“Give me one hour,” Jesus tells Peter, “and I will give you a whole new life.” After more than two hours of crapulous meandering, “Son of God” changes nothing — least of all Christian voices in Hollywood.

A PATCHWORK OF JESUS' GREATEST HITS 

This is a holey story — Jesus’ “greatest hits” clashed together in a confusing narrative that strips words and miracles out from rich context. If this movie is made for evangelism, it is a patchwork tract, babbling incoherently and without focus. Events and dialogue are mutated together without regard to their relevance or history. Can this movie be understood without biblical knowledge? It is a cumbersome montage of whitewashed tombs. If you look for storytelling basics to help you understand, you’ll be disappointed. What is the plot? What does this Jesus want? Why the overuse of flashbacks? Who are these characters that jump in and out with no introduction and no development?

Instead, maybe the filmmakers wanted to strengthen a believer’s faith. But if so, there are too many questions. Why is Jesus so boring? Why is he so distant and unable to have any deep relationships with the disciples? Why is he played by a Portuguese model? Why does the most intelligent man to ever live seem shocked by everything? Why does Jesus seem surprised that he is going to die? Did he not come to die? Is he just forgetful? Why does he storm out of the passover meal like an angsty teenager? How come the resurrection feels like just another cool trick Jesus did in his life? Why is the resurrection hacked of its kingdom inaugurating power? Is this Jesus actually loving, or is he just a nice buddy that was unfortunately killed? Is this Jesus the Lord? Is this Jesus worth following?

FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF JOHN'S GOSPEL 

Told from the perspective of John the Apostle on Patmos, “Son of God” more or less follows John’s Gospel. When I first walked out of the theater I thought, “This is a middle-of-the-road, blasé rental for those with a mild interest in Bible epics.” Some interpretations are magnificent, like Jesus kissing the cross. But few are these beautiful images. Are they worth slumming through the movie? Is this why moviegoers were checking their phones during the crucifixion? The more I think about it, the more the injustices surface. There is goodwill here, but it is a negligent misdirection of money, talent and passion — a Cane-like sacrifice. It forces conversation about the movie’s shortcomings and not about Jesus’ overcomings.

Producers Mark Burnett and his wife, Roma Downey, desolate imagination to avoid risks and misinterpretation. When reverence beats out creativity, this mess is what happens. In fearing the ambiguous, faithfulness sacrifices cultivation for heavy-handed clarity. It crucifies Jesus. He taught in vague stories but the movie paints in black and white. The Romans are children-killing jerks. The Pharisees are cardboard cutout antagonists. There is no nuance. Aren’t we all susceptible to evil? Isn’t that why he came? The good news is a grand story, and Jesus is grander. Maybe he is too grand for cinema.

Many will say “Son of God” is not terrible. Many will say this movie made them reconsider their faith in Jesus and love for God. Many will be invigorated into repentance. Many will be challenged to love. But do the ends justify the means? Why can’t we have both? It might not be terrible, but it is not good — and that is where the problem is. If you dare to display the Christ on this large of a stage, any lukewarm representation should make us gag. Jesus deserves so much more.