I have watched this film for many years with my family. Each year we follow the life of Jesus through Holy Week and Easter Sunday. The director has made this a film that is understandable for all ages and makes the realism unique. I would highly recommend this film for families. Even though I loved "The Passion of the Christ," I found this film easier to view for the family. Maybe we'll watch in earnest when the kids are a little older, teens perhaps. All in all this film takes you through an understanding of life as it would have been seen through the eyes of the common person. Perhaps it is this reality that allows people to gravitate toward a love for the film and a commitment to making the viewing of it each year and family tradition. Looking for a great family movie to help teach the faith, this is it.
Add a Review
-
markmajeski13 November 2005
-
Among the numerous adaptations of the biblical Gospel accounts, Jesus of Nazareth is among the most superior.
The acting is exemplary, with an all star cast that bring urgency and reverence to their roles. Robert Powell's inspirational portrayal of Jesus acknowledges his restrained power, and leads the fine cast well. Every character is played with the right temperament and fervor to capture that individual's role in the unfolding political and spiritual events of the day. Perhaps best of all is Olivia Hussey as Mary, the mother of Jesus. The most emotional and memorable scene of the entire film is the image of Mary holding the broken and lifeless body of her son at the foot of the cross. It is a beautiful and moving enactment of the Pieta, and Mary's agonized cries are genuine and heart wrenching.
Because it takes on so much material, the story often condenses two or more events that occurred separately into the same scene. This is effectively composed to maintain the proper context and meaning of each of the events. However, the film still clocks in at just over four hours, so is best watched at more than one sitting (it was originally shown on TV over several nights).
The film takes some small poetic license in speculating on the interaction of some of the principals who may or may not have actually known each other; most notably, Jesus and Barabbas. These encounters are not represented as historic fact; instead, they serve as dramatic foundation to compare and contrast the different attitudes and belief systems of those involved.
A fine production, which offers a well-rounded vista of the material it's analyzing. -
marbachsunday9 November 2005I was a kid, the first time I watched this film. I really enjoy watching this movie every Christmas and easter time. Robert Powell really plays his role very good. Robert Powell has got a strong charisma. It was a very good idea to make this movie in 3 sequences. There is a lot of information and a lot we can learn from Jesus preaching. One of my favorite scene is where Jesus speaks to the roman soldier. Although some characters are not the same like in the bible, it is still a great movie. It's definitely one of the best Jesus movies ever made. For everyone who wants to watch a Jesus movie, this movie is a recommendation.
-
SharpNickelz3 January 2004There has been no other biblical film that touched me like this one. Dispite all the little details that have been criticized and pointed out, these should be of no consequence. The illustration of Jesus' life story in this film was rich. Not only can you feel the strong presence of Christ through Robert Powell, but you also can get a taste of the times in which he lived.
Although the film, like many biblical films, tries to clearly depict the spiritual nature of Christianity, this one goes beyond that. It gives you a glimpse into the politics, social/religious hierarch, economics, and the mindstate of the Jewish and Roman communities throughout the era. It's more than just your typical Christ film. It's gives you a broader view and a complete understanding of what it was like to live in the times of Jesus Christ.
Besides being a historical landmark and the great religous story that it is, this film also takes you through the ups and downs. The doubts, the hardships, the miracles, and the uprising. A very 3 Dimensional drama.
I am a Christian, and while I might not be as devout as some, my faith is strong and this film re-enforced that spirituality. It was very moving to hear the lessons and wise preachings of Jesus in a similar setting to the one where he once stood. To see the dramas first hand, from an unbiased point of view.
I would advise everyone to see this movie atleast once. No matter if your a Christian or not. The morals and lessons taught by Jesus Christ can be appreciated by anyone. Not just as the Son Of God, but as a Man who strongly believed in Love and goodwill towards his fellow Man. Not only as a religious icon, but as a mentor, moral activist, and humanitarian to his people. His words are universal. What he stood for is greater than any man that ever walked the face of this Earth. This film gives you that insight. It goes farther than showing you a religious belief...it gives you the reason why it's worth believing in.
I give this film 9/10. Powerful, Enlightening, and Emotionally driven. The Greatest Story Ever Told dramatized for all to enjoy time and time again.
If you liked this film, I also recommend "The Robe (1953)" and "The Ten Commandments (1956)" -
buttuglybiker26 March 2005"Jesus of Nazareth" is by far the most detailed movie on the life of Christ. I remember when it first aired on TV back in April of 1977. That was the week of my wedding and I remember watching it with my new bride on our honeymoon. Because of it's length and as a mini series it was able to cover most all the events in Jesus's life. There are many scenes and which I would say are some of my favorites but by far the best scene in the whole movie is when Earnest Borgnine, playing a Roman Centurian, approaches Jesus with a request that he heal a servant of his. A servant he loves as a son. Jesus says he will go to his home. The Centurian says that it won't be necessary since Jesus is a Jew and can't come into a Gentiles home. All Jesus has to do is give the word and he knows that Jesus would heal his servant. Jesus says that he has found no greater faith in all Israel than that of this Centurian. Although there were some artistic interpretations in the movie, they are so very few it isn't worth mentioning. I have seen the "Passion of the Christ" and I feel it is a very powerful movie on the last week of Christ, but it is so intense. I have to give "Jesus of Nazareth" the highest rating possible
-
nkingstown39 January 2006I am not ashamed to say that as a man in my mid thirties I cry like a baby every time I watch this epic. Robert Powell's portrayal of Jesus was exquisite, I've said Powell looks more like Jesus than Jesus did. Of course, in this day and age, people say things like "Oh, Jesus didn't have blue eyes". I know many Hebrews, and some have blue eyes. But this isn't important. What is important were his teachings. Love, love, and more love, to each and every man, pagan, enemy, or friend. Jesus even showed love to outright sinners and especially the Romans, which to my mind would have been utterly unthinkable and absolutely an astounding idea at the time. It's this doctrine that is so profound, so original, so revolutionary that convinced me that Jesus was indeed a man sent by God to show us the way how to live in harmony with our fellow man and how not to destroy ourselves.
-
Tin Man-57 August 1999Was Jesus the Divine Son of God or simply a daring revolutionary? There have always been questions concerning Jesus and who He really was, and therefore, there will probably always be films about Him and His ministry on Earth. Whether or not Jesus was who He claimed to be, the Savior of the world, one thing is certain: He is alive in the hearts of millions, and this film helped capture the spirit of the Christian beliefs, making Jesus not so much an icon but a living, breathing Son of God, perfect in every way, Who loved us enough to die for our sins.
There have been many versions of the life of Christ, and many actors who have brought their own personalities to the part. William Defoe was a fearless leader in "The Last Temptation of Christ." Brian Deacon was friendly and cheerful in "Jesus." Max Von Sydow spoke with authority and passion in "The Greatest Story Ever Told." Jurgen Prochnow was cold and mysterious in "The Seventh Sign." Jeffrey Hunter was untouchable and almost with little personality except to complete the mission assigned to him in "King of Kings." All of these men have contributed, but I would have to say that none of them were truly convincing, just because there are so many aspects to Jesus, and, being human, they were unable to really portray the Son of God affectively.
Enter Robert Powell. This man looks as if he were born to play Jesus, from the physical features to the very heart and soul of the Son of Man. He manages to combine the elements of his peers who attempted the role, and you don't see the actor....you see Jesus Christ. You can sence the love and the passion flowing through Him, and at the same time, you can see His authority and discipline. For the first time, we have a Jesus who is "one hundred percent man and one hundred percent God."
This is also possibly the longest movie I've ever sat through, but it held my attention, nevertheless. Zeffirelli manages to keep it captivating, with a powerful soundtract and a cast of famous actors that are jam-packed but never overused. Not only do you see an affective Jesus, but you also see a wonderful group of people who were affected by Him. If the real Jesus was anything like the way Robert Powell portrayed Him, then I don't have any problem wondering how Christianity has managed to grow and be spread, impacting countless lives....including mine.
"Jesus of Nazareth"....you do your title-name proud. Truly this Man WAS the Son of God. -
john-ruffle27 June 2006With Franco Zeffirelli's 1977 made for television masterpiece and Anthony Burgess' screenplay, religious film simply does not get any better than this. Much as I admire Mel Gibson's monumental depiction of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life in "The Passion of the Christ", I still believe that the yardstick by which all 'passion play' genre films will be judged in future generations will be "Jesus of Nazareth".
After completing "Brother Son, Sister Moon", Zeffirelli turned (the Jewish) Sir Lew Grade down flat for this project, stubbornly refusing to engage on the project for a year and a half. As his other stage and screen projects turned to dust, however, he finally accepted the task. What finally convinced him was his conviction that the film could be compassionate towards the Jews, and thus could help undo some of the past hatred for which Christianity was renowned.
Burgess and Zeffirelli was a match made in heaven: Burgess turned in a script that took great liberties with the sacred text. Zeffirelli was uneasy with his liberalism, and sought to bring the script back to a more faithful rendition; yet Burgess' awesomely effective dramatic structure remains. Interestingly, Ingmar Bergman had already been asked to turn in a treatment, apparently before Zeffirelli was ever approached. However, the Roman Catholics who had been the original driving force for the project strongly objected to Bergman's idea of a series of mini lives of Jesus, as seen from the viewpoint of different characters.
Bergman was dismissive of the final Zeffirelli project, and it is certain that it would have been an entirely different film had he been asked to direct. While there is much to respect about Bergman, he would have been totally incapable of producing the beauty, purity and meaning in the hidden text that is so apparent in the final film.
Less than seven years later, Zeffirelli estimated that 750,000 people had seen the film. I saw the original transmission on American television in 1977, (it was aired nationwide at least twice in two years), and I also have an original and ageing VHS (PAL) copy. I plan a London revival of the series during Lent 2007, to mark the film's 30th anniversary. Back in 1977, it was the talk of the nation - in St. Louis, I heard of one lady who was instantly healed of cancer as she watched the crucifixion scene.
Interestingly, the resurrection scene nearly never got filmed. In fact, what we do see on screen is simply screen test material rescued from the editing bin at the final hour! The information above is documented in Franco Zeffirelli book, "Jesus: a Spiritual Diary" (1984: NY. Harper & Row) and Ingmar Bergman's "The Magic Lantern" (1988: London: Hamish Hamilton). However, there is no substitute for watching this masterpiece: in a word, it's awesome! -
Deana_197724 December 2005This movie is SO awesome! I've seen it so many times that I can quote most of the dialog! If you want the ultimate portrayal of Jesus, watch this movie. If you want to see the best church sermon ever, watch this movie. If you want God in your life and don't know how to go about it, watch this movie! Anyone who isn't touched by this movie definitely has a heart of stone.
At the scene where Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, the camera pans out and you see the countryside and Jesus from the back with his arms out and the tomb. Pay attention, after Lazarus walks out and the music gets dramatic, you see a huge shadow pass over the land that literally looks like God himself waved his arm over the earth. I wouldn't be surprised if He really did; showing us that He's pleased at what He was seeing! ;) -
brett-7626019 April 2020It is such a powerful series that it probably will never be matched in accuracies and presentation. I just can't see a remake that can even come close to this. Many have tried... all have failed. I believe This is by far the best representation you will ever see on the life of Christ. The Passion is about the death of Christ. This series is about how He lived. Robert Powell is simply perfect in this role and is simply outstanding. This series will never become outdated or irrelevant and will always stand the test of time... A true classic...
-
ccthemovieman-113 December 2007At 382 minutes, you could say this film is a bit drawn out and a little too long. What makes it tough to watch is that the first segment is the most tedious, but I stuck with it the whole way and am still glad I watched it, and I would recommend to anyone to stay with it. Robert Powell is very good as Jesus Christ and has a memorable, haunting look to him. Director Franco Zeffirelli does an admirable job directing this made-for-TV mini-series that was filmed 30 years ago.
The movie certainly sports an interesting, international cast. Just look at some of those names: there are a lot of famous actors from numerous countries. It's really an awesome lineup of actors, but the one you can't forget is Powell. To this day, and I think I've seen all the films about Christ, Powell's face comes the closest to how I would want Jesus to look. It's hard to explain, but Powell - perhaps the least known in this cast - puts on a memorable performance, with his face alone! However, having said that, one complaint is that the camera focuses too much on the icy stare of Jesus and anyone who has read or studied the Gospels know Christ was about as warm and loving as you could find and Powell doesn't illuminate that warmth. For those unfamiliar with Jesus except for this film, trust me: he loves people and had plenty of smiles and warmth when He walked this earth. The film did not do a good job in that area.
However, I really don't want to nitpick because I could find a number of things. At least the length of the film actually does the Man justice because it can provide more of His life nd the incredible things He did, obviously, than a two or three-hour film. Another appeal of this film is that Christians and non-Christians alike can be moved by it. It is neither overly preachy nor blasphemous, just a good story of God being placed on Earth in human form and showing us how to live our lives....and what's wrong with that? -
jsixtvf19 May 2004A film with a prodigious baroque photography, a true homage to sacred art works in line of catholic tradition. Also this film is a personal view of Zeffirelli, who presents a Christ very human, although sometimes in mystical ecstasy but probably like must be a man who thinks that is a God. Zeffirelli message is than exceptical like Pasolini. Jesus Miracles are simple and criptical and can considered it. In this film there is philosophical conversation, in Pasolini only there a translation of "evangelio secondi di mateo" texts, like says the title. Dramatically is very better that Passolini. Robert Powell is incredible. The cinematography and illumination is the key for achieve that scenes that mix light and darkness. Atrezzo is totally realistic. Virtuoso and majesty. Perfect 10/10
My English is poor, I know it. -
tomsview9 June 2016This two-part mini-series covers the life of Jesus even before the beginning. It's long, but holds your interest to the end, and some passages are absolutely riveting, although there is no way that such a telling could avoid controversy.
It shows how powerful the story can be in the hands of gifted writers, Anthony Burgess among others, and an inspired director, Franco Zeffirelli.
With that said though, this is probably the least spectacular of the three big productions that tell the traditional life of Jesus; the others being Nicholas Ray's epic "King of Kings" and George Steven's measured "The Greatest Story Ever Told". "Jesus of Nazareth" is photographed in a no frills manner, and avoids conventional depictions of many of the events, especially the crucifixion.
Maurice Jarre's effective score has a crisp sound, halfway between the symphonic scores for "King of Kings" and "Greatest Story", and Peter Gabriel's new-age opus for "The Last Temptation of Christ".
The film has major stars in many of the roles big and small, as did Steven's "Greatest Story". Zeffirelli's film seems more successful in fitting the big names into their characters although Peter Ustinov was such a distinctive personality that his Herod seems rather tongue-in-cheek, even when he is ordering something as horrendous as the slaughter of the innocents.
However, Robert Powell's performance is fascinating. How does any actor interpret Jesus? There are no acknowledged physical descriptions of the historical Jesus so who is to say that he didn't have auburn hair and blue eyes? Unlikely of course, but beyond appearance, Powell and Zeffirelli saw him as an ethereal being, as though he is constantly aware of the fate that awaits him.
Most portrayals of Jesus tend to do that, and you could argue that it is too obvious an approach, but it probably captures the way his disciples and followers must have seen him - a unique man seemingly existing on a higher plane. Otherwise, why would they have followed him when it was so dangerous to do so?
Although some characters were invented for the purposes of the drama, I think the series as a whole presented the story of the Gospels in an honest and accessible way, but obviously made by a director with a deep faith.
Of course, it's such a powerful story with a massive influence on the history of mankind, that the door is always open for another interpretation. -
lawstudent0073 February 2003This film is rather rocky.
First, acting. Powell's Jesus is so out of it he seems to be on drugs or something. He is always looking like he is "holy" and he never gets real (except briefly in one scene). Jesus Christ was God, but also a human being, not just this Godlike character that Powell portrays. Some of the other star turns, such as Anthony Quinn and Lawrence Olivier are also strangely bad. They don't seem to have any concept of what their characters really are like. The guy who plays Peter is always reacting the same way to everything that happens.
The story is beefed up, and changed slightly. This happens all the time, but is really unnecessary. They also botch the resurection. This is likely because the filmakers don't really believe it.
Overall, the film isn't powerful enough because the filmakers don't understand this man who literally changed the world.
That said, the cinematography is excellent. Particularly the shot when Pilate calls Jesus in after he has been flogged, and you see Jesus framed in the doorway with intense backlighting. Beautiful.
Some acting is great. Rod Steiger as Pilate is superb. He catches the character, but doesn't overplay him. His Pilate is more caught in what happens than intentionally vindictive (read the account in the Gospels, right on portrayal).
So, in all, a very rocky film. Better than many "Jesus" films, but not close to the power of the real account. This man changed the world. We measure time in relation to his birth. You wouldn't get that from this film. -
thomandybish6 March 2001Over the years, numerous attempts have been made to transfer the life of Christ to the screen, and one that succeeds is Franco Zefirelli's JESUS OF NAZARETH. The story is a straighforward retelling of the synoptic gospels(Matthew, Mark, and Luke), starting with the divine revelations to Mary and Joseph of their roles as Jesus's earthly parents on the the Resurrection. The score is beautific and reverent, and the big name actors who populate the film are well-cast(no Shelley Winters or John Wayne, thankfully). Also, British actor Robert Powell gives Jesus the proper reverence and poise. Zefirelli was correct to cast him; with his angular features, wavy brown hair and light eyes, this Jesus looks like every church icon and Sunday School picture I've ever seen, something Zefirelli was aware of and used to great effect. While he passes on accuracy for effect with Jesus, the apostles, it must be noted, all resemble the Hebrew peasants, publicans, and sinners they most certainly were. The length is tolerable, primarily because Zefirelli doesn't waste film on needless, arty panoramas or slow-moving dialogue. Zefirelli does keep the action moving, but one annoying technique he employs is the now dated-looking zoom close-up, but this happens infrequently. Highly recommended.
-
HotToastyRag19 May 2018I haven't seen every single Hollywood and television interpretation of Jesus's life, but I have seen quite a few of them, and by far away Jesus of Nazareth, the six-and-a-half hour miniseries from 1977, is my favorite. I don't think it's possible to cast a more believable, more trustworthy, more authentic-looking lead than Robert Powell. He truly emits a spiritual aura, and his multi-layered emotional performance is incredibly moving. Pain, hope, trust, acceptance, and above all, love, are constantly visible in his beautifully expressive eyes. It's a wonder anyone even bothered to make another Jesus movie after Franco Zeffirelli's masterpiece.
Much like Roots and The Thorn Birds, countless A-list actors flocked to be a part of this fantastic miniseries. With Olivia Hussey as Mary, Ian McShane as Judas, Laurence Olivier as Nicodemus, Anne Bancroft as Mary Magdalene, Christopher Plummer as Herod, Rod Steiger as Pontius Pilate, Michael York as John the Baptist, Anthony Quinn as Caiaphas, James Mason as Joseph of Aramathea, James Earl Jones as Balthazar, Stacey Keach as Barabbas, Ernest Borgnine, James Farentino, Peter Ustinov, Claudia Cardinale, John Duttine, Ralph Richardson, Valentina Cortese, Ian Holm, Ian Bannen, Nikki Van der Zyl, Donald Pleasence, and Cyril Cusack, every scene is well acted and filled with star presence.
Jesus of Nazareth holds a special place in my family's heart. It was this miniseries-and I'm sure Robert Powell's performance in particular-that inspired my dad to become a Christian, so if you have a different favorite film version, I'm sure you'll understand why this version will always get my most heartfelt praise. Also, in an incredible coincidence, my brother happens to look exactly like Robert Powell-particularly in this program, as he chooses to sport long hair and a beard-so whenever we watch Jesus of Nazareth, it's as if my brother is speaking to us from the television set.
Chances are, if you like to watch biblical movies, you've probably seen this one. If you haven't, or if you're wondering which would be the best to start with, rent this version over Easter weekend and split it up over two or three days. Even if Robert Powell doesn't look like your brother, it's still powerful, emotional, and inspiring -
morten-furuz29 August 2006This is the ultimate and to this day the most powerful,realistic and best version of Jesus and His life on earth . Robert Powell gives his character the kind of personality that gives his role realism and purity at the same time,like no one else. I think he has done a terrific job in this almost impossible task. He makes Jesus real! All the way you will enjoy his way of speaking The Word with a heart and might that this role is supposed to have . And he is doing alright. No, he is doing it brilliantly! Sometimes I think to myself - it must have been close to this!...I like to think of Jesus like this,when I see this picture .I know that there is no other than Christ to save ,and thanks for that .Robert Powell makes a very good character.Watch it!
-
robfollower13 April 2020This film by Franco Zeffirelli is a masterpiece, as moving as it is profound, as well documented as inspired. It is a perfect illustration of the life and teaching of Christ, in a Palestine occupied by the Romans, with all possible political games in this situation. Christ's message of love and non-violence is largely misunderstood, yet he is the only one who can overcome the political deadlock in order to allow men and women of good will to live together and in peace. (And it remains so current!) But this film is first of all a meditation on the human condition with its weaknesses that deprives it and its greatness that elevates it to God. The characters of the Gospels are very rightly interpreted by actors who are truly inhabited by the texts. The scenery and landscapes reconstitute the country that Christ has never ceased to travel. Maurice Jarre's unforgettable music brings us through this drama and returns to us long after seeing the film. In past centuries, painting (by Giotto, Fra Angelico, Rembrandt and many others) helped to enter the depth of the Gospels, in all their psychological, existential and spiritual implications. This is what Zeffirelli film does, which illuminates the face of Christ with the same light. A must be seen in these weeks that prepare us for the feast of Easter, commemorating the death of Jesus Christ and his resurrection that delivers us all from death.
-
truemythmedia27 February 2020This film has been a part of my life for as long as I can remember. I don't remember the first time I saw it but the scenes from it are such a part of my psyche that I couldn't possibly try to play this off as an unbiased review.
When I think of Herod slaughtering the young children of Bethlehem, the sequence from this movie is the first thing that comes to mind. When I think of John the Forerunner (Baptist), I think of Michael York ("Logan's Run") yelling in the desert. When I think of a young girl being told she will bear a child though no man has known her, I think of Olivia Hussey ("Romeo and Juliet").
Obviously, I don't frequently sit down to watch all 6 1.2 hours of this film but every few years I rewatch it and I know it frequently played on Network Television in the 80s and 90s same as "The Ten Commandments" and other Easter or Christmas religious films. So what makes me want to revisit a film whose material I already know, whose runtime is at the top end of what I am willing to invest in a movie, and is now over 50 years old? I mean, hasn't a better film about Jesus been made since then?
Well, the short and simplistic answer is NO. A better film hasn't been made, but that isn't exactly why I watch this one. The first and simplest reason I like this version is that it is complete and respectful. There really aren't many works that attempt to capture the heart of every Gospel story since to do so would take, hmmm.... 6 ½ hours. Most Jesus films consolidate scenes from his life into one, skip over sections of his life, or at least abridge his teachings to focus only on the known and palatable. "Jesus of Nazareth" attempts to wrap its arms around all of the material in the New Testament and even try to understand the historical context around the events related in the Bible. On top of that, it does so without cynicism, secular accommodation, or modern analogy. There are very few moments where I feel like the movie is taking too many liberties with the story or trying too hard to make the story work for non-religious audiences.
This respect is mirrored not just in the dialogue spoken, stories selected or neglected, and a score which reverberates with reverence. It is mirrored in the quality and scale of the production. Obviously, with a huge runtime like this the expense must have been considerable but add to that a cast that is second to none and production design that is amazing and you begin to realize that the person making this film, Franco Zeffirelli ("Romeo and Juliet," 1968) was doing his best to treat the material with the gravity he felt it deserved.
The cast is simply outstanding. The list of cameos and main characters played by noteworthy actors is so remarkable that even into my late 30s, I am still realizing that certain characters were played by famous actors who I simply had not heard of yet such as Ian McShane playing Judas Iscariot decades before I would get to know him as Swearengine on "Deadwood." These actors bring a believability to their roles that you simply do not find in most modern films made about Biblical events. The recent remake of "Ben Hur" is a great bad example of what happens when every character in your year 33 AD film looks like they could as easily be at home at a Hollywood soiree as on the streets of Jerusalem. You need actors with a dedication to authenticity that is hard to come by if you can't inspire a huge cast to commit hard and trust that everyone is committing to that same degree. Luckily, with very few exceptions, the actors in "Jesus of Nazareth" do a remarkable job of disappearing into their roles and into the 1st century.
The production design in the film is another standout in "Jesus of Nazareth." Costumes and buildings, boats and nets, the temple and Golgotha are all rendered so naturalistically that I hardly noticed them. This is in contrast to films set in a similar time period but which focus on style and splashy costumes and sets which have more in common with HBO's "Rome," STARZ "Spartacus," or Ridley Scott's "Gladiator," all fine in their own right but certainly not erring on the side of authenticity.
The world Jesus (Robert Powell) lives in feels lived in. When Jesus is reading from the scroll of the scriptures you really get the sense that the scriptures have been read aloud in that room for years and years. Mary Magdalene (Anne Bancroft "The Graduate") isn't just some woman that is brought out to Jesus for adultery. We see her life of prostitution and how she is treated by the people around her long before they all turn on her and criticise her to Jesus' face.
In short, the film treats these stories as if they aren't just Sunday School stories being told void of context. This film assumes that all the people who come into Jesus' life for one or two little stories in the scriptures were real people with full lives that were complex and varied as ours are.
This isn't all to say that the film has no weaknesses. Certainly the length is a barrier to many but of you think of it as more akin to the lengthy mini-series projects of Fassbinder ("Berlin Alexanderplatz") or a film event like "Roots." Seen in that light, it's a major accomplishment.
Another problem with the film is Robert Powell as Jesus. His performance is a little more otherworldly than I would prefer and his blue eyes certainly stand out as he plays a character that most likely would have had dark eyes. I forgive it that oversight though because I do think the eye color was a deliberate choice to make his face stand out amongst the crowd as having something special in it. I definitely don't think it is offensive as certain other portrayals of Christ have been, complete with blonde hair or surfer dude accent.
Overall, the film is a stunning achievement that I think every Christian should watch at least once. If you are a parent, believer or not, you could do far worse than showing scenes or sequences from "Jesus of Nazareth" to help your kids understand what people believe about Jesus and why his actions and teachings had such an impact on our world.
Seriously, if you are a Christian and haven't seen this film, check it out now on Amazon Prime Streaming. Watch each section after you read the Bible account or as the commemoration of each event comes up in the Church Calendar. I think you'll find it will add a dimension to your engagement with the seasons of the church and will help begin the process of redeeming the time we spend on media by including Christ in that time. -
otley-1969831 December 2020Brilliant cast and probably the best Movie to depict what may have happened. One of the best and Robert Powell's masterful performance sends shivers down your spine.
-
thien31420 April 2003Jesus of Nazareth is such an incredible movie. Robert Powell, who plays the role of Jesus Christ, is a remarkable actor. He plays Jesus so well that you feel it is really Jesus at times. His performance as well as his looks are so realistic and sensational that it's unbelievable. Powell is such a gifted actor that if he were to do films in Hollywood, he would most likely win an Oscar. I recommend this movie to anybody who would love to truly understand what Jesus Christ went through from his birth to resurrection. Not to mention, an amazing cast of Academy Award winners of the time. Overall, 10 out of 10!!!!
-
rodeoclown5 October 2002I'm surprised that almost everyone agrees that this is the greatest movie about Jesus Christ's life. I've seen the wonderful Pasolini's Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo and the very good Rossellini's Messia, and this Zeffirelli "masterpiece" really can't compare to any of these two. Anyway, this is one out of two or three Zeffirelli films I can watch, the rest to me is trash, including Fratello Sole Sorella Luna. 6/10.
-
GYassa2 September 2008This is a beautiful Movie! One of the best films done on the Lord! Powell Never blinks throughout the movie! Star studded cast! It is pretty accurate with minor extra dramatization and non-Biblical story lines. However overall a great movie. I truly enjoyed watching over and over again. Actually I enjoyed it so much that I am trying to find see more of it. I am trying to find the original mini-series in order to see the deleted scenes. Does anyone know where I can view the deleted scenes from this movie? I hear that there is a scene of the Temptation of the Lord immediately following the Baptism, as well as a few other scenes? I have never seen a DVD with these deleted scenes. Please help if you can.
-
orbrium17 April 2006I think this is the best Jesus movie I've ever seen even if I don't agree with all the facts shown. I love long movies and I wish my church would come out with a long dramatization of Jesus's life and work. I love this movie. I try to watch it every year at easter like I did when I was little. Other movies I'd recommend are the "Ten Comandments" (1956), "The Testaments" (put out by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, not yet available on video at this time but seen at a temple visitor's center), "Finding Faith in Christ" (Though it is too short, also put out by The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints), "The Restoration" (by the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints).
-
The main thing this miniseries can be applauded for is the effort taken to try and recreate a palpable sense of the historical settings and the cultural milieu. I also applaud the director for the Classical, British style of acting and delivery which is infinitely greater than the more modern, 'method' kind of American Acting that has cheapened Cinema and TV over the decades.
However, the biggest problem here is the WRITING/SCRIPT. What they chose to portray from the Biblical accounts and what they chose to ADD as well as SUBTRACT is completely unwieldy and sometimes absolutely perplexing!! There is also NO COGENT SENSE of the narrative. The miniseries is called "Jesus of Nazareth" and yet there is so much time spent on Joseph, the husband of Mary in the beginning, for instance, that when he dies, the rest of the show NEVER feels the same again because the audience was so heavily invested in Joseph as a primary character. Robert Powell is a terrific actor, but he lacks the warmth of the actor who played Joseph, and so Joseph emerges as a more likeable and sympathetic protagonist than Robert Powell's version of Jesus, which should not have happened.
It was very unnecessary to make up a fictional "backstory" for Mary and Joseph, as if they were an amorous couple from 'Fiddler on the Roof', when this goes against the traditional understanding of Jesus's mother and foster father, and then Mary is reduced to a sober widow as the story progresses. They go to great lengths to portray how joyous and festive Mary and Joseph's betrothal and wedding were, but then they make the MOST BAFFLING DECISION of omitting the entire WEDDING OF CANA later in the miniseries, which is one of the most well-known episodes from the New Testament - it was actually the First Miracle that Jesus performed in public, at Mary's behest. It makes zero sense to leave such a significant and beloved story out of this screen adaptation! In fact, I don't think Mary and Jesus ever even speak to each other here after Jesus becomes an adult, except when He is on the cross. Very bizarre, and makes no sense at all in light of the great lengths taken by Franco Zeffirelli to depict how Mary and Joseph became a family in the first place (above and beyond what the Bible tells us).
Mary Magdalene is introduced as a formidable character, but we barely see her with Jesus either except in one scene. We don't even see Jesus casting the seven demons out of her. What drew her to Jesus in the first place after living the kind of lifestyle she did is only hinted at, and there is NO TIME spent showing her integration into the community of Disciples. Hence, her last scene with the Apostles seems very discordant and strange - the director seems to want to make the point that the Apostles were misogynistic and didn't take her seriously, but it could have been depicted in a more nuanced and polished way. When Mary Magdalene storms out in anger at the end, it completely undermines the whole message of love and forgiveness that Jesus had spent so much time preaching! It's as if the director prioritized making some Unbiblical, Angry Feminist statement, over what would make logical sense in the context of the actual narrative. If most other things about Jesus and the Disciples were not portrayed in a modern revisionist kind of way, it makes no sense to take a modern revisionist position with Mary Magdalene at the end.
Also, Anne Bancroft's performance begins brilliantly, but becomes weak and amateurish as the story reaches its conclusion. Mary Magdalene definitely wouldn't have smiled EVEN ONCE at the foot of the Cross, whereas here they concoct some ridiculous moment where she is ALL CHUFFED that the Roman soldiers' attempts to keep her away are thwarted by the Virgin Mary 'agreeing' that she is Family. Anne Bancroft looks more like a child who managed to get ahead of the queque at a lemonade stand in that scene. And the scene where she relays the Resurrection to the Apostles is enacted in a way that can only be described as COMICAL. Perhaps she was trying to be all grand and Shakespearean, but it makes her look so ridiculous that you can't blame the Apostles for not taking her seriously.
They clearly dubbed Olivia Hussey when she is shown crying and wailing over the Body of Jesus after he dies. That does not sound like her voice, and it's also not synced with her mouth at all. The fact that Mary would break down like that AFTER Jesus died also doesn't make sense, when the director depicts her in a more stoic manner in the moments leading UP to his death for the most part. The Virgin Mary of all people would have known about the Resurrection of Jesus, but here she acts as if she will never see him again. Doesn't fit the portrayal of Mary up until that point, who understands the message of Jesus so well, that in this miniseries it is SHE who says that anyone who does the will of God is the brother, sister or mother of Jesus (which is something that Jesus himself says in the Bible). So again, very unwieldly and incoherent.
The series is ALL OVER THE PLACE in the end. I can go on and on, but you should get the idea. Even the RESURRECTION OF JESUS is very ambiguously depicted at first, and then suddenly there's a brief concluding scene of the Risen Jesus talking to the Apostles which feels like it was just tacked on at the last minute and is ANTI-CLIMACTIC. It also feels like He sent Mary Magdalene to tell the others He was risen for nothing, because we don't see Peter and John run to the Tomb after what Mary says, as presented in the Bible!! Instead, here the viewer is left with the erroneous and totally inexplicable sense that Jesus sent Mary to tell them what she saw - they don't believe her, she gets angry and storms off - only for Jesus to just appear there later on, and completely ignore the frustration that Mary Magdalene had just undergone a little while ago (for no reason apparently). Again, this is not what happens in the Bible. John and Peter confirm that the Tomb is empty THEMSELVES in the Bible, having taken what Mary Magdalene said to heart.
The MUSIC/SCORE is not only repetitive and quite grating after a while, but it's also SO OMINOUS AND EERIE more often than not, that it totally undermines the fact that Jesus came to spread *GOOD NEWS*. The Gospel literally means Good News, and this is supposed to be the Gospel story here, because Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel/Good News are synonymous, but the music score here makes you feel like this is only a few steps away from being a HORROR story. Even Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" proves to be much more spiritually uplifting than this!!
The 'horror' element is also unfortunately present in the depiction of Jesus Himself from childhood to adulthood. As a child, he just stands around SILENTLY AND CREEPILY as if he were Damien the Demon Child from THE OMEN - which makes zero sense. In the Bible, it's JOSEPH of Nazareth who doesn't actually say a word, but instead here we get an INCESSANTLY TALKATIVE Joseph from the beginning all the way through his death scene, while the Boy Jesus doesn't speak one word except in the Temple. The director was clearly aiming to evoke a sense of REALITY and *VERISIMILITUDE* in this miniseries, so having a creepily mute Boy Jesus for so long only generates the effect of a VERY DISCONCERTING HORROR-STORY-IN-THE-MAKING.
Robert Powell himself - again, despite his prowess as an actor - does not exude the LOVING, HEAVENLY persona that Jim Caviezel embodied to PERFECTION in all the flashback scenes in 'The Passion of the Christ'. While Powell has his moments, they seem to be few and far between, because he either enacts Jesus as some mysterious, practically ominous otherworldly being/Angel of Death type of figure......inexplicably staring into space and acting like he is in a trance (whereas Jesus in the Bible went away from everyone to PRAY ALONE when he needed to commune with God the Father).....or he goes the complete opposite direction and acts like a British Bonvivant from the modern era, such as in the scene where he is eating and drinking with the Pharisees. The way he contrasts himself with the ascetic John the Baptist there also seems to completely miss the mark - Robert Powell acting like he's suddenly unleashing his INNER PARTY BOY and as if he almost PITIES John the Baptist for having been so austere, whereas in the Bible, Jesus is simply calling out his opponents for their "damned if one does and damned if one doesn't" attitude.
I really don't want to go on and on, because it would be very easy to do so, but although it's worth seeing this once through, it is *A FAR CRY* from the definitive screen adaptation of Jesus of Nazareth. NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!! It seems to be a strange attempt to merge the secular with the spiritual, accomplishing neither one nor the other in the last analysis, and the effort to try and make it seem like Pontius Pilate was the ultimate, villainous arbiter of Jesus's Crucifixion is also BLATANTLY FALSE in light of what the Gospels present. The director tries to be a Historical Revisionist at some points, while also trying desperately to maintain fidelity to the King James Version of the Bible in his next breath, resulting in a DISJOINTED DEPICTION of the narrative.
Please also watch the late 1920s silent film version 'King of Kings' (Cecile B. DeMille) and 'The Passion of the Christ' etc, if you watch this. They are far from perfect, but they flesh out a lot of things which this miniseries only glosses over, despite arriving at such a BLOATED LENGTH of over 6 hours. If a miniseries is going to be as long as this, one must be EXTREMELY JUDICIOUS about what is portrayed and what is not - but those decisions seem to have been made in a THOROUGHLY HAPHAZARD AND ARBITRARY way here. We barely even get a sense of the extent of the Suffering that Jesus underwent on the way to the Cross and on the Cross.