CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
7.1/10
2.9 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Filmada en lugares bíblicos auténticos de Israel, esta exitosa película dramática e inspiradora cuenta la vida de Cristo.Filmada en lugares bíblicos auténticos de Israel, esta exitosa película dramática e inspiradora cuenta la vida de Cristo.Filmada en lugares bíblicos auténticos de Israel, esta exitosa película dramática e inspiradora cuenta la vida de Cristo.
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Elenco
Yosef Shiloach
- Joseph
- (as Joseph Shiloach)
Zeev Berlinsky
- Blind Begger
- (as Ze'ev Berlinski)
Nissim Garamech
- Thomas
- (as Nisim Gerama)
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
I bought this for myself several weeks ago among other DVDs. I watched all the others immediately. But I waited until I was in the right frame of mind. Oh, what I missed all those days!
There are those who will say this version is dry. But I say this version is full of truth and peace.
The mood which pervades this wonderful film is so close to the Gospel as I have read it, and it is told with such a lovely pace of calm and reflection that it calls one into the telling with gentleness and not commercial flash and color. That is, if one is ready.
We are all so "spoiled" by melodramatic presentations that we forget that the story of the life of Jesus was dramatic on its own merits without need for Hollywood's elaborations or expansions.
"Jesus" is a movie I recommend to everyone, yes, even those who have no faith or interest in the Christ, if not more so.
Many blessings to this film, its creators and participants and the message it imparts with such grace, truth and peace.
There are those who will say this version is dry. But I say this version is full of truth and peace.
The mood which pervades this wonderful film is so close to the Gospel as I have read it, and it is told with such a lovely pace of calm and reflection that it calls one into the telling with gentleness and not commercial flash and color. That is, if one is ready.
We are all so "spoiled" by melodramatic presentations that we forget that the story of the life of Jesus was dramatic on its own merits without need for Hollywood's elaborations or expansions.
"Jesus" is a movie I recommend to everyone, yes, even those who have no faith or interest in the Christ, if not more so.
Many blessings to this film, its creators and participants and the message it imparts with such grace, truth and peace.
For any searcher, this movie gives an account that is closer to the truth of the four gospels than any other movie about Jesus. One not to be missed, but to be seen and thought about as to who Jesus really is. Filmed in several locations of where Jesus actually walked, the movie takes away the Hollywood hype and myths about Jesus and represents what the viewer really needs to know. Is Jesus who he claims to be? Is he the Son of God? Watch this movie and then make your own decision.
This was, I thought, the best cinematic summary of the life of Christ I have yet seen. Brian Deacon, who portrays Jesus, looks the part and speaks with quiet authority. His interaction with children in the movie gives a moving picture of the tenderness of Christ. The words of Christ are given in modern translation making it easy for the viewer to understand the language. Simon Peter (Niko Nitai) looks the part and acts it well. The movie allows about the same amount for the last week of Christ's life as does the gospel (about 25%). While not a perfect movie (nothing on earth is perfect), this is a delightful one. If you are looking for an accurate picture of Christ which accords well with the Bible, this is it!
The story of Jesus as told by this movie is faithful to the Bible version. It does not flinch from some of the uglier parts of the story, such as the crucifixion. Jesus was a soft-spoken man, with dark complexion and long hair. This is more accurate than portraying him as a blond-haired, blue-eyed WASP.
One question, though: why was this movie ever rated G? The proper rating is PG-13, although it would have been rated PG because we did not have the PG-13 rating at the time.
One question, though: why was this movie ever rated G? The proper rating is PG-13, although it would have been rated PG because we did not have the PG-13 rating at the time.
From a motion picture perspective, the "Jesus" film is primitive and flawed for audiences who are familiar with cinematic convention. From a biblical story-telling perspective however, it is brilliant. I'm therefore rating it at just "5" - half-way between love and hate, as I shall explain in this review.
That the producers achieved what they set out to do is indisputable: it's the most watched movie of all time. That the film is clear and truthful to the Gospel account of Luke is indisputable. That we need to consider the intended audience is also indisputable. Released just two years after Zeffirelli's magnificent masterpiece, "Jesus of Nazareth", this film comes across as is a lifeless clone... IF you've seen the Zeffirelli film, that is.
But what if you haven't -- what if you couldn't; maybe because you live in the jungle some place away from TV sets and westernised living? Then some chaps come into your village, set up a sheet between trees, wait for dark and then display these "magic pictures". NOW which film is the most powerful? The tables are turned, and all of a sudden, the "Jesus" film comes out tops. The film is not sophisticated, but it's not meant to be. Its power is not due to the imagery, but due to the Word of God that it illustrates.
Now, what about all the narration? It makes it sound like one of those old 16 mm "Fact and Faith" films that my maths teacher showed in school way back. Like an old newsreel. For a start, narration makes the translators' tasks much easier- it is, after all, the most translated film in history. However, during the climax, we actually loose the narrator altogether - a very unusual device, and I'm still not sure if it works that way or not. If I was cynical, I'd say the narrator went off for a coffee break, but I think they did it that way to help draw the audience, sitting spellbound on the hard earth, more into the story. The idea of any cinematic style has long left the screen, so it probably really doesn't matter, and on the primitive level, it certainly works.
Again, desperately failing not to be cynical, I see this film as perhaps the Protestant answer to the Catholic "Jesus of Nazareth" that it desperately tries to copy in part, and which was released just two years earlier. It reflects the fundamentalist ethos that it's okay to "use" film for religious purposes, but it is not okay to be absorbed by it. Art can be tolerated so long as the message is loud and clear. I don't mean to be cruel or mean; I admire and respect the folks who made this. However, I guess I just fail to understand why the producers were not able to get a few more talented people to guide the project to completion. It is a prime example of blinkered movie vision. In the end, it doesn't really matter, however, because the purpose of the film is to help non-Christians encounter Christ himself in his resurrection power - not to have a great night out.
As a side note, I have figured out a way to really enjoy this movie. Get something useful to do like washing the dishes or painting a wall. Then, put the movie on in the same room, and listen to the soundtrack as you work, and forget it even has moving pictures. The film makes excellent audio, and it has a wonderful added bonus: whenever you get really curious, all you need to do is take a peek at the screen, and low and behold, as if by magic, there's a moving picture of what you've just been listening to! A quite awesome way of listening to the Bible on tape. Because the visuals are almost entirely incidental, you can "listen" to the movie and not miss a thing!
On this film, I'm really sitting on the fence. For achieving what it set out to do, which is basically tell the story of Jesus to primitive audiences, I'd rate it 10 out of 10. As a film, with any depth of artistic talent, I have to be honest and give it a 1 out of 10. So I have to settle for a 5 rating. Which is one higher that the 4 that I hated myself for originally giving it, before writing this review and finding a valid reason to mark it up at least one notch.
That the producers achieved what they set out to do is indisputable: it's the most watched movie of all time. That the film is clear and truthful to the Gospel account of Luke is indisputable. That we need to consider the intended audience is also indisputable. Released just two years after Zeffirelli's magnificent masterpiece, "Jesus of Nazareth", this film comes across as is a lifeless clone... IF you've seen the Zeffirelli film, that is.
But what if you haven't -- what if you couldn't; maybe because you live in the jungle some place away from TV sets and westernised living? Then some chaps come into your village, set up a sheet between trees, wait for dark and then display these "magic pictures". NOW which film is the most powerful? The tables are turned, and all of a sudden, the "Jesus" film comes out tops. The film is not sophisticated, but it's not meant to be. Its power is not due to the imagery, but due to the Word of God that it illustrates.
Now, what about all the narration? It makes it sound like one of those old 16 mm "Fact and Faith" films that my maths teacher showed in school way back. Like an old newsreel. For a start, narration makes the translators' tasks much easier- it is, after all, the most translated film in history. However, during the climax, we actually loose the narrator altogether - a very unusual device, and I'm still not sure if it works that way or not. If I was cynical, I'd say the narrator went off for a coffee break, but I think they did it that way to help draw the audience, sitting spellbound on the hard earth, more into the story. The idea of any cinematic style has long left the screen, so it probably really doesn't matter, and on the primitive level, it certainly works.
Again, desperately failing not to be cynical, I see this film as perhaps the Protestant answer to the Catholic "Jesus of Nazareth" that it desperately tries to copy in part, and which was released just two years earlier. It reflects the fundamentalist ethos that it's okay to "use" film for religious purposes, but it is not okay to be absorbed by it. Art can be tolerated so long as the message is loud and clear. I don't mean to be cruel or mean; I admire and respect the folks who made this. However, I guess I just fail to understand why the producers were not able to get a few more talented people to guide the project to completion. It is a prime example of blinkered movie vision. In the end, it doesn't really matter, however, because the purpose of the film is to help non-Christians encounter Christ himself in his resurrection power - not to have a great night out.
As a side note, I have figured out a way to really enjoy this movie. Get something useful to do like washing the dishes or painting a wall. Then, put the movie on in the same room, and listen to the soundtrack as you work, and forget it even has moving pictures. The film makes excellent audio, and it has a wonderful added bonus: whenever you get really curious, all you need to do is take a peek at the screen, and low and behold, as if by magic, there's a moving picture of what you've just been listening to! A quite awesome way of listening to the Bible on tape. Because the visuals are almost entirely incidental, you can "listen" to the movie and not miss a thing!
On this film, I'm really sitting on the fence. For achieving what it set out to do, which is basically tell the story of Jesus to primitive audiences, I'd rate it 10 out of 10. As a film, with any depth of artistic talent, I have to be honest and give it a 1 out of 10. So I have to settle for a 5 rating. Which is one higher that the 4 that I hated myself for originally giving it, before writing this review and finding a valid reason to mark it up at least one notch.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe film has been translated into over 1000 languages to date (including 10 different sign language versions), and 235 more translations are in progress, making it the most translated film in history.
- ErroresAfter laying the body in the tomb, the actor under the burial shroud can clearly be seen breathing.
- Versiones alternativasAn alternate version was filmed concurrently with the English one, with the actors speaking in the authentic languages (Aramic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin) appropriate for the events and people portrayed. This version is then used with a voice-over narration in any of several modern language.
- ConexionesEdited from New Media Bible, The: The Gospel According to St. Luke (1979)
- Bandas sonorasConcerto brandeburghese No. 1, BWV 1046 : 2° movimento
by Johann Sebastian Bach
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is The Jesus Film?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitios oficiales
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- The Jesus Film
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 6,000,000 (estimado)
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta