political-drama which side-lines Jesus within his own film--just as "Batman Returns". The  pretenseous "Greatest Story Ever Told", which I consider the American-film equivalent of those renescience  masterpieces of old, depicts Jesus far too divinely that his humanity-connection just seems lacking--the missing approximate hour of film worsens with it's possibilities. "Gospel According to St. Matthew" and "Miracle Maker" are interesting, definite alternatives; however, they are not the film-types which I was locating. And it was during these as I kept encountering a particular adaptation which was presented upon a smaller, yet greater reaching format.

The 1977 television ministries, "Jesus of Nazareth" was broadcasted to much public acclaim. It was directed by a Shakespearian Catholic--also known for his adaptations of "Romeo and Juliet" and "Hamlet"-- and casted with a Shakespearian-actor lead and other recognizable actors. Throughout the passing-years, even though numerous recent adaptation-projects have come to fruitation, it is still praised for it's narrative and direction and is generally accepted as the best live-action filmography of Jesus' life. From such over-whelming positivity and a particular poster-variant, I, myself, became greatly eager to view this supposed masterpiece, and a particular fan-editor seemed to be greatest option for such. Eventually, I subscribed with my electronic-mail, clasped my burrito (I am Mexican) and generic-brand version of Crystal-Light (equivalent taste at lower price) and prepared myself for biblical-nostalgic epicness--well, nostalgic within my parent's perspective. 
    
For the series itself, it is rather fantastic! Although it abides by the 4:3 screen-ratio, it's effective cinematography and epic atmosphere elevates itself as a theatre-worthy film (if only it was letter-boxed). Key-characters are given enough development as actual characters, such as Peter's introduction, Matthew's Zachias-like visit, and Judas' depiction as a scholar--even though John's Gospel describes Judas as money-motivated. With it's lengthy run-time, it is opportuned to depict much of the world during the time, including the Passover, circumcision, marriage, lifestyles of royals and tax-collectors. I also consider Zepperelli's portrayal of the Sanhedran to be amongst the  better portrayals, due to the vast variation of each member-- from the open-minded Joseph and Nicodemus, to the manipulative Zerah -- to be expected from Ash the Android's actor. For Robert Powell's performance as our savior, I found his unblinking performance to be mostly impecible; besides his renesciance-art likeliness being so great that his co-stars ceased profanity, smoking, and alcohol during his presence, he conveys Jesus with such reverence, majesty, and humanity, that one can become quite mesmerized, except ere his reverence breaches into Max Von Sydow's stoic territory, resulting with some relatively "ghostly" performance--most notably before Pilate. Another of the ministries' aspect is that it seems to overall utilize concepts presented from the previously-mention epics and improve them, from sub-plots of Barrabas, Judas' motivation, and John the Baptist, to the personalization of George Steven's narrative. Lo, one very irksome narrative-flaw, which bothers me greatly, is the lacking of a proper introduction to the Lazarus-siblings, resulting with that messenger's news to seem relatively random. In fact, even though it was executed well, the entirety of Lazarus' resurrection possessed a rather "tacked-on" nature about it. For an adaptation which takes it's time to introduce all to be seen (let us recall the bloated hour y thirty-minute length spent soley upon the Nativity), it is greatly baffling that they would neglect good writing by not utilizing the opportunity to foreshadow one of Christ's greatest miracles (Miracle Maker managed to do so within it's 82-minute runtime!). The story of Jesus visiting the two sisters would have been a fine introduction to expand upon. It is from this topic of ommissions which brings me to address the main category which this annoyancebelongs.

As a nearly seven-hour series, it somehow still manages to skip entire events and miracles altogether--not as the previously mentioned epics which shamelessly refer to such events in memoirs. That world-expansive narrative, which I had previously commented upon, proves to be the trade-off for the inclusion of every or most recorded details, within the limited 382-minutes. Jesus never encounters any leper;

the bleeding-woman doth not grasp Jesus before he raises the girl; after baptism, he is shown to be towarding a desert which should result with the desert-temptation; yet, none occurs. Omitted is his calming of two storms--one of them featuring his iconic walking upon water--and transforming of water-into-wine which could have been another early-introduction opportunity of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. The list just proceeds enough to be a store's bill-board of missing children. Even though I request not--although I do wish for-- an entire  episodes-worth of the un-filmed details, I do at minimum wish for the most essential of them to be included. Fortunately, this happens fan-edit exist and caught my fancy. And now, I shall address the extensions specifically, and I do say that most of these extension are compiled rather well. I state most due to some edits camaflouging well into the edit that I, as a new viewer of "Jesus of Nazareth", recognized it not as an extension--although such is primarily from the re-edits of existing footage--,with a greater-third appearing not too glaring yet obviously from another film, while others are unfortunately, sorely mediocre in execution. For the following specifics, I address the added scenes which utilized footage from other films, since those are the most obvious. Beginning with the best, the finely-paced, smooth-transitioned scenes of the  Samaritan woman, water-walking, and the soldier's earwere modified excellently with very minimal faults--only being some too serious facial-expressions utilized for Jesus' face, during his conversation with the well-woman-- with the benefit of those scenes' initial staging and cinematography proving well suited for Zeffirelli's style. Furthering into the neutral, your version of the ever-so crucial desert-temptations was interesting with the only complication deriving from this scene's extremely-dynamic cinematography which obviously originates from a modern film; regardless, I do applaud thy attempt at recreating Zeffirelli's unnecessarily lost scene, based from the existing production photographs (although, I do believe the superior footage source to be the desert-temptation's depiction from 1961's "King of Kings"), and for the initial healing-montage, I do believe that a scene of Jesus healing a leper--best sourced from the depiction from "Finding Faith in Christ"-- would have been the best alternative to that blind-man's healing.
     
Halting at which I personally consider the the relatively flawed additions, any scene deriving from the 1979 "Jesus" film seemed to be greatly distracting; initially, I assumed that my massive familiarity with that film is what caused it's sore distraction unto me; however, it was upon further viewing were I realized the greater problems, and those pertained to Brian Deacon's higher-pitched voice, and repetition. Unlike the other Jesus-actors' voices utilized for the non-Powell scenes, Deacon's higher-pitchness noticeably contrasts with those other actors, ultimately distracting from well-edited scenes as Jesus confronting Legion, and such could be simply resolved with an alternate voice or lowering his pitch. Regarding repetition, even though the scriptures detail Christ healing illness of varying categories multiple times, it is noticeable that Zeffirelli chose to narratively depict one of each category, and such is my unfortunate reason for frustratingly not favoring the three total visualizations of Christ healing blind-men(I already addressed the montage depiction and the blind-man with faith could have been justified if incorperated directly before that bystander shouts of a blind-man-healing as the forgiven adulteress follows Jesus through the on-foot-traffic) --especially ere considering the various healed lepers, mutes, and cripples which seemed to figuratively "get the boot"-- and the dual situations of the disciples struggling a storm within their boat--the better option being Jesus walking upon water--unless the boat scenes could be combined.  Unfortunately, the scene to suffer from worse than these is the transfiguration-scene from it's some odd fog-effects to conceal the 1979 film's cast's features, along with that Peter's voice sounding noticeably different from this production's actor, all encompassing a rather awkward nature unto this suppose-to-be divine scene.
         
In conclusion, despite some ommissions and bloated focusing upon particular sub-plots, Franco Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" is honestly one of the best adaptations of the Gospels. Quite the epic within it's own manner, this was the Jesus film which the public required since the relevant Jesus films of the previous decade focused barely upon him or focused soley upon his epic reverence that his humanity seemed to be forgotten. For thy passion-fueled fan-extensions, I found them to be excellent amplifications for this experience, regardless of those grievences which detracted such. Ultimately, based upon other edited sequences which I mentioned not since I initially believed them to be authentic, the positives out-weigh the negatives. As one who owns the original broadcast-version upon the VHS-cassettes and DVD formats, I personally recommend this version unto all who bore through this review, am eager to possess this version, and may ask, unto the fan-editor, if it is possible for a version-two which features the infinitely-bleeding woman (remember, she appears as Jesus journeys to raise the deceased girl) and the leprosy-stricken man, along with the optional inclusion of the centurian who realizes Jesus as the Son of God--as long as it ruins not that emotional scene--please?  ^_^