This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

It was not the first time someone had thrown new light on the most famous traitor in history;even in the seventies,Franco Zephirelli showed a "political" Judas ,disappointed because Jesus' plan was not to free his people from the Roman yoke;but this film and "Histoire De Judas" are polar opposites:anti-Hollywoodian to the core,this effort is much closer to Pasolini's " Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo".But its style is even balder ,and it's finally much less accessible;even if you've been to Sunday school and you have a good knowledge of the Gospels ,you might often seem lost ;the viewer tries to cling to famous events in the last days of the Christ:when Jesus entered Jerusalem ,carrying a donkey (and not riding it) ,his "my temple should be a house of prayer and you made it a den of thieves " is given a free-for-all treatment.The adulteress episode is perhaps the most conventional (which does not say much):Jesus is drawing strange signs on the ground ,before saying that "he without sin cast the first stone" ;the woman who pours pricey perfume on Jesus ' hair is called Suzanne (which makes sense for there was a woman called so among the Christ's followers ,married with a wealthy man:the scene when she buys the perfume is revealing);on the other hand ,the two main female figures of the Passion (Mary and Mary- Magdelene) are not featured here.It should be notice that Judas does not intervene when Suzanne pours the perfume :no "it could have been sold and money given to the poor";and no harsh comment from the "good " apostle either.Nevertheless ,there are not enough scenes between the two principals and it takes a lot of imagination to believe that the so-called traitor is the Saviour's best friend :the betrayal is almost passed over in silence ,the Saviour just says " do what you have to do" and that's it: no hint at the thirty pieces of silver;no suicide either...this lack of scenes in which we would like to know more about the relationship , off the beaten track of the Bible :this may account for the low rating on the site.The priests of the Jews do not seem responsible for Jesus' crucifixion ;Pilate seems at the beck and call of his adviser who urges him to get rid of a man who is very popular outside the town ,but hated by Caiph and may cause riots ,and "we are not that much numerous over here".The best ,in this dry movie, is the settings:all the scenes take place in ruins ,illustrating Jesus's words "my kingdom is not of this world" ;a world which has forgotten it's already in ruins (even Pilate ,who represents the world' s then strongest power then does not realize it).And it echoes to the " vanity of vanities ,all is vanity",from the Ecclesiastes.Which explains why Judas'would be political side (he talks about it in one of his first scenes) does not make any sense in this context.