Judas

Its good intentions are obvious. New perspectives about familiar events, a nuanced story and a subtle portrait of Judas . The only sin - it is not exactly credible. it seems an improvised project and , after so many films about same subject, a too cool Savior can be a great mistake. And, unfortunately, it is it. Sure, many reserves about script and acting, about not the inspired dialogue, but the error remains something perceived as a sort of superficiality looking for give a decent image of a friendship and a controversal character. It is not a rehabilitation, not a good explanation. It is only an exercise, not bad, to define obscure aspects . The story has not exactly coherence. The resurrection of Lazarus is awfull .The effort of Johnathon Schaech works not very well, the temptation to give a modern version to a sacred story is , at the end, not the most inspired idea. And the Lord, he seems too much with a young hippie or a rock star in early career. The good point - Bob Gunton as Caiaphas. But, sure, the film remains a nice try.

One critic said it best when he wrote, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. I am of course referring to the producers of this drivel." "JUDAS", although dealing (or attempting to deal with) a Christian theme, is a terrible waste of film whether watched from a Christian or non-Christian viewpoint. Besides terrible acting, an awful script, laughable dialogue, an unmoving score, C.G. effects that seem to have been created ten years ago, and a story about as biblically accurate as "MONTY PYTHON AND THE SEARCH FOR THE HOLY GRAIL", it was very hard for me to even imagine what effect the filmmakers were thinking this film would have on it's audience.

The characters actions are motivated by events that contradict what actually took place according to the four gospels and with the acting as it is we really do not know what the characters actions are motivated by at all. The acting in "JUDAS" is something I have never before seen in my life. Not one actor in this movie was even believable – forget compelling and in the filmmakers attempt to "humanize" Jesus He ends up being played not as God enrobed in flesh, savior of the world, or even a wise teacher, but more as a young hippie who is far from all knowing; so far from it, in fact, that throughout the movie we see him constantly confused over what move to make next. (Some scenes with Jesus are so unintelligently done that they border on blasphemous.)

I could continue to write in detail on how terrible this movie was at every level, but to list everything would take hours. Some films just needed a better director, some just need better actors; this film is proof that some should have never been made.

Excellent films concerning the life of Jesus: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION OF THE Christ." Philip Saville's "THE GOSPEL OF JOHN."

Jesus appears to be a surfer who's searching for but can't find the beach to go hang ten. Judas, dressed in black, is an emo who wants to get like totally rad against the Romans and hang ten all over their face. The rest of the cast are card board cut-outs; it's hard to figure out who is playing whom.

The movie appears to be well meaning, but it just goes all wrong. First of all, it takes all its source material from forgotten scripture, the Gospel of Gnarly. The writers come up with stuff that doesn't fit with known scripture, and to say the writer took poetic license is being nice. Jesus comes across as confused, wimpy, and suffering from severe sleep deprivation. Judas just yells and screams at him, so that they can launch a military campaign of two men to overthrow the Roman Empire.

Judas is always mad, and it makes no sense that Jesus would have called this guy as an apostle in the first place. From then on they bicker, with Jesus always sounding like a 1st grade teacher, and Judas sounding like a cross between Fred Flintstone and General George Patton. The fact that the acting is weak makes these awkward characterizations even more bizarre. Events from the passion are tossed and turned, out of context, and out of logical chronology.

This should only be viewed as a novelty, as a case study of just how far a story can stray from source material.

Scatterbrained, ill conceived, and dare I say it, blasphemous. What parts of scripture they added to the movie were either misinterpreted, misplaced, or dictated in a corny, lifeless manner. Then, as if it weren't bad enough to simply take scripture and do with it what you want... they decided to ADD scenes to the Word. Scenes such as Pilate and his wife making out while Flavius looked on, or Judas confronting Jesus about Jesus' soon to come death - where Judas used the expression "What the Hell" -- An expression -I've- never read in the gospels. As well, other colorful phrases were thrown in - perhaps an attempt to modernize the film??? And the additional scenes of Judas, lamenting over his decision to betray Christ... where he tries to convince the apostles to rescue Jesus... or where he screams in horror as the crowd calls to crucify Him. Funny how the scriptures say Judas hanged himself long before these events happened. All the while leaving out chief events - such as the anointing by the woman of ill repute.

As for the acting (or lack there of) -- You had Jesus, who was portrayed as a wimp, played by a soft-spoken, blond haired-blue eyed "actor" who would do better in commercials then in any movie. Judas was a mismatch of personalities - all poorly played - and for a while I got the impression they were -actually- trying to make him LIKEABLE! The betrayer of Christ... likeable... What were they thinking? The apostles were all over the place, and nothing like the bible describes them. And would someone -please- explain why in all of these "Jesus" movies, the Mary's and Martha's all seem to have British accents?? Where in the scriptures does it say they "hailed from Jolly ol' London"? And while they're sipping tea and eating crumpets none of the other characters have any accents, what so ever... interesting. And while we're explaining things... what was the deal with Jesus and Judas "wrestling" on the garden path and discussing becoming bandits?? What?? Where did - that - come from?

The movie generalized, stereotyped, blasphemed and over all invented areas of scripture, most of which had nothing to do with Judas himself.

Badly acted, badly produced, poorly cast and over all poor quality... simple as that.

If I were to give this movie a letter grade... it would probably be somewhere around the O's or Q's...

Heavens, this has to be the worst "biblical" movie I have ever seen! The dialogue is so hokey, too much is left out, events are out of chronological sequence-and the actor who plays Jesus-Ay!ay!ay! He's too wimpy, too wussy, his delivery is weak, he sounds like a surfer, which would maybe be okay in a movie dealing with a lighter subject, but NOT here-in plain English the whole thing stinks!. This film should have been left in the can forever. Before Mel Gibson's "Passion" came out,it would have been barely passable. NOW it is just inexcusable! I have seen MG's "Passion", it is a good movie on its own-but compared to this film, it's platinum-"Judas" is not even BASE METAL! Lord have mercy!