BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Joerg Schodl 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.

donburt 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.

mkw-5 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.

noveltyvalue 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.