The Revolutionary

I wouldn't call it the WORST film ever - I mean, have you ever seen "They Saved Hitler's Brain"? At least this one makes an effort at scene continuity.

Compared to "Hitler's Brain", this one is a masterpiece of costuming, direction, editing, plot, and photography. It is an adequate film to teach the uninitiated and unsophisticated viewer about the basics in the life (and crucifixion) of Jesus.

Not much else to say!

For some weird reason, IMDb is making me add lines of text (HAVE TO BE 10, THEY ARE TELLING ME!) in order to submit my comments. I think that's silly. Anyone else ever notice this and found it to be a problem?

It's a big statement. It's like calling someone a genius, so often overused. But, truly, no man has lesser talent than Robert Marcarelli. Were this not made in 1999, I would have been convinced that this Passion Play was the inspiration for the LIFE OF BRIAN, only that Monty Python seemed to take Jesus more seriously. I sat, in complete, almost religious awe, at how anyone could make a film so completely without merit; A film where the actors managed to convey profound silliness with every staged glance; A film where you had people speaking in thick accents of their own origin - be they French, British, or Israeli; A film that would convince the Pope himself that the passion play was a lie and a fraud. I wish I could meet this sterlingly incompetent writer-director, Mr. Marcarelli. He is an artist of the first magnitude for achieving a surreal perfection through his consistent lack of a dramatic sense. How can a person achieve this zenith of badness? Well, I suppose you'd start by eliminating anyone in the cast that had taste, sensitivity and any acting ability. Next, you'd tell them to "act mad", "act happy", "act sad." And finally, you'd do only one take. The only thing that would make this work better would be if the lab showed the same lack of competence by overexposing and destroying the negative.

I saw it as expression of faith. This excuse its artistic modesty and gives to it what is real fair. It represents a good intentioned try to present the life of The Savior. The result is not so bad; maybe, it reminds the school /church shows of students. In same measure, it is correct and the connection between the birth of World and the birth of Messiah is a good point. It can be a sort of introduction in the Gospel world and, not ignoring the mistakes/ sins of many low budget Christian films, nothing can be in honest manner, defined, about it , as real bad or awful. It is only decent expression of good, noble intentions. A video, giving a portrait of the Jesus Christ. Not the best, off course, far to be compared with the great films about same subject but decent at whole. For very hard critics, I suppose, to see it as a sort of class project can be enough.

This was undoubtedly the cheesiest movie of the life of Christ I have ever seen. Even Jeffrey Hunter's I was A Teenage Jesus; aka King of kings was better. I caught the tail end of this monstrosity while channel surfing. The budget must have been $10,000; the acting, except for Steel, was non-existent, and the screenplay could have been better written by a sixth-grader. I saw an interview with Steel, Paul Crouch and the director and his wife, who wrote the screenplay talking about the authentic beards, as if this was the major task to overcome in making this lousy movie. But what really bothered me the most were the Scriptures that were not included in the screenplay that would have made the movie better, and given it more clarity.