User Reviews

A somewhat expurgated version of the gospel of Luke, Brian deacons version of Jesus is appealing, if somewhat un-animated. I have a great love for this film ( mainly due to the fact that it was the first film about Jesus I can remember seeing from my childhood.) Not as epic as Zeffirelli's film, nor as graphic as Gibson's, a faithful representation with only a few omissions ( I'm sure either due to budget or time constraints). the acting is at times somewhat melodramatic, but that is part of the charm of this film. the cinematography is not ground breaking but certainly serves its purpose and doesn't overshadow the story, and really thats one of the best things about this film, nothing in it overshadows the story as a whole.

Here in the Bible belt of the United States, particularly in our Southern Baptist churches, when you say the name "Jesus Christ," most of us envision such a person as Brian Deacon, who stars as the title character of "Jesus" (1979). The plot of "Jesus" is generally well-known even by non-believers. The opening scene displays John 3:16-17 from the King James Version. Though the film claims to be entirely from The Gospel of St. Luke, it also mixes elements from Matthew's Gospel (i.e.: a more complete Lord's Prayer said by Christ and the use of the trinitarian baptismal formula).

Sadly, the acting in "Jesus" is almost as wooden as the oil-painted icons of the Eastern Church. Brian Deacon delivers a sort of solemn, meek interpretation of Jesus of Nazareth--making the scene in which he casts out the money-changers from the temple--look as if he is only frustrated, and not righteously angry. However, in the film's defense, the acting in "Jesus" is much more a product of its time in that this was generally accepted as to how Jesus acted.

"Jesus" is perhaps one of the greatest films ever made, not because of its production values or acting, but because of its content. This 80-minute film, translated into God knows how many languages, has communicated the Gospel to millions all across the globe. "Jesus," the forerunner of such films as "The Gospel of John" (2003) and "The Passion of the Christ" (2004), is one of the finest examples of evangelical film-making. Recommended for everyone.

To write about such a delicate film as about Christ Himself in this age of an extreme political correctness is a tough task. This work appeals immensely to all the believers and works out fine to convert all the newcomers. To the non-believers, this work will seem dull and boring, but then, let's be straight - this is the most accurate, the most precise and elegant retelling of the Gospel According to Luke. Since I am a Protestant Christian myself, I must say that this film really did help me to understand who Jesus is and what He was doing among us the people on Earth. The play of Mr. Deacon is very good, he does an extremely difficult work and he does it well. I remember my eyes were wet with tears during the Crucifix scene, and then my heart leaped violently with joy during the final scenes. The film is very well done, by seeing the sandy dusty plains and hills of Israel, you feel the smell of age, you do believe in the truth of the plot and you do follow the film scene by scene. A very serious and thoughtful work.

For any searcher, this movie gives an account that is closer to the truth of the four gospels than any other movie about Jesus. One not to be missed, but to be seen and thought about as to who Jesus really is. Filmed in several locations of where Jesus actually walked, the movie takes away the Hollywood hype and myths about Jesus and represents what the viewer really needs to know. Is Jesus who he claims to be? Is he the Son of God? Watch this movie and then make your own decision.

This is the flip-side to the Cecil B. DeMille style of Biblical "epics." It's a worthy attempt to present the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament without the usual Hollywood digressions and additions. As such, one can usually forgive its sometimes flat, even ponderous style. The crucifixion is an especially good sequence since obvious attempts have been made toward historical accuracy. The nails, for example, aren't driven through the palms (a common misconception) but rather through the wrists. However, the movie makes a deference toward modern standards of modesty by allowing Jesus and the two thieves to wear surprisingly-clean loincloths while hanging on their crosses. Since crucifixion was meant to be not only a physically agonizing form of torture but also one which deliberately shamed and humiliated its victims, it's likely that the Romans would strip their victims of every trace of dignity by stripping them of every scrap of clothing. Imagine having all one's parts completely exposed to the jeers and taunts of the crowds! Imagine having these parts laid bare to to swarms of crawling, stinging insects! Brian Gibson represents a more virile Jesus than is often the case. He has a certain "aesthetic" look but he also has hair on his chest and in his armpits.

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.

This highly regarded but unknown epic deals with Christ life , performed by non-professional cast and shot on location in Israel at authentic biblical sites . Stripped of myth and mystery , this religious story results to be a colorful version of Jesus Christ's life with a true treatment and inspirational drama . Being spectacularly shot in 1979 and profesionally directed by John Krish and Peter Sykes with unknown cast giving larger-than-life interpretations from the Bibical roles . The engaging and historical story of Jesus of Nazareth , the man you thought you knew , being raised by a Jewish carpenter and ending with his death by crucifixion at the hands of the Roman empire and resurrection on the third day . Chronicles efficiently the attractive life and ministry of Jesus Christ from the Annunciation , Crucifixion , Resurrection , and the Ascention . Interesting retelling at the life and teachings of Christ well played by Brian Deacon , from a historical and spiritual view point . The film includes all of the major events referred to in the New Testament with descriptive Biblical passages . Based on the Gospel of Luke in the New Testament, here is the life of Jesus , the son of God , from the miraculous virgin birth to the calling of his disciples , public miracles and ministry . Being well reenacted his birth in Bethlehem and visit by three Magician Kings who , subsequently , go to the Palace of Herodes the Great . His existence in desert for 40 days tempted by Satan , there he knows he has a destiny to fulfill ; his baptism by John the Baptist ; the miracles , such as : cripples walking , the epileptic boy , blind men seeing ; the fishes and the loaves ; Lazarus' resurrection , Transfiguration of Moses and Elijah with Jesus , Simon of Cyrene's appearance ; his relationship to 12 apostles and so on . Jesus Christ's journey from Galilee to Crucifixion in Golgotha is portrayed here in thought-provoking as well as agreeable treatment . And usual scenes with the historical , Biblical characters , such as : Virgin Mary , Jose , Elizabeth , John the Baptist ,Herod Antipas , Herodias , Mary Magdalene , Bartholomew , Simon Zelotes , Pontius Pilate , Caiaphas , Apostle Peter , Judas Iscariot , Matthew , Philip , Zacchaeus ,Joseph of Arimathea, Simon of Cyrene , Nicodemus, and many others.

This is a decently made and impressive -though slow-moving- story of the life of Jesus Christ from his birth in Bethlehem to his Crucifixion and subsequent Resurrection . It is a religious and anguishing epic where the eternal questions of faith and doubt become resolved . Life of Christ is intelligently told , based on Gospel of St Luke and other source writings . Stars a serious and good-looking television actor named Brian Deacon in exactly the right role , he gives a dedicated effort at the role , his acting has power , nobility and subtlety . Being a medium-budgeted production , this breathtaking Biblical movie turns out to be filmed on a scale enough and efficiently produced by Richard Dalton and John Heyman . Including glowing and evocative cinematography with an attractive visual style , filmed on several locations in Israel . As well as enormous and majestic art design splendidly built and photographed by expert cameramen . Adding a sensitive and memorable soundtrack . The motion picture was compellingly co-directed by John Krish , Peter Sykes , and it had commercial success enough by retelling faithfully the life of Jesus Christ . This is a Richly Rewarding Entertainment Experience for the Entire Family.

Jesus life has been adapted several times , such as : ¨King of Kings¨ (released in 1927) , it is the yardstick by which all Jesus movies are to be measure , being first silent version by Cecil B. DeMille with H. B. Wagner Christ . Other pictures dealing with his divine presence are the following ones :¨King of Kings¨(1961) by Nicholas Ray with Jeffrey Hunter , Robert Ryan , Ron Randel , Hurd Hatfield , Rip Torn , Frank Thring , Carmen Sevilla ; ¨The Greatest Story Ever Told¨(1965) by George Stevens with Max Von Sidow , Michael Anderson Jr , Carroll Baker, Ina Balin, Pat Boone, Jose Ferrer , Angela Lansbury , Victor Buono, Richard Conte ; ¨Gospel according to Matthew¨ by Pier Paolo Pasolini with Enrique Irazoqui as Jesus ; ¨Jesus Christ Superstar¨(1977) by Norman Jewison with Ted Neeley and Carl Anderson ; ¨Jesus de Nazareth¨(1977) by Franco Zeffirelli with Robert Powell , Olivia Hussey , James Mason , Laurence Olivier , Anne Brancfort , Fernando Rey ; ¨Last temptation of Christ¨ by Martin Scorsese with Willem Dafoe , David Bowie , Harvey Keitel , Ian Holm , Harry Dean Staton ; and ¨The Passion of the Christ¨ (2004) by Mel Gibson with James Cazievel , Maia Morgenstern and Monica Belucci .

This was, I thought, the best cinematic summary of the life of Christ I have yet seen. Brian Deacon, who portrays Jesus, looks the part and speaks with quiet authority. His interaction with children in the movie gives a moving picture of the tenderness of Christ. The words of Christ are given in modern translation making it easy for the viewer to understand the language. Simon Peter (Niko Nitai) looks the part and acts it well. The movie allows about the same amount for the last week of Christ's life as does the gospel (about 25%). While not a perfect movie (nothing on earth is perfect), this is a delightful one. If you are looking for an accurate picture of Christ which accords well with the Bible, this is it!

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.

I learned of this movie when I was in college. It was the best discovery of my life. If memory is serving me correctly, it was sent in the mail throughout Alabama for a short time for people to have for free. It is well-made and biblically correct. It gives a message of hope and reaffirms one's belief in Christ. If you do not know Christ, he is definitely worth meeting and learning about. Once you have accepted him your life will change for the better! This is a movie to watch alone, with friends or family. Watch it with your enemies..:) Watch it multiple times and you will learn something new every time! I give this movie a 10!

I had heard that this film was being used as a missionary tool throughout the world, and was therefore one of the most watched films in history. While it does present a Biblically accurate account, it does so with very poor and lifeless acting and production values. Jesus was the most important person ever to walk the earth. He deserves better than this... It's time for an updated version.

Simply brilliant. Not to be missed! A wonderful film that will touch your heart and give you a thirst to know more about Jesus of Nazareth. Truly a classic.

Said to be the most-watched film in cinematic history, it's also the most accurate depiction of the life of Christ, according to the Gospel of Luke. No hype, no grandiose special effects, and unlike the awful NOAH'S ARK miniseries, it sticks to the story as it was written in the Bible-no additions, no subtractions, no deviations.

All in all, a classic.

See it!

I liked the tape because I am a believer and think that this is a great tool for outreach. I have read the Bible several times and this depicts the life and death of the Lord Jesus Christ very well. The script quotes the scriptures verbatim. That is very important when there are so many cults out there saying what sounds like the scripture but in fact it is not. Whether you are a believer or not, whether you are seeking or not it is interesting to watch the life of the man who holds the record of books written about his life. I recommend it. The movie has a soft and pensive mood to it. Please do not expect an action movie. There is a prayer at the end which is really cool! Favorite Quotes: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son for whoever believe in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Favorite Scenes: When Jesus comes back from the dead and his disciples did not recognize him.

The story of Jesus as told by this movie is faithful to the Bible version. It does not flinch from some of the uglier parts of the story, such as the crucifixion. Jesus was a soft-spoken man, with dark complexion and long hair. This is more accurate than portraying him as a blond-haired, blue-eyed WASP.

One question, though: why was this movie ever rated G? The proper rating is PG-13, although it would have been rated PG because we did not have the PG-13 rating at the time.

Maybe it would be unfair, or beside the point, to review this one as a movie rather than as a cinematic Evangelization tool. As far as direction, acting, film editing, and scoring go it's amateur night in Zion almost all the way. What can you say about a movie in which a spliced-in scene between Pilate and the chief priests has a different actor from the Passion Pilate? That there are beautiful shots of the eerie undulations of the rocks in the Judean desert.

Brian Deacon tries hard as Jesus, but he's just trying TOO hard, like the new young Rev in charge of the Youth Ministry. This Image of Christ seems like the proverbial (HIS proverb) house divided. On the one hand Deacon goes out of his way to present a Flesh and Blood rather than a "Stained Glass" Christ, chuckling all the time, grinning, even having a hairy chest, but on the other, he's saddled with a perfectly straight chestnut wig which could have been left over from Greta Garbo's QUEEN CHRISTINA. A minor point, but it seems perverse. The perfect chestnut hair is the aspect of the Stained Glass Jesus most often singled out for ridicule. And why an English actor who speaks in veddy, veddy proper tones which often seem condescending? Why wasn't the actor who plays Judas chosen to play Jesus? He is tall and dark, with piercing eyes, and a little scary-looking. JESUS pours its new wine into too many old bottles on the Sunday School shelf. The result is a mess on both the visual and the dramatic level. I won't even get into the awkwardness of the camerawork and the scene transitions, the cheesiness of the sets and costumes...

The Mormons, by the way, have since shown how it SHOULD be done: their "Lamb of God" promotional video has excellent production values, elegant direction, a fine, burnished "lived-in" look of ancient reality, and a Jesus in whose Figure classic iconography is combined with the contemporary ideal of a COOL Young Carpenter Rabbi...

But there are some fine things in this most widely seen movie of all time. Seeing a movie "for the scenery" is a joke, but since the scenery here is the actual Holy Land, it's what the old Revised Standard Bibles call a Help. Someone who knew a little bit about making movies seems to have stepped in (like that Second Pilate) at a few points. The scene of the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes is nicely done. Catch that low-angle shot of the Master raising the Bread to Heaven. The opening shots of the crowds kind of "chasing" Jesus are nice Gospel illustrations. The interest which St Luke had in the women who gave their all to Christ is conveyed appropriately. The brutality of the Crucifixion is shocking, moving. And for people who really know their Bible, it's kind of fun to count the peculiarly "Lukan" touches (the screenplay is based on the Third Gospel): for example, there is no Crown of Thorns because Luke doesn't mention that detail. Deacon even shines in a few scenes. So grave and kind as he raises Jairus's daughter. He even looks pretty good/Godly when that blasted wig gets wetted down, as when He is baptized and when He calms the Strom on the Lake.

This is without a doubt the best film around about Jesus. It is truly wonderful in its portrayal according to the Gospel of Luke. It is one of the truest accounts about Jesus both biblically and historically. As of 1999 over 2.9 billion people have witnessed this film around the globe. It has been translated into over 540 languages. If you have not seen this film then I encourage you to find someone who owns it or go to the official website and find out how you can get a copy. Watch this film today!

The really good value in this movie is its accuracy. If you wish to research it, you'll find great effort was made to do just that in many details, though my comment is specifically referencing the dialog being accurate to the version of Scripture that was used.

The weak points are the film quality is not outstanding and much more importantly, the acting and directing leave very much to be desired.

When this was originally produced, it was hoped (and planned) that this would be the first of a long line of Biblically accurate films but the money just didn't come in and the project was eventually sold and this film became a major evangelism tools around the world. Many millions of people have seen this film and it has accomplished much good for the Gospel.

My personal opinion is that the original vision didn't succeed because of the film's glaring weaknesses and those who would have financed more endeavors didn't, because they felt those in charge simply didn't have the skills to produce the quality of films that would warrant their investment.

The Gospel of John, made in 2003, and also faithfully representing the version used, is far superior, primarily in communicating realism in the film. Every time I watch The Gospel of John, I'm moved by the actor representing Jesus. His words are so powerful, it's like Jesus Himself is really speaking. Of course this is what every movie about Jesus has wanted to accomplish and I think none does it better than "The Gospel of John." I did not like, however, the Bible version they chose to use, but nevertheless, it's a powerful presentation of God's Word and I recommend it to everyone, regardless of your opinions about Jesus. For the believer, they'll be blessed and for the scoffer, they may for the first time in their lives really perceive the very powerful claims of Jesus. This is a moving film.

I know this was supposed to be a review of Luke (and it was) but I wanted to especially point you to John, since it is, IMO, so much better in its delivery.

Bear in mind when you see voting on Christian films, you see a wide disparity because God-haters don't like the Gospel. I noticed that on this film, all who voted before I, gave it either a "10" or a "1." A perfect illustration of my point. It deserves neither extreme.

This is an excellent movie based on the book of Luke. Its dialog is entirely taken from Scripture, which makes it unique, as well as the fact that they didn't ADD any nonsense to the story like modern films based on the Bible do. No over-acting and the effects are pretty good considering it was filmed in '79! Highly recommended.

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.

The Jesus Film is a wonderful Jesus movie that adapts The Gospel of Luke, save for John 3:16-17. The movie also sticks very close to The Bible. It's one of the best movies ever made about Jesus, though admittedly looking at it as a movie, it has a few flaws.

As I said, The Jesus Film stays very close to Luke. There are many well done scenes, such as Mary's visit from Gabriel, the Crucifixion and Reurrection, and miracles such as the feeding of the 5,000 and bringing a dead girl to life. We see parables like The Good Samaratian and an uplifting rendition of the change of Zaccheus, a tax collector.

Due to the Biblical accuracy, The Jesus Film has been used around the world by missionaries to spread the Gospel, which lead to many foriegn people becoming Christians. In fact, there are over 1,000 translations, including sign language versions. As a result, it is the most translated film of all time- praise God!

Jesus is played by Brian Deacon, and he is one of the best actors to play our Savior. He presents Jesus in both ways performance wise. His portrayal is very human and divine at once.

There are other good performances as well, such as Niko Nitai, who plays Peter. Alexander Scourby, known for his audio recording of the Bible, narrates as Luke. There are many other fine roles as well.

As an adaptation of the Gospels, this undoubtedly gets a 10. This is easily one of the best Jesus movies ever made. However, as I mentioned, as a movie, it has a few issues.

One easy example is the scene where Jesus calms a storm. It's clearly filmed during the day, and the acting here is poor. When Peter shouts for Jesus, he just says: "Help us. Help us Lord." with no emotion. There is also a scene where Peter sobs for denying Jesus, and he clearly sheds no tears.

It's known that most of the actors had thick accents and needed to be dubbed, so that is not Niko's fault. I just can't fathom how the dubbers passed off those recordings without further takes.

The movie is 2 hours long, and that's just fine. The movie is very enjoyable for a person like me, who enjoys Biblical epics. That said, the movie does seem to drag often. The last 2 times I have viewed The Jesus Film, it has taken me 4, not 2 hours to view it. There's nothing I'd take out or anything, but the 2 hours are a bit too slow paced for a movie.

While the movie is very Biblically sound, there are some metaphors that are taken literally. When Jesus is baptized, Alexander Scourby says that the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus AS a dove. A dove then lands on Jesus.

This is to dramtize Luke 3:22, which says:"and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form LIKE a dove." It seems that there was no real dove, although for visual purposes I can see why that was done. Still, it appears to be an inaccurate way to view that verse.

When Jesus prays in Gethsemane in the movie, he sweats blood. Luke 22:44 says "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was AS it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."

On the DVD Jesus: Fact or Fiction? There is a version of the film that has features explaining possible ways that Jesus miracles could have occurred, and one included is "Is it possible to sweat blood?". Apparently, one CAN in fact sweat blood if they are distressed enough.

However, the verse says that Jesus's sweat was AS drops of blood falling, so, again, in a plain reading, it appears that Jesus was profusely sweating at the thought of being crucified.

It is true that as a piece of cinema, The Jesus Film has flaws- slow pacing, slight inaccuracies from Scripture, mediocre effects, and poor dubbing. However, as a Bible movie, there is much merit to the film, and today it remains as one of the most powerful and accurate movies about Jesus's life to date.

Minor critiques aside, there are few Jesus, or Bible movies for that matter, that I would recommend more than this. In the genre of Biblical epics, consider The Jesus Film to be a must see.