I had never heard of this and its sequel before the proprietor/friend of the DVD store I frequent mentioned them to me; being a radical and potentially controversial take on Christ's passion and death (nothing less would do after Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE Christ {2004}I guess!),I opted to check them out over this Easter season.

However, I was not impressed: of course, the first two things that are immediately evident is that the protagonist's name has been given its 'correct' Jewish pronunciation of Yeshua (but, then, so did the notorious THE PASSOVER PLOT 30 years previously!) and that he is black (again, this was hardly new: BLACK Jesus {1968}and BROTHER JOHN {1971}– both of which I will be checking out presently – had depicted him as such too...though, admittedly, the events were usually approached in allegorical terms). Incidentally, this is the first time the actor playing Christ has also directed himself(!) – and still, one other novelty here is that Arimathea (pronounced here "Aramithea"!) has become the location where the narrative unfolds!

Anyway, the film presents the familiar story of intolerance, betrayal and sacrifice, with most of the famous characters intact and then some: in fact, here Mary and Joseph (Jesus' parents) are shown as having had other children as well, and they are all affected – in different ways – by his plight. Curiously enough, the film skimps entirely on Christ's trials – jumping from his arrest in Gethsemane (where Jesus' sudden and unwarranted over-emoting is quite jarring, by the way!) to the predictably bloody crucifixion on Golgotha: that said, the version I watched was about 20 minutes shorter than the official running-time of 108 (which, for all I know, may account for this 'missing' segment)!

The film's lack of a reputation suggests that it made no significant ripples when it emerged: the thoroughly amateurish production and deliberately realistic yet low-key nature may equally have had something to do with this.

Jean-Claude La Marre writes, directs and stars in a version of the last days of Jesus that posits that Jesus was killed in large part because he was dark skinned. The notion is of course more than likely going to anger many audiences simply because Jesus is black, which is a shame since the poorly made film is bad enough on its own to deserve brickbats being tossed at it.

There is a reasonable possibility that Jesus was dark skinned since those native to the region tend to be of a darker skin than the light skinned Europeans who had invaded the country, so from a historical stand point one can't really argue with a dark skinned Jesus. One can argue with pretty much argue with most of the rest of the film historically and scripturally since it contains a great number of errors. From Roman bad behavior, to the ethnic mix of the country (important in a film that hinges on a question of race) this film fumbles with its facts too much to be believable.

I would like to say that the film works on terms other than historical, but I can't. The simple addition of racial questions wobble the film to the point of non functioning (and it could be argued that the casting of the Jewish elders as very white European "Jews" smacks of racism). It also doesn't help that La Marre doesn't tell the story in a straight forward manner, events are left out or glossed over and a great deal of time is spent with the Jewish religious leaders which helps make his racial plot feasible, but takes away from the story of Jesus.

Technically the film is little more than a low rent TV movie. the sets all seem cheap and the costumes often have the feel of costumes. I have to question several choices La Marre makes, in particular why he keeps switching into Aramaic for some of the final scenes. Its a self indulgent touch that has no place. What further complicates everything in the film is that its never really explained, or explained well enough to be accepted as plausible, what a black Jesus is doing among mostly the whiter than white Jewish community. The casting of La Marre as Jesus comes off as a shock tactic rather than something natural. Clearly the choice was made to upset people enough to see the film instead of to just tell the story.

I would love to say that the film is a complete write off, but I can't. There are several times when the film has a poetic beauty, the opening shot of Jesus on the Cross, and a few shots with in the crucifixion are quite stunning. La Marre also manages to create several nice emotional moments (The Roman asking Caiaphas how it feels to turn over a Jew) and he also manages to create a human Jesus, that laughs and feels, its a portrait that would be wonderful in a better film with a less distracted director.

Nice touches aside the film is a mess. and not worth wasting the time to see it.

I truly feel bad for the cast/crew that was involved in making this picture. What could have been a wonderfully told legitimate story of Jesus's life turned out to be just a story of a black man. Due to poor writing/directing, the main focus of the movie was that the Romans were after a black Jew. The story of Jesus is just an afterthought. With things like Mary being turned away from the Inn because she was black, and lines by the centurion "you're not black enough" its not hard not to see how poorly this was put together. The acting wasn't too bad, but many of the accents were poor. It sounded like some of them were French and Scottish, lol. The outdoor sets looked like leftovers from a Xena shoot, but were believable. Some of the indoor sets looked like someone's house with sheets draped on the walls. Not professional at all. I can't recommend this to anyone.

Oh, and whats with the "black Jew" having what looked like an acid trip while praying in the garden. His eyes went all wild, he saw 3 moons in the sky, and started thrashing around throwing grass on himself. Bizarre.