Of all the movies about Jesus, only one has attained definite-article status, as in THE Jesus movie — at least among people who know this one as "The Jesus Movie." Taking over from the 1927 King of Kings the status of Film Most-Screened on Sheets in Jungles, this Jesus, according to the distributor, has been dubbed in 660 languages (with more on the way), had over 5 billion total viewers, with more than 176 million commitments to Christ as a result. It is without a doubt both the most viewed, and most translated, motion picture of all time.

This film grew out of the ambitious Genesis Project, started in 1974 by producer John Heyman, whose company was involved in financing several major Hollywood films. Heyman's ultimate vision was a "New Media Bible," and he'd begun by filming a narrative version of the book of Genesis and a couple chapters of the Gospel of Luke. He quickly realized he was in over his head, and hit upon the idea of creating a theatrical-release which could generate interest and investment in completing the project. Teaming with Campus Crusade founder Bill Bright, Heyman restarted and completed a feature-length version of the Gospel of Luke in 1979. After a so-so theatrical run, the Genesis Project ran aground but the film Jesus went on to become a key part of Campus Crusade outreach around the world. The film (in original length as well as a shortened form) was constantly retranslated and redubbed, and taken by mission groups from many denominations to the ends of the earth. After some acrimony and litigation between Heyman and Campus Crusade over continued edits was settled, the film continues to be part of a well-organized evangelistic operation, now even with 60 translations available for viewing the film online.

The history and mission of this film suggest somewhat adjusted standards for critical evaluation. Nevertheless, this unassuming low-budget project, while hardly an epic, has a certain cozy authenticity, a refreshing lack of pretension, and lots of little touches that demonstrate real creativity within the restrictions. There's obviously great respect for the material, but not too much — that is, the approach doesn't leverage the viewers' reverence for the material as a substitute for care in presentation. It's nice to have at least one film in this tradition that presupposes the audience may never yet have even heard of the central figure. The film bills itself as a documentary, and often it is just an illustrated reading of Scripture, but the narrator drops out for long stretches in which dialogue takes over. Jesus is less slavishly "word-for-word" than similar "Visual Bible" productions, smoothing edges between voice-over and onscreen words and action, and fleshing out the material as needed without straying too far from the text. For being the most-seen film actors in the history of cinema, the cast is far from movie star quality: they're sometimes stiff, but mostly serviceable, and in general contribute to the unpretentious feel. The actor playing Peter, for example, seems an authentically-grizzled working man with knowing eyes and wild hair. And while someone with a head full of expectations about what Jesus should look like might at first sight be disappointed with Brian Deacon, a second look is liable to confirm he looks about right: midway between the beaming teen-idol of other recent versions and Pasolini's emaciated prophet, with thinning, stringy hair and a worn, winsome smile.

There was obviously no budget for special effects, which also helps: the supernatural elements are literal but understated; the film brings off the Miracle of Loaves and Fishes particularly well, with well-chosen camera angles alone. In another original touch, while Jesus delivers the parable of the Good Samaritan the film flashes to a dramatization of the story — an obvious choice that is surprising when you consider it's been done almost nowhere else in the history of the genre. (Indeed, it's easy to imagine a film made up only of dramatizations of Christ's parables, ala Kieslowski's treatment of the Ten Commandments.) The Crucifixion here is as brutally effective as any. In terms of presenting a wholistic portrayal of the title figure, especially as a means for sharing the story with those who've never heard it, this film holds up nicely — and isn't likely to be replaced on those jungle sheets by any version made since.