AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
5,2/10
8,4 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Nesta história atemporal de amadurecimento, Maria é rejeitada após uma concepção sobrenatural e forçada a fugir quando a sede insaciável de poder de Herodes desencadeia uma perseguição assas... Ler tudoNesta história atemporal de amadurecimento, Maria é rejeitada após uma concepção sobrenatural e forçada a fugir quando a sede insaciável de poder de Herodes desencadeia uma perseguição assassina ao recém-nascido.Nesta história atemporal de amadurecimento, Maria é rejeitada após uma concepção sobrenatural e forçada a fugir quando a sede insaciável de poder de Herodes desencadeia uma perseguição assassina ao recém-nascido.
- Direção
- Roteirista
- Artistas
Ait ben Azzouz Brahim
- Market Protester
- (as Brahim Ait Mazouz)
Marie-Batoul Prenant
- Joseph's Mother
- (as Batoul Marie Prenant)
Aïssam Bouali
- Messenger Priest
- (as Aissam Bouali)
Avaliações em destaque
My family and I were really looking forward to this movie.
Too bad it was awful. It came across almost kind of like Vikings or with game of thrones type characters. Do get me wrong, I loved Vikings. The angel Gabriel was creepier than the devil.
While I know they needed to take some "artistic freedom" with some of the unknown parts of the story, this film completely ignores things that are known. I'm not claiming to be a Bible scholar, but come on folks.
Mary was thought to be about 3 when she went into the temple, not 10-12 as in the movie. Her parents are believed to have died while she was in the temple, when she was about 8-9 years old. This is according to the Apostle James' writings.
The whole story around the entire town knowing Mary was pregnant was ridiculous to say the least. It actually contradicts what the Bible does say.
I could go on, but the film isn't worth my time.
Too bad it was awful. It came across almost kind of like Vikings or with game of thrones type characters. Do get me wrong, I loved Vikings. The angel Gabriel was creepier than the devil.
While I know they needed to take some "artistic freedom" with some of the unknown parts of the story, this film completely ignores things that are known. I'm not claiming to be a Bible scholar, but come on folks.
Mary was thought to be about 3 when she went into the temple, not 10-12 as in the movie. Her parents are believed to have died while she was in the temple, when she was about 8-9 years old. This is according to the Apostle James' writings.
The whole story around the entire town knowing Mary was pregnant was ridiculous to say the least. It actually contradicts what the Bible does say.
I could go on, but the film isn't worth my time.
6Nozz
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.
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.
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.
I'm born a catholic, not into any specific relegion nowadays, but still feel a special connection to the person Mary and where she stands for. This movie didn't feel right.
Okay, i don't know much or better said anything about the childhood of Mary, but how it all went with Josef I think is better told in The Nativity Story (2006). I can'tt say many much further then... before I was half past through I stopped seeing the movie further. It wasn't my thing I believe is the story of Mary.
The part of the movie I've seen I liked only Anthony Hopkins as Herod, but also think he better watch out stopping acting before his decline. Also the temptation of Mary by Lucifer was splendid done in directing and the acting of Eamon Farren.
Okay, i don't know much or better said anything about the childhood of Mary, but how it all went with Josef I think is better told in The Nativity Story (2006). I can'tt say many much further then... before I was half past through I stopped seeing the movie further. It wasn't my thing I believe is the story of Mary.
The part of the movie I've seen I liked only Anthony Hopkins as Herod, but also think he better watch out stopping acting before his decline. Also the temptation of Mary by Lucifer was splendid done in directing and the acting of Eamon Farren.
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.
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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesIn Matthew 1:18, we are not told about Mary's age, yet it is told that she was a virgin and was pledged to be married to Joseph. During this time in history, Jewish girls would have been betrothed to their husbands as early as the age of 12 years old. Scholars believe Mary would have been somewhere between 12 to 16 years old when she had Jesus. Other scholars say that ancient Jewish women would marry on average between their mid-teens and early twenties. It is therefore also possible that Mary was 18 when was betrothed to Joseph.
- Erros de gravaçãoMary's mother Anne is blonde, or at least fair-haired. This is extremely unlikely in Israel at that time.
- ConexõesReferenced in Relatable: Joel Osteen's 'Mary' Movie Gets the Gospel Wrong (2024)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
- Tempo de duração1 hora 52 minutos
- Cor
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente