THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST
A film review by E. A. Knowles
Copyright 1989 E. A. Knowles
Buddha once said "All suffering is caused by desire..." Expectation is certainly an expression of desire, and I certainly suffered through this film. Considering all the controversy aroused by this film, at least it could have been a great movie. I would've been satisfied if it were even a good movie. The best thing I can say is that maybe this was an average movie atrociously edited. The next best thing I can say is that this was a potentially good movie badly made. In its best moments it reminded me of VIDEODROME (someday I'll explain); at its worst CALIGULA or DUNE.... But enough ranting--here's the review:
What I thought was good about the film:
1) David Bowie as Pontius Pilate. One little scene, well played. When Jesus refused to do any miracles for him, he says "What a disappointment." The best line in the film.
2) Harvey Keitel as Judas. A great original portrayal of Judas. A wonderful performance spoiled only by the absurdity of what the script requires him to do. Judas's character is so convincing, that you can really understand his exasperation with Jesus. But why would such a sensible guy follow such a lunatic (as Jesus is portrayed in this film)? Only the writers know for sure.
3) The scene where the disciples are waiting for Jesus to come out of the desert. He's been gone from more than a month, and they're beginning to have doubts. Very believable conversations. The scene is then spoiled of course by the appearance of you-know-who, who promptly pulls his heart out of his chest, holds the bloody, gross thing out to his disciples and say "Take this.." WHY?? Why would they want his bloody heart? Why was this scene necessary? (This special effect wasn't even well-done. It looked like a magician's trick--like he had a sheep's heart hidden in his cloak.). Up to this point it was a good scene.
4) Harry Dean Stanton as Saul/Paul. A stellar performance, and one of the few preachers in the film (and this includes Jesus,of course) who seemed eloquent enough for the job and who the script gave something intelligent to say.
5) The dream sequence (--not really a dream sequence-- things were ambiguous enough that you could actually interpret this sequence as actually happening, then having God, in answer to Jesus's prayer, turn back time and put his back on the cross). The girl who played the make-believe archangel (who was really Satan) did a good job. Jesus's confrontation with Paul/Saul was one of the few scenes that didn't seem forced and stupid. The scene where a few aged disciples are with Jesus on his deathbed worked well for me too. It seems that this sequence and the conclusion was the whole point of the film. The rest of the film was so badly done though, that this ending does not justify it. In fact, I bet that if the rest of the film was better thought out, intelligently scripted , devoid of cheap, stupid thrills and edited competently, these last scenes and the movie itself wouldn't had drawn the disgusted protest that it did.
What I didn't like about the film:
1) The opening sequence of scenes. This might have been because of bad editing, but I felt like I had begun in the middle of the movie! We have some guy falling down every few minutes, hearing voices in his head, talking to himself and all in all acting bizarre. Then we see him making crosses for the Romans to crucify Jews on. Everybody hates him, he's extremely confused, and doesn't seem very intelligent. He follows a stranger (thinking "maybe this is an angel from God sent to lead me where I'm supposed to go") into a brothel. He sits and waits while everybody else fucks the prostitute over and over and over again (Barbara Hershey must've been tricked, like everyone else, into thinking this was a significant movie to play such a compromising role). Then when everybody's left he runs up to the prostitute and asks for forgiveness? What's going on here? What did I miss? Who's that girl? There's no setup at all for what happens in this film.
2) The film did not tell a story. It did not show any reasons for what happens in the film. We simply jump from scene to scene and there doesn't see to be any connection between them. One scene has Jesus make a fool of himself in the city (Jesus makes a fool of himself quite often in this film) and basically has to run for his life out of town. The next scene has him riding into the town triumphantly with everybody greeting him. WHY?? What changed their minds. Who are these people? Why is anybody still following this jerk? Scorsese seems to want it both ways: He assumes we know the story, so he needn't dwell on details leading up to major scenes, then he changes the details of the major scenes so drastically as to make any assumed story that ties them together ridiculous.
3) There was too much gratuitous gore and gratuitous nudity in film. Maybe the makers of the film will hide behind the cry of "Authenticity!" but I say "Bullshit!" This was along the lines of what you saw in CALIGULA (a film that, despite being offensive, obscene, depraved and artistically bankrupt, had more continuity and sense in its script than this movie). Do we really need to see a bunch of naked women (all with good figures, mind you) jumping and writhing around while John the Baptist is preaching. Is a graphic sex scene the only way we could know that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute? Why did Jesus have to pull his bloody heart out?? Seeing one sheep's neck cut was enough. There's no subtlety in this movie, only excess.
4) My biggest complaint is with the characterization, casting and scripting of Jesus. Not for any religious reasons. They could have portrayed Jesus as a homicidal Satan worshipper for all I care. I would buy it if the portrayal were convincing, consistent and competent. Jesus is portrayed in this film as a confused, manic-depressive hysteric who has a talent for miracles, but the worst timing for them. This guy is a real loser. He hears voices, he has pains in his head. He's afraid to follow the voices, he decides instead to build crosses to crucify people. When he decides to follow the voices, he does things like attack people who weren't bothering him, wander into brothels, get people cut up by Roman soldiers etc.... He's never sure if it's God or the Devil talking to him. He changes his mind a lot. He doesn't understand anything he's doing or why he's doing it, yet he's always trying to convince everyone that something is the way out of all their troubles -- this "something" is always changing, and he's woefully lacking in anything resembling eloquence when he tries to explain. There are scenes in this movie where Jesus thinks "I don't know what to say. I'll just open my mouth and God will put the words there," then he talks and says stuff that's completely inane. Nevertheless, he gets followers (don't ask me how or why). Jesus never says anything clever or profound or convincing in the whole movie, so you have to wonder how he persuaded all these people to follow him -- especially when they follow him into a temple surrounded by Roman soldiers. This is an especially troubling scene, because when the moment of truth comes Jesus is speechless, sort of faints after showing the crowd how well he can make his palms bleed, and is hustled out of trouble while those who came with him are cut to pieces by Roman soldiers. This characterization of Jesus is a cross between Agnes of God and Son Of Sam. Willem Dafoe does not have an easy job to do, and probably would've had a hard time doing a conventional Christ. Here he's a disaster. His performance is all the more depressing when contrasted with the performances of the rest of the cast (Keitel as Judas, Hershey as Mary Magdalene, Harry Dean Stanton as Paul, David Bowie etc... all did the best they could, and as isolated performances, they were all excellent -- they just got stuck in a dog). In all fairness though, it would have taken a great actor to pull off this role.
5) The miracles in the movie were really lame. Considering the character of Jesus was so "low", the miracles had to be the only "rational" reason that people might follow him. Also, it was a chance for this film to save itself with FX. They seemed almost like parlor tricks, the way they were presented. And when ever Jesus really could've used a convincing miracle, he didn't deliver.
This is the harshest review I've ever written of a movie, but it deserved it. I was not offended by the content of the movie. There have been movies much more sacrilegious than this one. There have been movies much more gratuitous than this one. I was disappointed. It was just a bad movie. It wasn't even enjoyable in a mundane way. It wasn't even daring. Its daringness was hyped all out of reality. It was just a bad movie. I rank it somewhere between CALIGULA and DUNE -- give it a -2 on the Leeper scale (-4 to +4). It would've gotten even a lower score if not for David Bowie.
-Ed Knowles
"What a disappointment"
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews