WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Maziun This is a remake of a 1986 film directed by Damiano Damiani, with Harvey Keitel , Keith Carradine and Phyllis Logan. Well , actually it's a very loose remake - the title, basic premise, and name of the lead character are all that remain. I haven't seen the 80's original , but some praise it as a clever little thriller.When I look at the story here I see a potential for an intriguing and touching thriller about faith. Unfortunately what we get is badly acted and directed movie that it's almost impossible to watch. There is no suspense and the pacing is dreadful . The acting as I already mentioned is weak – only Dolph Lundgren and Max von Sydow give decent performances. It's interesting to see Lundgren here. He's well casted and does provide some action to the movie , even if he's a supporting character. I'm wondering what he is doing here. This movie has been produced by Nu Image – the same studio that Lundgren has been making his last crappy action movies. Was it part of his contract or did he simply wanted to do something different for his career ? I guess will never know. Not that it matters.The music for this movie was composed by somebody named Morricone. Maybe he is related to Ennio Morricone ? I don't know. It's a really nice music and the best part of the movie. I give it 1/10.

Armand a Biblical film. not great ambitions, few nice fight scene, basic line, a cast with exercise in this type of drama ( Hristo Shopov - new / old Pontius Pilat, Hristo Jivkov - ex - John in Passion of Crist, now Stefan ), Dolph Lundgren in skin of different kind of role, Max van Sydow, Enrico Lo Verso , F. Murray Abraham as solid pillars , Ornela Mutti like drop of scent and beautiful Monica Cruz - alter -ego of her sister and basic attraction of a movie who is not Quo Vadis, not Jesus of Nazareth but little exercise to recreate atmosphere of Church beginnings. so, it is just an exercise. not spectacular, not interesting, almost boring and predictable but decent at first sigh. crumbs of history - legend about Tiberius death -, pieces of innovation - the decree about Chistianity freedom -, authentic miracle of come back to life of Tabitha and the end - mixture of dust and faith. a drawing like so many others.

Theo-ZA To say the least, I have never seen such utter rubbish for a long time – because I try to steer clear from it. This however, we thought might be not bad. Were we wrong indeed.The acting is not on the level one would expect. The sets are all so obvious sets and it seems that except for the dessert scenes, almost everything looks badly staged. The story is supposed to take place in Jerusalem, a city where Hebrew was the language of the day. Very few inhabitants spoke Greek and spoke primarily Hebrew and a little Aramean. However, when Hebraic people are introduced, they are introduced with English names. The name Jesus is a very common name in Spain and Mexico it was unheard of in Israel (Judea) at the time of the plot. The name known then was Yahushua or Yeshua. This is the same name used incorrectly to translate Joshua, the Israelite commander after Moses (Mosheh).The girl's name in Miryam (badly pronounced Miriam). This is the same as for the mother of Yahushua – she is also Miryam. However, when Titus finds Miryam he says "Hail Mary"!! Blatant Romish propaganda!!! When Shimon Kepha – is introduced he is Simon Peter. How can good Jewish man call himself by a Greek name? He would never say that. He would have said Shimon Kepha!! Now as for the plot – what can be said? The church of Rome obviously feels the need to try to improve their image and have therefore set off to do this bad piece of propaganda.Save yourself the time and trouble, it is abominable!!

al-eaton First, I was unaware that this was a re-make. If the first movie is on DVD, I'll try it to see any difference. As to this movie (2006), I am going to write my usual bug-aboo about historical accuracy and the movies.I wish just once that a film set in the period of Yeshua/Jesus would depict the Jewish people with a less than jaundiced - read: historically inaccurate - eye. I was confronted at the very opening of this film with yet another scene of "crazed Jews" stoning a woman for adultery. According to some extensive research on this period, I have learned that the imposition of the death penalty in ancient Jewish society was rare and could only be undertaken under very controlled conditions. For example, a woman caught in adultery was not automatically put to death. Both she and her husband had to appear before the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem - and only this body, with the consent of every single member, could actually pronounce the death sentence. One "no" vote and there was an acquittal. The husband could forgive his wife and take her back and that was the end of it. Or he could divorce her. If she was freed and committed adultery again, then the matter would be returned to the High Court. Trials took three days: testimony and evidence on the first day; deliberation by the court on the second, and the third day reserved for the verdict. This third day was meant as a "cooling off period" to avoid a rush to judgment. The sentence upon conviction was not always death. None of this "crazed outrage" in the streets followed by an angry stoning as depicted in this film. It is also said that any Sanhedrin that passed two death sentences within 7 years was called a "bloody Sanhedrin." In other words, the Jewish people had made a deliberate attempt to provide justice in an orderly and civilized way. To depict them as simply a bunch of "crazies" running about the streets like blood-crazed savages is nothing more than pure propaganda.One other note on the trial, each member of the court had a small pebble - a stone - that they tossed (cast) into a large pot. The stones were then counted to reach a verdict. This is what is meant by the phrase: "Let those among you who are blameless (without malice; pure of heart) cast the first stone." Further, no Sanhedrin would meet to hold a "trial" - especially one involving a potential death sentence - within three days BEFORE and three days AFTER a religious holiday. This is because of the three-day trial concept. Therefore, Jesus couldn't be tried and convicted on the same day. As far as this movie is concerned, it is a standard Christian story told with some reverence for the faith, although it is not entirely original in it's story line. Compare it with "The Robe" (1953) where a Roman soldier (Richard Burton) is sent by the Emperor Tiberias to find the "true" story of what happened in Jerusalem. That Roman is cynical at first but, through the miracle of Peter saving a young woman (played then by Debra Paget), the soldier converts to Christianity.