Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Eric Stevenson Most movies based on Jesus or the Bible in general would be fairly well known, if only because the majority of them are controversial like "The Last Temptation Of Christ" or "The Passion Of The Christ". Here we have a film that seems to have slipped the minds of most people because it basically did everything that the Bible says. I can't really summarize it as it is mostly a word for word adaptation. If you ask me what my favorite movie featuring Jesus would be, it would be "Ben-Hur" or "Intolerance". Of course, those movies didn't focus primarily on Jesus. What makes this film so significant is that it has been translated into more languages than any other movie in history! You'd think at least the people at my church would mention that! How appropriate I would see this on Sunday! Probably what made me gives this film higher than eight stars is how they accurately portrayed his crucifixion. The Passion Of The Christ got it wrong by showing him being impaled in his palms. This movie got it right as the palms alone would not be enough to hold up his body. The Passion is probably a better movie as it is better acted. I'll just call this by its name "Jesus". There's even an interesting message at the end about salvation and the true influence of this guy.I remember back when I was younger and it seemed like everyone around me was religious and now it seems like no one is. Well, that's not quite true. It seems more like every famous person in the world isn't and is against religion. A lot more comedians are critics of religion than actual scientists! I have heard every obnoxious joke about imaginary friends or that stupid Flying Spaghetti Monster or it's like a comic book or any of the other fifty trillion jokes. If you want to sincerely know if there's something nice only a religious person can do, it's this. You might convince people not to become religious if you can find valid criticism of...Mr. Rogers. Just ignore Christopher Hitchens' books on hating every single religious person in existence and remember this. Mr. Rogers was told to speak down to people of other religions and gays, but instead he went up to them, "God loves you the way you are".I can never stop anyone from saying that. ***1/2

Miles-10 The costumes, settings and sets are good attempts at period authenticity, giving the film an initially promising look. The actor playing Jesus, however, is unable to bring off the challenging role that has to make or break the picture, although supporting actors such as the one in the role of Peter are better.Making a movie based on a single gospel--in this case, Luke--is a good idea, in my opinion, because blending the four canonical gospels into a composite story, as is done more often, leads to inauthentic interpretation. By focusing on one gospel, you at least have the chance of presenting the story as it is presented in that gospel. Having said that, I must say that this movie's inconstancy had me rolling my eyes. It opens and ends with quotations from the Gospel of John. The viewer is thereby led to assume that Luke's view of Jesus is exactly the same as John's, which it is not. Meanwhile, some speeches have been shortened here and there. The filmmakers have said so often that this movie is an authentic presentation of the Gospel of Luke that viewer comments often reflect the opinion that the filmmakers have prompted, but that does not make it true. This is not an exactly faithful presentation of Luke. And I am not requiring that every word of the text be used, which I know would be way too much verbiage. I think this movie betrays Luke's account, often unnecessarily, though it is also often understandable because of the difficulties involved in adapting a well known text like this to the screen. The New Testament texts often can be so static that they can be dramatized only by risking interpreting them. The use in this movie of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (actually more on a plain in the Gospel of Luke) while having Jesus walk around interacting with his listeners is dramatic but it gives the filmmakers plenty of opportunities to interpret Jesus' sayings in ways that might not have been intended by Luke. Also, as the plot moves along in this way, additional dialog is actually added to stitch scenes together. Additional dialog is unavoidable in some scenes because there is often indirect rather than direct dialog in the gospels that nevertheless needs to be conveyed, but the filmmakers unwittingly interpret the text in this way.Early in the film, when Jesus gives the sermon from the boat at Lake Gennesaret, the drama in the situation is actually missed by the filmmakers. The crowd should be clamoring and pressing on him at the shore, which is his motivation for getting into the boat to deliver his sermon. Here, it seems more as if Jesus could have made his speech on the beach but gets in the boat as a pointless stunt.In the movie, the Gennesaret scene, which corresponds to Luke chapter 5, includes the parable of the pharisee and tax collector, but Luke does not tell what Jesus said in this sermon. That parable comes from chapter 18 in Luke. Then there follows the miracle of the catch of fish, which, indeed, belongs to Luke at this point in the narrative (chapter 5). In Luke there follows a series of healings performed in various towns (Luke arguably gives too many miracles piled on each other, and this would be a longer movie if these were all presented), but then the movie presents the raising of Jairus' daughter, which, in Luke actually belongs in chapter 8, not 5. Where did this come from? It turns out that Mark puts Jairus' daughter in the next chapter after the sermon from the boat and much sooner than Luke. So The filmmakers are again resorting to another gospel instead of Luke!If I am saying that I could do better, I am also saying that the task of adapting the gospels is obviously very difficult and any alternative attempt to dramatize the Gospel of Luke or any other gospel would displease someone else as much as this one displeases me.

John Ruffle From a motion picture perspective, the "Jesus" film is primitive and flawed for audiences who are familiar with cinematic convention. From a biblical story-telling perspective however, it is brilliant. I'm therefore rating it at just "5" - half-way between love and hate, as I shall explain in this review.That the producers achieved what they set out to do is indisputable: it's the most watched movie of all time. That the film is clear and truthful to the Gospel account of Luke is indisputable. That we need to consider the intended audience is also indisputable. Released just two years after Zeffirelli's magnificent masterpiece, "Jesus of Nazareth", this film comes across as is a lifeless clone... IF you've seen the Zeffirelli film, that is.But what if you haven't -- what if you couldn't; maybe because you live in the jungle some place away from TV sets and westernised living? Then some chaps come into your village, set up a sheet between trees, wait for dark and then display these "magic pictures". NOW which film is the most powerful? The tables are turned, and all of a sudden, the "Jesus" film comes out tops. The film is not sophisticated, but it's not meant to be. Its power is not due to the imagery, but due to the Word of God that it illustrates.Now, what about all the narration? It makes it sound like one of those old 16 mm "Fact and Faith" films that my maths teacher showed in school way back. Like an old newsreel. For a start, narration makes the translators' tasks much easier- it is, after all, the most translated film in history. However, during the climax, we actually loose the narrator altogether - a very unusual device, and I'm still not sure if it works that way or not. If I was cynical, I'd say the narrator went off for a coffee break, but I think they did it that way to help draw the audience, sitting spellbound on the hard earth, more into the story. The idea of any cinematic style has long left the screen, so it probably really doesn't matter, and on the primitive level, it certainly works.Again, desperately failing not to be cynical, I see this film as perhaps the Protestant answer to the Catholic "Jesus of Nazareth" that it desperately tries to copy in part, and which was released just two years earlier. It reflects the fundamentalist ethos that it's okay to "use" film for religious purposes, but it is not okay to be absorbed by it. Art can be tolerated so long as the message is loud and clear. I don't mean to be cruel or mean; I admire and respect the folks who made this. However, I guess I just fail to understand why the producers were not able to get a few more talented people to guide the project to completion. It is a prime example of blinkered movie vision. In the end, it doesn't really matter, however, because the purpose of the film is to help non-Christians encounter Christ himself in his resurrection power - not to have a great night out.As a side note, I have figured out a way to really enjoy this movie. Get something useful to do like washing the dishes or painting a wall. Then, put the movie on in the same room, and listen to the soundtrack as you work, and forget it even has moving pictures. The film makes excellent audio, and it has a wonderful added bonus: whenever you get really curious, all you need to do is take a peek at the screen, and low and behold, as if by magic, there's a moving picture of what you've just been listening to! A quite awesome way of listening to the Bible on tape. Because the visuals are almost entirely incidental, you can "listen" to the movie and not miss a thing!On this film, I'm really sitting on the fence. For achieving what it set out to do, which is basically tell the story of Jesus to primitive audiences, I'd rate it 10 out of 10. As a film, with any depth of artistic talent, I have to be honest and give it a 1 out of 10. So I have to settle for a 5 rating. Which is one higher that the 4 that I hated myself for originally giving it, before writing this review and finding a valid reason to mark it up at least one notch.

johnjhafs This was, I thought, the best cinematic summary of the life of Christ I have yet seen. Brian Deacon, who portrays Jesus, looks the part and speaks with quiet authority. His interaction with children in the movie gives a moving picture of the tenderness of Christ. The words of Christ are given in modern translation making it easy for the viewer to understand the language. Simon Peter (Niko Nitai) looks the part and acts it well. The movie allows about the same amount for the last week of Christ's life as does the gospel (about 25%). While not a perfect movie (nothing on earth is perfect), this is a delightful one. If you are looking for an accurate picture of Christ which accords well with the Bible, this is it!