Rating: 
Summary: From Protestor to Praiser...
Review: Having been among the group of "believers" protesting this movie sight-unseen back in the 70's, I must repent and say that this has become one of my all-time favorites. Though it is true the film is not for the faint of faith, it will add a new dimension to the spiritual understanding of the true believer. Yes, the story is not 100% biblically accurate - but it never claims to be. So often we tend to think only of the God-side of Christ but the Bible makes it very clear that Jesus was human and suffered ALL manner of temptations. Scorsese's Jesus is a conflicted human who walks a delicate balance between humanity and divinity. If you think about it, wouldn't someone who believed he was the son of the Almighty God yet lived as a human being constantly have to struggle to believe in his own divinity? Wouldn't such a soul wonder at times if he were truly God Incarnate or simply a lunatic with a serious Messiah complex? And wouldn't his arch-enemy Satan use every tactic and opportunity to convince him of the latter? This is what this story is about. Jesus was God trapped in a human body with human emotions and human needs. He had to live every second of his life believing he was who he said he was. We all love life and Jesus would have loved his, too. Even the Bible says he begged God to let this cup pass from him - because it was the only life he knew. And, although its not recorded in the Bible, if anyone believes that he wasn't tempted sexually then they deny Jesus' human nature. It seems a bit superior to think that we would be tempted in this manner and not Christ. This movie is a masterpiece that depicts the kind of Christ I can believe in - one who was tempted in every way possible and yet lived a life without sin in order to fulfill the law and redeem mankind to God. SEE THIS MOVIE, AND BELIEVE!
Rating:
Summary: "THE" TEMPTATION
Review: Beautiful film!
I am absoluteley SURE that Jesus would love this film if he had the chance to see it! I'm absoluteley sure!
The most wonderful and enigmatic thing of this film is that we will never KNOW if all the complexities and insecurities of the mind of "this" Jesus are actually the result of a mental sickness (religious psycosis or obsessions) or the result of a divine intervention. Even the Satan that appears in the film may well be a projection of his own fears and lusts as a human being. I think that's great!This movie, THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, has more spirit, beauty and "meaning" than that horrible act of brutal violence against the flesh of Jesus shown in the film THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST by Mel Gibson.
Rating: 
Summary: A Good and Brave Film
Review: Writing a review on a "spiritual" film will always be difficult, as the probability of offending someone is high. But, alas! Anyone who is a pious Christian would also probably find themselves highly offended by this movie, anyway. The Last Temptation of Christ gives us a "fictional" angle on the life of Jesus Christ before his crucifixion. In this film, Jesus seemed somewhat arrogant and disillusioned, but definitely confused. This is not the Jesus many of us learned about in Sunday school, folks! As a non-Christian, this film was easy for me to digest. In fact, I thought it very well done and exceedingly brave in the face of those who would surely picket against it. Also worthy of mention from this movie is the soundtrack composed by Peter Gabriel. I have it on CD and have loved it even before seeing the film.
Rating:
Summary: A brilliant and greatly misunderstood movie
Review: As even the reviews here at Amazon will show (and most of them have been favorable) this movie is perhaps one of the most misunderstood movies of all time. I grew up in the conservative Christian subculture which boycotted and largely scorned and ignored this movie, thus I had always heard that it was blasphemous and "liberal" reinterpretation of who Jesus was. It was only after actually watching the movie that I came to a realization, THIS MOVIE ISN'T REALLY ABOUT CHRIST AT ALL! It's about us, human beings. Perhaps we all fast forwarded through the author's note at the beginnning of the movie where he declares his purpose for the story. He wrote it as an exploration of the constant tension WITHIN HIMSELF between the sinful and divine elements warring against each other in his own soul. In other words, the movie uses the orthodox doctrine of the dual nature of Christ (i.e. Christ is equally human and equally Divine) to illustrate the tension that exists within every human being between goodness and evil. In fact, I found the final scene where Judas rebukes Jesus to be a powerful apologetic for the necessity of Christ's divinity and death on the cross. Granted Nikos Kazantzakis is certainly no conservative Christian, and I suppose that he may in fact concieve of Christ as actually being close to the way he portrayed him in his book (and in the movie - which follows the book fairly closely). Nevertheless, I contend that it is a mistake to view this movie as if its intent were to present a revisionist view of Jesus Christ. The issue in this movie is not whether or not you agree with its theology; but whether you can identify with the hero's struggle. The struggle between following the hard and painful will of God or succumbing to the temptation of the ordinary, the sin of being comfortable. In many ways this message reminds me of the words of C.S. Lewis in his essay "The Weight of Glory". He writes, "The problem is not that our desires are too strong but that they are too weak. We are dissatisfied creatures fooling around with drink and sex when infinite happiness is offered to us; like a child who goes on making mud-pies in the slums because he cannot imagine what is meant by a holiday at sea. We are far too easily pleased." Even if you're a conservative Christian and have warned away from this movie, I encourage you to go back and give it a chance. But remember, go to it, not to argue and debate what you think it's saying, but to learn what it's really saying. You'll be surprised at what you find.
Rating:
Summary: Accent complaints are inane
Review: Filled to the brim with genuine passion and a palpable sense of spiritual struggle, The Last Temptation of Christ is one of Martin Scorsese's best films. But the main thing I want to address is this constant, [constant]carping about Harvey Keitel. How is his Brooklyn accent any less "authentic" or appropriate to his part than David Bowie's British accent as Pontius Pilate? Guess what? Recent research reveals that not only didn't the ancient Romans speak with British accents, they didn't speak English at all! And neither did anyone else! I mean, why stop at complaining about accents when the actors aren't even speaking the actual languages of the time? In point of fact, the deliberate use of different accents were a conscious decision by Scorsese. All of Jesus' adversaries (the Romans and Satan in all his guises) have British accents, while the Jews deliberately speak in common American accents (mainly New York). This was done to denote a sense of class division.
Rating:
Summary: decide for yourself
Review: I will never understand why some people feel that they have the right to critique a movie they have never seen. If you have a thirst for knowledge than maybe you should expose yourself to a view outside of the one the christian church offers. If your faith is strong than this movie will not affect you. Everyone is entiled to their own taste and opinions, but don't let the opinion of others influence you. Those who believe in God know that God gave us free will so that we could choose for ourselves.
Rating: 
Summary: Blasphemous, but bold!
Review: This is definitely the filmic Gospel according to Scorsese, but one cannot deny the artistry and care that went into the film. The one thing that I see as most beneficial about it is that it does emphasize Christ's humanity; something that gets lost in the profession of various creeds and fundamentalist dogma. However, the film emphasizes His humanity to such an extent, that I feel it trivializes the Messiah into "some other guy." What seperates Jesus Christ from every other human being is the historicity of His personage: both fully divine and fully human. To give precedence to one without giving enough to the other presents a Christ that is, on one hand, too intangible to relate to and, on the other hand, so relatable that we cannot believe that He is the Messiah. Now, I do recognize that it's the latter portrayal of Christ in this film that ends up moving some people more than the former--which is often the Christ presented in the Church. Perhaps, one day we'll have a wonderful film that presents this balance and doesn't focus too much on one specific part of Christ (His humanity in "Last Temptation" and His crucifixion in "The Passion") and isn't a TV mini-series.
Rating: 
Summary: Scorsese's confused Messiah
Review: Sixteen years before Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" inspired protests for its supposed anti-Semitism, Martin Scorsese earned the wrath of Christians for "The Last Temptation of Christ," in which a none too godly savior builds crosses for crucifixions and is as confused about his role in life as the typical James Dean anti-hero. When this Jesus, played by Willem Defoe, brings Lazarus back from the dead, he has no idea what he has wrought and recoils in horror as the resurrected man approaches the Son of God for a hug. Warm and fuzzy moments like that are few and far between in this seemingly sincere but blashphemous revision of the Gospels. If the story doesn't offend, it may inspire some chuckles. Jesus struggles against his divinity, and as he hangs dying on the cross, hallucinates that he's been lured down by a golden haired angel. In the vision, Jesus turns his back on God's will, and lives to a ripe old age with family in tow before realizing he's been duped by the devil. Fascinating at times, beautiful at others, Scorsese and screenwriter Paul Schrader's take on the New Testament is, more often than not, ridiculous, thanks, but no thanks, to the actors. Except for Barbara Hershey as Mary Magdalene, the performances are fairly dismal with Willem Defoe displaying no charisma but plenty of confusion as Jesus. In supporting roles, such contemporary figures as Harvey Keitel (Judas) and Harry Dean Stanton (Saul/Paul) look like they got lost on their way to Coney Island. Then there's David Bowie as Pontius Pilate. Enough said. On the plus side, the cinematography by Michael Ballhaus and the production design by John Beard is superb, as is Peter Gabriel's haunting score. Now, post Gibson, the big question is why were there no protests from Jewish political leaders about the portrayal of the Jews in this production? If "The Passion of the Christ" is anti-Semitic (it's not), then "The Last Temptation of Christ" is anti-Semitic, as well, if not more so. The Sanhedrin are full of rage and fury as Jesus declares himself the Son of God, and Pilate is just as eager to wash his hands of the matter as Gibson portrays him to be. Clearly, what so offends some people is that Gibson dared to be reverent, to portray Jesus for what the New Testament makes it clear he was: the way, the truth, and the life, the Son of God sent to die for the sins of the world. Scorsese's Jesus dies, too, but having stumbled once too often before setting off on the road to Calvary, it could be argued that he could no longer claim to be without sin. This Jesus was less likely to be resurrected and may have died in vain. A blasphemous message for sure, one that makes "The Last Temptation of Christ" deserving of every condemnation it received. Brian W. Fairbanks
Rating:
Summary: Listen to the commentary - much revealed
Review: First of all, this area is SUPPOSED to be for reviews of this movie, not dire warnings of damnation if one watches it. It is JUST a movie....something tells me Jesus and his believers can survive it. Please don't turn this forum into a religious debate. I think anyone who purchases this DVD edition of the film should definitely go back and listen to the director/actor/screenwriter commentary included with the film. In it, Marty and the screenwriter explain why they used the actors they did, and why they used today's vernacular. They had the characters speak this way so that the viewer is more aware that the players in the New Testament WERE human, just like us. Marty believed that the stilted English of the King James Court, with its "thou's" and "ye's" (and having absolutely NO relation to the way people spoke at the time) serves to distance modern viewers from the pain and doubt that both Jesus has his followers underwent. Marty also was desperate to counter the prevalent depiction of Jesus in film that has him 100% "divine", with a golden light shining behind his head, with the divine little smile and the gentle words. He wanted to use the idea in the Bible that Jesus was also fully human, subject to both physical AND mental anguish. The latter is the point that Gibson missed in his film. Anyone who has ever lost a child or had to make an agonizing decision knows that mental anguish can be as painful as any physical torment. This movie is about the true temptation Jesus underwent, to deny God and run away from his destiny. All of us can identify with that. I find this Jesus far more compelling than the Jesus I grew up with in Sunday school. This Jesus is not perfect. He hurts and has soubts and depressions like I do. And yet he gives his body and mind to God in the end.
Rating:
Summary: a review of the special features on the DVD - not the movie.
Review: This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film. I have decided only to review the special features of the DVD, given my religious beliefs and that many feel that they have heard enough from those who find the film problematic. The audio commentary of the film was surprising. The director mentions that those who consider the film sacrelige are correct in a manner of speaking. The film is based on the novel by Nikos Kazantzakis and not the Bible. This is enough to remove the major controversey. The commentary was recorded exclusively for the Criterion Collection in 1997. The commentary is by Director Martin Scorsese, Actor Willem Dafoe, Screenwriter Paul Schrader, and Jay Cocks. There is research material taken from Biblical Archeology Review magazine, National Geographic and others. There are also dozens and dozens of production stills and a video of location scouting in Morocco. There is also a video interview with Peter Gabriel who composed the music for the film.
| 
