Console best movie i've ever seen.

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Marian20 The Jesus Film is recognized as the most watched film about the messiah.It stars Brian Deacon in the title role.It tells the story of the messiah from his birth when an angel of the Lord announced to Mary about bearing a son who is going to be the messiah up to the passion,death and resurrection of the Lord.Despite the fact that it is far from being a masterpiece and far from being comparable to the likes of Robert Powell's Jesus Of Nazareth and the mere fact that it is dry and boring,the movie still would not fail to please the viewer especially in narrating the story of the messiah.Added to that,it has become effective in reaching million of people around the globe in telling the story of Jesus as the makers of the movie were authentic and sincere in proclaiming the Good News.

Desertman84 The Jesus Film,also known as Jesus, is a film about the life of Jesus that is based on the Gospel of St.Luke.It stars Brian Deacon in the title role. It starts with the annunciation when Mary receives the news from the Angel Gabriel that she is to bear a son whom she would call Jesus and it concludes with the resurrection of Jesus after he was nailed on the cross.The movie was said to be the most watched film of all-time and it has been translated into more than a thousand languages.Is it the best film made about the messiah?Obviously,not.It is monotonous,dry and boring.Add to that is the fact that it is low production values and most of the voices were obviously dubbed except that of the Deacon himself.The great thing I can say about it is the fact that the events depicted are truly accurate based from the scriptures.It was used as a film to teach about the messiah and to reach billions of people around the world.Inspite of the flaws that I have stated,it was just as good and effective in spreading the Good News and to impact many lives around the world.Watch this film not to watch a perfect movie but rather to learn the about our Savior and his teachings.With that attitude,one would never truly be disappointed.

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.

gsellars-1 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.