one of my absolute favorites!

Lack of good storyline.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

First of all, it's hard to take this seriously with Mickey Rourke cast as St. Francis. The movie was way too long and extremely boring. I got the gist of it in about half an hour. There is no mention of how he became the saint of animals. I watched the whole movie because I kept hoping to learn something....but what I learned is minimal. I hope to watch other, more educational films about the life of St Francis. This was a waste of my time-boring, depressing and redundant. I have no idea how it got nominated or won any prizes. There is nothing positive that comes out of this film. When you watch this, be prepared to be bored out of your mind and depressed.

This is an Italian release version about S. Francis(1182-1226)life by Liliana Cavani . Set in 13th century and depicting the existence of St Francis , son of a wealthy merchant. Story begins after his death when his friends and disciples remember his life. It starts with starvation, famine,war, pest, caused for confronting between Italian cities: Perugia, Assis and Venice. Francesco is taken prisoner, he's freed by his parents(Paolo Bonacelli, Andrea Ferreol) and he becomes into prodigal son. He's judged and condemned, then he's naked himself and begins a miserable life caring poor, hapless and lepers. After his religious awakening he founds the Franciscan order of monks, approved by Pope Innocence III(1210). He's followed by St Clare(Helena Bonham Carter)as devote disciple and fine support, founding the Clarisan order of nuns(1212). Francesco establishes a rigid rules of life and his thoughts were included into 'Flowers of St. Francis' and 'Singing to brother Sun or the creatures' where he praises the mirth, poverty,and love for nature. He receives blessing from cardinals(Mario Adorf) and later from Pope Innocencio III(Zinschler).Finally, he got the stigmata or wounds of Jesuschrist suffered in the holy cross.The motion picture is a good portrayal about known Saint played by Rourke in a definitive change of role. However the movie is slow-moving at times and some pedestrian, resulting to be a little boring and dull. The developing movie is made by means of several flashbacks creating confusion and tiring. Evocative and metaphysical musical score by always excellent Vangelis. Atmospheric though dark cinematography by the cameramen Ennio Guarneri and Giuseppe Lanci. The picture is professionally directed By Liliana Cavani who previously directed another one about this religious character played by Lou Castel.Furthermore, the Hollywood version titled Francis of Assisi(60) directed by Michael Curtiz with Stuart Withman and Dolores Hart. And Italian adaptations such as, 'Flowers of St. Francis(1950)'directed by Roberto Rosselini with Aldo Fabrizi and 'Brother sun, Brother moon(1973)'by Franco Zeffirelli with William Faulkner and Judi Bowker.

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'd seen the Zefirelli version of St. Francis, and in contrast, I have to say this presented a somewhat different perspective -more realistic if anything. Not knowing much about Mickey Rourke, I was pleasantly surprised. Of course he had a modern hair cut throughout, and his tatoos could be seen in some scenes. . . .but when put to the test he passed in my estimation. His training at the Strasberg School paid off. In the beginning he was a little stiff, but as the film developed, so did his character, and the emotional scenes were very believable. Condensing the life of St. Francis of Assisi into a 2 hr. film is a challenge, but I think the important events were covered including his early life as a man of the world, his life-altering crisis of finding God, the creation of the little band of followers and the conflicts, the stigmata, etc. And, OK, Mickey Rourke has gorgeous eyes!!!