The Jesus Film


Action / Biography / Drama / Family / History

Plot summary

Uploaded by: FREEMAN


Top cast

Rula Lenska Photo
Rula Lenska as Herodias
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
1.06 GB
English 2.0
23.976 fps
1 hr 57 min
P/S ...
2.05 GB
English 2.0
23.976 fps
1 hr 57 min
P/S ...

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by john-ruffle5 / 10

Half-Way Between Love and Hate

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.

Reviewed by ma-cortes7 / 10

The story of the most influential life in history with a dramatic and enjoyable recreation of Jesus Christ

This highly regarded but unknown epic deals with Christ life , performed by non-professional cast and shot on location in Israel at authentic biblical sites . Stripped of myth and mystery , this religious story results to be a colorful version of Jesus Christ's life with a true treatment and inspirational drama . Being spectacularly shot in 1979 and profesionally directed by John Krish and Peter Sykes with unknown cast giving larger-than-life interpretations from the Bibical roles . The engaging and historical story of Jesus of Nazareth , the man you thought you knew , being raised by a Jewish carpenter and ending with his death by crucifixion at the hands of the Roman empire and resurrection on the third day . Chronicles efficiently the attractive life and ministry of Jesus Christ from the Annunciation , Crucifixion , Resurrection , and the Ascention . Interesting retelling at the life and teachings of Christ well played by Brian Deacon , from a historical and spiritual view point . The film includes all of the major events referred to in the New Testament with descriptive Biblical passages . Based on the Gospel of Luke in the New Testament, here is the life of Jesus , the son of God , from the miraculous virgin birth to the calling of his disciples , public miracles and ministry . Being well reenacted his birth in Bethlehem and visit by three Magician Kings who , subsequently , go to the Palace of Herodes the Great . His existence in desert for 40 days tempted by Satan , there he knows he has a destiny to fulfill ; his baptism by John the Baptist ; the miracles , such as : cripples walking , the epileptic boy , blind men seeing ; the fishes and the loaves ; Lazarus' resurrection , Transfiguration of Moses and Elijah with Jesus , Simon of Cyrene's appearance ; his relationship to 12 apostles and so on . Jesus Christ's journey from Galilee to Crucifixion in Golgotha is portrayed here in thought-provoking as well as agreeable treatment . And usual scenes with the historical , Biblical characters , such as : Virgin Mary , Jose , Elizabeth , John the Baptist ,Herod Antipas , Herodias , Mary Magdalene , Bartholomew , Simon Zelotes , Pontius Pilate , Caiaphas , Apostle Peter , Judas Iscariot , Matthew , Philip , Zacchaeus ,Joseph of Arimathea, Simon of Cyrene , Nicodemus, and many others.

This is a decently made and impressive -though slow-moving- story of the life of Jesus Christ from his birth in Bethlehem to his Crucifixion and subsequent Resurrection . It is a religious and anguishing epic where the eternal questions of faith and doubt become resolved . Life of Christ is intelligently told , based on Gospel of St Luke and other source writings . Stars a serious and good-looking television actor named Brian Deacon in exactly the right role , he gives a dedicated effort at the role , his acting has power , nobility and subtlety . Being a medium-budgeted production , this breathtaking Biblical movie turns out to be filmed on a scale enough and efficiently produced by Richard Dalton and John Heyman . Including glowing and evocative cinematography with an attractive visual style , filmed on several locations in Israel . As well as enormous and majestic art design splendidly built and photographed by expert cameramen . Adding a sensitive and memorable soundtrack . The motion picture was compellingly co-directed by John Krish , Peter Sykes , and it had commercial success enough by retelling faithfully the life of Jesus Christ . This is a Richly Rewarding Entertainment Experience for the Entire Family.

Jesus life has been adapted several times , such as : ¨King of Kings¨ (released in 1927) , it is the yardstick by which all Jesus movies are to be measure , being first silent version by Cecil B. DeMille with H. B. Wagner Christ . Other pictures dealing with his divine presence are the following ones :¨King of Kings¨(1961) by Nicholas Ray with Jeffrey Hunter , Robert Ryan , Ron Randel , Hurd Hatfield , Rip Torn , Frank Thring , Carmen Sevilla ; ¨The Greatest Story Ever Told¨(1965) by George Stevens with Max Von Sidow , Michael Anderson Jr , Carroll Baker, Ina Balin, Pat Boone, Jose Ferrer , Angela Lansbury , Victor Buono, Richard Conte ; ¨Gospel according to Matthew¨ by Pier Paolo Pasolini with Enrique Irazoqui as Jesus ; ¨Jesus Christ Superstar¨(1977) by Norman Jewison with Ted Neeley and Carl Anderson ; ¨Jesus de Nazareth¨(1977) by Franco Zeffirelli with Robert Powell , Olivia Hussey , James Mason , Laurence Olivier , Anne Brancfort , Fernando Rey ; ¨Last temptation of Christ¨ by Martin Scorsese with Willem Dafoe , David Bowie , Harvey Keitel , Ian Holm , Harry Dean Staton ; and ¨The Passion of the Christ¨ (2004) by Mel Gibson with James Cazievel , Maia Morgenstern and Monica Belucci .

Reviewed by JohnHowardReid6 / 10

Considering the movie's promise and ambitious aims, somewhat disappointing!

It's claimed that this movie is "the most viewed film in history" and that it is currently available "in over 320 languages." On the one hand, that is very pleasing to hear. On the other hand, it's a little sad because the film is riddled with errors. Not major errors, of course, but still irritating to a Bible scholar who has just published a new translation of Luke's Gospel. Yes, although the DVD jacket doesn't mention the fact, IMDb tells us the screenplay was based on Luke's Gospel. A good choice. But what version of Luke's Gospel the screenwriter used is not mentioned. It's certainly not Luke's Gospel as Luke wrote it in Greek. Presumably, it's Luke's Gospel as presented in the so-called King James Bible. This was not a good choice. The King James Bible is riddled with errors – some intentional, some unintentional. And as if these errors were not numerous enough, the screenwriter has added a few of his own. For example, he tells us that Mary accompanied Joseph to Bethlehem because she was needed to register for the census too. She wasn't! "Every adult male in the empire was required to travel to the city of his fathers in order to be registered. So Joseph was forced to journey from the village of Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea, because Joseph belonged to the house of David and Bethlehem was David's city. Mary accompanied Joseph because she was engaged to be married to him, and because she was expecting a child." (Quoting from "Luke: The Gospel A Radical New Translation" by John Howard Reid). So that is error number two in the movie.

A previous error occurs when Mary visits her relative, Elizabeth and Elizabeth's wonderful greeting is put into Mary's mouth instead, while Elizabeth looks on rapturously. That the words are Elizabeth's and were not spoken by Mary is surely obvious from the lines: "My soul greatly praises the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in the Lord God, my Savior. For He has noticed His servant's utter disgrace and has rectified my ignominious situation… He raised me up when I was down, drowning in the depths of despair." The whole point of this episode is that Elizabeth is old and well past the age of giving birth. But she doesn't look old in the movie at all! So Luke's decision to write about John the Baptist's conception was simply a waste of time as far as this movie is concerned. Worse still, of course, is that Elizabeth's words are transposed to Mary.

Another deliberate error in the movie occurs when the child Jesus stays behind in Jerusalem. Luke tells us that "Joseph and Mary were furious. 'How dare you treat us like this!' His mother exclaimed." But in the movie, none of this dialogue is presented at all, let alone the fact that "Joseph and Mary were furious." In the film they don't seem to be even mildly annoyed.

There are other errors in the movie, including the claim that Joseph was a carpenter. Luke doesn't spell out Joseph's trade, but he hints that Joseph was a potter. I could go on and on where the movie fails in minor details – I know I'm being picky, but if you're going to make a movie about the King of righteousness, why not get it right? – but probably the worst offense is that Brian Deacon's Christ doesn't look the least bit Jewish.

Read more IMDb reviews