This movie possesses admirable qualities and an air of realism, making it worthy of another viewing. Cinema has consistently focused on Jesus Christ throughout its history; whether one is religious or not, He remains the most influential person in human history. Nearly everyone recognizes Him, can recall something He said, or knows what His face looks like—at least, the way Europeans began to depict Him, disregarding any resemblance to the actual man. This film acts as a sequel of sorts to “The Passion of the Christ,” though it’s not part of the established canon. As expected, it centers on events surrounding the resurrection and follows a Roman tribune who is tasked by Pilate with investigating these reports and finding the missing body. This isn't necessarily intended for atheists or non-Christians, as it takes the resurrection as fact, which reinforces Jesus’s divinity and fulfills prophecies concerning the awaited messiah of the Jewish people. Despite a subtle sense of religious persuasion, I don’t believe it will be unpleasant for even moderate nonbelievers. The story closely parallels “Acts of the Apostles,” recounting the events between Christ's crucifixion and His ascension to Heaven in body and spirit. Having studied the text extensively and being a devout Catholic, I am fairly content with this adaptation, which presents everything from the viewpoint of the Romans rather than the Christians. For a biblical film, it’s surprisingly understated. Biblical movies have largely abandoned grand spectacle, so there aren't elaborate special effects or huge budgets. Director Kevin Reynolds aimed for maximum realism and an authentic, historically accurate portrayal. I commend this effort and acknowledge that the movie has merit in this regard. Even Jesus appears ordinary for much of the film; it’s the reactions of His followers that most clearly reveal His impact and significance. The sets and costumes are well-done, avoiding a cheap or exaggerated look, and filming on location in Spain and Malta enhances the sense of authenticity. When there's uncertainty about specific details (such as precisely how Jesus was crucified), the movie attempts to present a realistic depiction consistent with established religious teachings. Joseph Fiennes delivers an excellent performance as the Roman tribune; his charm makes him engaging and draws you into his search. Tom Felton provides welcome support, while Peter Firth avoids caricature in his portrayal of Governor Pilate, depicting him as a bored bureaucrat simply trying to do his job in a difficult corner of the Empire. Cliff Curtis portrays Jesus as peaceful, serene, charismatic, and magnetic—but also notably human and relatable. Antonio Gil, Maria Botto, and Stewart Scudamore all contribute positively as some of the foundational figures of Christianity. Surprisingly, the film didn't achieve lasting success: it was moderately successful at the box office and in physical release, and garnered generally favorable reviews. It’s odd that a 2016 film hasn't gained more recognition in Europe and is essentially unknown to European audiences. I believe that even though it isn’t unforgettable, its qualities still warrant revisiting it now.

Source on TMDB