The Day Christ Died (TV Movie 1980) Poster

(1980 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
19 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Saw this once as a kid over 30+ years ago, scared to watch it still
dpcoronado16 April 2017
Perspective from an 8-year old kid: This wasn't a Jesus portrayal I expected. In Catholic school, we're taught about a photogenic, almost hippie- resembling Jesus. (Jeffrey Hunter) or an almost tragically- beautiful Jesus (Robert Powell.) Even a strange-looking Max Von Sydow was acceptable. The reality of Chris Sarandon as Jesus made the suffering in the film all the more real to an 8-year old. This Jesus had fun, played around, joked, had friends, and didn't have the divine strength to ensure the suffering--he was truly about terrified about the ordeal he was about to undergo. My own suffering is watching a whipping (book of Luke) to an actual shooting (book of Matthew.) This deserves some explaining.

I try and face my fears, whether it be watching zombie movies, or Jesus-scourging scenes, to the point of studying details in the hopes of lessening the impact of those scenes. To no avail. (I still haven't watched the Passion.)

In Luke, Jesus gets whipped. By Israelites.40 minus one, law of Moses (Jesus Christ Superstar.) He doesn't even get whipped in John, which became my favorite gospel.

But in Matthew, he gets scourged by Romans, which was more horrific. Basically what Mel Gibson depicted. The Day Christ Died was definitely traumatizing to watch. Until then, Jesus seemed almost stoic and dignified in his suffering.

From the perspective of an adult: I cannot even WATCH any scourging/whipping Jesus scenes anymore. I fast-forward or skip them altogether, and I will NEVER ward by the Passion past the first 10 minutes. So I researched the details about scourging, from the flagellum construction, to ancient texts on the matter. For those of you criticizing how the film wasn't like the angelic, surreal Jesus of your dreams, read the actual book, which is based- off Matthew if I remember correctly. It is sobering to actually empathize, rather than sympathize with Jesus'suffering, which is what most Jesus flicks want you to do. I hope by writing this, I give someone else with the same fear I have, the strength to face it.

P.S. I just realized this Easter is the 33rd year since I saw it for the first and only time. Happy Easter today!
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Interesting and Intuitive Behind the Scenes Point of View
nanette17 April 2004
I enjoyed the interweaving of the story from the scriptures and the untold story that went on around and behind the history that we have recorded. I found it creative and certainly possible. Since the overwhelming interest in the recent Mel Gibson Movie, 'The Passion of the Christ' has stirred up interest in the biblical story; it is interesting to see what some previous filmed points of view have been. This movie brings up some possible conversations, manipulations and intrigues that went on among various characters present at the time of Christ. I found many of their insights both intuitive and highly probable. The writers leave the end up to the watcher as to what you believe, but the interesting perspective on what was going on 'off camera' so to speak gave me lots to think about. Watch it to widen your perspective about some of the unwritten possibilities - I found it very interesting.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not as good as the others
wdflores17 April 2006
This movie is not as good as all the movies of Christ I've ever seen. And I'm quite amazed that in this story Pilate wants to finish Jesus, when the Scriptures (as well the other movies) state differently. It lacks also a very important issue: The Resurrection.. None of the other movies skip this very important part: the faith of all of us Christians lies in this very event. As Paul says in one of his letters "If Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is vain". A very impressive scene for me in this movie was seeing on the streets the remains of the palms that were used when Jesus entered Jerusalem.

Finally, and in opposition to my Jewish co-commentator, Jesus WAS NOT a myth. And as a matter of fact, he was also a JEW. There are plenty of documents (relgious and secular) that prove the existence of this extraordinary man(or should I said, God become a man) that indeed changed mankind. I strongly advise him(given he is a historian) to read about Flavius Josephus, the most brilliant Jewish commentator of the 1st. Century.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
the worst film on the gospels ever.
Lastsunofkrypton10 August 2011
I have viewed every film on the life of Christ, from foreign to Hollywood.i will begin by saying that i saw this film as a kid and i despised it and had nightmares about it. Now that i have viewed again i despise it even more. My biggest complain is Chris Sarandon. Was the budget that low that the director couldn't hire at least a semi descent looking Jesus? Physically he is grotesque looking and i doubt anyone would want to have that face in mind when praying. His acting is so mediocre and he does not display any internal strength,let alone divine paternity. After seeing the first 5 minutes why would anyone listen to any word this Jesus would say more so follow him thru the rouged lands. In this film Jesus is a helpless pawn of the roman government and religious leaders. He is treated with such ridicule and mr sarandons so poorly displays a character that has no divinity and is just a pathetic loser awaiting his death. Physically he is horrible, with an afro to make don king jealous, lousy voice and a eyes resembling more of a cynical psycho than the son of God. By the way the sets and location are the remaining film sets and costumes of the excellent and best biblical film ever"Jesus of Nazareth"directed by Franco Zefirelli. Both JON and "The Passion of the Christ" (another of my favourites) directed by Mel Gibson had Jesus be completely divine while human. In those films Christ strength is his divinity, he is the king of kings and even in his suffering he is still in control as of the prophecy. The producers of this film obviously didn't believe that JC rose from the dead and end the film as Jesus is defeated by being nailed to the cross and the frame freezes. I do not recommend this film to anyone. Worthless waste of time.
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One of my favorites
peter_schiefelbein24 March 2005
This movie strikes me as one of the most successful attempts ever at coming up with plausible answers for some of the nagging questions that have cropped up in recent scholarship concerning the "Passion" (suffering and death of Christ) accounts in the New Testament. (What motivated Judas if money was not the issue? What could bring the Sanhedrin to meet on a high holy day? Why did Pilate waffle?) It is a movie for the serious, thinking Christian: fans of "The Passion of the Christ" will no doubt be disappointed by the lack of gory spectacle and arch characterization. As for myself, I find the portrait painted here--of the willingness of ordinary people to so blithely sacrifice common decency when their own self-interest is at stake--far more realistic and deeply unsettling. (The disinterested, "just doing my job" look on the face of the man who drives the first nail in Christ's wrist is as chilling as any moment in film.) The film makes no claim to "authenticity", but the settings and costuming invariably feel more "right" than many more highly acclaimed efforts. It is a slow film but, if you accept its self-imposed limits (it is, after all, "The Death"--not the Life--"of Christ"), ultimately a very rewarding one.
19 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Failed attempt
darth7617 January 2000
Although the director tried(the filming was made in Tynisia and Morocco),this attempt to transport the New Testament in the screen failed.The script has serious inaccuracies and fantasies,while the duration is very long.But the most tragic is the protagonist Chris Sarandon,who doesn't seem to understand the demands of his role.
1 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Worth Watching
allensnider1 August 2005
This movie is one of the most provocative Jesus movies I have ever seen. It does not seek to tell the whole story, but only to portray an interpretive expression of the last day of Jesus Christ. It is darkly witty, playful and seriously faithful to elements of the Jewish tradition and to modern scriptural interpretation. Judas is much more ordinary than other portrayals, not the dark and sinister evil that we sometimes imagine, but a grossly mistaken man, horribly misguided in his zeal. Chris Saranden's Jesus is playful and serious, faithful and committed--very human while also divine. The final dialog is thoughtfully done and serves as the kind of small talk that two powerful men might do when they have just committed an atrocity. I would watch this movie again and recommend it to others.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
profound useful
Kirpianuscus12 July 2020
It is a dialogue . Not the touching film, not the example of accuracy, not the lesson about The Savior. Just a honest dialogue about sensitive aspects of His last days and about the people motivations and gestures and expectations around Christ. Surprising fresness and the inspired slow rhytm are the basic virtues of a film proposing the reflection and not the show. Chris Sarandon propose a portrait who you feel as deep authentic. The dialogues are inspired crafted. And, not the last, its deep honesty is the great virtue , proposing not a vision but a provocative frame for old questions and sketches for significant posible answers. So, a beautiful, in special sense, film.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
great image of the person of Jesus
bill roy10 March 2000
this is best showing of what i think jesus really was like. most movies show jesus as being effeminate, lobotomized, or tortured. this jesus laughed, played, and was serious when it was necessary. this is the kind of jesus people could be attracted to, not the usually hollywood version.

the movie took some liberties, attempting to "fill in the blanks." but the fillers didn't seem impossible, or even improbable. one thing i might argue, was that it never really explained what the romans had against jesus (movie portrayed that the romans were the main driver of jesus' death, not that the jewish authorities were against the idea).

it seemed that the movie was researched well. one example was the offhand comment to a teenage boy who was called "mark." it is believed that mark (or john mark) was the boy referred to at the garden of gethsemane whose cloak was pulled off and ran away naked (mark 14:51). i get the feeling that they tried to make the movie as accurate (even in spirit) was much as possible.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A wonderful portrayal of Jesus
manger-210 December 2005
The first time I saw this film, I loved it. It was different.

I am a Christian (Bible believing). I don't go along with the crowd of right wing believers. I dropped out of that atmosphere.

To me in their attempts to take over our government they are doing what Judas tried to do. I call it the Judas Syndrome.

Judas didn't get it, even though Jesus said his Kingdom was not of this world.

This film certainly showed some of that.

I also liked that Jesus enjoyed the simple pleasure of playing games and jokes with his disciples.

Also he was a very gorgeous Jesus.

It's a watch-over and over movie.

Very satisfying.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I take all biblical epics from Hollywood with a grain of sand.
mark.waltz4 February 2022
Warning: Spoilers
For a man whose existence and purpose shed a lot of doubt throughout history, there certainly have been many motion pictures about him. From "King of Kings" through "The Passion of the Christ", and possibly a few I have forgotten about, I can think of more than half a dozen films about Jesus Christ. It is only through faith that one can sustain a true belief in the existence and purpose, so each film is merely a few of the time and there were must make their own decisions based on their own thought process and feelings. It had only been three years since the TV mini-series "Jesus of Nazareth", so having another one so soon and for TV again ask questions of the agenda of purpose of it. The mini-series ran over several nights. This ran on television in a 3-hour time period and well maybe not the greatest version of this story ever told, it is admirable still.

I found this dealt with more of the history and the culture of the time, showing the power of Rome over Israel, and the political debate that took place as a result of the controversy of the presence of a man who claimed to be king of the Jews. All of the major characters surrounding the last supper and the crucifixion are there, from all 12 of the Apostles to Jesus's mother Mary to the controversial character of Mary Magdalene, the zealots who furiously accused Jesus of blasphemy, to King Herod Agrippa and Pontius Pilate and his wife Claudia. All of these characters have been represented so many times on screen with so many different looks that it becomes confusing to really gain a thought of how they looked.

I found no issues with Chris Sarandon as Jesus. He plays the role directly, making him human so people could identify with him in a humanely viewpoint, very serious when he needs to be serious but certainly engaging and friendly with the apostles, and seemingly understanding when he reveals who will be betraying him. Even when he reveals that one of the Apostles will deny him, it's done in reflection of the fact that this is what needs to be done for his mission to be accomplished. If certain elements of the truth are missing or changed for dramatic impact, it doesn't lessen the impact of what the story's purpose is.

Keith Michell as Pontius Pilate and Hope Lange as his wife Claudia are important parts of the story, and that gives a historical perspective on the influence of the Roman Emperor Tiberius on Pilate's decisions of how to react to the pending violence should he make the wrong choice. It's a dramatic build-up to the actual crucifixion, and those scenes are very tough, even for non-believers, because of the violence and suffering both on-screen and implied. I don't pray this on a factual basis or even on an entertainment basis, because witnessing suffering like this on screen is not entertaining. But it is a well-done movie, thoughtful and well-acted, and often quite profound. The large cast does not have a lot of familiar faces, and perhaps that is a good thing because that does not distract from the purpose of the film.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Low profile story of Christ really moving and commanding...
Marv2ric29 May 2002
After seeing this movie once,I really respected Jesus Christ much more than I used to. Even though others may compare this movie a failed attempt with other biblical movies, I enjoyed Sarandon's portrayal of Christ.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Moderate telliing of passion of Christ...
mtr011816 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Any one who has seen Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ and was bothered by the gory violence would want to see this film instead. Though it wasn't a success in th box office or TV ratings, The Fox Movie Channel still finds a real good motive to show this anually. I liked the way that they trained Chris Sarandon and the men who portrayed his disciples to sing in Hebrew.Though Sarandon didn't have long hair like any other Jesus would in other films, his looks are pretty close to what a Jewish man would appear. What surprised me or startled me was the scene where Caiaphas told Jesus about Pilate "And don't ever forget, that you are a Jew!" Though that may have not been a racist remark,Colin Blakely was trying to make Chris Sarandon look like garbage in the eyes of the prominent men of those days.Keith Michell's portrayal of Pilate was hulking, comparing with his previous performances in "The Story of Jacob and Joseph" and "The Story of David". But if you compare his portrayal of Pilate with Telly Savala's or Hurd Hatfield, you can say that he really painted well the impression of a Roman procurator.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not so bad, not so good Warning: Spoilers
I'm giving this 5 for the two main women in this movie- Mary and Claudia. Neither of them were as bad as in The Passion with Mel Gibson. And I may be biased since I love Mary (Eleanor Bron)'s work. However, what when on in Chris' mind while shooting this????? Does he not realize what big of a job he has or what? Maybe he had amnesia while shooting or something like that. All I know is that, this could have been better. And Judas doesn't even seem evil! With a cast like this, we could drive Mel Gibson over the edge with talent! But no sir. It had to be wasted. PS- Jesus is NOT a myth, thank you very much! So I kinda think-room for improvement,definitely. Worth one watch? Of course!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Provocative Movie
bikerp13 February 2007
This movie has problems in its presentation, may even be offensive to people who are looking for temporal and cultural faithfulness, but it challenges the watcher to reflect on a variety of issues. One of these is the nature and character of the relationship between Jesus and Judas. Another is that of the historical nature of the Bible and faith. And third, is the humanity of Jesus. The tension of the Christ-betrayer relationship is developed and held through the movie. Judas' passion is presented as a darker parallel to that of Christ. When Judas takes his own life, the viewer can sense the angst. Peter's denial and guilt, however moving, are not as powerfully portrayed as the Judas drama. Chris Sarandon offers a novel and provocative Christ, whether believable or not. I would like to find this movie on DVD or even VHS, to use in study or discussion groups.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Very Accurate Account of the Events
edgars_mama_bear31 March 2013
This is the first movie ever to portray the events so accurately of his arrest, and crucifixion. I want to buy this movie but cannot find it anywhere. Why, I wonder. I have heard that it has been banned with the reason as being blasphemous, but it is too accurate to be blasphemous. I have read the scriptures leading up to his death and resurrection, and it truly is as accurate as reading it, it seems to jump off the pages and into one's face. I have seen every movie available on this subject and every one has too much fiction, except for this one. I have not seen it on television since 1980. That was the ONLY time I have ever seen it....will someone give me a clue as to where I might purchase this movie?

I have checked out all the places where one might find it, to no avail.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is the worst film on Christ that I already saw!
amc-cosi28 September 2003
This film is very depressive. I think who wrote him/it and it accomplished him/it certainly it doesn't believe that Jesus Christ resurrected and it arose to the heaven. In this film they are shown the last 24 hours of Jesus of Nazareth (Chris Sarandon). He begins with their disciples Peter and John going the city of Jerusalem, to find a place to prepare the dinner of Easter, following by the Last Supper, the prayer, the betrayal and the prison in the garden of Gethsemani, the judgement before the one of Highest Priest Caiaphas and of the main priests, Peter's denial, the interrogation before Pilate, the judgement in which the people choose Barabbas to be freed in Jesus' place, the flagellation, the coronation of thorns, the mockeries done by the Roman soldiers, the via-crucis (in the which Jesus only carries a part of the cross and no the cross completes) and it finishes when Jesus has his/her hand preached by the torturer in the log of the cross, and the image frozen there. The following image is the in that it shows Caiaphas and Pilate tends a fast conversation, saying that it is everything finishing and one wanting Happy Easter for the other,... and end. This film has an exquisite and detailed production, sceneries of the streets, of the houses, of the palaces, characterization and clothes of the guards of the Temple, of the soldiers and Roman centurions, of the priests, of Pilate, of the people, in a way that I think it must really have been at Judea and in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. And this film was faithful to the text of the Gospel in some parts, but in other the increment of scenes and of speeches, it fled completely to the sacred text, distorting completely. Judas, the traitor, nor it seems to be with total certainty of the one that intends do. But the great flaw of this film was without a doubt showing Jesus' last 24 hours, their judgement, suffering in an extremely heavy and depressive way, much more than in the other films on Christ that I saw. As for actor Chris Sarandon, until he interpreted Jesus Christ with plenty of competence, but it is not adapted for the paper. He is the first actor to represent Jesus Christ, without having the traditional characterization as all we knew of Jesus. Chris Sarandon doesn't have the long hair as it demands the paper. I don't agree with a film that doesn't show Jesus resurrecting, appearing to the disciples and arising to the heavens. In this point I give note 0 for the idealizadores, the producers and the enterprising of this film.

Which will the intention of the enterprising ones have been and producing with this film?
4 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A despised Christ, abandoned, and ridiculed and defeated...
amc-cosi20 June 2004
This is the most depressing film on Jesus Christ that I already viewed. Not only the most depressing, but I force (I don't eat Passion of the Christ of Mel Gibson, it is clear). Until today I don't understand which was the intention of the producing of do a film as this, different from all the other films on Christ done already. Here in this film Jesus (Chris Sarandon) it is just shown as human man, and no divine, that it is determined until the end in accomplishing his/her mission. It is also with physical lines (little accepted by most of the people) like Jesus it was very probably: a brunet man, of dark brown eyes, of rustic appearance, and not of hair blond or brown clear, of delicate face and of blue eyes as most imagines, in short, in this film Jesus is shown as a natural man from Palestine of the first century of ours was and not with European lines, as they were Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus in "Jesus of Nazareth" and of "King of Kings." And he was not shown like a solemn Jesus, reverent as it was in the other films, but a more human Jesus totally naked of any divinity. The same I say of Last Supper scenes and prayer in the garden of Gethsemani. In the scenes of the judgment, of the flagellation, Jesus is treated with such a ferocious hate shown never in other films. Jesus is viewed as somebody that has be punished severely and dead the more quickly in a more intense way than in other films. I remember of the scene, in that Caiaphas says Jesus soon at the end of the judgment: "And you don't forget that you are a Jew! " It is also of the scenes In that king Herod says for Jesus: "You are not a king of anything!!! Monarch of anybody!!! That more ridiculous king you would be!!!! " And all make fun of Jesus. Before "Passion of the Christ" of Mel Gibson, this had been the most violent film on the last of Jesus that it had already viewed. In this film Jesus is treated with end hate, contempt and ridiculed in such a cruel and merciless way that he left me very impressed and it finishes completely defeated, treaty as the vilest and despicable of all the criminals. I didn't like nor a little of this film. This film is very depressing, revolting and sad...
2 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A dull, long, incorrect film.
stamboul61314 March 2004
No doubt Mel Gibson watched this movie before he made his Passion, the similarities are clear. But what a joke! As a Jew who is NOT a Christian, but is a historian. I can tell you that I have never seen such a bad movie on the Jesus myth. Also, why is the Sanhedrin, the body of Jewish rabbis shown as a group of bumbling fools? The Sanhedrin were the top of the top of the intellectuals and scholars. If anything, the Romans who had near no education should have been the ones who looked like fools. Why are these Jews from ancient times wearing modern Jewish prayer cloths (Talletot)? And to have them hanging over their left shoulder only? Makes no sense at all. Also, the Sanhedrin is standing in a room surrounded by 9th century Morrish woodcut motifs. I would call this "Passion-Lite" because it is just as inaccurate as Gibson's movie, only it was done 24 years earlier.
3 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed