The Passover Plot (1976) Reviews

• THE PASSOVER PLOT (Michael Campus, 1976) **1/2

  Bunuel19762010-04-06

  This flashy adaptation of a controversial book on the true nature of Jesus Christ should have been "The Da Vinci Code" of its day; unfortunately, its sheer rarity (the copy I acquired suffered from 'combing' issues for the film's entire duration) has, instead, all but ensured that it forgotten over the years! That said, the popular and ultra-reverent TV mini-series Jesus OF NAZARETH (1977) could well have been commissioned as an 'antidote' to this one (actually the two display a comparably realistic view of Biblical times)! Still, its theme is certainly fascinating – theorizing that Christ was not really the Son of God but merely a man who was deluded into thinking himself the savior of his people. It is interesting that the Old Testament is full of quotes by established prophets telling what was to be expected of the eventual Messiah…so, it follows, that it was easy enough for some ambitious man to perform just those tasks and be taken for Him (consequently, Jesus' powers as a miracle-maker get just one brief, almost casual manifestation early on)! Incidentally, this is partly a Jewish production, therefore the characters adopt their Hebrew pronunciation – so that Jesus becomes Yeshua, John (The Baptist) Yohanan, Judas (Iscariot) is now Judah and Bartholomew gets saddled with the amusing name of Bar Talmi! Zalman King (of all people – in view of his later association with softcore efforts in both Film and TV!) approaches the role of Jesus with his customary intensity, which is quite incongruous with the figure of Christ as laid down in the Scriptures!; however, this is complemented by Michael Campus' unwarranted tricksy direction (full of slow-motion passages and even baffling instances of negative printing)! The rest of the cast is peppered with familiar faces and some fine actors: Harry Andrews (John The Baptist), Hugh Griffith (Caiaphas), Dan Hedaya (as Jacob, brother to Jesus!), Donald Pleasence (who, having already portrayed The Devil in THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD [1965], now assumes the mantle of Pontius Pilate – though played in strictly stock-villain terms and shown to be in cahoots with the Jewish High Priests!), Robert Walker Jr. (Bartholomew) and Scott Wilson (Judas). The latter, however, gets as much of a radical make-over as Christ himself: part of a warring rabble (led presumably by Barabbas, though he is never actually named), Judas is asked to join Jesus' peace-mongering throng in order to bring the two parties together! The famous commotion at the temple, then, is depicted here as a deliberate act (abetted by a similar disruption elsewhere by Barabbas & Co. to distract the Romans) so that Christ can then proclaim himself King Of The Jews and rally support on-the-spot for their cause of overthrowing the Roman regime! However, Jesus also has a back-up plan: ordering Judas to betray him(!) so that he can be condemned and crucified…but, believing himself capable of withstanding the multiple beatings and body-piercings and, having feigned death through a special drug concocted by physician Jacob(!), he can be 'resurrected' after a couple of days and thus accomplish the greatest faith-boosting miracle of all!! Obviously, the first option fails and Jesus has to resort to the second (which sees him on trial before Caiaphas and Pilate but not Herod Antipas, scenes which typically command particular attention)…but, then, he fails to make it and dies just the same in the arms of Jacob (Simon Peter, by the way, gets a downgrading here as well) and Judas (who, needless to say, is not required to hang himself since Jesus' death was not his doing)! The script's tendency to cut corners through the events in Christ's 'recorded' life emerges as the most unsatisfying aspect of the film…though it does try to cauterize the wounds as it were (no pun intended) by stating that since the Four Gospels were written several years after the 'fact', they were mostly hearsay (i.e. unable to be proved) anyway! Thankfully, Alex North (a veteran of Hollywood epics such as SPARTACUS [1960] and CLEOPATRA [1963]) supplies a nice score for this – even if it too comes across, at times, as inappropriately rousing (given the radical stance adopted throughout).

  More

• Demands a re-release

  Bry-22006-05-22

  Of course this film -- made over thirty years ago to exploit a controversial theory -- has been all but forgotten until very recently. But if The Da Vinci Code (2006) is as popular as the book -- and it looks like that's a possibility -- then this should be re-released, or shown on The History Channel or presented on DVD by a decent company, with Da Vinci Code tie-ins and all. The book this is from, with the same title, by Hugo Schoenfeld, is very good, well researched and well thought-out. Another complementary title (and one the Da Vinci Code is accused of stealing from) is Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln's Holy Blood, Holy Grail. All three are recommended to religious conspiracy/heresy fans, like me, although The Da Vinci Code itself is the worst written of the trio.

  More

• Much ado about nothing

  pmcguireumc2011-02-09

  I finally found a copy of this movie, and eagerly anticipated my first viewing. i love conspiracy type novels and theories. I was intrigued by the casting of Zalman King as Jesus, especially since he now does all of the Red Shoe Diaries films. Thankfully, he is better behind the camera than in front of it. This film contains what seems like hours of endless staring. One would think that Sergio Leone directed it as there was so much endless staring. The only two parts of the film that redeem it from complete mediocrity were Harry Andrews as John the Baptist - he was excellent and Donald Pleasance as Pontius Pilate. Pleasance is one of those actors that I love, though can't really define why. I just do. I used to think, based on Halloween, that he overacted most of his roles because all of the characters I had seen him play up to that point, required overacting. Unfortunately, I now realize that was par for the course for him. Nevertheless, I love him. I am wandering here, because there is not much in the film worthwhile. It is a plodding tedious movie. I loved Da Vinci Code. I loved Last Temptation of Christ, and I loved Passion of the Christ. I don't care what the take on Jesus is, i just enjoy a good film. This was not it. If you are an insomniac, this is the film for you.

  More