User Reviews

Although the most famous movie about St Francis of Assisi still appears to be poetical BROTHER SUN SISTER MOON by Franco Zeffirelli, FRANCESCO by Liliana Cavani is, perhaps, less famous but appears to be more faithful to the biography of this great man who renewed the medieval church in the spirit of the Gospel. While Zeffirelli's film concentrates purely on the youth years of Francesco, his spiritual birth, his joy of life, and is, therefore, more an interpretation than a biopic, Cavani's film draws our attention to Francesco's suffering, his search for God not in flowers but in tears, and is, therefore, a very realistic biopic filled rather with pain than with song. But let me treat this movie separately, as an individual work since comparison may sometimes disturb the gist.

The first aspect that makes any movie good or weak are performances. Mickey Rourke is pretty memorable in the lead. There are his moments that really shine, particularly in the sequence of painful experience of the main character. Although Mickey is known for not so ambitious roles, you may get used to him as Francesco in the long run. Helena Bonham Carter is, perhaps, not the Clare many people imagine; however, she gives a profound performance of a spiritual person, a woman of charity and pure love, a woman of great sainthood. Francesco's parents, Paolo Bonacelli as Pietro Bernardone and a French actress Andrea Ferreol as Pica, are good. That seems to be quite probable how "worldly spirited" Francesco's home really was: dreams for business and luxury. Except for them, I liked Diego Ribun as Bernardo Quintavalle. He has that nobility in his face that Bernardo must have had (what we know from biographies). I also liked Fabio Bussotti as calm Leon called God's lamb. Generally, performances are fine.

The insight into the historical period is also accurate. Although one watches a biopic of a saint, this aspect of historical accuracy is pretty important. Liliana Cavani does a good job showing the reality of the medieval town, the cruelty of war, but foremost the horrific social discrepancies. That is what moved Francesco and promoted in him the desire to help, to hug a leper, to give the last slice to the starving, to offer a smile to the upset, in short, to regard the Gospel to the letter. Sometimes, these scenes may seem too realistic, too depressing; yet, they have to be there. When we consider the life of St Francis, it was, as I already mentioned, a way of tears. I will never forget the final scene, the real spiritual suffering that turns into physical one...and this physical pain occurs to be such a Gift of God...

The music is perfect. Vangelis, as always, supplies us with a profound tune that opens us to wonderful horizons. Francesco does not sing at all (which is a historical shortage), yet the music in the background fits really well as if to present a perfect harmony of flesh and spirit, the harmony that Francesco was given by his Master because he learned to love entirely, without any limits. In the final moments, Vangelis makes a combination of tunes applied to feelings. Unforgettable!

I recently saw FRANCESCO again after more than 10 years. Then, when I saw it for the first time, I did not like it that much, I found it too serious; perhaps I was more used to other biopics. Nevertheless, now I heartily recommend this movie to anyone who likes spiritual experience, who is able to see deeper, who looks at the world more through the eyes of love than through the eyes of reason.

Il Poverello, as Francesco is called, brought the message of peace and goodness, PAX ET BONUM, to every place where he stood. He brought love where hatred was, joy where sadness was, pardoning where injury was, smile where tears were, console where terror was. Although this message seems to be universal, is today's viewer able to understand these things? Is PAX ET BONUM (Peace and Goodness) something more than just a slogan of one man who lived hundreds of years ago? 7/10

I was an editor at a facility in the late 80's early 90's that did a cut-down version of the original film. I think this is the version in circulation today. The guys who did the cut-down were less concerned with continuity than they were at getting it in to their desired length.

That being said, it is still a pretty good film. When you mention that Mickey Rourke is Saint Francis to most people you get an interesting look, but I think he did a good job with the roll, maybe a bit over the top at times, but still watchable. Helena Bonham Carter was great as Clare. If you get a chance to see this film, by all means, check it out.

This is an Italian release version about S. Francis(1182-1226)life by Liliana Cavani . Set in 13th century and depicting the existence of St Francis , son of a wealthy merchant. Story begins after his death when his friends and disciples remember his life. It starts with starvation, famine,war, pest, caused for confronting between Italian cities: Perugia, Assis and Venice. Francesco is taken prisoner, he's freed by his parents(Paolo Bonacelli, Andrea Ferreol) and he becomes into prodigal son. He's judged and condemned, then he's naked himself and begins a miserable life caring poor, hapless and lepers. After his religious awakening he founds the Franciscan order of monks, approved by Pope Innocence III(1210). He's followed by St Clare(Helena Bonham Carter)as devote disciple and fine support, founding the Clarisan order of nuns(1212). Francesco establishes a rigid rules of life and his thoughts were included into 'Flowers of St. Francis' and 'Singing to brother Sun or the creatures' where he praises the mirth, poverty,and love for nature. He receives blessing from cardinals(Mario Adorf) and later from Pope Innocencio III(Zinschler).Finally, he got the stigmata or wounds of Jesuschrist suffered in the holy cross.

The motion picture is a good portrayal about known Saint played by Rourke in a definitive change of role. However the movie is slow-moving at times and some pedestrian, resulting to be a little boring and dull. The developing movie is made by means of several flashbacks creating confusion and tiring. Evocative and metaphysical musical score by always excellent Vangelis. Atmospheric though dark cinematography by the cameramen Ennio Guarneri and Giuseppe Lanci. The picture is professionally directed By Liliana Cavani who previously directed another one about this religious character played by Lou Castel.

Furthermore, the Hollywood version titled Francis of Assisi(60) directed by Michael Curtiz with Stuart Withman and Dolores Hart. And Italian adaptations such as, 'Flowers of St. Francis(1950)'directed by Roberto Rosselini with Aldo Fabrizi and 'Brother sun, Brother moon(1973)'by Franco Zeffirelli with William Faulkner and Judi Bowker.

I'd seen the Zefirelli version of St. Francis, and in contrast, I have to say this presented a somewhat different perspective -more realistic if anything. Not knowing much about Mickey Rourke, I was pleasantly surprised. Of course he had a modern hair cut throughout, and his tatoos could be seen in some scenes. . . .but when put to the test he passed in my estimation. His training at the Strasberg School paid off. In the beginning he was a little stiff, but as the film developed, so did his character, and the emotional scenes were very believable. Condensing the life of St. Francis of Assisi into a 2 hr. film is a challenge, but I think the important events were covered including his early life as a man of the world, his life-altering crisis of finding God, the creation of the little band of followers and the conflicts, the stigmata, etc. And, OK, Mickey Rourke has gorgeous eyes!!!

I was surprised to see that Mickey Rourke did this movie. He does a lot of B movies. His performance was done very well. He can be a good actor when he applies himself. He just does not know how to pick good roles. The story was interesting. It tells the life of St. Francis of Assissi. It was very inspiritual. It is interesting to see how this sect of monks came to be. 7/10

This movie is about a Young man (Saint Ferancsco) who gives up all the money and pleasures of life for helping poor people , and then becomes a servant of god and starts a new life full of hardness and misery among the poor and Leprosy people ... The story is told by a witness who was himself impressed and changed by Ferancesco to help and live with poor people...

He touched so many during his life and continues to be a bastion of piety to this day.

Mickey Rourke wonderfully portrays St Francis of Assisi in a film that could have only been done to this caliber in the 80s.

From rich soldier to holy Saint; this picture shows a journey as physical as it is holy and does so splendidly by utilising it's framing and the structure of extended flashbacks.

I was awfully surprised that they decided to only mention St Francis' assignment to speak with the Saracens instead of showing the way he masterfully battled the cheif in a duel of sacred philosophy.

Overall it's a wonderful picture that I would recommend to anyone and everyone.

My rating does not relate to the film itself but to the DVD release available in the US. I saw this film when it was released in Europe in the movie theater, and therefore know that in the present US DVD release there is a significant portion of this film missing. Let alone the fact that it's full screen. In the original film as a crusader Francisco committed severely violent acts before converting to religion. These scenes are all missing from the Trinity DVD release. For the sake of Christian propaganda this film has been mutilated! Unfortunately there is no complete English version available. There is an Italian/Greek version out there that's supposedly uncut and letterboxed.

I thought Mickey Rourke did a wonderful job portraying Francesco. I did not realize the historical surrounding of what was going on in Francesoco's time. It is so important to understand the context of what makes a person into what they are. His experiences and what he witnessed in the prison and the lavish lifestyle that he and his friends were a part of and his experience in reading the "word" in his own language affected him deeply.

I also want to mention the portrayal of Chiara "St. Clare". What a truly beautiful and generous person.

I believe that the way the movie portrayed his journey in faith gave a lot of insight to a truly great man. It has helped me in my own faith as a Christian and as a person in general. The movie really moved me.

I'm not prepared to pass any kind of harsh judgement against this film, because the DVD that Netflix has is pretty awful, and the American version is severely edited. From what I did see, however, the direction of this Francis of Assisi biopic isn't that good. Liliana Cavani, most famous for her exploitation film The Night Porter, directs this very blandly. Her casting is bad, too, and she seems to have made her choices for beauty's sake. After seeing The Wrestler a while back, I was left wondering who this Mickey Rourke person was, and when it was that he was a world-famous actor with a great career to which everyone refers. Having also recently revisited Rossellini's The Flowers of St. Francis, one of my favorite films, this film seemed like a natural choice. Rourke was indeed a great beauty at this point in his life. He's certainly not the gruff bruiser I know him as (from The Wrestler, Sin City, Man on Fire and Domino mostly). I'll have to see him in something else before I judge his earlier worth. He's not particularly good here. He doesn't seem to belong, anyway. Far too beautiful, and I wasn't convinced by his soft-spokenness. Helena Bonham Carter co-stars, and the rest of the cast is mostly Italian. I have to admit I was mostly bored by this film. It came off as a cheap made-for-TV biopic, though that could mostly be due to the crumminess of the DVD. The worst aspect is the electronic score by Vangelis. I have to admit I rather like his scores to Chariots of Fire and Blade Runner, but his score here does not fit and is brutally awful much of the time.

I am continually amazed that this truly great film still receives so little recognition. There are probably multiple reasons for this. Certainly, the initial distribution was lackluster. Critical commentary is also hard to come by. Still, even in its most widely available and unfortunately truncated form (more on this later), Francesco impresses and inspires.

The decision to cast Mickey Rourke as St. Francis must seem almost like a goof to many. Those who are most likely to want to see a film of this nature might even be put off by what they may see as stunt casting by a director who is not serious. But this is just not the case. Rourke's career since this film has been spotty at best and his screen image has often descended into self-parody, but there was a time when he was a fine actor doing exemplary work and his performance here is absolutely on par with any of that. He gives us a vision of the saint which is rooted in material human essence, not overwrought histrionics. His internal changes are evoked through delicate, nuanced moments--small changes in Rourke's facial expressions, physical gestures, etc. Not a note is careless or inconsistent. The paroxysms of emotion toward the end are earned.

The development of his spiritual quest is not overstated; we are constantly positioned on the outside looking in--the film is framed by the reflections of Francesco's followers. This has the effect of heightening the aura of mystery around the man and establishing respect for him as a man, not simply an iconic caricature.

Cavani takes the religious aspect of the story very seriously; far more so than many more overtly pious films. Though every scene carefully considers the implications of faith, no points are made simply. The reality of the life Francesco chose is depicted as rough and uncompromising. The film's theological arguments are subtle and complicated, benefiting from the deeply serious tone of the piece. Having said all that, it must be added that the version currently available in the US is pretty atrocious actually. At 119 minutes, it savagely whittles the original version down by a full half hour. This is common with European films distributed in the US and isn't always unbearable. Here, though, it isn't a matter of just cutting out or trimming scenes. Whole sequences have been rearranged, creating a jumbled rhythm. Vangelis' music cues, which add so much to the emotional quality of the film, are also switched around for no apparent reason. It is a tribute to the strength of Francesco that even in such a butchered state it remains powerful (the US cut was all I could see for years), and it does benefit from the ability to hear Rourke and Bonham-Carter's real voices. If you give the film a chance and like what you see try hunting down the region 2 DVD release. It is well worth the effort to see such a glorious work in its proper form.

How many religious epics have you seen that are actually historically acurate and present the Characters as human?

One Website critiqued Francesco as the "Dr. Dolittle" of Christianity. This is an extremely unfair and shortsighted view of what this movie presents. The stories of St. Francis' union with nature and animals do not even get mentioned in this film.

One of the coolest things that this film gives is a glimpse of the mystery of conversion to Christianity. No one could understand what Francesco has discovered until they too are willing to forsake all they have and commit themselves to the obedience of the gospel. This movie screams of the love affair that Francesco had with CHRIST.

Also this film does a great job showing how the pride and ambition of man screws up good things that GOD has started in the hearts of men.

Could any one do better than Mickey Rourke in this role? Probably, but could it be somebody that wouldn't come across acting like Pat Boone in the Cross and the Switchblade?

My only regret is that the actors in this film have not discovered in reality the truth of what St. Francis' life can show us. Helena Bonham Carter has all but been type casted in my mind as Chiara, but films like Fight Club will add a good amount of dross to that image.

I've seen this film several times and plan to see it several more, this film is a treasure among religious films. Brother Sun, Sister Moon sucks compared to this film. I do hope to see more like it.

Also if anyone can help me find out where I can see the 1966 version I would be appreciative.

This is the fourth film I have watched on the subject, following efforts by similarly renowned directors: Roberto Rossellini's THE FLOWERS OF ST. FRANCIS (1950), Michael Curtiz' FRANCIS OF ASSISI (1961) and Franco Zeffirelli's BROTHER SUN SISTER MOON (1972); curiously enough, Cavani had already dealt with the titular saint's life in her acclaimed (if rarely-screened) 1966 debut feature with Lou Castel. This particular version, then, got some mileage out of the fact that the lead role would be essayed by Hollywood bad boy Mickey Rourke – other than that, there seemed to be little discernible point in making yet another trip to this particular well…unless Cavani, the controversial lady behind THE NIGHT PORTER (1974), relished the opportunity of 'realistic' wallowing in the squalor inherent in the medieval setting (even including some unwarranted gore and full-frontal nudity). Rourke seems more mystified than mystic, wrong-headedly approaching the role as if it were an "Angry Young Man" type!; in that respect, the spiritual calling experienced by the nobleman of Assisi is distinctly unconvincing here (while his acknowledged affection for animals is barely touched upon) – with the result that the entire film is seldom inspiring. Interestingly, events play out in flashback – with St. Francis' disciples gathered to reminisce subsequent to his death: prominence, and an atypical though much-needed female perspective, is given to his former love (forcefully played by Helena Bonham Carter). While his work usually proved an asset to any film, Vangelis's electronic score in this case is clearly out-of-place and hardly memorable. Finally, the print on the budget DVD I watched was quite horrendous: apart from being the choppy U.S. theatrical version (which was cut down by almost 40 minutes from the Italian original), it sported a hazy sub-VHS quality and, at one point, even duplicated a few seconds of film within the same scene!

First of all, it's hard to take this seriously with Mickey Rourke cast as St. Francis. The movie was way too long and extremely boring. I got the gist of it in about half an hour. There is no mention of how he became the saint of animals. I watched the whole movie because I kept hoping to learn something....but what I learned is minimal. I hope to watch other, more educational films about the life of St Francis. This was a waste of my time-boring, depressing and redundant. I have no idea how it got nominated or won any prizes. There is nothing positive that comes out of this film. When you watch this, be prepared to be bored out of your mind and depressed.

...or one of them. This is - so far- the best portrayal of Saint Francis of Assisi I have ever seen. I was surprised. I actually cried. But Rourke knows how to move ya believe it or not. Fantastic acting and scenery. The feel is right and the story is based more on basic facts than the usual overly-dramatic, semi-fictional scripts that we see too often from Hollywood produced "bios". This film was shot in Italy and you get a real sense of our dear Saint here. Helena Bonham Carter's portrayal of Saint Clare of Assisi is wonderful. She truly brings Clare to life here - or gives you a sense of realism and passion and true friendship. Unlike the 60's "version" and others - this is the one to see if you want to understand the basics of Francis. I also suggest reading the "Little Flowers of Saint Francis of Assisi" and "The Life of Saint Francis of Assisi" - the latter book written by Saint Bonaventure.

This is the kind of movie that tells a story like an automaton: It lists the events, one after another. It's like a teaching movie. And it's technical looks and the overall quality resembles television rather than a movie shot in film. And there is nothing wrong in those things. In that way it's not bad at all, actually it's one of the best, if not the best, teaching movies I've seen. But as a movie, I mean as an experience, it's not very much. It's not strong in any way, or touching in any way (only maybe intellectually, if you think the stories). And I really think Mickey Rourke is not the best choice for this role. It's a brave choice, and it creates "interesting" results, but I feel that this character has nothing to do with St. Francesco, who's story is known to many. And I'm sorry, but he doesn't look very awakened. I've never seen so lousy role from Rourke. His acting here is in the mediocre summer-theatre level. And most of the other actors working also, so would it be relevant then to "blame" or thank the directing? To my opinion, especially if you know the story, and have maybe even read some Francesco's texts, this gives you nothing. It's like those illustrated Bibles. I give 3 points just for the sake that someone does this kind of movies at all. After all, they are not a total waste of time, money and/or human energy, like some movies.

Imagine the casting conferences they had for this movie.

"OK, who will be our Saint Francis of Assisi, humble servant of god, pacifist, mystic, lover of the poor and diseased, and symbol of the harmony between man and nature"

"Well, JB, we need an actor who is glowing with compassion, who is self-effacing and asexual, and whose eyes reflect a constant inner peace as well as a deep spirituality"

"I have it. I have our man. Let me just throw this out to the crowd. Mickey Rourke"

No more review needed. Mickey Rourke as St Francis of Assisi.

That says it all.

To the movie's credit, it was about the 1200's, not about the 1960's like Zefferelli's version, and it was a reasonable (if boring) speculation of what this great legend might really have been like as a man. With Robin Williams or Edward Norton in the role, this might be a pretty good flick.

I'll tell you one thing - Rourke has several nude or shirtless scenes, and I learned that St Francis had some pretty good pecs on 'im. I guess he was probably our most buff saint.

Mickey Rourke? What were they thinking? Possibly the worst casting of all time. The only contender that springs to mind is John Wayne as Genghis Kahn in "The Conqueror"

You have to rent this movie just to see a couple minutes of Mick full of beatific grace. Yup, he was full of it all right.

Of course it is not a good movie. For example, you have a lot of actors acting as they were in an "hippie" trip. They have long hair, trimmed beard, they have earrings.. it is unbelievable. The edition is confuse.... It is really awful. And Mickey Rourke have tattoos in his arms and shoulder ! Is it possible ? Saint Francesco with tattoos... If you compare this film with the fantastic "Brother sun, sister moon" from Zeffirelli, you'll see what a difference ! They are both about the same person, but completely different. That one is a musical, a little bit bored, but is fantastic, all the actors are perfect. The one that perform Saint Francesco IS really Saint Francesco reincorporated ! Don't waist your time with this film. Liliana Cavani was right in the "Il portiere di notte", but not now ! I was wondering why they don't sell this DVD anymore and now I found ! It is a lost of time.

This movie is total trash. It does nothing to inform or inspire the viewer. It is full of malicious lies and heresy. No one is identified by name until video minute 20:33, when they finnaly identify Francis. The soundtrack is nearly inaudible. The story line is nearly impossible to keep track of. Every artifice possible has been used to make Saint Francis's conversion as gory and insane as possible. It's not worth my time to watch one more second of it.

I am beginning to realize that film critics who told audiences what to watch & what to overlook had far too much power prior to the internet and the digital streaming age. In 1989 when "Francesco" was released in Italy, most Americans had never even heard of it and by this time, Hollywood had grown exasperated with Rourke for refusing to play by its rules- and for rejecting roles which would have likely cemented Rourke's star power at the time (Rain Man, Pulp Fiction come to mind). What is truly jarring is to watch Rourke's beautiful and moving portrayal of the man who became a Catholic saint (an artistic & purposeful film) & then to watch Rourke's affable, but frivolous, ride in "Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man" released the following year. Although Rourke's teaming with Don Johnson enjoys an enthusiastic cult following now, Rourke has publicly denounced "Harley" and admitted that he only accepted the part for the paycheck. Rourke has stated that doing that movie ("Harley") was the final straw in his self destruction and decision to return to boxing at the age of 39. One must only watch Rourke writhing -naked- in the snow because he has been "tempted" by desires of the flesh or gaze upon his look of ecstasy before dying, knowing that he is blessed because he bears the marks of the crucifixion, and the marks of Christ himself - to find context for the self-loathing for having "sold out" by lending his name & face to a production he did not respect (as "Harley Davidson").

Whether the choice to cast any American actor in the title role of this very European production was controversial or not at the time, I have no idea because I was not even aware the film existed until many years later when I became more interested in the career and life of Mickey Rourke. In order to understand Rourke's interest in and commitment to Francesco, it is important to note a few things. First of all, Rourke has never shied away from stating that he has always preferred other countries to his own and in fact, at least 2 of the movies Rourke is best known for - "Nine and 1/2 Weeks" & "Angel Heart," were seen as too intense/risqué by American censors. Both films were box office bombs in the U. S. but Nine and 1/2 Weeks was such a huge success in Europe that it apparently played in theaters for 2 years in France. Rourke became a bigger star in Europe than he was in his own country. Therefore, it makes sense that Rourke would have preferred working with an Italian production (rather than "Hollywood" which he had grown to loathe by this time) and it makes sense that an Italian production would seek to cast him. Secondly, Rourke was - and remains- a devout Catholic who has relied upon his Catholic faith and the support of his priest (now deceased) to get through a very dark period in his life. Finally, Rourke was & still is, a man who seeks meaning in life - and in death- and thus, his portrayal of a man who renounced his earthly possessions and wealth, to become a man of purpose, a man of God in beggar's clothes is quite compelling. Although the other actors - including a young Helena Bonham Carter- are mainly British or Italian, the dialogue is in English (not Italian) and Rourke often communicates emotion using only the expressions on his face. Young Rourke had a soft voice, appropriate for this role, and at almost every age, Rourke has been a presence on screen, often as a man of few words.

I will leave the plot summaries to the religious scholars because this is a historical drama which also received several awards. The film begins with Francisco's death. The story of his life is then told by his followers and friends through flashbacks & vinaigrettes. The real Francesco was born into wealth and has been described as an attractive man who enjoyed fine silks. Rourke credibly depicts Francesco as a man of privilege who renounced wealth & desires of the flesh to connect with God (the "father" who replaces his). Because Rourke himself comes from far more humble circumstances, he is equally convincing in his humility after he takes vows. Francisco's conscious choice to give up the privileges of wealth & physical beauty are made more compelling by the gorgeous & charismatic Rourke who credibly embodies the role of a lover who could have had any woman he desired and a man of status who could have continued to live comfortably (having remained his father's pride & joy until his father's death).

For anyone who is a Rourke fan, this movie illustrates his capacity for providing layers & depth. Although I am not Catholic, I was raised within a devoutly Christian family which often causes me to view "Christian" historical dramas with skepticism. I was genuinely moved by the sincerity of the portrait of a man who finds peace & a connection to God after witnessing the horrors of war & poverty and coming to understand that the things which had provided him with pleasure had also separated him from God and his higher purpose. There is also a wonderful scene involving a young lamb & group of hungry followers (hint: the lamb is not slaughtered).

For those who prefer the Mickey Rourke of "Get Carter" or "Double Team," this film may not be your cup of tea. There is incidental nudity. There are no graphic or simulated sex scenes but Rourke strips down a couple of times as do others for symbolic, spiritual purposes. There is also a view of the war dead & a mass grave. This is not an action thriller but the film's narrative is humbly & thoughtfully recited and its effect- uplifting. I had to watch the movie twice (within 2 days) to fully appreciate it.

Oh please! Mike for Fransis? LOL! This is like casting Julia Roberts for Ellen Ripley, Barbara Streisand singing "Like a virgin", or a snap shot of G. W. Bush with Monica L. (aka "that woman"). Certain things just don't go together, it's not meant to be, it's that simple. This film has little to do with realism, it's just that they haven't understood. This film has little to do with creativity, it's mere confusion. This is a text book example of what one should not do when portraying a historical person (or event). What next? Eddie Murphy plays Martin Luther King? Oasis and Spice Girls joint concert! Do you still want me to give this film any stars?

That will tell us what we might expect to gain from this movie. For fans of either Mickey Rourke or Helena Bonham Carter, its another chance to see them stretch their acting muscles to grasp and conquer characters previously untouched. The casual viewer might not suffer any distraction whatsoever.

For the viewer who has experienced other portrayals of St Francis, or one who is looking for a deeper understanding of the saint, it may be difficult to get past the casting choices for these 2 main characters. An awareness of Mickey Rourke's other prominent roles may taint our perception of his ability or suitability for this task. Innocence is not something we expect from the actor, and I had difficulty recognizing it. I cringed at times when his performance seemed almost "sexy", not a word I would ever want to use to describe a saint. Is it unreasonable to expect Francesco to seem somehow super-spiritual? Maybe.

Remembering Helen Bonham Carter's cinematic history further crippled my ability to "suspend disbelief". While both are accomplished actors, and able to draw an audience, it seemed counterproductive to cast such readily identifiable stars for this venture. It was like watching Tom Cruise portray Lincoln.

I'm sorry to say that while the script was good and there was so much more to glean from the film in general, I found myself unable to ignore "the 800 lb gorilla in the room".