Customer Reviews

Color of the Cross

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

Please don't waste any money on this film. The idea of the film is wonderful but it never delivers. Between the bad acting and the deviations from scripture you hardly recognize the story at all. The writer seems more interested in furthering his anti-Semitic cause then exploring race issues. If you don't know anything about history, scripture or not really interested in either then you might get something out of it, otherwise skip it. My only regret in that this movie bombed is that people may think that no one is interested in seeing biblical characters being portrayed as people of color when the truth is the movie is just bad.

I am a black man in America. I saw "The Passion" by Mel Gibson. In the same respect I saw this movie by Jean-Claude LaMarre. I respected Jean-Claude ever since I first saw him playing a role in Malcom X. Yet, after this film I cannot help but feel saddened by his efforts. After all these years, is Jesus' death for the sins of mankind to be cheapened by the result of racial discrimination? The movie did not give an accurate portrayal of the events that led to the death of Jesus Christ. If anyone argues this point, I beg them to go read a Holy Bible.

Readers, I tried to look at this with an open mind and objective perspective. I ignored the fact that the Jesus story was racially painted. I ignored some of the subpar acting and dialog. I ignored accuracy of events. In other words, I really expected and wanted to like this movie. However, it was very difficult to watch...even from an entertainment point of view (not that Jesus is supposed to be entertaining, but hopefully you readers know what I mean). The one accolade I can give is that the creator Jean-Claude LaMarre had the ambition to cast a mostly African-American cast.

Still, although I didn't expect a documentary, the problem with this movie is that it is a fundamentally lacking story of Jesus. They could have casted Korean, Latino, or other ethnic actors in it and tailored the story appropriately...but from all Biblical accounts it would still be lacking.

To put it bluntly, it wasn't even a good Jesus highlight film. It was very disjoint in parts, making it was difficult to watch. Even more disappointing was that this movie had all the potential to still tell the Jesus story of redemption and salvation, with an African-American cast to boot. But, after viewing this, one doesn't leave this movie with a better understanding of Jesus' purpose.

Hypothetically, even if the ethnic racism spin were true, this movie still didn't cover adequately who Jesus was and why He transcended race/ethinicity for all mankind. Not only that, but the true legacy of any Jesus story is what He did AFTER the crucifixion. Instead, this movie treats His death as the end of the story and ends with retrospectives of the Last Supper and other scenes.

Even writing this review is difficult because how can you say something bad about a Jesus story? So I write this only as a warning to those who are thinking about buying this. Buy it for your collection if you must, but PLEASE read the Bible for a fuller and more character developed story about Jesus.

The idea of Jesus being black is no more absurd than Jesus being a blue eyed blond. That is not the point. According to the New Testament Jesus of Nazareth was tried and convicted of blasphemy. He claimed to be God which really ticked off the religious leaders of the day. This film throws out that idea entirely and has Jesus being a victim of racial bigotry. The film also reports that the only reason that Jesus was born in a manger is because black folks were not welcomed at the Inn. It dosen't stop there. Jesus is crucified but is not raised from the dead. Just one more misunderstood black man who ain't coming back. This movie will likely appeal to those who are more interested in Tupac than Jesus. The film is the product of modern American political correctness rather than a depiction of Jerusalem 2000 years ago. The only way this could have been made worse if they had subtitled this "Jesus--the Original Gangsta".

I am a african american woman I'm all for A black christ but come on now this movie was totally whack and the guy they chose to play christ was a horrible choice, he could not act. Jim cavisel was christ in the passion but he could accually act, he made you believe it this guy was a insult to christ.

This movie is to focused on race. The one movie we get to see a black man depicted as jesus and it has to be the worst person I had ever seen to portray him. I am Glad this movie went unnoticed. Maybe a good production, starring a black man as Jesus, can be made.

Its not the idea that Jesus was a man of color, there are clear indications that he might have been. Its the ridiculous notions and "creative liberty" that is taken with the scripture. I am so upset and hurt by this sinful depiction of Jesus, his disciples and the events leading up to his death.

Sure, if he was black I truly believe that the crucifixion had something to do with him being black, but the reality is that there is no scriptural proof that Judas raped Mary or that Mary was "in love" with Jesus or that Jesus was a man of worry, fear or indifference.

It is these types of destructive "interpretations" that lead people astray. I am also disgusted that Bishop Jakes was so money motivated that he would allow his movie to be a preview on something that so obviously nullifies scripture for self interpretation and profit.

Most reviews of this film seem stuck on the low budget (although it probably cost a lot more than The Gospel According to St. Matthew, a masterpiece) and the indifferent acting (although the performances are much better than those in The Jesus Film, purportedly the most widely seen movie of all time). Get over it. I think The Color of The Cross is challenging, delightfully quirky, and not afraid to be in-your-face wrong. In otherwords, it's everything Jesus movies don't dare to be.

While the movie does not really depict Jesus' death as racially motivated (he's still killed for blasphemy, although his color does disqualify him to be the messiah in the eyes of some Jewish authorities) it does deal with race in a way that's challenging and brazenly anachronistic. Mary gave birth in a stable because, it turns out, she's the victim of first-century Jim Crow. There's lots of shock about Jesus being black, and what that all means. Scholars pretty much agree that this kind of skin-color-based racism is a much later development in human civilization (nobody seemed to care that St. Augustine was black). Nevertheless, a black Jesus hanging on the cross does invite us to compare crucifixion and lynching -- two forms of public execution designed to terrorize the oppressed.

Race issues aside, there's plenty of other quirky stuff in this movie that make it puzzling and memorable:

1) Jesus' death does not take place in Jerusalem, but someplace called "Arimithea" (not Arimathea), a place where Joseph, Mary and the rest of Jesus' family live. The Romans go from the house of the Last Supper to Joseph and Mary's, looking for Jesus and busting up everybody's Seder.

2) James, the brother of Jesus, is not one one of his disciples, but Joseph has big plans for him anyway. "Your time will come," he tells a guilt-ridden James. This is obviously a veiled hint at James the Just's leadership of the Jerusalem church. It also suggests Joseph has a dynasty in mind.

3) Mary Magdalene, a devotee of Jesus, is nevertheless still a working prostitute. She turns an (off camera) trick with Judas after the Last Supper to give Jesus time to escape!

4) During the Last Supper the director montages from Jesus' Seder to that of the Holy Family, and then that of a number of Sanhedrin priests, reinforcing the message that these are all Jews, with a common religious tradition and values. It's a shocking transition, because it forbids us to see the priests as mere "bad guys," in the fashion of nearly every other Jesus movie and, alas, the Gospels themselves. Scenes like these -- and the elimination of the entire trial sequence -- seem to argue against any anti-semitic motive behind this movie.

5) During Jesus' agony in the garden, he has a vision of three moons which obviously terrifies him. What's up with this? It's never explained.

There are many other strange innovations in The Color of the Cross. The movie is disturbing and thought-provoking, although it never comes close to being Oscar material. But for those interested in the modern meaning of the Jesus story, or just interested in the history of the cinematic portrayal of that story, it's a must-see.

I think if you are sincerely looking for an experience of the Cross and the Christ of the Cross you should not spend one cent on this DVD

I loved this DVD - the alternative representation of Jesus as a black man was unique and thought-provoking. The movies' portrayal was a good one - and it lets you know that racism was alive and well a long, long time ago. Quite the eye-opener - that Jesus would have been treated badly because of his color and not just his message. Makes you think...and it's rather sad that things still haven't changed much.