IMDb RATING
5.2/10
8.4K
YOUR RATING
In this timeless coming-of-age story, Mary is shunned following an otherworldly conception and forced to flee when Herod's insatiable thirst for power ignites a murderous pursuit for the new... Read allIn this timeless coming-of-age story, Mary is shunned following an otherworldly conception and forced to flee when Herod's insatiable thirst for power ignites a murderous pursuit for the newborn.In this timeless coming-of-age story, Mary is shunned following an otherworldly conception and forced to flee when Herod's insatiable thirst for power ignites a murderous pursuit for the newborn.
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)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
Marys parents, and the king looked like they were Scottish which made it hard from the start. Gabriel looked evil. Great acting and production..I thought with Passion that Christian film has reached a new height but we never got that high again..Music ministry is the same. Its gone down. What is happening? There use to be more good Christian films and songs but not as much. Christians films are getting better at production but scripts are lackin. Ethnically Mary and Joseph were great . The opening scenes with herod may have been over the top and less over. The filming and cotr message are great.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaIn 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.
- GoofsMary's mother Anne is blonde, or at least fair-haired. This is extremely unlikely in Israel at that time.
- ConnectionsReferenced in Relatable: Joel Osteen's 'Mary' Movie Gets the Gospel Wrong (2024)
Details
- Runtime1 hour 52 minutes
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content