Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

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.

Kirpianuscus it is his film. and that is the virtue and the sin of movie. because Billy Zane, far to be Anthony Quinn, does a decent job looking to explore his characters nuances. but the script and many actors are not the most inspired choices. sure, it is a nice adaptation of a great novel. a religious film who has not the ambition to be great. a picture of a time, a way and a discovery . the history of a man's change. few beautiful scenes, the landscapes and the desire to suggest more than present are the good points. but maybe not enough for define Barabbas more than a TV exercise to remind a book. because, after its end, Billy Zane seems not be only the lead actor but the only actor. because the realism used in few scenes not covers the absence of convincing dialogues.so, an adaptation of Barabbas. not the best.

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.