Watch Killing Jesus For Free

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

The Age of Commercialism

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

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..."

Well like other reviewers I was hoping for something good. Movie got the gist of the life of Christ but the movie is not scriptural accurate. Had some things correct but a lot of it is totally wrong... like Judas Iscariot hanging... the beheading of John the Baptist....could not even get Christ crucifixion right he was hung between two thieves.....many other issues..... missed a good opportunity

I am so happy to get this type of program but I don't understand why all the inaccuracies. It's not as if the story of Jesus isn't compelling enough without having to tweak it to keep the audience watching. Some of the inaccuracies seemed just random and serviced no purpose and others seemed very intentional and purposely misleading. I'm not sure which is worse. Who did the producers make this for anyway? It was not provocative enough for non-believers and not accurate enough for believers. A note to the producers: Next time, if you intend to tell a Christian story, get the facts right. At best the inaccuracies are a distraction and at worst they are insulting to those who know what is historically accurate. I feel confident that you won't lose believers or non-believers if Christian stories are well done and true.

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.