Watch Jesus For Free

Lack of good storyline.

I wanted to but couldn't!

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

The acting in this movie is really good.

I have the VHS version and a certain scene is deliberately missing! Where he is taken by the temple guards to a stable area,where he is then knocked down by a guards blow,gets back up and a rack is suddenly on the wall behind his head,that wasn't there originally, with a jug directly above his head!

It's claimed that this movie is "the most viewed film in history" and that it is currently available "in over 320 languages." On the one hand, that is very pleasing to hear. On the other hand, it's a little sad because the film is riddled with errors. Not major errors, of course, but still irritating to a Bible scholar who has just published a new translation of Luke's Gospel. Yes, although the DVD jacket doesn't mention the fact, IMDb tells us the screenplay was based on Luke's Gospel. A good choice. But what version of Luke's Gospel the screenwriter used is not mentioned. It's certainly not Luke's Gospel as Luke wrote it in Greek. Presumably, it's Luke's Gospel as presented in the so-called King James Bible. This was not a good choice. The King James Bible is riddled with errors – some intentional, some unintentional. And as if these errors were not numerous enough, the screenwriter has added a few of his own. For example, he tells us that Mary accompanied Joseph to Bethlehem because she was needed to register for the census too. She wasn't! "Every adult male in the empire was required to travel to the city of his fathers in order to be registered. So Joseph was forced to journey from the village of Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea, because Joseph belonged to the house of David and Bethlehem was David's city. Mary accompanied Joseph because she was engaged to be married to him, and because she was expecting a child." (Quoting from "Luke: The Gospel A Radical New Translation" by John Howard Reid). So that is error number two in the movie.A previous error occurs when Mary visits her relative, Elizabeth and Elizabeth's wonderful greeting is put into Mary's mouth instead, while Elizabeth looks on rapturously. That the words are Elizabeth's and were not spoken by Mary is surely obvious from the lines: "My soul greatly praises the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in the Lord God, my Savior. For He has noticed His servant's utter disgrace and has rectified my ignominious situation… He raised me up when I was down, drowning in the depths of despair." The whole point of this episode is that Elizabeth is old and well past the age of giving birth. But she doesn't look old in the movie at all! So Luke's decision to write about John the Baptist's conception was simply a waste of time as far as this movie is concerned. Worse still, of course, is that Elizabeth's words are transposed to Mary.Another deliberate error in the movie occurs when the child Jesus stays behind in Jerusalem. Luke tells us that "Joseph and Mary were furious. 'How dare you treat us like this!' His mother exclaimed." But in the movie, none of this dialogue is presented at all, let alone the fact that "Joseph and Mary were furious." In the film they don't seem to be even mildly annoyed.There are other errors in the movie, including the claim that Joseph was a carpenter. Luke doesn't spell out Joseph's trade, but he hints that Joseph was a potter. I could go on and on where the movie fails in minor details – I know I'm being picky, but if you're going to make a movie about the King of righteousness, why not get it right? – but probably the worst offense is that Brian Deacon's Christ doesn't look the least bit Jewish.

The most ACCURATE and BRIGHT movie about Jesus Christ! Let the facts speak for themselves (from the 2004 "Jesus: Fact or Fiction" DVD): = "The most historically accurate film about the life of Jesus Christ"= "By far the most translated film in history, translated to over 800 languages" = "5 billion viewers worldwide" (1979-2003) = "After viewing the film, more than 300 million people have indicated a decision to follow the teachings of Jesus"After seeing quite a few of them, i decided not to be a fan of Christ movies, as they often mislead you by giving the twisted (by the director) image of Him. True believers know better than any movie what He was/is like from the Bible and personal experience. But if a movie is the only way for you to reach to your friends, this would be THE ONE and ONLY! Those who have eyes to see will see the beauty of following the Bible "script". No need to add anything else. Look deeper, see Christ's person in this film - you will be amazed by the spiritual wealth of His simplicity. How can someone call this "boring"?!Don't wait for lots of entertainment. Jesus's life was not about having fun, but about our redemption, about witnessing Truth and serving others, about spirituality of one's soul, about life in God, and personal humility. And these all are well depicted in this great film. May God have mercy on all who toiled making it!Indeed, it's THE MOVIE of all times! 10 out of 10.

After opening with the expected quotation from John 3:16, the video Jesus bases its plot solely on the gospel of Luke, remaining rigidly faithful to the gospel and rarely adding conversations that you can not find in Luke. That makes for a far less controversial route than would occur if incorporating variations from the other three gospels that differ slightly from each other.In a sense the choice of filming only the gospel of Luke has its strengths, as it appeals to a larger audience and presents Jesus Christ in his best. The richest parables are told here, with a larger overview of Christ's life, but the film focuses mainly of Christ's public ministry and glosses over his birth and his questioning of the priests in the temple at the age of 12. It also portrays Christ in the most positive way on the cross, as his final words in the Luke version are `Father! Into your hands I commend my spirit.'Besides using the scripture from Luke straightforwardly, the filming locations add authenticity to the production. It appears to be straight from Jerusalem without any other settings. The scene leading to the Crucifixion does appear to take place on the actual Via Delorosa and thus provides much realism.Even though the movie was great script and settings it is hurt by the lack of emotion. Movie seems fake in the sense of how the actors act. From the beginning starting with the narrator he has no emotion just reading the words causing it to be dull. Nothing was surprising as it was dull and you knew what was coming next if you had read the book of Luke. The movie was just plain, plain text and plain acting. Being from 1979 you cannot expect a great video production but they could spice up the acting. After seeing what is easily the greatest Jesus movie ever made (The Passion of Christ) it is hard to be impressed but I was not expecting to be. In general it's a below average movie, had the best setting possible and the script already written just with the poor mellow dramatic acting decreased it value.