nzswanny Easter is dawning, and right now I'm going on an Easter film marathon, and I happened to stumble over this film. I am sad to of, because I have experienced a horribly put together film because of it.The faked accents for the Romans were absolute rubbish, I found myself rolling my eyes continuously as they kept yapping away as if they were in some sort of kid's cartoon. The accents sounded so fake, that I just had to cover my ears at times to stop myself from laughing at the completely horrible acting...and I thought 1985's Revolution had bad accents!This film had an incredible huge amount of clichés. It's like the filmmakers haven't even read the Bible, because this film is completely out of spirit of it. There is loud, blockbuster music in this film (which is one cliché I really despise) and it is completely out of tone of what the Bible is. Also, I watched the film and I counted 37 clichés, which I won't bother to list. The dialogue in this film is mostly clichéd as well.Did I mention how bad the acting was?I can't believe that Billy Zane signed up for this cliché rubbish.The film that this film was aiming for was a blockbuster. I don't like the style of blockbusters, and I'm a bit fussy when it comes to them, but I congratulate the director, I guess, for actually succeeding in what he was aiming for. Just a quick tip, Roger Young: don't aim for blockbusters. Aim for a good film, with good pacing and a fine soundtrack. This film, unfortunately, has bad pacing and a cliché, loud, blaring soundtrack because you wanted a blockbuster. I hope you're happy.So, hmmm...now to list something good about this film.Well, all the basic ingredients were there. The camera-work, the sound design and the costume design were all well done, so at least the film got that right. But the substance of the film is horrible, completely out of tone of the Bible, and not deserving of it's length. I rate this a 4.1/10, not a 3.1/10, because I think that if you are into those blockbusters you get in the mainstream cinema, you'll probably really enjoy this. If you, however, are looking for a good quality film with good actors, avoid this. If you are a TRUE Christian who has read the whole Bible, I'm pretty sure you won't like this, either.If you're looking for an Easter film with quality, watch 2014's The Saviour.

redbolter I only saw part of this--near the beginning, but it looked like Billy Zane was having some real fun chewing the scenery. I found that surprising considering the subject matter seems to call for a more somber treatment. (Enjoyed seeing it none the less, and Zane will be the reason I see this in its entirety at some point--I loved the long hair and the bellowing--and the quips, though they probably don't belong here.) The production values were such that I wish I could have seen this in high def. I appreciated the inclusion of both the Jewish 'rebel' and Roman points of view, while also touching on the plight of the slaves, the impoverished and the diseased. (Though I don't know how deeply the film went on any of these matters.)I don't know how this ended, but I hope things worked out well for young Ester and old Barabbas!

Armand it is an TV religious movie like many others. the sins are not very great, the performance is not bad and Billy Zane has the chance to do a credible character. the game with the New Testament facts is regrettable but seems be only part of director vision about subject. the serious problem remains the dialogs and not the best choice for Jesus role. but for a hunter of Bible adaptations is a nice title. maybe for the force of few images, the acting of some actors or for the atmosphere. only observation - it is an inspired option to not have great expectations. because it is only a common religious film, not the best novel adaptation but good occasion to remember an old useful story about search of faith.

KatharineFanatic I'm a Roman/Judean history nut, so when this came out, I had to see it. Three hours later, I have mixed thoughts.The Good: the plot! It has its shaky moments but overall, this is a decent script. Barabbas comes across as a cynical, self-serving man who undergoes a change of heart and finds redemption. Pilate's wife, Claudia, also has a decent role, far bigger than any other depiction of her ever made—although I can't say the end of her story made me happy! Wandering in and out of different biblical events was also fun.The Strange: can someone explain to me why Pilate has a beard? It wasn't fashionable for Romans at the time. He's also much too short to be a believable governor, considering Barabbas is about a foot taller. Why does Ester one minute tell Barabbas fornication is a sin against God, then turns around awhile later after following Jesus around and fornicates with him? Also, even though thirty years have passed by the end (which the film doesn't tell us, and most people ignorant of the time period wouldn't know), no one gets any older except Peter… why is that? The Bad: the acting! I'm not sure if it was foreigners struggling to speak in English rather than Italian that turned in such a crop of mediocre and sometimes downright painful performances, or that they just have no talent, but almost no one in this production is memorable. Zane is better than most but still hams it up a bit; I also wonder why Hristo Shopov is wasted in a minor role. He's played Pilate twice before (in Mel Gibson's film, and in a foreign follow-up), so it's strange they wouldn't let him do it again, particularly given that he has five times the presence and "governor-ness" than "this" Pilate. Also, something is "off" in this Jesus, but I'm not sure what; it's slightly creepy in places.The Result: is a decent film hampered by its low production values; if you can overlook that, it's enjoyable, moving, and quite often surprising in where it leads.