Judas Kiss

Amazingly Dorothy Parker said of a young Katharine Hepburn:"She runs the gamut of emotions from A to B." Luckily Ms. Parker died before Charlie David gave acting a shot since his gamut doesn't stretch that far. Unfortunately in this film he played the lead character, Zach Wells, and could only over-act one emotion, petulant drama queen. Most of the younger actors turned in reasonably good performances, but Charlie seemed to cast a creepy pall over every scene in which he appeared. As another person who reviewed the movie mentioned, it was refreshing to have a film with a gay presence that didn't focus on someone coming out or coping with all the baggage of being gay in a hostile world. That saved this sophomoric effort from being a complete waste of time, but the stiff, uncomfortable performances by almost all the older actors and their constipated dialogue delivered in a preachy, robotic manner made most of the movie a painful experience. Hopefully the actors who played Danny, Abbey, Shane and Chris will be able to build on what I assume was the start of their acting careers and hopefully Charlie David and the others, who spent the film performing like they were reading their lines for the first time, haven't given up their day jobs.

In the genre stretching back decades of "what if I could do it all over again" comes this gay version of "peggy sue got married". Sadly, none of the characters are likable enough to sympathize with...especially the main characters (neither of whom are remotely interesting or professional enough to play a lead in a film). There really is no point or even resolution here...just a lot of mugging for the camera and scenes that make you say, "huh? what did that have to do with anything???" Really not worth watching...even if you're a Brett Corrigan fan (who is back to escorting again...so save up your money and see him in person).

What a terrible film, the director doesn't know how to direct and he is such a terrible actor. His acting is campy and corny-cheesy.

Judas Kiss_720p(480P)

source: Judas Kiss

There are so many emotions in this film it's hard to latch on one the first time you watch it. It's not your typical gay-themed film and it brings a refreshing breath of life to it's genre. One of the best characters in my opinion is C.W-or Christopher Watchowski. Every small character has been so meticulously planned out the entire film is a pleasure to watch. I suggest multiple watchings just to fully get the gist of the plot and see all the characters as individuals and appreciate them. From Danny's father to Shane's parents all the characters are a delight to observe. The plot of time travel is also very unique in that the way that the time travel occurs is never actually explained. Yet it doesn't need to be, the film is packed full of enough action that you never really miss an explanation. The cinematography is fantastic-very real with sharp colours and smooth transitions with special effects. I can't wait for the next movie from this crew.

Such an amazing movie! At the beginning, I though that was just an LGBT film. It gives us a different feeling when we know that the main characters are gays. The film with nice quality and plot caught ours attentions. After watched this movie. I realize that I should really think about if the decisions I'm gonna make are the best for my life. If I could go back to past and met myself, I would change the choices what I had made wrong. It is a movie which worth watching.

As a gay man I don't mind admitting that the draw to watch Judas Kiss was ex * star Brent Corrigan, under his real name Sean Paul Lockhart; but after moments of watching the film, I was drawn in by it's story and it's beauty. The film plays on the idea of a "second chance". It asks us all to question whether or not you would go back and change something in your life. The story is compelling from start to end; it twists and turns along the uncomfortable line of audience viewing. It's beautifully written; the story is about characters that happen to be gay, and not gay characters. A refreshing change from a lot of Queer Cinema. It's about the people's circumstance, not their sexuality. The story centres on failed filmmaker Zachary Wells, whose more successful friend Topher is invited to judge a film competition at their old High School. Topher can't make it and so Zach is sent instead, and so begins a journey of self-discovery. This isn't a coming of age film, although there are elements of that within the storyline. Zach meets Danny, one of the filmmakers entering the competition, and soon finds out that his life will never be the same again. Literally. Will this trip be the key to Zach's future? Given this 'second chance' will he take it? Charlie David plays Zachary Wells perfectly. His imperfections and indiscretions are underplayed brilliantly. He is a complex character and David allows the audience to engage with him, sympathise with and understand him. Wells is ultimately the protagonist in the film, but as a character he is there to represent the audience. He is asking the questions we want the answers to; David carries this performance through the film incredibly well. Richard Harmon as Danny Reyes is buoyant, cocky and at times vulnerable and moving. The character exudes confidence but through the characterisation of Harmon we are able to see the torment that tortures Danny on a daily basis. Richard Harmon plays such a complicated character with such ease and brilliance; his performance alone is worth watching. The supporting cast including, Timo Descamps, Julia Morizawa & Laura Kenny all do a fantastic job of keeping the momentum and pathos within this roller-coaster journey of a story. The stand out performance though, must go to Sean Paul Lockhart. The subtle and delicate way in which he portrays Chris Wachowsky is stunning. His performance is so understated and yet, at times, you feel the torment in his characters voice. The cinematography of the film is beautiful; the long drifting establishing shots set the scenes perfectly. It's not without it's faults though, I don't think the bad CGI was necessary to portray the story. That aside I would say the film is shot how it ought to be, it feels real. Overall, Judas Kiss is a great watch. It's thought a thought-provoking piece with a real pathos and charm. The performances by the cast are nothing short of stunning, in most cases. The film has heart and I can see it being part of my 'talking points' for a long time to come.

Or the time-traveler's mid-life crisis, could be another title, just to consciously echo the film it obviously borrows after. And where in that film family values bend time, here it, huh, is self-respect one supposes; just throw in towards the end a huge moon bending over younger-and-older-version of the lead character self-hugging, and then you verge into ludicrous "The Fountain" territory. That is as bad as it gets - oh, no, actually not: with its Scrooge-like moral tale time-shift, Dickens comes, has to come to mind, no? Only here, with the film's nauseating badness, dissonances deliver Dickens' name as dick ends. Why should Brent Corrigan be here, otherwise, with his faux-puppy eyelooks? He seriously stands out from the other cast, with his all-American sincerity in the eye, poor débutante. Richard Harmon, now, seriously, has looks that could have helped the film, if one could stop and consider he has some facial affinity with both Robert Pattinson and Christopher Eccleston; for me he was the only true stand-out in this unsubtle mess. I will pass on Charlie David. So why is this film that bad? Redemption, love, forgiveness, blah blah blah, I do not really care what a film's theme is, given some true effort beyond respectful premises; bad realization does not purge the cliché-ridden intention. The film suffers - no, make that drowns six fathoms deep - from the aimless, stupid gratification of watching the failed director go to the festival who has sex with a youngster who, hello! we are soon to discover is his younger self. Now this is new territory: time bending/traveling self-incest. The effect is as bland as watching the Peters (identical) twins having sex in "Taboo". But this at least was *, that is, did not have to be consistent on a narrative level, to put it that way - for tell me after such a beginning, what kind of consistency you're looking for? With a dead-end start, good luck to you. And then there is one question of the logical order. For a sci-fi film to succeed, and give your own example here, it somehow must be strong on the logic line; despite the science and the fiction, the better it is thought through, the better it titillates. So the obvious question is, who was the judge the first time round when the director was his young self? The film has its only interesting moment here, though by obfuscating, by failing to address this question. Ms Dean says that due to clauses of matriculation, the film cannot enter into competition, so goodbye to our question. Yet its empty place stays on. What is this doubly denied place, who fails to occupy it? And the answer is the Name of the Father, which doubly alienated means in clinical terms madness. The plot opts for the once-more-molestation-cliché, as if that takes care to explain anything, instead of exposing the badness of "Judas Kiss". The Christian Association of America should sue the makers of this film for taking the name of our Traitor, Judas Iscariot, in vain on their poster and the film! May it be banned and burn in hell, amen to that! And, remember, folks, when Oscar Wilde visited America, he saw in a saloon the sign "Do not shoot the pianist, he's doing his best", upon which he reflected in awe that bad art merits the penalty of death. May we re-enact that in our cinematically permissive societies.- That would also mean love and redemption taken seriously, polemically, not in a deluded, new-age, soft-* manner, unless you want to have sex with yourself.

This could possibly be the worst movie that I have ever tried to watch. Got to the half hour mark and so far all I can say is that it was terrible. Horrible acting, unneeded visual effects,dumb plot and the music was soooo cringe worthy. Yes, I realize that it is a low-budget movie but I feel like I could've made a better one. Only not giving it 1 because there might be a small chance it gets better on later, but I doubt it.I still can't get it into my head how can someone like this movie. Hope I helped and to anyone who still wants to see the movie - just watch ,,The Way He Looks" or ,,North Sea Texas", they are so much better and are worth watching even a second time.