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.