UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Drama >

The Final Inquiry

The Final Inquiry (2007)

April. 02,2007
|
5.2
| Drama History

It is the year 33 of the Vulgar Era. The Emperor Tiberius is troubled by strange phenomena, an earthquake and the sky turning black as an eclipse. His astrologers give him fair warning: their omens indicate that the world is in the throes of a great upheaval and that old gods have been annihilated. A new kingdom is about to rise in the East. The Emperor calls Tito Valerio Tauro, the most prominent

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Micitype
2007/04/02

Pretty Good

More
ShangLuda
2007/04/03

Admirable film.

More
Roman Sampson
2007/04/04

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

More
Jonah Abbott
2007/04/05

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

More
Maziun
2007/04/06

This is a remake of a 1986 film directed by Damiano Damiani, with Harvey Keitel , Keith Carradine and Phyllis Logan. Well , actually it's a very loose remake - the title, basic premise, and name of the lead character are all that remain. I haven't seen the 80's original , but some praise it as a clever little thriller.When I look at the story here I see a potential for an intriguing and touching thriller about faith. Unfortunately what we get is badly acted and directed movie that it's almost impossible to watch. There is no suspense and the pacing is dreadful . The acting as I already mentioned is weak – only Dolph Lundgren and Max von Sydow give decent performances. It's interesting to see Lundgren here. He's well casted and does provide some action to the movie , even if he's a supporting character. I'm wondering what he is doing here. This movie has been produced by Nu Image – the same studio that Lundgren has been making his last crappy action movies. Was it part of his contract or did he simply wanted to do something different for his career ? I guess will never know. Not that it matters.The music for this movie was composed by somebody named Morricone. Maybe he is related to Ennio Morricone ? I don't know. It's a really nice music and the best part of the movie. I give it 1/10.

More
ma-cortes
2007/04/07

In 35 A.D. , an overconfident Roman tribune named Tito Valerio (Daniel Liotti) is sent to a remote part of the empire called Palestine to on a bizarre investigation to discover the death and possible resurrection of a certain Jesus from Nazareth , only to attract the suspicion of the local governor Pontius Pilate (Shopov) . This is the thrilling tale of one man's quest accompanied by a hunk barbarian slave (Dolph Lundgren) to uncover the mystery of all mysteries and while an official cover-up is presumed . A Roman agent is sent by emperor Tiberio (Max Von Sydow) to Palestine to investigate rumors of the resurrection of an executed criminal . Sent to disprove the resurrection and on a spiritual quest , he discovers faith , love (to Monica Cruz who looks exactly like Penelope as physical as acting) and a revelation that could shatter the empire . The tribune is taken prisoner and submitted a set-up . Interesting story treating the resurrection of Jesus Christ with intrigue , suspense , a love story and adding historical events . As appears several historic characters as Tiberius , Caligula , Pontius Pilate , Apostle Peter finely performed by Enrico Lo Verso , Saulus of Tarsus well played by Fernando Guillen Cuervo , Maria mother of Jesus and Maria Magdalena in a brief acting by Ornella Muti . I found the film's motif a timeless subject , engaging and handled very skillfully too . Being conceived as both a theatrical film and a TV movie and treatment by the famous author of best-sellers about ancient world named Valerio Manfredini . The story from Suso Cecchi D'Amico and Ennio Flaiano even had an exclusive one-week theatrical engagement in Dallas , Texas . It's an acceptable treatment of the political and religious thought-world of the time , convincingly developed and the intent of the filmmakers is ultimately both ambitious and entertaining . The biggest weakness of the movie is the acting . Daniel Liotti as hard-nosed investigator and Dolph Lundgren as bouncing illiterate both deliver some stiff line-readings . But Liotti ultimately rises to the occasion , especially in the crucial last half-hour . Max Von Sidow is a credible emperor Tiberio who sends Daniel Liotti off on a dangerous mission . The picture has a Christian point of view that holds interest , while the former adaptation had offbeat and ambiguous resolution . The production was supported of a 500,000 Euros grant from the European Council fund Eurimages . It's an European co-production among various countries but specially Italy and Spain by producer Enrique Cerezo . Atmospheric musical score by Andrea Morricone in similar style to her father Ennio . Colorful and evocative cinematography by Giovanni Galasso , the filming took place for eight weeks in Tunisia and one week in Bulgaria . The motion picture is professionally directed by Giulio Base . Giulio is an expert on Television religious biopics and Roman spectacles such as he has proved in ¨Padre Pio¨ , ¨Maria Goretti¨ , ¨San Pietro¨ , ¨Pompeii¨ and of course , ¨The final inquiry¨ .The original version titled ¨Inquire¨ (1987) treated the Resurrection as a mystery thriller , directed by Damiano Damiani was starred by Keith Carradine as Tito Valerio and Harvey Keitel as Pontius Pilate and Phyllis Logan as Claudia Procula who in the recent rendition is performed by Anna Kanakis . This 1987 picture was engaging , thought-provoking , violent and gritty but but sadly was ultimately rather flat and dull and had box office flop , however this new retelling (2006) is more commercial , more amusing and aimed for all kind of public as teens as adults .

More
Linda G
2007/04/08

Well… at least the music was good. I had such hopes for this film but was quickly disappointed. It includes some well known, good actors mixed with some that they must have picked up off the street. The two primary lead actors (Daniele Liotti and Mónica Cruz) provide both visual appeal and good acting though better directing could have enhanced the final output. The directing and editing are so bad that I am convinced either their budget was seriously in deficit or they half-heartedly approached the project. So much good have been done with the storyline to show the aftermath of Christ's crucifixion that the #1 proof for the resurrection is that the disciples who scattered in fear suddenly became courageous and willing to speak the truth of having seen the risen Christ knowing that this admission would mean certain persecution, torture and death. Sadly, this movie only hints at the truth and instead brings in fiction that wasn't needed. The truth is incredible enough.The movie is weak, lacks conviction, and is a disappointment. The only true redeeming quality is the soundtrack.

More
al-eaton
2007/04/09

First, I was unaware that this was a re-make. If the first movie is on DVD, I'll try it to see any difference. As to this movie (2006), I am going to write my usual bug-aboo about historical accuracy and the movies.I wish just once that a film set in the period of Yeshua/Jesus would depict the Jewish people with a less than jaundiced - read: historically inaccurate - eye. I was confronted at the very opening of this film with yet another scene of "crazed Jews" stoning a woman for adultery. According to some extensive research on this period, I have learned that the imposition of the death penalty in ancient Jewish society was rare and could only be undertaken under very controlled conditions. For example, a woman caught in adultery was not automatically put to death. Both she and her husband had to appear before the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem - and only this body, with the consent of every single member, could actually pronounce the death sentence. One "no" vote and there was an acquittal. The husband could forgive his wife and take her back and that was the end of it. Or he could divorce her. If she was freed and committed adultery again, then the matter would be returned to the High Court. Trials took three days: testimony and evidence on the first day; deliberation by the court on the second, and the third day reserved for the verdict. This third day was meant as a "cooling off period" to avoid a rush to judgment. The sentence upon conviction was not always death. None of this "crazed outrage" in the streets followed by an angry stoning as depicted in this film. It is also said that any Sanhedrin that passed two death sentences within 7 years was called a "bloody Sanhedrin." In other words, the Jewish people had made a deliberate attempt to provide justice in an orderly and civilized way. To depict them as simply a bunch of "crazies" running about the streets like blood-crazed savages is nothing more than pure propaganda.One other note on the trial, each member of the court had a small pebble - a stone - that they tossed (cast) into a large pot. The stones were then counted to reach a verdict. This is what is meant by the phrase: "Let those among you who are blameless (without malice; pure of heart) cast the first stone." Further, no Sanhedrin would meet to hold a "trial" - especially one involving a potential death sentence - within three days BEFORE and three days AFTER a religious holiday. This is because of the three-day trial concept. Therefore, Jesus couldn't be tried and convicted on the same day. As far as this movie is concerned, it is a standard Christian story told with some reverence for the faith, although it is not entirely original in it's story line. Compare it with "The Robe" (1953) where a Roman soldier (Richard Burton) is sent by the Emperor Tiberias to find the "true" story of what happened in Jerusalem. That Roman is cynical at first but, through the miracle of Peter saving a young woman (played then by Debra Paget), the soldier converts to Christianity.

More