Let's get this out of the way first. I was raised Christian right through until my adult life and since then...well I don't consider myself a "Christian." I am however well versed in the bible and am a long standing student of history, so this is where my review comes from. I HATE when a film like this comes out only to read the endless drivel from people who think this offends their very atheistic nature so they have to trash it based on only that. I am a film lover so I approach this as I do every film from a film perspective. Son of God is not the biblical epics of yesteryear. It is a toned down, much lower budgeted TV film that they ported onto the big screen with both added footage and removed footage. I have not yet seen the mini-series this came from but I look forward to checking it out. Was it necessary to port it to the big screen? No. Some of the set design and especially the long shots of the various ancient cities (Jerusalem etc) look awful...they're video game quality at best. However, the film does lay out the Jesus story in a step by step fashion and doesn't try to go outside of the box. That is both a good thing but also a hindrance. There isn't anything here that someone who knows the story won't recognize, Son of God plays it very safe.

Diogo Morgado (and for all of those wonderful nagging atheists that troll IMDb he's not white...he's Portuguese) is our title character, Jesus. He does a decent job. Its not brilliant but it certainly serves a purpose. He looks the role and his intensity is certainly well done in the end scenes of his eventual crucifixion. He is portrayed as charismatic and HAPPY which I enjoyed because many portrayals of Jesus have him looking stoic and brooding. Morgado is a decent safe choice for this role. Greg Hicks is quite good in a small role as Pontius Pilate. I actually really enjoyed the direction and the details they put into his character and his relationship with his wife. That was an added bit of depth I wasn't expecting. The supporting cast is large but there were some particularly good performances from Darwin Shaw as Peter, Joe Wredden as Judas, Fraser Ayres (in a very small but effective role as Barabbas),and Said Bey as Matthew. I thought the performance from Amber Rose Revah was mostly unnecessary as Mary Magdalene, she was there a lot but really had no direction or purpose and it felt like she was in the way more than anything. I also wasn't a huge fan of Roma Downey played the older Mary. Seeing her on screen was distracting when we had only just seen a much younger, prettier actress playing Mary at the beginning of the film. Downey seemed to overact even with her facial expressions and she was trying too hard to be angelic. The role wasn't right for her.

The film is a little long, I know that Jesus' story is epic in nature and there have been plenty of long films about his life that were deservedly lengthy but as long as Son of God is it felt like they rushed a lot of the stories to try to cover everything. Still, I enjoyed their iteration of his various miracles and the inevitable crucifixion scene at the end was brutal, hard to watch, and very well directed. Documentary film maker Christopher Spencer is no slouch as a director. He's had plenty of experience but I think he could have benefited from some help from someone who knows storytelling is more than just laying out the facts. Still the story does a lot to make us understand the person that Jesus was and as a student of history I was impressed with how many accurate details were shown about the Roman empire and the time period this takes place in. I'm not defending the film per se but I think people are being too hard on it. It was made with the church community in mind and they will adore it. It tells the story very well and does not ruffle any feathers. Angry atheists will hate it because...well...anything with "Christian" on it deserves flogging and ridiculing don't you know? The average film goer (me) will likely find it decently entertaining without being mind blowing. It tells a good story at its own pace with a few potholes but nothing that ruins the experience. Its the definition of average. 7/10

The film starts with some narration by John, whose gospel introduces the concept of the "logos" or "The Word" and equates this Greek theological idea to Jesus . It places Jesus with God the father from the beginning of time.

It jumps to a quick Matthew version of his birth and then to collecting apostles, making his first miracle being a human fish finder. Yes the Lord God creator and all being of time, space and dimension must stick his face into the water to locate fish. My LOL moment.

The movie introduces historical background, but does so briefly. The famous Sermon on the Mount, what I consider to be the inspirational center piece of Christianity is not used, save for The Lord's Prayer. Even "Life of Brian" did that aspect better..."Blessed are the cheese makers..."

The film nicely modernizes the King James version, even with the actors having varying accents. The film attempts to follow the story through the Gospel of John, which may be why they cut the sermon on the mount, but then they added other aspects that were not in John, but Matthew.

The production makes Jesus look like a cult leader with a rock star following. The last hour which concentrates on the Passion of Christ, I couldn't help but compare it mentally to the far superior Mel Gibson production. Indeed, in many ways this film isn't any better than some low budget church productions.

I liked the idea of opening with John. If they had made this film based strictly on the Gospel of John, they could of had a first. The story assumes we know the characters and never builds or develops them. The plot has wholes in it, like what was Pontius Pilate supposed to do with his wife's dream she considered a warning? Say, "Okay Jesus off you go then." Wouldn't that screw up everyone's salvation?

On the plus side Jesus Christ handled hecklers better than Chris Christie, but then, who doesn't? The film takes some dramatic liberties utilizing long "William Shatner like" pauses before Jesus says a line we know is coming. The scene of Judas "returning" the 30 pieces of silver, was nothing like what I imagined, my bad I guess.

I really loved the rock star Jesus for the first 30-45 minutes of the film. But the second half felt like they changed Jesus and not for the better.

Having been raised a Catholic and attending both Catholic parochial and high schools, it was not unusual to have been exposed to many Bible stories and events from the life of Jesus. I say that in a good way as opposed to feeling indoctrinated to a religious point of view. So in approaching a film like "Son of God", I think having that kind of background is a plus while viewing Biblical events as portrayed on screen. Even so, I find it remarkable that certain reviewers would take such exception to the picture because a Bible quote they remember is not repeated one hundred percent, or certain scenes not portrayed entirely to their expectations.

Overall I found the picture to be a faithful interpretation of the life of Christ, even if it overlooked a miracle or two. Told from the point of view of the Apostle John, the picture is not as epic in scope as 1961's "King of Kings", nor did it use any well known actors like that picture did, in effect serving as a distraction to one's attention span. I defer to Roma Downey of course, probably better known as her character Monica in the late Nineties TV series "Touched By An Angel", here portraying the mother of Christ.

As far as Jesus himself, Diogo Morgado appears to have been an exceptional choice to portray a loving and serene Savior. The Portuguese actor exhibits a particular sensitivity for the role. Also charismatic, but for the opposite reason, was Greg Hicks as the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate. His was the most ironic statement in the picture, when he approves of the crucifixion by stating that "He'll be forgotten in a week."