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.
