Rating: 
Summary: Average film that received too much publicity
Review: When I first saw this film, I was expecting an absolutely scathing look at Christ. After all, many of the major religious figures in America were blasting the film. The thought was how blasphemous that Christ would have had any human feelings when hanging from the cross. What I found, instead, was a well filmed, but largely boring piece of celluloid.The film is taken from a book by Nikos Kazantzakis, and does very little justice to the wonderfully poetic prose Kazantzakis writes. While true to Kazantzakis' gnostic telling of the life of Christ, the film feels much too contemporary in many parts. This is largely due to the Scorsese touch. If you watch a film to see its imagery, this film is beautifully filmed. If you like to watch good acting, you will also have a pleasant experience. If you want to be moved, as only art can do, you will come away a bit empty. As for the controversy, the points on which biblical leaders attacked the film on are largely inconsequential. Realistically, had they actually watched the film, they would have been more shocked by the subtle points, rather than the last temptation. This leads me to believe that few of the detractors even knew what the film stood for. Compared to many of the films of the past 15 - 20 years, this one certainly fairs better than most. This is primarily due to the fact that so much of the tripe Hollywood puts out contains characatures rather than characters. Rating this film based on what Hollywood puts out, one would have to rank it higher, as it shines in comparison. I choose, however, to rate it based on the elements that I feel makes good art; as such, average is about the best I can rate this. I find that most people that feel strongly one way or another on this film do so on their own personal belief of Christ rather than the merits of the film. Overall, it is average. Had Scorsese cut the film a bit rather than plod on, I might be tempted ;-> to give it more stars.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed but special
Review: A film of two halves. The first is largely unsuccessful, trying hard to breathe new life into familiar biblical material and failing to make much of an impact, but after Jesus's arrival in Jerusalem the film builds to remarkable emotional and symbolic climaxes. The novel's complex flights of fancy are beautifully interpreted and even the strictest of Christians would have to concede the artistic and spiritual value of the story. Keitel is undistinguished as Judas, and whilst Defoe communicates the fragile, human side of Christ well, his limitations are exposed when he attempts the fiery orator and leader of men. It is amusing though that of the film's hundreds of actors, the only two English ones are alotted the roles of Pontius Pilate and Satan itself - at times you almost have to laugh at Hollywood's anglophobia. But the good news is that Bowie's cameo as Pilate is superb, and that the unknown Juliet Catton completely steals the show as the wide-eyed, childlike Satan - this film seems to examine the confused role of the Antichrist as much as the Christ. A flawed picture then, but a fine one nonetheless. And, if for no other reason, worth seeing for Peter Gabriel's awesome soundtrack.
Rating:
Summary: According to Gospel of St. Thomas
Review: Some very interesting special effects and some statements according to Thomas, left out of the Bible. Conjecture for the last temptation, but not unlikely that such thoughts would naturally occur to any MAN who had a mission to perform. Unconventional and worth seeing.
Rating:
Summary: Blasphemous as the story of Christ, JUST as the story of US
Review: I was looking through this huge pile of previously viewed films, and immediately, right when I was about to give up, this caught my eye. I had heard about this film when I was a child, and had heard mostly bad things about it. As a Christian about to become Catholic, I've grown a strong interest in the wide interpretations of what Christ was like as a living man on Earth. After viewing a very respectable and divine portrayal played by Max von Sydow in The Greatest Story Ever Told, I was ready to see the exact opposite..... And ohhh...was it the EXACT OPPOSITE! In the first 10 minutes I was considering shutting it off and dismissing it as pure carnage and blasphemy, but I stuck with it through to the end, and I'm satisfied that I did. If this movie wasn't the story of Christ (even though it is well-stated in the beginning that the film was not scriptually based), I would have given it five stars easy. However, the fact that it "was," or atleast loosely based on the story of Christ, I had to knock of a few stars for theological and moral purposes. This is not the story of Christ, and is a complete perversion of it. While I understand Scorsese's angle of portraying the more "human side" of Christ, the patheticness and and indecisiveness of Christ played by Dafoe is just.....disgusting. I refuse to believe that Christ was a half-dazed, confused, self-focused, WEAK, uncertain, and cowardly man. Scorsese goes a little overboard with the human side, painting Christ as a man whose soul is haunted by desire like some impoverished Dostoevsky or Nabokov character. He seems to forget that Christ was also the Son of God, and that that was an essential part, if not more so, of the Savior. Furthermore, the portrayal of Judas Iscariot is laughable (his confidence should have been Jesus's) and horribly inaccurate. Mary of Magdalene's relations with Jesus were pure speculation, and can be easily dismissed as a lie. Some of the other shock value scenes (when Jesus goes to meet John and all the people at Jordan are all lost in a epileptic funk) I could have probably done without as well. Again, this is NOT the story of Christ, and I completely understand any hatred other Christians have for this film -- it is justified. After accepting that, the message of the film was clear -- complacency is a dangerous sin that many of us commit without even knowing it. One thing I truly appreciated was the subtlety of Satan's tricks, especially the last temptation. How many times have we asked in our lives, how to take the easy way out? How many times have we worked things out so that we may live off the fat of the land, be lazy, indulge in our lusts and gluttonous desires? The humanness of this film is astounding and awakening. This is a story testing and challenging our way of life, and our desires to be "comfortable," and denying the path that would truly bring us glory simply because we view it as too difficult of a journey, too much work, too much stress. The last temptation is by far, the best part of the film. While I was confused the whole time and wondering, "where the heck is this going," (Scorsese has the ability to do that in any of his films) when the answer was presented, I sighed a big, "Ohhh..." and immediately thought of The Devil's Advocate and how the two endings parallel. This is a challenging film that carries a powerful message to all of us who know that we can become so great, but because we are lazy, our potential is made to be wasted by our own will. God's path is clear, and it includes all that is suffering, all that is pain, and all that is work -- all for His greater Glory. It is a one-way street. Satan's path is all others - anything to lead us astray from God, and he has many many many angles he can tempt us with and fool us with. An important film, especially for the Christian, who is not searching for an accurate portrayal of Christ, but who is constantly fighting spiritual battles within -- to take the harder path and achieve great things in God's name, or to take the easier path and result in complacency.
Rating: 
Summary: Biggest blunder in the history of Hollywood
Review: This was one of the biggest flops of the 80's and for a good reason: it's a total turkey. I agree that it wasn't fair for people to judge this movie without seeing it, so I finally saw it. The concept isn't bad. I like the idea of showing his struggle with temptation. Yes, he was tempted and probably by some of the things in this movie. But depicting him as being weak and confused is unforgivable, fiction or not. Christ clearly knew who he was even as a child according to the only written accounts that matter: the ones written by those who knew him. The number one rule in writing is "Write about what you know." The makers of this film obviously don't know him. I can't believe all of the praise for this piece of junk. This movie is an embarrasment and will fortunately fade into obscurity along with countless other hair-brained films that never should have been made. If there is anything good that came from this, it's that the film company lost twelve million dollars on this project. Hollywood will think twice about making a film like this again in a Country that is 50% Christian! Dumb indeed.
Rating: 
Summary: To Create Religion or Art?
Review: The controversy that surrounds 'The Last Temptation of Christ' is partly due to a novel interpretation of the life and spiritual nature of a man from Nazareth named Jesus. The true primordial nature of Jesus, his actual behavior and disposition, has been lost due to the impoverished nature of the recording media available some two thousand years ago. As a result, the life of Jesus has become a fertile ground for creative speculation, such as was recorded in this film by Martin Scorsese. A persons trials and aspirations, it seems, can be projected onto the life of Jesus in a search for meaning. In the book by Nikos Kazantzakis and in this resulting film realization, the authors are not attempting to create a 'definitive model' of who Jesus was. That, perhaps, is the calling of inspired religious figures. Instead, the book and film describe a kind of poetic wrestling with the reputation and ideas of Jesus and his legacy. So perhaps as art, rather than religion, this film best serves its unique purpose. The soundtrack by Peter Gabriel does an admirable job of evoking a sense of mystery and transporting us towards the depths which such a film suggests that life can offer. In the religious life, concepts such as Easter attempt to serve as a kind of closure on an often difficult narrative. In art, and the creative life in general, however, we are challenged by an ongoing process. May we find, as this film suggests, satisfaction in simple domestic living. May we also suffer our crosses cheerfully, as we yearn for, and perhaps occasionally realize, moments of deep transcendent mystery through art.
Rating:
Summary: Deserves Better Recognition....
Review: Martin Scorsce's somewhat vilified and very misunderstood film definetly deserves to be watched with an opened mind. It shows the Human side of Christwhich is usually ignored and we need to remember Christ was first a man then the "son of God".Look at the list of ACTORS: Willem Dafoe, Harvey Keitel,Vic Argo(a very UNDER-appreciated actor who deserves more!),Harry Dean Stanton ( Who also is UNDER -appreciated!).Watch this film as a film which "Speculates" on the life of Christ, NOT as a film which claims to be the Bible-truth! FIVE STARS!!
Rating:
Summary: the Son of Man?
Review: Those for whom a single, fixed, distant, absolute, authority-approved image of Jesus is a matter of great anxiety usually will not like this movie, and I don't object. For the rest, this movie is a story about a tender and powerfully human Jesus, a tempted Jesus, a triumphant Jesus. The movie in no way preaches or expects you to be able to quote scripture, but IMO neither is it incompatible with Christian faith-- indeed, as other reviewers have pointed out, it draws on some very old christian ideas-- gnostic interpretations of the apostles, etc. The movie happens to be one of my all-time favorites, so don't take my word for it. But, hey-- it's also got such noteables as David Bowie as Pontius Pilate, and a column of flame as Satan! I thought DaFoe was awesome. The soundtrack is incredible-- by Peter Gabriel, "Passion."
Rating:
Summary: Both Excells and Falls Short On Interpreting Christ
Review: This movie directed by Martin Scorsese, based on the novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, is both a cinemantic achivement and movie blunder within 2 hours and 43 minutes. Scorsese shows great directoral skills, while at the same time, falling short in his cast. Logically there is the question whether this "Jesus" portrayed in the novel and now on the film can save humankind in any respect. The movie is breathtaking in much of its scenary and look. Big huge Hollywood sets are left out instead for a more authentic look. This is a plus and it makes one feel as if they are there instead of watching a play at the local theater. The casting is a bit distracting. Harvey Keitel is not a very good Judas. His accent is a big burden. David Bowie is even a worse Pilate. William Defoe on the other hand is tremendous in fulfilling his role as this reinterpreted Jesus. At times however, the actors are a little too much 20th century. After all, the stage is set at 2000 years ago. The crucifying of Christ is one of the most passioned in film history and Martin probably would not have offended as many people if he had of left out certian scenes while Christ is being tempted by Satan. Though I am a consrevative Christian and have many problems with the film theologically, this scene is captivating and one has a deep sense of sympathy for the Jesus on the cross. Other scenes are also noteworthy. The temptation in the desert is well crafted. The movie is a little too long. He could have taken off a good twenty minutes and we all would have gotten the point. Music by Peter Gabriel is outstanding for this movie and is probably one of the best surprises. The last closing score, It Is Accomplished is great sounds of victory over death.
Rating:
Summary: Defoe is amazing as Jesus!
Review: The Last Temptation of Christ VHS ~ Willem Dafoe is simply and basically an amazing, stupendous and awesome movie with one of the best actors to have graced the white screen in the last 25 years. Defoe's performance is similair to other great actors, i.e., Charlton Heston, Kirk Douglass and Douglas Fairbanks. Defoe is very believeable in his intrepretation as the son of God. I do not understand why Mr. Defoe was not awarded an academy award for his work; since (especially nowadays), performances of this caliber are indeed few and far between.
|
