AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Brain Outy Really 4 stars for the acting, but -12 for the plot and claims in the story. Upshot is this: whether you believe the Bible or not, this story is ONLY located in it. So it ought to have been consulted. But clearly was not. So why waste your money on watching? Believe or not, on actual source material, as is your free right.For imagine, claiming to tell a story which is in print for thousands of years, but instead of using the source material for that story, just making up anything you want. So that you spend millions of dollars advertising to the world that you don't do your homework.Imagine being an actor in such a movie, thus advertising to the world that you did it for a paycheck alone, and that you don't care about accuracy to the source material, either.Of course, EVERY Bible movie and documentary suffers as does this one, claiming that there was a Star when Bible says NO it was an ANGEL (Matt 2, compared with Luke 2 in Bible), since stars don't turn on selectively for only some people to see (ibid).Seriously, if you'll spend a lot of money to make claims about stuff that's been in writing for centuries, why not actually READ that writing? Oh no.So think how you'd feel if someone made false claims about you, but could have done their homework, instead. But didn't. What do we call that, in law? Libel, if written, and film is within the 'written' category. In short, a crime. Certainly not reverence.But the acting is good, usually; and actors I like a bunch are in this. So they must have needed the money badly. Pity.I'd go into specifics, but those would be considered 'spoilers'. So just grab a Bible and compare Matthew 2 (first Gospel) then Luke 2 (second, the text is designed based on the Magnificat and wraps to Matthew, see my 'brainout' 'Synoptics' and 'jamesexegesis' channels in vimeo where I prove that claim). Then sigh.

JimPettis As with most Christian movies, I find myself disappointed by the tremendous amount of fiction that is added to the biblical account, and the tremendous degree to which the biblical account is ignored or bypassed.First, there ARE some good points to this movie. When a pregnant Mary meets Elizabeth (not alone, as you would imagine, but with two men also present), she pronounces something very similar to the Magnificat. There is no room at the inn. Jesus is born in a manger (the birth, by the way, completely bypassed, and newborn Jesus appears suddenly clean and with a full head of hair).But then there are the things that don't jive with reason or history. Herod the Great is actually Herod the Great Big Whiner (well-played, despite the poor role). Joseph's friend is named Malcolm - I mean, come on, "Malcolm"? Why not "Chuck"? Joseph is - to put it kindly - not exactly a diligent worker, but manages to build an enormous palace of wood and stone on a remote hill in the countryside for his upcoming marriage. The 3 wise men - yes, Caspar, Malchior and Balthasar - are met tooling through the desert on camels with no supplies other than their rides and the clothes on their backs. They actually appear *before* the birth of Jesus. Joseph brings Mary to Bethlehem for the census, crossing the desert - clearly unsure of the way - rather than taking a road. The list goes on and on.Probably the *most* disappointing thing, however, was the complete and total dearth of angels. At one point, Mary refers to Gabriel as an "agent" of God. This "agent" is neither seen nor heard by us (just light reflecting from the water), nor is Joseph's dream (which turns out to be a daydream in the heat of the day). From the device used, you would think that Mary and Joseph were hallucinating due to the bright sunlight. The angelic messages to them were simply tremendously downplayed. Likewise the angel's announcement to the shepherds - reduced to a mere disembodied "music of the spheres".Overall, a decently-acted movie that, in my opinion, very poorly portrays the biblical account or anything resembling historical accuracy of the period.

tsalagicelt This movie is an example of how a TV-movie can be better than a theatrical film. This TV-movie rises above low budget and primitive production values with the radiant performance of Madeleine Stowe as the Virgin Mary. This was her first movie, and Hollywood really missed the boat not recognizing her great abilities here. It took them another 14 years to recognize her as a star. In my opinion she is the best actress of her generation. The production maintains a simple, straightforward attitude about the story of Christ's birth. It tells the story with a down-to-earth feel, and Mary and Joseph were better understood as people, by me, after seeing this. The film achieves real profundity and power to move, rare these days. It is a real gem. I hope this comes out on DVD someday. Are you listening, Hollywood?