Mary of Nazareth [2012] (Movie Review)

Film 'Mary of Nazareth' now available for parish, school ...

Plot Summary

Mary was chosen by God to be the mother of Jesus Christ, and this calling led to many unprecedented ups and downs in her life. Her experiences with Christ didn’t stop at the Nativity as she supported Him in His earthly ministry. Even in the end, she played a key role in His work and made a difference wherever she went.

Production Quality (1 point)

Despite average video quality and acceptable camera work, this production doesn’t really meet the mark. Audio is fine, but there are some obvious overdubs. Sets, locations, and props show some attention to historical details. However, the editing is extremely choppy as some scenes cut off very abruptly. Some scenes suddenly invade without warning, and special effects are very cheap. Therefore, this section doesn’t meet the middle mark.

Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)

As a whole, Mary of Nazareth feels more like a play than a movie since its characters are very stiff and wooden. This is due to very unnatural dialogue and uptight conversations, and Mary and Joseph seem like they’re from another planet because of their ethereal attitudes and reactions. Besides this, the narrative rushes through every major event in Mary’s life, introducing more and more characters and unfinished subplots as it goes on. To string things together, heavy-handed narration is awkwardly inserted; it goes without saying that Jesus is portrayed as as very otherworldly and inaccessible person. Some biblical accounts are either altered or shorted in order to save time in the bulging plot, and it seems like some cultural traditions aren’t correctly captured in the story. For instance, some characters seem to live too well-off for the time period, but this is almost beside the point due to the many other screenwriting errors committed here. In the end, this is just a mess that can’t be awarded any points.

Acting Quality (0 points)

Despite acceptable cultural costuming, the acting is bit overdone in the emotional department. The cast members come off as theatrical and overly dramatic as well as too breathy at times. Actors and actresses are not always culturally accurate. Most of the scenes seem extremely scripted and controlled, which leads to very practiced and robotic line delivery. In the end, due to antiquated acting styles and other concerns, this section can’t receive any points.

Conclusion

Mary of Nazareth is another reminder of the older era of Bible-based entertainment that treated Scripture like a rigid stage play. In trying to be too careful to avoid messing anything up, the story is portrayed in a distant and untouchable manner. The treatment of Jesus is among the worst aspects of the film since He comes off as a lofty individual. Thus, all that can be gleaned from this experience is how not to do it.

Final Rating: 1 out of 10 points

Paul the Apostle {St. Paul} [2000] (Movie Review)

Creepy Paul…….

Plot Summary

Saul of Tarsus was a ruthless man bent on destroying the church of Jesus Christ, until he had an unforgettable encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus.  From there, his life was never the same as he became Paul and effectively switched sides and became zealous for sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Though many were still skeptical of him, God was with him all of his life and used him to turn the world upside down.  His work as an Apostle of Jesus Christ is still affecting the world today.

 

Production Quality (1 point)

It’s clear that there was money behind this film—you don’t get the opportunity to make a more than two hour film every day.  For the most part, this production is average, with okay camera work and historically authentic sets and locations.  However, some of the video quality is blurry and some of the lighting in outside scenes is poor.  There is also an unusual use of weird special effects throughout, including an annoying use of negative video quality in an attempt to be dramatic.  We also are provided with unnecessary location subtitles as a crutch for bad editing.  With a such a large idea, editing is key, as it is in any epic.  Yet the editing of this film is totally off and allows the plot to focus on all the wrong things.  In short, a lot of wasted money was thrown at this production.

Plot and Storyline Quality (0 points)

Paul the Apostle gets caught up in the all-too-common trap of Bible films: using a movie named after a well-known Biblical character to focus on all kinds of useless side issues and peripheral characters.  It’s fine to make a movie about a character or group of characters who shadowed a well-known Biblical figure, but don’t pretend like the movie is actually about that figure.  Though there is a substantial amount of content in this film about Paul, this movie is not about Paul’s life, but about things that happened around Paul during random parts of his life.  It’s not like Paul has a small story—there is tons of content about him that would make an awesome movie.  Yet we are left with half-measures and allusions to what could have been.  As extra-Biblical events take up the time of this story, pointless time jumps are taken and tons of off-screen content is alluded to.  Dialogue is designed to move the plot along and only crafts characters who seem lofty and inaccessible rather than like real people.  Alas, what could have been with this very important and engaging historical account.

Acting Quality (0 points)

Once again, another Bible movie commits the cardinal sin of casting: British people trying to portray Middle Eastern people.  Thus, there is a lack of cultural authenticity that is not helped by the partially unrealistic costuming, the creepy makeup jobs, and the obviously fake beards.  This is not to mention the overly theatrical, dramatic, and breathy delivery of lines and emotions.  Unfortunately, there is not much good to mention here.

Conclusion

So you have over two hours of runtime and virtually only a third of your content actually pertains to the Biblical historical account of the Apostle Paul.  Very few film makers have the luxury of having this much time on their hands to craft a movie, yet this team decided to waste it on tons of non-Biblical and quasi-historical content, complete with large time jumps and completely unnecessary characters.  Besides this, the characters don’t even feel like realistic or authentic Jewish people, which is not helped by the fact that they are played by British people.  It’s no wonder so many people are weary of films that have the “Bible” stamp on them.  We eagerly await the day when Biblical movies are honest about what they are depicting and create historically realistic and culturally authentic portrayals of people in the Scriptures.

 

Final Rating: 1 out of 10 points