User reviews

"Mary" (2024) had the potential to be a powerful and moving portrayal of one of history's most significant figures. While the film boasts stunning visuals and a reverent tone, it ultimately falls short due to a lackluster screenplay and missed opportunities to delve deeper into Mary's emotional and spiritual journey.

The film chronicles Mary's life from her childhood to the birth of Jesus, touching upon key events and challenges she faced. While the production design and cinematography are commendable, creating a visually immersive experience, the narrative itself feels flat and uninspired.

The screenplay lacks depth and nuance, failing to fully explore Mary's internal struggles, her unwavering faith, and the profound impact of her experiences. The dialogue often feels stilted and lacks emotional resonance, preventing the audience from truly connecting with the characters and their journey.

The performances are adequate, but the actors are hampered by the weak script, preventing them from fully embodying the complexities of their roles. The film's pacing also suffers, with certain scenes feeling rushed while others drag on unnecessarily.

Despite its shortcomings, "Mary" (2024) offers glimpses of what could have been a truly powerful and inspiring film. The film's reverence for its subject matter and its stunning visuals are commendable. However, its lackluster screenplay and missed opportunities to explore the emotional and spiritual depths of Mary's story prevent it from reaching its full potential.

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.

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.

Wow. I see a lot of low reviews for this film that I don't really understand. I am not certain what people expect when making a movie with limited canonical source material. Of course there will be creative licenses taken to create the depth needed for a full length film. But I think there were good tie-ins, like Mary being dedicated to the temple, where she created bonds with Anna, whom Mary and Joseph later presented to at the temple in Luke 2. I liked the backstory of Mary's parents praying for a child, and Mary being foreordained for her calling and mission. I liked Gabriel's interwoven involvement in the story, and even though some may not care for it- the inclusion of Lucifer I found to be an effective antagonizing force. I especially liked the brief exchange between Gabriel and Lucifer. Rather than people complaining about heresy, or inaccuracies, let it be a motivation to read the actual source material in the Bible. Overall, I thought the acting performances to be strong, especially the leads. Anthony Hopkins made himself a good, if not overplayed, villain in the narrative. As we enter the Christmas season, I think this is a very worthy movie to enjoy as an entire family as we remember the roots and very nature of it. Enjoy it for what it is. I liked it.

Theology aside, I expected more from this. The acting and the script make it unwatchable. It also seems like they wanted to make it visually stunning, but someone cut their CGI budget by 80%.

It was a major disappointment for me. I was truly looking forward to seeing this film. I tried to talk myself into accepting the updated dialogue and the "filler" storylines that were added, but it just did not work on any level.

The costuming is so bad that it is almost laughable. I think the designers may have misunderstood the assignment and thought that this was a SciFi epic that required a futuristic wardrobe that would have been more at home in a Star Trek epic.

It's sad when the creative minds try to take over a simple story and retell it in a way that makes it more fiction than faith. Overall, this was a wasted opportunity.

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.

I expected much more ...it was naive and some how childish...no real plot ...no acting skills... .monotone and totally predictable ... no emotional link with the characters.... nothing at all.

I have the impression it is uncomplete .. it seems to me that the producers were in rush just to have the movie ready by any means before Christmas.. I expected much more ...it was naive and some how childish...no real plot ...no acting skills... .monotone and totally predictable ... no emotional link with the characters.... nothing at all.

I have the impression it is uncomplete .. it seems to me that the producers were in rush just to have the movie ready by any means before Christmas..

"Mary," the latest Netflix film directed by D. J. Caruso, offers a compelling and humanizing portrayal of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Noa delivers a standout performance as Mary, capturing her strength and grace with authenticity. Hopkins brings depth to the role of King Herod, adding a formidable presence to the narrative.

The film's cinematography is visually stunning, with beautiful costuming and breathtaking locations that transport viewers to the ancient world. The production design effectively recreates the historical setting, enhancing the storytelling experience.

"Mary" delves into the challenges and societal pressures faced by Mary and Joseph, making their story more relatable and highlighting their unwavering faith. The film's narrative, while taking creative liberties, provides a fresh perspective on familiar biblical events, encouraging viewers to reflect on the human aspects of these revered figures.

Overall, "Mary" is a beautifully crafted film that combines strong performances, meticulous production design, and a thoughtful narrative to offer a new lens on a timeless story. It is a commendable addition to Netflix's catalog of faith-based films, appealing to both religious and general audiences alike.

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.

The people that enjoyed this movie are either from a non-christian background or unknown to the real history of Mary. You don't need to be a catholic to understand this heresy. Her history seems upside down and made to satisfy other audiences (they couldn't barely mention Jesus as the saviour of all) as a cliché we have a mystical Gabriel 🤦 super pale with no peaceful image wearing a blue robe, and Elizabeth helping Mary during birth. I understand not everything was so sweet and roses but come on!!! Like COME ON!!! I couldn't finish it, it's so confusing, so heretic, so disappointed for those who really know her real history.... I could say more but better not, I've already wasted 45min watching the film.

Acting: Meh! Okay Production: ..... Storyline: 10% true, 90% fiction Overall: 1 star.

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.

Why can't anyone create an authentic Jesus movie anymore? The story is well-known, so why change it? Is Hollywood no longer capable of making a major Jesus movie? Some stories should remain sacred. This movie isn't bad, but it took a bit too much artistic liberty. The visuals, acting, and production are excellent, but it's a shame the story didn't adhere more closely to the New Testament. The best Jesus movie or TV series remains Jesus of Nazareth from the 70s, likely due to the exceptional acting and its fidelity to the stories in the Bible. While The Passion of the Christ was great, it lacked Jesus' teachings, which have inspired billions. We need those stories to be brought to life again in an accurate and faithful way.

Here's the thing: if you believe in this story, then you're gonna be frustrated by the unnecessary changes to the Biblical narrative. If you don't believe in the story, then you're gonna be frustrated by the unnecessary changes to the Biblical narrative. In the end, this movie is pointless. It only takes away from the source material, and doesn't add anything to it. Let's say it was a pure historical exercise, then the characters' actions and words are inaccurate and confusing for the time. If this is a religious exercise, then the words and events stray so far from the faith that it's almost blasphemous. As such, this movie pleases no one ... and that's even before considering the poor acting, awful script, and turgid plot and cinematography.

I loved the goal of telling the Christmas story through the experiences of Mary whose story is often forgotten. The movie is a good effort, given that we have few historical records about her. Her hardships, the poverty of the common people during that time, the suffering of the Jewish people during Roman occupation, and the politics of the era are important to fully understanding the events surrounding the birth of Jesus. The actors did an amazing job with the script. I would have liked to know more about Mary's thoughts and feelings, as well as more about Joseph's inner life. It would have helped to see their friendship/love deepen through dialogue. Anthony Hopkins is wonderful as the evil Herod. The movie did not delve deeply enough into the "virgin birth". That probably should have been given more attention. Everyone's reaction seemed muted. I was fascinated by the historical facets - the second temple, the priests and their robes and rituals, the role of the temple maidens, etc. The scene setting was part of the fun. All in all, worth a viewing, just don't expect too much. It is an enjoyable couple of hours and hopefully will lead viewers to contemplate that Mary and Joseph were real people who lived in a tumultuous and dangerous time and overcame huge challenges to bring their son into the world.

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.

I am amazed that Netflix has production crews all over the place, edit suites and all the money in the world for movie making, yet when it comes to sets and wardrobe they seem to have the budget of a community theater group.

This film fails on many fronts.

The acting was bad.

The story shaky and inaccurate.

The directing tolerable.

But what topped it for me and my family was the sets and wardrobe. It had to look and feel of a Star Wars film.

Who the hell came up with the look of the film?

Why did you dress people like that, clean cut shiny attire and no one wearing rags or animal skins? Its as though Couture or a fashion house came up with the look.

Overall a poorly made film, great concept and idea but horrible execution and in the end a disappointment.

I don't understand why this movie has such bad reviews. I thought the acting was great, it had enough biblical accuracy for what can be expected in a movie, there was good cinematography, and the pacing was perfect. Characters were likable and not constantly rage bating the audience, therefore one feels compelled to root for them. Villains were depicted to be ruthless and disposable, so it is easy to root against them. I feel that this is an excellent movie to watch with the entire family, especially during the holidays, whether you are part of any Christian denomination, or not. It was simply an interesting, well-put-together story. I truly hope the bad reviews don't sway people against watching this film.

And he kicked some butt defending Mary and Jesus! No wonder he's the defender of the church! I'm going to have reread the Gospels with all the action scenes in mind.

Anthony Hopkins was great and terrifying as King Herod but I wished that they would have worked in some fava beans and a nice chiante.

Joel Osteen must have been listening to All Along the Watchtower in casting Jimmy Hendrix as Gabriel. I so wanted Gabriel to say 'Hey Joe' to St. Joseph when they first met - that would have been totally awesome!

I liked the casting of relatively unknown actors. The actors portraying Joseph and Mary did very well in their roles. Can't wait for the sequel!

This film should be called The Holy Family vs Raiders of the Lost Ark. Too much liberty has been taken with the story of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St Joseph.

The only notable part was Sir Anthony Hopkins's portrayal of King Harod but even that stellar performance was not enough to save this film.

Whereas wheeled wagons existed at that time, the vehicles in this movie were ahead of their time, and St. Joseph as a carpenter would not have been able to afford one, let alone a horse.

The portrayals of St. Joachim and St, Ann were pious enough, but their story was made up out of whole cloth.

The depiction of a violent St. Joseph is just wrong headed.

This story would have been more accurate had it been based on Blessed Mary of Agreda's volumes of City of God. There is nothing inspiring about this film.