Fresh and Exciting

Absolutely brilliant

A Disappointing Continuation

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Each film about the Savior is a challenge. because it propose the vision of director against your vision. and all is only a problem of faith. in this case, the situation is little different. because "Jesus" propose a simple thing - accuracy to the Gospel according to Saint Luke. the right atmosphere. good performances. not a show. but the confession of faith . sure, in Romania , it has the fame to be the film of neo-protestants from the early "90 period of conversions. but it has a virtue - the honesty. and a kind of simplicity who is more than moving. a film about the Lord. not a demonstration. only one of useful films reminding the word of an old message out of desire to convince. and it works in admirable way.

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

Here in the Bible belt of the United States, particularly in our Southern Baptist churches, when you say the name "Jesus Christ," most of us envision such a person as Brian Deacon, who stars as the title character of "Jesus" (1979). The plot of "Jesus" is generally well-known even by non-believers. The opening scene displays John 3:16-17 from the King James Version. Though the film claims to be entirely from The Gospel of St. Luke, it also mixes elements from Matthew's Gospel (i.e.: a more complete Lord's Prayer said by Christ and the use of the trinitarian baptismal formula). Sadly, the acting in "Jesus" is almost as wooden as the oil-painted icons of the Eastern Church. Brian Deacon delivers a sort of solemn, meek interpretation of Jesus of Nazareth--making the scene in which he casts out the money-changers from the temple--look as if he is only frustrated, and not righteously angry. However, in the film's defense, the acting in "Jesus" is much more a product of its time in that this was generally accepted as to how Jesus acted. "Jesus" is perhaps one of the greatest films ever made, not because of its production values or acting, but because of its content. This 80-minute film, translated into God knows how many languages, has communicated the Gospel to millions all across the globe. "Jesus," the forerunner of such films as "The Gospel of John" (2003) and "The Passion of the Christ" (2004), is one of the finest examples of evangelical film-making. Recommended for everyone.

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.