Storia di Maria

Gabriel looks like a supermodel and has a nifty scarf cloak combo which he uses to great effect.

Anthony Hopkins borrowed Gary Oldmans Dracula frock and keeps a straight face throughout the proceedings.

The poor are filmed in semi darkness as turgid violins proclaim the wretched lives of the locals, accompanied by weeping and wailing (clearly they've seen the script). Mary follows butterflies and seems to have an American accent, for some reason?

Marcellus borrows Luke Evans armour from another Dracula film, Dracula untold, Marcellus is a baddy in black armour boo hiss.

Mary's parents barely age, ye olde oil of Olay worketh welleth here.

A man with a lampshade on his head isn't happy, a nice lady with a truly magnificent lampshade on her head is nice to Mary, a man with a whisk on his head is pleased to see Mary at what I assume is a temple.

Mary gets taller and finds lip filler as she ages, the temple gruel is thinner than Krusty brand.

Poor people surround Mary, a mysterious British actor asks her opinion on Herod the king (I fear he looks a wrong un!) possibly the devil? Supermodel Gabriel appears again momentarily. Herod appears and possibly Bryan Cranston dressed as a soldier behind him, this is too much I need a lie down now.

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.

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.

It is not a faithful adaptation of the Bible, but it is entertaining, with ups and downs such as the somewhat terrifying adaptation of the Archangel Gabriel, there may also be controversy with the Immaculate Conception, and it can divide Catholics. However, as a film it is entertaining and enjoyable, and it maintains the essence of complete trust in God, something that the world needs. If you are able to discern between what is an apocryphal gospel and what is really in the Holy Scriptures, I recommend it. If you're worried that it's a Netflix adaptation with modern messages, I'd say it's free of that, it has a mostly Jewish cast, and this is an opportunity to spread the gospel, the actress is being over-hated. If you're interested in the apocryphal gospels and the early church I highly recommend it.

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.