Killing Jesus was created in the Spirit of Bill O'Rielly's book. Killing Jesus is about the historical social forces of Jesus' time. Passover with the money lenders, the Roman Ocupation and the politics of money and power. Jesus' teaching were a threat to the social forces of Jesus' time. (and a threat to many in modern times) Bill's movie omits many of the miracles etc for the message is about the times, and lets the viewer decide his or her opinion on the Son of God question. Regretablly, the Makers of Killing Jesus had to edit for time considerations many important parts which were in the book. I believe we would have a double reel movie (an old saying when movie makers used film) to add all the material. Regrettably, all biblical movies leave room for interpretation, and make controversial liberties of what historical individuals were thinking. Did Judas keep some of the money because Judas wanted a horse is more of trying to figure out Judas' motives? A hidden message of how heinous Judas was. What Killing Jesus mastered is the portrayal of Jesus' message about forgiveness, God is love, and Jesus is willing to stand up and sacrifice himself for us. The symbolic message with the fish at the ending states Killing Jesus' thesis. The message is about Jesus' movement and the crucifixion tried to stop the movement, but only resulted in the movement becoming stronger. As with the fish miracle, you decide if Jesus is the Son of God. An attempt at a historical portrayal of which hits the mark. Seven or eight out of ten stars.

Future Christian savior Jesus Christ is born in Jerusalem (off screen, significantly, as explained below),which drives jealously royal Kelsey Grammar (as Herod) into fits of rage. God has spoken to Mr. Grammar in a dream, so the Roman ruler knows Jesus is the real deal. Advisors call it sorcery, but Grammar isn't taking any chances. He decides to stop "The Baby Jesus" dead in his tracks. Grammar and his family fail, of course, and we jump the decades to meet darkly attractive carpenter Haaz Sleiman (as Jesus). He is baptized by Abhin Galeya (as John),and we're off and running...

"This story is inspired by Biblical accounts of the life and times of Jesus. It includes graphic images that may be unsuitable for some viewers"...

If you're reading this, you likely know how this basics of this story. This version is based on the 2013 best-seller "Killing Jesus" by Bill O'Reilly (with Martin Dugard). A former tabloid ("Inside Edition") newsreader, Mr. O'Reilly became one of the big bloviating stars of Rupert Murdoch's "FOX News" network. O'Reilly touted himself as an unbiased independent for years, but has recently retreated from that self-description. From the beginning, the sneaky talk-show host obviously favored Conservative Republicans. His conservative Christianity has also become more evident. O'Reilly and FOX annually lament the "War on Christmas," orchestrated by wicked liberals...

The above is relevant to "Killing Jesus" because what you have depicted, in this movie, is The New Testament from a Christian Conservative prospective. Note how the story opens with King Herod dreaming about the birth of Jesus. There are no wise men. There is no star. There are no farm animals. There is no nativity scene. Here, it is more important to see the Roman politician than the birth of Jesus Christ to homeless parents in a manger. The focus is on Jewish and Roman politicians' efforts to kill Jesus. The Romans and Jews are "big government" and Jesus would prefer to cut taxes. Yes, Jesus arrived to save us from tax-collectors. You get the picture...

One important detail about "Killing Jesus" is that writer-producer O'Reilly has stated he received input on the work directly from God...

O'Reilly revealed his self-described "gifts" while promoting the book. Although he was visited by "The Holy Spirit," the divine O'Reilly downplayed his role as a prophet, saying he was, "one of many." This is relevant to "Killing Jesus" because this version of the story is so uninspiring. They've got a nice location and an authentic cast, but wasted them for the first two thirds. As for the last act, the beauty of the Christ story is not in the Crucifixion, but in the Resurrection. This movie spends most of its bloody time on the former, and only a blessed few moments on the latter.

** Killing Jesus (3/29/15) Christopher Menaul ~ Haaz Sleiman, Joe Doyle, Stephen Moyer, Kelsey Grammar

Bible purists and devout Catholics will probably find at least some fault with this production. There are a number of elements missing from the story that most viewers with a knowledge of the Scriptures would be looking for; when they aren't depicted one has to wonder the reason why. Time and budget constraints probably play into it but that argument doesn't help much. One of the first stunning moments in the story occurred for me when Jesus (Haaz Sleiman) seemed to be unaware of his Earthly mission to atone for Man's sins, this when he was conversing with John the Baptist (Abhin Galeya). Caiaphas (Rufus Sewell) and his adherents in the Sanhedrin appeared to be greater villains than Pontius Pilate in terms of culpability for Jesus' crucifixion. No mention of Barabbas seemed to be a major oversight, and during the crucifixion scene there was no reference made at all to the two thieves who were crucified along with Jesus. I guess most of my criticism here has to do with things that weren't included in the story of Jesus, so that may just be a particular quirk of mine. However my viewing of the picture occurred a day after watching the 1927 silent film "The King of Kings" which appeared to be a much more complete narrative of the events leading to the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ. If one were to be faced with the choice of one or the other, my recommendation would go for the early film. Even though silent, the longer, one hundred fifty five minute version includes two wonderful sequences done in Technicolor, quite possibly the earliest use of color one might ever experience in a movie and more than a little impressive.