Jésus de Montréal

All of us knows who Jesus is, right?

This movie brings to light a concept of Jesus that most people do not know is a topic of serious academic scholarship. The question is, "What can we reasonably say about Jesus based solely on historical sources?" Of course, the Bible is the primary source, since Jesus is referred to only in passing by nonreligious sources of his time. And, because this is an historical pursuit, one goal is also to separate those things which are clearly matters of faith from those which do not require a religious faith in the man. Therefore, we are left with a Jesus who led an iconoclastic life and was killed for it. The historian cannot say in an historical journal that Jesus was divine, walked on water, or was raised from the dead. This portrait is called "The Historical Jesus".

The historian can, however, make a personal statement of faith-- "I believe Jesus is the Anointed of God, who saves us from our sins". This is not the statement made by "Jesus of Montreal". Masterfully, the cast and crew of the film weave a tale which demands several viewings to fully consume. Both explicitly and through the use of metaphor, Jesus is depicted as a revolutionary teacher of great charisma and whose life was one of tragedy. But this film is not about the traditional Christian concept of Jesus; rather, it illustrates only the human aspects of the man who is, to me, God incarnate. This is the story of Jesus, the man-- not Jesus, the Christ. Christians may be disappointed by it, or outraged, but I encourage us all to remember that where that where faith (trust in that which cannot be observed) begins, there the historian (or scientist) must stop. Believers go further. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to think, be they a believer or not.

This film was utterly astonishing. It was one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. Every word, every action and every track of music that was played was completely appropriate. It really gave me, and I'm sure, all of it's other audiences, something worth thinking about regarding modern religion's morals and even hypocrisy. The film,to me, was like three revolutionary religious ideas in one. First, there was the actual Passion story that caused a stir in it's time, secondly the much disputed portrayal of the Passion performed by the actors, which is what the film basically revolves around, as well as the actual film itself. All three stories, incredibly similar in their own way, are not against religion but simply point out the irrationalities and stupidity of organized religion of the past and of the present. It was a truly wonderful film, and I recommend it to all who are willing to sit down for a couple of hours and be completely absorbed in a very intense yet delicately put together film. The film was one of the most clever I have ever seen.

Acting doesn't pay much these days, and a team of very good, yet impoverished actors has to work for the church in a show re-creating the life of Jesus. The need for really creating something lingers and frustrates them ; until an old friend comes back from a long trip. This man has talent and charisma enough to shape the others' fuzzy desires into writing a play. They turn their dull show about Jesus into something terrifyingly beautiful that has the public crying. But then, something happens...

This movie is really beautiful and moving, go rent it !

What if Jesus had been born in the year 1970 instead of year 1, and as unheralded now as He was then- how would our society have dealt with Him?

And if people can get possessed by the Devil, can a regular guy -- not a nut or a fraud -- become gradually and genuinely possessed by Jesus?

Denys Arcand answers both questions in clever and entertaining fashion. With actual events, people, words and thoughts from Jesus' life being transposed to our modern times. Of course a movie like this is aimed at people who don't turn both their brain cells off as they enter the movie house, and won't be happy with 90 minutes of gunshots, car chases, or Jesus being whipped.

And yet this highly hypothetical parable still comes off as a plausible dramatic tale, with the usual Arcand mix of tragedy and comedy. You could have never heard of Jesus and still enjoy this movie.

The cinematography is gorgeous and the main actors are uniformly excellent. Some of the minor characters bother me intensely, which they are meant to do -- they're just too darn good at it.

The script and direction are nicely conventional - in the sense that at no time does the viewer wonder who that guy is or what the heck is going on. Jarring "artsy" cuts, unannounced flashbacks and weird camera angles are many critics' cup of tea but not mine, and thankfully, not Arcand's either.

There is quite a bit of tension-relieving slapstick in this story; some viewers may like it- it *is* funny, but it makes me uncomfortable at times. And the ending is a bit of an anticlimax, although at the second viewing I think I began to see the light.

I originally rated this movie 8/10, but after seeing it again I got more in tune with it and also noticed a few very clever details, so I'm upping it to 9/10. Maybe 10/10 when I see it next.

A robust, inventive parallel to the life of Christ. This film seems to display utter commitment and genuine integrity. It is moving without being sentimental, and tells its tale with rigour and without too many contrived plot developments. The performances are splendid. You don't have to be religious to appreciate this one, since it stands up in its own right, even if the parallels are ignored. Deserves to be better known.