The 5 Best Christian Movies Of All Time (# 2 and # 1)

Read Time: 10 minutes

In this series, I am reviewing the 5 best Christian movies of all time (that I have actually seen). In the first post, I discussed two movies that are not only two of the best sports’ films of all time, but two of the greatest Christian films of all time. In the last post, I discussed two films about missionaries, which are tied for 3rd place. Thus, the title of this series is actually somewhat deceptive, since here I will review two more films, making for a grand total of “6” movies, not “5.” In doing this, I have unintentionally (or not so unintentionally), employed an ancient biblical, literary device: numerical parallelism. Here is an example:

¹⁸ Three things are too wonderful for me;
    four I do not understand:
¹⁹ the way of an eagle in the sky,
    the way of a serpent on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
    and the way of a man with a virgin.

Proverbs 30:18-20

This “numerical parallelism” can be found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, and has the simple formula “X” and “X+1.” In this vein, I might then say: “here are the five best Christian movies of all time, no, the six greatest films about Christ ever made!” Without further ado, here are the two best movies ever made about the historical Jesus.

#2 Jesus of Nazareth (1977): Zeffirelli’s Masterpiece

Franco Zeffirelli’s 1977 made-for-TV miniseries, Jesus of Nazareth, is still the most masterful portrayal of the Gospels yet made. From the Incarnation to the Great Commission, Zeffirelli’s 386-minute hommage to our Lord and Savior exquisitely balances the transcendent Christ with the human Jesus. Of course, one central reason for this is Robert Powell’s mercurial performance as Christ. The most difficult challenge of any retelling of the Gospels is how to depict, in both narration and imagery, the theological reality of the hypostatic union. While no script, artistic direction or acting has ever been able, nor in principle would be able, to perfectly capture the full humanity and full divinity of Christ, Powell’s attempt, under Zeffirelli’s direction and Anthony Burgess’ writing, is the closest any writer-director-actor team has yet to produce.

Perhaps it is no accident that Powell’s rendering of the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith comes smack in between H.B. Warner’s sublime portrayal of Christ in Cecil B. DeMille’s epic The King of Kings (1927), and Jim Caviezel’s all-too-human Jesus in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004). Add to Powell’s stellar performance a cast of the most accomplished actors of the day– Anne Bancroft, Ernest Borgnine, Laurence Olivier, Anthony Quinn, Rod Steiger, Christopher Plummer, and an outstanding Ian Holm– and it is beyond question that Jesus of Nazareth delivers an ensemble of thespian greatness.

As to the script, the movie does justice to both the integrity of the biblical text and the human imagination. Little to nothing in Zeffirelli’s film is cause for theological concern. As with every depiction of the Gospels, many aspects of Jesus’ life and ministry had to be left out. Of course, even the author of John’s Gospel was aware of this problem, see Jn 21:25. As to the biblical material Zeffirelli includes, the pericopes he utilizes are interwoven in an excellent, and ecumenically satisfying, harmonization of the Gospels. Even the depiction of the Resurrection is done with an astute, apologetic sensibility. In the end, what Burgess and Zeffirelli add to the biblical record is chosen with great theological and historical care. This faithfulness to the revelatory material allows the movie to retain a true sense of the inspired account of Christ’s mission on earth.

Moreover, whatever artistic liberties are taken with the biblical story, they are historically reasonable and existentially quite believable. Most notable is the eminently relatable subplot of Judas (Ian McShane). In the film, Judas is neither wicked nor cruel, nor ignorant. He is shown as a man wrestling with God and the world’s realities in the most profound manner, perhaps even more so than his fellow apostles. Yet, in the end, he is woefully mistaken about the plan, purpose, and character of God. Judas’ head betrays him, just as his heart fails him.

However, Zeffirelli makes Judas so relatable to us, and his disappointment in Jesus so understandable, that one begins to recognize one’s own inner Judas. This is not a comfortable feeling. McShane’s Judas unsettles the viewer by showing that most of us would have done exactly what the historical Judas did had we been in his shoes. Judas’ temptations, so subtle and seemingly rational, are brilliantly portrayed by McShane in this scene with the priest, Zerah, played by Holm. As such, McShane’s depiction acts as a warning to all of us: we too are capable of betraying Jesus, and, in some way, we do betray Him every day.

This warning is further echoed in one of the closing scenes. After Mary Magdalene (Anne Bancroft) delivers the testimony of Jesus’ Resurrection, and Peter (James Farentino) comes to believe that Jesus has indeed risen, he delivers a powerful speech to the still dubious disciples. In this fictionalized address to the rest of the Twelve, Peter’s realization is the same as our own: indeed we do betray Christ anytime we look elsewhere for our hope and our salvation. We fail, like the Apostles, when we doubt what Christ has told us, and what the Holy Spirit continues to tell us today. In this way, just as with our predecessors, none of us is courageous enough to follow Christ all the way. At least not without the aid of God.

There are a few minor defects in Jesus of Nazareth, like the dubbing of many of the spoken lines. Zeffirelli filmed on location in Tunisia with many non-English speaking actors, and was happy to record spoken parts in studio at a later date. Other than that, there is little not to commend about Zeffirelli’s production. His eye for both the theological and the aesthetic was unparalleled (as further evidenced in this scene). Together with Powell’s intentional emphasis on the objectivity of Jesus as divine, this makes Jesus of Nazareth still the best film ever made about the Gospels.

#1 Ben-Hur, A Tale of the Christ (1959): The Best Jesus Film Ever Made

However, when it comes to the best film about Jesus, but not necessarily about the Bible, there is one movie that stands heads and shoulders above the rest. That movie is Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ. I chose William Wyler’s 1959 version for several reasons.

First, because it is by far the most recognized. Second, as fascinating as silent movies, like Fred Niblo’s 1925 Ben-Hur, are in their own right, they simply are not in the same category as modern films. If silent films were capable of being as good as auditory movies we would still be making them. But, our sense of hearing demands that any artistic representation that includes moving pictures also be accompanied by the spoken word (unless the context of the story doesn’t require it). Third, the recent 2016 remake is, well, just not worth mentioning. And, fourth, Wyler and Heston’s Ben-Hur is, objectively speaking, absolutely epic. So epic, in fact, that it was selected to the Library of Congress’ National Film Registry for being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.” And indeed, Ben-Hur is all that.

The movie is, of course, based off of Lew Wallace’s classic 1880 work of historical fiction. Many may not know this, but Wallace himself was a quite remarkable figure: a Congressional Attorney, Union General during the Civil War, Investigator of President Lincoln’s assassination, Governor of the New Mexico Territory, and U.S. Diplomat to the Ottoman Empire (1878-1881). Wallace was even celebrated as “The Savior of Cincinnati” after orchestrating the defense of the city against Confederate troops in 1862. During his time as Governor of the New Mexico territory, he even had dealings with the infamous outlaw, William Bonney, aka “Billy the Kid.”

Those are interesting credentials for the author of the book some have claimed the most influential Christian book of the 19th century (itself a pretty epic claim, given the number of classic Christian books produced in that century, Brothers Karamazov anyone?). Writing for the National Endowment for the Humanities, journalist Amy Lifson says of Wallace’s masterwork:

Since its first publication, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ has never been out of print. It outsold every book except the Bible until Gone With the Wind came out in 1936, and resurged to the top of the list again in the 1960s. By 1900 it had been printed in thirty-six English-language editions and translated into twenty others, including Indonesian and Braille.

Lifson, “The Book that Shook the World,” in Humanities November/December 2009

Lifson goes on to write that in the Victorian culture of the time, when novels and theater were considered sinful, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ, became mandatory reading “in grade school across the United States,” and was “encouraged by pastors.” It was ultimately his role as author of Ben-Hur that made Wallace a household name, not any of his military or political achievements.

As to the creation of the book, it is noteworthy that its inspiration was a conversation Wallace had with a noted skeptic, Colonel Robert Ingersoll. Ingersoll had pressed Wallace on the veracity of his faith in a chance meeting. This compelled Wallace to engage in a serious investigation of the historical material to provide a reasoned defense of the faith he claimed to adhere to. This apologetic journey has been repeated throughout the modern era, most recently by the likes of journalist and former atheist, Lee Strobel. In doing meticulous research for his book, Wallace established a precedent of historical accuracy for later writers of historical fiction (some of these details, however, were altered for the movie). More importantly though, it was through the writing of the novel that Wallace himself came to a more profound belief in God and embrace of the Christian faith:

“When I had finished that,” Wallace confessed, “I said to myself with Balthasar, ‘God only is so great.’ I had become a believer.”

in Lifson, “The Book that Shook the World”

While the movie, as long as it is, greatly compresses the 8-volume novel, it still captures the main sequences and most poignant features of the book. Most significantly, the movie faithfully captures the genius of Wallace’s work. Wallace’s literary innovation, one born out of the concern to not falsely represent the biblical Jesus, was to make Jesus a cameo figure in the novel. This plot device, which the movie captures with perfect nuance, shifts the emphasis from the details of the Gospels to how Christ affects those outside of the Gospel’s historical narrative. It is through Ben-Hur’s periodic encounters with Christ in his (Hur’s) life, and how those encounters shape him and those around him, that both novel and film are able to capture equally the historicity of Jesus and the universality of the Christ. Paraphrasing Abraham Erlanger, the first producer of Ben-Hur on stage, Christ only appears as “a beam of light on stage,” not as an actor in the play.

Then, of course, there is the simple fact that Wyler’s 1959 version marks the absolute pinnacle of Hollywood movie magic. Before CGI, there were literally “casts of thousands,” and scenes that could cost stunt-doubles their lives, or at least real injury (although it is only a rumor that a stuntman lost his life in the famous chariot scene). The spectacle of Ben-Hur is incomparable in cinematic history. The screenplay, the cinematography, the acting, soundtrack and effects established the contemporary gold standard for historical epics. As such, not only does the film “represent” Christ more powerfully than any other to date, it raises the most profound and universal questions of human existence: friendship, family bonds, injustice, vengeance, the problem of evil, power and government, and, of course, redemption.

This engagement with history’s deepest and most universal themes is captured in a scene of singular brilliance. Toward the culmination of the film, Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston),  after defeating his life-long rival, Messela (Stephen Boyd) in the famed chariot race, is called to an audience with Pontius Pilate (Frank Thring). In the scene, a dialogue ensues between Pilate and Ben-Hur about the nature of man and his existential striving. Struggling between his adoption by Arrius, the Roman Consul he saved in battle, and his Jewish identity, Ben-Hur rejects Pilate’s offer to “return to Rome” as Young Arrius, inheritor of the gifts and privilege of Roman citizenship. Countering Ben-Hur’s principled stance of defiance, Pilate’s pragmatism is genuinely provocative: “The grown man knows the world he lives in,” says Pilate, “and for the present that world is Rome.”

Elevated dialogue like this is hardly possible in today’s world of woke moviemaking, with its emphasis on the purely sensate aspects of humanity and its postmodern rejection all meta-narratives (which is, ironically, itself a narrative). In conclusion, Ben-Hur is still the best fictional work about the historical Christ of faith: both in its original, literary form, as well as in its 1959 cinematic rendition.

Honorable Mention

There are some other films worth mentioning to conclude this series on the 6 “Best” Christian movies of all time. They are the two silent films: The King of Kings (1927) and Ben-Hur (1925), The Hiding Place (1975), The Passion of the Christ (2006) and, most recently, Hacksaw Ridge (2016). Of course, I cannot write about movies I have not seen, but other commentators on the previous posts have also mentioned Andrei Rublev (1966), Tender Mercies (1983) and Sergeant York (1941).

Featured Image (Jesus of Nazareth Poster): By http://www.horroria.com/i/nposters_orig/01/87/18700-9E.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28334559