“The Gospel of John” represents such an honorable, even heroic effort that it seems almost unfair to focus on its cinematic shortcomings. For the first time, a motion picture with a reasonable budget ($15 million dollars), competent cast and excellent production values offers a word-for-word, unedited adaptation of an entire book of the Bible:  in this case, John’s Gospel. In the course of three hours, the movie relies primarily on stentorian narration from Christopher Plummer to deliver every syllable of the Book of John in the accessible and conversational “Good News Bible” translation from the American Bible Society.

A British stage actor named Henry Ian Cusick plays Jesus and faces the nearly impossible job of reciting the frequently repetitive Gospel verses; on at least 20 occasions, Mr. Cusick intones, “I tell you the truth.” His performance conveys an appropriately Christ-like sense of mystery and charisma, despite an unfortunate tendency to smile (in an attempt to warm up his character?) at inappropriate moments.

The camera work, sets and costumes all deserve praise for their elegance and attention to detail, though British director Phillip Saville demonstrates the bad habit of intensifying the drama with resort to extreme close-ups. Inevitably, you begin to notice that the handsome Mr. Cusick (playing Jesus of Nazareth) has been subtly disfigured by a small scar between his nose and eyebrow, and you of course wonder if there is some hidden theological significance to the idea that the Son of Man has been physically marred.

Despite the manifest piety and sincerity in this wildly ambitious production, “The Gospel of John” sinks under the weight of its own commitments. Cinema, with its origins in the silent era, has always focused on images and visual storytelling, but this project emphasizes words. That may be appropriate for a movie version of a book that begins with the declaration “in the beginning, was the Word” (or in this translation, “The Word existed at the beginning …”), but the carefully crafted images never take on a life of their own beside the solemnly recited Biblical narrative and dialogue. Even in the crucifixion scenes, in which John’s bare-bones account cries out for a riveting visual account to fill in the gaps, the movie seems to fear silence. The visions on screen only serve to illustrate the sacred scriptural text, and never succeed in coming together as a coherent, dramatically shaped motion picture. For all its noble intentions and inspiring aspects, “The Gospel of John” inevitably feels like a very high class Sunday school film strip rather than an emotionally satisfying cinematic experience.

Nevertheless, people of faith will cherish the film for its ability to make Biblical scenes come to life and for its undoubted value as a teaching tool. Unlike most other adaptations of scriptural stories, nothing about this project feels tacky or embarrassing and the producers took great pains to make the historical details (from clothing to dining) look as authentic as possible.