Maria di Nazaret

Just watched a Spanish language dubbed version of this on TV in a four hour time slot. Keep in mind that criticism is of the abridged version as no doubt some of the content was edited out to fit in more commercials. Well done overall with a good pace(very important for a 4 hour program) and a fine performance by Allisa Jung as the Virgin Mary. Yes this movie does focus on the two Mary's, and yet it also covers the same ground done in previous versions(although in some parts moves along a little too quickly) of the life of Jesus. Among both Mary's, less time is with Mary Magdalena. Andreas Pietschmann was an excellent choice for the part of Jesus. Some of the variations in comparison with other film treatments are the fact that Allisa Jung as Mary doesn't seem to age, has a very long speech near the end, and also the character of Erodiade, while very interesting, almost seems to be a villainous character from a different story. She might fit in better in an episode of Stargate! And yet I enjoyed watching the actress who portrayed her, Antonia Liskova. It really is the cast that makes this movie worthwhile!

Wonderful movie! For our family, the author and movie director employed their gifts and talents from the Holy Gospels to create another telling of the "Good News". On a sad note, did anyone notice the beginning of the movie, the husband had to approve the stoning of his unfaithful wife? That's something to ponder. I always wondered why Joseph wanted to break off the marriage proposal in secret. Perhaps to save Mary's life? The staged scenes of the second temple and homes made the movie realistic. All of the actors and actress preformed excellent. Christmas 2013 is just days away. We wish to thank the entire production organization and special gratitude to Netflix for offering us this selection!

I believe that much effort has been put into this rendition, but there are scenes with Herod's brood and entourage that are distracting and seem to be purely imagined rather than based on reliable sources. I think that extra-biblical sources were consulted, which is certainly ok but I sometimes had trouble distinguishing what came from a reliable source and what was made up.

The best character depiction, in my opinion, is that of Joseph. The least credible depiction, to me, is Jesus. While most everyone else seems to "fit" the region, Jesus looks purely "Anglo" or Germanic--anything but Middle-Eastern. Worse, as a baby he is somewhat dark; as a child he is much lighter; as an an adult, quite Aryan. I was thrown off by this casting.

Good day: The Father and the Son are the Parents of the Holy Spirit, if many churches are correct. The Trinity is a Family-- two Parents and an Offspring, if many churches are correct.In the Book of Job which is part of the bible,the Lord is compared to a father and also a mother with a womb. "From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens"--Job 38:29. What is written in this paragraph (before this sentence) is compatible with Catholic Church doctrine. Saying that the "Father and the Son are the Parents of the Holy Spirit" is simply another way of saying that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son" which has been official Catholic Church teaching for centuries. Of course, The scriptures are vague if the Holy Spirit is the 3rd or 1st or 2nd Person of the Trinity--whichever of these is true,the First Person and the Second Person may be the Parents of the Third.

Not the actual story, but a cleaned-up version removing most of the things a modern audience would not wish to know about.

Quite nicely done.