Francesco

1991
Francesco
6.3| 2h37m| PG-13| en| More Info
Released: 01 March 1991 Released
Producted By: Istituto Luce Cinecittà
Country: Italy
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

The life of St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) as related by followers who gather after his death to tell stories so that Leone can record them: a privileged and virile youth, a prisoner of war, an heir who turns away from his father and gives all to the poor, a beggar for others, and an inspiration to friends who accept the Gospels' life of poverty.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Istituto Luce Cinecittà

Trailers & Images

Reviews

dano33334 That will tell us what we might expect to gain from this movie. For fans of either Mickey Rourke or Helena Bonham Carter, its another chance to see them stretch their acting muscles to grasp and conquer characters previously untouched. The casual viewer might not suffer any distraction whatsoever.For the viewer who has experienced other portrayals of St Francis, or one who is looking for a deeper understanding of the saint, it may be difficult to get past the casting choices for these 2 main characters. An awareness of Mickey Rourke's other prominent roles may taint our perception of his ability or suitability for this task. Innocence is not something we expect from the actor, and I had difficulty recognizing it. I cringed at times when his performance seemed almost "sexy", not a word I would ever want to use to describe a saint. Is it unreasonable to expect Francesco to seem somehow super-spiritual? Maybe.Remembering Helen Bonham Carter's cinematic history further crippled my ability to "suspend disbelief". While both are accomplished actors, and able to draw an audience, it seemed counterproductive to cast such readily identifiable stars for this venture. It was like watching Tom Cruise portray Lincoln.I'm sorry to say that while the script was good and there was so much more to glean from the film in general, I found myself unable to ignore "the 800 lb gorilla in the room".
Marcin Kukuczka Although the most famous movie about St Francis of Assisi still appears to be poetical BROTHER SUN SISTER MOON by Franco Zeffirelli, FRANCESCO by Liliana Cavani is, perhaps, less famous but appears to be more faithful to the biography of this great man who renewed the medieval church in the spirit of the Gospel. While Zeffirelli's film concentrates purely on the youth years of Francesco, his spiritual birth, his joy of life, and is, therefore, more an interpretation than a biopic, Cavani's film draws our attention to Francesco's suffering, his search for God not in flowers but in tears, and is, therefore, a very realistic biopic filled rather with pain than with song. But let me treat this movie separately, as an individual work since comparison may sometimes disturb the gist.The first aspect that makes any movie good or weak are performances. Mickey Rourke is pretty memorable in the lead. There are his moments that really shine, particularly in the sequence of painful experience of the main character. Although Mickey is known for not so ambitious roles, you may get used to him as Francesco in the long run. Helena Bonham Carter is, perhaps, not the Clare many people imagine; however, she gives a profound performance of a spiritual person, a woman of charity and pure love, a woman of great sainthood. Francesco's parents, Paolo Bonacelli as Pietro Bernardone and a French actress Andrea Ferreol as Pica, are good. That seems to be quite probable how "worldly spirited" Francesco's home really was: dreams for business and luxury. Except for them, I liked Diego Ribun as Bernardo Quintavalle. He has that nobility in his face that Bernardo must have had (what we know from biographies). I also liked Fabio Bussotti as calm Leon called God's lamb. Generally, performances are fine.The insight into the historical period is also accurate. Although one watches a biopic of a saint, this aspect of historical accuracy is pretty important. Liliana Cavani does a good job showing the reality of the medieval town, the cruelty of war, but foremost the horrific social discrepancies. That is what moved Francesco and promoted in him the desire to help, to hug a leper, to give the last slice to the starving, to offer a smile to the upset, in short, to regard the Gospel to the letter. Sometimes, these scenes may seem too realistic, too depressing; yet, they have to be there. When we consider the life of St Francis, it was, as I already mentioned, a way of tears. I will never forget the final scene, the real spiritual suffering that turns into physical one...and this physical pain occurs to be such a Gift of God...The music is perfect. Vangelis, as always, supplies us with a profound tune that opens us to wonderful horizons. Francesco does not sing at all (which is a historical shortage), yet the music in the background fits really well as if to present a perfect harmony of flesh and spirit, the harmony that Francesco was given by his Master because he learned to love entirely, without any limits. In the final moments, Vangelis makes a combination of tunes applied to feelings. Unforgettable!I recently saw FRANCESCO again after more than 10 years. Then, when I saw it for the first time, I did not like it that much, I found it too serious; perhaps I was more used to other biopics. Nevertheless, now I heartily recommend this movie to anyone who likes spiritual experience, who is able to see deeper, who looks at the world more through the eyes of love than through the eyes of reason.Il Poverello, as Francesco is called, brought the message of peace and goodness, PAX ET BONUM, to every place where he stood. He brought love where hatred was, joy where sadness was, pardoning where injury was, smile where tears were, console where terror was. Although this message seems to be universal, is today's viewer able to understand these things? Is PAX ET BONUM (Peace and Goodness) something more than just a slogan of one man who lived hundreds of years ago? 7/10
mm-39 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
Scoopy 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.