Jesus vs. Barabbas: The Epic Showdown!

A later entry in the 1950s-60s surge of Bible epics, KING OF KINGS is not necessarily a "great movie", but it is certainly an interesting one, even more so than some of the great Bible movies.  Produced by MGM, who had had a mega-hit with BEN-HUR only two years before, it was directed by Nicholas Ray, who had previously directed James Dean in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE (1955), arguably the most famous of his three performances.  KING OF KINGS was not very well-received when released in 1961, in part because it was another in a string of recent Bible movies including the highly-acclaimed BEN-HUR (which the marketing imitated without subtlety), QUO VADIS (1951) and THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956), but mostly due to its untraversed perspective on the life of Jesus Christ.
However, that's ultimately what makes it so uniquely interesting; we all know the Jesus story so well and have seen it so many times over, but KING OF KINGS tells it from the vantage point of contemporary politics in Jesus' world.  It's still the Jesus story, it still has a Nativity, miracle working, the Sermon on the Mount, the Last Supper and the Passion, but they're presented as elements woven throughout a main story about Judas Iscariot (Rip Torn) and his conflict between Jesus (Jeffery Hunter), the Messiah of Peace, and the world's interpretation of a Messiah, a warlord to vanquish the much despised Romans, possibly Barabbus (the murder released instead of Jesus in the Bible account) (Harry Guardino); while a secondary story involves the story of John the Baptist (Robert Ryan), Jesus' brotherhood to him, and this intertwined with elements of Herod Antipas' (Frank Thring) placement in the context of the story.

Jeffery Hunter as Jesus of Nazareth

Today, the film has a more positive reputation, largely due to its emphasized interest and pathos in areas of the story that are often overlooked, such as a surprisingly touching moment when Jesus visits John the Baptist in Herod's dungeon and they share a moment of comfort before John's impending beheading.  Like most Bible epics, it has some cornball moments and it isn't always as well-focused in its editing as it ought to be, but for those open to a modernist approach, and yet a faithful one, it offers an thoughtful and serviceable cinematic experience.

KING OF KINGS (1961)
2 1/2 out of 4
Directed by: Nicholas Ray
Starring: Jeffery Hunter, Rip Torn, Harry Guardino, Robert Ryan, Frank Thring, Brigid Bazlen
PG-13 for some violent content.

Nobody Died While Filming the Chariot Race

The record number of Academy Awards won by a single film to date is 11, out of the estimated maximum of 16 (given that certain awards cannot be given to the same film, i.e. Best Documentary Short could not go to the Best Picture, because Best Picture has to be a feature).  At the 31st Academy Awards, MGM was able to claim the fame of the record-holding GIGI (1958), which swept the Oscars, winning all nine of its nominations, beating the previous record of eight Oscars won by a single film.  However, the studio was in financial straits (curiously, this seems to be a regular occurrence in MGM's history).  With the rising popularity of television, and the U.S. Supreme Court's order for the studio system's monopoly of theater chains to be broken up just a decade before, MGM risked bankruptcy if their new film wasn't a major hit.  On the table was the massively-budgeted remake of BEN-HUR, based on the book Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ by Civil War Union General  Lew Wallace, which had been adapted twice before.  Development began at a proposed budget of $7 million, which soon shot to $15 million (approximately $116.5 million when considered for inflation), making it the most expensive film production to date, with the biggest sets ever built, including the 18-acre sized chariot race arena.  A further $3 million was invested in a colossal marketing campaign for the film including, as weird as it may seem today, a vast array of youth-friendly marketing tie-ins such as candy, toys and chariot-inspired tricycles, as well as perfumes, jewelry and neckties, and a "research department" to build and gauge teen interest in the film by surveying student in over 2,000 high schools across the country.
When finally released in November 1959, the daunting expenses of the production and marketing paid off with a $20.4 million margin of profit, plus another $10.1 million when re-released ten years later, which brought sighs of relief to all involved and saved the studio.  In addition, the film was a major critical hit, receiving rave reviews and nominations for 12 Academy Awards.  At the ceremony for the 32nd Academy Awards, it won a record 11 Oscars, a record that remains unbeaten to this day, and remained unmatched for a full 38 years until TITANIC (1997) won as many out of 14 nominations, and once more another six years later when THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING won a full sweep of its 11 nominations.  Today, BEN-HUR remains the standard of great Bible epics, and is often considered a close second in rankings of the greatest Hollywood epics, edged out by David Lean's LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1960).
Summary of Narrative Events

Before people shook hands, there were "secret drinking arm locks"

The story is a lot like a Jewish Count of Monte Cristo, which the book's author cited as an inspiration.  It is the story of one Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston), a highly-regarded prince of Judea, who is reunited with his best childhood friend Messala (Stephen Boyd), who has returned to Judea to command the Roman garrison.  Messala expects his old friend to assist him in tempering Jewish resistance to the Romans and identify influential dissenters, but Judah is loyal to his people and heritage so refuses, and Messala is left seething.  When the new Roman governor enters the city on parade, a loose tile tumbles from Judah's roof, where he and his family watches on, and the falling debris spooks the governor's mount into throwing its rider, injuring the governor.  Although the evidence is incontrovertibly in favor of Judah's innocence, Messala denies any investigation and instead has Judah, Judah's mother, Miriam (Martha Scott), and sister, Tirzah (Cathy O'Donnell), all arrested, with Judah condemned to the galleys of Roman warships and his family imprisoned indefinitely.  As Judah stumbles in the chain gain taking him to his fate through Nazareth, he is denied water by his captors, but a stranger (Jesus Christ) offers Judah water anyway.  Judah is perplexed by this kindness from a stranger, and while never forgetting the incident, Judah hardens his heart in his merciless three years of servitude as a galley slave.  In the midst of a battle (complete with makeup effects that border on humorous as men missing limbs grab at their bloody stumps with the bone cartoonishly protruding from the gore), Judah's ship is rammed through by another and sinks, but Judah escapes and saves the life of the Roman Consul (Jack Hawkins).  In return, the Consul petitions before the Roman Emperor for Judah's freedom, with success, and as several years pass in Rome, Judah becomes a famed charioteer and is officially adopted and made a Roman citizen by the Consul.  Still longing for his homeland and promised vengeance, Judah returns to Judea, intending to free his mother and sister and kill Messala.  Upon re-introducing himself to Messala, Judah demands that Messala release Miriam and Tirzah, but when Messala has his men look into the matter, they find the women, unseen since their imprisonment, have developed leprosy.  To spare their pride, Miriam and Tirzah request that their old house servant Esther (Haya Harareet) tell Judah that they've died.  Judah becomes acquainted with an Arab sheik, Ilderim, and agrees to race his stallions in a race to celebrate the new Judean governor, Pontius Pilate (Frank Thring).  In the arena, there is no law, and there he can get his revenge against Messala, who is the standing champion of the Judean race circuit, thanks in part to a penchant for fighting dirty.  Judah wins the race, and in the process, causes Messala to crash his chariot, throwing him into the raceway where he is trampled by the other racers' horses.  On his deathbed, Messala taunts Judah with the news that Miriam and Tirzah have become lepers, and Judah seeks them out in the Valley of the Lepers, despite Esther's protests on their behalf.  When Judah discovers that Tirzah is dying, he takes her and Miriam to see Jesus, whom Esther witnessed preach at the Sermon on the Mount and is said to have healed many others.  As they get to Jerusalem though, they learn that Jesus is to be crucified.  As Jesus is marched through the streets with his cross, he collapses and Judah rushes to his assistance, recognizing him as the stranger who gave him water.  As Judah witnesses the crucifixion and Christ's forgiveness to his executors, he finds his bitterness relinquished, and as the rain washes down the hill Golgotha, the blood of Christ is carried with it to Miriam and Tirzah, who are mourning in a cave with Esther, and they find their leprosy healed.
The Chariot Race- Fake Death Count: 3, real Death Count:0, the Legacy: Extensive
One of the most famous and influential scenes in cinema, and the most incredible sequence in the film, is the nine minutes-long chariot race.  Filmed with a 2.76:1 aspect ratio, one of the widest screens ever used (for reference, traditional "fullscreen" is 1.33:1, and the common U.S. widescreen is 1.85:1), the sequence has it's own "prologue" in the form of a pre-race parade in order to showcase the massive 18-acre arena set, before the actual race begins.  The chariot race is an example of one of the most influential and spectacular action sequences ever filmed, and George Lucas even created a fairly blatant homage to it with the podrace sequence in STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE (1999), complete with an opening parade and competitors introduction and a race villain who doesn't play fair.  In fact, the main racers even share similar color schemes, such as Anakin's blue-and-gold colors, very reminiscent of Judah's, and Sebulba's orange-and-black is like Messala's red-and-black.  However, well over half of Lucas' race sequence is composed of computerized elements, and BEN-HUR has the unique thrill of being all shot on a live set.  I'm not suggesting that CG is automatically less desirable than practical effects, which is a popular sentiment amongst film circles, but one that I disagree with; I think the context of the scene needs to be considered and then the decision can be made accordingly.  But while I think that both are thrilling action sequences, there's definitely something awe-inspiring about knowing that what you're seeing had to actually be done in real life.
One of the most persistent urban legends of Hollywood pertains to the on-set demise of a certain stuntman during the race filming, and that the accident footage was included in the final cut, as indicated in the memoir of a stuntman who had worked on the film, but the story has been debunked given that the only records of an on-set death was that of producer Sam Zimbalist, who died of a heart attack at 57.  However, there was a near-death experience for a stuntman that did wind up onscreen; a stunt was planned for Judah's chariot to jump over another chariot's wreckage, but what was not planned was the stuntman being thrown into the air and out of the chariot.  Fortunately, the man only sustained a minor chin injury, and close-up footage of Heston hanging to the front of the chariot and clambering back in was shot to go along with the accidental footage.  To be fair though, it's understandable that so many have believed it when you see those charioteers trampled under the cutting hooves galloping by (dummies were used).

The spectacular chariot race, another case of a racist viewpoint blemishing something awesome

For Love of the Hollywood Bible Epic
Biblically-inspired epic films are been around since the beginning of the mainstream film industry, the earliest Bible epic of prominence being D.W. Griffith's massive silent production, INTOLERANCE, in 1916, when modern cinematography and intercutting were still being invented.  Besides the obvious scriptural source material, consistent characteristics of the sub-genre include enormous budgets in order to build dauntingly vast set pieces, so-called "cast[s] of thousands", sentimentality and often stronger violence and more revealing outfits than would otherwise be permitted.  BEN-HUR had been made twice before, once in 1907, and more prominently in 1925, but it was in the 1950s, when the Bible epic was making a comeback, that BEN-HUR brought it into a whole new level of respect.
Television had recently become a regular household presence, and it was crippling the film industry, so Hollywood was looking for gimmicks that television couldn't match.  Television couldn't spend as much money on an episode as Hollywood could for a movie, so Hollywood began banking more heavily on major movies.  B-movies toyed with "interactive" gimmickry like red-and-blue-tinted 3-D, buzzers in the seats and live show elements.  More prestigious productions gambled on revolutionary new visual and audio formats, color cinematography and sheer spectacle.  BEN-HUR dove headlong into the more respectable of these new exclusives, stretching the limits of wide scope cinematography, building the biggest sets to date, spending more money than any film prior and inventing the modern action sequence with spectacular stunt-work and destruction.  At a time when the cinema was facing an opposition of unparalleled influence, BEN-HUR re-invigorated the scene by proving what audiences had forgotten was unique to the cinematic experience, and paved the way for the modern blockbuster which, for better or worse, waited a short 16 years into the future.

BEN-HUR (1959)
4 out of 4 stars
Directed by: William Wyler
Starring: Charlton Heston, Haya Harareet, Stephen Boyd, Hugh Griffith, Finlay Currie, Frank Thring, Cathy O'Donnell, Martha Scott, Jack Hawkins
Rated G (but would probably merit a PG-13 by today's standards for some sequences of intense violence/action) 
YOU MIGHT ENJOY BEN-HUR (1959) IF YOU LIKED:
QUO VADIS (1951)
SPARTACUS (1960) 
GLADIATOR (2000)
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956)

G.I. Joseph, the Pyrotechnics Spectacular

G.I. JOE: RETALIATION
2 out of 4 stars
Directed by Jon M. Chu
Starring: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Byung-hun Lee, Jonathan Pryce, Ray Park, Adrianne Palicki, Elodie Yung, Channing Tatum, D.J. Catrona, Luke Bracey, Ray Stevenson, RZA
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of combat violence and martial arts action throughout, and for brief sensuality and language.

Well, crap.  You'd think it would be a given that an action movie, wherein the main players are super-powered soldiers and mega-ninjas, would be unavoidably awesome.  But unfortunately, G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA (2009) proved that theory wrong, and now the sequel/reboot, G.I. JOE: RETALIATION, has done the same, albeit in a different way.
With a new director, new writers and new stars, RETALIATION nonetheless follows up faithfully on the open-ended conclusion of THE RISE OF COBRA, wherein COBRA (archenemy organization to the Joes) agent/master-of-disguise, Zartan, has infiltrated the White House and is impersonating the President (Jonathan Pryce, delivering a fun and unhinged performance).  The G.I. Joes, the elite world protection force (like Team America, but with sincerity), is in the Middle East preventing terrorists (in turbans!) from obtaining nukes, when COBRA forces attack on orders by the President/Zartan, incinerating most of the Joes.  Among the survivors are the massively muscular Marvin Hinton aka Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson), Flint (D.J. Catrona) and Jaye Burnett aka Lady Jaye (Adrianne Palicki), as well as the silently stoic ultra-ninja, Snake Eyes (stuntman Ray Park, best known as Darth Maul), who's been training in the Himalayas with fellow ninja Jinx (Elodie Yung) under the tutelage of the Blind Master (RZA, sporting an odd sort of "black man's fu manchu").  The Joe's discover that the President is not who he says he is and as it turns out, he's been petitioning for worldwide nuclear disarmament so that COBRA can hijack the world with its space weapon thing, code-named Zeus.
The  obscenely thin plot is present simply to sustain over an hour-and-a-half of action set-pieces, but it can't even do that; regardless, they roll the action sequences out dutifully.  Seriously, although many movies are described as "non-stop action," few are as aptly described thus as this.  And hey, maybe that's really all that G.I. Joe should be about, but it's like they aren't even trying outside of action choreography, and worse, quite a bit of the action flirts with incoherency as it utilizes excessively rapid editing and blurry, spastic camerawork in a misguided imitation of BOURNE series.  But I guess you get what you pay for, and here you get a bulging surplus of combat and destruction, accompanied by a rattling rock soundtrack and aggressively cheesy macho/homoerotic bromancing.

A bromance made in heaven

The tone of the whole is wildly unsteady as it seems either unaware of the difference between, or whether to settle on pulp or simple juvenility; for instance, you get ninjas twirling katanas between shooting massive firearms and COBRA agents replacing the Stars & Stripes with a COBRA banner atop the White House, but then you also have tons of goofy banter and no shortage of childish fantasy embodiments.  The best way I can describe the tone of this film is like a cross between Michael Bay's TRANSFORMERS trilogy and the THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS franchise, but the audience it's actually aimed at is unclear due to its sensibilities that waver between frat boy and 9-years-old boy, as the copious violence tests the possibilities of the PG-13 rating and conservative politics are laced throughout the script.
Actually, the conservative politics aren't all that surprising, and they'll be pleasing to certain demographics, although not so much to the teen and college-age audiences that the movie relies on.  Despite the popular belief, Hollywood does not quite run as liberal as thought, and while the liberal worldview is the majority opinion in Hollywood, the Hollywood product has a tendency to lean in the direction opposite of the dominant political party.  That is, most movies don't endorse an actual political view, due to the risk of alienating any audience, but the ones that do lean conservative during a liberal administration.  So in this case, the plot seriously has elements in opposition to nuclear disarmament, in fact the plan of the villains revolves around getting countries to disarm themselves of nukes, so that the villains can then swoop in on defenseless nations with their super-weapon.  Guns are on display with a pornographic panache, the international cooperation-based G.I. Joes of the last film are replaced by American exceptionalism and when Lady Jaye introduces herself undercover to Zartan/the President, she introduces herself to him as a Fox News reporter.  To my non-politically motivated dismay, he then responds with a flirtatious "that's why you look so 'fair and balanced'.  Yuck.
On the bright side, there is a magnificent action showcase of non-stop, dialogue-free ninja combat ranging from a Himalayan dojo to a sheer mountainside, lasting nearly ten minutes long.  It starts out as Snake Eyes and Jinx are taking COBRA ninja, Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee) hostage, and that unfortunately involves the incoherent hand-to-hand combat where the camera chases every damn movement, but then Snake Eyes and Jinx fight to protect their prize against a squad of COBRA ninjas while repelling along a vast stretch of rocky mountainside, and that's pretty awesome.

Ninja like stealth just fine, but...guns

Also, the film is relentlessly fast-paced, and though it's exhausting and completely ignores the story, sometimes even throwing in scenes with inexplicably zero relation to the rest, i.e., a way out of place and useless prologue sequence, it does all go by with surprising quickness.
The cast does fine too, with the Rock doing his usual shtick as a charmingly charismatic macho man with a douchey look, and Jonathan Pryce is amusingly unrestrained as the villainous Zartan, disguised as the President.  Stuntmen Ray Park and Byung-hun Lee don't really need to act anyway, because their casting really is all about their stunts, so that's all good, while Channing Tatum has some funny moments as Conrad Hauser aka Duke, but his role is so inconsequential that it's a wonder that they even bothered to bring him back at all.  As Flint, it's easy to forget that D.J. Catrona is even in this, as he lacks any screen presence and basically just fills in space.  Bruce Willis makes an appearance as the original G.I. Joe, General Joe Colton, and plays it with dry humor, although his best lines have already been heard in the advertising.  Just on the side, as a fun bit of trivia, the young rookie, Mouse, who is featured early on as a member of Duke and Roadblock's team, is played by Joseph Mazzello, who played John Hammond's grandchild, Tim Murphy, in JURASSIC PARK (1993).
I don't think RETALIATION fulfills the not-to-hard-to-fulfill promise of being better than THE RISE OF COBRA, but it does do its own thing, and even if you didn't realize it was possible, there is definitely more action.  As usual, it's a matter of taste.

YOU MIGHT ENJOY G.I. JOE: RETALIATION IF YOU LIKED:
FAST FIVE (2011)
TRANSFORMERS (2007)
THE MAN WITH THE IRON FISTS (2012)
BATTLESHIP (2012)
RED (2010) 

The Most Faithful Bible Film was Made by a Gay Marxist

Pier Paolo Pasolini is widely recognized as one the most important directors of cinema with the realm of film scholarship and study, but in today's world, this once tremendously controversial world figure is unlikely to ring any bells in the minds of all but a few.  His films were not widely appealing, nor were they meant to be so; he was a pretentious slave to his art if there ever was one, but while his Italian "art-house" films are rarely seen by the average moviegoer, his works have had a significant influence on the state of cinema today.  He first arrived on the film industry scene 1961 with ACCATTONE!, which introduced a new and ultra-grim form of neorealism in a story about the seedy underbelly of post-war Italian society, and when he was brutally murdered in 1975, his final and perhaps most famous completed film was SALO, OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM (Salo o le 120 giomate di Sodoma), an almost unwatchable quasi-adaptation of the Marqius De Sade's infamous ode to sexual perversions, torture and, well, sadism.  In between those and a few other lesser-noted films, Pasolini, that figurehead of the extreme political left, an unabashed atheist, Marxist and homosexual, made what is probably still the most accurate film adaptation of the Biblical Jesus Christ: THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW (1964).
In 1962, Pasolini had been invited by Pope John XXIII to engage in a dialogue with non-Catholic figures of the art community.  As described in the book Pasolini Requiem, by Barth David Schwartz, while on that trip, Pasolini became confined to his hotel room when the pope's presence had resulted in severe traffic congestion, and in his efforts to occupy his time, Pasolini discovered a copy of the Bible in his room.  After reading the four Gospels straight through, ambitions to adapt one of the them shot to the top of his priorities.  As he said in regards to his personal feelings toward religious matters, "I may be an unbeliever, but I am an unbeliever who has a nostalgia for a belief."

Enrique Irazoqui, a Spanish economics student, as Jesus

Unlike most cinematic depictions of the story of Jesus, Pasolini had no interest in creating an amalgam of the four Gospels, but instead intended to adapt only one, his choice being the Gospel of St. Matthew, preferring it to John, which he described as "too mystical", Luke, which he deemed "too sentimental", and Mark, which was "too vulgar".  Using the Gospel of St. Matthew has the main shooting script, Pasolini shot the film in rural Italy on a shoestring budget.  As per usual, he cast non-professional actors in the roles, with Jesus played by Enrique Irazoqui (with dialogue dubbed by Enrico Maria Salerno), a Spanish economics student, and his own mother Susanna as the older Mary, mother of Jesus, while the rest of the cast was assembled mainly of locals from nearby villages.  With deliberate disregard for historical or cultural accuracy, Pasolini's visual approach was based on various periods of classic Christian art, often in a mishmash of elements, such as the very Byzantine-inspired look of Jesus or the Angel of the Lord (played by Rossana Di Rocco) and the Renaissance-inspired, and entirely non-Jewish, apparel of the Pharisees.

Joseph taking Mary and Baby Jesus into Egypt

When the finished film was released in Italy, while most film critics praised the film for its noble simplicity, figures of both the political left and right reacted harshly.  At its Venice Festival premiere, right-wing Catholics picketed the film, with many outraged simply that Pasolini, that paragon of sin, had made a film about Jesus [Remember when Mel Gibson wanted to make a Maccabees film?  Not even on the same level], and others perceived the film as an attack on their right-wing, pro-capitalist politics, such as the scene of the rich young man whom Jesus instructs to sell his fine things and give to the poor (Matt. 19:16-30).  In contrast, the far political left of Pasolini's own persuasion were disdainful of the straightforward religious ideology, and Pasolini admitted a "disgust" for some of those elements which he labeled as "disgusting Pietism", but he also defended the religious nature of his film from his peers, accusing Marxists of a tendency toward conformity and unwilling to acknowledge the important human questions of spirituality and faith.  Despite the negative reaction from far right-wing Catholics, the Vatican released a list of 45 great films divided into three categories of Religion, Values and Art, with THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW listed among the Great Religious Films and praised as "completely faithful".
As such, there really not much sense giving a summary of the film's plot; the visual interpretation is the only thing about it that can differ from the Bible, but even that doesn't try anything too new.  The use of dialogue is really quite sparse, with the better part of the story told in visuals, or "pure film", but of what dialogue there is, there is not a single line that cannot be found in the Gospel of Matthew verbatim. 
When you really look at it though, it's easy to see what drew Pasolini to such fervent pursuit of the project.  Pasolini was a first and foremost a poet, which alone would have drawn him to the moving prose of the Bible, as well as classical literary and myth motifs, but perhaps most of all was a feeling of relatability he found in the Christ.  Here was a man outside of society, a man who strove to change the world, to change the injustices of society; an revolutionary who kept company with those whom society had shunned.  His leftist leanings found an ally in Christ's progressive movement and words of comfort and promise to the poor.
  It seems apparent that what Pasolini aims to convey through THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW is a question of 'What if the world had actually taken up Jesus' cause?'  What if...?

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW (Il vangelo secondo Matteo)
3 out of 4 stars
Directed by: Pier Paolo Pasolini
Starring: Enrique Irazoqui, Settimio De Porto, Rossana Di Rocco, Susanna Pasolini, Ferruccio Nuzzo
Not Rated (contains some PG-level violence)

There's No Fart Jokes in THE CROODS?!

THE CROODS

3 out of 4 stars
Directed by: Chris Sanders, Kirk De Micco
Voice Cast: Nicholas Cage, Emma Stone, Ryan Reynolds, Cathrine Keener, Cloris Leachman, Clark Duke

Can you believe that a movie called THE CROODS has nearly no scatological humor to speak of, at least, none that I noticed.  Not a single flatulence gag, or even a burp.  Zilch.  Go figure.
Anyway, now that that tantalizing question is out of the way; THE CROODS is the newest animated feature from the studios at DreamWorks, the studio whose best films include the likes of SHREK (2001), SHREK 2 (2004), KUNG FU PANDA (2008) and THE PRINCE OF EGYPT (1998), while some of their lesser features have included SHARK TALE (2004), MADAGASCAR (2004), BEE MOVIE (2007) and SHREK THE THIRD (2007).  So where does THE CROODS rank on the DreamWorks Animation scale of quality?  Eh, somewhere in between, like, the upper end of in between.  It's a very good movie that's been stifled by a mediocre script; a formulaic, stale story, but one that's told in earnest with exuberance, albeit, arguably misguided.
The Croods of the title are a prehistoric family of cave-dwelling Cro-Magnons, led by their paranoid patriarch, Grug (Nicholas Cage), whose creed is "Never not be afraid," but his stereotypically rebellious teenage daughter, Eep (Emma Stone), has grown weary of her dad's rules that have helped them survive, but have kept them from living.  One night, Eep sneaks out of the cave and meets a handsomely evolved homo sapiens inventor named Guy (Ryan Reynolds), who warns her of the approaching seismic shift he calls "the end of the world".  When the earthquakes come and destroy the Croods' cave, the family is forced to venture out into the unknown world, so Grug takes Guy hostage so that they can use his fire at nights until they can find a new cave.  Included in this family expedition are Eep's mom, Ugga (Catherine Keener), the savage baby, Sandy, Eep's oafish (younger?) brother, Thunk (Clark Duke) and Ugga's cantankerous mother, Gran (Cloris Leachman), whom Grug is regularly making attempts to kill.  Predictably, Eep develops a crush on Guy, and Guy's inventions prove to be far preferential to Grug's rules, both of which threaten Grug's role as patriarch and leave him feeling out of the loop.

The obvious irony here is that the formulaic plot mechanics are in blatant contrast to the pro-thought and pro-progress themes that pervade the film, but then again, the visuals are plentifully original.
THE CROODS was written and directed by accomplished Disney alumni Chris Sanders and SPACE CHIMPS (2008) director Kirk De Micco, and while it's all too easy to suspect De Micco of the film's more significant faults, given his writing and story credits on past generic family fare like RACING STRIPES (2005) and QUEST FOR CAMELOT (1998), it's usually a combined influence on such things.  However, it is Sanders whose influence is definitely more prominent in the look, style and overall direction of the film (for reference, Sanders previously directed HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON (2010) and LILO & STITCH (2002), was production designer on THE LION KING (1994), and did additional story and animation work on animated Disney features from the early to mid-nineties).  The brightly colored and stylized environments and creatures the Croods encounter on their adventures bring to mind the "I Just Can't Wait to Be King" sequence that Sanders worked on in the THE LION KING, and I don't think that, out of the abundance of creature designs, there was a single reality based creature.  Noted though, that is a bit of a partial truth in that the animals are all hybrid designs of real animals, such as a canine-like skunk with an alligator head or an ostrich with a ram's horns, but otherwise, the closest they get is a vibrantly blue and green sabertooth tiger with wildly stylized proportions.
An especially entertaining element of the animation is the frequent simulation of handheld camerawork, as opposed to the usually very clean, close-ups and master shots style most common in animation.  I'm not actually a fan of handheld camerawork, but the novelty of seeing a richly-detailed yet cartoonishly-stylized computer-rendered world through a seemingly raw perspective is really fun, especially in some of the earlier sequences.

This poster is the WORST.

Next to the visuals, the film's trump card is its humor, based in a pleasantly twisted comedic sensibility, such as a running gag involving Grug's attempts to kill off his mother-in-law, Gran, including flipping her in the air to see if she lands heads or tails to start off a football-esque egg hunt, or Eep's old teddy bear, called Crispy Bear, which is actually a dried out bear cub carcass, hence "Crispy", with her "last look of terror" still frozen on her face.  Of course, on the whole, the film has a sweet-natured heart with some genuinely moving, albeit generic, moments, though it may be a little too sweet toward the conclusion, but I'm sure parents don't mind.
And while in almost any and every other case, the rebellious teenage girl character that's become all too common in family film would be a death strike of annoyance, it's just too damn impossible to not like Emma Stone, even if its just her voice.  Her irresistible charms translate to animation vocals unblemished.  The rest of the voice cast is pretty good too, but Emma Stone... 

Monty Python and the Holy Controversy

The comedy sketch troupe Monty Python has always been well recognized for their absurd and irreverent style of humor, but in 1979, with the release of their follow-up to their enthusiastically-received MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL (1975), it looked as if they may have gone too far, or perhaps, in the comedy sketch tradition, they had gone exactly where they wanted.  Picket lines formed thickly outside cinemas, including, to the troupe's delight, "nuns with banners", and the film became a lightning rod of condemnation from a wide assortment of right-wing organizations, social and political activists and religious organizations.  Several European countries and provinces banned or otherwise censored the film for periods of varying lengths, including Norway, after which the film's posters proudly exclaimed "So funny it was banned in Norway!" because that's what Monty Python does.  The film was MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN.
WHAT IS IT ABOUT EXACTLY?
The "Brian" of the title is Brian Cohen (Graham Chapman), born on the same night as Jesus, in the manger just next door, where the three wise men initially seek the new king heralded by the star over Bethlehem.

Pilate flanked by his Centurion Guard (left) and "Biggus Dickus."

Raised by his cranky and hideous mother Mandy (Terry Jones in drag) who has scandalous relationships with soldiers of the Roman army, Brian grows up into a neurotic Jewish man in the politically-heated climate of Roman-occupied Judea.  Disdainful of the brutish Romans and infatuated with Judith Iscariot (Sue Jones-Davies), Brian becomes involved with The People's Front of Judea (of which Judith is a devoted member), one of the many ridiculously polarized Jewish resistance groups.  After getting into various rebellious hijinks, Brian is arrested by the Romans.  After an encounter with the buffoonish and speech-impedimented Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian makes a run for it and disguises himself from the pursuing Roman guards as one of the many street preachers, but his cover has an unexpected side effect when he quickly develops a religious following.  Despite his protests that he is not the prophesied Messiah, every little action Brian makes is seized as a religious doctrine.  While trying to escape his new religious devotees, Brian is re-arrested by the Roman guards and scheduled for crucifixion, and after various attempts by his friends to have him pardoned, the film ends with Brian on the cross.
The religious outrage toward LIFE OF BRIAN could hardly have been surprising, due to the blatant spoofing of Judeo-Christian biblical traditions, but I suppose whether or not it is actually sacrilege, on the whole at least, depends on how orthodox or dogmatic your beliefs are.  The Monty Python cast were not about to actually make fun of Jesus, and that option was off of the table pretty early on, with Eric Idle later referring to Jesus as "definitely a good guy" and "not particularly funny".  With nothing about Jesus himself considered worth lampooning, the Pythons toyed with ideas of a 13th apostle, but ultimately chose it as best to steer clear of a particularly Jesus-centric plot and instead decided to go for the throat of things like organized religion, dogma and tradition- elements of religion that they were more apprehensive about.  It would still assuredly rile the religious sensibilities of many, but this controversy would be more defensible and a bit of free publicity wouldn't hurt.
HOW AND WHY IT PISSED OFF PEOPLE
LIFE OF BRIAN was not the attack on Christianity is has been accused of being, but it was certainly a jab at modern organized religion and church practices and traditions, plainly evident when, after being mistaken for the Messiah, Brian's followers attribute spiritual value to insignificant things such as one of Brian's sandals or a gourd he was holding (a send-up of holy relics) or labeling a juniper bush Brian points out to the hungry mob as a miracle just because they didn't notice it before.  In one especially brilliant scene, Brian frustratedly tries to encourage independent thought to his unwanted followers:

BRIAN: "You don't need to follow me!  You don't need to follow anybody!  You've got to think for yourselves!  You're all individuals!"

THE MULTITUDE:  "Yes!  We're all individuals!"

BRIAN: "You're all different!"

THE MULTITUDE: "Yes!  We're all different!"

MAN IN THE CROWD: "I'm not..."

THE MULTITUDE: "SHH!" 

 Whether or not you agree with the point that the Pythons are making, it's not startling that it offended some, but as with many ultra-controversial works, most of the offended have not even found out by their own experience, having instead had their indignant wrath lit through secondary sources and/or hearsay.  The hearsay of heresy is probably the biggest culprit in the controversial reputation of this, the second in sequence and in fame of the Monty Python films, as from the instant production on their new New Testament comedy was announced, anxieties skyrocketed on both sides, to the nervous delight of Monty Python, no doubt.
LIFE OF BRIAN; the film that makes fun of Jesus Christ actually does have Jesus in it, played by Kenneth Colley, onscreen for ten seconds or so, but his portrayal is uncharacteristically sincere for a Python production.  He is shown sitting in the midst of a great crowd, preaching the "Sermon on the Mount", specifically the Beatitudes, and in a very traditional depiction.  Of course, after what barely amounts to a cameo for Jesus, they switch over to Graham Chapman as Brian, Terry Jones as his Mum, as well as Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Michael Palin and Terence Baylor, amongst others, listening at the far edge of the crowd, unable to hear, i.e., "Oh, it's 'blessed are the meek!'  Oh, I'm glad they're getting something, they have a hell of a time."  Other than that, the only other direct reference to Jesus is the Ungrateful Ex-Leper (Michael Palin) who was unwillingly cured of his "livelihood" by Jesus, whom he derides as a "bloody do-gooder".  On a side note: the use of the English expletive bloody has additional ironic humor in the context of its origination.

BRIAN:  "Well, why don't you go and tell him you want to be a leper again?

EX-LEPER:  "Uh, I could do that sir, yeah. Yeah, I could do that I suppose. What I was thinking was I was going to ask him if he could make me a bit lame in one leg during the middle of the week. You know, something beggable, but not leprosy, which is a pain in the ass to be blunt and excuse my French, sir."

HOW IT AVOIDS "BLASPHEMY" THROUGH TECHNICALITIES

It seems that most major debates involving mainstream religion come down to deciding what symbols, rituals, events or what have you, belong exclusively to religion and which of these has a justified secular counterpart, for example, in today's political arena, marriage.  The debate over LIFE OF BRIAN, be it a benign farce or an outright blasphemy, revolves around the very same issue, because once you've seen the film and know that the filmmakers are not smearing Jesus, what's left is the question of whether the symbols and themes that the Pythons do use for comedy are used as a deliberate smear of Christianity (or Judaism), or if they're just as secular and open for justifiably inoffensive use.  That is, while anyone has a right to be offended, can such things be truthfully be labeled an insult or blasphemy?

It is already quite clear that the Pythons are deliberately roasting religious organizations and dogmas, so take that as you will; it is a point that is deliberately made and can be justifiably offensive with little argument.  However, the use of themes and elements of crucifixion and Messianic prophecy are far more open to interpretation, and while widely and strongly associated with Judeo-Christian beliefs, they have a presence in the secular arena as well.
The Messianic prophecy is a prominent theme in LIFE OF BRIAN, as well as the assorted Bible epics it is a send-up of, especially BEN-HUR (1959) which similarly follows the life of a man parallel to the life of Christ, albeit with much more significant presence, as well as KING OF KINGS (1961), which emphasized the role of "false Messiahs" and Jewish resistance factions in the historical context of Jesus' life.  LIFE OF BRIAN is making fun of those movies and others of the sort, rather than of Christian scripture, and so the running joke of Brian being mistaken for the Messiah is technically not a blasphemy, however indelicate.

"He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"

-Mandy Cohen (Brian's Mom)

Always Looking on the Bright Side of Your Life.

The topic of crucifixion is s recurring one throughout the film, and the film's finale takes place with Brian and an assortment of eccentric characters, including the hysterically silly Mr. Cheeky (Eric Idle), an impudent young Jewish man who's been on the cross a few times before, but his brother usually comes to get him.  The scene ends with the "crucifees" singing a comically cheery rendition of Eric Idle's original song "Always Look on the Bright Side of Your Life".  While I'm certain that the Pythons had the full intention of riling religious sensibilities, at least to some extent, the scene, while dark in its humor, cannot actually be blasphemous, because crucifixion was historically a practice of the Persians and Romans, and the Christian symbol of the cross does not represent crucifixion, but rather, the death of Jesus.  Crucifixion is not actually holy to Christianity, not in essence; that would just be silly.  Jesus is the most famous victim of crucifixion in history, but he's also the most famous person in history, period, and you can just as well accuse the scene of lampooning SPARTACUS (1960), based on the life of the rebel slave Spartacus who was crucified with his followers nearly a century before Christ.  In fact, the scene does in at least one way spoof SPARTACUS when it is announced that Brian has been pardoned, and all those being crucified declare "I'm Brian!".

BUT IS IT GOOD?

While episodic regardless, this film sets aside the typically disjointed comedy-sketch structure of most Monty Python works, instead using a fairly focused narrative, as well as a more professional and polished production than their other films, probably due to the Terry Jones going solo on director's duties, whereas with THE HOLY GRAIL and THE MEANING OF LIFE, he shared with Terry Gilliam, whose whimsically hand-crafted look was more prominent in those.  However, Gilliam's behind the camera mark is still present, in particular in the opening credits animated sequence and in a marvelously bizarre sequence wherein Brian leaps off a building while fleeing from Roman soldiers and lands in a passing-by alien spacecraft, inhabited by a couple of very Gilliam-esque alien pilots, and witnesses a space battle before the ship crashes back down in the streets of Jerusalem as a bystander remarks "Lucky bastard," as Brian stumbles out of the wreckage.

In addition, thanks to the use of sets left over from Franco Zeffirelli's big-budget miniseries, JESUS OF NAZARETH (1977), the city of Jerusalem where most of the film takes place lends a much greater sense of production value than is characteristic of the Pythons' works.  These factor may all be for better or worse, depending on the viewers expectations and appreciation of the other Monty Python films.

A guard tries not to laugh about Biggus Dickus

The screenplay, as written by the Pythons is arguably the wittiest and most intelligent of their portfolio of work (although THE MEANING OF LIFE might give it a run for its money), and yet, as brilliant comedy must, it never actually reveals that it has some idea of what it's talking about.  Instead, in that glorious Monty Python tradition, they maintain a constant facade of idiocy and juvenility throughout with jokes about Brian's Roman rapist father, Naughtius Maximus (a spoof on the secular historian theory of Jesus being the result of a pregnancy conceived in rape) and Pontius Pilate's Roman noble friend Biggus Dickus (Graham Chapman) and his wife, Incontinentia Buttocks, goofy masochistic personalities and a couple scenes of full-frontal nudity, just for good measure.  But on repeat viewings, as you read into the gags, there are plainly evident commentaries on contemporary society, the nature of human spirituality and philosophical matters.  Of course that's all very well and edifying, but the highlight is definitely the stupidity and vulgarity.

MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN
4 out of 4 stars 
Directed by: Terry Jones
Starring: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, Michael Palin, Sue Jones-Davies
Rated R for unspecified reasons (but contains crude and sexual content, brief graphic nudity, language and some violent images).

Happy Drinkin' Day to Ye

Oh, lads and lassies, 'tis Saint Patrick's Day, the day of the Christian Feast of St. Patrick, honoring the third century missionary who brought the blessed word of Christian faith to the pagan Celtics of that Emerald Isle, Ireland.  Luckily for us though, we've managed to twist this formerly religious holiday into a day of godless hedonism by focusing on Irish heritage and culture instead, which coincidentally revolves around consuming vast amounts of alcohol (Guinness, if you please), getting into drunken brawls, sexually assaulting strangers (and if they're any decent, they'll reciprocate) and wearing something green, anything, even if you have to draw a shamrock shape on your hand with marker, otherwise, everyone else gets to maim you with any two fingers at a time.  Also, nobody says shit; on the day of our beloved St. Patrick, we all say shite.
It's also a day for watching movies about Irish folk, preferably while you drink beer and lay around in your green underwear, and so...

SOME O' THE BEST (AND SOME O' THE WORST) MOVIES FOR PERPETUATING IRISH STEREOTYPES (as well as a few others because some people insist on honest human portrayals, and, you know, good taste)

FOR THE "FAMILY FUN" SET
DARBY O'GILL AND THE LITTLE PEOPLE (1959)  Rated G (but contains some scary moments/images and mild violence)
3 1/2 out of 4 stars
 From the early days of Disney live-action features, when simplistic family films were made on the cheap in order to finance the expensive and now-waning animation studio, came this definitive assembly of Irish stereotypes and cliches, all in highly-appealing, foot-tapping family gem.  Darby O'Gill (Albert Sharpe) is a rascally old Irish coot who's getting a mite too old to continue his caretaking duties on Lord Fitzpatrick's farm, so Fitzpatrick is replacing him with Michael McBride (Sean "JAMES FREAKING BOND" Connery), but Darby is too ashamed to admit his forced retirement to his dear daughter Katie (Janet Munro, a limey, bloody cheek...).  To spare him his shame, the little folk, aka leprechauns, with whom Darby has had a long-standing friendly battle of wits, offer him a place in their kingdom, but instead, Darby tricks their old king, Brian Connors (Jimmy O'Dea) and makes a deal with him for three wishes, which Darby intends to use to set things right for himself and Katie.
It's got drunken Irishmen, fields of heather, jig-danging leprechauns, thick Irish brogues all around, cauldrons full of gold coins, a wailing banshee and James Bond singing an ol' Irish ditty as he works the crops.  You also get retro Disney-hottie Janet Munro, in her first of three Disney roles before she descended into alcoholism and died of a heart attack at age 38.
RANKING ON THE "IRISHNESS" SCALE:  10/10

FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM ROMANTICIST
FAR AND AWAY  (1992)  Rated PG-13 for some violence and sensuality.
2 out of 4 stars
Way back when they were married, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman starred in this would-be romantic historical epic as Joseph Donnelly and Shannon Christie, respectively; two Irish immigrants in the late-19th century United States of America.  Ron Howard directed this film with admirable aspirations of being an epic scoped American love story, shot (mostly) on that most epic of film formats, 70mm.  Like such films are generally supposed be, it was formulaic, telling the story of two dreamers seeking their fortunes who find themselves thrown together, not exactly warmly at first, but they face the same obstacles and begin to fall in love.  Donnelly begins earning income in the unforgiving rings of the Irish district underground boxing circuit, while Shannon works as a burlesque dancer, and then they get married and stake a claim in the Land Run of 1893.  Further adding to its credentials as an epic, it ran close to three hours (pretty much a requirement) and featured a musical score by John Williams.  However, the whole thing just doesn't stick beyond some visual grandeur and a rollicking Irish soundtrack; it just lacks the necessary passion (a surprisingly elusive element, to be sure), and while a certain level of formula is desirable, it falls dead without the proper exuberance.  In fairness though, some of the womenfolk, those with the stamina anyway, do seem to like it.
RANKING ON THE "IRISHNESS" SCALE:  8/10

FOR THE DEVOTED CINEPHILE
BARRY LYNDON (1975)  PG for unspecified reasons (but contains PG-13-level elements of sensuality and violence.)
3 1/4 out of 4 stars
Despite famously infuriating the perfectionist director Stanley Kubrick following the initial screening, his visually-stylish and longest film (at an epic 184 minutes) has many fans amongst film circles, including yours truly, for its authentic look, its attention to detail and perfection of deliberate pacing.  Beginning in Ireland and culminating in England, it follows the exploits of Irish commoner Barry Lyndon's (Ryan O'Neal) serendipitous rise and fall within the Bristish aristocracy.  It's not for everyone, and I'm sure the average viewer would be prone to boredom, but for the devoted movie fan, it's excellent entertainment based in an immersive world of lush greens and grotesque decadence, with gentle and subtle humor, and seething emotion disguised in social conventions.
RANKING ON THE "IRISHNESS" SCALE: 7/10

FOR THE DEPRAVED DOUCHE-BAG
THE BOONDOCK SAINTS (1999)  R for strong violence, language and sexual content.
1 out of 4 stars
If you watch this, not on the recommendation of a friend or an otherwise element of your social circle, it may very well disturb you to learn that it has a very devoted fanbase, enough so that following a disastrous production and a failed theatrical release, it became a major cult hit on DVD, enough so to justify a theatrically-released sequel.  When I took a film analysis class at a university a while back, there was one student who dressed primarily in black, often with variations of death-related imagery printing, and occasionally painted his ill-kept fingernails black.  But he wasn't a "goth", because he lacked the grunge style, visual extremities and sharp accents.  He was a bit nerdy, but in the creepiest way possible, constantly bordering on angry and was excessively profane.  THE BOONDOCK SAINTS was his favorite movie, and he was very vocal about it.  I've since learned that he was a fairly solid example of the film's fanbase.
Now, I may not have liked the guy, or people of a similar taste, but I'm not about to condemn a movie on the basis of my negative encounters with people who love it.  In all honesty, I expected to enjoy the film for the most part; I never thought I would love it, I suspected it was a case of an alright movie that got too much love from the wrong kind of people, but no.  It's more along the lines of THE TWILIGHT SAGA, where it has a very base level of appeal, i.e. super love for TWILIGHT and vigilante anti-heroism for BOONDOCK SAINTS, but there's very little for the unindoctrinated to appreciate it, let alone to love it.
It's a simplified formula modeled after the work of Quentin Tarantino, about a couple of all-too-perfect Irish brothers (Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus) who decide they're chosen by God to unleash holy violence upon the mobsters and hoods of Boston, while a homosexual super-cop (played uncomfortably, and perhaps knowingly, over-the-top by Willem Dafoe) assigned to the case begins to doubt the worth of his pursuit.  It's filled with cliches and contrivances, it's clear over on the other side of the intelligence spectrum from the Tarantino films it admires, and it feels like, and was, directed by a bartender.  It unabashedly romanticizes violence against those that it considers worth killing, irresponsibly spitting in the face of lawful justice and even encouraging the downfall of due process, which actually wouldn't be so bad except that it doesn't suggest any counterpoint.  There's no doubt on display, just a completely biased attitude in favor of murder as a citizen duty against those who murdered first.  It's a simple stupid movie for creepy people who watch it on St. Patrick's Day because the first half of the first act takes place on St. Patrick's Day and it's about righteous Irishmen who commit sadistic acts of violence on behalf of God
RANK ON THE "IRISHNESS" SCALE:  5/10

FOR FIGHTERS AGAINST THE SYSTEM
IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER (1993)  Rated R for language and politically-generated violence.
3 1/2 out of 4
IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER doesn't even have any direct references to St. Patrick's Day, but it's a patriotic ode to the Emerald Isle based on real-life events wherein an Irish petty thief, Gerry Conlon (Daniel Day-Lewis), was wrongfully arrested in England for allegedly perpetrating a deadly IRA bombing, and when his father Giuseppe (Pete Postlethwaite) goes to England to sort things out, he's arrested as an accomplice.  They're both convicted and share a cell while serving prolonged prison sentences, and while Gerry falls into despair and prison criminality, Giuseppe remains stalwart in fighting their wrongful conviction, and gradually, Gerry learns the wrongness of his ways and takes up his father's cause.
RANK ON THE "IRISHNESS" SCALE: 5/10

FOR THE BLAND TRADITIONALIST
THE QUIET MAN (1952) Not Rated (about PG level, some mild violence.)
2 out of 4 stars
Technically this one is a classic; it won director John Ford his fourth and final Academy Award for Best Director and is considered by some to be his masterpiece, and also features John "The Duke" Wayne in a notable departure from his typical western-genre roles.  So yeah, lots of people love it, but not me.  It's got nice cinematography (for which it won a second Academy Award) of the lush Irish scenery, but Wayne was always more of a persona than an actor, and the film is never as energetic or savory as the culture of its focus.  Still, again I disclaim, I'm a minority opinion on this one.
RANK ON THE "IRISHNESS" SCALE: 9/10

FOR THE MODERN LIBERAL AMERICAN DREAMERS
IN AMERICA (2002) Rated PG-13 for some sexuality, drug references, brief violence and language.
3 1/2 out of 4 stars
Yet another entry from that most Irish of today's filmmakers, Jim Sheridan (who also directed the aforementioned IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER), this one is semi-autobiographical, inspired by his family's experience of immigrating to the United States.  Johnny and Sarah Sullivan (Paddy Considine and Samantha Morton, respectively) are the mother and father of two daughters who emigrate their family from Ireland, seeking a fresh start in the United States away from painful memories, but they find that even this new life comes with hardship, poverty and other strife.  Yeah, it's a bit sentimental, but it's also sincere, gritty and full of a lust for life.
RANK ON THE "IRISHNESS" SCALE: 6/10

It's a Wonderful Life: Bible Edition!

Here's a bit of trivia you might not know:  While THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (2004) may be a more faithful adaptation of the particular part of the Jesus story it involves, THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST is closer to the spirit of the material.  To those who may not be informed, THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST is a film about Jesus of Nazareth that rivals THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST in the category of most controversial films of all time, but while THE PASSION found more of its controversy from without the Christian faith, THE LAST TEMPTATION found most of its own from within.  Directed by Martin Scorcese, considered one of the greatest film directors of our time, and adapted from a likewise extremely controversial book (no, not the Bible) of the same title, by Nikos Kazantzakis, the film was released in 1988 and resulted in fundamentalist Christian rage the world over.  The most infamous incident involved the torching of a Parisian theater using Molotov cocktails and injuring thirteen patrons, including four who sustained severe burns.  Elsewhere, picket-lines stood outside of theaters, mass protests were formed outside the headquarters of MCA (the company which produced the film), some patrons of the film were assaulted outside cinemas and some theater chains refused to show the film out of fear of violent incidents.  It is where the thinking machinations of the Christian denominations of the west becomes confusing and more than a little ironic, for while Mel Gibson's THE PASSION is a testimony of the Christian faith through extreme violence, Scorcese's THE LAST TEMPTATION is a testimony of Christianity through humanity and love.
THE LAST SUMMARY

Willem Dafoe as Jesus

As aforementioned, THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST is not actually adapted from the Bible, but instead from the 1953 novel, The Last Temptation of Christ, but it is also very much an adaptation of Martin Scorcese's own feelings about his Catholic upbringing and the related teachings.  More specifically than being a Christianity movie, it is a Catholicism movie, and regardless, it is accessible to all those who have grappled with faith.  Themes of Catholic guilt, redemption, faith and doubt have always been present in Scorcese's work, but in his telling of the Jesus story, he is allowed to take those themes on directly.
The story is a sort of re-imagining, related to the Bible in a similar way that major commercial film franchises are "re-booted", so that it is a kind of "originalized" version of a well-known story.
The film begins with Jesus (Willem Dafoe) working as a carpenter in ancient Judea, under a much-despised Roman occupation, and he is a man tormented by the whisperings of God.  He is reluctant to accept his role as the Messiah, and instead builds crosses the Romans use to crucify Jewish revolutionaries, much to the disdain of his countrymen.  But God is persistent, and Jesus sets out to perform the task God has charged him with, and purges himself of all impurity.  Judas Iscariot (Harvey Keitel) is a Jewish revolutionary who has been sent by his compatriots to kill Jesus for his "collaboration" with the Romans by building crosses, but before he can carry out the deed, Judas is taken with Jesus' presence and believes he may be the true Messiah, so he follows him as one of his disciples.  When Jesus sees a mob beginning to stone a prostitute, Mary Magdalene (Barbara Hershey), a woman who was his childhood friend/sweetheart, he defends her and the crowd (watch for Irvin Kershner, director of THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (1980) as "Zebedee") abandons their intentions, and many of them begin to follow him, and he selects apostles from amongst them.  Jesus performs the miracles and sermons present in the Bible, but he continuously faced with the temptations of the world and of Satan, in his many forms.  He is not entirely aware of God's intentions through him; he listens, God instructs and he follows; but when he learns in a vision that he must be a willing sacrifice to atone for the sins of mankind, he does not stray, yet he is reluctant and terrified at the prospect.  He turns to his most highly-favored disciple, Judas, and requests of him that he turn him over to the Romans to be crucified as a revolutionary.  Judas is anguished at this task before him, but after some deliberation, he complies.  Following the institution of the sacrament, Jesus is arrested and crucified on Golgotha.  From here, the story takes its sharpest departure from the Bible story, as an angelic child (Juliette Caton) takes Jesus down from the cross and tells him that it was all a test.  All God really wants is for him to be happy.  He weds to Mary Magdalene and has many children and grows old.  Yet, things are never quite right; there is a certain distortion to things as the angel child accompanies him throughout this alternative life, and the angel is revealed to be Satan.  With the authenticity of those most recent events never really confirmed within the plotline, Jesus willingly accepts his role as Messiah to the world and accomplishes the Atonement.

THE LAST ANALYSIS 

Martin Scorcese, the director of the film, was born and raised in New York City, in a devoutly Roman Catholic family and community and initially intended to become a Catholic priest before he dropped out of the seminary to pursue a career in his longtime love of cinema, but even after he became a "lapsed Catholic", the powerful influences of his upbringing and heritage would never leave him and have become frequently apparent in his films.  Such themes take center stage in THE LAST TEMPTATION, as the film becomes Scorcese's personal witness of faith.  The entire film rich in Catholic themes and symbolism, such as the stigmatic event from which Jesus learns of his destiny, the serpents that appear as impurities and deceivers, and the institution of the sacrament at the Last Supper where one of the apostles discovers that the wine he has just sipped has turned to blood in his throat.

This portrayal of Jesus Christ is an extremely intricate and complex one, and is possibly the best cinematic interpretation of the man in any major work.  Of course, even amongst Christians, there are so many variations on what about Jesus is believed, and how certain elements are interpreted from the story, so how one reacts to this film's approach may vary vastly.  Whether or not this is an accurate and faithful or blasphemous and sacrilegious could be debated all day long, but I think it's well justified to call it the most accessible and sympathetic cinematic interpretation of Jesus.  By focusing on the human aspect of Jesus (whether or not you believe there really even was one), he is made into a highly relatable character, one who shares our conflict over what he was and what he stood for.  Like many who've struggled to understand the seemingly-conflicted voices of the Gospels, he's not quite certain whether his role as the Messiah demands that the "sword" he brings is strictly a spiritual one or if his cause also requires a physical fight against evil.  Also on the table is the question of the divinity/mortality dynamic to Jesus; which is more prominent, and what is the role of either?  These are all questions that have never been sufficiently reconciled and that we continue speculate on, and while the balance of his humanity and divinity is a theme, the story is primarily in consideration of the human aspect of the Christ.  The film opens with a quote from Kazantzakis' book; 

"The dual substance of Christ- the yearning, so human, so superhuman, of man to attain God... has always been a deep mystery to me.  My principle anguish and source of all my joys and sorrows from my youth onward has been the incessant, merciless battle between the spirit and the flesh... and my soul is the arena where these two armies have clashed and met."

This is followed by a 'disclaimer':

"This film is not based upon the Gospels but upon this fictional exploration of the eternal spiritual conflict."

Therefore, it isn't even a film about Jesus, in the strictest sense, but rather, a study of mankind's struggle to understand our spiritual expectations, our relation to God and our moral struggle between our spiritual aspirations and our mortal desires.

THE LAST CONTROVERSY

Barbara Hershey as Mary Magdalene

The key component to the controversy is in the final, and coincidentally, most important act in the film, when Satan, in the guise of a child, appears to Jesus on the cross and tempts him with his greatest longing; to put aside his charge as the Savior of Mankind and have the life of an ordinary man, with a wife and children, to grow old and die in bed, surrounded by his family.  As part of this section of the film, a brief scene, lasting less than ten seconds, depicts Jesus and Mary Magdalene consumating their fantasized marriage.  If it were anyone other than Jesus in the scene, it would hardly cause a stir and would probably be regarded as 'tasteful'.  Obviously Christians would be prone to find the scene offensive, but I think the outrage of those who were offended is an unfortunate and impulsive reaction.  If your offense to it is strictly because it is Jesus Christ in the scene, I could point out that in this 'alternative' that Jesus is being tempted with, he would not be Jesus Christ; that fantasy depicts what he wishes he were, not the Messiah that the Jesus in that scene has been misinterpreted as.  Whether or not this section of the film is meant as a literal direction of the storyline, culminating with the George Bailey moment that he begs to be allowed to re-take up his role as Messiah, or merely as the potential course of events if Jesus had accepted the child's offer is left ambiguous, but I'm inclined to believe the former, and either way, Jesus does die on the cross and does atone for the sins of men.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter, because, if you're going to talk about THE LAST TEMPTATION, you are obligated to address the "Jesus sex scene" issue.

THE LAST PARAGRAPH

THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST is not likely to work for many religious persons, specifically the Orthodox ones, because it asks for certain flexibility and understanding that the more certain may not be receptive to, but for many others, it is an especially spiritually fulfilling experience, one that informs the soul with a certain kind of peace and restoration. 

THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST (1988)
4 out of 4
Directed by: Martin Scorcese
Starring: Willem Dafoe, Harvey Keitel, Barbara Hershey, Harry Dean Stanton, David Bowie
Rated R for unspecified reasons (but contains violence, sexuality and nudity).