User reviews

Three ingredients make this movie truly remarkable and honest:

First - it contains perhaps the most powerful piece of MUSIC I ever experienced in a movie. I've never forgotten my utmost impression from that music when I saw the movie for the first time in a film-club some twenty-five years ago. From a total silence of the first titles, a music like an avalanche of a heavenly army hitting the soul ...

Which music it was? MISA LUBA! An incredible polyrithmic blend of three ingredients: a high melodic church chorus of Kenyan women, plus an unbelievably improvising african singer, plus a bunch of African drummers... everything locked together by an unrepeatable moment of inspiration and chance. I could not imagine some most powerful music to underline the most exposed passages of Jesus' story. Curiously and sadly enough, this MISA LUBA is even not credited in the movie titles, in contrast to a fair (but much more standard) classic music used in most of the movie. It was just this happy usage of MISA LUBA which contributes most to the soul and mood of the Pasolini film. It is also well understandable why Pasolini used an eclectic mixture of music from various continents, -- in an obvious intention to make the universal story yet more UNIVERSAL, across the nations and cultures.

Second happy aspect of Pasolini's interpretation is his cast of characters, his choice of believable and interesting types ... for Jesus, for Maria, and most other characters. These are believable and convincing types of people from the middle-east. How superior and fair is here Pasolini in comparison with all those funny blue-eyed and polished Hollywood casts of those pseudo-biblic stories ...

And third - Pasolini did very well to make the movie in black-and-white. It contributes to a mystical, spiritual and abstract atmosphere of the opus. In my opinion, it would be hardly possible to make this movie well in color.

And yes, I agree with those who say that practically all other movies about Jesus and those biblic stories are fundamentally wrong, and in cases of those (in)famous Hollywood versions - even funny to tears.

This Pasolini's opus is very honest and might be the 'very best film interpretation of Jesus' story.

Rendering Bible stories into film is a difficult task, but Pasolini's account of Matthew's Gospel is among the most successful. The narration of events in the Bible is generally quite sparse, with only the most salient details given; as a result, events are fraught with hidden depths and profundity. Medieval art gives a similar effect, using completely different techniques. Filmmakers of the Bible generally attempt to flesh out the stories to make them more "real," but the result is inevitably banal and overwrought at the same time. Pasolini uses a different approach. First of all, he adds almost nothing to the text of Matthew's Gospel, and all the dialogue and events are directly from Matthew. Next, it's filmed in black & white, and the acting, especially Jesus, is consistently understated. Many quiet shots of faces watching, reacting, or, in the case of Jesus, talking. In these ways, Pasolini succeeds, to some degree, in reproducing the effect of depth and transcendence found in the Bible. The music (from Bach, Blind Willie Johnson, and others) adds considerably to the power of the movie.

Pasolini's minimalist Jesus has an air of both humility and loftiness (as befitting one able to walk on water), but he is conspicuously lacking in emotion and expression. One might reply that Jesus (as God) doesn't share all our roller coaster emotions, but I see the New Testament Jesus as more of a Hamlet character, full of contradictory emotions. Pasolini's Jesus character's foreboding presentation could almost be seen as that of a young, conceited, dour, nihilistic Sophomore Philosophy student. A few quibbles: the Bible text describes large crowds of people following Jesus, but the movie only allows for a couple of dozen in most scenes. Also, in the movie, Jesus is often represented as preaching while he is walking, with his back turned away from his followers, who walk behind him. Finally, Mary the mother of Jesus is at most 20 when he is born, but she somehow becomes 70 years old during his ministry, when in fact she would have been only 50. With these reservations, then, I consider this the most successful Bible film I've seen.

The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)

This is such a stately, respectful, yet contemporary (and dare I say, Italian) production, in quiet black and white, it's hard to find fault with it. In some ways, I think it does exactly what it intends. It mixes long shots with close ups. It moves with clarity and sharp (no dissolve) cuts from face to face. It uses African-American gospel and Bach. It depends on solemnity, and it uses actors that have the faces, and demeanors, to be utterly solemn and strong.

All the actors are amateurs. Pasolini was an atheist. The triumph at the end is a matter of record. It's all here.

The question might be (for some) whether it is nevertheless a movie you want to watch. And I say, absolutely. You do have to like, or learn to like, movies that are about quiet ambiance, about passive expressions that say more than intense extroverted acting. The black and white photography, something of a throwback during this early 1960s production, gives it even more of the timeless, almost melancholy depth that keeps it going, owing something to the Dreyer's Joan of Arc, I think.

It's important to know this is not really an interpretation of the gospel, but a reading of it. The filming of course required actors, but it tries to be factually straight forward. That's incredibly hard to pull off without arrogance or religiosity. But Pasolini does it. The down side to this is that it's slow, or even (no sacrilege here), boring. I mean, I read the book.

For me, what makes it terrific is not only how it is filmed (the camera-work and editing) and the faces (all those faces, with the camera still and focused on them), but the sense of reality here. The holiness is removed, but not the sacred seriousness. It makes it seem possible in a very real way. The people, the places, all of it is not historic, not in particular, but the effect, the mood, the force of it all is profound. Even for a non-believer. It's quite something to get swept into.

I must say, as a new IMDb user I find this place to express one views a rather welcome find. Cathartic to say the least. Certain films haunt me. "The Gospel According to St Matthew" is one of them. The only possible explanation is the passion of its maker. Everything about it is so real that I remember the first time I saw it, I felt I had met Jesus. My relationship with Jesus had been torturous at best. Raised catholic by very catholic pre- Vatican Council parents. So, part of my rebellion had always been underlined by moving away from that pathology as far away as possible. Pasolini however, a Marxist homosexual, showed me a human side of the man I was suppose to follow that made sense, that touched me. Enrique Irazoqui plays Jesus in a way that may explain everything. He is just a guy but in his eyes, in his eyes there is something I've never seen before. Compassion without fake undertones. It chilled me. I loved him. I wanted to follow him. Pasolini wasn't trying to sell me anything, he wasn't trying to convert anyone he was doing what an artist, a real artist does. He was sharing his vision with me, with us. When people talk about movie experiences, this is the film that comes to my mind first. I'm glad to have to opportunity to share this with you.

Okay, so maybe not quite, but this is still an excellent film, by far the best depiction of the last days of Jesus's life. By taking the view that Jesus was a revolutionary rather than emphasising the religious aspects the film succeeds in presenting a unique view of the life, and death, of Jesus and the reactions of his followers. There are no mystical halos descending from heaven, no "angelic music" and none of the other cliches that Hollywood's attempts at presenting the story usually contain. Instead the humanity of those who lived the story comes through, and by doing this the film takes on emotional, even religious intensity totally lacking in other, larger budget depictions of Christ. Possibly the most moving part of all is the moment Peter realises he has disowned Jesus three times. This isn't portrayed as some great epic biblical act, the denial of the Messiah, but rather as the actions of a man, scared for himself, who, when he realises that he has betrayed his friend runs away in shame sobbing uncontrollably. the scene is given even more dramatic impact through the music, taken from Bach's St Matthews Passion, which perfectly fits the mood of the moment. Overall this is a brilliant film and anyone remotely interested in either good film making, the relationships between human beings under pressure, or the final days of Christ should see it.

Well, maybe there is, but I've never caught a glimpse of it. Most movies about him are fundamentally wrong. In a religion which has totally turned its back on the line "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of Heaven" (in fact, I am surprised that some pope or other did not officially removed that line from the Bible; be sure that this film retains it and has it come right out of the mouth of Jesus Christ, who, I assume, was its speaker in the Bible), movies about Jesus are generally overproduced messes that do nothing but retell the story with much less effect than the Bible itself has. Even Martin Scorsese's version of the story, The Last Temptation of Christ, suffers from this. Although, despite its flaws, it has a lot more power than most films about these same events.

I do not understand why Pier Paolo Pasolini, who was a Marxist, a homosexual, and an atheist, made this film. But, despite his reason, it has turned out to be a great masterpiece. No one has ever attempted to set the story in its proper setting, at least not to my knowledge. The characters here are certainly semitic and Middle Eastern, unlike the entirely Anglo-Saxon casts of every other Jesus film or even any other religious film. Also, the cast, made up of unprofessional actors including Pasolini's own mother as the elder Mary, has not one beautiful face amongst it, except for maybe the actress who plays the younger Mary; she is quite beautiful. These faces and bodies are real: unattractive, harsh and worn. Teeth are not straight and white, but crooked and discolored as they certainly would have been before dentists were around. Clothing is not beautifully colored, but plain and tattered. Only the richest people could afford dye for clothing. Pasolini has also forsaken the traditional look of Jesus Christ. While the facial hair remains similar, although maybe lessened, the long hair is dropped in favor for shorter hair, which is the way that people wore it at the time. The image of the long-haired Jesus is a case of syncresis, that is, the mixing of religions; that image was adopted from the ancient Greek depictions of Bacchus, the god of wine.

What results is an account as straighforward as can possibly exist. With Pasolini's own personal convictions, the audience does not have to feel like they are being preached at. Christians, unless they are so foolish as to believe that Jesus WAS an Anglo-Saxon, should be moved to tears. Nonbelievers (anyway, those who appreciate film) will reel at the marvelous use of classical music (including, strangely enough, Prokofiev's music from Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky), the greatness of the actors, especially the man who plays Christ (I've heard that he was a Marxist truck driver), and the beautiful simplicity of Pasolini's direction, sort of a perfect mix between Italian Neorealism and French New Wave. I myself, a staunch atheist, found it very powerful. 10/10.

After reading all of the reviews listed prior to my entry I find it hard to agree with how Pier Paolo Pasolini's sexuality or political views are even worth mentioning. What is worth mentioning is the wonderfully dramatic portrayal of the story of Jesus by amateur actors. The lack of so-called special effects is not something that even crossed my mind when viewing this movie. The artistic mixture of poetic verse from the New Testament combined with beautiful vistas and believable characters bring the story of Jesus to life on a personal level.

Pasolini's Biblical adaptation of the Gospel of Matthew far surpasses present day movies of this genre in its overall effect on the viewer. The real substance of the film, the story of Jesus, is not glossed over with big budget extras, professional actors, and special effects which only seem to overshadow the awe inspiring wisdom of the words spoken by Jesus in the New Testament.

The fact that the actors are of Mediterranean decent only serves to make the film more believable. The costumes and settings appear to be more realistic than the Hollywood versions that I have seen in other Biblical films. The Jewish Church leaders with their alien looking hats show how detached and imposing these figures must have appeared to the common people of the time of Jesus. When Jesus threatens their positions of power by bringing God directly to the people without need of a temple or an interpreter it sheds light on how these leaders felt threatened by a "poor son of a carpenter".

Most films of this genre focus more on the Romans oppression of Jesus without showing the betrayal by the Jewish leaders that led to the unjust crucifixion of Jesus.

I highly recommend this film to anyone who has become bored with seeing the story of Jesus on film. If you think that you have seen it all and do not want to sit through yet another trumped up version of the story of Jesus then I suggest that you view this movie, for it succeeds where all others have failed.

I think I've seen most, if not all, of the movies dealing with the life of Jesus. (There haven't been that many.) This is without a doubt the most different presentation I've ever seen. It's oddly captivating because of the stark visual contrasts and the direct and different approach used by the director concerning the teachings of Christ. Instead of hearing Jesus' small sermons in context of where and when he said them, much of it is just a head shot of him and many of his comments are all lumped together. It's actually too much to take in at one time - many of Jesus famous statements and no time to digest any of them.

There are a few shots of Jesus performing miracles, intermingling with all kinds of people, must mainly it's a lot of His rhetoric with nothing in the background. It's as if they tried to cram as much as Christ's profound statements into the two-hour movie as they could, so they come rapid-fire. And, since the dialog is in Italian, you have to read all the subtitles to know what he's saying and they are printed in the King James English! That is difficult for most people today to understand, so it really is a must that you've already read the Gospels in modern translations to know what Jesus much of the time. That's because some of the King James words are not ones we are familiar with today, or they have the opposite meaning than they do today. Yet, saying all that, I still found this oddly fascinating and I am not complaining about how they presented it. However, I don't think it would win any converts because most secular viewers would be bored to death with this film. That, and all the King James English, make the sermons way too difficult to comprehend.

The film is slow moving in many spots and today's movie viewer would be challenged to stick with this for the full two-and-a-quarter hours. To be honest, this isn't what most people - believers and non-believers - would call great entertainment. If cinematography means something special to you, you'll like this film better than someone just watching for the story

I could also nitpick and make fun of how all the men's hairstyles looked in here, which was mainly 1960 Italian, not First Century Middle Eastern, but that's incidental. I thought Mary looked realistic and Jesus certainly was portrayed with an intense and captivating face. John The Baptist, by the way, immersed people in the Jordan River. He did not kneel on a boulder and pour a handful of water on their head, as pictured in this film.

Being that Pier Paolo Pasolini, the director and writer of this film, was a Marxist rebel, it's obvious he liked Jesus for His anti-establishment words. Jesus was the most radical man ever to step on this planet. Just read his words. He said things that really shook up people back then, and still do today. He was very tough on the Pharisees, the Jewish religious leaders of the day and you can tell the director loves that. I do wish, however, that Pasolini hadn't overemphasized that side of Jesus and neglected much of the Lord's warmth and compassion that is written about in all the gospels. In this film, Christ comes across as ultra-serious, a hard-nosed and often cold individual, and sometimes very judgmental...but read the gospels and you'll find him mostly the opposite.

The music in here was excellent. Playing the old Negro spiritual, "Sometimes I Feel Like A Motherless Child" by Odetta, a few times was a very nice touch, and a profound statement at the same time.

Overall, I'm glad I finally was able to see this film. It was worth the time, and some of it is as interesting (and still Scripturally accurate) presentation of Christ I have seen on film, but I don't know if I watch it again......probably.

Along a rocky, barren coastline, Jesus begins teaching, primarily using parables. He attracts disciples; he's stern, brusque, and demanding. He comes to bring a sword, not peace, he says. He's in a hurry, moving from place to place near the Sea of Galilee, sometimes attracting a multitude, sometimes being driven away.

The director reportedly chose Matthew's Gospel over the others because he had decided that "John was too mystical, Mark too vulgar, and Luke too sentimental." An interesting analysis, and more interesting that he picked just one rather than combine them as people tend to do. Given Pasolini's well-known reputation as an atheist, a homosexual, and a Marxist, the reverential nature of his film could come as a surprise at a first approach.

The film received mostly good reviews from critics, including several Christian critics. Philip French called it "a noble film," and Alexander Walker said that "it grips the historical and psychological imagination like no other religious film I have seen. And for all its apparent simplicity, it is visually rich and contains strange, disturbing hints and undertones about Christ and his mission." The Vatican allegedly said it was the best version of Jesus' life on film. How strange that a homosexual, atheist revolutionary could tell the story so well... or perhaps it is not strange at all?

"Il Vangelo secondo Matteo" is probably the best film ever made about Jesus. The very sparseness of visual effects is evocative and highly suggestive: the supernatural is attained by showing very natural, even lowly people. Such an effect is emphasized by the use of non-professional actors: Pasolini probably owes something to the medieval Italian tradition of "rappresentazione sacra" (a representation of important moments of Jesus's life offered by everyday people), which is still practised nowadays. The powerful effect of Jesus's preaching is very well rendered by Pasolini, and this helps to forgive some poetical licenses on his part. In the end, anyway, this is not a movie you remain indifferent to: either you love it or you hate it. And this, maybe, is what contributes to making it a faithful representation of Jesus's life.

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.

The fact that this is hailed as a "masterpiece" and "one of cinema's greatest achievements" is truly astonishing. Along with Herzorg's "Heart of Glass", Pasolini's "Gospel" is one of the truly abhorrent works of world cinema. I spend my life defending "art-house" cinema against its detractors who claim that it's pretentious and self-indulgent. This is truly one of those films which gives all of world cinema / art-house cinema a bad name.

Where to start...? Needless to say, one cannot really lay any blame on the screenplay. Here we have one of the most fascination, stirring, important, enduring and influential stories of all time, without which we would have no Man with No Name, no Star Wars, no Harry Potter. I can honestly say I've seen pre-school productions of the passion which moved me more than this. In fact, the most astonishing thing about this film is that it manages to make you not care about Jesus' life or death at all.

The acting is staggeringly bad. The guy who plays Jesus looks the part, but he has one facial expression with which to communicate the entire range of Jesus' experience. One facial expression for the whole movie. Seriously, this guy makes Steven Seagal look like Laurence freaking Olivier. In spite of his oak-like demeanour, Pasolini's Christ manages to come off as angry and intolerant, rather than divine. He shouts, he condemns, he dictates. This is hardly surprising, given Pasolini's radially political sensibilities, but did he have to make Jesus look like a jerk just to appease his own malcontented frustrations?

The actors playing the disciples, admittedly, have greater range, though not by much. Typically, their expressions range from confused to bemused. What's worse, they look like a bunch of Italian rent boys; all designer stubble and greasy hair. One of them has more wax in his hair than Elvis, which is fascinating given that the film is set 2000 years ago.

This brings me to one of my biggest problems with this film; the countless anachronisms. Costume design is all over the place - no two people look like they come form the same period or region. The music used ranges from traditional Congolese songs to Negro-spirituals to European Baroque choral music. Many critics lauded this "eclectic" use of costume and music. For me, hearing Odetta singing "Motherless Child" while I'm looking a Jesus clearly in his mother's arms while she wears Byzantine-era clothing is plain stupidity. Frankly, it's also a bit of an insult to the song, which is about black children who were taken from their parents as infants to be slaves. Is Pasolini comparing the plight of the Jews to the plight of early slaves in America? Frankly, based on the evidence so far, that would be giving him way too much credit.

I am also confused as to the presence of a female angel, since none are ever mentioned in the book of Matthew or any other book. This wouldn't bother me per se, were it not for the fact that, this glaring error notwithstanding, Pasolini deliberately stuck to the gospel verbatim, even going as far as to use no dialogue aside from that found in the book of Matthew. For this, the film suffers even more. I hardly think Matthew was worried about the book's validity as a screenplay when he was writing it, so this pious insistence on sticking to his words is absurd, and totally out of keep with the other "stylistic" choices the film makes, namely the rampant anachronisms.

Continuity and sound-dubbing are hilariously bad; one of my favourite moments is when we see a man playing with his baby. The baby looks annoyed and grumpy, yet the image is complimented with the classic baby- giggling effect you get in diaper commercials. When Jesus is a baby, Mary is played by a girl who can't have been more than 15 years old. When Jesus is an adult - some 30ish years later - Mary is played by Pasolini's mother, who was almost 70 years old at the time. Are we supposed overlook the fact that Mary has bizarrely aged 55 years? If so, why? What is Pasolini's point in using his own mother as the mother of Christ? Surely an atheist, Marxist homosexual would have no desire to compare himself to Christ... Frankly, I don't care enough to think about it.

The camera operator was clearly either drunk or a child. On at least two occasions he pans to an empty space before clumsily fumbling up or down toward the person or thing he was supposed to be filming. One has to wonder, why on earth didn't Pasolini simply do another take? Was he in a hurry? I can only deduce that he was, as the whole film is made in such a slap-dash way, it's as if he simply didn't care what ended up on the screen. And there we are again, not caring. Pasolini has managed to make me completely indifferent to what is supposed to be the most moving story ever told.

Put simply, this film is an abomination. An insult to cinema and an insult to anybody who has two-braincells to rub together. Avoid!

Each time I see that movie I'm barely able to speak right after that. Nor would I write extensive review. Open yourself and be prepared for the most unique voyage in the world of Pasolini; if the words "cinema of poetry" doesn't make sense after that film then nothing would. Bach and Prokofiev music add extreme intensity in simple, yet beautiful, screenplay. Forget about scene cutting and poor effects: just breath this film,treasuries lie here, right in front of you.

Amazingly it took a Communist to make the most powerful and certainly the greatest film on Christ. Passolini shows miracles, but without the Hollywood special effects. The music is outstanding and captivating. By noticing the very high average score by voters in your survey this is not a unique position. I remember thinking that this comes closer to Jesus as a revolutionary than any other film I've seen, but wasn't that the message? Perhaps Jesus seemed too angry at times, or was it simply impatience or a sense of urgency. Controversial but thoughtful and powerful.

"Il Vangelo secondo Matteo" is, to put it simply, a masterpiece of unrivalled monumental beauty. I recommend this movie to anyone, religious and not religious alike, but particularly to the latter since this movie may actually provide them with a glimpse of what is so superb about the gospel, however one looks at it. I think that in order to fully appreciate this magnificent creation by Pasolini, one has to have an understanding of what earthly monumental beauty is about - in other words, one has to have a full understanding of what the 1500 and 1600 meant to Italian culture and Italian aesthetics. During the deposition, Mary is a mother, and Jesus is a son, earthly characters depicted in the way Caravaggio may have depicted them. Pasolini presents the Gospel in all its natural beauty, an earthly and heavenly masterpiece at the same time, like Michelangelo's Genesis in the Sistine Chapel. It is impossible to understand Pasolini's aesthetics in this movie (as well as in Accattone) without an understanding of the achievements brought about by Italian figurative arts of the Renaissance and Baroque periods.

As far as the comparison with Zeffirelli's life of Jesus Christ goes, I will say that I do not think Pasolini can be put on the same level as Zeffirelli, not even with regard to his worst movies, which are nevertheless far above anything Zeffirelli has ever produced.

Pasolini's account of the Gospel is a revolutionary experience. In terms of its religious insight, it stands at least on the same level as Dreyer's "Ordet", or Bresson's "Diary of a country priest".

The film does not portray Jesus Christ as He historically must have been, something some later Gospel films have been trying. But Pasolini seems to have tried to portray the Jesus of the Gospel of St. Matthew as it must have been to the eyes of believing beholders. This story is as it has been, even if it is totally unhistorical. You feel you come very close to the real Jesus Christ, much closer than through other films. I know of a Hindu viewer who immediately felt that this was the real Jesus Christ. It helps that Pasolini made the film in black and white. It is very poetic in composition. But I also known of viewers who almost fell asleep after the first thirty minutes and were not interested in seeing the rest, even though they could follow the Italian. I find it a good thing Jesus speaks Italian and not Shakespearian English.

While not nearly as good as "King Of Kings" or "Jesus Of Nazareth", this film still takes it's place among the top 5 films ever made on the life of Christ. While you will not come away with that "uplifting" feeling you would get from the aforementioned movies, it will still stay with you for a long time after seeing it. This is one of the most bizarre and unusual films of the genre simply because of the way it was photographed and because of it's obvious shoe string budget. Dialogue is at a minimum as are the special effects but that only adds to the "uneasiness" one feels while watching this movie. You get the feeling that a documentary camera crew armed with a 16 millimeter camera actually followed Mary, Joseph, Jesus and the Apostles around to film them during their day! Weird camera angles, abrupt cuts, odd fade outs and fade ins all add to the unique look and feel of the movie, as does the grainy black and white film. No large scale, big budget scenes with 1000's of extra's here, just a simple technique of storytelling though certain scenes appear rushed and hastily done like Christ's journey to Mount Cavalry, the Crucifiction and his ressurection. Certain differences in presentation also will tell you that this is no "ordinary" film on the life of Christ. When Jesus goes to the desert, he is not tempted by satan's voice or a snake but by an unassuming man like you or I. And don't expect to see a white, long haired, bearded, blue eyed man as Christ. Here he is presented as a man who is caucasian but darker, with shorter hair and only remnants of a beard but it works to the overall effect of the movie. Here also, Jesus is presented more as a revaloutionary then as a prophet. Overall a unique presentation on the life of Christ that will leave a lasting impression on you for better or worse. See it!

Pier Paolo Pasolini is considered by many film critics one of the greatest directors in the history of Italian cinema. "The Gospel According to St. Matthew" is the first of his films that I have watched. What strikes me is the combined beauty and simplicity - the composition, the art direction, the costume design, the cinematography and the music. Shot mostly in Italy, with some scenes filmed in Ouarzazate, Morocco, this is an interpretation of the life of Christ well worth watching.

As Pasolini was raised according to principles of Christian faith,he some felt it necessary to offer his artistic contribution to his faith by making an honest film about Jesus Christ.The making of "Gospel according to Saint Matthew" was a huge moral task for Pasolini as he was always disregarded by the people of his times because of his sexual and political lifestyle.The fact that his version is far superior than those of Martin Scorcese and Mel Gibson makes us to believe that Cinéaste Pasolini had tactfully settled artistic scores with all of his detractors.The sad thing is that there is not much written about this film. Much of this film's brilliance comes in the form of Tonino Delli Colli's camera catching just expressions on the faces of innocent,non professional players.Although miracles have been shown but they do not resemble cheap special effects.This is something which separates this Pasolini film from cheap gimmicks initiated by Lars Von Trier in his dogma films.A sense of family is also achieved by Pasolini when he cast his mother as Mary.

Here is a real oddity; a religious film directed by an atheist and Marxist, Pier Passolini. I share his non religious views, as a retired Catholic myself, but I can still appreciate the aesthetic beauty of the Sistine Chapel and other vestiges of the Roman church.

St. Matthew, as the title implies, is based upon the writings of Matt. The black and white imagery, with long silent stretches, relies heavily on the actor's expressions, rather than dialogue. Many amateurs were used, including Passolini's mother as the Virgin Mary. Somehow, it works, as the cast is surprisingly good. Enrique Irazoqui plays Jesus as a wandering Jew, excuse the expression, roaming about and speaking a message of love to strangers he meets along the way. There is no preaching or piety, just a simple story of a man spreading the word of tolerance and salvation. The cinematography is somber and I was impressed by the simple and straightforward approach that Passolini used in creating this often overdone biblical story.

I've tried to agree with the many opinions here.The high rate of the movie. I don't have many movies which irritate me, but this is definitely one of them. I kept in mind it's from 1964. But the movie is very slow, and the actor who plays Jesus annoys me deeply. Even when he says the standard things you hear in all the movies, with him it sounds like arrogance. If you don't follow him, you're not worthy of him? I seriously was in agony while trying to watch this movie and I can't see how this movie has ever scored above a 5.. I probably miss something others do see. I've seen almost every movie about Jesus, this is by far the worst one I've seen. He carries hasn't been beaten once, and he can't carry his cross longer then one step?!