Nothing about The Final Inquiry is something we haven't seen before. I would not recommend this for even casual viewing.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Worth the Purchase
JulzGaye24 February 2008
If you enjoy Biblical film, you should enjoy this and add it to your collection. I'm not sorry I purchased it. Lundgren & Liotti are fabulous to look at and Monica Cruz is no slouch either (she looks just like her sister, Penelope).

The story-line is great. I wonder where the "Goofs" section is under "Fun Stuff" on IMDb, as this film was not devoid of them. For example, the rolling away of the massive stone at the tomb of Lazarus. It was done by one guy while another stood with a piece of lumber to assist by prying it but really did nothing, which would not have been possible. Some of the fight scenes just looked very badly done. There was a kiss scene wherein saliva strung from one person to another that would have been much more watchable had that been edited out. Finally, at the end, the terrain was striped by tire tracks and what looked like a radio tower on a mountain top.
15 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
I wish just once . . .
al-eaton1 March 2008
First, I was unaware that this was a re-make. If the first movie is on DVD, I'll try it to see any difference. As to this movie (2006), I am going to write my usual bug-aboo about historical accuracy and the movies.

I wish just once that a film set in the period of Yeshua/Jesus would depict the Jewish people with a less than jaundiced - read: historically inaccurate - eye. I was confronted at the very opening of this film with yet another scene of "crazed Jews" stoning a woman for adultery. According to some extensive research on this period, I have learned that the imposition of the death penalty in ancient Jewish society was rare and could only be undertaken under very controlled conditions. For example, a woman caught in adultery was not automatically put to death. Both she and her husband had to appear before the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem - and only this body, with the consent of every single member, could actually pronounce the death sentence. One "no" vote and there was an acquittal. The husband could forgive his wife and take her back and that was the end of it. Or he could divorce her. If she was freed and committed adultery again, then the matter would be returned to the High Court. Trials took three days: testimony and evidence on the first day; deliberation by the court on the second, and the third day reserved for the verdict. This third day was meant as a "cooling off period" to avoid a rush to judgment. The sentence upon conviction was not always death. None of this "crazed outrage" in the streets followed by an angry stoning as depicted in this film. It is also said that any Sanhedrin that passed two death sentences within 7 years was called a "bloody Sanhedrin." In other words, the Jewish people had made a deliberate attempt to provide justice in an orderly and civilized way. To depict them as simply a bunch of "crazies" running about the streets like blood-crazed savages is nothing more than pure propaganda.

One other note on the trial, each member of the court had a small pebble - a stone - that they tossed (cast) into a large pot. The stones were then counted to reach a verdict. This is what is meant by the phrase: "Let those among you who are blameless (without malice; pure of heart) cast the first stone."

Further, no Sanhedrin would meet to hold a "trial" - especially one involving a potential death sentence - within three days BEFORE and three days AFTER a religious holiday. This is because of the three-day trial concept. Therefore, Jesus couldn't be tried and convicted on the same day.

As far as this movie is concerned, it is a standard Christian story told with some reverence for the faith, although it is not entirely original in it's story line. Compare it with "The Robe" (1953) where a Roman soldier (Richard Burton) is sent by the Emperor Tiberias to find the "true" story of what happened in Jerusalem. That Roman is cynical at first but, through the miracle of Peter saving a young woman (played then by Debra Paget), the soldier converts to Christianity.
9 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Very well done
dmgruber128 March 2013
My wife and I really enjoyed this movie. The acting was good. The Plot interesting. The visuals stunning. I've read the other comments and while I agree that while the music wasn't on par with a Vangelis or Hans Zimmer score, it certainly did not detract from our overall enjoyment.

It's an Italian movie on a budget of 8 million euro. They spent it on costumes and extras. I hate a movie that doesn't have enough extras for the big battle scene (ie: Conan). The battle at the beginning was pretty good.

As an Italian movie, it has some of the "quirkiness" of those Eastwood "Spaghetti" Westerns. I noticed in two places the editing could have been smoother, but again, a good overall film.

I gave it a 9. Not because it is Oscar worthy but because it was enjoyable, i'd watch it again, and I'd invite friends. I won't do that for more than a couple of "oscar" winners.

Over all a good family movie that asks the question: What if?
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Could have been less Mickey Mouse
drystyx6 March 2022
Modern Christian theme films can be historical or symbolic or inspirational or "background" or a combination of these.

This one tends to get away from the background, as it deals with a Roman sent by Tiberius to investigate an obscure crucifixion of "you know who" as Tiberius lays close to death.

Okay, we'll buy that part. Tiberius was known to be as cruel and evil as about any other emperor, but he's interested in what lies beyond death at this point.

So, that's the crux of the film that gets some credibility, at least in comparison with most of the rest of the film.

In what happens afterwards, it gets a bit too "Mickey Mouse", and that's disappointing when one sees Sydow and Abraham playing roles here.

How big is the "Mickey Mouse" factor? I'd rate it fairly high. Even fifties films tried to be more sophisticated than this.

I think a lot of the Mickey Mouse look is due to the "cleanliness of everyone and everything. Everyone looks like they just came out of the bath tub. If one gets past that look, it gets more of a nod.

To its credit, most of motivations come across fairly well, though. It's watchable, and the "could it have been like this?" scenario isn't bad, just abridged in a way that makes it look worse than it should have looked.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
"I wish just once . . "
jmatrixrenegade3 August 2008
I want to comment on what someone already said.

The comment was upset at treatment of Jewish practice portrayed in the film. However, the rules on adultery and trials, well ... if you want to be upset, be upset at the gospels.

The gospels portrayed the trial as a crooked rush job. Likewise, the stoning for adultery (and in the past, rural areas did not always strictly follow the dictates of the law) was referenced in a favorite scene in the Bible as well. The Bible had no "backstory" underlining that really the stoning in practice was a last result and rarely done practice. We were meant to see it as barbaric, the crowd driven more by passion than reason (before Jesus came around to guilt them).

In fact, some gospels had various scenes that put Jewish practice in bad light. At times unfairly. For instance, the money-changing in the temple -- you needed that to allow people from all over to have the right sort of coin to give their offering. It surely had some bad flavor, but it was not just about a "band of thieves." Lashing out like Jesus did kinda suggests why some thought the guy a tad bit dangerous especially in an age of rebels and revolts.

If one wants a "historical" reflection of what "actually" happened, which honestly would be not a bad way to go, they wouldn't be as reliant on scripture and all. The conceit of this movie also would not really be possible, to be totally honest about it.
6 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
sketch
Vincentiu14 April 2012
a Biblical film. not great ambitions, few nice fight scene, basic line, a cast with exercise in this type of drama ( Hristo Shopov - new / old Pontius Pilat, Hristo Jivkov - ex - John in Passion of Crist, now Stefan ), Dolph Lundgren in skin of different kind of role, Max van Sydow, Enrico Lo Verso , F. Murray Abraham as solid pillars , Ornela Mutti like drop of scent and beautiful Monica Cruz - alter -ego of her sister and basic attraction of a movie who is not Quo Vadis, not Jesus of Nazareth but little exercise to recreate atmosphere of Church beginnings. so, it is just an exercise. not spectacular, not interesting, almost boring and predictable but decent at first sigh. crumbs of history - legend about Tiberius death -, pieces of innovation - the decree about Chistianity freedom -, authentic miracle of come back to life of Tabitha and the end - mixture of dust and faith. a drawing like so many others.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Worth $3.99 on Pay Per View
svaughan130 March 2008
The acting was pretty bad, but I got the feeling that it was a movie made with minimal takes. At least twice, the actors stumbled over their line and then had to repeat the correct line. It was like watching a Junior High play.

But, I liked the story, and thought the story got better as the movie went along. The script, however, was terrible. I thought there was some bad editing that left me to guess about the plot situations. My knowledge of Scripture helped.

I thought the 'slave' role created for Dolph Lungren was unnecessary, and cartoonish. If the main character needed a big, enforcer-type sidekick why not just have another Roman solider? At least, then, their expressed friendship at the end would be more realistic.

All said, not bad for $3.99 on Pay Per View.
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Well....ummm.... at least the music was good.
camden-register25 July 2010
Well… at least the music was good. I had such hopes for this film but was quickly disappointed. It includes some well known, good actors mixed with some that they must have picked up off the street. The two primary lead actors (Daniele Liotti and Mónica Cruz) provide both visual appeal and good acting though better directing could have enhanced the final output. The directing and editing are so bad that I am convinced either their budget was seriously in deficit or they half-heartedly approached the project.

So much good have been done with the storyline to show the aftermath of Christ's crucifixion that the #1 proof for the resurrection is that the disciples who scattered in fear suddenly became courageous and willing to speak the truth of having seen the risen Christ knowing that this admission would mean certain persecution, torture and death. Sadly, this movie only hints at the truth and instead brings in fiction that wasn't needed. The truth is incredible enough.

The movie is weak, lacks conviction, and is a disappointment. The only true redeeming quality is the soundtrack.
3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great
myersrobert-907507 November 2020
Loved this performance, want More! Impressive casting was wonderful.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
modest
Kirpianuscus19 April 2022
The basic motif to see it was Max von Sydow. Unfortunatelly, he remains the only one. Because, not being real bad, it has the unluck to be a grey one, easy to ignore, easy to critic, easy to see it as remind of Quo Vadis , for Ursus becoming Brexus, for Taurus. The story remains conventional and, not so good, totally predictable. The acting is like the story - without spices or some salt. The love story sounds nice. But it only sounds. The life of first Christians and the effort of poor Tito Valerius for conquest the truth are decent points and the presence of the two Bulgarian actors reminds The Passion of Crist, another reasonable good point.

Short, a Christian film, modest but far to be awfull, well intentioned, having desire to have some targets - the cast remains the clue in this sense - but not being more than modest and decent.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed