“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.

This leaves an uncomfortable but inevitable question concerning the public response to “The Gospel of John” (which opens across the country between September 26 and November 21): why has this New Testament story failed to produce the hysterical denunciations that have already greeted Mel Gibson’s upcoming (and superb) crucifixion epic, “The Passion”? Having seen both films, I can report that neither project deserves condemnation for anti-Semitic messages, though Jewish audiences should feel far more concerned about “The Gospel of John.” In “The Passion,” the Judean religious authorities who ruthlessly persecuted Jesus bear no resemblance at all to modern-day Jews, and the words “Jew” or “Jewish” do not, to my recollection, ever appear in the sub-titles (the film is performed in Aramaic and Latin). In “The Gospel of John,” however, the Pharisaical opponents of Jesus unmistakably resemble Hasidic Jews you might meet today in Jerusalem or New York and the script, following Scripture, uses the terms “Jew” and “Jewish” repeatedly (and almost never positively).

Of course, the most obvious explanation for contrast between the unfortunate and unjustified protests against “The Passion” and the silence greeting “The Gospel of John” involves Mel Gibson’s star status. This new film (a Canadian production shot largely in Spain) may have flown below the radar screen of national Jewish “defense” organizations, who would probably underestimate its impact (the movie will undoubtedly find eager audiences among believers everywhere).There’s also the matter of the origins of “The Gospel of John,” as a joint project involving the devoutly Christian Visual Bible International and veteran Jewish producers named Drabinsky, Pearl, Goldsmith, Gottlieb and Katz. Could the mere presence of Jewish names in the credits help to protect this movie from attacks by the Anti-Defamation League, the Wiesenthal and other suspicious organizations? In any event, “The Gospel of John” hardly deserves such assaults, but their absence merely highlights the monumental unfairness of the vicious and insubstantial hostility toward Mel Gibson. Perhaps the uncontroversial opening of this worthy but flawed project will help to dissipate some of the paranoid reactions regarding the more artistically accomplished “The Passion” prior to its scheduled release in February of next year.

“The Gospel of John” draws an appropriate rating of PG-13 for violence surrounding the Crucifixion. In fact, the movie’s understated and discreet approach to that physical suffering serves to reduced its overall emotional impact. TWO AND A HALF STARS for the admirable but imperfect “The Gospel of John.”

In “Duplex,” director Danny DeVito offers a dark comedy (reminiscent of his own “Throw Mama from the Train”) about a yuppie couple tempted to commit murder by the impossible old lady who lives in their upstairs apartment of their new Brooklyn home. Drew Barrymore and Ben Stiller play the long-suffering main characters who go through severe burns to the face, massive destruction of their property, the ruination of their sex life, vomit in the face and even genital mutilation. The sympathetic performances and skillful gags may appeal to moviegoers with a taste for sadism (or masochism) but most audience members will experience “Duplex” as a pointless ordeal. Rated PG-13, despite frequent sex references and comical violence. TWO STARS. 

Michael Medved hosts a nationally syndicated daily radio show focusing on the intersection of politics and pop culture.  He's the author of eight non-fiction books, was co-host for 12 years on "Sneak Previews" on PBS, and is the former Chief Film Critic for the New York Post.