The Gospel According to Matthew (1966)

People are voting emotionally.

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

I don't know how I missed watching what is considered to be one of the best movies based on the Bible ever created. I think it might just be because I have seen so many of these movies that I didn't give this the full 10 stars. Don't kill me! I still loved the movie! I just personally find something like "The Gospel Of John" to be better. This is still a classic movie and more people should learn about it. I guess it's weird to describe a movie retelling Jesus' life when we all know it already. What's interesting is that this film was made in tribute to Pope John XXIII who died the previous year.As it's literally Italian, it's one of the best representations of Jesus that the Vatican could ask for. What's weird is that I did research on the director, Pier Paolo Pasolini whom I was surprised to find out was actually a gay atheist! He was also a Marxist and it's said Jesus was portrayed more like that in this version. I still find it to be an authentic representation of the Bible. It's really interesting to see black and white films made at this time. It was when color films were starting to really get popular. The quality really does look great here. Does Jesus have a unibrow? ***1/2

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?

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?!

Pier Paolo Pasolini, which was a non-believer, managed to do in the sixties this "humble" (And, yet very beautiful and intense) adaptation of one of the Gospels.Instead of being something "big" and "epic" as the Hollywood productions from the same time, this was a very modest production, which focused more in the human and spiritual parts from the Gospels, being (ironically enough) more faithful to them than most of the big Hollywood productions.Instead of great production values, this movie offers something more inspiring and authentic than the portentous productions done by Hollywood, portraying the life of Jesus of Nazareth as something close, instead of the usual solemn and distant portrayals from other movies with the same thematic. And despite what some reviewers say, this movie doesn't portray Jesus as a "rebel", it is only a faithful adaptation of the Gospel.This was the best film from Pier Paolo Pasolini, in my opinion. Most of the movies that he directed after this one were pretty much disappointing (such as the self-indulgent "trilogy of life" or the disastrous "Salo") Along with "Mamma Roma", this is one of his best works.