Risen Movie Review

o a friend of mine and I went to see the new Risen movie. We both enjoyed it, but I had some thoughts about the film (both good and bad) I wanted to share. Spoilers throughout, beware!

The film begins with a strong action film vibe: the opening scene is a battle between Jewish rebels led by a man named Barabbas (Yep, I’m pretty sure it was that Barabbas) and a Roman platoon putting them down led by a Tribune (Roman military rank) named Clavius, who turns out to be the hero (Well, besides Jesus and the disciples, anyway). Turns out Clavius is Pontius Pilate’s right-hand man who helps him keep Jerusalem under control. We next see him helping direct the Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus. He even stops one of the soldiers from breaking Jesus’ legs, thereby fulfilling the Jewish messianic prophecy, “Not one bone shall be broken” (Psalm 34:20). In the movie, he does it out of pity for Jesus’ weeping mother nearby, which endears him to us. Soon thereafter, the Sanhedrin coerce the Romans to place Jesus’ body under Roman guard. Once Jesus’ body is discovered to be missing, the movie takes on a more mystery-oriented feel, and of course Clavius is on the case to find out “who dun it,” and find that body.

After a series of interviews, including one with Mary Magdalene, he at last interrogates a disciple: Bartholomew. Frankly, we thought the disciple came off as comical and over-the-top ridiculous. The actor seems kind of like a Life-teen youth minister in his flamboyant, fake Joel Osteen-like persona that doesn’t seem to match the more serious picture of the apostles painted in the Gospels. Up until this point, the movie felt very realistic, similar to The Passion of the Christ, except for the fact that the film-makers chose not to have the characters speak in the original ancient languages (Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin). But once Clavius meets Bartholomew, and then after Clavius gets a personal encounter with the risen Jesus, the film seems to be much less story-oriented, and much more message-oriented, a la Fireproof or Courageous that The Passion of the Christ never sunk to, which may help explain the fact that this film does not appear to be doing nearly so well as Passion did. Jesus’ disciples and even Jesus himself all seem too modernized and not First-Century-Jewish enough for the movie to be believable. The disciples become chums with Clavius in a way there is no way they would have at this point in the development of the Church. As I have written before, Romans and Jews were racial enemies. It would be like Hamas accepting a Jewish rabbi as one of their field captains: even if one party had been willing, the other side would have none of it.

One thing I did like about the movie was the appearance of the shroud of Turin, an object of traditional Catholic and Eastern veneration. They seem to have somewhat modeled their Jesus figure off the shroud, as he has much more semitic features than traditional depictions of Jesus, including in The Passion of the Christ. This authentic feature made me enjoy the film more, since it helped me imagine I was really meeting the historical Jesus.

One thing I disliked about the film was what I saw as a major “plot-hole” of sorts. The protagonist, Clavius, is pressed for time, not only because the emperor is supposedly coming in X many days, but also because he is afraid that the body of Jesus will rot. In fact, Jesus’ body was carefully prepared with traditional spices intended to preserve the body (John 19:40), and this would not have been an issue. Clavius would have known this as a part of his investigation. It is a minor point, but I felt a little sad that the writers seemed ignorant of the matter.   

Finally, I don’t like where Clavius is left at the end of the film. He rejects Peter’s offer to become an evangelist. We see him walking off into the dessert, presumably changed, but how he is changed is unclear. Perhaps he is supposed to represent the perspective of the modern-day historian looking back on the events surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection. They might make up their mind one way or another. To me though, this lack of decision in our protagonist after he has literally come face to face with the risen Christ makes him a bad protagonist. As Christ says and two of the evangelists record, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23).

I don’t quite like the way the disciples are portrayed, although there is nothing overtly sacrilegious I can put my finger on. There is one raunchy scene where Clavius and his sidekick (same actor who plays Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter movies) are looking for Mary Magdalene and ask, “Who here knows Mary Magdalene?” Gradually all the soldiers’ hands go up in the barracks. Hardy har har: But this is the only sexual reference in the film. There is no profanity. Overall, I recommend the movie with some reservations as mentioned above. One way or another, it causes you to consider the death and resurrection of our Lord, and any movie that does that while attempting to be respectful and do the historical events justice is okay in my book.