Sorry, this movie sucks

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Blistering performances.

Robert Powell's finest hour. An all star cast in the greatest epic ever made, tv or movie release. Ingenious film with all the sincerity Mel Gibson lacked.

"Jesus of Nazareth" is a nearly 6½ hour 1977 epic TV film about the life of Jesus Christ. It aired in different countries as a mini-series, from two to five parts. The film was directed by Franco Zeffirelli and today is considered a classic. In making this film Zeffirelli departed from his usual way of casting. Instead of mostly all new, unknown actors, he has nearly two dozen prominent names of stage and screen in the major roles. Indeed, this film may hold the record for a cast with the most major acting awards and nominations. Seventeen of the performers, from Anne Bancroft to Peter Ustinov, have won 56 major awards, and have had another 119 major nominations. The awards of the various performances in this film include 9 Oscars, 14 Golden Globes and 14 BAFTA awards, 13 Emmy's and 6 Broadway Tony awards. The film itself, received 2 primetime Emmy nominations and 6 BAFTA nominations. Generally, this is a very good condensed portrayal of the life of Christ. Even at more than six hours, much of what the Bible has about Jesus in the four gospels had to be condensed. Zeffirelli doesn't try to create the more spectacular scenes that would require heavy special effects. So, such things aren't included -- the calming of the storm at sea, Jesus walking on water, temptations by the devil, and appearances of angels in the annunciation and at Christmas. The many miracles Jesus worked are condensed into just a few. He cures a blind man, raises Lazarus from the dead, and multiplies the loaves and fishes.Still, a great deal of the drama in the life of Jesus had to do with the signs - the miracles he performed. His miracles, and word of them drew crowds beyond Christ's public teaching. And, these were what the rulers of the time feared and objected to the most. Christ worked his miracles out of love and to teach. Zeffirelli said that he wanted to focus on Jesus the man, which the film does. Yet, the signs, wonders, and works of the man also help one understand him. Especially as his manhood relates to his divinity as well. So, the film might have shown a little more of the exceptional works as they inspired awe among the people. That is something that the film does not portray much, if at all - the awe, the wonder of the people, the crowds and his disciples at times for what he did. And, one specific thing that should have been included but wasn't, was the tearing of the temple curtain when Christ was crucified. That should not have been too difficult or costly to set up and record. The addition of the fictional character, Zerah, seems to be a connection that the director uses to embellish the Sanhedrin plot to kill Jesus. This glosses over a number of references in the Bible about the Pharisees and Scribes plotting and wanting to kill Jesus. Instead, it's presented in the film as a reasoned outcome after much discussion. The story also embellishes greatly the character of Judas Iscariot. This goes far beyond the Biblical information and tradition. The embellishment of the three kings, or wise men (magi), while fictional, is not as far afield because of the references to them in the Bible. On that basis, audiences may better grasp the significance of their roles in the story of Jesus Christ. The film has several other additions that are not in the Bible, and alterations or embellishments of some things in the Bible. Generally, it's a good condensed story of the life of Jesus, if not of his mission and its significance. And, that's what Zeffirelli said he intended with this film. It was to show the human person of Jesus Christ, in his ministry. All of the cast give very good performances. The costuming and makeup are very good. And the locations shooting in Tunisia, Morocco and Mexico closely resemble the countryside and locals of the Holy Land.

Are the canonical Gospel accounts in the New Testament accurate as to the events of Jesus of Nazareth? The short answer is we'll never know since even among the actual gospel narratives, the first complete copies exist from the 2nd century, about 200 years after the death of Jesus. Since the Gospels were written in different times and places and in different languages, we have at best a murky view of the life and death of one of the most influential spiritual teachers of Late Antiquity: Jesus of Nazareth. The Gospels each portray an account of Jesus, but are certainly not definitive depictions of Jesus' life. That aside, "Jesus of Nazareth", the television miniseries, is one of the best screen adaptions of the story which is not exactly the easiest subject to produce. My understanding is it is based largely on the "Gospel According to Matthew" and the "Gospel According to Luke" with some embellishments.At the forefront is Robert Powell as Jesus, an excellent choice. Similar to the problems with Superman, Jesus is difficult to cast, and using a familiar actor might cause audiences not to see Jesus. The producers opted for an experienced but lesser-known actor, Powell. (Dustin Hoffman and Al Pacino were considered for the part, which in retrospect seem rather ridiculous choices.) Powell portrays Jesus whose other-worldly eyes are often looking to the Heavens, which fits in well with how Christians (Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) often view him. At the same time, the director, Franco Zeffirelli, wanted also to give Jesus a lot of humanity. (The "Gospel According to John" portrays Jesus much more ethereally and his execution seems less horrific than other Gospels.) Honorable mention goes to Olivia Hussey as Mary, Michael York as John the Baptist, and Rod Steiger as Pontius Pilate. Other familiar actors have smaller parts in various roles.Aside from the acting, the production brings us into the ancient world as few films do. While some aspects of Antiquity are to be certainly applauded, such as works of literature and science, the Roman government could be brutal. Scholars are fairly certain that Jesus' rhetoric was a challenge not only to the ruling establishment of Judaism but also of the Roman Empire. One of the best aspects is the depiction of Jerusalem which was a "mecca" for Jews who would come to the city during the Passover holiday. Tensions between Jews and the Roman authorities were ongoing and the film does well to show this tension.One of the most accurate depictions, and certainly the most horrific, is the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus. Crucifixion was primarily meant as a kind of terrifying advertisement to deter other potential wrong doers. Roman citizens might be spared crucifixion which was reserved for unruly slaves and servants, and rabble-rousers and traitors. While Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels is not traitor, he is clearly a rabble-rouser, criticizing the Jewish authorities and the Roman Empire. (Jesus' statement, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is probably a later fabrication by Gentile gospel writers.) The condemned person was typically scourged as a way to render them dazed and helpless, which most certainly happened to Jesus. Then he is made to bear the upright upon which he will be fastened at the execution area, called Golgotha. The scene is certainly heart-wrenching, but not as gruesome as some later productions. In short, the crucifixion scene is relatively tasteful as far as such a scene can be depicted.Overall, Jesus of Nazareth is a must-see for the believer and non-believer alike for those who are interested in a cinematic retelling of the gospel narrative. Again, this is not a life of Jesus in the definitive sense but the retelling of a later account of Jesus. Did Jesus die by crucifixion? Probably. Did he rise from the dead? In this narrative he does, but resurrection is a religious belief not an historical reality. Did Pilate "wash his hands" of Jesus? Probably not. Pilate was notorious for crucifying anyone he suspected of rabble rousing during Passover. The Gospel narratives, at best, like this film, are an interplay of mythology and history.

As the passion of Christ was a bit extreme,where you'd think that in that film they could have take a nudge down.. this film is just the opposite.. It annoyed me deeply that this film was way to brave, the way Jesus gets angry, I was waiting for the temple scene, but even in that scene he couldn't -or maybe wasn't allowed- to get angry. You don't even see him get hit a single time,since that's also a 'big' part of the movie I think they could have done a better job on that part. Jesus suffered for us, but if you see this movie you'd almost start to wonder.. It's not even a problem to let children watch this movie, to learn about Jesus.