Mary

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.

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.

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.

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.

CONS: For Bible-study Christians this movie is going to disappoint. This is "Hollywood's" version of the story of Mary. I no longer practice any religion but I was raised Roman Catholic and did not see any similarities to what I was taught in Catechism. But alas, I realize the Catholic church's teachings may also be inaccurate. Also, the dialogue is rudimentary at best and storyline is rather choppy and rushed.

PROS: Great cinematography; visually stunning. It's other redeeming quality is Sir Anthony Hopkins as King Harod and other fine actor. A good thing, because only good actors could pull off the slow, awful dialogue and awkward moments in this film.

Overall, the film is entertaining albeit overly-dramatic and corny at times. If you're willing to just view it as entertainment, you may enjoy it more.