The Last Temptation of Christ

I thought this movie had a good premise, and absolutely flawless soundtrack. However, the film did not live up to either, because it has aged very badly. The graphic sexuality was unnecessary and very much of the 1980’s, and there were far too many actors from Brooklyn for this film to be taken seriously. So sad because the director is a legend, and he probably should’ve waited 15 more years to have made it. Someone should remake it.

I remember this film's release and the controversy surrounding its portrayal of Jesus. The film is a study of what Jesus was and was not. It captures the essence of a man's struggle and his relationship with God. Though an 80's film (camera panning, cuts, editing, etc) it stil feels fresh and controversial.

What a great movie

I first saw this in the theater on its first run, and to get inside we had to run a gauntlet of Christian protesters. I remember three things about the experience in particular: first, the primary basis for opposition to the adaptation of the novel was the portrayal of Jesus and Mary Magdalene having sex. This was portrayed in the film with great sensitivity, and of course is a part of Jesus' vision sent to him by Satan to tempt him to renounce his status and avoid crucifixion. Since Jesus ultimately rejects Satan, the film does not portray Jesus as sinning; it merely portrays himself as exposed to temptation because he is fully human as well as fully God. Similarly, critics were troubled by the fact that Jesus is portrayed as "weak," uncertain and fearful. Again, this is just to say that Jesus is wholly human as well as wholly divine, and I am reminded of the fact that courage is not being without fear, but being willing to act despite fear. In general, the rejection of the portrait is not due to the heretical elements of the film (of which there are a couple) but of the Christian non-audience being unwilling to accept the humanity of Christ, which is a heresy of its own. The second thing I remember thinking (or perhaps this was said by my friend who accompanied me?) was that the truly offensive thing for Christians would have to be, not the imaginary sex, but the devastating takedown of St. Paul in his brief late scene, where he is shown propagating a myth he knows is false, and repudiating the human Jesus for the sake of his own power... by articulating key elements of Christian theology (this is interesting too because Paul is made to sound like a Protestant preacher, suggesting that the heart of the film and the rejection of it has more to do with the relationship between Scorsese's Catholic intuitions, which are powerfully evident in many places, and the critics' Protestantism). The third thing, and this is why I find the rejection of the film so benighted and so sad, is that I went into the film a staunch atheist, and came out of it with a seed planted in me that would eventually blossom into my own idiosyncratic Christianity. Nothing has done more to dissuade me from Christianity than the kind of people I encountered outside the theater with their anger, their signs and chants and refusal to experience; and nothing has done more to persuade me of Christianity than this film. Wise proselytizers would let it work its magic and then hash out the theological details with those who are drawn to it later. But perhaps there are no wise proselytizers. PS David Bowie's cameo as Pontius Pilate is perhaps his best moment on film ever, and the scene in which he appears with Jesus speaks volumes about the conflict between them in only a few short words.

I read the reviews and the plot summary before renting this, so I wasn't hoping for a Jesus story that followed the gospels to the letter. I was hoping for something that took enough liberties with the dialog to make the characters seem human. So what's up with this film? Well, it makes an effort to portray Jesus and all the characters as people who doubt and struggle to find the truth rather than just taking the story for granted as if they knew how it's going to end. I appreciated that. But the way they do it in this film often misses both the biblical accuracy and the human believability of the characters and ends up with something that is just weird and disconnected. For example, John the Baptist is a madman whose preaching is some kind of mindless ranting and raving while his disciples stand naked around, apparently ignoring him while dancing like first century ravers, but without the dance beat. When Jesus shows up on the scene, he suddenly sobers up and turns out to be more of a radical violent jewish nationalist politician than a prophet. I like the idea that Jesus has to develop as a person; he isn't just born ready to go. But the way he develops in this film is disappointing to me. I expected the film to show him going through some sort of spiritual development process. And it does, sort of, but his path doesn't make much sense. He delivers the sermon on the mount in a confused tone of voice as if he isn't sure if what he is saying is right or not... ok maybe he has doubts. But then his disciples are still so convinced by the speech that they leave everything to follow him, even though he himself doesn't sound convinced at all. Jesus begins his ministry with a vague and naieve sounding "love everything" message but then quickly abandons it for something like the Jewish nationalist message that John the Baptist was teaching earlier in the film. Conclusion: I wanted to see a creative take on this story but this is just too far out there. I was hoping that I would see something that would give me some thoughtful out-of-the-box images of who Jesus might or could have been, allowing for the possibility that the well-known church ideas might be exaggerated or distorted in some way. But what I saw here seems to be beyond the realm of even the most liberally stretched concept of what the story might have been like. I felt like I wasn't even watching a film about Jesus but rather just a weird and incoherent high-school play, albeit with very skillful directing and filming.

I was actually taking a Christian Religion course at a University not long after this was released and we had to read and critique the story, and "we all" hated it. If you are true Christian you will obviously see no value to it, but if not, maybe you will find the story interesting, maybe like someone would find another picture about Jesus interesting but I bet you won't see droves of church buses in parking lots (back then) at many showings like you did see at Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ! As to the critic on here of the latter, get a life! So ridiculous!

This is a historically INACCURATE movie, having NO relation to Christ whatsoever. I’d give it a ZERO, if available. Just DO NOT WATCH!!!!

A powerful, thought provoking film that I'm sure raised a few eyebrows when released. Willem Dafoe's, Harvey Keitel's, and Barbara Hershey's performances were outstanding.

It's insane that a shallow, empty film like Mel Gibson's The Passion was widely seen while this film remains obscure. This film makes the story of Jesus's life universal in a way that only Martin Scorsese could. The acting, the writing, the cinematography, the breath-taking score by Peter Gabriel… everything in this film works and it has NEVER been equaled.