Rating: 
Summary: What an easy target this film is
Review: I had always felt that a film should either entertain or provide food for thought. On the first point, this film barely hits the mark. A bit slow at times, with great performances by Dafoe and Bowie and a not so great on by Keitel. Now on the other hand this is filled with thought provoking ideas. Was Jesus human enough to consider temptation? Did we need Jesus to be our savior more than he needed us? (as H.D. Stanton points out towards the end of the film). This film should be a great start point for a personal phylosophical journey or conversation with other intelligent people, not an opportunity to prove to others how "christian" we can be by condemming it or to turn a blind eye becasue we are perfect in our faith (which no one really is) and "our" faith is the only right anwser. There are no "right" anwsers in faith and that is a huge point the film succedes in making.
Rating: 
Summary: Gross display of humanity
Review: The creators/writers of this film are obviously braindead idiots. The ignorance and no reguard for the truth of the Bible is a gross diplay of humanity. This film should not be considered a film, more or less a recording of stupidity. Do not buy this film, it is a waste of time and money.
Rating: 
Summary: A brilliant cinematic exploration of faith
Review: I am not religious, but I feel that the film ought to berequired viewing for any person studying for the seminary or seeking atrue and honest exploration of the nature of faith. Scorsese's disclaimer at the film's beginning says it all- this is not an adaptation of any specific religious text, but rather an exploration of faith- and yet it is profoundly encouraging of the pursuit, no, the vindication of a higher power. His use of a contemporary vernacular is particularly effective- the film functions better as a parable than as a straightforward narrative when you consider that these people are communicating ideas and emotions that are not tied up in the conventions of history but continue to be relevant in our age of doubt and cynicism. Scorsese knows that to truly believe in something, you must question and genuinely come to understand it, and in so questioning his own faith he brings to light a series of questions that all people should ask of themselves: what do I believe? What do the rules by which I live mean? Why do I follow them? The film does not try to answer them, and it encourages thought in the viewer in a way that few religious films previous (or since) have. It often surprises me to hear how strongly the film was originally (and in some places, is still) decried. But I'd like to guess that if a truly discriminating and open-minded viewer took to heart the message of this film, it might strengthen those beliefs that so blindly seek to obscure and deny human doubt. The production is breathtaking, and Peter Gabriel's score is transcendental- evocative, yet unfamiliar, as religion first appears to be. A challenging and ultimately rewarding experience, for both cineastes and followers of religious doctrine.
Rating: 
Summary: It misses the point
Review: The controvercy surrounding this film is actually silly. The novel by Kazanstakis mrerly uses the life of Christ as a starting-point for the exploration of the human psyche in terms of predestination. It is a philosophical work which is here given soap-opera treatment. It was a novel never meant to be filmed and as such the film is a terrible disappointment, despite some great scenes. Barbara Hershey is superb as the Magdalene and her performance alone makes the rest of the mess worth wathcing (for a while). David Bowie's brief appearance is also a gem, but all in all the film falters on its own pretentions. It cannot decide what it wants to be and Scorcese's good intentions merely pave the road to hell even further.
Rating:
Summary: Scorcese should stick to gratuitous violence
Review: With all the hype, I started this movie expecting to be offended. But that didn't happen.However: I WAS bored overall. I WAS confused -- by the lack of continuity in storyline. I WAS bewildered -- that someone actually got financial backing for this turkey. But mostly, I WAS disappointed -- poor Scorcese was clearly out of his element, what with no slo-mo massacres and no chainsaw murders.
Rating:
Summary: A great film with a few flaws
Review: First off, Marty is my all time favorite director. Unfortunately, that statement alone explains my bias. And while I feel this is a tremendous work for him and a truly dangerous work to present even today, nevermind 10 years ago, I do one major flaw. BAD CASTING! Why in the world would you cast Harvey Keitel as a Judas and David Bowie as Pilot? However, who are we to question art? If you can get past Keitel's Brooklynite Judas and the swagger of John Lurie's James than what you will find is a fairly good interprentation of the original novel and a tremendous work in it's own right. The work of Paul Shrader and Marty have never dissapointed me, and while this film doesn't come near the trrue beauty of "Kundun" it takes new steps in questioning not only the ideas of religious mythology but the temptations we must all endure in our own lives. Don't look at this film as re-writing of the gospels (which may I remind you were all written some time after the death of Christ and should be expected to have taken some license as well), but of how the teachings in this mythology can have an impact on each and everyone's life. The important thing about this film is that you see yourself in "Christ" and you can relate your own trials with his. With all of this being said, also pay close attention to Peter Gabriel's soundtrack. Even though I am a huge fan of Peter's work, "Passion" is absolutely my favorite of all of his work.
Rating:
Summary: a more objective review than the EDITOR's
Review: I'll keep my personal theological beliefs to myself, and just review the DVD... The bonus materials are identical to the Criterion Laserdisc, but are even more clear and crisp in DVD form. The story actually follows most scripture verbatum until the last 20 minutes, where the title is derived from in the equivilent of a "fantasy sequence". Unlike the reviewer from AMAZON.COM, don't be misled. It's only during the fantasy sequence that the Jesus character has sex with Mary Magdeleine. I do agree however, that there is something near comical about having a lot of New York Hebrews playing the Jews of Old.
Rating:
Summary: Preaching to the converted
Review: Yes, thought-provoking is definitely a good label for this film. My personal feelings about religious faith are that to have a *healthy* faith you have to question it. Unquestioned, untested faith might just be shallow, but how can you know until you experience a test of that faith. Healthy faith is tested by questioning, and when the real tests come it will help to sustain you. Some folks may actually respond that faith is, by definition, taken on trust, your viewpoint. Now. The film. For people who take biblical events as written, and as the direct word of God, this is a difficult film, Christ may seem to be portrayed as a sinner and an indecisive, doubtful, human being making crosses for Roman overseers to use against his own people, visiting brothels and railing against God himself. It kicks against the idea of this angelic baby who was somehow completely aware of His mission while still in the crib, it hurts some people to see this "slander" on film. It hurts people for whom faith is an unquestionable thing. For the rest of us, and that includes me, this film draws Christ closer to us, and we closer to Him. Why? He becomes more human, other films concentrate on the divine dimension which we can only aspire to and fail. In the hands of NK and MS, He becomes a man who wants to change things, a man with a mission to make a difference, and that is, in these secular times, something that more people can identify with. The references to the Gnostic scriptures are interestingly made, that faith is very pragmatic about how individuals count in the overall scheme of goodliness, and NK's Christ then comes across as an illustration of how other people can also make a difference. The film is basically putting across a positive message for everybody, you *can* do it, you just have to *try*! Even His ascent into glory at the end of the film can be taken as affirmation that by doing your best you can attain something which you don't as yet understand. The soundtrack is superb, although I felt that it was mixed a little high in some places. The cinematic scope was grand, and the gritty realism of the Roman soldiers was also well observed, sensible dress, not at all obviously Roman. The accents were somewhat problematic, on the one hand the idea of Brooklyn and English accents is odd, but it can also place people in context to a contemporary audience if it is done well. I once experienced a Royal Shakespeare Company performance of Hamlet acted by people in contemporary clothes, a shock at first but it put everybody into context according to the cultural rules currently in place (suit=important, etc). It all points to a film that wants to reach back across the gulf forming between mankind and its spiritual side. The film stumbles at several points, and slows interminably at others, however even these scenes have a tension all their own which is perhaps lost on viewers anxious for an action-packed rollercoaster ride with little emotional depth. The shocks are low-impact shocks, Lazarus's sudden appearance from the tomb. That seems very sympathetic to the pace of the rural Middle East, things don't generally "happen", they "unfold" instead, it is just another piece of accurate observation. If there has to be a failing for this film it is precisely that, it is going to bypass a great proportion of the filmgoing public simply because it contains authenticity of settings and pace, a strong religious message (regardless of what its detractors may say about the phrasing of that message) and be based on two books, one perhaps little known, the other better known but little read. As a result it ends up preaching only to the converted.
Rating:
Summary: Celebration of man...
Review: This film has stayed with me for 10 years, and I grow fonder of it with repeated viewings. My tastes are broad - I will happily sit down and watch the cheapest genre flick and the subtlest arthouse... so while I can see that this film can be picked apart on an intellectual level, I also feel that film should be "felt". Even if you forget the beautiful performances (so human!), the incredible narrative, poetic direction, great music that grabs hold of your gut and drags you down into it -- what you're left with is amazing. I am not a religous man, yet this film touches me very deeply - from the moodswinging jesus curled up on the shore hearing footsteps to the triumphant jesus joyous on the cross... what part of being alive does this film not talk about? What modern mainstream film has trod paths so high and low? Take this film for what it is -- a celebration of man, not a condemnation of christ.
Rating:
Summary: Last Temptation of Christ
Review: Scorsese's groundbreaking and controversial film is certainly a powerful testimony to modern reinterpretations of Christianity's story. While containing a potent spiritual message, as well as beautiful directing, the film nevertheless falls short of a masterpiece. The acting stumbles frequently, awkward moments in the movie abound (although whether or not this is intentional, only Martin Scorsese knows) ... but my biggest problem with this film is its failure to give full justification to the ending, both artistically and spiritually. Scorsese typically cuts corners with his movies, allowing wholly inadequate synopsis to take the place of what could be a powerful scene. Last Tempation is very good; it's important in the history of film, and it will make you think for a long while after. But as an artistic achievement, it falls painfully short of its full potential.
|
