Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Kirpianuscus in 2015, Vatican defines it as the best film about Jesus. this is the verdict who grows up, scene by scene, for each viewer when see it. the explanations are many. but not the influences from Piero della Francesca, Masaccio or El Greco, not the landscapes out of times, not the performance of Enrique Irazoqui are not enough for define the secret. a possible start point could be his high simplicity. because, not surprise from Pasolini, the film is a manifesto and a testimony. a testimony about the fundamental values who define us. a manifesto about force of truth. the different marks - Bizantin, Italian Renaissance, looks, clothes, poverty of places and people, the music,the words of Gospel are only bricks for a portrait of Jesus out of ordinaries formulas. it is not exactly a religious film. it is only meeting with yourself. act of faith. and more. because it is not adaptation in real sense but the first contact with the word of Gospel. face to face. as seed. and answer to expectation. sure, it is only an opinion. but the emotion does the film not special but unique. this is the source of its profound authenticity. and feeling of a memorable meeting.

Rectangular_businessman Pier Paolo Pasolini, which was a non-believer, managed to do in the sixties this "humble" (And, yet very beautiful and intense) adaptation of one of the Gospels.Instead of being something "big" and "epic" as the Hollywood productions from the same time, this was a very modest production, which focused more in the human and spiritual parts from the Gospels, being (ironically enough) more faithful to them than most of the big Hollywood productions.Instead of great production values, this movie offers something more inspiring and authentic than the portentous productions done by Hollywood, portraying the life of Jesus of Nazareth as something close, instead of the usual solemn and distant portrayals from other movies with the same thematic. And despite what some reviewers say, this movie doesn't portray Jesus as a "rebel", it is only a faithful adaptation of the Gospel.This was the best film from Pier Paolo Pasolini, in my opinion. Most of the movies that he directed after this one were pretty much disappointing (such as the self-indulgent "trilogy of life" or the disastrous "Salo") Along with "Mamma Roma", this is one of his best works.

p-stepien The master of old Italian Pier Paolo Pasolini retells the tale of Jesus through the eyes of the Gospel of St. Matthews. A famed atheist and homosexual it was hard to envision the reasons behind making such a movie, especially one which does not ridicule Christian religion, but embraces its most famed prophet. True to the form of neorealism the story is kept as close to earth, natural and raw as possible. The whole film is casted by non-professional actors with the main character Jesus played by an unknown 19-year old Enrique Irazoqui.In regards to a movie so deeply engraved into the history of cinema it remains hard to be without faith and awe. Pasolini is a filmmaker placed highly in all film circles - from critics to creators. Truly significant is his input into modern cinema and the evolution of film language. As such "The Gospel..." is one of his most crowning achievements. But also one of the least accessible by modern standards. For non-believers the movie will remain tiresome, dull and inconsequential. While the rest will not need to watch the movie to uphold the faith. Even more so that Pasolini may have been - in all his honesty behind making this movie - also making a sincere statement, which may not ring well with most Christians. The segments of the Bible portrayed almost unanimously show contempt to religious structures and those who wish to capture faith without rigid rules. Some well balanced cherry picking also allows to prominently front parts of scripture, which fit nicely with Pasolini's communist beliefs (albeit putting the movie into any sort of Marxist context would be severely overstepping it). Surprisignly however Pasolini cut the movie away from emotionality and interaction, making large portion of the movie almost dry readings of the Gospel. The portrayal of Jesus can be perceived as a cold, at times ruthless or even sectarian persona, devoid of most of the warmth which permeates the Gospel itself. Even though most of the script is copy pasted from the Bible some of his lines are those of the most harsh, divisive context. I am not fully sure if this detached from feelings son of God was introduced by Pasolini on purpose, but I felt rather negative about Jesus, as someone who is more probable to invoke religious hatred than messages of love and forgiveness. The emotionless Jesus telling his sermons to a poor and destitude crowd never once instills any sort of reaction on their part, which brings to question what the hell happened to Jesus Christ the Superstar?The whole irony is that the movies biggest strengths work against it, whilst at the same time providing it with enough class to remain a masterpiece. The cinema verite style of filmmaking, which hijacks the movie, gives it a sense of realism inherit to the imperfection of a human face and diverts it from the appalling norm of Biblical epics. Covered in dirt and grime the story of Jesus gains depth and substance, but at the same time the refusal of Pasolini to adapt the Gospel into something more like a film script forces the movie to be a seriously bumpy uneven ride. The realism of the scenery, people and situations conflicts drastically with the lack of emotion and interaction. This forced Pasolini to make a movie very lacking in casuality, while deeply interwoven in images and biblical messages.One of the biggest payoffs in Pasolini's movie is the use of music, especial of modern gospel singing, to make an engrossing and involving atmosphere, which helps to get caught up in the action. Nonetheless the movie is slowly paced and for most viewers it may be hard to endeavour sitting 135 minutes without at least one nap in between.The movie technically feels a bit outdated, especially in most panoramas or landscapes, where the camera remains shaky and unfocused. At the time it may have added to the neo-realism, but nowadays it detracts a bit from the overall experience.

Tim Kidner This richly applauded and immensely passionate study of Christ's finest hour (so to speak) was much praised by the few friends that I knew had seen it.I was honestly expecting a sort of modern take with almost a Godspell or Jesus Christ Superstar slant when I heard that it used contemporary music, such as Billie Holliday in its soundtrack. The very religious DVD photos and "U" certificate warned me otherwise!Once, however, I set eyes on Mary's, I was bewitched. Though the story is obviously predictable, it is the Greatest Ever Told, if you're of Faith. I can't say that I am, which most likely diminished my total enjoyment.The casting must be the greatest ever for a film, let alone one that solely uses amateurs, or non-actors. Christ himself, is beguiling and as one follows him, as if a disciple oneself, he speaks to you, over his shoulder. You are not just watching a film, you are actually in it yourself. This documentary approach works brilliantly as the snail pace is kept alive by fully in-the-face shots, the camera flitting around crowds. The black & white film extracts all and anything superfluous, leaving us with Bergman-esque images that linger and burn into the soul. I swear that I could (almost) smell the salty sea air in a crowd scene, with the bleating goats, jangling personal belongings and babbling conversations of the moving crowds.The Gospel...does of course have to follow, well, the Gospel of its name. Unfortunately, this word-for-word recital (as it seemed to me, forgive me if I'm wrong) and that made the film just a tad predictable, inevitable as that was. This allowed my concentration to slip, losing interest a little toward the end.However, the whole experience was a refreshing one, without either Elizabeth Taylor, or Charlton Heston or any of the tinselly Hollywood budgets or trappings. And about the actual story, the film, the actors, the locations. Not about egos or mega pay deals. I found the Italian language of this film seemed a little strange, at first, so used are we of the usual English variants. I would also say that I've never been aware that this film has ever (in recent years) been on UK TV. Instead (or, as well as) the 'usual' ones, why not BBC4, or 2 even, or Film 4 stick this one on at Christmas - and Easter, too?