I recently sat down to watch Mary, the 2024 epic biblical film directed by D. J. Caruso and penned by Timothy Michael Hayes. Featuring the likes of Noa Cohen, who takes on the titular role, and Anthony Hopkins as the ever-manic Herod, I was intrigued by the premise.
After all, the Nativity story carries with it a complexity and richness that has inspired countless interpretations. However, my anticipation quickly gave way to disappointment as the film veered wildly off-course, leaving me to wonder how anyone could go so far astray from such a well-known narrative.
An Abysmal Departure from Scripture
Right from the opening scene, I found myself wrestling with the film's liberties taken with the Nativity story. The premise seeks to detail Mary’s journey from her childhood in Nazareth to the birth of Jesus, but it quickly morphs into a confusing amalgamation of poorly executed dramatic moments and glaring historical inaccuracies. One has to ask: why is it so difficult for filmmakers to respect the wealth of drama and pathos inherent in the biblical narrative?
For instance, the horror of Mary regularly being dragged out to face stoning never actually happened, nor was her encounter with Herod particularly grounded in reality. The film introduces scenes—like a nonsensical sword fight between Joseph and Herod's guards—that seem to borrow more from an action film than from sacred text. It’s as if the writers believed the true story wasn’t engaging enough and opted to spice it up with farcical elements that only served to dilute the emotional integrity of the narrative.
Moreover, the film portrays a crowded Bethlehem due to an influx of tourists, somehow ignoring that the biblical account attributed the chaos there to an ongoing census. The puzzling academic institution where Mary is depicted studying raises an eyebrow, making it feel as if they twisted the essence of Mary into something almost akin to a runaway from The Sound of Music. Could they not have captured the reverence and depth of the actual story, instead of injecting bizarre elements that only muddle an already powerful tale?
Performances: A Glimpse of Brilliance Amidst Mediocrity
If the film’s narrative is a train wreck, then Noa Cohen’s portrayal of Mary might be the sole highlight that prevents it from being a complete disaster. Cohen delivers a convincing performance, capturing Mary’s innocence, turmoil, and strength. In a film teeming with contradictions and missteps, she stands out as the singular beacon of emotional truth. Her commitment to the character is palpable and almost makes one wish the script had done her justice.
On the other hand, Anthony Hopkins, while undoubtedly a force of nature, falls into the trap of leaning into the madness of his character—Herod. Familiar vibes from his iconic role as Hannibal Lecter permeate the performance, yet curiously absent are the clever and sharp dialogues that made us shiver in anticipation. Instead, his Herod is an amalgamation of frenetic energy without substance, devoid of the gravitas one expects from such a celebrated actor.
The chemistry between the cast members also leaves much to be desired. Joseph, played by Ido Tako, seemed to lack the emotional depth necessary to complement Cohen’s powerful performance, often appearing to be but a passive observer in a chaotic spectacle that largely overpowered him.
Directorial Dissonance: A Struggle to Connect with the Audience
D. J. Caruso's direction stumbles significantly in Mary. Rather than capturing the depth of the characters and the poignancy of their struggles, the film leans towards shock value and implausibility, which ultimately detracts from what should have been a moving portrayal of Mary’s journey. As viewers, we’re left disoriented as the film oscillates between an epic biblical narrative and a sensationalistic drama rife with inaccuracies.
One can’t help but question the thought process behind the creative choices made here. The hallmark of a strong director is the ability to intertwine emotional depth with visual storytelling, yet Caruso seems to miss this mark entirely. For a film claiming to dive into the nuances of the Nativity, it seems utterly dispassionate and disconnected from its subject matter. I certainly didn’t anticipate being this out of touch with a story so deeply ingrained in history, spirituality, and cultural significance.
The Words Fall Flat: Script and Dialogue
And here we arrive at the scripting, perhaps the movie’s biggest downfall. The dialogue oscillates between awkward and cringeworthy. Lines intended to be poignant fall flat, while others aimed at creating tension come off as melodramatic and unconvincing. A critic may have called it “reverent,” but I can’t help but question their judgment as this script fails to honor its biblical subject.
The absurdity escalates with poorly conceived sequences, such as Mary’s ‘meeting with Lucifer’ in the temple, which feels more like a grotesque addition than any reflection of Mary’s true counterpoint to evil. The absence of authenticity in dialogue ultimately transforms what should be profound exchanges into mere inanity.
A Timeless Tale Reduced to Fiction
Mary sets out to tell a story of incredible importance yet ends up being a narrative riddled with inaccuracies and surprises no one wants. As the credits rolled, I found myself utterly frustrated, wishing I could return the two hours invested into this misguided attempt at storytelling. The ironic thing is that the biblical account is so rich with emotional and thematic substance that it hardly requires embellishment.
If anything, the film raises a question of ethics in storytelling. What is the responsibility of a filmmaker to honor the source material? In this case, Caruso and his team have missed a grand opportunity to create something genuinely moving and enlightening. Instead, they showcased a work so far removed from truth that its depiction of Mary borders on heresy.
Even as just a fictional movie, Mary is terrible. If Megalopolis was probably the worst film I had watched so far this year, Mary now takes the bottom spot. This misfire not only disrespects its source material but also fails to stand on its own as a coherent and engaging narrative. It serves as a reminder that even when seeking to retell or reimagine a story, creativity must not come at the expense of integrity.
In closing, I cannot recommend Mary to anyone seeking an accurate or respectful representation of this biblical figure. It’s not just a disappointment; it’s a disservice to a beloved and sacred story. As I reflect on this experience, the only thing left to do is hope that the next retelling of such a monumental narrative ventures back towards reverence and away from sensationalism. For the sake of all that is holy, we deserve better, and I sincerely wish that future adaptations take the opportunity to honor the richness of this narrative rather than reduce it to a series of unoriginal and misleading dramatizations.
