Da 5 Bloods
On the Record
I May Destroy You
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
The Gospel According to St. Matthew is a direct presentation of the first book of the New Testament. The entire script is directly quoting the scripture and I did not see any embellishments. As a Christian, I am quite familiar with this Gospel, as I have read and studied many of these scriptures countless times. As a result, I didn’t have any issues with the content of the film. If I’m being perfectly honest, the movie kind of felt like one of those tapes they would throw in the VCR at church on a slow Sunday night when the pastor was out of town. There’s an educational or informative feel to it that is a tad sterile and flat instead of dramatic. I did get emotional towards the end, but for me it is difficult to avoid feeling that way when I see even a simple re-enactment of the death and resurrection of Jesus. It’s an important topic for me, and even an Italian Jesus with a unibrow can make me emotional when hanging on a cross. I would never in a million years suggest there is something wrong with the Bible, so it’s difficult talking about the flaws in The Gospel According to St. Matthew, because it is so loyal to the text. But here’s the thing, Matthew’s book (while inspired) isn’t a script. There are things that people do when adapting a book to film in order to make it more watchable, and give it a proper cinematic flow. I understand the mindset of the filmmaker not wanting to tamper with the words in scripture, but that leads to a disjointed and awkward film. The film is almost entirely vignettes, because the book of Matthew reads like a scrapbook of key moments in Jesus’ life. It doesn’t make for a good narrative until they reach the final act, and even then there are moments that feel like odd inclusions in a film (even though I understand their purpose in scripture.) The Gospel According to St. Matthew isn’t incompetent, it’s merely an odd idea in the first place. I commend them for trying, and remaining so faithful to the text, even if the end product was a little flawed.
Austerity and seriousness of this movie is remarkable, it's probably the best movie about Jesus Christ. Depiction of him here is not of a gentle and soft man, but as a full of righteous anger man, willing to fight the status quo of the world at the time. The movie itself is very poetic and consists of a flow of successive shots of incredible beauty, right from the first scene, which is a masterpiece.
The most artistic of Jesus films, but the dubbing makes it difficult to appreciate.
Pasolin's absorbing, neo-realist telling of the life of Christ; a stark and fascinating contrast to some of the more pompous, over-indulgent Hollywood attempts of the time and ultimately closer in spirit to its central figure - humble, sincere and profound. Enrique Irazoqui's Jesus is less an ethereal, otherworldly being and more a fiery, passionate Marxist angered by social injustice and troubled by his own destiny whilst Pasolini simply allows for the landscape of post-war Italy to stand in for 1st century Judea to great effect. A worthy and movingly human biblical drama.
Director Pasolini utilizes an intricate, yet plain and humble aesthetic as well as superb performances from his cast of non-actors to create an exceedingly fundamental treatment of Gospel that is as graceful, modern, and thoughtful as any other.
Una belleza de película que se aleja de toda la parafernalia que por lo general se muestran en este tipo de producciones.
I respect that the film doesn't use anything that isn't in the book of Matthew, but even in strictly following the text there is interpretation, and this film paints an extremely cold, brooding, even resentful picture of the Jesus that I understand to love all more than we can comprehend.
Every frame is beautiful, sometimes achingly so, and the score is just divine but man this goes on forever. Its well directed,camera angled, and composed, and the chosen text and actors does make for a beautiful poem of a film, but its also pretty boring half of the time, mercilessly pontifying, that or people just walk in silence for a very longtime, and very often. So, a masterpiece? Most definitely. Did i enjoy it? Meh. Beauty can take its time, but to an extend, if its not as perfect as it pretends, it becomes artistic vanity. I have to say though, i love a jesus movie made by an atheist. This jesus dude says some very good stuff but lots of utter destructive nonsense (one tree got no fruit for him, so he curses it forever ? STFU, Gee...), and this movie conveys well these contradictions, by letting them sound dead serious, against an eery wind that underlines the creepiness of the source material in a visual odyssey thats boring but leaves a good mark on the minds eye.
Forte, bello, ottimo !