The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) User Reviews (364)

Offensive - no. Fantastic film-making - yes!

[barnabyrudge · 9/10 · 14 April 2005]

Has there ever been a more misunderstood film than Martin Scorcese's The Last Temptation Of Christ? Released amid great controversy and accused of being an offensive and unholy film, the truth of the matter is that it is a deeply reverent work which has the courage to ask challenging questions about the pressures and doubts Jesus must have experienced as the appointed Messiah. It also shows the violence of the times in graphic detail. If viewers consider it blasphemous to explore on film the immense burden of duty that Jesus bore through his life, then they are narrow-minded and ignorant. If people feel that to show the brutality and harshness of life in Roman times is tasteless and inappropriate, then they are guilty of glorifying difficult but factual truths. There is NOTHING offensive about this film. There is, however, much that is challenging.

Jesus (Willem Dafoe), an honest carpenter, saves Mary Magdalene (Barbara Hershey) from a stoning. Already dimly aware that he is destined to lead an extraordinary life, he soon finds himself being drawn into the role of a religious figurehead. But Jesus finds it hard to accept that he is a Messiah, and as his reputation and following grows he constantly questions if he is a strong enough man to handle the burden of being God's son. After isolating himself in the desert, where he experiences several hallucinations in which he is confronted by visual manifestations of good and evil, Jesus finally concludes that he IS the true son of God and whole-heartedly sets about imparting his love and wisdom to all who'll listen. Later betrayed to the disgruntled Romans by his friend Judas Iscariot (Harvey Keitel), Jesus is crucified. While on the cross, he imagines what his life would have turned out like if he had shied away from his duty as the Messiah and lived life like a mere mortal.

It is this final section of the film that has provoked the most vociferous outrage. The sequence shows Jesus as he slowly dies on the cross, dreaming of an alternative life in which he sins and copulates and hates like all normal people. Many people have criticised the film on the grounds that these scenes are blasphemous. Such claims are nonsense - the film is not saying that Jesus was a sinner, nor that he gave in to temptation of the flesh, nor still that he was a man filled with hate. The film is merely saying that, in such great pain and so close to death while still just a young man, he might - just maybe - have wondered if it was all worth it. At the end of the film, we see Jesus accept his role knowing that his death is the ultimate act of unselfish love, so the film actually is totally in agreement with what all Christians believe. If the film had come to the conclusion that Jesus's whole life was a waste, his death too, then maybe the detractors would've had cause to complain. But how can they possibly be offended by the film as it stands? For goodness sake, it's a film about absolute faith!!! In truth, The Last Temptation Of Christ is an excellent movie. Compellingly acted, beautifully shot on Moroccan locations, and full of telling ideas, it is a work of real depth and power. The accents are sometimes distracting and some of the dialogue occasionally betrays ill-suited modernisms, but apart from these minor drawbacks it is one of the most important and thought-provoking films ever made.

have an open mind and watch it

[Fever · 9/10 · 13 August 1998]

I thought this movie was an excellent piece of film making. A fabulous score and stunning cinematography take us through the inner struggle of Jesus in accepting his role and his duty. It tells how he faced temptation, ridicule , torture and triumph. Before you burn my name in effigy for liking this movie, be open minded and just experience a good film. The "disclaimer" at the beginning of the movie says it all. It is not necessarily based on events in the Bible. Just as Jesus used parables as a way of teaching, this movie tells a story of a man's life and events that we can all somehow personally relate to. By the way, the portrayal of Satan was the best I've seen yet.

The Hope of Conquering Temptation

[DaveDiggler · 7/10 · 19 May 2008]

Martin Scorsese directs one of his finest achievements in a career of directing finest achievements. He takes on a subject close to his heart and close to his faith. Nikos Kazantzakis wrote an extraordinary piece of work on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The last temptation takes place while Jesus is on the cross, but before that we watch Jesus (William Dafoe) try to overcome temptation as an everyday man. That's what Kazantzakis focuses on. While Christ is on the cross the pain and sacrifice wouldn't be the same if he didn't feel it and showing Jesus in the form of an everyday man may offend some devout Christians, but if they're offended then they're missing the point. God sent his son down to this earth to die for mans sins. That's what scriptures tell us, but Kazantzakis takes us down an intriguing road as the son of God battles the temptations of the everyday man, yet without sin. We watch Jesus struggle with acceptance that he is the messiah, but eventually he accepts his role. We watch Jesus tempted by evil, but he resists. When some hit's him, he turns the other cheek. He has love and he has love for everyone and everything. He doesn't have hate, he doesn't have sin, Jesus is a perfect creature in a man's body sent to do God's work. Martin Scorsese depicts him no differently than he's imagined or believed to have been.

The final act is the greatest part of the film (maybe the most controversial). It shows Jesus taken down, off the cross, by his guardian angel- something that didn't happen according scriptures. As you watch this and if you know the story and haven't read the novel, you become baffled. You don't know what to think or how to interpret it. We see Jesus doing things he never did, like having sex, having children, and living out the rest of his life as an everyday man; living a good, humble life, old and tired. Only until the final moment and the final shot of the film, does the entire third act make complete sense, which makes the final statement by Jesus all that more powerful; "It is accomplished!" It isn't done in a negative manner. Kazantzakis and Scorsese aren't showing Jesus full of sin for no good reason. Showing the hallucination and showing Satan tempting Christ in his weakest moment is what makes Jesus' sacrifice even more powerful. Not only did he die for the sin of man, but he died for the sin of man while being tempted to live a normal and happy life as a man by Satan in the form of a beautiful guardian angel. There would be no torture; no death; no pain; no sacrifice, but here, Jesus fights his temptations and accepts his role and the path God sent him on. He dies on the cross in agony with temptation from Satan at his weakest moment. He's triumphant in a way that is hard to see triumph, but not only does he accept the sins of man, and not only does he sacrifice his life, but he defeats Satan and conquers temptation... as a man. Jesus is a powerful figure without sin and neither Scorsese nor Kazantzakis show him as anything less than the Lord and Savior. The film should leave you questioning your ability to resist temptation as Jesus did. As a devout Christian, one would think, you'd be more appreciative of the depiction in this film than any other film ever made on this subject. "The Last Temptation of Christ" is a powerful film done without sensation, without hate, but with taste, respect, love and appreciation for his sacrifices and his ability to resist temptation and go on with the plan when, as a man, Jesus could have taken the easy way out. He didn't. He sacrificed his life and went through the pain and suffering as a man. Not as a God, where he knows there is no pain and he'll born again in three days, but as a man that can feel all the things we feel and resist all things we don't resist.

Personally I have serious doubts about every word that I've come across, or every biblical story I've ever heard. I am not a Christian. I'm not atheist. I'm nothing more than a skeptic, but this film did something that I would never think possible; I had a religious experience and almost, for a second, became a believer. This is one of the most profound and powerful films ever made even though it has some serious flaws. You don't have to believe in God or Christianity to enjoy this film, simply an opened mind.

The Most Loving Portrayal of Jesus I Could Imagine

[CSM126-1 · 10/10 · 22 July 2005]

Condemned by Fundamentalists upon release, delayed by outcries from hypocrites and liars, and boycotted in any city where it played "The Last Temptation of Christ" is one of the most controversial movies ever made. Instead of showing Christ as a fearless and perfect person, "The Last Temptation" depicts Him as a person who fought his destiny and wished to be just another mortal human being. Religious groups who couldn't (and still can't) accept the fact that Jesus was human were shocked by such ideas and refused to see the film or read the landmark novel on which it was based. They'll never know that they attacked one of the most honest and loving depictions of Christ.

The Christ we see in the film is not based on the teachings of the Gospels, or any scripture for that matter. Instead we get a portrait of Christ the man, not Christ the Savior. We get to see his faults, his fears and anxieties. Then, we get to see him overcome those and find the strength to fulfill his destiny. The Last Temptation of Christ is not afraid to say that Jesus was weak before he became the Savior, and that makes the film all the more satisfying. This is a tale of redemption, courage, and love like no other.

There is no reason to miss this film. Not everyone will like it, but at the very least it will let you see another perspective of the story. And even if you can't accept the story, you won't be able to deny the greatness of Scorsese's direction. From the epic crowd scenes, to the intimate one-on-one conversations, to the stunning final shot (which was actually caused by an overexposed section of film, but is beautiful nonetheless), you will be awed by Scorsese's work here.

Also stunning is the work of the two leads. Willem Dafoe inhabits the role of Christ perfectly, bringing perfectly controlled emotion to each and every scene. Harvey Keitel as Judas has been the subject of debate because of his NYC accent. That was on purpose (Scorsese used accents to denote the descent of characters. American accent = Israelite; British accent = Roman), but it doesn't even matter. Keitel is brilliant no matter what his accent is.

Honest, human, loving, and unafraid, "The Last Temptation of Christ" is one of the great cinematic achievements of all time. Martin Scorsese crafted with this film his most personal masterpiece, and perhaps his greatest masterpiece ever.

I must state before I talk about the movie that I...

[Sprewell · 11 February 1999]

I must state before I talk about the movie that I have been a Christian for the last five years. I live my life to be Christlike, as well as I do believe with all of my heart in the story of the gospels.

I must say, of all of the variations I've heard telling the story of Jesus Christ, through seven years of presbyterian school and nineteen years of catholic upbringing, this movie by far offers the most compelling, the most accessible, and is the only one that really makes Jesus out to what I believe him to be.

Supposedly Jesus was the Son of God and supposedly Jesus was a human. So what is wrong with him being tempted as every man is? There is a huge difference between being tempted and actually committing the sin. The miracle of Jesus is that he did not sin. He did not succumb to the carnal desires that all men must invariably do. Yet his struggle to resist temptation as well as find out who He really was makes him all the more human and the story of Christ so much more inspiring.

Scorsese's vision coupled with Willem DaFoe in the best performance of his career capture that struggle and that humanity. And as a result, I've never been more proud to be a Christian.

The Only Non-Biblical Jesus Movie That I Can Recommend In Full Conscience:

[filmbuff-05706 · 10/10 · 25 March 2022]

*This is not just a review, it's a deep explanation on why this is one of my favorite Jesus movies of all time. It's also an edited version of my old review from an old page.*

Martin Scorsese is my favorite director and I became a fan of his a long time ago after I saw Casino, back when I was 16. Afterwards I wanted to see other movies that he made. I went on IMDB, went to 1988 and found "The Last Temptation of Christ." I was amazed. The same guy who directed a violent, profane movie about greed made a movie about Jesus?

Then I read that it was not biblical. That turned me off. Often, Biblically inaccurate movies, like Noah or Exodus Gods and Kings, are not that good and turn out confusing, frustrating, or even boring.

But I did some research on the movie anyway. On YouTube, I found a 13 minute interview with Martin Scorsese which stated why he made it. He noticed from his Catholic upbringing that Jesus was God AND He was a man. He was human- like us! Since that is the case, what is it that makes Him human like us?

That is the point of this movie. It's not biblical, but it is a thought provoking portrayal of Jesus' struggle with being human and His destiny to suffer and die by crucifixion.

I also saw that Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel both adored it. Roger gave it 4/4 stars and in 2008 he wrote a review for his "Great Movies" series of reviews. And despite giving it 3.5 stars, Gene called it the best movie of the year!

Additionally, I discovered that the un-biblical nature of the movie gained controversy upon release. There were protests, death threats to Martin Scorsese, attacked film goers, etc. Over the movie. And most of the protesters did not even see it!

Then I decided it was time to check out this movie for myself. My 18th birthday was coming up, so I asked a friend who was once my babysitter to get it for me. I got it a month early. You will not be able to imagine how excited I was! I watched it that night to check it out.

A part of me wants to analyze the movie scene by scene. But you probably don't want to read a review that long. Therefore I will discuss 2 main inaccuracies that made an uproar over 3 decades ago:

2 Corinthians 5:21 says about Jesus: "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." So Jesus was sinless. Got it.

There is a scene in which Jesus talks with someone on a hill and he says that He sins. This ticked off many people-and it was even debated on Oprah. But the scene does not end here.

"We all sin." The person responds. "Well, not my sins." Jesus continues.

Look at my verse quote again. Jesus knew no sin, but took our sins upon Himself. That's what He is saying- at least that's how I look at it.

The biggest controversy involves Christ on the cross, and an angel comes and tells Him that God wants Him to live a normal life-and not die for mankind. Jesus has struggled with this fate for the whole movie, and is relieved to hear this. He comes down, weds Mary Magdalene, and has kids with her. This includes a half-minute scene in which they have sex. This angered the protesters the most.

However, since the movie is a work of fiction- is not meant to be taken seriously. This movie isn't saying Jesus married and has sex, it's supposing that He would have done that had He lived a normal life.

Later, He grows old and learns that His "angel" is actually Satan- who has deceived Him so He would not achieve victory over death. He asks God for another chance to die on the cross-and He gets it.

He goes back on the cross and-relieved that He has achieved God's will, smiles and screams: "It is accomplished!" This is followed by joyous music that I have to dance to every time! :)

As a result, the movie ended up making me appreciate Jesus's sacrifice more than any other moment in my life! I was very uplifted by the movie for the next few days, and I still have an emotional attachment now-after seeing it 7 or 8 times. I even shared that with my senior year English class when I had to discuss my favorite movie for a minute as a class assignment! (It was my favorite at the time.)

There is so much more that I could say about The Last Temptation of Christ, but this gives you a general idea on why I cherish this movie so much! I apologize that this review is so long(this may be the longest review that I ever write) but this is to give you a general idea on how spiritual, and not blasphemous, it is.

The movie was based on a novel by an agnostic. In the prologue, he writes, in paraphrase: "I hope this story will let any free man more than before, and better than before, love Christ." And that is where The Last Temptation of Christ undeniably succeeds!

an alternative reality for Christ

[didi-5 · 7/10 · 13 March 2005]

This adaptation of Nikos Kazantzakis's novel, directed by Martin Scorsese, caused quite a stir on its initial release, accused of blasphemy and of causing offence to the Christian religion.

However, in its depiction of Jesus Christ as a human being rather than a man divine, it gets to the core of his story. This is a man who makes the choice of self-sacrifice for the good of his fellow men, despite the temptations of an alternative life - shown in this film by a life with Mary Magdelene rather than dying at the Crucifixion.

Played by Willem Dafoe with great sensitivity, this Christ performs miracles and discusses the intricacies of life and death with his disciples. Harvey Keitel is Judas, a rough man who fails to understand the significance of being the chosen Son of God; while Barbara Hershey is an effective Magdelene. David Bowie makes a short appearance as Pontius Pilate and is surprisingly good.

'The Last Temptation of Christ' is not one of Scorsese's best films but it certainly sparks questions and leaves food for thought. Some of the imagery is superb and the script is coherent and of a high standard.

A beautiful, moving film.

[flahertyd · 10/10 · 16 March 2005]

This is a beautiful film. It is one of the most powerful and ultimately one of the greatest films ever made, without a doubt. The performances, especially by Willem Dafoe as Jesus, are amazing; the sets and costumes are realistic and never feel forced, glossy, or stylized (and were based on extensive archaeological and philological research); Peter Gabriel's score is absolutely unbelievable...I cannot possibly praise this film enough, as well as Mr. Scorcese's courage in making such a bold and beautiful work of art in the face of considerable opposition.

It is really best to avoid religious and theological arguments about this film - it is simply a portrait of Christ coming to terms with who he is and what he must do. If it occasionally portrays Jesus in a manner that is somewhat at odds with that of scripture, try to keep in mind that it is merely another take on a story that has no absolute and authoritative telling. That Jesus has difficulty coming to terms with the role he must play is something that scripture does not rule out.

Consider it this way: this is the sort of film that has the power to convince the irreligious or non-Christians out there (of which I am one) of the importance, beauty, depth, and truth of Jesus' vision of a world filled with love and compassion. Give this movie a chance. You will not be disappointed.

Something that all critics have missed

[DanDV · 6/10 · 31 January 2009]

I've read tens of reviews of "The Last Temptation of Christ": from the Washington Post, BBCi, Chicago Sun-Times, eFilmCritic, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, even FilmAtheist.com. Everyone mentioned how fundamentalist Christians were offended by Jesus being shown naked, or making love to Magdalene, but NONE, and I mean, NONE talked about the dialog between Apostle Paul and Jesus.

Short background, which summarizes the first 2 (torturous) hours of the movie: Jesus of the movie is pretty much the same Jesus depicted by the gospels. You can safely skip the first 120 minutes of the movie if you know the gospel story - you will not lose anything; Scorsese doesn't bring anything new here. After the 2 hour mark, Jesus is caught by the Romans put up on the cross. There, he has a vision of an angel, who offers to take him off the cross and give him a chance at a normal life. Jesus accepts, and goes on having sex with Magdalene (whom God later kills without explanation), then with other women. He has children and works for a living.

NOW HERE'S THE CATCH: when Jesus is perhaps in his 50s, Apostle Paul comes preaching in his village, about - guess what - the resurrection of Jesus, and how the resurrected Jesus will save the world. Jesus is astonished at the lies and confronts Paul. The following dialog, the shocking gist of the movie in my opinion, ensues after the 2h22m mark:

Paul (preaching to the crowd): And now I bring the good news to you - it's about Jesus of Nazareth. He was not the son of Mary, He was the son of God! [...] And He was punished for our sins. Then He was tortured and crucified. But three days later He rose up from the dead and went up to Heaven! Death was conquered! Amen!

Jesus: Did you ever see this Jesus of Nazareth, after He came back from the dead? I mean, with your own eyes?

Paul: No, but I saw a light that blinded me. and I heard His voice.

Jesus: You're a liar.

Paul: His disciples saw Him. They were hiding in an attic with the doors locked. He appeared to them.

Jesus (going away): Liar. He's a liar!

Paul (running after Jesus): Wait a minute, I wanna talk to you!

Jesus (grabbing Paul by the throat): I was never crucified, I never came back from the dead. I'm a man, like everybody else. Why are you telling these lies?

Paul: What are you talking about?

Jesus: I'm the son of Mary and Joseph. I'm the one who preached in Galilee. I had followers, we marched on Jerusalem, Pilate condemned me and God saved me.

Paul: No you didn't.

Jesus: Who are you talking about?! DON'T TRY TO TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED TO ME, BECAUSE I KNOW. I live like a man now. I work, eat, have children. [...] So don't go around telling lies about me. Or I'll tell everybody the truth.

And here it is, RELIGION IN THE MAKING:

Paul: Look around you. Look at all these people. Look at their faces.

Do you see how unhappy they are, how much they're suffering? Their only hope is the resurrected Jesus. I don't care whether you're Jesus or not. The resurrected Jesus will save the world, and that's what matters.

Jesus: Those are lies. You can't save the world by lying.

Paul: I CREATED the truth out of what people needed and what they believed.

If I have to crucify you to save the world, I'll crucify you. And if I have to resurrect you, then I'll do that too, whether you like it or not.

Jesus: I won't let you. I'll tell everyone the truth.

Paul: Go ahead. Go on. Tell them now. Who's going to believe you? You started all this; now you can't stop it. All those people who believe me will grab you and kill you.

Jesus: No, that wouldn't happen.

Paul: How do you know? You see, you don't know how much people NEED God. You don't know how happy He can make them. He can make them happy to do anything. He can make them happy to die, and they'll die. All for the sake of Christ. Jesus Christ. Jesus of Nazareth. The Son of God. The Messiah. Not you. Not for your sake. [...] My Jesus is much more important and much more powerful.

There you have it - how Christianity started. If Jesus existed at all, he was an ordinary preacher, who got crucified, and died. But a hopeful story survived, took over truth and reality, and got repeated ad nauseam to the point of very few questioning its origins.

This film is superb.

[xxxjb007xxx · 10/10 · 9 February 2000]

Most cinematic depictions of Christ show a perfect being, a one-dimensional person who is overly self confident and almost egotistical. I can never relate to those films, so they aren't believable. The Last Temptation of Christ is totally different. It was banned by intolerant Christians who didn't even see it because they have conflicting viewpoints, which is one hell of a paradox. I use to say that Christ was described as a demi-god in the Bible because He is half-man and half-god, but I was told that He is really all-man and all-god. If the latter thesis is correct, than he most have all the perfections of god as well as all the faults of man. In the movie, Jesus is not perfect. He sins, or at least, He confesses sins. He is haunted by visions and sounds almost to where He goes on the brink of insanity. He is tempted by Satan over and over again into thinking that he is just a man. When He cures a person of blindness, He does not smile, he frowns in pain because for every man he cures, he knows it brings him closer to the cross. The characterization in this movie is excellent. This script is Schrader's best, although it was rewritten. The music is the best I've ever heard in any films. Scorsese's direction was absolutely superb. Willem Dafoe and Harvey Keitel were excellent as well. And the movie leads you to the most haunting portayal of the crucifixion in cinematic history.

It is a must for any person to see, especially if you were outraged by the fact that Jesus is displayed as imperfect. You cannot do the film justice if you don't watch the whole film. You may be offended throughout the entire film, but it all comes together in the end and all is well. Seriously, I give the film five stars.

Stunning And Passionate Variation On The Christ Story

[ShootingShark · 7/10 · 26 June 2005]

In ancient times, Jesus Christ, a lowly man from Nazareth, tries to resist a calling from a voice he thinks is God, telling him to preach a doctrine of freedom and love for God and one another. Ultimately however he fulfils this destiny, but his cause prompts the Roman authorities to capture and crucify him, martyring him for all time for the sins of mankind.

Because any story about religious faith is an intensely spiritual and cerebral concept, the Jesus story is hard to film (the best adaptation is the 1977 Franco Zeffirelli / Robert Powell TV miniseries Jesus Of Nazareth, and the best cinema version is the 1961 Nicholas Ray / Jeffrey Hunter film King Of Kings). This movie is not based on the gospels, but rather on a novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, which retells many of the gospel parables (the sermon on the mount, the stoning of Mary Magdalene, the raising of Lazarus, the money-changers in the temple, the tale of John the Baptist, etc), but with a radically different emphasis on character. Christ is very much a man in this movie, full of fear, doubt and self-pity, struggling with the significance of his destiny, and both Judas and Magdalene feature much more prominently in his story. It ends with a dream sequence in which Satan disguises himself as a child and tempts Christ on the cross with an end to his suffering and a dream of a life as an ordinary man with a family; a temptation which Christ ultimately rejects. It is an extraordinarily powerful, original and thought-provoking examination of Christianity, which has at its heart the fundamental conflict between Christ the Man and Christ the God. It is also exquisitely made and passionately acted by a terrific cast. Dafoe gives a masterful performance in a role which is almost impossible to play, and Keitel, Hershey and Stanton all give tremendous support, while Bowie is an inspired scene-stealing piece of casting as the status-quo-seeking Pilate ("There are three-thousand skulls on Golgotha, probably more. I do wish you people would go and count them sometime."). Brilliantly scripted by Paul Schrader, with superb location photography in Morocco by Michael Ballhaus, and a stunningly evocative score by Peter Gabriel featuring a bewildering variety of ethnic African and Asian sounds and musicians. Movies about religion are often turgid and bland at best. Upon this film's release however, both it and Scorsese were vilified as blasphemous by many so-called devout Christians, many of whom hadn't even seen it - ignorant half-wits, one and all. This is arguably a great director's best and most personal film, and it is a beautiful, passionate, intense, intelligent and above all, deeply spiritual work.

A Deeply Religious Movie

[Pete-17 · 9/10 · 25 September 1998]

Despite what its critics say (most of whom haven't even seen the movie), "The Last Temptation of Christ" is one of the most deeply religious movies I have ever seen. What makes it so powerful is that it does not portray Jesus as an all-righteous, preachy figure; it portrays Him as a man. He was the son of God, but more importantly He was human. He could hurt, love, feel pain and joy, and He could make mistakes just like any of us. He had to overcome temptation. Martin Scorsese, for whom this was a long labor of love, directs a beautiful movie with all around excellent performances, particularly Harvey Keitel as Judas and Willem Defoe as Jesus. The "Last Temptation" segment which draws most of the movie's criticism, is the most important part of all because it shows how close God truly is to us, if only those critics would watch the movie before judging it, they might realize that.

Not imperfect but entertaining nonetheless

[MovieAddict2016 · 7/10 · 29 April 2005]

I grew up in a Christian household and "The Last Temptation of Christ" was considered sacrilege. It was not until I began a fascination with Martin Scorsese's movies that I stayed up late to watch this one night on television, to see if the controversy surrounding it was appropriate or not.

If you've read "The Da Vinci Code" you're already familiar with the concept: that Jesus Christ (played here by Willem Dafoe) was more flesh and bones than we given Him credit for, and was tempted to betray God and live with His true love, Mary Magdalene, rather than die for our sins. This is referenced by Dan Brown in the overlong and silly 20-page explanation of the true "Holy Grail" -- who Brown proposes is not an object, but a living person: Mary Magdalene, whom Jesus impregnated.

The Catholic Church took an immediate disliking to this concept. As Scorsese's film not-so-subtly implies that this is the case, it was panned and, in some cases, banned; the Church called it sacrilegious and many people refused to even see it, just based on its subject matter.

Robert De Niro turned down the lead role of Jesus in "The Last Temptation of Christ," and probably because he was aware of the controversy it would stir. It was one of the only roles Scorsese offered him that he has turned down, the other being "The Butcher" in "Gangs of New York." Although "The Last Temptation of Christ" is made with some insight and Scorsese suffered trials and tribulations to bring it to the screen, I'd say it's one of the lesser efforts of Scorsese and writer Paul Schrader's combined efforts.

The film is interesting but the acting is a bit off. I remember one sequence where Harvey Keitel (playing Judas) beats Jesus and Jesus lowers to Judas' feet and begs forgiveness. It all seems a bit hokey and staged, and Harvey Keitel is out-of-place, wearing what looks to be a very odd replica of the era's clothing.

The movie is based on a novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, whose work was complete fiction, as the author himself has claimed. As a result Scorsese's work is not claiming to be an accurate depiction of Christ's death, but rather a new twist to the tale based on another book.

Do I think this is wrong? To be honest, yes, I do. On one hand I consider a fresh perspective refreshing, but on the other hand it seems wrong to base anything off of religious iconography and attempt to twist it into something human.

Scorsese had to knew what he'd endure to release this. I don't think it was a surprise.

But enough about the controversy. Purely as a film, "The Last Temptation of Christ" is beautiful to look at but I do feel some of it is rather hokey. As I mentioned above, some of the acting seems misplaced. Mel's version is definitely the more realistic of the two.

But if you do have a (very) open mind and are not religious you might enjoy this. If you are religious and have a closed mind about your faith, stay away from this and "The Da Vinci Code" as they'll both probably just upset you and cause stress.

In my opinion "The Last Temptation of Christ" is a good movie, but I do understand why people were outraged (and I rarely do with films) because Scorsese is touching on a very fragile subject matter here and it would have been quite naive of him to expect people to love his film. I like to think that he was smart enough to foresee the hatred for this movie. I'm pretty sure he knew.

Damn the intolerance, the movie simply sucks.

[Bevan - #4 · 1/10 · 19 June 2001]

Ranking #2 on my personal list of Worst Movies I Paid To See (sandwiched between Moment By Moment and Plan Nine From Outer Space) is this colossal bore of a movie. No, I'm not a Christian - though I can't fathom why one has to be a fanatic Bible-thumper to hate this flick.

For one thing, let's set aside the fact that Jesus Christ is portrayed as a whiny, meandering wimp while Judas Iscariot is portrayed as the only real man of the lot. That's the premise of the book, after all, and it's a valid artistic choice whether or not you can stomach it. (It's not that far off Jesus Christ Superstar, after all.)

In any event, that isn't the key problem in casting Willem Dafoe as Jesus. The real plot hole is this: does his portrayal give you the impulse to follow this Nazarene bloke to the nearest bus stop, let alone suggest a charisma in him so strong as to engender a mass movement and a religion? Certainly not; Dafoe can be called many things as an actor, but his best friends are unlikely to include compelling charisma amongst his virtues.

I'd say more, but that would confer this turkey too much importance in my life, and I'm only writing and voting on it out of a sense of cinematic duty.

1/10.

"It is Accomplished!"

[cocaine_rodeo · 24 February 2002]

This is one of the greatest movies I have ever seen! I was amazed with all of the performances. This is certainly one of Martin Scorsese's great accomplishments in his extensive and highly acclaimed carrier. This movie was very important to Scorsese and he would put it off several times because he felt he wasn't ready to do it. I think that the wait was worth it, because this was an outstanding movie.

This is one of those movies that you either really liked, or really didn't like. Most of the people who didn't like this found it to be a mockery of the Gospels and Christ himself. I liked it because it did follow the Bible very closely, it was a fantastic telling of Jesus Christ's last days and his greatest accomplishments, and because the acting was very good.

I thought Willem Defoe was spell binding as Jesus Christ. Some people will say that he wasn't enough like Jesus, but you do have to realize that this is probably the hardest character to play and I think that Defoe did the best job that anyone could have done at playing Christ. Harvey Keitel did an equally excellent job at playing Judas, Jesus's best friend, who eventually betrays Him so the world can be saved. This may be Keitel's best performance (if not, it is one of the three). Barbara Hershey was also a great supporting roll as Mary Magdalene.

This movie is certainly not for everyone. Many people with very strong religious convictions will see this movie as offensive, simply because Christ is portrayed a frightened man who sees his fate as a burdon through 'half' of the film, and I implicate the word 'half' for a reason. For everyone else, I say go rent this, because this is a powerful and magnificent version of the final months of Christ. When you watch this, you just might have to wonder (I know I did), what will be the last temptation of Christ? 10/10

Masterpiece of Spiritual Struggle

[truemythmedia · 10/10 · 26 November 2019]

I don't know why I waited so long to see this film. I guess the attitude from growing up amongst fundamentalist Christians still stuck in my brain. "'The Last Temptation of Christ' is a blasphemous disgusting film," I can almost hear my teacher's, deacon's, and pastor's opinions as I would have overheard them.

I am no fundamentalist anymore but there are certain films which I just never got around to or never really thought about once I threw off some of my old preconceptions about them. I loved Martin Scorsese's "Silence" and since we wanted to do a deep dive into some of his films, I figured now was the time to delve into the Jesus movie that I was warned about as a child

Wow! I really loved this movie. Of course I understand why many Christians look at it and see nothing but blasphemy but I can't help feeling that they are totally missing the point of this film. I've never really understood why people get all bent out of shape when a movie doesn't adhere to historical fact, a particular theory of events, or viewpoint other than the predominant one.

This film never claims to be a gospel account. In fact it claims the opposite, that it is fictionalized. It's apparent right from the beginning that there is no intention on the part of the director to adhere to any sort of biblical narrative or interpretation. Instead, Scorsese is using a well known story, events, and persons to explore ideas which he finds interesting. Of all the criticisms I found of this film, this one has to be the weakest.

So, now that that is out of the way, let's get into the good about this movie.

First off, Dafoe ("The Lighthouse"). His performance as Jesus is absolutely phenomenal. The humanity he brings to the role is thick and layered on. His fears aren't just moments of questioning if God really wants him to do something and then, oh, he does, OK. His fears are complex and changing as his situation changes and the fears never fully go away. His frustration at God for giving him a calling which he can't explain to people fully or prove to them when they ask. The way he slyly does a miracle and just nods across the room at the one person who realizes it is all a side of Jesus that I had never seen portrayed before.

One of the reasons that Scorsese is so good at expounding faith concepts is that he is genuinely interest in Christ's humanity. Many Christians tend to look at the hypostatic union (Christ is fully God and fully Human) and sort of shorthand it to Christ is human in that he has a body but in every other way he is God. It diminishes his humanity and in many ways makes him unrelatable to us. Scorsese goes the other way, delving so deep into Christ's humanity that the Deity of Jesus seems to be the background. Neither for these approaches is where I am personally at but seeing this film definitely had me considering what some of my basic assumptions about Christ and his experience as a human must have been like.

Honestly, if not for the nudity, I would recommend this movie to almost any Christian. Seeing Christ acting so human makes it easy to put yourself in that place and wonder what we would do if it was our task to die for the world. I saw myself in his relationship with Mary Magdalene. I saw myself in his fear of death. I saw myself in his want to run away and live in seclusion.

Perhaps that is the real achievement of the film. By allowing the audience to connect so completely with the character of Jesus it highlights the disconnect that there is between who I am as a human and what my expectations of holiness or God are. I see the struggle to defeat the passions of the body for the sake of the spirit, to lay down my life for others. The challenge to be everything that God has and wants for me is always a hard one. It confronts us everyday and many times gets put on the back burner while we go on with the rest of our lives. A film like this forces a confrontation between the warring sides of ourselves and gives us room to meditate upon the task from a perspective we may not have considered before.

I found this film to be extremely meaningful and soul provoking but not in the sense that it pushed me to a protest line to lament the creation of such an abomination.

No. This film had me on my knees in prayer the next morning for the first time in a week. This film had me talking to God during the day, again. This film pulled me out of my everyday formula and into the presence of God.

Good work by Scorsese, very very good, almost sobering to the senses

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 10 July 2000]

Martin Scorsese takes the lessons learned by the likes of Rossellini, Pasolini, and in-between regarding religious pictures and makes one that appropriately makes it right. This time around, you don't necessarily have to be completely into Jesus or a Christian to see the heart and intelligence put into the material. Paul Schrader's script distills what must have been a mammoth book of ideas and stories from Kazantzakis and what's provided is obviously controversial. But its message is not layered with anything to insult the viewer's intelligence. There's real food for thought here, even for those who don't believe in myself (if anything, it shows Scorsese, in one of his five best films, showing the notion of making a difference in his other films sticks out great here). A little long, but never gets boring, and even features one of the all-time champion final shots in any film. And Willem Dafoe makes for a candidate for best Jesus in any film. One of the best films of 1988.

Great Film, Unfortunate casting of Harvey Keitel.

[simonk1905 · 7/10 · 4 November 2002]

I saw this film for the first time last night and I can't say I was blown away but it was a really good film. Being a lover of Scorsese and a devout atheist then I would say that wouldn't I.

Scorsese's direction is once again fantastic this goes straight into his top three films for me along with Raging Bull and Goodfellas. The only problem with it was the addition of Keitel. How a broad New York accent has any place in biblical Israel I will never know. The only thing that could have made me laugh harder was having Joe Pesci as Pontious Pilate.

Mirth aside I think that the film would provoke thought in a stone. The way I am sure the book would (I am going to find it and read it ASAP). Defoe who has been in some real stinkers excelently plays a christ wracked with doubt who even though is given the power to raise the dead is still in the end desperate to avoid his fate on the cross.

I liked Harry Dean Stanton's cameo as Saul/Paul and his sly insinuation that the apostles invented the gospels behind a locked attic door was very nice. Praise must also be given to David Bowie who did an admirable job as Pilate and portrayed the arrogance of Rome extremely well it was also quite ironic that in the film christ was crucified for the same reasons people tried to ban the film for, making people think.

The score is excelent and I am no Gabriel fan.

Of particular interest to me was the wedding scene. I thought it was refreshing that a religious figure can have fun. It was great to see christ toast his own miracle of turning the water into wine.

As for the controversy surrounding this film then I can only say one thing. If you are a christian then I think you have real problems if this film can be considered blasphemous. If this can cause a problem with anyones faith in christianity then their faith must have been on the wane anyway.

After all it was a film based on ficticious writings on the subject of a ficticous book (the bible). If you believe in christ good on you but don't let that stop us non believers questioning what you hold so dear. Jesus apparently brought a new way of thinking to the Jews I know this film is not going to change the world but the only way we can is by letting new ideas get the light of day.

In the end a good film but hardly blasphemy.....

Mandatory Viewing

[OttoVonB · 10/10 · 29 January 2005]

Films about Jesus tend, for all their possible individual cinematic strengths or weaknesses, to preach to the converted. It is mostly a given that in a film about Jesus the "truths" of Christian faith must be accepted before you can appreciate what happens on the screen. "Passion of the Christ" is the ultimate example: an act of faith more than an entertaining or thoughtful piece of cinema. "Last Temptation of Christ" is very different. The similarity between both films ends at the controversy preceding their release.

The film shows us a tortured and uncertain man, Jesus, prone to visions and hallucinations, a carpenter who lives a hard life in Nazareth (he builds crosses and sees "messihas" die frequently, and his childhood friend Mary Magdaleine is a prostitute). Already this smells more of artistic license than gospel quotes, but it also rings truer and more brutally in keeping with the time than what is briefly summed up in the Good Book. The tense struggle between Israelite terrorists (including Judas) and Roman conquerors provides a violent background for this harsh environment. Out of this, Jesus comes to interpret his voices as the call of God and is ushered on by Judas, who sees in him not the son of God but a future independent leader for Israel. The misunderstanding between the two men is a wonderful contrast to their bizarre but strong friendship. As he gathers followers and takes on the role of Messia, he finally confronts roman power and, of his own will, is betrayed and crucified. On the cross, before finally giving himself completely to his cause, he reflects upon what a normal life might have been like...

Never has an embodiment of Jesus been so human or a film about him being so deliciously ambiguous. The wonder is that if you approach it with a slightly open mind,you will find it solid and appealing to your views: as a Christian, it can give a new dimension to The Son of God, hence greater weight to his sacrifice. If you aren't a believer, it is a good portrayal of a gentle but weak mind sinking slowly into insanity, but through his conviction inspiring others.

As a film, there are many reasons why this should be recommended viewing despite some flaws (Brooklyn accents and a blond Jesus): Willem Dafoe and Harvey Keitel are an excellent screen duo and embody their respective characters with conviction and sincerity, instead of being completely subdued by the role and religious reverence (as is the case in most Jesus films, especially "Passion"), an unexpectedly good performance is given by a multi-layered Pilate, played by David Bowie. The direction is concise, tasteful and elegant without being intrusive and Scorsese handles the more delicate scenes (the miracles) with a certain subtlety absent from most films on the same subject. The oft-mentioned score by Peter Gabriel is perfect. Paul Schrader's screenplay probably deserves slightly more credit than any else's contribution, for keeping a fair balance between the legendary and the more rational and historical aspects of the story.

All in all, this film should not be dismissed as wildly indulgent to either side in the eternal believer/atheist debate, but thoughtfully approached by all. Because in the end, what matters is its qualities as a movie, and they are, to say the least, significant!

The perfect combination of propaganda and preaching

[DemocraticEmpire01 · 7/10 · 14 March 2005]

Martin Scorsese definitely has a gift of film-making. That said, many people want to know about this movie in terms of The Passion of Christ, a more recent film.

Wilem Dafoe is definitely not as convincing as Jim Caviezel in the role of Jesus, but then you have to remember that the two movies focused on entirely different points. This focused on and celebrated a twisted and fictional version of his life and the experiences that led him to become the savior that he is remembered to be today, while The Passion aims to show the last twelve hours of his life. Caviezel was more dramatic, but Dafoe was very passionate. They both embodied Jesus in very memorable performances. Why they were overlooked in awards selection is baffling.

Overall, this film, aside from being a work of fiction, had one flaw that took away potential viewership: timing. Scorsese's films are excellent but films such as this and The Aviator had lots of parts that could be fast forwarded. The ending music and overall score is one of the most memorable scores in film history. Keep in mind that this is a fictional epic and enjoy it for what its got to offer, forget about the controversy and for your money's and time's worth, you've got a pretty good deal. 7/10

The Tough/Beautiful life of Jesus

[irishboy141 · 10/10 · 6 June 2019]

This is one of my favorite films ever and it is my favorite film about Christ. Everything from the sets, to the direction, to the actor's performances is spot on. This is the gold standard of what religious films should be.

For anyone who doesn't know, this film is an alternate take on the life of Jesus (based on the book of the same name). Naturally it was embroiled in controversy and protested by people who hadn't seen it. There's an irony about supposedly "strong faithed" people being so insecure/shaken/offended about Jesus's representation in a movie.

Anyhoo Jesus is played very well by Willem Dafoe, Harvey Keitel plays Judas wonderfully with great tenderness, Barbara Hershey is great as Mary Magdalene, quite simply all actors are on point and give an excellent human portrayal of their respective characters. I believe Judas and Jesus's relationship here is the best version ever portrayed, same with Jesus and Mary's relationship.

As for the ending (which is what people were so pissed about) I find it very interesting, It's like a dream. It's literally his last temptation, which he overcomes. If anything it makes Jesus more BA/admirable, he beat the devil and his own mortal urges. He finally embraced being the son of God, he truly is worthy of being the Messiah.

Martin Scorsese did a fantastic job and this film is rightfully hailed as one of the best films of all time, and especially one of the best religious films.

Bravo.

As Usual, the Protesters Got It Wrong

[evanston_dad · 7/10 · 27 July 2008]

As is typical with religious-themed movies, the broo-ha that greeted Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" was completely unnecessary. The controversy all stemmed around the film's last 30 minutes or so, when Jesus imagines what it would be like to skip out on the crucifixion scene and live the life of a normal man. I don't know what everyone got so hot and bothered about -- though I'm no Bible expert, wasn't the whole point of Christ's story that he suffered the same pains and was tempted by the same sins as mankind so that his sacrifice meant something?

Well, whatever. As a movie, "The Last Temptation of Christ" is pretty good, and yet further evidence that though Scorsese is known for gangster movies, he's a quite versatile director. It's probably a little too long, and a tad sluggish, but it's well acted and directed, and well worth watching, whether you're religious or not.

Grade: A-

Jesus loses his virginity to a prostitute in Scorsese's masterpiece

[canadude · 10/10 · 31 March 2004]

This retelling of Christ's life features Jesus begging Judas to betray him (only to be called a traitor in return), Jesus building crosses for the Romans to crucify fellow Jews, and British actors and voices *all* playing evil characters. Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ is, despite and because of these things, a brilliant film, one that approaches closest to Christianity's core obsessions and problems. It also serves as a perfect palette cleanser for those who had the distinct misfortune of watching Mel Gibson's processing of Jesus Christ through the Hollywood meat-grinder for (deeply disturbing personal reasons and) money.

But Gibson's dementia aside. Martin Scorsese's film is profoundly quiet and thought-provoking. Is it blasphemous? Or rather, is the controversy it stirred justified? I'd say so. Paul Shrader, the writer of the film, himself admits that on a certain level the film is blasphemy. But not literally. It uses God as a conceit for man's condition and struggle to understand God. And this desire to comprehend which pervades the film renders its blasphemy a noble one. Or forgivable one. The film, after all, explores the relationship between the human and finite with the divine and infinite with a passion present in all aspects of it. The Last Temptation is about the struggle of those two, particularly in the face of destiny and death. In that sense, it is a very existential film. Dafoe's Jesus at first doubts he is even God's son. He doesn't know - he searches. He reaches false conclusions and true ones. The beauty of his struggle lies precisely in not always knowing the answers. He is, after all, human.

And then again, he is not. However, on its own, this statement means very little. The film probes the relationship of the Jesus of Nazareth who sins like the rest of us, with Christ, the son of God who is sacrificed for our sins. It explores the nature and meaning of that sacrifice. The segment that I would imagine caused the greatest amount of controversy, namely (not surprisingly) Christ's last temptation, provides the bridge between Christ and pre-Christ, Jesus of Nazareth. It asks us to imagine Jesus being saved from death. And through this theoretical contemplation we see the necessity of the sacrifice, its binding nature. Judas, in fact, summarizes this perfectly by saying: "The life of a man is not for you. Your place is on the cross" (I am paraphrasing, but the point is there). Jesus' struggle, throughout the film, ends exactly at this point, at this realization which allows him to say on the cross "It is accomplished." The fact that this struggle is made real and accessible to us is what makes this a phenomenal film.

The film's brilliance shines on pretty much all levels. Scorsese's direction is atmospheric, extremely compassionate and restrained (as opposed to the orgiastic explosion of [unnecessary?] violence in Gibson's film). The performances are great. Hershey's Mary Magdalene is amazing. Dafoe's Jesus and even more so Keitel's Judas are brilliant. In fact, Judas in this film is almost as much a central character as Jesus. In The Last Temptation Judas isn't the evil traitor who gets himself killed over a maggot-ridden corpse like in Gibson's tale, but a character so full of love he *agrees* to betray Christ. The act of betrayal here is one of coming to terms with fate very much on the same level as Jesus' acceptance of his self-sacrifice. Judas must betray Christ even though he has grown to love him.

There are many reasons to see this film. It is a deeply spiritual examination of Christ the man and Christ the Son of God and the transition from one to the other. In some way, it is a perfect portrait of a man's search for answers and for God - it is spiritual existentialism, uncannily similar to Kierkegaard. It is the exact opposite of The Passion of the Christ and it should be celebrated.

The Last Temptation of Christ-1988: A fictional account about the Ultimate Truth.

[RJBurke1942 · 7/10 · 18 August 2007]

Such a title implies that, whatever your beliefs about the nature and life of Jesus Christ, he was a man, born of woman and subject to the temptations that all men and women experience.

That this narrative portrays Christ first as man, and second as son of God, clearly illustrates the philosophical underpinnings of the author's novel and Scorsese's (an ex-priest himself) film and makes it all the more believable and feasible that Christ had many doubts about his role. Indeed, it is well know that, in Gethsemane, he begged to be released from the need for crucifixion; moreover, he cried out in anguish about being abandoned while suffering on the cross – both indicative of all too-human reactions.

So, that aspect should not upset any people who believe in the sanctity of Christ. If it does, that says more about the quality of their own belief than in the truth of the portrayal.

What should upset them more is the manner in which the narrative turns the betrayal of Christ on its head - a truly imaginative and thought provoking perspective that had not occurred to me, growing up, as I did, steeped in the Christian faith. That part of my life is long gone, but the fascination with Christ – arguably the first political dissident who changed the world – remains (Karl Marx probably comes in second).

I first saw this film ten years ago, and saw it again just recently. Time has not dimmed the effectiveness of Scorsese's direction and the acting by the stellar cast. While Willem Dafoe takes the role of Jesus in his stride, I think most kudos go to Harvey Keitel as Judas Iscariot, shown as a political opportunist who wants to see the Romans crushed and the Kingdom of God established on earth; Judas is, alas, the ultimate man who missed the ultimate point. Special mention goes to Harry Dean Stanton as Saul the tax collector (later St. Paul) while Barbara Hershey is very effective as Mary Magdalene. David Bowie's (almost) cameo appearance as Pontius Pilate was adroitly casual, if not entirely indifferent about the man on trial.

The value in this narrative is that there may be more real truth in it than in some of the Gospels that were, after all, written many years after the actual crucifixion. Time, as we know, has a habit of playing tricks on our memories.

This is not the movie for hard-core believers in the New Testament. It's a finely stated exposition of a point of view about the nature of our humanity and one that demands consideration, whether or not you believe in God and an afterlife: very much a departure for Scorsese but one that is well worth the time to see.

Three Hours of my Life I Desperately Want Back

[Kurenai23 · 1/10 · 26 December 2006]

Wow. What can be said about this movie? It doesn't just flirt with blasphemy; it treats blasphemy to dinner and a show before an evening of heavy petting at the local lover's lane. This alone will rile many viewers, but it does not bother me. My problem with this movie lies in an entirely different direction.

(May Contain Spoilers)

This movie is a triumph of execrable writing, pretentious dialogue, and acting for which the word "bad" is entirely insufficient. After seeing Mel Gibson's brilliant "Passion of the Christ," with Semitic-looking actors speaking in Aramaic and Latin, watching Harvey Keitel in flaming Irish red hair and Brooklyn accent play Judas was a real shock. There are other shocks in store, such as a John the Baptist; who, rather than preaching repentance, incites Jesus to violent overthrow of the Romans; John's disciples, who are either in the grip of religious ecstasy or crippling madness (I found the three nude women swaying their heads in unison and mumbling incoherently to be particularly disturbing), and one mind-bending scene in which Jesus pulls out his own heart with one hand while holding an axe in the other.

The movie's main problem is Jesus himself. Willem Defoe's Jesus is a wimpy crybaby. He could give Anakin Skywalker a run for his money ("I don't *wanna* be the Son of God! I wanna go to Tahashi Station and pick up some power converters!). And speaking of Star Wars references, Satan's temptation in the desert seems to have been lifted from Darth Vader's "Luke, join me" speech. Not that the effects budget of this turkey matched that of a Lucas film--"Satan" in that scene seemed to be a flaming gas burner buried just under the sand and turned up on "hi." Jesus' self-pitying lines ("my God is fear," etc) ensured that I would feel no sympathy with this character.

The cinematography was visually jarring and unpleasant to watch. The casting was woefully mismanaged. I have seen all the "anglo-Jesus" films, and a Brooklyn Judas and blonde, bushy-bearded Midwestern Nathaniel would have been easier to take had not the supporting cast looked like they all came from Southern India! The heterogeneity of the cast torpedoed all suspension of disbelief.

For the final insult, Scorsese employs the ultimate narrative cop-out: it was all a dream! Or a hallucination, or whatever. I realize this was the ending in the book, but the movie could have been something better.

The purpose implicit in this piece of cinematic excrement is the de-sanctification of Jesus Christ by "filthy dreamers" who "despise dominion and speak evil of dignities (Jude 1:8)," and I have no problem with that. My problem is that this is a Martin Scorsese film. The same guy who gave us "Goodfellas" and "Raging Bull" shortchanges his audience with this pretentious garbage. I expect better from a filmmaker of Scorsese's stature; even if it is blasphemous, a movie should be good! I am mystified by the praise lavished on this compost pile, and I tell you truly, "polish a turd, it's still a turd."