Maria de Nazaré

It is a beautiful film and this can be its basic virtue. The basic sin - the rush , who gives to some moments a very bizarre sense ( the baptism of the Savior is the main example ).

But the problem remains the ambiguity of purpose of director . Is it a film about Mother of God ? Is it a film about Her Son ? The - guess ! - of Juda , what is its purpose ?

The answer seems be ignored and, in strange way, the beautiful scenes are out of the Gospel - the women and Mary near fountain, the reactions of women front to institution of Eucharisty.

The aesthetic virtues are, in too much measure the only matters element. It is not a bad option but , maybe, a short version of the film about Jesus in vision of Franco Zeffirelli is not exactly enough. The excuse - it represents the last will of an admirable director, a testimony of his faith, maybe and, after so many films of theme, it can be only a shackle from a long chain.

Beyond dreadful. No excuse. They clearly spent money on the film, but spent no thought whatsoever.

Wait - let's start with the positives: Most of the sets are decent, and some of the background extras actually look like they are middle eastern - so let's give it one star for the sets, props, and extras. Also, the costumes are nice enough, although amazingly clean and well pressed. The only other redeeming thing I can think of, is some of the musical scoring was at least vaguely from the region. The rest was much like the scoring to a 1940's romantic drama. That is about all I can say except...

This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Ever. Ever, ever, ever.

I hardly know where to start... the British voice as the Angel? The stilted performances of just about everyone? Herod as played by an itchy stand up comic? The 12 year old Jesus as played by some kid from the San Fernando Valley? The hunky, tan, blond John the Baptist, who looked like he wandered in from a Tarzan movie (furry loincloth an all!)? The adult Jesus getting snotty with his mother in the water into wine scene? Or maybe it was the overall effect of so many choppy scenes? The flat, one dimensional characters? The dreadful dialogue? The complete lack of direction? (I don't care what the director's resume is - he was clearly not on the set except to pick up his check)

Herod's death scene actually had me laughing out loud it was so absurd. Joseph's funeral scene, on the other hand, came out of nowhere - uh, was Joseph sick? Since he appeared to be in his late 30's, tops, what killed him? The last supper reminded me of a bunch of snotty young men sitting around whispering about "who farted?". The crucifixion scene was... indescribably bad. How did they manage to shoot the death of Jesus without any dramatic tension or real feeling? The random decent actor who managed to make this terrible script seem remotely real just served to make all the others look even worse.

If you showed this film to someone who had not already a decent grasp of the gospel story, a viewer would be utterly lost -there is no coherent story line! Also I'm not sure why this was called "Mary of Nazareth" since it's about Jesus, not his Mother Mary. She's absent from MANY scenes, and no attempt was made at all to explore what her point of view/life might have been like.

Oh, and by the way - the "other" Mary (Mary of Magdalene) is easy to identify - unlike any other woman in the movie, she has bright red hair, lip liner and mascara. So we'd know she was a WHORE I guess, despite the fact that this movie was made in 1999, and almost all biblical scholars agree Mary M was NOT a whore at all.

This film was so terrible I had to look it up to make sure this was a real movie and not an elaborate hoax. I'm not kidding. It's that bad.

There are many fine gospel based films - this is assuredly NOT one of them.

A quite enjoyable story about virgin Mary's take on the evangelists, it does not really concentrate on the emotional development of Mary or on how she really reacted and lived through all of the events, but rather understands the limits of time for any movie, and gives a visually compelling story about what else was going on around Jesus - all the rest of the story has been reduced to a few semiotic remarks and dialogues, while the mother is made to have opinions of her own, and somewhat even conflicting with that of the newborn god-son. It is still a movie about Jesus & co, but as the rest of the acting is based on the bible and is for most part known to viewers, the eventful parts of the movie will become visuals and reactions and actions of the mother who is present. It kind-of shows the mothers being in the world while at the same time the rest becomes just scenery. That's what can be done with a story that is constantly retold. Enjoyable, do watch this.

Referto: Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. (just for the hell of it) maybe for similar kicks.

Jean Delannoy was one of the major forces of the French "cinema de qualité " so often unfairly dismissed by the highbrows.His adaptations of Georges Simenon (Maigret tend un piège,notably) were remarkable.His heyday was the forties and the fifties.His last commendable work was probably "les amitiés particulières" (1964)and since he degenerated into mediocrity.He had seemed to call it a day in the seventies,with the occasional made-for -TV film.When he returned ,in the late eighties,,he had probably been impressed by Alain Cavalier's marvelous "Thérèse" (de Lisieux)and he tried a "Bernadette" (Soubirous) which was a critical and commercial failure.Undaunted,he carried on in the rather bigotry vein.This "Marie de Nazareth" is a turkey.Only the main actress"s desperate efforts are worth watching.Intended as "Jesus 's life seen thru Mary's eyes' it totally misses the point:to be successful,it should have focused on Mary,on her reactions,on her thoughts,on her feelings :this could have been really moving.But most of the time ,and particularly when Jesus begins to preach,he takes the lion's share ,and poor Mary is reduced to a walk-on,-and however it could have been rewarding to hear her chat with the other Mary (Magdelene).Delannoy's treatment of Jesus's life does not help:no spiritual dimension,nothing vibrates,it sometimes seems we are watching a parboiled cross between a poor man's Zefirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" and an old Sunday school book.

Delannoy,now about 97, made good movies which deserves to be remembered.But frankly,sport,this movie was just his rehearsals for retirement.

Being the first movie of the Gospel I've ever seen which was produced in France with English duologue, at first I was intrigued when the duologue contained snippets of what I recognized as Scripture, but which was NOT from any of the English versions I have ever studied, so it piqued my interest.

It contains a plethora of interpretations that do not coincide with my own interpretations of the events surrounding His ministry based on my study of the Gospel in multiple languages, however, as I have yet to undertake a study of the Gospel from the perspective of the French language, I cannot help but say that I found it to be a lot more interesting than some quicker-cheaper productions about the Word.

It was enough to help me overlook so many of the technical flaws that I saw in this film, as being perhaps translational inaccuracies and errors.