Judas (2004 TV Movie) User Reviews (39)

academic roots of Judas Gospel from 1978

[goldencat4195 · 6/10 · 29 February 2008]

I think the subject matter was handled well. It falls into the sort of pseudo-Christianity which the Gnostics were branded heretics for. It's valuable for learning what that sect believed.

I am reminded of the movies "Last Temptation of Christ" and "DaVinci Code" - the latter also archaeologically false, as proved by DNA testing of known Merovingian rulers. They had no Hebrew DNA!

Interesting from a storyteller's POV, but damaging to those who have a desire to learn about Christian belief, historical Jesus, Judas, or simply ancient history. Surely there are better ways to write gripping movies than by contradicting one of the major religions with what they find offensive: heresy. And false premises, at that. Kinda puts a pall over the whole storyline, knowing there's an agenda.

I would like to put a more accurate archaeological and theological light on the contents of "Judas". I'm currently a graduate student researching the apostle Judas.

The Gnostics were an outcast sect that believed one could connect with the divine spark within oneself and get direct, secret knowledge, by reconnecting to the original source. This ability to get new revelations was reserved for the "special" few. Already, this is counter to Christian belief - God is accessible to anyone equally.

This makes any "gospel" they authored suspicious. There were other anti-Jesus beliefs, meaning contrary to his teaching.

The 4 gospels we have in the canon are corroborated with evidence from "hostile" witnesses in other documents of the time. In other words, they had nothing to gain by attesting to the same events depicted in the Bible. And may have preferred not to. Thus giving historical support for the material, lacking in Gnostic accounts.

Remember, Gnostics have "personal" secret knowledge, so we can't prove it is true! The problem is if it sounds plausible, it perpetrates errors.

It was early Christian leader Irenaeus who ousted their bogus "gospels" from the official accounts that make our familiar Bible. Constantine came much later, and as a Roman of Pagan roots, was not above doing what his mother wanted him to do, as per changing Christianity to suit her anti-semitic beliefs. For example, initiating the Sunday "sabbath" to avoid worship on the "Jewish" Sabbath.

The Judas Gospel was found in a burial cave, in a stone box, in 1978. Scholars have not made much fuss about it till relatively recently. It may be a "real" document, in that it is on old papyrus, and may have been written by a Gnostic. Historically it cannot be true, because that would make the other 4 Gospels lies. One cannot have 2 contradictory truths. Also, Jesus would have lied in calling Judas "a devil", if he were beloved and trusted. We are told he stole from the common money bag. In fact, he died before Jesus did, so could not have had any experience of the crucifixion events.

Of course Jesus had to send Judas out to betray him at that time. It was the only way to fulfill all the prophecies that confirmed the Messiah, and allowed him to finish what he came to do. Any other time would not have been "timely". We are told clearly that Jesus didn't want to die.

Although it would be nice to believe Judas was forgiven, we are not told this in the Bible. We only know "he repented" before killing himself. And the 11 drew lots to replace him after the Acension, according to another prophecy his fall fulfilled.

He remains a tragic character, and a mysterious one, worthy of a historically accurate retelling with a sympathetic eye. Not a masking attempt via Gnostic fallacies. Of course, it is up to the viewer to weigh the evidence for either account, and then to decide who has the stronger case - not just a more romantic tale. Watching the documentary "the Gospel of Judas" should help.

Well-meaning but off-centre

[qljsystems · 5/10 · 27 March 2005]

If you can allow yourself to overcome the shock of seeing Jesus portrayed as human with fears and uncertainties, this is a genuine attempt at a new angle on the gospel accounts.

Judas is portrayed as an embittered and misguided zealot, who actually succeeds in partially manipulating Jesus and motivating some of his decisions - albeit that Jesus' and Judas' motives never aligned, leading to Judas' inevitable disenchantment. While genuine in its approach, I find it hard to believe that anyone as prophetic and insightful as Jesus would've allowed himself to be manipulated at all - after all, he countered the Pharisees' every argument by giving answers that revealed their motives.

There's a liberal dose of conjecture and some far stretches - Jesus admitting to Judas regarding his overturning the money-changers' tables, "I know. I was trying to make a point, but I lost my temper." - honestly now... Jesus - God Incarnate - loses his temper...? Since the movie keeps true to the main point that Jesus is God in flesh and "one with the Father", I'm surprised the scriptwriters let that one slip through the net.

While most subjects permit poetic licence, the subject of Jesus isn't one of them. It's too hot a potato to play with.

Different Perspective On A Familiar Story

[sddavis63 · 5/10 · 8 March 2004]

Clearly, this is a movie with a purpose: to try to fill in the gap in the Gospels, which never really clearly explain what it was that caused Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus. This movie, then - as the title implies - is filmed from Judas' perspective, and traces (imaginatively, since there are few facts to depend on) the relationship between the two from their first encounter through to Jesus' crucifixion. In that sense, the movie deserves credit for tackling a controversial figure (Judas is the traitor par excellence of human history) and for doing so in an original and thought-provoking way.

Tom Fontana's screenplay has Judas (Johnathon Schaech) as desperately looking for someone who could lead the Jewish people in rebellion against the Romans. He meets Jesus (Jonathon Scarfe), and is immediately drawn to him, and as Jesus begins to build a following of his own, Judas believes he is just the charismatic type who could be the rebel leader he's been searching for. Jesus wants no part of that role, however, and Judas is portrayed as becoming increasingly disillusioned as Jesus preaches peace and forgiveness and reconciliation and love for enemies, and as eventually deciding that Jesus has to go if the Roman yoke is ever to be cast off.

The story is good and imaginative and - to me at least - plausible. And having said all that, the movie really didn't work for me. One problem was the performances, which were mixed at best. I thought Schaech did a good job in the lead role, hitting Judas perfectly as the anti-Roman zealot. Scarfe, on the other hand, did not work for me as Jesus. Tim Matheson also had problems, I thought, with the role of Pontius Pilate, never really coming across as the bloody ruler that he was. Other performances were OK, nothing more. The movie also seemed disjointed and stumbled along without ever really picking up any steam. Perhaps I'm being too hard on it, having just been blown away a few days ago by "The Passion Of The Christ." Comparing a big-budget motion picture to a relatively smaller budget TV movie is surely unfair, and yet ABC chose to air it at the same time as "The Passion" was generating such controversy, clearly hoping to cash in on the current general interest in the subject. Comparisons are inevitable, however different in scale the productions are, and I just couldn't get out of my mind how easy it was to focus on "The Passion," and yet how difficult it was to stay focused on Judas. I have to also say that, while I know the focus of this movie was Judas and not Jesus, I'm still bothered by any movie that depicts the crucifixion without the resurrection.

So, I give the movie credit for guts and originality, but still can't go any higher than a 5/10 on this rather dull TV movie, because I just didn't find it particularly compelling.

Did Jesus own his own Surf board?

[caspian1978 · 2/10 · 11 July 2004]

The reason I ask if Jesus owned his own surf board is because he looked like he was born and raised in Malibu. While Judas has its moments,the other 85 minutes of the movie is utter garbage. In the shadow of The Passion, the networks only real motive to show this movie was for profit. Judas has moments of stunning visual achievement (although not historically accurate) and interesting dialogue (questionable) between Pilate and Jesus. Still, I found myself laughing at most of the stuff Jesus says and does. In defense of the Actors in this crap of a movie, it's hard to do anything good if the script is bad. The best-worst line in the entire movie is when after Jesus tells Judas that he wants to take him to paradise with his Father, Jesus says to Judas: "What do you say?" Forgetting proper English along with any traces of biblical authenticity, that line defines the mess this movie is. To anyone wanting to be screen writers or filmmakers, if you want to make a serious movie, use serious dialogue. If not, make a movie like Judas.

Forgive them, for they know not what they do.

[gck4kristo · 1/10 · 11 June 2006]

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."

Unholy Crap

[jpnichols · 1/10 · 8 March 2004]

This must be the worst and least compelling movie I have ever seen. Aside from most of the story being completely made up, the cast was simply not believable and the dialogue was awful. Call me crazy, but I have a hard time believing anyone in first century Palestine saying to Jesus "Why don't you just say what the hell you mean?"

To call the acting terrible would be an insult to terrible acting. Were I not born a Christian I may very well believe, after seeing this movie, that Jesus was a gay pot-smoking hippie. The dialogue was trite and forced, with little resemblance to the Gospels. And any attempt at feeling was destroyed by what appeared to be actors simply going through the motions.

Not that all of this was the fault of the actors. The writers too, deserve much if not most of the blame. Who knew that Pilate was so manipulative and hated Jesus so much that he would plot with Caiaphas to trick Judas into betraying Him? Not only was there extra garbage like that thrown in there, but there were other more important events left out or glossed over. Like Jesus' death on the cross. Where were the two criminals? How about, "I thirst?" Did we forget "Woman, behold your son. Man, this is your mother?"

I can't possibly say enough bad things about this movie, so I will spare you. Two hours of this drivel. Two hours of my life I want back.

interesting point of view

[FilmLabRat · 7/10 · 6 June 2003]

Very interesting version of Jesus' story, told through Judas' eyes. Sympathetic with Judas yet depicting him as a complicated character, motivated by a desire to see the Jewish people set free from Roman tyranny, it sets up the conflict well. Jesus sees his mission and the Kingdom of God very differently than Judas, even though they become good friends. The villains are Pontius Pilate and Caiaphus who try to manipulate Judas, playing on his desire to see the Jews freed. There is also tension between the rural disciples and Judas, a city sophisticate.

This telefeature has the look and feel of a theatrical release movie, in its fairly frequent long shots, attention to detail and even symbolic imagery, at times. Very well-made and well-told story. Tom Fontana did a great job writing the script and Charlie Carner excellent direction.

Dude, where's the gospel?

[MartianOctocretr5 · 3/10 · 28 March 2016]

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.

Luminous actor as Jesus

[peace9-1 · 7/10 · 24 September 2006]

I don't think this movie was particularly good, starting with the fact that once again we've got a blond playing Jesus, even though Jesus was an Israelite and should have the coloring of people of that region. But I have to say that despite his coloring, Jonathan Scarfe made a wonderful Jesus. He was warm and smiling, luminous -- everything the actor in "Jesus of Nazareth" was not. There was an openness and sweetness to him that I think Jesus must have had.

When I first saw the movie "Gandhi" with Ben Kingsley, I thought, "They found a saint to play a saint." Love just seemed to pour out of his eyes. I got the same feeling from Jonathan Scarfe -- you could certainly understand from this performance how people would be so drawn to Christ. And when you read Mr. Scarfe's filmography and realize that this is the same actor who played the cynical, drug-addicted Chase Carter for several episodes on "ER", you have to realize what a wonderful actor he is.

JUDAS lacks authenticity and vision

[jdg9977 · 1/10 · 5 March 2004]

JUDAS is an awful movie that lacks vision. This is best written off as Fontana's vanity project.

JUDAS was written by Tom Fontana, the producer of Strip Search and a writer of HBO's violent prison drama OZ. JUDAS is boring and without drama, a mark of death for a TV movie. The movie is a buy-the-numbers production of little ambition; it is generic to the point that one is hard-pressed to find any artistic vision. The religious context is beyond dubious; to put it kindly, the religious context is made up by Tom Fontana. The only thing that keeps JUDAS from becoming a farce of Christianity is the director's lack of intensity. JUDAS inexplicably meanders from one made-up scene to the next.

Judas the man was so vastly insignificant that the Disciples and Apostles had to refer to him as Iscariot so as not to confuse him with the other equally irrelevant Judas. This movie makes Judas Iscariot a figurehead of Christianity.

The theology, plot, and dialogue of JUDAS are entirely made up. Contrary to what this film depicts, Judas Iscariot was not a conflicted and complex disciple with political leanings, as the secular producers of this film would have you believe. Judas Iscariot was called disciple but he was nothing more than an errand-boy, a gofer with so little faith he was ultimately possessed by Satan at the last supper. Jesus promptly ordered Judas Iscariot to betray Him. Judas was given these words: `What you are about to do, do quickly.' The other disciples (according to the Gospels) thought Jesus was telling Judas to go buy bread! The entire betrayal of Jesus takes one verse of scripture, yet Fontana believes it takes 2 hours to convey this one line of scripture? No wonder this movie wanders aimlessly in search of some profound spiritual truth! Fontana ignores the Bible and relies on his esteemed insight instead.

JUDAS was so ahead of its time Disney has had to lock it up in the archives for three years until a more controversial film came along to obscure the outrage!

A remarkable film for those who have the courage to accept another viewpoint

[JuguAbraham · 8/10 · 4 September 2006]

This is a remarkable film. First, because it was made at least two years before the "Gospel of Judas" was unearthed in Egypt a few years ago and before the National Geographic scientifically authenticated that the document was indeed written in 300 AD or earlier, by the Gnostics and or the Orthodox Christians of Egypt. It is also well established and historically accepted now that the Four Gospels of the New Testament are not the only Gospels and that King Constantine several centuries later ruled that all other Gospels other than the four in the Bible are not acceptable because he sought the path of least controversy for the propagation and consolidation of Christianity.

What is remarkable about the film is its attempt to re-evaluate the known facts surrounding a chosen disciple of Christ—-who evidently needed a Judas to betray him so that he would be crucified and thus die on the cross to leave his mortal body. Christ picked Judas; Judas did not pick Jesus. What is equally remarkable is that the film reiterates that Jesus was very close to Judas as the intellectual among the 12 apostles. He is dejected when the Keys of Heaven are given to Peter and not to him. Some of the apostles are equally surprised at Jesus' decision to bypass the apostle who was entrusted with the financial affairs of the peripatetic group.

Further, the deaths of Jesus and Judas are interlinked chronologically as the film suggests. I applaud the scriptwriters' and the directors' decision to include the shot in the film of three apostles (?) lifting the body of the dead Judas for burial—which is in line with Christian ideology that God forgives those who repent.

Finally, if the true Christian believes Christ knew how he was going to be betrayed and by whom and even commanded Judas to go and do what he had to do, the independent decision-making capability of the greatest traitor in Christendom needs considerable reassessment. According to the "Gospel of Judas," Judas was told by Jesus that he would be reviled for ages and rehabilitated and venerated later. The film also suggests a linked promise made by Jesus to Judas before the betrayal of being with him after death. The film also suggests the reason for accepting the 30 pieces of silver was related to his mothers' burial—a debatable detail never mentioned in the official Gospels.

The fact that the film was not released for 2 years after it was made shows the reluctance of the producers anticipating the reaction of Christians indoctrinated by the contents of the accepted gospels. I also noticed in the credits that the film was dedicated to a Christian priest.

Not only was the subject interesting but portrayal of Jesus and his disciples came very close to Pier Paolo Pasolini's film "Gospel According to St Mathew" (which received acceptance of the Catholic Church some five decades ago) both in spirit and in the obvious lack of theatrical emotions by the actors. Jonathan Scarfe's Jesus was different from the conventional but not a bad one by any count. Here was a portrayal of Jesus as a Man who spoke like any one of us and yet commanded respect. Unlike Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" that concentrates on the pain and suffering of Christ, this film reaches out intellectually to explore the politics of the day and the dynamics among the twelve apostles and Mary Magdalane. It offers food for thought. This film is strictly for those who can accept another point of view in Christianity than the accepted one. For them alone, this is recommended viewing. And for those who love the power of cinema.

The Value of a Well-Executed Audio Enhancement

[Urantia · 7/10 · 7 January 2011]

My comments pertain primarily to the ending of this movie so I'd recommend NOT reading past this point if you haven't already seen it. As with most movies, there were some scenes that I liked more than others. But rather than dwell on the ones I didn't like, I'm choosing instead to reflect positively on my favorite scene, this being the last one. The image I recall is one where a couple of Jesus' apostles were praying over the lifeless body of Judas who had committed the final act in the drama of fleeing from the realities of mortal existence. Something was spoken about their prayers being in accordance with what Jesus would want them to do. And then as the praying voices of these devotedly loyal apostles gradually fades into the shadow-kissed corners of the smoothly transitionalized soundstage, the voice of the Master Himself fades in until the perceived volume of Jesus' voice praying in unison with the apostles goes from being equally mixed with them to being the only one reciting this prayer to the end followed only by a momentary pause filled with the lingering void of dead silence (part of my emphasis here is on my recollection of the absence in this scene of an irrelevant musical score or any other artificially contrived elements of sound design). This was more than just a passionately powerful method of using an audio track to creatively suggest that Jesus had magnificently triumphed over physical death just as He had said He would (since only the Living Spirit of a Crucifixion-Conquering Jesus would be praying WITH these apostles at this moment in the sequence of events being portrayed). For me, this scene was also a gentle reminder that the Timeless Truths Jesus eloquently expressed through His love-dominated actions and words are just as supremely relevant and important today as the faith-fact of His morontia resurrection three days after an unsuccessful legal attempt was made to shut Him up using a handful of rusty old nails and a trembling tree of torture.

Revisionism at Its Worst

[romanorum1 · 1/10 · 11 July 2008]

Jesus said about Judas: "...better for him had he never been born." (Mark 14:17). Amen (but because this movie is terrible in every way, I must add additional comments; all are factual).

The scriptures tell us that Judas was extremely avaricious, and stole from the disciples' privy-purse. Judas coveted the money from the expensive Jard for his own personal use. He betrayed Christ for 30 pieces of silver. He killed himself (when all he had to do was go to Christ and ask for forgiveness). Judas never got the point. So didn't the Pharisees and Saduccess. Mark 15 tells us that the whole Sanhedrin (elders and scribes) tried Jesus and came to a decision against him. You know what happened next.

But what the director and writers do is to give the Romans no virtues at all (contrary to the Bible). Sympathy is given to the Pharisees, Judas, etc. At the beginning the movie establishes that the Romans were taking money from the high priest in the Temple to allow freedom of worship. That is false, as Romans were not even allowed in the Temple. Historically, the Romans had granted the Jews freedom of religion (without bribes). Plus Jesus could have called legions of angels to his help if he so desired. He did not need a revolt by Judas, Barabbas, or any human. Jesus conducted his ministry and entered Jerusalem without any interference. But the movie shows the opposite (Roman crackdowns, manhunts, breaking down doors, etc.). Pilate did not say that Jesus had better stay out of town. Pilate did say that he "found no case against him" (John 19:6). The topic gets more interesting in John 8:39ff. By the way, the Temple Guards (not Roman soldiers) arrested Jesus and brought him to the Jewish leadership. I remain amazed how the revisionists discard the truth and blind the people as to what Christ's mission was.

In short, virtually every scene has a major distortion of the truth. The Gospels remain our best history as to what happened during the ministry of Christ and His passion.

Where do I start?!

[lunarose · 9 March 2004]

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!

Truly ABYSMAL

[furirosa · 1/10 · 11 March 2004]

What a terrible waste of time. Just another weak attempt to try and cash in on the hype surrounding Mel Gibson's movie. Fortunately this piece of trash will easily be forgotten. The story is just made up, touching on a few events ripped from the Gospels, and loaded with contrived and anachronistic dialog (funny how they use the word "crusade" a full thousand years before it even happened, for example). By far the biggest insult to every real Christian is once again Jesus is portrayed as a bumbling, head-in-the-clouds airhead who has no idea what he's doing, and needs all these people around him to tell him what to do.

Really, this movie was an impossible task to begin with - retelling the Gospels from another's view does not work - the Bible has just one central character calling the shots. You might as well remake Star Wars from the point of view of R2D2. If you want a moving telling of the gospels, "Jesus of Nazareth" is still by far the best out there. While that too has fictional characters added in, it still proves to be the noblest and most sublime.

Worst Movie Ever

[RingP4P · 1/10 · 9 March 2004]

This movie plain sucked. I can't recall what Gospel they pulled this crap from. It's so fake. The dialogue is b.s., the acting sucked, and I don't have the appropriate words to describe it. Someone out there might have seen this crap and taken it as fact if they haven't read the Bible. It's garbage. The apostles peforming miracles left and right? Are you kidding me? And When Jesus gave them the power to cure he looked like Elvis with his motion. How anyone here could rate this above a 1 is beyond me. People should watch The Passion of The Christ which is a great movie and not this bologna. This movie is like a bad 2am Cinemax flick. And to think that some clergymen and pastors were involved in writing or giving ideas for this film...Are you kidding me?

Absolutely Despicable

[Joshy-3 · 1/10 · 8 March 2004]

In comparison to The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson, I feel that the ABC tele-film 'Judas' is absolutely blasphemous. Now, I'm not saying the Passion is perfect but how can the critics complain about the accuracy of the passion and praise a film like Judas which is almost laughably modern and only peppered with half hearted biblical references. it seems as though these references such as Lazarus resurrection were thrown in only to remind you that you were watching a story about Jesus and his disciples. This scene in particular was so butchered that it left me speechless. I just don't get how this film is being so highly praised over the passion which had been unfairly judged. The only thing that i can think of is that Judas was written (albeit two years ago) to please the powers that be and is more PC while alienating and DOWNRIGHT INSULTING to Christians. how dare the film makers be so arrogant as to think that they can mess with the gospel and be so blatantly false in this telling and claim it as fact. and yes I'm not naive enough to believe that The Passion is THE be all end all factual telling of the passion story but it certainly was done with much more reverence to the man who laid down his life for us. and didn't litter the dialog with unnecessary swearing like to hell with this and to hell with that and having Judas saying "Damn you Jesus" my word, i was in tears. mostly because i knew that critics would eat this up and that it would be more widely accepted by mass audiences. And further more the writer of the film Judas had the nerve to publicly state that there is a parking space in hell reserved especially for Mel Gibson. How sickening is that? how contradictory to the teaching of Jesus. It totally negates anything this man was trying to state with his film. The gospel is not for entertainment and should not be dramatized so. At least the passion was made for educational purposes and actually serves that purpose and even if it was mildly factually challenged it brought people to church, where they could learn the whole story from the mouth of God Himself. So please, after watching these films, consult the New testament. it is the ONE TRUE PLACE to learn about Judas, Jesus and the journeys both men faced and it is done so without the editorial flavor of Hollywood and is presented without the weight of biased mens opinions clouding the real issues. If you must see one version though. view the passion of the Christ and then read the bible, you will come away with a deeper since of respect for Jesus Christ our LORD and not an image of a teenager friendly Jesus and the factually retarded version that is 'Judas'.

A sincere attempt at a fresh approach

[tiernan · 7/10 · 8 March 2004]

In light of recent discussions, debate and research concerning Jesus' life, this attempt to tell this very familiar story from a different viewpoint would appear to be sincere, even if that viewpoint is not quite a compelling as one would hope. The more "modern" approach to the dialogue and social setting of these well-known stories, while novel, tends to seem artificial and somehow unsettling, though this may be more a reflection on the actors themselves, or the fact that few adaptations of Jesus' story have attempted to approach it in this modern fashion. Additionally, more than a little artistic licence seems to have been taken concerning Judas' (and even the other disciples) "expectations" of Jesus and their actions in response to him and his teachings. Perhaps in our modern age, it's not possible to truly understand how revolutionary the disciples WANTED Jesus to be, and how disappointed they were (initially) when he turned out to be an entirely different sort of "king" than they had hoped for.

Worth seeing, if for no less reason that for comparison and contrast with Mel Gibson's theatrical vision of Jesus' last 12 hours on earth.

I don't know about this one.

[webdesigner91030 · 1/10 · 9 March 2004]

I was rather annoyed watching this film on television last night, primarily because of the casting and the writing... okay, just about everything about this film annoyed me. The actors for Judas and Jesus (in my opinion) would have worked a lot better if they were switched. I found the Judas actor a lot stronger and I believe it would have been more accurate to see Christ as stronger than Judas.

Overall, the acting was okay, the idea of making the Romans responsible for the crucifixion of Christ makes sense, but the way in which it was done was not terribly convincing -- the power struggle between Pilate and Caiaphas was more reminiscent of an episode of Xena Princess Warrior or Hercules rather than something that could have been taken more serious.

I don't know if it was the filmmaker's objective to make it campy, melodramatic (and hence unbelievable to the point of becoming farce), but I wonder how many other Christians who see this will look upon this film and think, "Yes, I think I will go see The Passion of The Christ again, to see something that rings more true than this."

An audacious vision.

[sylvain-blanchard5 · 7/10 · 18 June 2009]

Written by Tom Fontana, the creator of "Oz", Judas relates the journey of a young man struggling with his faith and inner violence, waiting for a leading man who will defeat the Romans and free his people for slavery. When he meets a man named Jesus in the temple, he's driven by his words and actions and decides to follow him. Then problems arise when he hears love when he would want to hear revolt and war. One thing lead to another and Judas will have to make a choice, which will lead him to become one of the most hated character in popular culture...

Served by a solid interpretation, Judas is a worth see. The historical and political context are well shown, along with the doubts, the love and a famous act of betrayal which became the ultimate in history.

The Passion of the Beach

[mtripka · 2/10 · 23 April 2018]

The retelling of the Gospel events was accurate enough, but as though told by a bunch of "actors" they found on a California beach. Jesus especially looks and talks like surfer boy. Not much here.

An effective re-telling of the Gospel

[gonzuller · 10/10 · 22 March 2004]

It is not fair to compare this film with "The Passion of the Christ" for several reasons. First, "Passion" was made for the wide-screen cinema and "Judas" was made for television. They are different media that require different approaches.

Second, "Passion" is not as biblically accurate as some would like to believe or argue. Why? Because Gibson chose the harmonizing approach which requires one to pick some story elements from the four gospels and reject others. He also blends story elements from the gospels with popular Catholic devotions such as the Stations of the Cross and the sorrowful mysteries of the Rosary. He also includes elements from the visions of Sister Anne Emmerich, a 19th century nun. If one is looking for biblical "accuracy" then a Jesus film should be based on only one gospel like Pier Paolo Pasolini's "The Gospel according to Saint Matthew." Furthermore, the truth is that biblically accurate does not always equate with historically accurate. Gibson chooses the biblical depiction of Pilate (principally from John and Matthew) over what we know about him from the history provided by Josephus and Philo. Pasafist criticizes "Judas" for depicting Pilate as cruel and then manipulative for changing his mind. In fact, this is exactly how Pilate is remembered by Josephus. "Judas" clearly chooses historical accuracy over biblical accuracy. Had Mel Gibson chosen this path, only for the depiction of Pilate, he might have avoided the controversy over anti-Semitism (for the record, I do not think that "Passion" is anti-Semitic). Mind you, I do not note these points as a criticism of "Passion;" I happen to think that it is a very well made and powerful film. I just do not base this conclusion on biblical "accuracy."

A better mode of comparison lies in the styles of the Gospels themselves; they were written as popular literature employing elements from Greek biography, historiography, and Jewish novels.That is, they used generic elements that were accessible to a wide public to communicate the Gospel. We should expect any contemporary re-tellings of the Jesus story to do the same with contemporary audiences and this is what we often find. Pasolini employs the visual heritage of neorealism for his Italian audience, Jewison used the musical to tell the Gospel, and as many have noted, Gibson uses visual elements of the horror film (especially in the opening) in "Passion." All of these films successfully use contemporary genres to tell the Jesus story and I think that if the Gospel writers were alive today they would be choosing these popular modes rather than ancient biography.

This long introduction is to argue that this film deserves to be judged on its own merits and intentions and not against another film or the ambiguous notion of biblical accuracy. To this end, I believe that the film succeeds very well. It asks the question that has plagued believers for centuries: Why did Judas betray Jesus? Only John offers an explanation and, while convenient (the Devil made him do it), it is not entirely satisfactory to contemporary audiences. We want what was not important to the Gospel writers, a motive. This film provides an historically plausible answer through the powerful performance of Johnathon Schaech as Judas. Some historians argue that "Iscariot" derives from "sicarii," the name for the dagger bearing bandits and revolutionaries, many of whom were from the Galilee. The film clearly employs that understanding to present the viewer with a reason for Judas' betrayal of Jesus. Is it biblical? Perhaps not. The truth is that we do not know and cannot ever know exactly what the Gospel writers expected their audiences to already understand about Judas that did not have to be explicitly depicted in the story. However, by providing a creative retelling of the story of Judas, the film does use the Jewish method of midrash, a story-telling form well known in the time of Jesus. Some scholars even argue that the Gospels themselves employ elements of midrash (e.g., Matthew uses Jesus as the basis for a midrashic re-telling of the story of Moses).

This film is also clearly American in its visual sensibilities by using visual motifs from the Western genre (e.g., when Jesus heals the withered hand on the Sabbath). I also believe that it succeeds in this fashion to communicate the gospel to a contemporary American audience. Finally, there is the matter of Jesus' language. Perhaps, the contemporary sounding language sounds obtuse to those who might prefer their Jesus to speak King James English. However, the Gospels again provide a point of reference here; their Jesus speaks a popular form of Greek ("koine") that would have sounded equally strange to those who preferred Homeric classical Greek. So there is a precedent in the literary style of the Gospels for the dialogue choices in this film. Does the language always succeed in "Judas"? No, but on the whole it was not a terrible distraction to me.

This is not to suggest that the film is not without flaws. Johnathon Schaech is clearly a stronger actor than Jonathan Scarfe and this does have an effect on the viewer's perceptions of Jesus. Also, it is difficult to view Tim Matheson in a toga as Pilate and not think of "Animal House." However, these flaws are overshadowed by the powerful ending of the film as some other disciples find Judas and pray kaddish (the Jewish prayer for the dead and a prayer, like the Shema, that Jesus probably prayed regularly throughout his life) over his body. Without having to say it through dialogue, the film visually illustrates Jesus' command the love our enemies and by having the voice of the disciples become the voice of Jesus, the viewer is given the assurance of the resurrection without having to depict it (a narrative technique that the Gospel of Mark uses because it has no resurrection stories). All in all, a successful undertaking with moving moments that faithfully communicates the Gospel without having to be biblically accurate.

so this sat on the shelf for two years....

[shantaar-1 · 2/10 · 23 November 2004]

O-k, I think ABC could have left this on the shelf. I really like Biblical films, I think it is important to get the message of Christ out there in new and interesting ways. I've like some of the old films, i.e. King of Kings, The Robe, and even some of the new producitons like Jesus-1999 with Jeremy Sisto. So I watched Judas with Jonathon Schaech and Jonathon Scarfe with an open mind. I can some this up pretty easy, Ugh.

I simply could not find one redeeming thing in this Paulist movie. The acting was awful, especially Scarfe as Jesus, the dialouge was completely inane!! Truthfully I felt this was a complete waste of time.

So bad I liked it.

[chibi cel-chan · 18 March 2004]

A bad movie, this "Judas". Decidedly that, a terrible movie. It hurt my innards to watch the stilted interactions between the pretty, oh so pretty Jesus and his dark, troubled... I don't even KNOW what, Judas.

It hurt in a strange way, though... the kind of dull, stinging pain that makes you cry out in rage, rend your garments, roll on the floor in agony, then stand up, eat a handful of popcorn and resume watching the movie.

First of all, it's well-known that this movie butchers the Gospels, omits important events, and generally portrays the Savior as a dysfunctional imbecile who plays second fiddle to the troubled Judas (You can tell he's troubled, because he wears dark clothes!), and the only reason it was released at all was so ABC could hopefully ride the "Passion of the Christ" tidal wave and gain some decent ratings for a change. It's clear that the director and writers badly, badly wanted this movie to make an impact on the people, but these people have never heard of nuance, and instead practically force-fed the viewer the "proper" opinions. Never a good way to make a film.

Instead of echoing the poignant performances of "The Passion", the performances in this movie seemed to be channeling Johnathan Schaech's other "menacing, but misunderstood" character from the movie, "That Thing You Do!". I saw far too much of Jimmy in Judas.

I will say, however, that this movie could be a great ally in the fight for the right of gays to marry. Why, Jesus Himself was gay, according to this movie! The "dramatic" scene leading up to Judas' grumble of "Damn you, Jesus" was far too reminiscent of a lovers' spat in a Lifetime movie.

Queer Eye for the Nazarean Guy

[hurtz2bdead · 1/10 · 10 March 2004]

Forgive them father for they know not what they do. I am speaking of course about the producers of this drivel. This movie is about as offensive as a turd in a punch bowl. It was such a spoof I kept expecting Mel Brooks to make his cameo as one of the head Jews prosecuting Christ. Jesus is portrayed as a real limpwristed stoner/ surf dude who lacks any backbone or confidence. Judas is a real A-Hole from the start and I can't imagine he would have been hanging out with Jesus in the first place. When the two of them were wrestling I almost expected Jesus to either give Judas a noogie or to tongue him when they were done. One could almost envision this group of hippies at the "Last Supper" with the bread and wine replaced with Doritos and bong hits. If you want to see a real movie about Christ, check out the DEFINATIVE movie the PASSION OF THE CHRIST. I have to say I would have almost enjoyed seeing the Christ from "Judas" flogged, But the way he was portayed in this flick, he probably would have enjoyed it more.Avoid this movie like the lepers.