Maria

My family and I were really looking forward to this movie.

Too bad it was awful. It came across almost kind of like Vikings or with game of thrones type characters. Do get me wrong, I loved Vikings. The angel Gabriel was creepier than the devil.

While I know they needed to take some "artistic freedom" with some of the unknown parts of the story, this film completely ignores things that are known. I'm not claiming to be a Bible scholar, but come on folks.

Mary was thought to be about 3 when she went into the temple, not 10-12 as in the movie. Her parents are believed to have died while she was in the temple, when she was about 8-9 years old. This is according to the Apostle James' writings.

The whole story around the entire town knowing Mary was pregnant was ridiculous to say the least. It actually contradicts what the Bible does say.

I could go on, but the film isn't worth my time.

When I watched this movie, I found myself constantly checking the facts against Jewish, Christian, and Islamic history. The film claims to have been made with thorough research, but the result was deeply disappointing! While it's true that the historical account of Mary is limited, the writers could have drawn from various religious sources to paint a more accurate picture.

In Islam, Mary (Maryam) is depicted as a woman who gave birth alone, suffering from hunger and thirst in a state of exile, giving birth in a sheep's stable. According to the Islamic narrative, her baby even spoke to defend her against false accusations. Christianity also recounts how Mary and Joseph fled to another country to escape King Herod's mass killing of babies. But the film chose to overlook these crucial aspects, instead focusing on unnecessary dramatizations, like battle scenes and raids, which added nothing meaningful to the story.

Moreover, Islamic tradition highlights that Mary's family was deeply faithful and connected to Prophet Zechariah, a figure in both the Bible and the Quran. Yet this connection was not explored in the movie, missing another opportunity for a richer narrative.

There's also a significant issue that was pointed out by someone else- "the actress playing Mary appears to have lip fillers", which is an important detail. Given that this story takes place in ancient times, beauty standards were completely different, and women were naturally portrayed. It would have been far more fitting to cast an actress whose appearance was more in line with the era's natural beauty, instead of incorporating modern cosmetic alterations like fillers into the portrayal of such a historical and religious figure.

Additionally, the costumes, particularly in the temple scenes, felt very out of place. They looked more like something from a futuristic film, resembling the attire from *Dune*, *Star Wars*, or similar genres. This disconnected look only further detracts from the historical setting and the overall atmosphere of the film.

What I was hoping for from this film was the opportunity to enjoy the journey of Mary, to witness her faith, the struggles she faced while carrying her child, the dynamics of her family, and the birth of Jesus from multiple religious perspectives to enrich the narrative. Instead, the filmmakers missed the chance to deeply explore these themes, opting instead to focus on action scenes and distractions that didn't add value to the story.

In conclusion, "Mary" is a film that could have been a powerful portrayal of faith and adversity, but unfortunately, it falls short due to a lack of historical accuracy, miscasting, and an over-reliance on unnecessary action scenes.

The script is hokey and some details are improbable (and I don't mean the supernatural ones) but the actors deserve a lot of credit. Someone among the reviewers here remarked that you can't properly act out a New Testament story if you don't believe in the New Testament; but after all, an actor in a ghost story doesn't need to believe in ghosts and an actor who plays Stalin doesn't need to be a communist. "Mary" has good actors capable of selling unusual situations. Even if their accents aren't coordinated.

Recent movies have milked the motif of the Chosen One for all its worth. This movie, although comes by that motif naturally, hammers a little hard at it, while also playing with the tired motif of the young woman who is anachronistically feisty in olden times.

I understand that the apocryphal Gospel of James and the Quran have Mary working in the Temple as a child. From this item of questionable history, the "Mary" movie generates a whole sisterhood of youngsters who belong visually in The Handmaid's Tale. The Temple, meanwhile, operates in tense coexistence with the Roman rulers, and that tension provides relevant and ample, if melodramatic, filler material for the script.

Joseph, who is sometimes thought of as elderly, is young and energetic here. Maybe not agreeable to all followers of the religion, but good for the movie.

What is this Mary movie trying to tell us? Does it have a particular spin to sell? I'm not quite sure. It spends quite a bit of time on Herod, and a little time on Satan as well, and my impression is that besides (of course) promoting the positive historical role of women and of men who respect and defend them, it wants to reassure us that in the battle between good and evil, those who defy the foul fiend will ultimately win out.

I'm born a catholic, not into any specific relegion nowadays, but still feel a special connection to the person Mary and where she stands for. This movie didn't feel right.

Okay, i don't know much or better said anything about the childhood of Mary, but how it all went with Josef I think is better told in The Nativity Story (2006). I can'tt say many much further then... before I was half past through I stopped seeing the movie further. It wasn't my thing I believe is the story of Mary.

The part of the movie I've seen I liked only Anthony Hopkins as Herod, but also think he better watch out stopping acting before his decline. Also the temptation of Mary by Lucifer was splendid done in directing and the acting of Eamon Farren.

Wow. I see a lot of low reviews for this film that I don't really understand. I am not certain what people expect when making a movie with limited canonical source material. Of course there will be creative licenses taken to create the depth needed for a full length film. But I think there were good tie-ins, like Mary being dedicated to the temple, where she created bonds with Anna, whom Mary and Joseph later presented to at the temple in Luke 2. I liked the backstory of Mary's parents praying for a child, and Mary being foreordained for her calling and mission. I liked Gabriel's interwoven involvement in the story, and even though some may not care for it- the inclusion of Lucifer I found to be an effective antagonizing force. I especially liked the brief exchange between Gabriel and Lucifer. Rather than people complaining about heresy, or inaccuracies, let it be a motivation to read the actual source material in the Bible. Overall, I thought the acting performances to be strong, especially the leads. Anthony Hopkins made himself a good, if not overplayed, villain in the narrative. As we enter the Christmas season, I think this is a very worthy movie to enjoy as an entire family as we remember the roots and very nature of it. Enjoy it for what it is. I liked it.