El libro de Clarence

This film is very multi layered that many will miss the point of the movie.

One way to see this is a satire on people, particularly black people with little to no faith in God, and how they move in the world.

It's then a satire on how religion is exploited for one's personal gain. Think of many mega churches who look to prophesies on Jesus teachings and miracles.

Its then finally a satire on how people who we deem "unworthy" and how their soul is just as much worthy than everyone else's.

Intermixed in there is the relationship between the Judeans and the Roman's as an allegory between police/authority and the people they govern. Which may or may not have been somewhat factual since it has been proven that the people there would have been people of color. It may also give an introspection on why Jesus was hated by the Jews so much. But I digress.

I'd say give this film a second chance with these points, and you might find this movie a bit more favorable.

Oh and I love that Last Supper shot they had when they froze in place, that was dope.

I felt like there was a lot going on while watching the film. The film started out strong with its Book 1. I loved how established the story is from the beginning. It was even funny to watch the characters so casually in such an ancient and medieval setting. Even the biblical references were coolly represented. But then I felt the story went spiraling down towards the end. It was not a linear kind of plot. It was multi-faceted, and I wish it was not. I would have toned down the film to a more simplistic plot and less runtime. But I must say this was LaKeith Stanfield's best performance to date.

When I saw that Samuel was following up The Harder They Fall with a Black Biblical satire, I got pretty excited. I actually don't mind sacrilege or reinterpretation. Life of Brian? Blessed are the cheesemakers. Last Temptation of Christ? Other than Keitel's accent, I was onboard. Anyway, the problem with this one isn't the religious satire. It's that it tries to succeed at a few too many things. It wants to be an effective satire, drama, and romance all at once. It is hard enough to make a movie like Leap of Faith that cuts across all those genres, but doing it with a story that takes place at the time of Jesus might be just a bit too ambitious. In order to make everything work, the movie rushes through multiple genres (sometimes in a single scene) trying to fit it all in. As a result, the cast nails it and Samuel directs it well...but I still never quite settled in enough to care.

My wife and I caught The Book of Clarence (2023) in theaters last night. The storyline follows two weed dealers in Jerusalem during the time of Christ, facing financial hardships and attempting to become apostles or create their own Messiah to solve their problems.

Directed by Jeymes Samuel (The Harder They Fall), the film stars LaKeith Stanfield (Knives Out), RJ Cyler (White Boy Rick), Alfre Woodard (12 Years a Slave), James McAvoy (Split), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), and Teyana Taylor (A Thousand and One).

This movie has a fantastic premise and a captivating start, especially in the first three quarters. The authentic attire and settings, along with stellar performances from the cast, contribute to the film's charm. The comedic elements are brilliant, reminiscent of a biblical Half Baked. Memorable scenes like the "get out" and "virgin" conversations, slap scenes, and baptism provide comedic gold. The inclusion of an '80s/'90s retro dance sequence adds to the enjoyment. Unfortunately, the conclusion takes a deep and serious turn, causing a drastic mood shift that dulls the movie and leaves the ending feeling flat.

In conclusion, The Book of Clarence offers enough worthwhile content to make it a must-see, but it falters at times, preventing it from achieving classic status. I'd give it a score of 6-6.5/10 and recommend it once.

This movie was an interesting take on making a camp, religious mix. Lakeith was incredible (obviously), especially toward the end as the film grew more emotional. Omar Sy was also a phenom as a stoic side character.

Many jokes landed, but the script did not. Many of the female characters were quite one dimensional (although that may be due to the time period of it). Some of the allegories the film attempted to make were forced. The slapstick comedy with religion was pretty clever, but it didn't make up for a lot of the unexplained hijinks throughout the film. Although, it did make some great, hilarious use of both McAvoy and Cumberbatch in some minor yet great roles. Jeymes Samuel certainly has unique visions and a place in the future of filmmaking, but for me, this one fell a little short.