Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Jemima It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

sol- Asked to helm a stage play about the life of Jesus Christ that would appeal to modern audiences, a Montreal stage actor sparks controversy when his play proves a success due to its blasphemous nature in this Canadian drama. While there are some amusing moments early on (especially as he sets about recruiting actors who dub adult films), the movie is rather slow to warm up with the juice of the material only really emerging in the film's second half. That said, 'Jesus of Montreal' is encapsulating at its best as the protagonist becomes more and more like Christ while rehearsing (and playing) the role and as the Church figures start to show their real colours with their sponsoring of his show; "not everyone can afford psychoanalysis, so they come here" bluntly states one such official at a pivotal point. There is also much to like in how innovative the play is, with audience members literally walking around as the cast members change location, and there is a fun irony in how the play captures larger audiences than anything else ever sponsored by the Catholic Church, though for what they believe to be the wrong reasons. Some elements of the film may be a little over-the-top, such as an angry fit during an advert audition; one's mileage may also vary depending on one's familiarity with the biblical elements paralleled here, but this is generally solid stuff.

SnoopyStyle Daniel Coulombe (Lothaire Bluteau) is asked to modernize a passion play written 35 years ago. He gathers people from the play, dubbing artists who sometimes dub porn, and a model with little experience. He incorporates newer controversial theories on Jesus and it becomes a big hit as alternative theater. However the Catholic priest isn't happy with all the changes. Then parts of Jesus' life start happening in the real world. When he is injured at a performance, Daniel can't get a room at the Catholic hospital.Writer/director Denys Arcand made something that transcended simple entertainment. It is unlike anything else. It is blasphemous. And it is compelling. It's ending is tragic and uplifting at the same time. It was nominated for a foreign language Oscar losing out to the also excellent 'Cinema Paradiso'.

dfwforeignbuff Denys Arcand "Jesus of Montreal-1989" is a movie from a director with intelligence & refined sensibilities. (His best-known work is "The Decline of American Civilization. He also made The Barbarian Invasions a film which I enjoyed very much It won best foreign film Oscar 2004) Plot: A group of actors putting on an interpretive Passion Play in Montreal begin to experience a meshing of their characters & their private lives as the production takes form against the growing opposition of the Catholic church. They begin to experience a meshing of their characters & their private lives as the production takes form against the growing opposition of the Catholic Church. (Lothaire Bluteau), the actor who plays Christ, discovers that his own life is taking on some of the aspects of Christ's. By the end of the film we have arrived at a crucifixion scene that actually plays as drama & not simply as something that has been forced into the script. It suggests that most establishments, & especially the church, would be rocked to their foundations by the practical application of the maxims of Christ. The film gives us simple, powerful messages of artistic freedom, personal redemption, perseverance during a personal quest...& how heartbreaking the world, & reality, can be. The film manages to make deft, original swipes at a plethora of modern 'evils': media hype, advertising, hospital bureaucracy, & of course the hypocrisy of the religious establishment. Cinematically the film is visually elegant & an uncluttered sort of movie. In a sense, "Jesus of Montreal" is a movie about the theater, not about religion. But in the end their challenging production becomes the toast of the city, the Roman Catholic Church strongly objects to its Biblical interpretation & forcefully stops the performances. At least this film does not become overly heavy-handed on screen. This film was nominated for the 1989 Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film but did not win. 4 Stars Recommended~!

hbeernyc This film really disappointed me. The acting is atrocious. Unbelievable. And it's about actors. The story is incredibly obvious: A group of independent actors stage a Passion Play and, in turn, they start to live out the lives of the characters they play. I've been watching a lot of movies lately, thanks to Netflix, and this is the first one I haven't watched all the way through in a long time. I felt I didn't need to see the end; we all know the end of this story.For some, it seems, this "modernization" of the Gospels is either sacrilegious or enlightening. I cannot speak to any of this as I wasn't raised in the Christian church. That being said, I was raised in the US and I live in an increasingly Christian culture. I'm curious enough about Jesus and about the modernization of the religion, for better or worse. I haven't seen Mel Gibson's version, but I'm guessing that those who liked that one will like this, except for the most conservative. I just wish this was a better film.Lots of these reviews praise Arcand's direction and especially the cinematography. I liked neither. The film itself is rather prudish and preachy. I didn't believe the characters' personae and I was never involved with their on screen lives. The play within the play is very much dated and would not, I think, carry it's own weight in a real time production. But that's beside the point. What I really needed for this to work would have been stronger development of the characters and the plot to support the philosophical and theological questions the film would like to be about. And the musical choices are obvious and unoriginal.There were two examples of this that come easily to mind. Firstly, there is a reenactment of the parable of Jesus driving the money lenders from the temple: the lead actor, who has fallen for the woman who will play Magdalene and who is also a model and dancer, becomes enraged that she must debase herself by auditioning for a commercial (with a wicked producer and plenty of panting men in the audience) with her pants off. He trashes the place and chases them all out. I guess this is the level that the film wishes to reach. The romance between these two is entirely arbitrary and not at all emotionally realized and the scene is played out like a high-school rendering of Death of a Salesman, i.e., not well. Please stop hitting me over the head with this high-handed "significance." The other is the relationship between the other female lead and the priest who has asked them to do the play and who, eventually, turns against them and betrays them to the nowadays-corrupt Church. Why. Why does she sleep with this guy. "It brings him so much pleasure and me so little pain." Ah, the saintly whore and the lovable old coot. It seems to be just enough for Arcand to signify but not worth the trouble to enrich and enliven these characters. They are going through the motions and I'm reaching for the eject button.Feel free to write me off as bored, jaded or just not interested. Feel free to watch this movie and see the Passion, in all its beauty, sadness and inspiration, delivered as an amateurish and gimmicky charade. Feel free to have all your preconceived ideas affirmed and see any shred of artistic integrity forsaken for monotonous drivel. But don't say I didn't warn you.