Watch The Gospel According to Matthew For Free

Great Film overall

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

The Gospels are to me some of the dumbest stories ever told: nothing in them makes any sense, thus enforcing my belief that what they try to say is not true. But Pasolini is not a propagandist, it's actually pretty hard to call him a Christian at that: he's an artist and his portrayal of the life of Jesus is between the best ever made precisely because he's not a fanatic believer. You can actually feel respect and awe in his view of the (so called) son of God, and his neorealist style is perfect for the atmosphere of tribal magic evoked by the setting of rural southern Italy, where the movie was filmed. As in most neorealist films, though, the lack of experienced actors and the lavish use of dubbing results in overall clumsy performances, except that of the main character, excellently portrayed by both the -non professional- actor and the -professional- dubber. Technically, the film is strongly flawed, but none of that matters fruition-wise except for some awfully abrupt editing that makes no sense at all. Pasolini's marxist view of the world sides him in favor of the aspects in Christ's doctrine that can be assimilated to that ideology, but everything that's said in the film is taken word-by-word from the book itself, so no-one should accuse him of bias. It is an artistic, realistic and faithful account of what I consider a stupid story, that unfortunately so many people still deem relevant to this day.

I found this Italian film in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, I read more about and saw its positive reviews, it definitely sounded worth the effort, directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini (Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom). Basically this film is as the title says, it is about the life of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, according to the gospel of Saint Matthew (Ferruccio Nuzzo). The film starts with the story of young Mary (Margherita Caruso) and Joseph (Marcello Morante) seeking shelter for her to give birth, they find a stable, baby Jesus is born, and they escape a threat from King Herod I (Amerigo Bevilacqua). Years later Jesus Christ (Enrique Irazoqui) works as a carpenter, he gains followers, disciples, from performing his miracles to feed the hungry and heal the weak, and praising and preaching to people about the love of God. But Jesus, the son of God and the prophesied messiah, is also feared by people in the Roman kingdom, particularly coming to the attention of the Pharisees, the chief priests, and elders. Following the "Last Supper" and the betrayal by Judas (Otello Sestili), Jesus is arrested by the Romans, tried and sentenced to be crucified, he dies on the cross, but three days later he rises from the dead to give a final message to the believers before disappearing to go to Heaven. Also starring Susanna Pasolini as older Mary, Mario Socrate as John the Baptist, Settimio Di Porto as Peter, Giacomo Morante as John, Alfonso Gatto as Andrew, Luigi Barbini as James, Giorgio Agamben as Philip, Guido Cerretani as Bartholomew, Rosario Migale as Thomas, Marcello Galdini as James son of Alphus, Elio Spaziani as Thaddeus, Enzo Siciliano as Simon, Juan Rodolfo Wilcock as Caiphus, Alessandro Clerici as Pontius Pilate, Francesco Leonetti as Herod II, Franca Cupane as Herodiade and Paola Tedesco as Salome. Enrique Irazoqui gives a great gentle performance, I know the story of Jesus from various other film versions, this one needs no Hollywood bang to it, with its perfect classical music and simplistic story telling, the biggest moments are the smallest, e.g. a disfigured man healed in seconds, this is a good old fashioned very religious biblical drama. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Costume Design and Best Music for Luis Bacalov, and it was nominated the BAFTA for the UN Award. Very good!

Pier Paolo Pasolini's Il vangelo secondo Matteo (1964) certainly is different from most other Passion presentations. The look of the film is rather rustic, as most is filmed in natural, outdoor, settings. The cities of Matera and Apuilia are supplemented by some sixteen other Italian locales, all highly artistic yet natural.There's an absence of elaborate costuming and period sets, with an often stark look giving at times a documentary feel to the proceedings. Pasolini's Christ, played by Enrique Iirazoqui, is quite level-headed in his orations and lacking in dramatics.The DVD I received is a "doctored up" 90 minute colorized version with dubbed English dialogue, which I feel doesn't do justice to the original work. However, the disc contains as one of its supplemental features, the black and white 137 minute film. The latter, I feel, is the film Pasolini made and the one to see.Since this writing a Blu Ray disc has been released (in 2012) with the 137 minute timing; I'm sure this is the preferred version to have.The music, from Bach to Odetta, is certainly one of the film's more intriguing aspects which supplements a most original rendering of this often filmed story.

The master of old Italian Pier Paolo Pasolini retells the tale of Jesus through the eyes of the Gospel of St. Matthews. A famed atheist and homosexual it was hard to envision the reasons behind making such a movie, especially one which does not ridicule Christian religion, but embraces its most famed prophet. True to the form of neorealism the story is kept as close to earth, natural and raw as possible. The whole film is casted by non-professional actors with the main character Jesus played by an unknown 19-year old Enrique Irazoqui.In regards to a movie so deeply engraved into the history of cinema it remains hard to be without faith and awe. Pasolini is a filmmaker placed highly in all film circles - from critics to creators. Truly significant is his input into modern cinema and the evolution of film language. As such "The Gospel..." is one of his most crowning achievements. But also one of the least accessible by modern standards. For non-believers the movie will remain tiresome, dull and inconsequential. While the rest will not need to watch the movie to uphold the faith. Even more so that Pasolini may have been - in all his honesty behind making this movie - also making a sincere statement, which may not ring well with most Christians. The segments of the Bible portrayed almost unanimously show contempt to religious structures and those who wish to capture faith without rigid rules. Some well balanced cherry picking also allows to prominently front parts of scripture, which fit nicely with Pasolini's communist beliefs (albeit putting the movie into any sort of Marxist context would be severely overstepping it). Surprisignly however Pasolini cut the movie away from emotionality and interaction, making large portion of the movie almost dry readings of the Gospel. The portrayal of Jesus can be perceived as a cold, at times ruthless or even sectarian persona, devoid of most of the warmth which permeates the Gospel itself. Even though most of the script is copy pasted from the Bible some of his lines are those of the most harsh, divisive context. I am not fully sure if this detached from feelings son of God was introduced by Pasolini on purpose, but I felt rather negative about Jesus, as someone who is more probable to invoke religious hatred than messages of love and forgiveness. The emotionless Jesus telling his sermons to a poor and destitude crowd never once instills any sort of reaction on their part, which brings to question what the hell happened to Jesus Christ the Superstar?The whole irony is that the movies biggest strengths work against it, whilst at the same time providing it with enough class to remain a masterpiece. The cinema verite style of filmmaking, which hijacks the movie, gives it a sense of realism inherit to the imperfection of a human face and diverts it from the appalling norm of Biblical epics. Covered in dirt and grime the story of Jesus gains depth and substance, but at the same time the refusal of Pasolini to adapt the Gospel into something more like a film script forces the movie to be a seriously bumpy uneven ride. The realism of the scenery, people and situations conflicts drastically with the lack of emotion and interaction. This forced Pasolini to make a movie very lacking in casuality, while deeply interwoven in images and biblical messages.One of the biggest payoffs in Pasolini's movie is the use of music, especial of modern gospel singing, to make an engrossing and involving atmosphere, which helps to get caught up in the action. Nonetheless the movie is slowly paced and for most viewers it may be hard to endeavour sitting 135 minutes without at least one nap in between.The movie technically feels a bit outdated, especially in most panoramas or landscapes, where the camera remains shaky and unfocused. At the time it may have added to the neo-realism, but nowadays it detracts a bit from the overall experience.