Don't be Tempted - Read the Novel First!
This is a complicated story, so no simple review can adequately critique it. But first, a few facts: the story was NOT written by an anti-christian, nor is it typical of a Hollywood portrayal of Jesus of Nazareth. Nikos Kazantzakis, the author of the novel from which this fictional account is taken, was an Orthodox Christian and devout believer, and Martin Scorsese is Catholic. The story stems from Kazantzakis' desire to pursue and discover the real Christ, as we in the orthodox Christian community understand him. Church doctrine holds that Christ was both fully human and fully divine (which sounds like an oxymoron); like us in all ways but without sin. We traditionally have no problem dealing with the divine side of Christ, but few of us really can face up to the human side - we just can't let Jesus get his hands dirty, or for that matter, even really be a Jew. Such are our prejudices. Even Scorsese falls into this trap by once again choosing a blue-eyed blond to play a middle eastern Jew of the first century who undoubtedly had dark hair, dark brown eyes, and fairly dark skin. But let's not be too picky........

There are several things scripture doesn't tell us about Jesus, and three of them play heavily into this story: first, the gospels don't say anything about how Jesus came to understand his true nature, and I highly doubt that, as Alan Rickman says in the movie "Dogma", an angel sat him down when he was a little boy and explained it all to him. Secondly, how did Jesus respond to the revelation of his true nature? Did he just accept it, which might be hard to believe if he was in fact FULLY human, or did he, as Kazantzakis depicts, struggle mightily with it? St. Luke's gospel describes Jesus as sweating blood as he prayed in the garden the night before he died - but he yields to God's calling. Even for a bible thumper, it ought not to be a stretch to imagine Jesus' struggle. Perhaps examining it in truly human detail is just too painful for us.

Thirdly, the title; what would the 'Last Temptation' be? In the gospel accounts, Satan tempts Jesus in the desert three times, and upon failing, Satan withdraws "to wait for an opportune time" (St. Luke's gospel). However, we get no account of Satan returning to take another shot at him. Kazanzakis has Satan returning, as Jesus hangs suffering, near death, on the cross. Satan pretends to be the Angel of the Lord, and and in an attempt to thwart the crucifiction, fabricates a vision of the path in life Jesus didn't take, but had longed for. He tries to trick Jesus into believing that his work is complete; there is no need to go through with this terrible suffering. He can come down off the cross, and having accomplished God's work for him on earth, he can go home and marry Mary Magdalene (Jesus' childhood sweetheart in this novel), have a family, and enjoy all the earthly blessings of a 'normal' life that everyone else has had. Even though Satan paints well this beautiful vision to tempt Jesus as he hangs there suffering an unspeakably brutal torture, Jesus sees through the ruse, refuses to give in, and with his last ounce of strength shouts "It is accomplished!".

THIS is the story that Kazantzakis wrote, not some cheap, tawdry, Hollywood-ized version of the gospels. Neither does it have the phony titilation of a Dan Brown novel, for the author clearly spells out his meaning at the beginning of this fictional proposition of Jesus's human nature. It is a work of love, by a devout Christian, looking for - and longing for - a deeper understanding of the human nature of Jesus. Having the courage to make this journey, and to take other believers along, is the author's purpose, and for a believer with an open mind and an open heart, it can only result in a deeper and stronger faith.

Martin Scorsese, even though he includes a few distractions in the film, expresses a similar love and longing to discover the Human Jesus. I'll concede DaFoe's blue eyes and blond hair, and even the often-distracting music. If, as some comments have said, DaFoe makes Jesus seem 'indecisive' or 'weak', isn't that exactly how WE might appear to others if we were wrestling with a conflict, and coming to realize that the path we must take isn't the one we want - it defies everything our human nature craves (safety, security, normalcy, our childhood sweetheart, etc.), and eventually will demand suffering and tortuous death? This is the story that Kazantzakis and Scorsese tell.

The movie is a must-see, and a must-own, because if the story is meaningful to you, you'll argue with yourself about it, and want to watch it several times to pick up those details you missed at first because you were busy reacting rather than absorbing. But please, if you really want to appreciate it in the fullest, read the novel first!

Yes, you can find it here at Amazon.

I Really Don't Know What to Think About This Movie
This movie is just purely fantasy about what might of, could of, or should of happened back then, but all the while making a mild attempt to be careful not to overly offend Christians. If they got offended then that's their problem. But I guess seeing Christ assembling crosses and then helping to nail Jews to them would be rather offensive to most Christians, or decent people in general. Being an ex-Christian, I understand that the basis of Christianity is a heartfelt belief in the miraculous resurrection back to life after death of a specially sent "god-man" of virgin birth around 2,000 years ago, who is now called "Christ", and one they have put upon a pedestal and worship as a God and whom they say will only accept them into heaven after they beg him for forgiveness of their wicked and lost souls and acknowledge him as their eternal lord and master. And also that they must make incredible irritants of themselves proselytizing the "good news!" like I (and anyone else born in the free world) haven't heard it a hundred-thousand times already. Yep, I can see a fairly interesting movie plot in all of that.

I bought this movie as a birthday present for my husband since he asked specifically for it. He's a Christian and believes in the virgin birth, miracle stuff, and resurrection business but I no longer do. I watched the movie with him and while watching Jesus thrash around on the floor, rolling about in mental torture of some sort I kept thinking, "It's too bad they didn't understand mental illness back then, especially schizophrenia". Even more so when he was all wild-eyed with a crazed look telling Judas that God was talking to him.

But whether you believe the Christian story or not, it's a fairly entertaining movie although I really wished William Defoe had not played the part of Christ. Even Harvey Keitel was weird as Judas. Defoe just looked freaky with his huge gapped teeth and humongous mouth. I suppose Jesus could have been even freakier looking but who knows......he may have not even existed. But that's beside the point. And the nitty-gritty of life back then was depicted as dry, dirty, ragged, rough, windy and with very little naturally occurring water (lakes, rivers, ponds, pools or even puddles) anywhere. John the Baptist and his band of zealots were mucking about in a trickle of a stream. It was similar to a spaghetti western in realism. Maybe it was too dirty. You could almost smell the stink in the air and I felt like swatting at flies some of the time.

Christians can be happy that the movie ended in the traditional way with him being back, and suffering on the cross with the assumption that he will certainly be resurrected. My heart did hurt for him when he was in the Garden of Gethsemene praying so hard and begging God to stop it all - that he didn't want to do it. William Defoe did act out that scene very well - I felt compassion for the Jesus character. Non-Christians can enjoy the movie too, but they may be a bit disappointed since he is fulfilling the Christian role given him. The dialogue sounded rather stilted and forced - did they really talk like that back then? So Bible-ish, and it wasn't even written then.

I did like how sincere the devil seemed to be in the form of the angel child who helped Jesus down from his cross. That was the only character who seemed real and believable. But when his/her sham was revealed she/he turned into a big ole flaming geyser of sorts, said some devil junk and disappeared - I guess back to hell or maybe the White House, who knows, but it was a bit old and overdone. And having Mary Magdalene suddenly drop dead when she was very happy and apparently healthy and ready to give birth any day made no sense. The entire story was a little hard for me to swallow, but hubby really enjoyed it. But we couldn't discuss it afterwards. Although he is fairly modern thinking about his religion and can watch this movie unaffected negatively by it, he still rails every time I say something the least bit critical, or that which might shed a tiny shadow of doubt concerning his faith in Christianity.

It's not worth $29.99 and that price floored me when I saw it. But I needed it soon, and Amazon usually sends stuff fairly fast. The commentaries and other stuff are sort of interesting, but not enough to keep you awake if you watch it during the late evening hours.

FORGET THIS ONE! SEE #1: "PASSION OF THE CHRIST," BY MEL GIBSON OR "JESUS OF NAZARETH." SCORSESES IS HORRIBLY MOCKING & PROFANE
This movie is not about love for Christ, but a mocking of Christ. It's about an anti-Christian hollywood trying, desperately, to counter Mel Gibson's mega-epic: 'The Passion of the Christ," which has grossed nearly 2 Billion to this day. Gibson's "Passion," is and continues to be the most viewed and bought movie, ever, that's ever in the history of Cinema. however, the media/choir play it down and constantly edit out any mention of "The Passion of the Christ." The 'Passion of the Christ," continues to sell like lightening to this day. What does that say?: Truth and decency cannot be censored. See the movie for yourself, to understand its inordinately powerful and inspirational message - like no other film or film about Jesus Christ ever! You won't complain about anything, anymore. "The Passion of the Christ,' is a priceless life changing event - don't miss it. Forget scorsese's amusing the choir of hollywood and media. Very, very dissapointing and upsetting.

A good effort with a few distractions
This is a fascinating look at Jesus's dual nature; what he might have been; the struggles and confusion he must have endured; what kind of life he would have had if he had not submitted himself to be sacrificed.
These are the strongest aspects of the story, and the locations in Morocco are perfect. Also, David Bowie gives a too-short performance as Pontius Pilate.

That said, I found the New York and other modern accents from many of the actors to be distracting, and some of the scenes could have been more effective or tightened up. The scenes with John the Baptist and his raving lunatic followers were rather bizarre as well.

Not for the uneducated
This movie is not for the uneducated, or those who never entertain a theological thought. Quite the opposite to the warm, fuzzy Christ of today's charismatic Christian fervor where nothing, really, is demanded of the believer, the Christ in the Last Temptation is the genuine human form of God. And, fact is, many in the Christian camp today, are uncomfortable with that realization: that their God-made-man, could actually experience insecurity, depression, and heaven forbid, lust.

I recall when the film first made its appearance in the U.S., the evangelist James Dobson went absolutely, rabidly ballistic. His radio rantings against the movie proved to me that this man has a psychological problem. He ranted, and ranted, and ranted... and yet, Dobson never saw the movie. Dobson reacted to the charismatic hysteria that was fomenting at the time. Hypocrite that he is.

Oh well, be that as it may, The Last Temptation of Christ is a thinker's work - both the book and movie - and only cogent minds will be able to embrace it.