SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

GarnettTeenage The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Morten_5 Pier Paolo Pasolini is considered by many film critics one of the greatest directors in the history of Italian cinema. "The Gospel According to St. Matthew" is the first of his films that I have watched. What strikes me is the combined beauty and simplicity - the composition, the art direction, the costume design, the cinematography and the music. Shot mostly in Italy, with some scenes filmed in Ouarzazate, Morocco, this is an interpretation of the life of Christ well worth watching.

Eric Stevenson I don't know how I missed watching what is considered to be one of the best movies based on the Bible ever created. I think it might just be because I have seen so many of these movies that I didn't give this the full 10 stars. Don't kill me! I still loved the movie! I just personally find something like "The Gospel Of John" to be better. This is still a classic movie and more people should learn about it. I guess it's weird to describe a movie retelling Jesus' life when we all know it already. What's interesting is that this film was made in tribute to Pope John XXIII who died the previous year.As it's literally Italian, it's one of the best representations of Jesus that the Vatican could ask for. What's weird is that I did research on the director, Pier Paolo Pasolini whom I was surprised to find out was actually a gay atheist! He was also a Marxist and it's said Jesus was portrayed more like that in this version. I still find it to be an authentic representation of the Bible. It's really interesting to see black and white films made at this time. It was when color films were starting to really get popular. The quality really does look great here. Does Jesus have a unibrow? ***1/2

J5iftY5iveXtreme You've created one of the strangest yet most memorable films about Jesus Christ! Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Il Vangelo secondo Matteo" is an interesting film. A film based solely on the Book of Matthew in the New Testament, filmed using ancient ruins, and featuring a cast comprised entirely of the local townspeople--e.g., non-professionals (the director's own mother even plays the older Virgin Mary). Most intriguing of all, Pasolini himself was not only Marxist but an avowed atheist whose previous films had gotten him arrested on charges of blasphemy.But whatever he may be, Pasolini did make this film--and it is a good thing he did.This is considered one of the most accurate and reverential portrayals of Jesus Christ on screen. Personally, I think it's one of the strangest and most bizarre. Nevertheless, it's one of the most unique, interesting, and creative Jesus films ever! It's not hard to tell that the budget wasn't that big. This film lacks the big, elaborate sets and costumes of many other Jesus movies. But this is the film's strength. In lacking any pomp or grandiosity that often afflicts many historical epics, Pasolini's "Matthew" is able to have a gritty realism that reminds us of the harsh realities of that time. One must remember that Jesus was not a rich man in fine clothes, and neither were most of the people of his time. They did not live in fine mansions of marble. They wore worn-out clothes and lived in worn-out hovels.That's what we're seeing in this film. The people are the real peasants of southern Italy. Their faces are not pretty and some are seen with crooked teeth. Whereas many Hollywood epics use their big budget to turn hunks and glamor girls into homely peasants, this film has no need of such because the people being portrayed are the real deal.That is not to say that this film is authentic. Some of the costumes look medieval, and some of the buildings look more Gothic than First-Century Judea. The men's hairstyles are obviously modern, and many of them are in need of more facial hair, especially the actor playing John the Baptist. The scene in which Herod's soldiers massacre the innocents of Bethlehem is rather silly. Nonetheless, this film is able to portray something, and that is the harsh reality of those times.It's actually good that all of the actors are non-professionals. There are no big names. The viewer won't be bothered by the sight of an all-too-recognizable face pretending to be someone else. When it's Jesus or Mary that's supposed to be on the screen, it's Jesus and Mary and not the actors playing them.Enrique Irazoqui was the perfect choice to play Jesus. Only 19 at that time he was chosen for the role, he looks much older than that. His Jesus is so dignified, so regal even through his peasant's clothing, so commanding of a presence. This portrayal of Jesus is often described as being of a "revolutionary." This is probably closer to how Jesus may have been like compared to many other movies. This was a man, after all, who championed the poor and weak and spoke out against the authorities of that time.When he preaches, he's not some stoic, mild-mannered philosopher, he's impassioned, fiery, and forceful. He's almost shouting when he's declaring "Blessed are the poor in spirit." This is someone who's worth giving your attention to. For the most part, though, he is solemn and calm, with a kind of a quiet majesty that exudes wisdom. When he's with children or healing the sick, he radiates with so much warmth and compassion. When denouncing the Pharisees and other religious leaders, his condemnation is fierce and unflinching. And in the garden of Gethsemane praying for his Heavenly Father to take the cup away from him, he is calm and still, yet his eyes are teary. This is a beautifully subtle way of showing Jesus's internal torment at the prospect of death. Irazoqui's performances is one worth commending! This film has probably the most authentic Mary on screen, both young and old. The young one is a humble village girl, and the old one is clear an elderly lady. They are both earthly and unadorned.No one should forget to mention the music used in this film. It is one of the most interesting aspects. The score relies on borrowed samples from several different artists. I thought that the use of Odetta's "Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child" was strange. What really worked were Sebastian Bach's "Mass In B Minor" and "St. Matthew Passion" as well as Missa Luba's "Gloria." It was a good choice to include Bach's music in the movie soundtrack as classical music is often associated with anything religious. When it plays during the Baptism scene, it it just beautiful. In the Crucifixion scene, it brings out a sweeping, majestic grandeur. It's powerful, just powerful. Adding just as much power to the film is the "Gloria" chorus by Missa Luba. Missa Luba, a Congolese version of the Latin mass, was quite a strange choice--yet it was a pleasant surprise. Using African tribal chants, it does make one think of African American Gospel choirs. And in its use for a movie such as this with a religious theme, it not only works well, it gives it an uniquely model twist! It was right for it to play during the Resurrection scene. It's upbeat, joyful, and glorious and triumphant."The Gospel According to St. Matthew" is an epic movie. It lacks a big budget, giant sets, fancy costumes, and endless crowds of thousands. But what it lacks in these aspects it more than makes up for in its sweeping feel and majesty that is as genuine as it is austere.

tomgillespie2002 From 1903's Passion play, to Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic gore festival, The Passion of the Christ (2004), the story of Jesus as written in the new testament has been a cinematic staple since the start, and whilst there are many variations and interpretations, they have largely been produced by absolute believers. However, after a visit to Pope John XXII, who in the early 1960's was reaching out to non-Catholic artists, and a reading of the gospels, the Italian film maker, Pier Paolo Pasolini - vocal atheist, homosexual, and Marxist, - undertook a quite direct, and literal interpretation of the story of Christ. But unlike the usual productions of this narrative, Pasolini's film has none of the dramatic inventions of a more "mystical" interpretation such as The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), which was produced a year after this with a huge budget, starring Charlton Heston, and made under the machinations of the Hollywood system.At this stage in Pasolini's career, he was still working within the neo- realist trend that had perpetuated in Italy in the post-war years. He brings this more loose style of film making to this "great" story. What he also brings is another trend of this movement, which was the use of non-actors. But fundamental to the directors work, and particularly this film, is his political views. His depiction of Jesus is that of a political thinker, and an advocate of social justice. The choice to watch this film at this time was purely coincidental, but it dawned upon me the significance of the message. In a week in politics in the United Kingdom where our current government's budget revealed heavy cuts to the taxes of the very rich, whilst the poor of the country are told to live in austerity, there is a very simple line spoken by Jesus (Enrique Irazoqui) - which should have been utilised by the occupy camp that was moved away from St Paul's Cathedral in central London, he states: "It would be easier for a camel to get in the kingdom of heaven, than it would be for a rich man."Whilst I consider myself an Atheist, the message of these gospels are very clear, and yet we still live in a world where the rich get richer, and the catholic church gets sickeningly richer. To use a very tired, and over used statement in popular culture: What would Jesus do? If there were to be a second coming, surely he would not be pleased. Anyway, I digress. I believe that some of this may be Pasolini's point. If the story of Jesus were true, then his message was clear, and even if he never even lived, the fact of the matter is that his message is clear, and yet the people who follow his teachings largely simply ignore this and interpret to whatever means they feel is right.As previously stated the film is shot in the cinema verite style and this helps give the story not only realism, but a gravitas that is lost in the more lavish productions. The film looks absolutely beautiful, and this is helped by the incredible southern Italian setting, which adds a seeming reality. Without question, this is the greatest film of the story of Christ, and clearly influenced the later Martin Scorsese film The Last Temptation of Christ (1988). Even if you (as I am) are not a believer, this film is more about the crimes of social injustice, and the division caused by wealth. Essential film making.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com