I grew up in a Christian household and "The Last Temptation of Christ" was considered sacrilege. It was not until I began a fascination with Martin Scorsese's movies that I stayed up late to watch this one night on television, to see if the controversy surrounding it was appropriate or not.
If you've read "The Da Vinci Code" you're already familiar with the concept: that Jesus Christ (played here by Willem Dafoe) was more flesh and bones than we given Him credit for, and was tempted to betray God and live with His true love, Mary Magdalene, rather than die for our sins. This is referenced by Dan Brown in the overlong and silly 20-page explanation of the true "Holy Grail" -- who Brown proposes is not an object, but a living person: Mary Magdalene, whom Jesus impregnated.
The Catholic Church took an immediate disliking to this concept. As Scorsese's film not-so-subtly implies that this is the case, it was panned and, in some cases, banned; the Church called it sacrilegious and many people refused to even see it, just based on its subject matter.
Robert De Niro turned down the lead role of Jesus in "The Last Temptation of Christ," and probably because he was aware of the controversy it would stir. It was one of the only roles Scorsese offered him that he has turned down, the other being "The Butcher" in "Gangs of New York." Although "The Last Temptation of Christ" is made with some insight and Scorsese suffered trials and tribulations to bring it to the screen, I'd say it's one of the lesser efforts of Scorsese and writer Paul Schrader's combined efforts.
The film is interesting but the acting is a bit off. I remember one sequence where Harvey Keitel (playing Judas) beats Jesus and Jesus lowers to Judas' feet and begs forgiveness. It all seems a bit hokey and staged, and Harvey Keitel is out-of-place, wearing what looks to be a very odd replica of the era's clothing.
The movie is based on a novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, whose work was complete fiction, as the author himself has claimed. As a result Scorsese's work is not claiming to be an accurate depiction of Christ's death, but rather a new twist to the tale based on another book.
Do I think this is wrong? To be honest, yes, I do. On one hand I consider a fresh perspective refreshing, but on the other hand it seems wrong to base anything off of religious iconography and attempt to twist it into something human.
Scorsese had to knew what he'd endure to release this. I don't think it was a surprise.
But enough about the controversy. Purely as a film, "The Last Temptation of Christ" is beautiful to look at but I do feel some of it is rather hokey. As I mentioned above, some of the acting seems misplaced. Mel's version is definitely the more realistic of the two.
But if you do have a (very) open mind and are not religious you might enjoy this. If you are religious and have a closed mind about your faith, stay away from this and "The Da Vinci Code" as they'll both probably just upset you and cause stress.
In my opinion "The Last Temptation of Christ" is a good movie, but I do understand why people were outraged (and I rarely do with films) because Scorsese is touching on a very fragile subject matter here and it would have been quite naive of him to expect people to love his film. I like to think that he was smart enough to foresee the hatred for this movie. I'm pretty sure he knew.
If you've read "The Da Vinci Code" you're already familiar with the concept: that Jesus Christ (played here by Willem Dafoe) was more flesh and bones than we given Him credit for, and was tempted to betray God and live with His true love, Mary Magdalene, rather than die for our sins. This is referenced by Dan Brown in the overlong and silly 20-page explanation of the true "Holy Grail" -- who Brown proposes is not an object, but a living person: Mary Magdalene, whom Jesus impregnated.
The Catholic Church took an immediate disliking to this concept. As Scorsese's film not-so-subtly implies that this is the case, it was panned and, in some cases, banned; the Church called it sacrilegious and many people refused to even see it, just based on its subject matter.
Robert De Niro turned down the lead role of Jesus in "The Last Temptation of Christ," and probably because he was aware of the controversy it would stir. It was one of the only roles Scorsese offered him that he has turned down, the other being "The Butcher" in "Gangs of New York." Although "The Last Temptation of Christ" is made with some insight and Scorsese suffered trials and tribulations to bring it to the screen, I'd say it's one of the lesser efforts of Scorsese and writer Paul Schrader's combined efforts.
The film is interesting but the acting is a bit off. I remember one sequence where Harvey Keitel (playing Judas) beats Jesus and Jesus lowers to Judas' feet and begs forgiveness. It all seems a bit hokey and staged, and Harvey Keitel is out-of-place, wearing what looks to be a very odd replica of the era's clothing.
The movie is based on a novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, whose work was complete fiction, as the author himself has claimed. As a result Scorsese's work is not claiming to be an accurate depiction of Christ's death, but rather a new twist to the tale based on another book.
Do I think this is wrong? To be honest, yes, I do. On one hand I consider a fresh perspective refreshing, but on the other hand it seems wrong to base anything off of religious iconography and attempt to twist it into something human.
Scorsese had to knew what he'd endure to release this. I don't think it was a surprise.
But enough about the controversy. Purely as a film, "The Last Temptation of Christ" is beautiful to look at but I do feel some of it is rather hokey. As I mentioned above, some of the acting seems misplaced. Mel's version is definitely the more realistic of the two.
But if you do have a (very) open mind and are not religious you might enjoy this. If you are religious and have a closed mind about your faith, stay away from this and "The Da Vinci Code" as they'll both probably just upset you and cause stress.
In my opinion "The Last Temptation of Christ" is a good movie, but I do understand why people were outraged (and I rarely do with films) because Scorsese is touching on a very fragile subject matter here and it would have been quite naive of him to expect people to love his film. I like to think that he was smart enough to foresee the hatred for this movie. I'm pretty sure he knew.