Jesus of Montreal (1989) User Reviews

Jesus OF MONTREAL (Denys Arcand, 1989) ***1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 8/10 · 13 April 2007]

I had been impressed by this on first viewing (despite its being in French only), watched on another Good Friday several years ago; a second look (and the benefit of English subtitles) only reinforces its inherent quality. This is an absorbing, original, savage, funny, and frequently stunning piece of work - although, in view of its subject matter, it does have the occasional heavy-going passage. In fact, Jesus OF MONTREAL was expected to emerge victorious at that year's Academy Awards as the Best Foreign Language Film: facing stiff competition from the likes of CAMILLE CLAUDEL (1988) and CINEMA PARADISO (1989), the honor was eventually bestowed on the latter - a nostalgia piece with child interest, it was an altogether safer bet (though I've yet to catch the film in its entirety myself!)...

Despite their over-familiarity, the 'Passion Play' sequences are quite powerful - thanks also to excellent performances all around. Lothaire Bluteau is quietly impressive in the demanding central role (of an actor who eventually goes mad from playing Christ!); incidentally, he followed this with another spiritual film - BLACK ROBE (1991). Arcand seems to be one of the most interesting auteurs around, as the only other film of his that I've watched - THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS (2004; which did win him an Oscar) - is also superb (apart from being equally thought-provoking and controversial). Speaking of which, I find Jesus OF MONTREAL to be superior to that other notorious Christ-movie of the day - Martin Scorsese's THE LAST TEMPTATION OF Christ (1988)...

faith and theater

[dromasca · 8/10 · 6 February 2020]

Made 30 years ago, 'Jesus of Montreal' is one of those films upon which time seems to have passed without a trace. The movie was created by director Denys Arcand and it is likely that the recent launching on-screens of his 'The Fall of the American Empire' has led to the re-screening of some of his older films at our local cinematheque. The original theme and the interesting structure of his 1989 film shows that Arcand is one of those directors consistent with the art and messages of his films, pursuing quality and waiting to gather enough material, substance and emotion before involving himself into a new project. In the three decades that have passed since 'Jesus of Montreal' was made, the Quebec film maker directed less than ten movies, but each one is special, is worth seeing and invites debates.

The enacting of the Passion is part of the Christian tradition in many places around the world. It is a story about faith and love, about suffering and redomption, which lends itself well to theatrical performances, and 'Jesus of Montreal' is built around such a performance in Montreal in 1989. The modern city is always in the background. Invited by the local priest, a team of actors and its director enter, with talent and passion, in the roles of the New Testament drama, creating an event that resonates in the souls of the spectators. The well-documented and modern vision created by the director, brings to the hills that dominate the city the old story with its historical and human truth, however, the show starts to disturb despite or perhaps due to success. The church authorities consider it too daring, the show-business world is trying to turn it into a source of profit, and during this time the actors begin to pay the price of their passion for theater and of their spiritual involvement in the enacting of the story in the Bible.

The religious and artistic messages of the film reach the viewers. The script is cleverly written, the characters are alive on the screen, drawn from a few replicas each, but still real and expressive. The film talks about the passion for the art of theater and about the state of faith in the corrupt and mercantile world of the late 20th century. Faith lives on, but Jesus can die many times in many ways and salvation is possible in multiple forms. Denys Arcand builds his film by sprinkling it with symbols from the Passion, both through scenes inspired by the Biblical parables but also through expressive visual elements. The team of actors does a wonderful job, especially Lothaire Bluteau in the lead role. 'Jesus of Montreal' is a film that induces emotion and engages its viewers.

Compelling blasphemy

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 26 June 2014]

Daniel Coulombe (Lothaire Bluteau) is asked to modernize a passion play written 35 years ago. He gathers people from the play, dubbing artists who sometimes dub porn, and a model with little experience. He incorporates newer controversial theories on Jesus and it becomes a big hit as alternative theater. However the Catholic priest isn't happy with all the changes. Then parts of Jesus' life start happening in the real world. When he is injured at a performance, Daniel can't get a room at the Catholic hospital.

Writer/director Denys Arcand made something that transcended simple entertainment. It is unlike anything else. It is blasphemous. And it is compelling. It's ending is tragic and uplifting at the same time. It was nominated for a foreign language Oscar losing out to the also excellent 'Cinema Paradiso'.

Vivid and memorable

[Stephen-12 · 10/10 · 28 June 1999]

A robust, inventive parallel to the life of Christ. This film seems to display utter commitment and genuine integrity. It is moving without being sentimental, and tells its tale with rigour and without too many contrived plot developments. The performances are splendid. You don't have to be religious to appreciate this one, since it stands up in its own right, even if the parallels are ignored. Deserves to be better known.

An awesome historical and religious "WhatIf"

[jcrnfr · 25 June 2004]

What if Jesus had been born in the year 1970 instead of year 1, and as unheralded now as He was then- how would our society have dealt with Him?

And if people can get possessed by the Devil, can a regular guy -- not a nut or a fraud -- become gradually and genuinely possessed by Jesus?

Denys Arcand answers both questions in clever and entertaining fashion. With actual events, people, words and thoughts from Jesus' life being transposed to our modern times. Of course a movie like this is aimed at people who don't turn both their brain cells off as they enter the movie house, and won't be happy with 90 minutes of gunshots, car chases, or Jesus being whipped.

And yet this highly hypothetical parable still comes off as a plausible dramatic tale, with the usual Arcand mix of tragedy and comedy. You could have never heard of Jesus and still enjoy this movie.

The cinematography is gorgeous and the main actors are uniformly excellent. Some of the minor characters bother me intensely, which they are meant to do -- they're just too darn good at it.

The script and direction are nicely conventional - in the sense that at no time does the viewer wonder who that guy is or what the heck is going on. Jarring "artsy" cuts, unannounced flashbacks and weird camera angles are many critics' cup of tea but not mine, and thankfully, not Arcand's either.

There is quite a bit of tension-relieving slapstick in this story; some viewers may like it- it *is* funny, but it makes me uncomfortable at times. And the ending is a bit of an anticlimax, although at the second viewing I think I began to see the light.

I originally rated this movie 8/10, but after seeing it again I got more in tune with it and also noticed a few very clever details, so I'm upping it to 9/10. Maybe 10/10 when I see it next.

Art VS Commercialism *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*

[kamerad · 9/10 · 18 March 2002]

Although I was born in Quebec, and I've lived here for the better part of my life, I still have a hard time identifying with the rest of the province. I don't follow hockey, I still don't understand heavy jouale (a highly slang-ridden form of French specific to Quebec), and I haven't even seen "Les Boys", "Les Boys 2", or "Cruising Bar", three of the highest grossing Quebec films ever made. Yet, despite the amount of money these films have made, the only place you're likely to meet anyone who has seen (or much less appreciated) these films, is here in Quebec. A film like "Jesus of Montreal" on the other hand, while not being as successful in terms of dollars, has reached a much broader spectrum of people. It has played in theaters across Canada and the world, and was even nominated for an Oscar for best foreign language film. Most writings on "Jesus of Montreal" focus on it being a modernization of Christ's story. I will focus on how the film is a reflection on Arcand's own struggles.

Denys Arcand is now a highly respected and admired director. However, since making "Jesus of Montreal" in 1989, Arcand has only made three features. Despite his reputation, it is extremely difficult for him to get a film made. Positive feedback no matter how strong, doesn't mean anything to the companies that provide the funding, if it doesn't rake in the cash. I mention these points for a reason, because, among other things this is one of the key themes of "Jesus of Montreal".

Of course, the film is about other things as well, but it is important to remark on the interesting parallel between the story that takes place in the film and Arcand's real-life situation. In the film, Daniel's version of the Passion Play is popular amongst the public, but because the Church disagrees with the content of the play, the play is canceled. In real-life of course, it is not the Church that prevents Arcand from making films, but still, the popularity doesn't help either Arcand or Daniel produce their art as often or as easily as they would like to. Another parallel is that that Daniel refuses to sell out or compromise, and subsequently so did Arcand. Although Arcand has gained a lot of recognition for his work over the years, he has never made a blatantly commercial film. Arcand's film after "Jesus", "Love and Human Remains", although in English and not up to his usual standards of quality, was by no means an escapist film, and was clearly not made to rake in easy money.

Of course despite the message in "Jesus of Montreal" that trying to create meaningful art without selling out is a constant uphill battle, the film is not cynical. On the contrary, the film seems to be saying that the rampant commercialism in the world is one of the very things that give true art its meaning. Twenty years from now, no one will be discussing "Les Boys" and its importance to Quebec Cinema. Whatever makes money one day is forgotten the next and replaced by something that makes more money. But a film with a message that remains relevant throughout the years will never be forgotten. "Jesus of Montreal" is as meaningful and inspiring today as it was eleven years ago when it was released. It has lost none of its wit or bite, and that is it's true value, not how much money it has made.

Good but not excellent

[LeRoyMarko · 7/10 · 15 April 2001]

I found the first half of this movie to be not very interesting and sometimes extremely slow. But the movie picks up in the second half. The story is then more inspiring and some remarks are causes for deep thoughts.

There's a lot of irony in the second half. One of them brings Daniel (Jesus, played by Lothaire Bluteau) to Ste-Marthe hospital. No one will take care of him there and he has to be brought to the Montréal Jewish Hospital to get some care!

Interesting to hear what Father Leclerc has to say about his life as a priest and how, if he quits his job, he will have nothing remaining.

It seems every actors in Québec had a role in this one. Cameos inlude: Marc Messier (Les Boys), Roy Dupuis (Being at Home with Claude), Denis Bouchard (Les Matins infidèles), Jean-Louis Millette (Bouscotte) and more.

Out of 100, I gave it 74.

Can't recommend it highly enough.

[James B. · 10/10 · 31 October 1999]

"Jesus of Montreal" is one of my two favorite films...it's tough for me to decide on one or the other (the other is "With Honors"), but it's one or two. This film has meant so much to me over the years, with its simple, powerful messages of artistic freedom, personal redemption, perseverance during a personal quest...and how heartbreaking the world, and reality, can be.

The male lead has a beautiful Zen-like quality about him during this film...meaning the character as well as the actor. I'd love to see more of his work.

I can only watch this movie once in a while, as it moves me to tears too easily. It's very funny in places, too.

renovating the gospels

[mjneu59 · 6/10 · 28 November 2010]

A young actor is commissioned to update an annual Montreal Passion Play (starring himself) but is a little too convincing in his role, drawing unfriendly criticism from the Catholic Church and finally suffering his own crucifixion (and state-of-the-art resurrection). Director Denys Arcand wants to demystify the Gospels (the performance of the Play itself might have been called 'Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Jesus But Were Afraid To Ask'), but his film works better as a media satire than as a modern-day theology lesson. Lothaire Bluteau's (rarely changing) hang-dog beatific calm makes the title character more of a martyr than Christ ever was (his death throes in the Montreal subway are interminable), although it's never clear if the mysterious actor simply identifies with his role or is in fact the actual Man from Galilee. But even at its most pretentious the film is engagingly playful; Arcand may be wearing his intellect on his sleeve, but his Messiah isn't too far removed from Jeffrey Hunter in 'King of Kings'.

Awesome

[DhariaLezin · 10/10 · 19 December 2004]

After about ten years I finally could watch this movie again. I was just around 13 the first time I did and even though I could not remember all the scenes and many details, the essence of the movie stayed. It is not just intelligent, it is beautiful... the photography is excellent... the music is magnificent. But the most important and awesome thing is the argument. What if Jesus would have been born again and everybody is too busy with commerce, fame and banality to notice it? Then you start to think not just in Jesus, but in all the people that lives in the planet and we don't give them the chance to enter in our lives. A perfect example of that are the two TV producers (that might be a metaphor of the followers of Cesar 2000 years ago). And about metaphors there are many others and that's what makes the movie so unique: The beautiful actress is Mary Magdalene, the actors are the prophets, and finally (there might be a big spoiler here): The Lawyer. Maybe the scene that impressed me the most is after the trial, in which Daniel gets free without any problem, when he is talking to the man that wanted to be his defense (that Daniel refused), in a very tall building (that remembers to me the biblical story in which Jesus is on the top of the mountain with Satan, being tempted), when he says "you could have this city if you want"... It's really moving. And like that one I could mention lots more. Even in the very end, when Daniel dies, and her friends give his healthy organs to other persons and you can see them: they will live longer: the resurrection. I'm not religious at all, but the way they handle the movie and the story is really heart moving. By the other way we have a preacher that has been with a lot of prostitutes, such as they say Mary was, we find a Daniel that besides his friends, is completely alone in the world, we have a girl that (even though is not exactly prostitution) has to sell her body to live, and many other things that are not that nice. So it is not just a white, nice movie, it is very ambiguous. Besides its beautifulness it has a dark (very real) side. It is awesome.

Jesus of Montreal

[henry8-3 · 7/10 · 1 January 2022]

Actor Daniel (Lothaire Bluteau) is asked by Catholic Church represent Father Leclerc (Gilles Pelletier) to update the tired passion play he has put on for 30 years. Maintaining the story but adding more recent discoveries about Christ and the times he lived in, the play is a huge critical and commercial success, but falls foul of the Church, as the new version is considered too radical. With the play in danger of being cancelled, the cast and particular Daniel's lives start taking on elements of the passion play story.

Bizarre, touching, occasionally witty and always absorbing, this is a compelling look at the passion play story, nicely shifted from classic play into real life, which is ultimately quite sad but equally uplifting. A few good swipes at the snobbery and superficiality of the world of art / theatre as well as the Catholic Church who here seem to need to resist change to look after themselves as individuals rather than just the souls they purport to protect. A fascinating, unique insight into the classic story- even the presentation of the new play which takes up a large chunk of the film seems spot on and well presented.

Excellent, thought-provoking film.

[LouieInSeattle · 10/10 · 13 June 2001]

During the first half of this movie I was trying to figure out if it was a not-so-subtle spoof of Christianity, or an outright sacrilege. As I got angrier and angrier at what was going on in the film, a sudden chill went down my back as I realized I was thinking just like the Catholic church sponsors in the movie, AND just like the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus' time. I was trying to fit Christ into my own expectations, and I was just as guilty as Jesus' opponents and killers. Tears welled up in my eyes as I realized that Jesus of Montreal was trying to depict in a very real way exactly what went on in Jesus of Nazareth's time. This is not a movie for the faint of heart. People bleed, they are naked, and they die. But just as Jesus of Montreal died for his followers and his neighbors, so did Jesus of Nazareth.

Not a film about religion but a film about artistic integrity

[frankde-jong · 7/10 · 31 July 2023]

In "Jesus of Montreal" a church yearly performs a passion play about the life of Jesus. The play has become somewhat outdated and the Father of the church asks a director to modernize the play.

This director Daniel (Lothaire Bluteau) does that modernization very radically and after a lot of study. He casts some actors with a commercial background and plays the leading role of Jesus himelf. The audience is enthusiastic, the church and the authorities not so much.

In my opinion the theme of the film is not a religious one. The message that the institute church has drifted away too much from the message of his founding disciple is everything but original.

The theme of the film is much more about artistic integrity. The actors believe in their work of art and don't want to give in to outside criticism and pressure. Remember their role in a controverial passion play might damage their career in well payed commercials.

Other reviewers might select another theme. That of a lead character identifying himself so much with his character that he nearly becomes this character. Indeed when the film progresses Daniel takes on some Jesus like characteristics.

It is a question of personal interpretation which of the two themes you find dominating c.q. Most important. I choose for the first one.

A Dissapointingly Contrived Film, That Is Not Worthy Of All The Acclaim Given It

[ArmandoManuelPereira · 4/10 · 2 June 2020]

The movie felt like an 8/10 in the first 45 minutes, then by the end felt like a 3/10. Basically, its the story of an actor who portrays Jesus in a play, whose personal life begins to mirror the events of Jesus' life, up to and including the death and resurrection. Sounds interesting, right? The difficulty is that it is all done in a fairly contrived manner. Enough that I felt dissapointment. In addition, it loses the cleverness and humour it had at the start. It is a wonder to me that it has received such high acclaim, and is considered one of Canadas all time best films.

To thine own self be true...

[bluedragoncafe · 8 January 2001]

Daniel Coulombe is recruited by Father LeClerc to jazz up the traditional Passion play (a dramatic representation of the events leading to the passion and Crucifixion of Jesus) staged in Montreal's Catholic Sanctuary. Coulombe, in turn, gathers a group of actors/apostles, ranging from unemployed actor Remy (now overdubbing dialogue on porn movies) to ambitious commercial actress Mireille. Together, they workshop a controversial and moving Passion play which leaves audiences awestruck and the priests reeling, as the production challenges the dogma and hipocrisy of the Catholic church.

Director Denys Arcand weaves a remarkably deep tale which comments on commercialism, selling out, spirituality, theological scholarship, fidelity, loyalty and more- but in a manner that is relatively subtle and humorous, so the film never feels didactic. The somewhat magical effects of the theatre come across beautifully; in fact, "Jesus Of Montreal" is a must for anyone involved with the Theatre. For those interested in film trivia, you'll notice that there are veiled biblical/mythical references throughout the film, (Magdalen lobster, the Lawyer as Satan, The Charon restaurant), and that the director appears as a judge when Daniel is on trial. The story itself is well constructed, and its somber denouement drives home the suggestion that resistance and a revolutionary viewpoint are liable to bring ill fortune...

You don't have to be Catholic- or even 'religious' - to enjoy "Jesus Of Montreal": this is a film for anyone who has ever contemplated the difference between spirituality and religion, or who has had to make a decision between doing what the system demanded and doing what they believe is the honest thing to do.

Stirs the soul

[smakawhat · 10/10 · 1 November 1999]

Yes I have seen, the classics, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind. Yes I know about Scorcese, Coppolla, and the rest.

But this is my favourite film of all time. It is heartwarming, passionate, funny, spiritual, uplifting, and all encompassing that it lifts your soul no matter who you are. It is universal. I don't think I will ever find another movie that will beat this and I have seen many good... no ... GREAT films..

And of course it is Canadian (and so Am I) and that is a plus.

Insightful commentary on the sacred and the profane

[bandw · 9/10 · 5 August 2006]

A priest in a large Catholic church in Montreal thinks the church's annual passion play is getting stale and needs updating. He hires Daniel, an actor, to accomplish this task. Daniel takes his assignment seriously, thinking and studying and putting together a cast of talented actors. The quest for the cast is quite humorous - one actor is dubbing an adult movie, another is appearing in a perfume ad (where she is seen walking on water), and so forth. The actors indeed come up with a play that has the play's audience moving from location to location for the performance of each station.

The passion play performed in this movie gave me a better appreciation and understanding of the power and significance of the Jesus myth than anything I have ever read or seen. As a lifelong atheist I can say it is wonderful. Lothaire Bluteau gives a powerful (even passionate?) performance as Jesus.

I was uncertain where "Jesus of Montreal" was going after the performance of the passion play. But that is where things really got interesting. Performing the play has had a marked effect on the cast and Daniel's life starts to take on certain aspects of the life of Christ. Director/writer Denys Arcand is clever in the way he presents the parallels.

Daniel is tempted by a publicist who tells him he can make him rich and famous and details some of the techniques. One suggestion is that Daniel write a book, and when Daniel says he doesn't have anything to say the publicist retorts, "Some ways of saying nothing go over so well. Think of Ronald Reagan." And there are plenty of writers who could write the book and, at the least, Daniel could publish a cookbook, since they always sell.

There is a parallel to Christ's running the moneychangers out of the temple, healing the sick, and even the crucifixion. The play is too avant-garde for the Church and they try to shut it down - refusing to desist Daniel is arrested in the middle of the play while he is on the cross. The movie is filled with such pointed commentary.

In passing Arcand touches on the deficiencies of the Canadian health care system (an emergency patient is told to take number forty-eight and wait in line), a topic that he would expand on in "The Barbarian Invasions." As a subtle commentary in the context of the story, Saint Mark's Hospital is seen as hopelessly chaotic whereas the Jewish hospital is shown as professional and efficient.

As Daniel and his troupe of actors take on more and more of a modern day version of Jesus and his disciples the question arises as to what the reaction would be to Jesus in our modern society. The answer seems to be that he would be regarded as a nut case except by the few who knew him closely and identified with his message.

Arcand's talents as a director are not to be underestimated. The staging of the passion play is beautifully done and some of the camera angles used in the church scenes are very creative. As in other Arcand films he uses music by Francois Dompierre mixed with some classical compositions (in this case Pergolesi) to great effect.

I came to this movie after having seen and enjoyed Arcand's "The Decline of the American Empire" and "The Barbarian Invasions." After now having seen "Jesus of Montreal," I think I can say I am an Arcand fan.

This is a clever, humorous, satiric, and absorbing film.

Faithless

[NoDakTatum · 6/10 · 3 October 2023]

Lothaire Bluteau is Daniel, a mousy actor who is drawn into a new version of The Passion play- the crucifixion of Christ. The local priest wants to freshen it up a bit, and Daniel brings in a small cast to reenact the scenes and play all the parts. In addition to two veteran actors, he brings onboard Constance (Johanne-Marie Tremblay), who happens to be sleeping with the aforementioned priest. He also finds the absolutely gorgeous Mireille (Catherine Wilkening), a Parisian model who uses her body in commercials to sell products. Already the parallels between Daniel and the actual Jesus Christ are hinted at, as the actor travels and assembles his "apostles." The troupe rewrites The Passion, opening it up to include recent revisionist history, and the play is performed to an awestruck audience- then the trouble begins. The priest did not want THAT kind of updating, complete with nudity and the suggestion that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier, not God. Daniel attends an audition for a beer ad with Mireille, and after seeing her humiliated in the name of a cheap beer, he destroys the television equipment. He is later arrested, while hanging on the cross in the play, and booked. His lawyer is not a criminal lawyer, but an entertainment lawyer who would love to further Daniel's career. As secular forces begin to affect the play's cast, the troupe decides to give one last performance despite the priest's ban. In a rather silly fight, Daniel is injured, and the various reactions at his two different hospital visits also shows similarities to his greatest role.

My main complaint here is not the obvious- that some film makers strayed from the Gospel to tell Jesus' story. It is the fact that the film makers try to equate theater with church, which have more differences than similarities. I minored in Communication Arts in college, appeared in my fair share of stage productions and local television commercials. However, as Arcand takes a rather hammer-headed approach to theater as church, he forgets that church is a matter of faith and belief, not a matter of free speech. One can argue that church can be theatrical, but that cannot be reversed to mean the theater is church. The entire film shut itself off to the FAITH of Christianity. The priest dismisses his flock as people who cannot afford psychoanalysis, so they confess their sins to him instead. This might be true for some, but definitely not for all, but you would not know that here. I once read an interesting statement about faith: "Truth is stranger than reason." This film will not convince the faithful to lose their beliefs. It is better when it shows the crass commercialism and emptiness of many people's lives. Seeing the critics say the same things after the performances of two entirely different plays spoke more than the priest's obvious "people are gullible" scene. He wants The Passion play changed because of pressure from higher up in the church bureaucracy, not because it defiles his beliefs. The film makers even come up with a way for the actor to heal the sick, but that also seems convenient. I liked the cast and direction, but the film's avoidance of faith- is something I could not overcome.

The greatest film of a great director

[Vince-40 · 10/10 · 8 February 2000]

"Jésus de Montréal" is probably the best film of Denys Arcand who also made "Le déclin de l'empire américain".

Unfortunately this film had a less big commercial success than "Le déclin de l'empire américain", but it was made with a biggest budget. Even though, it is an accessible film for almost everybody (the Quebequers may be advantaged because it was filmed in Quebec).

I highly recommend this film especially for the Quebequers and all other Canadians.

Vincent Leclair

An Interesting Little Film

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 15 March 2016]

A group of actors put on an unorthodox, but acclaimed Passion Play which incites the opposition of the Catholic Church while the actors' lives themselves begin to mirror the Passion itself.

I imagine what makes this movie so appreciated is its parallels between the Bible stories and the lives of the actors. And, indeed, this is interesting and surely required some clever writing and whatnot.

But what made it enjoyable for me was the exploration of the controversy. Who was the real Jesus? Who was his father? Did he have a beard? What do we really know about him? Without being blasphemous, I think the film touched on some important points, because what we generally believe may not be the same as what the record reveals.

life-changing for me

[merril-thompson · 8/10 · 25 January 2008]

a wonderful, wonderful movie! I am a Christian who has always sought the wider view, and this certainly has it. Yes, you need to see it several times to take in all the implications of plot and statements. I had the incredible experience of turning it into a play for a university assignment, and had full houses both nights it was played. we had some terrible struggles putting it together, as we were all beginners - in fact, it somewhat paralleled some of the actual film! It touched hearts, and even those in the audience who hated Christianity liked it. I like to think the film tells about Jesus in a modern vernacular that many people who cannot stand church or who have been hurt by church can relate to. Just for the record, Australian catholics have quite a different attitude to what is acceptable. Not only has the film been seen regularly in Australia (mostly in Art Movie Houses), but it has been on television several times, and for loan at video hire places. Also, our local priests were fully behind me doing the play version, giving valuable insights to how i did it, and one told me how deeply it had affected him. The students saw JofM as "cutting edge" and I had absolutely no negative comments from any of my fellows in doing it. Just goes to show what a bit of truth in todays world can do. I could not believe it when i came across the JdeM link on one of our local Australian news commentaries . I sort of thought it was all dead and buried now. How wonderful to see it is still having such impact.

Young kid

[hiphiphiphooray · 7/10 · 3 June 2020]

I remember watching this as a younger kid and it didn't make much sense. I'm watching it again as an adult and it's way different.

one my top 20 favorites

[folkie-imdb · 10/10 · 4 August 1999]

I'm utterly astonished that any thinking person wouldn't love this show...though perhaps it may offend "every word of the bible must be taken literally" Christians. I'd recommend this show to anyone and think less of the person if he or she didn't enjoy it.

Passion of Montreal

[sol- · 7/10 · 29 July 2017]

Asked to helm a stage play about the life of Jesus Christ that would appeal to modern audiences, a Montreal stage actor sparks controversy when his play proves a success due to its blasphemous nature in this Canadian drama. While there are some amusing moments early on (especially as he sets about recruiting actors who dub adult films), the movie is rather slow to warm up with the juice of the material only really emerging in the film's second half. That said, 'Jesus of Montreal' is encapsulating at its best as the protagonist becomes more and more like Christ while rehearsing (and playing) the role and as the Church figures start to show their real colours with their sponsoring of his show; "not everyone can afford psychoanalysis, so they come here" bluntly states one such official at a pivotal point. There is also much to like in how innovative the play is, with audience members literally walking around as the cast members change location, and there is a fun irony in how the play captures larger audiences than anything else ever sponsored by the Catholic Church, though for what they believe to be the wrong reasons. Some elements of the film may be a little over-the-top, such as an angry fit during an advert audition; one's mileage may also vary depending on one's familiarity with the biblical elements paralleled here, but this is generally solid stuff.

A negative review...of the first half of this film. Strong spoilers.

[hbeernyc · 1/10 · 19 September 2005]

This film really disappointed me. The acting is atrocious. Unbelievable. And it's about actors. The story is incredibly obvious: A group of independent actors stage a Passion Play and, in turn, they start to live out the lives of the characters they play. I've been watching a lot of movies lately, thanks to Netflix, and this is the first one I haven't watched all the way through in a long time. I felt I didn't need to see the end; we all know the end of this story.

For some, it seems, this "modernization" of the Gospels is either sacrilegious or enlightening. I cannot speak to any of this as I wasn't raised in the Christian church. That being said, I was raised in the US and I live in an increasingly Christian culture. I'm curious enough about Jesus and about the modernization of the religion, for better or worse. I haven't seen Mel Gibson's version, but I'm guessing that those who liked that one will like this, except for the most conservative. I just wish this was a better film.

Lots of these reviews praise Arcand's direction and especially the cinematography. I liked neither. The film itself is rather prudish and preachy. I didn't believe the characters' personae and I was never involved with their on screen lives. The play within the play is very much dated and would not, I think, carry it's own weight in a real time production. But that's beside the point. What I really needed for this to work would have been stronger development of the characters and the plot to support the philosophical and theological questions the film would like to be about. And the musical choices are obvious and unoriginal.

There were two examples of this that come easily to mind. Firstly, there is a reenactment of the parable of Jesus driving the money lenders from the temple: the lead actor, who has fallen for the woman who will play Magdalene and who is also a model and dancer, becomes enraged that she must debase herself by auditioning for a commercial (with a wicked producer and plenty of panting men in the audience) with her pants off. He trashes the place and chases them all out. I guess this is the level that the film wishes to reach. The romance between these two is entirely arbitrary and not at all emotionally realized and the scene is played out like a high-school rendering of Death of a Salesman, i.e., not well. Please stop hitting me over the head with this high-handed "significance." The other is the relationship between the other female lead and the priest who has asked them to do the play and who, eventually, turns against them and betrays them to the nowadays-corrupt Church. Why. Why does she sleep with this guy. "It brings him so much pleasure and me so little pain." Ah, the saintly whore and the lovable old coot. It seems to be just enough for Arcand to signify but not worth the trouble to enrich and enliven these characters. They are going through the motions and I'm reaching for the eject button.

Feel free to write me off as bored, jaded or just not interested. Feel free to watch this movie and see the Passion, in all its beauty, sadness and inspiration, delivered as an amateurish and gimmicky charade. Feel free to have all your preconceived ideas affirmed and see any shred of artistic integrity forsaken for monotonous drivel. But don't say I didn't warn you.