RealChristian14 Brian Deacon stars in this film about the only begotten of the Almighty God known as "The Jesus Film". The screenplay about the life of Jesus was based on the gospel written by Saint Luke which starts from the Annunciation when the Blessed Virgin Mary received the news from the Angel Gabriel that she is going to be the Mother of God up to the time when Jesus - the Son of God - resurrected from the dead.No question that this movie was not made with a great amount of budget similar to the likes of The Ten Commandments at $13 million back in the 1950's or $120 million to present day standards.In fact,it was only made for $6 million back in 1979 or 25 million to today's standard.Or better yet,just enough to pay movie stars like Leonardo Di Caprio or Tom Cruise.Nor was it really popular mainstream similar to other films about Jesus such as Mel Gibson's The Passion Of Christ,which earned $600+ million world-wide. It even lost money earning only $4 million when it was released on the theaters back in 1979 ($13 million at present).Why did it lose money?The Jesus Film - the 1979 version - can be considered dry,monotonous and boring while it was telling the story of Jesus.It also has low production values.What is even noteworthy was that the voices of the actors with the exception of Brian Deacon,who portrayed Jesus, was not theirs.Accuracy of the gospel is the only thing it could be really be proud of.But in spite of them,the movie became the most watched film about Jesus of all-time especially in many countries abroad that were willing to evangelize and spread the word of God after it was used to spread the gospel.Its popularity outside the United States was truly surprising at present and it only shows that God is truly alive.Amen!!!

Miles-10 The costumes, settings and sets are good attempts at period authenticity, giving the film an initially promising look. The actor playing Jesus, however, is unable to bring off the challenging role that has to make or break the picture, although supporting actors such as the one in the role of Peter are better.Making a movie based on a single gospel--in this case, Luke--is a good idea, in my opinion, because blending the four canonical gospels into a composite story, as is done more often, leads to inauthentic interpretation. By focusing on one gospel, you at least have the chance of presenting the story as it is presented in that gospel. Having said that, I must say that this movie's inconstancy had me rolling my eyes. It opens and ends with quotations from the Gospel of John. The viewer is thereby led to assume that Luke's view of Jesus is exactly the same as John's, which it is not. Meanwhile, some speeches have been shortened here and there. The filmmakers have said so often that this movie is an authentic presentation of the Gospel of Luke that viewer comments often reflect the opinion that the filmmakers have prompted, but that does not make it true. This is not an exactly faithful presentation of Luke. And I am not requiring that every word of the text be used, which I know would be way too much verbiage. I think this movie betrays Luke's account, often unnecessarily, though it is also often understandable because of the difficulties involved in adapting a well known text like this to the screen. The New Testament texts often can be so static that they can be dramatized only by risking interpreting them. The use in this movie of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (actually more on a plain in the Gospel of Luke) while having Jesus walk around interacting with his listeners is dramatic but it gives the filmmakers plenty of opportunities to interpret Jesus' sayings in ways that might not have been intended by Luke. Also, as the plot moves along in this way, additional dialog is actually added to stitch scenes together. Additional dialog is unavoidable in some scenes because there is often indirect rather than direct dialog in the gospels that nevertheless needs to be conveyed, but the filmmakers unwittingly interpret the text in this way.Early in the film, when Jesus gives the sermon from the boat at Lake Gennesaret, the drama in the situation is actually missed by the filmmakers. The crowd should be clamoring and pressing on him at the shore, which is his motivation for getting into the boat to deliver his sermon. Here, it seems more as if Jesus could have made his speech on the beach but gets in the boat as a pointless stunt.In the movie, the Gennesaret scene, which corresponds to Luke chapter 5, includes the parable of the pharisee and tax collector, but Luke does not tell what Jesus said in this sermon. That parable comes from chapter 18 in Luke. Then there follows the miracle of the catch of fish, which, indeed, belongs to Luke at this point in the narrative (chapter 5). In Luke there follows a series of healings performed in various towns (Luke arguably gives too many miracles piled on each other, and this would be a longer movie if these were all presented), but then the movie presents the raising of Jairus' daughter, which, in Luke actually belongs in chapter 8, not 5. Where did this come from? It turns out that Mark puts Jairus' daughter in the next chapter after the sermon from the boat and much sooner than Luke. So The filmmakers are again resorting to another gospel instead of Luke!If I am saying that I could do better, I am also saying that the task of adapting the gospels is obviously very difficult and any alternative attempt to dramatize the Gospel of Luke or any other gospel would displease someone else as much as this one displeases me.

gcd70 A very simple film that gives a literal account of the Gospel according to St. Luke. It tells the story of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, proclaimed by Christians the world over to be the only Son of the living God. A man who in his latter years preached to the non-believers, gave his life for the sin of man, and then rose on the third day - as He had foretold - to set mankind free from sin, should they chose to follow Him.Brian Deacon makes a convincing Christ (not an easy thing to do), however in its simplicity it may fail to challenge those who are unwilling to listen. These people may find the film dull. For the believer it is a wonderful reminder of God's promises, and for the searchers that listen with an open heart, perhaps "Jesus" will truly touch their lives.Thursday, July 23, 1992 - Video

denis888 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.