People are voting emotionally.

Good concept, poorly executed.

Boring

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

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.

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.

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

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.