'Gospel of John' should pray for forgiveness

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with religious films. Movies like "The Ten Commandments," "Jesus Christ Superstar" and "The Prince of Egypt" provide solid adaptations of stories held dear to many faiths. \nUnfortunately, "The Gospel of John" does not succeed in adapting the biblical story of Jesus' life into anything but a boring, terribly acted waste of celluloid. \nAt the beginning of "The Gospel of John," the filmmakers explain that the movie is a "faithful representation" of the Book of John. Basically, this is one of the four Gospels of the Bible, which tells the story of the life and death of Jesus. This adaptation was "faithful" alright; narrator Christopher Plummer reads and actors play out every word of the book over the three hours the audience had to suffer through.\nThe story of Jesus is not inherently boring, but director Philip Saville somehow made it a dry and monotonous three-hour sermon. By leaving every word of John's book intact, audiences had to listen to many lengthy monologues and endless chapters about God and Jesus that definitely do not translate well to the big screen.\nThe characters were one-dimensional and terribly acted. Jesus (Henry Ian Cusick) strutted around the entire movie with a Tom Cruise-esque smirk, like he was God's gift to mankind. (Ironically, he was God's gift to mankind, but he didn't act like he was!) All of the rest of the actors must have attended the soap opera school for acting, because, when they did anything but follow Jesus around like brainwashed sheep -- they overacted past the point of unbearable. There was no personality and no real emotions were conveyed during the movie, even at events like the crucifixion and resurrection. \nSaville also chose to underhandedly portray Jewish officials as villains. Every time the grouchy and malicious-looking Jews came on screen, ominous "bad guy" music would play. Much like what has been speculated about Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ," "The Gospel of John" could definitely spark anti-Semitic feelings by placing the blame of Jesus' crucifixion on the Jewish people rather than the Romans. \nThe only possible redemption for this terrible piece of cinema is the startling accuracy of historical and cultural differences from biblical times. For example, rather than showing the Last Supper as it was in Leonardo da Vinci's famous painting, it shows Jesus and his disciples lounging on the floor around low tables, as was tradition.\nAlthough the filmmakers succeed in showing the culture of the time, that is not nearly enough to redeem a truly awful film.