À la poursuite du passé

I almost always avoid to compare movies to the novels they're based upon. You can't film a 600 page book and stay true to the text. That film would be 10 hours long, have endless dialogue scenes and be terribly boring. So I do agree, a screenplay writer has to simplify the story. But `Jesus Video' goes way too far to be acceptable. The book offered an amazing story (time-traveller presumably filmed J.C. Superstar, surely envied by Cecil B De Mille, but where did he leave the camera for the world to see?), many new ideas and surprising turns. Andreas Eschbach, the author, had a very clever way of never letting you easily guess what will happen next. His characters think a lot about the problems of time-travelling and the origins of religious belief, a fascinating concept. The movie script abandoned all creative ideas and all logical thought that made the book so impressive, instead it replaced them by a stupid action story we have seen a thousand times before: hey, that guy stole something that rightfully belongs to us! Let's chase him, torture him, kill him! Thus, a breathtaking story full of suspense was turned into a violent, boring 3 hour movie. 3 hours should be plenty of time to develop a clever storyline! Why were the producers scared and preferred to waste the huge potential? For example, the professor (in the book) is in a difficult situation, standing between his employer and the hero (his student). In the end, he is the key figure to the solution. In the movie however, they somehow didn't know what to do with him, since they wanted to rewrite the ending anyway (with another big explosion if possible), so somebody just shoots the professor in the middle of the film without any convincing motive. Bang, bang, one character less to write lines for, story even more simple from now on. The movie's only virtue is: every five minutes, somebody fires a gun to keep you awake.

This is definitely not a candidate for the `worst film ever'. It just is so depressing that this particular novel offered something we rarely get to see: new ideas, no cliches! But the movie doesn't use ANY of these ideas and delivers a below average action movie (I voted 3/10) instead. Such a waste of potential is annoying.

In opposite to a few other reviewers here, I think the actors did okay (within the limited possibilities the script gave them). Naike Rivelli reminded me so much of her mother, screen legend Ornella Muti, in the early 1980s. I'm looking forward to see more movies with this talented young lady, but please not `Jesus Video 2 - Pontius Strikes Back"!

I have seen a 2 hour version of this movie and found it nice and enjoyable entertainment. The story flowed well and was interesting. Having seen perhaps too many movies, the plot was somewhat predictable, but nice, nonetheless.

In common with many action movies, we see the hero being beaten up, shot at, tortured ... and still running around in the end. Had it been me, I probably wouldn't even have survived the main character's first drop. Contrary, however, to many action movies, there was a story and the story did not get lost in the action. Dialogues were more than some stupid grunting and one-liners ... there was an attempt to make this story if not believable, then at least acceptable.

All in all, a nice movie ... It got my attention enough to want to read the book.

It was a better movie than the EXPERT considers it to be, I did not move from my seat until it ended, sometimes experts want us to see things the way they see them, yet, we are not that spoiled. The settings were great, the quality of the movie was ideal, the chase scenes were entertaining, wardrobe, extras, the buildings, the wall of lamentations, I like the whole thing!

The leading lady was fine and very beautiful too.

How would the expert have liked it to be so that his review could have improved?

I don't agree with the critic, he was very biased.

Rafael

...Unfortunately my German is too rudimentary and apparently it has never been translated into English or Spanish. The film, per se, is poorly directed and acting is High School play level at best. I swear there are scenes when actors are virtually laughing when they should be grieving.

I think the book has the potential to serve as basis for a good remake as a mini-series. Actually, I saw the short version in TV a few years after it was released (according to the posted date here) but I couldn't make much out of it and just found the 3 hour version dubbed to English at a friend's CD library. It actually made sense but I guess the four hour version much be better in the storytelling department.

I'm giving it a 6/10 grade mainly because of the plot. I don't think the book will be translated into English or any other language I can read fluently as I've found it was not a huge sales success, but hopefully the novel by Andreas Eschbach and its sequel do get remade into a couple of seasons of a better produced mini-series.

if you love the book, the movie is good to see to make a comparison. People who do not know the original novel, most likely, will not enjoy the movie. It's flat, died-and-ran-away, and "what is it all about?". I agree you can't make a good 2,5h motion picture out of excellent! >600 pages twist and turn (and "make me think") story. Watch it on your own risk, but don't come back and complain until you read the original. ...

well done from technical side..., no complains about actors'es play, pity the director focused only on "run for your life" scenes, but as it seems a quite low budget movie (so don't expect any FX to remember), sounds as a nice event for an evening (if you red a book before - otherwise go and see "Mummy ..." series"). Veni, Vidi, flushed....

I loved to see it as the book is in my Top 10 "Sci-Fi" list.... go and spend a week to find what is it all about.