Michael O'Keefe The life and times of Jesus of Nazereth, from His humble beginnings to his destiny as the son of God. This movie presents a more human Jesus, that laughs and cries like anyone else. He even dances and He jokes with his disciples. Jeremy Sisto is outstanding as Jesus. Excellent special effects and costumes of the age. We see the Sermon on the Mount, the many temptations of Satan (as a man and as a woman), the selection of the Apostles, the Last Super and of course the brutal Crucifixion and His Resurrection. This movie is like no other you've seen about Jesus Christ.The TV teleplay is written by Suzette Couture and directed by Roger Young. An all-star cast that also features: Debra Messing, Jacqueline Bisset, Gary Oldman, G.W. Bailey, David O'Hara, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Luca Zingaretti, Stephanie Rocca, Claudio Amendola and Joroen Krabbe.

BeckyandJesus Couldn't watch more like about ten minutes of this. Jesus walks by Mary (Martha's sister) and she eyes him and obviously has a crush on him and he gives her a suave look. Latter someone asks Jesus to marry Mary. Then Mary eyes him again and Jesus looks but tries to avoid looking at her. It was just insane. Then Jesus makes a joke about Joseph not helping him... Too humanistic. Jesus was like a model off a catwalk! Yes Jesus was human but he was also our LORD and saviour and the Son Of GOD. Not a man from 1999 from America. The bible series did a much better job with their other films. It's a shame this so bad. I understand they wanted a "human Jesus" but they made him far too human from what I saw. This is not the nature of GOD. The 'Gospel of John" with Selva Rasalingham and Robert Powell's "Jesus of Nazareth" (not seen this fully yet) are more my cup of tea. The more "human" Jesus i felt was portrayed better in "Gospel of John" with Henry Ian Cusack. I loved that film! He was not portrayed as a joker or giving the "Oh yeah I have the life" type of vibe Made me feel sick. Total blasphemy.

Max Kämmerer Where I did not like this movie's depiction of Jesus so much, I prefer its Roman scenes over "Jesus of Nazareth (1977)", which has the better Jesus but the weaker Pilate. Especially the theater scene was very original. And then there are the flash-forwards to the Crusades, inquisition and world-wide war. The costumes, style and scenery are nearly perfect.Actors: Jeremy Sisto does an okay job as Jesus, looks the way you'd expect him to. Thomas Lockyer plays a convincingly guilt-stricken Judas. Jeroen Krabbé as Satan fulfilled his duty as well. The one who steals the show and the movie's big selling point, of course, is Gary Oldman as Pontius Pilate. A most intriguing villain.The idea of Pilate plotting Jesus' death after the Jews' backs also worked for the movie, but it is not very Biblical. In fact, the gospels state that Pilate tried to have him freed (John 19:12). There are other nit-picks I could offer, but I'll refrain from it.Some other lasting images include the Last Supper scene and the movie's unconventional devil. Satan's presence in the movie is stretched out very inventively, but failed to convince me fully.But, then again, will we ever have THE perfect Bible movie? Still, I definitely recommend this one.

chrismcreynolds I was going to be a little harsh about the style but the more I read the defender's comments the more I realized how important any telling of this most important story is. That comment alone can seem like hyperbole, but what other film can influence a decision that is most likely going to effect your afterlife? Seriously when you assume that each film telling is going to be not a reinforcement of the Gospels but rather a filling in. The difference is that this movie deviated from the Bible, but in doing so may not cause as much damage is claimed and if it creates any interest at all in finding out "how accurate" (I am assuming that most people will not see this is a replacement of the Gospels, but ultimately any discussion about Jesus allows others to draw in to the accurate truth. If that is what happens, then I am sure this film will save more than it loses. There is no question about that and isn't that justification enough? TO know absolutely that more people will be saved and possibly fewer and possibly nobody will be lost because of this film.So what are my critiques? This film uses Hollywood style at times in annoying ways. It could have and perhaps should have used more characters to use to tell information that in the Gospels is either from different characters than the film, or from unknown characters. Having Joseph explain that Matthew is a tax collector involves 2 characters that almost certainly never said what they did in this film. Worse, using Joseph (and following a Hollywood technique that is annoying whether or not it is noticed is drawing the story in to a limited number of characters to make the story and places involved almost seem smaller than they were. They do this to make you care more about fewer people. This is assumed to be the only way you can be "moved emotionally" because all of whatever is shown happening only ever involved maybe 20 people. That is the worst thing I can say.However, the special effects remind us (while never fooling us) about how powerful a vision can feel. Only film can do that. Many argue that is precisely why film should never be used. Maybe they are right, but maybe this generation has grown up being drawn in by such techniques and films like Star Wars draw them in more than stories at the church. If this film save even a few lost to Star Wars, would it then be worth it? I loved the Satanic fantasies, those are worth the cost. Are they not?