Francesco

Rating:
Summary: St. Francis is martyred a second time......
Review: I typically like Mickey Rourke, at least in his earlier (pre-90s) films but let's face it, he is a better Satan than Saint.
It is a shame the story of the life of one of the most intriguing men in history is put across in a disjointed storyline.
To make matter worse, Rourke provides none of the subtly in the character of Francesco to show inner growth, the gradual "conversion of the heart." It takes subtly in acting: not so much in what is said, but what is not said. And even when Rourke talks, the dialogue stiff, he seems uncomfortable, stilted (trying to stifle a Brooklyn accent?) In short, Rourke stinks. Perhaps he was directed badly.
The plot needs better flow. The viewers are bouncing all over the place, we're not sure how Francesco gets to the visit with the Pope and back, among other things.
Good idea. Poorly done.
If you've got to see it, rent it.

Rating:
Summary: St. Francis is martyred a second time......
Review: I typically like Mickey Rourke, at least in his earlier (pre-90s) films but let's face it, he is a better Satan than Saint.
It is a shame the story of the life of one of the most intriguing men in history is put across in a disjointed storyline.
To make matter worse, Rourke provides none of the subtly in the character of Francesco to show inner growth, the gradual "conversion of the heart." It takes subtly in acting: not so much in what is said, but what is not said. And even when Rourke talks, the dialogue stiff, he seems uncomfortable, stilted (trying to stifle a Brooklyn accent?) In short, Rourke stinks. Perhaps he was directed badly.
The plot needs better flow. The viewers are bouncing all over the place, we're not sure how Francesco gets to the visit with the Pope and back, among other things.
Good idea. Poorly done.
If you've got to see it, rent it.

Rating:
Summary: I love St. Francis
Review: It's the best movie ever made about the St. Francis's life. Mickey has the best role of his life. I think this film is ideal for all the people religious and not religious for the message about the love, peace and fraternity. I hope Hollywood think the same about this movie than me.(Who's know, maybe Spielberg film another version of Francesco.) It's a golden classic!

Rating:
Summary: Saint Mickey
Review: Mickey has redeemed himself with this film! Francis is a special person in many people lives. Mickey has portrayed him like I would imagine Francis to be!

Rating:
Summary: A hip Francis
Review: The last major movie on Francis was "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" of the early 70's. It was a very "sappy" movie featuring a spacey, wimpy Francis. Francesco uses the cool-style of Mickey Rourke (Francis wears earrings and has an attitude), and the elegance of Helena Bonhma Carter (who plays the beautiful, strong Clare perfectly), to impart an entirely new look to the Saint. Francesco also follows the actual biography of Francis closer than any of the other renditions. You might be surprised to see Francis taking off his clothes and making love with a pile of snow, but this story is part of the earliest collections of biographies of Francis. The film is a series of flashbacks as Clare (Carter) and the earliest Franciscans (some Italian-looking actors) remember their father in faith. Dramatic "new age" music is in the background of the entire movie, and the editing is horrible at parts, but it's not too distracting. Overall, if you are interested in St. Francis, this would be the best and most accurate film I know of. Even if you aren't, the acting and setting is so well done that most adults would find it an engaging story.

Rating:
Summary: Unusual life of a saint
Review: This film is rather unusual for the life of a saint, particularly St. Francis of Assisi. It does demonstrate the inner turmoil of a man coming from a wealthy family who gives up everything to strictly follow the gospel teachings to the letter. Mickey Rourke gives an interesting and truthful performance, better than might be expected.

My question about the general tone of the production is the frontal male nudity. Was it really necessary? The first time it is used to show the stripped corpses of the losers in a battle. Wouldn't showing the bodies face down have been just as effective? The other major section shows Francis romping in the snow leaving NOTHING to the imagination. This scene could have been just as effective without showing the male private parts. The use of the nudity means that it would be impossible to show this film to younger people when it could be valuable in illustrating the humanity of a saint.

This film is much better than the Leonard Maltin review would have you believe. It avoids the Hollywood glamor and glitz to give a truer picture of the actual time of St. Francis. But the nudity is unfortunate.