The Apostle John wrote his Gospel to show that Jesus came to change the world, but He was also a man Who could relate to each person He came into contact with. He performed miracles unlike the world has ever seen and changed many lives, all in route to laying down his life as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. The religious leaders nearly always opposed Jesus’ work, but His work is still alive and well today.
Production Quality (2.5 points)
The Gospel of John follows in the footsteps of the other Visual Bible films by having a high-quality production, but it’s possible that John is the best production of the group. This is evident through great video quality, camera work, and audio quality, including a culturally authentic soundtrack. Sets, locations, and props are excellent in demonstrating authenticity and realism. The only minor issues therein pertain to some odd and sometimes cheap special effects, such black and white flashbacks and unnecessary ‘flashy’ elements. However, this aside, this is a top-notch production.
Plot and Storyline Quality (.5 point)
Where the production succeeded, unfortunately, the plot did not. Where other portrayals of Jesus in The Visual Bible saga are fair and interesting, the portrayal of Jesus in this version of The Gospel of John is not very inviting. Instead, the Jesus in this film is a throwback to the 70s and 80s ‘zen’ portrayals of Christ. Sometimes, he comes off as lofty and even a bit crazy at times. Other characters come off as too dramatic, and some sequences are too sensational. Like the other Visual Bible films, John has narration by design, which does not give us many good opportunities to get to know the characters very well. However, there are a handful of positive elements here that keep this section from being zero, such as the opportunity to see some less-focused on portions of the gospel.
Acting Quality (1.5 points)
While other Visual Bible casts tried to include more culturally authentic cast members and less British ones, John does not always succeed on this front. There are too many obviously non-authentic cast members, besides the fact that there are a lot of dramatic and theatrical performances. In situations like this, where narration is built-in, acting is very important since there are limited opportunities for lines. However, though there are some moments of overplaying, there are plenty of good sequences throughout this film that are enough to make this section average.
While The Visual Bible projects are commendable and ambitious, John does not seem like as helpful of a resource as the others, especially since it tends to take a turn for the dramatic and sensational. Portrayals of Jesus are hard to pull off, but there’s no need to make them more difficult with ethereal loftiness. Still, there are plenty of good parts to The Gospel of John, and many audiences will enjoy it.
Final Rating: 4.5 out of 10 points