Opiniones de usuarios

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.

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-

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.

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 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.

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Martin Scorsese's controversial portrait of the reluctant Messiah wants to be a paraphrase of Holy Scripture presented as fiction, but the conflict between spirit and flesh at the heart of the novel by Nikos Kazanzakis is translated on screen into the old, familiar battle between art and commerce. The result is a study in contrasts, with scenes of extraordinary visual power (Christ performing his miracles, and meeting mad prophet John the Baptist) rubbing shoulders against strictly earthbound Sunday School lessons (Satan, as a serpent, exploding like a grenade when denied).

Scorsese's laudable attempt to convey the novelty of Jesus' teachings (on a budget which didn't allow for the usual biblical cast of thousands) helps give his film an immediacy lacking in other Hollywood Passion Plays, breathing fresh air into a historically solemn and stilted genre. But the screenplay by Paul Schrader suffers whenever it tries to answer deep spiritual questions, for example during the now notorious (and really quite chaste) dream sequence, when a visceral crucifixion scene is halted in its tracks so Christ can finally be tempted by a twenty-minute trailer of mortal life.

Elsewhere it's clear the real savior of the film is ace cinematographer Michael Ballhaus, whose typically fluid camera-work accelerates a movie that might have seemed even longer than it already is because the story is so familiar.

When I originally made my Top Ten more than a decade ago, I slowly filled it a couple of different ways. One of them was to ask myself, "X director should be on the list. Which of X's movies should appear?"

I've always loved Scorsese. He's been a titan of cinema since the 70s and, unlike many of his brethren, has lost none of his skill. He's as talented and exciting today as he was when he brought Mean Streets and Taxi Driver to the screen. He's still so talented that, in much the same way I would be open to the idea of replacing Kubrick's 2001 with Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, I would also be open to the idea of replacing Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ with Scorsese's Silence.

Still, I've revisited Scorsese's entry and I have to say that I'm as happy to have it on the list as ever.

Controversy

The dual substance of Christ-the yearning, so human, so superhuman, of man to attain God... has always been a deep inscrutable mystery to me. My principle anguish and source of all my joys and sorrows from my youth onward has been the incessant, merciless battle between the spirit and the flesh...and my soul is the arena where these two armies have clashed and met." NIKOS KAZANTZAKIS

This film is not based upon the Gospels but upon this fictional exploration of the eternal spiritual conflict.

That is the first thing that the audience sees when The Last Temptation of Christ begins, and it tells you exactly how to interpret the movie. This is a movie where the main character is Jesus, but it's not actually about Jesus. The movie is about the internal battle within every man's heart to be holy while living in a real and physical world.

I was alive when the movie was in its original release, but I was a grand 2 years old. I wasn't exactly plugged into the cultural consciousness at the time, so all I have seen about the controversy of its original release comes from small news clips of angry protestors outside of theaters screaming about how the Jesus in the movie is not actually Jesus.

Well...duh.

The movie begins with a declaration that it's not based on the Gospels. Its first dramatic moments are of Jesus building crucifixes on which to hang Jewish zealots who were fighting the Roman Empire. It's not a challenge to the religion, but a challenge directed at the viewer, trying to separate the audience from its previous knowledge of Jesus and to take the story as it is on its own.

That story follows the character of Jesus from a man tormented by the voice of God who then tries to discover how he should interpret that very same voice. In the beginning he tries to block it out, but he can't do it. The attempt nearly drives him mad.

He then embraces it as Love, to love everyone unconditionally (which manifests first at his defense of Mary Magdalene).

He then embraces the axe, to bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth. This path comes to a head after the cleansing of the Temple when Jesus brings his disciples back to the Temple in order to tear it apart and bring about a very real revolution against Rome. Standing there, with the crowd at his back, and desperate for direction from God, he begins to bleed from his hands. God tells him there that he must suffer.

Suffer he does. He insists to Judas that Judas must betray him, which he of course does. He is captured, tried, scourged, marched and ultimately crucified on the cross. In his final moments, an angel appears to Jesus and offers him respite. If God saved Isaac from Abraham's sacrifice, surely He would save His own, the angel explains. She removes him from the cross and leads him to marry Mary Magdalene. She passes and Jesus then begins a household with both Martha and Mary of Bethany where they start a family. Here, many years after the crucifixion, Jesus sees Paul in the town who talks of the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus condemns him and calls him a liar. Paul scoffs saying that the story of Jesus was more important than the man he spoke to.

Finally, the movie comes to Jesus on his deathbed. His disciples including Peter and Judas visit him for the first time in years. It is here that Judas condemns Jesus. The Son of Man was meant for more than this. "What's good for man isn't good for God." Judas then identifies the angel, who has been present in Jesus' life since the crucifixion, as Satan.

Upon this revelation, Jesus struggles out of his house and shouts to God that he was too weak, but he's learned his lesson and wants to be crucified. Upon this declaration, Jesus returns to the moment that the angel took him down from the cross where he calls out, "It is accomplished."

Battle Between the Spirit and the Flesh

My appreciation of this movie tends to be personal rather than formal in nature, so I'm going to be using more personal pronouns than normal, but the question that comes to me when I finish the film is: How does this character of Jesus' journey relate to my own search for holiness in a world of sin?

How many ways are there to interpret God's word? There are many. Just think of the different faiths that all follow Jesus. But in terms of the personal journey we all share, do we love each other unconditionally? Do we take up an axe to fight for God on this earth?

I think that the movie comes to the conclusion that ultimately, no matter what path we chose, we must be willing to give it all away in the service of God up to and including our lives. It's not an easy thing. In the movie, the character of Jesus was taken away from his final pain and offered temporal salvation from a terrible fate, but it wasn't good enough. It provided him with temporal reprieve, but it left him unsatisfied and at a distance from God. Was that easy life favorable to the ultimate embrace with God in Heaven? The movie says no. It says that we must follow where God leads us, no matter what we have to give up in order to reach the destination.

It's a hard message to take, and one that I understand Scorsese struggling with. The man once seriously considered pursuing a life in the priesthood, struggled with drugs, has been married five times, and lives a comfortable life detached from the kind of physical suffering common to humanity. He once told Roger Ebert that he thought that he knew he was going to go to Hell based on how he had lived his life. Scorsese seems like a man who struggles with the Catholic teachings of his youth, those that he has largely turned his back on, and how he lives his life everyday. The Last Temptation of Christ is that manifested in film.

Going Outside

Enough about the interpretation of the movie. How does it look? I have to say, I think this film is one of Scorsese's best looking films. Raging Bull's black and white photography is gorgeous. Silence's lush color palette is fantastic. However, The Last Temptation of Christ has a rugged and expansive look that Scorsese hadn't even attempted up to that point in his career. The vast majority of his films at that time were set in New York City and centered on small rooms and back alleys. Here, filming in Morocco, Scorsese took great advantage of the country's natural beauty and filmed so much of the film with mountains, lakes, and forests taking up space in the background of shots.

It's really a testament to the simple step of taking a cheap production and going outside that can make a movie look far more expensive than it has any right to be. John Ford knew this when he kept going to Monument Valley. Terrence Malick shows this off in every movie. The French New Wave was essentially a bunch of kids wandering around Paris with a camera, and their movies looked like they were shot in one of the most expensive cities in the world (because they were).

A Small Note on Music

I don't know if you have ever heard Pete Gabriel's score for the film, but do yourself a favor and check it out below. It's hard to imagine a more off-beat but beautifully arranged score, especially one that tries to announce the arrival of a film that is both so traditional (the Biblical epic) and so different at the same time.

I'm a big fan of those old religious epics, The Robe, The Ten Commandments, those old Sunday movies with the real Stars of Hollywood. Huge stories, huge stars, huge emotion and huge entertainment, fantastic.

However todays epic religious movie is more about challenging belief, presenting new historical findings, and being controversial. For me that's lost all the passion of the religious epic. Strange I feel this way considering I'm not even religious. However, late night the other week I happened to come across Last Temptation on the Channel 4 Banned Film season, and I gave it a chance.

Good job I did too as it turns out it does retain a lot of that epic feel to it. There's a load of recognisable stars, big acting and huge stories, but still retaining that modern challenging and controversial stance.

Willem Dafoe is simply stunning as Christ, pulling a painfully emotive performance and showing amazing presence when called for. He almost looks like a man possessed, which is perhaps the idea.

Barbara Hershey plays Mary Magdalene who is on screen far too briefly. Harvey Keitel is perhaps the weak link here and doesn't perform well in his role as Judas. There are some quieter moments when he brings through compassion and his love for Christ very well, but when he portrays some stronger emotional feelings it does seem to come through as out of place.

Overall the story is an interesting one, and looking outside of the whole religious aspect, I personally can't see the reason for the upset. It portrays the final temptation that Satan offers to Christ while he dies upon the cross. For someone who doesn't believe, I find that this only strengthens the aspect of the story and lifts the ideals and triumph of the story and of the character of Christ even higher.

It's a well directed movie, and there are some really hard hitting moments, obviously being written and directed by those with a real passion for the subject matter. However it does feel that it leaps about, since this story is just a well visited one there are great leaps in the timeline, and it concentrates on certain acts that are deemed relevant to build to the final temptation. Yet I feel that negatively affects the building of the other characters and the story itself. It's as though it's taken for granted that we know the story and we're only going to be shown the newer, controversial aspects.

Jesus is plagued by voices in his head and a pain he has that is so intense as to have him in spasms. He has tried fasting and self-harm but neither have worked for very long. He works as a carpenter; one of the few who will make crosses for the Romans – much to the annoyance of his acquaintance Judas, a Jewish rebel. Following an appearance by a spirit, Jesus heads into the desert where he experiences temptations and, ultimately, learns the path he must follow. Returning to the real world he starts to speak and gains a following of loyal disciples who believe he is the Messiah. However for every follower, he gets 10 enemies – mainly among the religious elite who see him as a heretic and lawbreaker.

When it was released in cinemas and first screened on television in the UK, this film broke all records for complaints and also had the moral majority (?) up in arms over the controversy and the portrayal of Christ. Although I don't want to get drawn into that, the reason I think they are wrong to complain is the same reason I think the film is worth seeing. From the get-go, this film flies its fictional roots and never claims to be the gospel truth (pardon the pun). However what it does is to think around the gospel, to wonder, to suppose, to ask questions – something that millions of Christians do every day when they read the bible and contemplate on it. I'm not blind to the offence that this thought process could have but it still provides food for thought and, like the author's quote says, really puts some interesting ideas on the table in regards the dualities of Jesus as both a man and God.

Although this makes it worth seeing in my book and held my interest and engaged my brain throughout this isn't to say it is brilliant, because it isn't. It is overlong and rather plodding at times and could (and should) have lost at least 30 minutes from the running time to be a better film. The dialogue doesn't help that much at times but the delivery is good from a handful of great performances. Although most "Christians" are in love with Gibson's portrayal of Christ recently, Dafoe goes deeper and more complex with a performance where he seems to totally understand the complex motivations that could have run through Christ – he is convincing as man and God and his though process is clear and engaging. He is helped by some great support. Specifically Keitel is great and helps bring out a Judas that is the opposite of the greedy failure we are told he is – instead he takes the second hardest job; he makes it work really well and dominates his scenes. Support is also strong from Hershey, Argo, Been and Bowie (yes, even Bowie) who all come over with smaller but impressive performances. Scorsese directs with deliberate movements at times but he matches the mood of the period that is well set by sets, costumes and the cool ethnic score.

Overall this is not a great film and if you have no belief or interest in Jesus then I cannot see why you'd bother to get through such a long film that lacks pace. However as spiritual food for thought it is wonderful and really engaged my brain – even if you (rightly) dismiss the film as fiction, it is still useful as spiritual debate and providing a view of things that you can study out and draw from. Compared to the thoughtless, cold and spiritually empty film by Mel Gibson 15 years later, this is vastly better and worth seeing if you saw that.