no name given Beautifully filmed and choreographed picture but perfectly pointless and uninteresting. The cast is top notch but the movie looks like one of those filmed in a week or so as an art project aka self gratification. The DP on this project is probably the best in the world so it's worth watching just for that but don't expect to get any religious inspiration, at least not if you are a common layman. It doesn't have enough story behind it. What inspired me to write this review though was the filming location. This film was made in the California desert, not Egypt or the holyland. Why does that matter? I grew up in the desert southwest. I've never been to the holyland but I can almost guarantee it's not the same geology and biodiversity. They might as well have filmed this in the Australian outback. I'll try to explain by example. In the show 'narcos', Wagner Moura plays pablo escobar and he does his lines mostly in Spanish, but Mr. Moura is from brazil. I don't know why but he didn't play the character with a columbian accent; he played the character with a Brazilian accent which columbians instantly recognized. The show was a hit in the US because most people didn't notice but in columbia, and most parts of Latin and south America, the show instantly became a joke about US relations with countries south of the border. If you're going to do a story about the holyland don't do it in your backyard.

Kirpianuscus it seems strange. far by the classic story of Jesus in Carantania desert. without the well known temptations and without the expected answers of Son of God. Rodrigo Garcia gives only the portrait of a strange meet of Jesus with a family. few riddles and dialogues and slow action and enigmatic facts. each- far by a religious film. or a coherent story. a riddle. like the riddles of the boy. in fact, only a challenge. puzzle of discreet cultural references from the roof of the Temple to Abraham and Last Temptation, from Pasolini to Paradjanov. a film of gestures and looks. maybe, a poem. ignoring Resurrection. because the Resurrection is the duty of the viewer. perfect subject of debates and controversies, it propose a new, interesting and far to be uninspired portrait of the Savior. Ewan McGregor gives a not comfortable Jesus but one who impress for the honest manner to remind old truths who are , in too many occasions, insignificant. a poem about the small things who defines the life. and nothing more.

caspian1978 The concept of doing a movie about Christ's 40 days in the Desert is very intriguing. The idea of His trials and tribulations being tempted by Satan and battling his destiny as the Savior of the world would fascinate any Christian audience. The character of Jesus the Man and not Jesus the Son of God is present. The audience is not witnessed to any miracles or sermons. Instead, we see Jesus the young Rabbi and Carpenter and instead of making grand speeches, we see a soft spoken Man trying to be a family psychologist as he tries to help a family He meets while in the Desert. This is very different from your average movie about Jesus Christ. As he tries to deal with being the Son of God he comes across a Father and Son that have troubles of their own. Jesus tries to help in more ways than one and this takes up about 80% of the movie. The movie has many odd moments including a few times when Satan messes with Jesus throughout the Desert. Although this is an interesting concept and I enjoyed the originality of the movie, I feel it falls short. The movie should have been all about the Desert and how it impacted Jesus. We really don't see a difference in Jesus or any character development by the end of the movie. The relationship between Jesus and Satan was also weird. They go from being Enemies, which is obvious, to almost sympathetic friends. Their relationship could have used some more time to focus on. Finally, my biggest gripe with the movie is the ending. I felt the last ten minutes should have been cut entirely. We witness the Crucifixion and the Burial, but not the Resurrection. This decision by the Director, along with having the modern day scene at the very end, is up for debate. Why he decided to include this needs to be questioned and defended. My only opinion on showcasing this is whether or not it is needed for the story line. After all, this is about Jesus in the Desert, nothing else. I felt the ending took away from the plot of what Jesus was doing for those 40 days and why it is important to the overall Character. I feel the movie failed to show us that. Granted we can make parallels between Jesus and God and the Father and Son characters. Still, from what transpires between the characters, is anything learned from their decisions? Overall, Jesus becomes more and more a side character as the Family takes center stage. If the theme of loyalty is the overall message from the movie, the question remains, is it obvious?

thependragonscribe To all its credit, "Albert Nobbs" director Rodrigo Garcia makes a marvelous transition of the story of the temptation of Jesus to the art-house scene, cementing this "not intended for the Christian audiences". Though the art-house Biblical story is nothing unusual, "Last Days in the Desert" makes a unique turn of focusing it as a father-son story. That is where the flaws turn out. Driving the focus away from Jesus makes the story unjustifiable to explore and insincere to depict. However, the grandiose coming from Ewan McGregor's presence and the sense of struggle makes the journey satisfying. There could have been more depth to explore from a simple scripture about Jesus' 40 days in the desert, rather than adding a father-son subplot. But from what was offered, Garcia makes an interesting piece to talk about.