Post by Pulpmariachi on Dec 17, 2006 15:53:39 GMT -5
The major problem with “The Nativity Story” is that there really is no sense of conflict. Anyone with the basic knowledge of Christianity, or anyone who hasn’t been living under a rock (and even then) knows the story of Jesus, even if they don’t believe in it, really working to the disadvantage of the film.
Also, it doesn’t help that the good majority of Christian-based films are really, really terrible. For every “The Last Temptation of Christ” we get “The Passion of the Christ”. For every “Ben-Hur” we get “Jesus: The Movie”. For every “Jesus Christ Superstar” we get “Godspell”. You get the idea. When delving into the Old Testament, you know, there’s a lot more interpretations to go off of. So something like “The Ten Commandments” isn’t too terrible (it’s really good actually) and there can be some variation from film to film. The problem with Jesus movies is that hardly anyone is willing to take a daring, different approach to the man. Martin Scorsese tried to do it (in what I believe to be the best Christ movie ever) and theaters got bomb threats. If anything deviates from the standard set up by the Christians, those right-wingers are going to get extremely angry.
And “The Nativity Story” plays it safe. Jesus doesn’t actually appear until the end and even then he’s just a baby, crying like any normal baby. No, “The Nativity Story” chronicles the journey of his mother and his stepfather from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Among other journeys because there’s about fifty journeys going on throughout this entire movie. It’s like forty-two road movies were put into one epic one and set in the B.C. days. Not really, but you’d wonder what would happen if that were true.
The main journey of the film does not take place until about an hour or longer into the movie, which is about 100 minutes altogether. So that whole first hour is King Harod being jealous and saying, “There will be no Messiah or King or whoever he’ll be,” followed by him threatening his son saying that he isn’t his first (or really favorite) and that he’ll kill whoever the hell he wants to easily. Really, Harod is presented in the cliché evil king light. Catherine Hardwicke tries so hard to make him evil and scary but really, he looks silly for the most part.
Bringing me to Catherine Hardwicke who is much better at directing girls’ coming-of-age stories over ones about boys (see: “Thirteen” and “Lords of Dogtown”) and you’d think someone who made “Thirteen” could help us understand Mary, maybe give a clue about what she’s feeling now having the son of God in her tummy (which begins showing up minutes after she and God got it on [symbolized by a dove flying around]; I always thought that that took months) but no. Rather she’s just there not really doing anything but occasionally saying, “Thank you for understanding” or “I’m scared.” Joseph isn’t much better and I find his beard distracting. But Hardwicke does try, it just doesn’t actually work. The acting for the most part is distant and boring, like the rest of the film.
The photography could be seen as excellent if it weren’t shot the exact same way as “The Passion” with all the de-saturated colors to help make bright lights brighter or to enhance certain other colors (you know, like red). It also tries to present the film in an epic light, but I didn’t taste it.
Bringing me back to the film’s biggest problem: the lack of conflict. If we could possibly feel something for the characters it might have made the film a little more bearable but still, you know what’s going to happen an hour before it actually happens.
Will Mary and Joseph get across the river in time?
Well . . . yeah, or else Jesus won’t be born.
Will the Roman Guards take away Joseph?
No. Duhh.
Is he going to stone Mary? Will he accept that she’s carrying God’s baby?
Man, are you daft?
Are they going to get somewhere to sleep for the night?
Dude. Just shut up.
All this makes the film so very boring. It’s tedious and predicable. I don’t know, I guess some people in my theater felt a spiritual touching or something like that. Maybe it just connects is some soulful way but whatever. The film is pretty boring, pretty redundant and seemed to have been better suited with the tagline: “You’ve seen his death . . . now see his birth. The thrilling prequel to ‘The Passion of the Christ!’”.
C-.
Also, it doesn’t help that the good majority of Christian-based films are really, really terrible. For every “The Last Temptation of Christ” we get “The Passion of the Christ”. For every “Ben-Hur” we get “Jesus: The Movie”. For every “Jesus Christ Superstar” we get “Godspell”. You get the idea. When delving into the Old Testament, you know, there’s a lot more interpretations to go off of. So something like “The Ten Commandments” isn’t too terrible (it’s really good actually) and there can be some variation from film to film. The problem with Jesus movies is that hardly anyone is willing to take a daring, different approach to the man. Martin Scorsese tried to do it (in what I believe to be the best Christ movie ever) and theaters got bomb threats. If anything deviates from the standard set up by the Christians, those right-wingers are going to get extremely angry.
And “The Nativity Story” plays it safe. Jesus doesn’t actually appear until the end and even then he’s just a baby, crying like any normal baby. No, “The Nativity Story” chronicles the journey of his mother and his stepfather from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Among other journeys because there’s about fifty journeys going on throughout this entire movie. It’s like forty-two road movies were put into one epic one and set in the B.C. days. Not really, but you’d wonder what would happen if that were true.
The main journey of the film does not take place until about an hour or longer into the movie, which is about 100 minutes altogether. So that whole first hour is King Harod being jealous and saying, “There will be no Messiah or King or whoever he’ll be,” followed by him threatening his son saying that he isn’t his first (or really favorite) and that he’ll kill whoever the hell he wants to easily. Really, Harod is presented in the cliché evil king light. Catherine Hardwicke tries so hard to make him evil and scary but really, he looks silly for the most part.
Bringing me to Catherine Hardwicke who is much better at directing girls’ coming-of-age stories over ones about boys (see: “Thirteen” and “Lords of Dogtown”) and you’d think someone who made “Thirteen” could help us understand Mary, maybe give a clue about what she’s feeling now having the son of God in her tummy (which begins showing up minutes after she and God got it on [symbolized by a dove flying around]; I always thought that that took months) but no. Rather she’s just there not really doing anything but occasionally saying, “Thank you for understanding” or “I’m scared.” Joseph isn’t much better and I find his beard distracting. But Hardwicke does try, it just doesn’t actually work. The acting for the most part is distant and boring, like the rest of the film.
The photography could be seen as excellent if it weren’t shot the exact same way as “The Passion” with all the de-saturated colors to help make bright lights brighter or to enhance certain other colors (you know, like red). It also tries to present the film in an epic light, but I didn’t taste it.
Bringing me back to the film’s biggest problem: the lack of conflict. If we could possibly feel something for the characters it might have made the film a little more bearable but still, you know what’s going to happen an hour before it actually happens.
Will Mary and Joseph get across the river in time?
Well . . . yeah, or else Jesus won’t be born.
Will the Roman Guards take away Joseph?
No. Duhh.
Is he going to stone Mary? Will he accept that she’s carrying God’s baby?
Man, are you daft?
Are they going to get somewhere to sleep for the night?
Dude. Just shut up.
All this makes the film so very boring. It’s tedious and predicable. I don’t know, I guess some people in my theater felt a spiritual touching or something like that. Maybe it just connects is some soulful way but whatever. The film is pretty boring, pretty redundant and seemed to have been better suited with the tagline: “You’ve seen his death . . . now see his birth. The thrilling prequel to ‘The Passion of the Christ!’”.
C-.
