Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

JohnHowardReid It's claimed that this movie is "the most viewed film in history" and that it is currently available "in over 320 languages." On the one hand, that is very pleasing to hear. On the other hand, it's a little sad because the film is riddled with errors. Not major errors, of course, but still irritating to a Bible scholar who has just published a new translation of Luke's Gospel. Yes, although the DVD jacket doesn't mention the fact, IMDb tells us the screenplay was based on Luke's Gospel. A good choice. But what version of Luke's Gospel the screenwriter used is not mentioned. It's certainly not Luke's Gospel as Luke wrote it in Greek. Presumably, it's Luke's Gospel as presented in the so-called King James Bible. This was not a good choice. The King James Bible is riddled with errors – some intentional, some unintentional. And as if these errors were not numerous enough, the screenwriter has added a few of his own. For example, he tells us that Mary accompanied Joseph to Bethlehem because she was needed to register for the census too. She wasn't! "Every adult male in the empire was required to travel to the city of his fathers in order to be registered. So Joseph was forced to journey from the village of Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea, because Joseph belonged to the house of David and Bethlehem was David's city. Mary accompanied Joseph because she was engaged to be married to him, and because she was expecting a child." (Quoting from "Luke: The Gospel A Radical New Translation" by John Howard Reid). So that is error number two in the movie.A previous error occurs when Mary visits her relative, Elizabeth and Elizabeth's wonderful greeting is put into Mary's mouth instead, while Elizabeth looks on rapturously. That the words are Elizabeth's and were not spoken by Mary is surely obvious from the lines: "My soul greatly praises the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in the Lord God, my Savior. For He has noticed His servant's utter disgrace and has rectified my ignominious situation… He raised me up when I was down, drowning in the depths of despair." The whole point of this episode is that Elizabeth is old and well past the age of giving birth. But she doesn't look old in the movie at all! So Luke's decision to write about John the Baptist's conception was simply a waste of time as far as this movie is concerned. Worse still, of course, is that Elizabeth's words are transposed to Mary.Another deliberate error in the movie occurs when the child Jesus stays behind in Jerusalem. Luke tells us that "Joseph and Mary were furious. 'How dare you treat us like this!' His mother exclaimed." But in the movie, none of this dialogue is presented at all, let alone the fact that "Joseph and Mary were furious." In the film they don't seem to be even mildly annoyed.There are other errors in the movie, including the claim that Joseph was a carpenter. Luke doesn't spell out Joseph's trade, but he hints that Joseph was a potter. I could go on and on where the movie fails in minor details – I know I'm being picky, but if you're going to make a movie about the King of righteousness, why not get it right? – but probably the worst offense is that Brian Deacon's Christ doesn't look the least bit Jewish.

Vitale The most ACCURATE and BRIGHT movie about Jesus Christ! Let the facts speak for themselves (from the 2004 "Jesus: Fact or Fiction" DVD): = "The most historically accurate film about the life of Jesus Christ"= "By far the most translated film in history, translated to over 800 languages" = "5 billion viewers worldwide" (1979-2003) = "After viewing the film, more than 300 million people have indicated a decision to follow the teachings of Jesus"After seeing quite a few of them, i decided not to be a fan of Christ movies, as they often mislead you by giving the twisted (by the director) image of Him. True believers know better than any movie what He was/is like from the Bible and personal experience. But if a movie is the only way for you to reach to your friends, this would be THE ONE and ONLY! Those who have eyes to see will see the beauty of following the Bible "script". No need to add anything else. Look deeper, see Christ's person in this film - you will be amazed by the spiritual wealth of His simplicity. How can someone call this "boring"?!Don't wait for lots of entertainment. Jesus's life was not about having fun, but about our redemption, about witnessing Truth and serving others, about spirituality of one's soul, about life in God, and personal humility. And these all are well depicted in this great film. May God have mercy on all who toiled making it!Indeed, it's THE MOVIE of all times! 10 out of 10.

John Ruffle 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.

Enrique Sanchez 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.