The Crucifixion of Christ seen more from a political and historical point of view than a spiritual one.The Crucifixion of Christ seen more from a political and historical point of view than a spiritual one.The Crucifixion of Christ seen more from a political and historical point of view than a spiritual one.
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaBoth Tony Vogel(Temple Guard) and Keith Michell(Pontius Pilate) have been also involved in three other Biblical portrayals.....Vogel portrayed Andrew in Jesus Of Nazareth in 1977 and in 1999 TV movie Jesus portrays a farmer.....Michell portrayed Jacib in 1974 in The Story of Jacob and Joseph and in 1977 portrays King David in The Story of David.
- Crazy creditsThe 20th Century Fox Television logo is shown without the fanfare.
- ConnectionsReferenced in Saturday Night Live: Richard Benjamin, Paula Prentiss/The Grateful Dead (1980)
Featured review
great image of the person of Jesus
this is best showing of what i think jesus really was like. most movies show jesus as being effeminate, lobotomized, or tortured. this jesus laughed, played, and was serious when it was necessary. this is the kind of jesus people could be attracted to, not the usually hollywood version.
the movie took some liberties, attempting to "fill in the blanks." but the fillers didn't seem impossible, or even improbable. one thing i might argue, was that it never really explained what the romans had against jesus (movie portrayed that the romans were the main driver of jesus' death, not that the jewish authorities were against the idea).
it seemed that the movie was researched well. one example was the offhand comment to a teenage boy who was called "mark." it is believed that mark (or john mark) was the boy referred to at the garden of gethsemane whose cloak was pulled off and ran away naked (mark 14:51). i get the feeling that they tried to make the movie as accurate (even in spirit) was much as possible.
the movie took some liberties, attempting to "fill in the blanks." but the fillers didn't seem impossible, or even improbable. one thing i might argue, was that it never really explained what the romans had against jesus (movie portrayed that the romans were the main driver of jesus' death, not that the jewish authorities were against the idea).
it seemed that the movie was researched well. one example was the offhand comment to a teenage boy who was called "mark." it is believed that mark (or john mark) was the boy referred to at the garden of gethsemane whose cloak was pulled off and ran away naked (mark 14:51). i get the feeling that they tried to make the movie as accurate (even in spirit) was much as possible.
helpful•74
- bill roy
- Mar 10, 2000
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- El día en que murió Cristo
- Filming locations
- Tunisia(filmed entirely on location in Tunisia)
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime2 hours 22 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.33 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content