ThiefHott Too much of everything

AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Kirpianuscus 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.

JohnHowardReid 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.

johnatuna I learned of this movie when I was in college. It was the best discovery of my life. If memory is serving me correctly, it was sent in the mail throughout Alabama for a short time for people to have for free. It is well-made and biblically correct. It gives a message of hope and reaffirms one's belief in Christ. If you do not know Christ, he is definitely worth meeting and learning about. Once you have accepted him your life will change for the better! This is a movie to watch alone, with friends or family. Watch it with your enemies..:) Watch it multiple times and you will learn something new every time! I give this movie a 10!

Conservative_Critic 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.