Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant
Review: Dafoe is brilliant as usual. This is a beautifully directed film about a man who was a healer, whose legend was blown way out of proportion and whose "name and legend" have made a lot of people very wealthy, not to mention the manipulation and control tactics used to program the masses. Finally -- a movie comes out that treats this individual as a human being and what happens??? Everybody runs for cover. Why??? Fear....and because it just might make people think for themselves. We need more films like this one.
Rating:
Summary: Maligned Masterpiece
Review: I thoroughly agree with the reviewer who said that this film gets better every time you watch it. The first time I experienced the Last Temptation, it left me wanting more.....and that led me to Kazantakis' grand work, which the film does a remarkable job of interpreting. After reading the novel, I watched it again and the film blossomed into its own.I can't really understand why this film is classified as overly 'gnostic.' The gnostics tended to over-emphasize the spiritual side of Christ. Last Temptation, if anything, stresses the human, all too human side of Jesus. Of a Jesus, who is torn between following his will and that of his Father. The film brings to life this struggle of wills in a pathos-rich manner. It literally 'fleshes' out the skeleton story of the Gospels. At the beginning, we see a Jesus reluctant to go on a path he knows deep down he must follow. He would rather live as a simple carpenter passively serving the Roman authorities by making them crosses for Jewish freedom fighters. Yet, he knows and feels that He is special. A tool in the hands of God. He is drawn slowly and methodically towards some grander, divine plan and purpose. One reviewer hit the nail on the head when referring to Dafoe's undecisive Christ. He MUST be undecisive and reluctant at the beginning, before his human side ultimately gives way to the divine. We see the gradual process of Jesus's spiritual union with his Father. While the Gospels give us the grand canvas, Scorcese fills in the details. The human face, full of suffering, joy, anger, disappointment and final release. And what a face. Scorcese couldn't have picked a better one than Dafoe's. In it, we watch the painful growth from 'indecisive' man to the Son of God, with his sword of justice and mercy. His sojourn in the desert, first with the Essenes, and then with Satan's menagerie of temptations is masterfully done, with animals representing the illusions of the Trickster. In fact, the desert backdrops are stunning, not only in providing authenticity, but also in emphasizing the stark cruelty of the journey ahead. His meeting with the zealous Baptizer is of great importance, showing the great differences between the two and yet, giving credit to how John strengthened and hardened Jesus's love for the grand battle ahead. Dafoe shines as the Nazarene, with authenticity and fervor. Keitel's Judas is equally strong. The Brooklyn accent is beside the point. He burns with Judas' intensity. I liked how both actors stressed the deep love that must have existed between the two and not the traditional view of treacherous discipleship. Scorcese is not alone in presenting an alternative to this orthodoxy. Jesus knew he had to be betrayed if scripture were to be fulfilled. And who better to do it than the one who loved and knew him best. To watch this film is not enough. It must be experienced, for its theme is the model, the archetype, of all striving towards self-transcedence, towards reunion with the Father.
Rating:
Summary: Definitive Dafoe movie
Review: Last Temptation caught my attention when it first came out because it was the first I had ever seen Dafoe. I had never seen anyone so disturbingly beautiful. Nails on a blackboard beautiful. He looked like Jesus, but there was something dissonant about him, something wrong. I was expecting someone like Ted Neeley, who played in Jesus Christ Superstar: confident, benign, authoritative. Dafoe's Jesus isn't a very good preacher, and he isn't sure of himself, and he's not sure where he's going, and he needs Judas to prop him up. He has his insecurities. And this choice, this weak Jesus, is typical of the movie. Everything is a little bit "off". Scorcese uses him as a kind of artist figure, who is crafting a faith as he goes along. His Jesus is full of conflicts and uncertainty. We're not used to seeing Jesus like this. The first time I saw it, I found it irritating. I wanted the character to be decisive, and the New York accents put me off. I've seen the movie a few times since. Every time I think it's a better and better movie. Now I think it's a masterpiece. It only gets more pregnant every time I see it. It becomes obvious that the Jesus figure cannot be decisive, because he doesn't know his full path. He only gets a little information at a time, and has to play it by ear. He is tormented by "God the headache" and is frankly hounded by God until he figures out the path he is supposed to take. This is Jesus as Everyman. This approach is so fresh. It is so full of surprises. Scorcese wanted the audience to really think about the Jesus myth, not to be lulled by conventions, so the entire movie is a catalogue of broken conventions. For instance, Judas (stolidly played by Harvey Keitel) is the strong one, Jesus's backbone, and he always remains faithful, in his way. This is revolutionary. Scorcese wanted to make people to think, to think about the nature of faith and religion and ethics, to think about the connections between people, to think about the nature of what is holy. The broken conventions force you to see clean, to think anew on your own. This is quite an accomplishment. Don't be swayed about the bruhaha about all the sex in the movie. There's almost no sex in the movie. There's less than in D.H. Lawrence's "The Man Who Died", though apparently in the hundred years or so since that story was written, we haven't gotten more open-minded about the issue of god-the-man and sex. This is now my favorite Dafoe movie, because Dafoe is a very spiritual actor who has great compassion for his characters, and in this movie you get to see that aspect of him. The bonus material for the Criterion Collection edition is very interesting; you get to see the extent of the scholarship that went into the movie, information on the development of Peter Gabriel's brilliant soundtrack, as well as an interesting filming diary of the making of the movie. Get this. It's terrific. It's worth watching over and over.
Rating:
Summary: Review of the movie not the DVD
Review: This film is one of the finest I have seen in the last few years even though there are elements in it that are less than perfect. Willem Dafoe's performace is not one of these problems. He is brilliant throughout and thoroughly convincing as a Jesus whose struggle is fought within his own mind more than in society, thus making it a far more moving and involving experience for the audience. The music, by Peter Gabriel with other artists, is perfectly suited to the film and combines (in typical Gabriel style) traditional 'world' instrumentation with synths, more effectively than his solo efforts.
Any problems in the film are more than made up for by the final section of the movie, which provides a very different view of the Cricifixion from the popular conception.
Rating: 
Summary: Much Ado About Nothing
Review: What an interesting concept with much potential, and what a bland product! Perhaps the directors were afraid to make it interesting for fears of giving the protestors something to actually shout about! This film didn't get me to think anything else about Jesus (good or bad) but this was quite the failed opportunity to do so. The idea of painting a fresh, perhaps contemporary portrait of Jesus was a good idea that continues to deserve exploration (in fact, look at the book "Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal" for a rather satirical, yet kind treatment of the subject as an example of this being done right. As for the protests, they're probably the only reason this film made money. Honestly, the only reason I went to see the film was because of the fuss it stirred up, I had to see what others thought shouldn't be played! I remember an eldely Nun being trotted out before the cameras before the film was released to warn us that "the Father will not stand by while his Son is mocked." That sort of threat alone made me want to see it! It's a persons' right to voice their opinion of course, but most of the time these calls to ban movies or music backfire on the opposition. All the furor just drives up the ticket sales since many of us don't care to be dictated to by others what we should watch, think, or listen to. This was certainly the case with this film and many others like it. Had it been left alone, this film would have about 5 reviews and Amazon wouldn't be stocking a Criterion Collection of this film for [$$]
Rating: 
Summary: Spiritually Arousing
Review: Years ago, when this movie first opened in Washington, DC, my 18 year old son and I walked through the picket lines to see the movie that was causing so much controversy. I was extremely secure with my spiritual beliefs, but I wasn't necessarily sure about my son's. When we left the theater, he couldn't wait to get home. This 'controversial movie' had actually challenged him to learn more about the Bible and Jesus Christ, so the movie brought him to the church and not chased him away, as some of the fundamentalist may have thought it would. One other thing, it's good for us that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ didn't have a closed mind, like many of our Christian brothers and sisters have - His first miracle would not have been performed (the water to wine), He wouldn't have befriended His deciples or closest friends (they all had questionable backgrounds), He would not have healed the slave of a centurion (Matt 8:5-13), etc. I just feel more boycott efforts should be placed against the horror-type movies that have negative influences on weak minds, not on movies that challenge ones to think!
Rating: 
Summary: Dull but still thought provoking
Review: I saw this film with a friend who is a Catholic priest. Dressed in plain clothes, he and I stepped beyond a picket line filled with mostly Suthun' Babtists and other fundamentalists who believe every syllable is directly from God's brain to the sheet of paper. I chuckled at all of this fervor, but unfortunately came to realize that there was more excitement outside of the theater than in it. Though not Kubrickesque, and not as long as TV's Jesus of Nazereth, Scorsese does take his time here. What interested me was presenting Jesus as human, because even those true believers outside the theater knew that He was that. Yet the humorless, deadly serious and somber presentations of King of Kings, et al. are stark contrasts of the "Good News" that we hear tell about. The Greatest Story Ever Told, for example, ends with Jesus rising from the grave. I would have explored the period before Christ ascended into heaven and walked on the Earth after his crucifixion and resurrection. I also would have ended with Penetcost, the last notable gathering of the 12 apostles. Ultimately, Scorsese's dull pacing, poor casting and cheap budget are not a rock for this movie to be built upon and the whole thing comes crashing down. Still, it's worth seeing at least once to know that not all Celluloid Jesuses are wooden.
Rating: 
Summary: so speculative and off-base
Review: If you want a better fictional account of what Christ might have thought and done about the "role" he had been chosen to play, read Raymund Schwager's JESUS OF NAZARETH: HOW HE UNDERSTOOD HIS LIFE. Much truer to the Jesus of the Gospels (which are, like it or not, the best and most complete information we have about him), yet also adding some things of profound depth, beauty and insight.
Rating:
Summary: Startling, intense, helpful
Review: I remember hearing about Nikos Kazantzakis' controversial novel back before it was made into a movie. My uncle had a copy of the book (he often reviewed stuff to ascertain its worthiness) and lamented its distortion of the gospel story. Years later, the controversy was renewed with Scorsese's film version which was banned in my home country of South Africa and probably many others.
I eventually got to see the movie on BBC while living in London (the Brits will show almost anything on regular TV) and was surprised to discover how much I enjoyed the movie and how it made me appreciate Jesus even more, not think less of him.
I saw a documentary on the reaction to the movie some time after that. There were scenes in New York of large crowds (mostly Catholic) protesting the premier and then it switched to Scorsese looking forlorn in his hotel room, perplexed at the backlash to his film. But like other reviewers have pointed out, artists enjoy a bit of controversy and I'm sure Scorsese got a lot of mileage out of this among Hollywood cultural elites.
Nonetheless, it seems neither Kazantzakis nor Scorsese wanted to say: THIS is the real Jesus. The disclaimer at the beginning of the movie (from Kazantzakis' book, incidentally) says that the story represents Kazantzakis' personal faith struggle in trying to understand the divine, especially in the incarnation of Christ.
Thus Kazantzakis' (and Scorsese's) Jesus comes across more human than divine, less sure of himself and almost schizophrenic and delusional in his conversations with a God who invades his mind and "tortures" him.
Some of the things I appreciate about the movie are: the irony of Jesus' work as a carpenter - making crosses for the Romans; the humanity and bickering of the apostles (which is what they were like, just read the Gospels closely); the fact that Scorsese's Jesus IS a miracle worker - driving out demons, raising the dead; the supremacy of God (the devil appears in various guises to tempt Jesus with parlor tricks, but God just makes things happen!); the realism and emotion of the crucifixion scene; and the satisfying ending. Oh, and the soundtrack is great too - I bought it even before I saw the movie.
The main objection to the story seems to be that Kazantzakis' Jesus succumbs to temptation - to come down from the cross and live a normal life with wife and kids. But again, this is the author's "what if?", not an attempted revision of the gospel story (though the Gnostic writings he used as sources certainly did try to re-make Jesus in their own image, mostly to excuse their own duality of spirituality and debauchery).
Some of the flaws in this movie which seem to be based on ignorance rather than artistic intent are to do with Mary Magdalene. Scorsese (and I assume Kazantzakis) go with the traditional theory that Magdalene was a prostitute. But neither Matthew, Mark, Luke or John say that. What they do say is that Jesus delivered her from seven demons. From what we know of demon possession in the Gospels, these were people with no control of their faculties, who harmed themselves and had enormous strength. You think you could have a good time with a demon-possessed person? I think not.
Another flaw was the character of Judas. I expected that the Jesus in the movie would be less than true to the Gospels, but what was up with making Judas his best buddy? It rung hollow. Harvey Keitel's portrayal of Judas left a lot to be desired as well. He comes off as a Goodfella in every movie he does and here he was the Jerusalem mafia, horribly anachronistic. It could be amusing if Scorsese wasn't trying to be serious.
But the rest of the major players were well cast, with Willem Dafoe being believable as a conflicted Jesus and Barbara Hershey doing well as the sinful woman who becomes a disciple. I especially liked the old character actor (I forget his name) who plays the apostle Paul and his encounter with Jesus. He does an excellent job as a man transformed from murderous rogue into passionate missionary.
Rating:
Summary: The Human Side of Christ
Review: I am not a Christian nor a person of faith. However, I find this movie touching and extremely human. I saw it when it first came out. I had heard very little about the controversy surrounding it. To me it was just cinema. Recently I re-rented the movie and was stunned. Only Scorsese could make a film like this. It is touching because it presents the human side of Christ and reveals the all too human effort to give meaning to an otherwise absurd daily life. Watch this movie. Willem Dafoe plays a perfect Christ and Keitel delivers a believable (at least to me) Judas. The only thing this movie did was to increase my respect for the figure of Christ and thus mankind in general. And let's accept it, Christ was only, a man.
|
