Jesus of Nazareth
|
List Price: Our Price: $8.00 You Save: $11.98 (60%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $7.87 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Jesus of Nazareth
Movie Review: A Masterful Adaptation of the Master
Summary: 5 Stars
This is by far the very best adaptation of the gospel of Jesus Christ ever brought to the screen. I've seen many other versions but this one grabbed me the first time I saw it and still grabs me after the many, many times I've seen it.
I first saw this movie about 10 yrs. ago (before I was a Christian) when I rented it from a local video store. My life was still a mess but this movie sank deep into me and gave me a glimpse of the real word and life of Christ that I'd never seen before. This movie was the first time, I got to see the real Jesus. No, this movie is not a video Bible and is not meant to be used as such, but it showed me (a lost sinner) the Lord as close and not somewhere up there. I needed to see that and I remember being so touched and walking around with this movie in my head all day. I felt something inside, something new and real but I wasn't ready yet. A few years later He came to me in my fallen state and called me to Himself. I commited my life to Him, confessed myself a sinner, put my faith in Him as Lord and asked Him into my heart whereafter I was saved by Him. And ever since, this film has meant more and more to me.
note: please forgive me for getting off track. When I speak of anything that has to do with the Lord, I can't help myself and am compelled to give my testamony. I shortened it down here but can't seem to write about this without including some of it. :)
Back to the movie, Robert Powell gives the performance of a lifetime as Jesus. I haven't seen him in anything else and don't want to as I may think of it when I watch this movie. I believe that God may have inspired the creation of and performing in this film. It's just so good and sticks very close to the written gospels. Not only that but to the character of Mary, Joseph and the apostles. Peter is gruff and rigid. Doubting Thomas is ever doubtful. Judas deceives and is deceived but isn't portrayed as some evil henchman. Joseph comes across as a teacher and loving husband, and has one of the nicest smiles. And we actually get to see Jesus as a boy, something most all other films seem to skip over.
The settings, clothing and tools of the time seem historically and periodically accurate. We also get a nice take on some of the places of events in the Bible that were'nt described in detail. One that comes to mind is the last supper. In the movie 'The Greatest Story Ever Told', Jesus is sitting in the middle of a table with his apostles on either side of Him, just like in the famous painting. It looks so set up and unbelieveable. That kind of shows you the perspective behind that movie. I didn't care for that film at all. But here, they're sitting and lounging around on the floor of a very common looking room where it all looks very natural. I appreciate the realism.
The birth, feeding the 5000, raising Lazarus from the dead, the crucifixtion and resurrection are all thoughtfully done. I love the repentence of Mary Magdelene. Here the film chose to focus on that rather than her sinful past. We get a short look at it (not graphic of course)but the majority is focused on where it matters, her encounter with Christ and new life after. The arrest and crucifixtion doesn't go nearly as far as 'The Passion' does but doesn't make light of it either. Though I believe 'The Passion' is closer to the reality. By the written word that is. I also love the portrayal of the calling of Matthew and how Jesus brings his and Peters conflict to a peaceful resolution. Oh heck, I love this whole movie and the very touching moments throughout.
The audio and video are perfectly acceptable as it's clear to see and hear everything but I wish someone would do a full remaster as it truly deserves it. There's some dirt and blemishes here and there and the audio is totally mono and a little flat but it doesn't detract at all. I love the score for this film though as it perfectly accompanies the events on screen.
Over the 2 discs, this movie runs 382 min. or 6 of the shortest hours ever. It was made for t.v. as a mini series but you wouldn't otherwise know it. This movie truly takes advantage and benefits from the run time though as it allows the most of the gospels to be told in splendid detail. Everytime I watch it, I can't believe how fast this film goes by. It's absolutely immersive and enthralling. I find myself spiritually lifted everytime.
In closing, this is the most wonderful and accurate portrayal of the events and times of Christ that I've ever seen. If you haven't seen this and are interested, by all means watch it. Whether you believe or don't believe. Whatever background you come from. Whatever your belief system is, it may just get you to thinking or change your thoughts on what you thought you knew or where you stood with God and in this world. All are welcome. If you are a believer, then don't hesitate a second to see this. Purchase it for whatever the price because it's the easiest recommended must see ever.
Movie Review: The Best Movie about Jesus
Summary: 5 Stars
I believe this is probably the best movie about Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian religion. The main part (which, of course, is tremendously important in this case) is played by Robert Powell, and he delivers an astonishing performance. It makes you think that this is how probably Jesus Himself would have spoken and behaved. His talent renders so much credibility to the so-well-known phrases from the New Testament that belong to Jesus. I don't recommed viewing it too often, because the marvel fades away the more you see it. It is, however, the best choice before important holidays like Easter and Christmas.
The other actors deliver acceptable performances, with the characters of Peter, Judas and the Jewish Pharisees being particularly verisimilar. Peter is depicted in a very humanly manner, as a man troubled by doubts and riddled by weaknesses, but strong enough, however, to accomplish the mission entrusted to him, again, exactly as suggested by the Bible. Judas is portrayed as a more intelectual individual. He relies first and foremost on his reason, and so, his actions (culminating with the betrayal) appear very credible as he does not actually understand that it is in Jesus and God that he should trust first, and not his limited human abilities. His error seems the product of human self-sufficiency, as it so often happens in real life, too. Franco Zefirelli also has the merit of creating a very believable scenario regarding the Pharisees' motivations and actions, culminating in the trial of Jesus. They, too, are depicted as enslaved by human logic, mixed with mundane reasonings, but the director is carefull not to cast apriori the usual image of villains. The Pharisees act acording to their education, their status in society, their responsabilities towards the Jewish people, and their beliefs, in all dignity 99.5% of the time. They are consistent with themselves, but the tragedy of their decision seems to come from their not being able to open themselves to a new way of thinking, to the new message of the Christ. Their conservatism and excessive cautiousness (which, while within reason, do become problematic once they obstruct that very same reason and power of judgment) make their choice seem so natural, that it made me wonder what would I have done, had I been asked to make the same decision.
I don't think that Olivia Hussey was the best choice for the character of Mary. She seems to lack that magic chemistry with her character (which is so wonderfully present in Powell's case), and her performance is, at most, ok, but in my opinion, she actually fails to deliver any of the fascination and awe of the Virgin Mary, at least as depicted in people's imagination by the Church and the Bible. Taking that her part is limited, however, to the sequence of Christ's birth (and a few other meteoric appearances afterwards), this is not a major shortcoming.
Antoher pro for this movie is the fact that it tries to respect almost to the letter the phrases spoken by the characters, as written in the New Testament, and it succeeds at so-doing without seeming artificial or too solemn, as it so often happens in church readings, but rather gives a new life to those words. There are, of course, fictious scenes as well, (in the sense that they are the writer's creation), but none of them seems to impede on the historical or religious truth, but are rather creative solutions to make the plot flow fluently. This is also with respect to the plot, in the sense that the movie tries to observe all those events in the life of Jesus that proved decisive in the birth of the new religion and of the new Christian Church.
Perhaps the biggest con of "Jesus of Nazareth" is the fact that it was made some time ago. The director, although generally achieving a high degree of excellence, has compromised to some of the acting and phrasing stereotypes of his time. There are scenes in which sublime interpretations (by any standards), alternate with artificial and overly-theatrical renderings by some actors. The lines seem unnapropriate, or strange, so that it becomes almost funny to see how ridiculously pretentious the actors were. However, maybe that taking this into account makes them more bearable.
The music is particularly beatiful and well-choosen, as it has a terrific effect the first time one sees the movie, but it seems a little monotonesque at the second or third visioning.
This version also has the great merit of actually being the comlete, unedited one. Trust me, it was hard trying to find it, and there are also many fakes out there, but if you are in doubt, it is always worth comparing lengths. This version is 382 minutes long, the longest one available, as far as I am aware.
All in all, I recommend this movie in all honesty. For some it may make them really ask themselves questions, while for others it will provide, at least, a unique film experience.
Movie Review: POWERFULLY INTELLIGENT, SUBLIMELY MOVING
Summary: 5 Stars
Franco Zeffirelli is primarily known for his exquisite filming of Shakespeare's plays - Romeo And Juliet, Hamlet, Taming Of The Shrew, etc. - and this. There are numerous versions of the life of Christ out there, but this is by far the finest. What Zeffirelli does best - capturing the people, period and essence of a literary masterpiece - he does here, but he takes it one step further: he also captures the faith, and he does it with intelligence and emotion.
One example will illustrate this. When Christ is calling his disciples, he first approaches Peter, a hard-working fisherman; and then, Matthew, a tax-collector. There is a natural animosity between Peter and Matthew because Peter has to give him part of the meager profits from his fishing business in taxes. When Christ tells Matthew he would like to visit him for dinner, Peter resents this, and follows him there. At the dinner party, Christ tells the guests the story of "The Prodigal Son." Everyone is moved; but no one more than Peter, who enters the room and asks Matthew to forgive him for the way he has treated him. It is a compelling scene.
That scene also illustrates some other things: 1) Christ is a wonderful storyteller. His rendition of the story of "The Prodigal Son" is riveting. 2) The scribes, Pharisees and zealots aren't the only ones Christ has trouble with. His religious followers are animately against his going to Matthew's house, and do everything they can to talk him out of it. 3) Peter's stubbornness is as sinful as Matthew's avarice, which makes Christ's telling of this particular story so apropos.
Zeffirelli is a stickler for detail, and a master of visual imagery. His vision of Palestine in Christ's day is as rich as any Old Master painting. Every inch of every character and set helps to tell that particular person or place's story. Take John the Baptist, for example: Michael York looks and sounds every inch like the rustic prophet. Or the Temple: it has all the overwhelming beauty, along with all the noise and smoke, the real one must have had. Or Simeon, who prophesies over Jesus when he is circumcised, played by Ralph Richardson: he is as wonderful as you would expect him to have been. Or Joseph, played Yorgo Voyagis, who looks very Jewish: what a godly husband, father and example of manhood he made for Jesus. Mary, played by Olivia Hussey (Romeo And Juliet) is beautifully submissive. The astronomer-kings (including one played by a young James Earl Jones) are impressively wise. The Romans are threatening, but no more so than Herod's men, whose killing of the infants in Bethlehem is incredible and heart-wrenching, even though it is handled tastefully. Everything is far more effective - dramatically, biblically, historically, artistically and in every other way - than any other life of Christ film ever made.
The main thing that makes this film stand out from the rest is the attitude and understanding of the filmmakers. They are not telling the story of a religious icon, nor is it about an historical figure. They truly believe - and you can see it in every aspect of the production - they are telling the story of the Son of God. Zeffirelli and writer Anthony Burgess (with the help of several others) don't give us a literal, word-for-word rendition of Scripture, except when someone is quoting Old Testament prophesy, which happens often. Rather, it is a dramatization, and therefore takes liberty with the text in order to illuminate the spirit and give the essence of who Christ was. Christ's explanation of what the Word of God is could apply to this film. He says that the Word of God is not stone tablets or dusty scrolls, but a living, breathing thing that God wants to write on the tablets of His people's hearts. That is why this is far more successful than any other version: because it is not a literal translation from text to film; but a spiritual transformation of the text to the film. We are left, therefore, with the overwhelming realization that what we are witnessing is not a stuffy, religious version of the literal Christ; but a living, breathing vision of the spirit of Christ.
Waitsel Smith
Movie Review: Don't be tempted...to zoom-in!
Summary: 5 Stars
This is a review of the Region 1 version of Jesus of Nazareth. Another important fact is that this work was produced in 1977. It was directed by one of cinema's most successful European directors: Franco Zeffirelli. Made for television by a cinema director in 1977.
The first thing that struck me upon playing the dvd was how well photographed it is. The colour is rich but not Technicolor. Like paintings, beautifully framed. Do not zoom in on your widescreen television, you will miss significant details or obscure a visual treat. It is a very square framed film. On my surround sound audio the stereo soundtrack was well reproduced with dialogue clear in the centre channel. One irritating omission is the absence of any subtitles. Although most dialogue is clear, just the odd word would have been crystal if I could have accessed a subtitle. The worst case was a minor character, who has just one short speech, early on played by Ralph Richardson - I could not understand a word he said!
I'm going to take a chance with this next analysis: I think there is no definitive version of the whole production because of its political bias. There is no 3 disc version, for example, with a glossy booklet of background information, subtitles in many languages and interviews with surviving participants. For a perfect reproduction to be sold the sellers would be endorsing a cultural work which promotes individual freedom. There is nothing for the State or established religion in this production. Even though it is a fascinating and complete rendition of the bible.
Partly scripted by Dennis Potter [well known in the UK for Pennies from Heaven [Region 2] and The Singing Detective tv dramas], we see from the beginning how a woman acts upon her own inner belief (Mary looking through a high window), how a man tells young men of "freedom by using your hands" (Joseph as he trains carpenters) and how laws are not carved in stone (ten commandments). They are written in our hearts. One man has no personal creativity, no skill with his hands, he is a user without heart. Educated by the system for the system. The bridge between the followers and the Establishment is Judas Iscariot.
This is 1977, a time of revolution. Even the serene middle classes could give up their job, dig up their manicured lawns and shout out to the world that they could be self sufficient. And be loved. I bought the first series of the comedy Good Neighbors: The Complete Series 1-3 two weeks ago and enjoy watching it very much. Potter's own work on television would see a male protagonist at war with society using the weapons of songs, dreams but most of all: words.
A good story acts against confinement. Little wonder the Bible stayed in Latin for so long. Translated by a man who wanted to divorce his wife. Lawfully.
Of all the acting performances I was stuck by the intensity and thorough characterisation of John the Baptist by Michael York. Chained in a cold, dark, stone, cell he preaches to the revelry above him with as much gusto as by a river in his days without chains. Brilliantly shot from above by the director. This man can not die. Two women conspire to behead him. Wonderful stuff.
I save my final paragraph for the entrance of Jesus. His appearance is mesmerising. The eyes so white. The eyes so blue. The belief so strong. The plan so complete. From the outside to the least successful, a Socialist call. Love your enemies as yourself. Some people must be spoken to. To begin to love yourself.
Movie Review: history with humanity that's divine viewing
Summary: 5 Stars
"Jesus of Nazareth" first aired as an NBC TV special on Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday 1977. It was created for many of the same reasons Mel Gibson did his film: Both directors had traumatic accidents (in Mel's case to his child) that caused them to re-examine their faith and want to propitiate and thank god by creating a film. Zeffirelli first did this with his film about St. Francis of Assisi--his patron saint. But unsatisfied with the result and reception by the public, he eventually agreed to do another, better film: "Jesus of Nazareth."
When the controversies developed over Mel Gibson's "The Passion..." I remembered the protests and complaints about Zeffirelli's film which caused one of the major sponsors to pull out--(GM, P&G replaced) All this BEFORE the protestors and sponsors had even viewed it! Back then, the religious zealots and timid sponsors were afraid that Jesus' humanity was promoted over his divinity. How silly. Could humans care about an alien god-creature? It is precisely because Jesus was human, and suffered as a human, that people are interested enough to listen and later learn about his more "divine" message. (And that includes the agnostics /aetheists like me.) And that is one of the great strengths of this production: its realism and humanity.
Because Zeffirelli took pains to show Jewish life and practices of the time, he didn't suffer the disapprobation Gibson did from Jewish leaders. He follows his protagonist closely, but Zeffirelli is also concerned with the wider picture of Jesus' relationship to his disciples, the zealots, and Jewish and Roman authorities and laws. In "Jesus of Nazareth", the political environment is just as important as the religious in explaining the impact of Jesus and his teachings. Zeffirelli is always meticulous in his historical settings, (his designer's eye also recreates several medieval/rennaissance paintings in his blocking), and this realism helps to explain not only the person, but also the message historically, politically, and philosophically.
And the one message that comes through this film, MUCH more than Gibson's, is Jesus' message of love and reconciliation between enemies. Over and over it is shown in scenes--many where the verbatim Bible quotations are transposed to a different action in order to emphasize that theme: Matthew's dinner party, debating with Joseph of Arimathea, trying to convince Barrabas. And as one reviewer noted, there is always the undercurrent of someone who knows who he is, why he is there, and what is coming, but still perseveres.
Unlike Gibson, family is peripheral once Jesus ventures beyond Nazareth, and Mary is not seen until nearly the last act. Gibson had to use Mary as the contrast to the horror, Zeffirelli had almost 2hrs of aural and visual scenes to use instead.
Gibson sought historical versimilitude by using Aramaic and Latin, but in some ways I think this detaches the viewer from the action--pausing to read subtitles reminds you that you are VIEWING not experiencing the action. Ditto his film's visible demons/ devil-temptor--supernatural creatures negate the suspension of disbelief from the reality of the moment. 1st century historical reality becomes a 21st century horror film with cgfx. Gibson's film has some really memorable visual (and some sound) images, and Gibson's strong feelings are apparant behind the film, but for 20+ years the one that resonates most is Zeffirelli's film. Because the history is visible, because the message is placed in a political as well as religous context, and because (despite the healings, miracles, raising of Lazarus etc. shown) Jesus' empathetic humanity is there.
Let us give thanks for a memorable score, literate script, superb actor (and supporting actors), and a knowing director.