Gli amici di Gesù - Giuda (2001 TV Movie) User Reviews

A biblical epic full of travesty and distortion

[marcin_kukuczka · 2/10 · 12 April 2004]

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!

I have seen this movie a few months ago and I must admit that never in my life have I seen such a distorted image of the New Testament.

Jesus is showed as a human only. Judas is not a traitor, but someone who waits for Jesus saving his people from the Roman oppression. In fact, he observes Pilate judging Jesus and shouts: "Show your power now"

Jewish Pharizees do not do any harm to Jesus. It is the Pilate who forces Judas to give him Christ since he is afraid of rebellion and "sick ideologies."

The truth was totally different. I don't know what Mertes aimed at by distorting the New Testament so seriously.

The fact is that anybody who will watch it and does not know the Bible much, he/she will feel confused.

If you are going to see this movie, read the Bible first, please. And you shall see how far the movie is from the truth (of course if you consider the Bible as the utmost truth). For those who do, this movie is unacceptable.

Forget it

[alvispat · 12 April 2004]

This movie has more non-biblical scenes, characters and attitudes than any I have ever seen relating to the life and death of Jesus. Let's just say the folks who think "The Passion of the Christ" is anti-Semitic will like this one, since the Romans do all the bad things and blame the Jews.

The worst idea of all is to make Judas good hearted. The real Judas Iscariot undoubtedly had reasons, but the ones imputed to him here are just too far fetched. He is surprised when Jesus actually dies. All through the trials (oops! just one trial, the Roman one), the fairly easy-going torture, and the nearly bloodless crucifixion, Judas is cheering and expecting Jesus to step down and create world peace.

An effort to explain and understand the case of Judas, only half successful

[clanciai · 8/10 · 9 September 2022]

Raffaele Mertes' second film in the Jesus series is the middle one, the first being "Mary Magdalene" (the best one) and the third being "Thomas" (the worst one). "Judas" starts quite promising, the film begins with the Palm Sunday spectacle, Judas being in the lead of the procession crying"Osanna" and all that, quite confident that Jesus is the Messiah and rightful king of Israel. Judas is quite human here to begin with, we get to know his family (with two sisters and a father who hasn't forgiven him for having followed Jesus) and an ailing mother, and the family bonds are quite tender and sincere. We also get to know his sweetheart, a certain Sarah, who cheats him, asking him for thirty pieces of silver to save the life of her brother, and Judas believes her and steals the money from the Jesus community, learning too late that she betrayed him - her brother nevertheless ends up being crucified as one of the bandits executed together with Jesus on Golgotha. The music and the settings are exquisite, like in all these three films, but half way through something happens, and everything falls out of all credibility. Nothing makes any sense any more, Judas gets mixed up with the Romans, Pontius Pilate laughs him to scorn, and the films depict the Romans as the real villains here. In brief, the film derails, and then nothing can save it any more. Peter makes an interesting appearance as the one who actually tries to save Judas, Danny Quinn as Jesus is more prominent here than in any of the other two, while Mary Magdalene is completely absent and Jesus' mother only appears once. A good film of great promises ends up a Biblical soap opera of cheap effects of sex and violence, and Judas himself appears more and more unconvincing. Pity, because Enrico lo Verso is a great actor, he is a specialist on films like this, and he made an unforgettable appearance as Farinelli's brother Riccardo Broschi in the film 1994 of Farinelli, one of the best films of that year. Well, once you have seen all three of Raffaele Mertes' Jesus films, you don't have to see them again.

Truth about Judas?

[jim-thyden · 9 September 2004]

Hold your horses! The truth about Judas? The bible is written several hundred years after Jesus' death, and rewritten several times by persons that want to give the story his/hers personal touch. This film about Judas is a rewrite of the history and a fair good one. It gives another story and perhaps a more realistic of what could have happened. I like the film, it is showing the relationship between Jesus and Judas from another point of view.

Even if the story is told many times and well known, the film is bringing forth a new ways of seeing things. It leaves you with the thoughts of Judas as a misunderstood rebellion, and why not?

What is and what isn't...

[gregorija · 2 September 2017]

Just because it isn't in the Bible, doesn't mean it didn't happen. And just because it's in this movie, doesn't mean it did. The Bible contains very little background and details about Judas' life. This movie is simply an exploration in what might have happened beyond what The Bible tells us. Relax, Christians.

free interpretation

[Vincentiu · 5 April 2015]

it is not a comfortable film for many Christian believers. because it seems be a pledge for Judas gestures. in same measure, like each part of series, it is explanation, not canonical, not very easy to accept, for the decisions, answers to challenges of the lead character. a free interpretation who is not real unfair because it represents an exercise to explain obscure details for a coherent picture. so, the sins of that film is the sin of entire series and only the dark status of Judas does it a controversial film. Enrico Lo Verso is inspired choice for the different Judas. he do not gives the the best explanation to his choice but , like each of the lead actors from series impress for the acting as passionate manner to give life to his character. a free interpretation of Judas role in Jesus mission. not real convincing. but interesting as hypothesis.