Wonderful character development!

Fresh and Exciting

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

At the start of the film, I knew we were introduced to a guy named Zachary Wells who is a failed filmmaker and he gets offered as a judge at a film festival. However when he came to the University, I wasn't aware that he came from the future. Like if this was meant to be a time traveling movie then why didn't it give us a hint that Zac is saving his sorry past self to win a film festival? Come on like, they should've at least made the effort in putting something magical into this film!And you know what was the most disturbing part of the film was? Zachary was Mr so-called future boy Danny Reyes and had slept with his younger self! I was like 'Oh my god', after seeing this movie, it was a shock. Why on earth would he use a false name?! I didn't realize that he was the future Danny until he thought his younger self was an impostor for stealing his name for the fun of it. That was unbelievable! I just think this film should've made the storyline better because it just didn't impress me the first time round of seeing this movie!

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 porn, 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-porn manner, unless you want to have sex with yourself.

This stunning film catches the audience's attention, and the message of the film has everyone contemplating their own lives well after the movie is over. A compelling, yet controversial, story-plot with a charismatic cast. An instant classic.I have personally seen this film at two major film festivals around the nation. It was well worth seeing more than once because you understand more of the subtle messages the more times you watch it. I've also seen that the director has a series of short films available on DVD. I look forward to the DVD release of 'Judas Kiss' to share with other friends and fans. I'm anticipating sharing it on campus for other film students to watch.

Judas Kiss is by no means your average story. It has some unexpected twists, dabbling in time travel, love triangles and redemption.Zach Wells, a failed filmmaker, reluctantly covers for his much more successful friend by taking his place on the judging panel at their Alma Mater's annual film competition (a competition that Zach won years ago). As soon as he gets on campus... well, it's not hi-jinks ensue in a kooky way, but Zach starts to notice that things are not what they seem.The time travel aspect was a cool way to approach the material; certainly a welcome change from the mainstay "let's do some lame flashbacks to explain how my life got so screwed up." The film has an interesting cast of characters that all bring something different to the table, too (a little heart and humor).All of the technical elements (cinematography, lighting, sound, etc) were great, including the subtle effects work. I also thought they did a commendable job making a film with gay lead characters, but not dwelling on their sexual orientation. It was obvious that the focus of the film was on the story and I appreciated that.