Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

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.

tomsview I was hoping this movie would be better than it is. Even if you don't know the book or the 1962 film version, this movie still has to be disappointing. It is very loosely based on Pär Lagerkvist novella, which tells the story of Barabbas, the bandit who was chosen over Jesus Christ by the people of Jerusalem when given the choice of releasing one prisoner during Passover.Pär Lagerkvist novel is a moving and thoughtful work. The 1962 Dino De Laurentiis production, although it added a great deal of action to the story, caught the tone of the novel, emerging as a moody, almost surreal epic.Unlike the book and De Laurentiis' movie, this made for television version starts before the crucifixion. We quickly learn that Barabbas (Billy Zane) is a real tearaway. He either hangs out at a brothel in town or with his gang in the hills. If they'd packed six-guns back then, he'd have shot up the place. Although the Zealots are involved in guerrilla warfare against the Romans, Barabbas is more interested in holding up the odd caravan or two. There are a number of lacklustre sword fights with the Romans - the production seems a little light on extras - and Barabbas and his crew cook up a scam to rob the promoter of a local gladiatorial show. This sequence, more than any other, undermines the film. Seemingly inspired by the "Spartacus" TV series, it's unbelievable and is reminiscent of the ridiculous action that used to turn up in the old Italian sword and sandal movies of the 50's and 60's.Eventually Barabbas is caught. Condemned to death then spared while Christ is crucified, Barabbas starts to question why he escaped death, and meets Christians whose faith seems indestructible. Although this crisis of conscience could have given the film a little depth especially after he learns of Christ's resurrection, the script goes off on another flight of fancy, as Barabbas becomes Barabbas PI. After dressing up in Roman uniform he interrogates the soldiers who were on guard at the tomb of Jesus. Arriving in Rome after a side trip as a slave in a copper mine, Barabbas is sent undercover by Pontius Pilot to find his niece who has become a Christian, knowing that the sect is about to be blamed for burning Rome. However Barabbas inadvertently betrays them. He lands in prison awaiting execution. The last few scenes have the gravitas lacking in the rest of the film as Barabbas sacrifices himself and is then crucified. Filmed in Tunisia, the scenery looks authentic enough although the film lacks scope and size. But it's the uneven script that sinks it, with much borrowed from other films - not all good ones. A pity really, because Billy Zane actually made a pretty good Barabbas.

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.