I thoroughly enjoyed the first half the movie Risen. The initial battle scene hooked me. It was almost on par with the authentic-seeming portrayal of Roman Centurion garrison life and tactics in Britannia with the Picts seen in The Eagle (2011). Its other depictions of ancient Roman life were relatively impressive. The political dynamic and intrigue between the King Herod, the Sanhedrin, and the Pontius Pilate was well done and helped keep things interesting. The detective theme kept me thoroughly engaged so long as Tribune Clavius was actively trying to solve the mystery behind the missing body of the controversial, dangerous Messiah candidate. Focusing strictly on forcing the viewer to ponder the fact of the empty tomb, I give this movie an A+! It brings that question front and center. And it is arguably the greatest mystery of history. What happened to the body of the crucified man known as Yeshua from Nazareet? Did his disciples steal the body? Did the Romans take the body? Did the Sanhedrin take the body? It is difficult for me to think of a more important question to apply the mind to.
However, I was somewhat disappointed with the second half of the movie. Everything in the movie after the point where Clavius (the Tribune) saw Yeshua (i.e., Jesus) with his own eyes was more distracting than engaging. If I could write my own ending for this movie, I think I’d keep the first half the same and then change the second half. Leave the Tribune thinking that the best explanation of the empty tomb is that Jesus did conquer death and did burst out of the tomb. But don’t let him ever quite catch up with Jesus. But I can’t say I’m ultimately disappointed; watching Risen is still a much better investment of time than watching a couple episodes of CSI, JAG, NCIS, the X-Files, or any other action-detective genre show. Why? Because there is more at stake one the answer to the question of the empty tomb. If God did raise Jesus from the dead, everything looks different. This is a game changer! But if Jesus was dead and buried and his body was hidden, all things Christian crumble neatly into a cold heap of ashes.
Joseph Fiennes’ acting was excellent, as always. Kudos to him for lending his talents to it! (If you didn’t catch him in Luther (2003), be sure to give it a try!)
I also appreciate how they depicted the resurrection of Jesus as a truly physical body–not just a spiritual and non-physical resurrection. That was a big deal for me.
The disciples were good about saying they no longer fear death and that the resurrection of Jesus Christ made them believe that they (“believers”) would be given eternal life too.
One could wish for a slightly clearer gospel presentation (saved by grace alone through faith alone, not by good works but for good works) in the film. It’s in there. But if you blink, you miss it.
I do object to their depiction of Mary Magdalen as a seemingly unrepentant and active prostitute while also a disciple of Christ. (Am I wrong? Didn’t they find her at the house of ill repute? Perhaps I’m mistaken.) Although I don’t think the case that Mary M. was actually a prostitute at all (this tradition developed a few hundred years after the gospels were written) I’m okay with using artistic license to portray her as an ex-prostitute. As for portraying her as an active prostitute, I’d point out how while talking to the Samaritan woman at the well who was living with a man who was not her husband that Jesus did disapprove. (John 4.) And to the woman caught in adultery: “Then neither do I condemn you. Now go and sin no more.” (John 8.) While it is true and profound that Jesus was a “friend of sinners” (including tax collectors and prostitutes) he should not be portrayed as accepting the prostitute’s lifestyle. One cannot remain a prostitute and follow Jesus at the same time. In this movie it seems like Mary M. probably was juggling both.
When Tribune Clavius, the detective, was interviewing Mary Magdalene and trying to get to the truth about the missing body, he clearly wanted some tangible or rational evidence. Mary wasn’t much of an apologist at this point. She said, “Just open your heart.” What she meant I’m not sure. If she was saying, “open your emotional-mind to the evidence your thinking-mind already has,” I suppose I’m fine with that. But they hadn’t really built up any evidence other than ropes that had exploded and a huge stone that had been tossed aside. But if she was saying, “open your emotional-mind to a mystical encounter with a spiritual Jesus,” I’m not impressed. And I’m sure Clavius wasn’t either. The writers really should have spent some time with an apologist like Gary Habermas or Norman Geisler to find out what the real evidence was. Speaking of real evidence, Habermas is favorable towards the Shroud of Turin. This movie does seem to give a nod towards that. I don’t have enough expertise in this matter to deserve an opinion. So I’ll just leave it at this: it’s interesting.
When Philip was taken in for questioning by Clavius, it was hard to know whether to laugh or cry. It was somewhat humorous and enjoyable. So perhaps I should leave it at that. But it just seemed like a conversation that was really very unlikely to have gone that way had the two met.
While I appreciated some of the depiction of the apostles as very befuddled in this film, in my opinion they took it too far. They made them seem perpetually and inescapably clueless. If I ever get to write and direct a life of Jesus film (which is on my bucket list) I will show them as befuddled at first and then have them quickly start to understand. Check out what Peter says about the resurrection of Christ in Acts 2:22-36, for example. Peter’s understanding of things is much deeper than our uneducated gentile minds can fathom well. (I recommend J. Dwight Pentecost’s book New Wine: A Study of Transition in the Book of Acts to help understand this better.) But perhaps one could argue that Peter wasn’t really given those insights until after the Spirit was poured out upon them later. So I guess I’ll let it slide.
Copyright © 2019 Christopher Travis Haun – All Rights Reserved
Author: C.T. Haun
Posted: Feb 26 2016
Last updated: March 18 2019
Status: It is Finished
Former tags: Apologetics, Church History, Gospels, History, Movie Review
