Francesco (1991)

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

This is the fourth film I have watched on the subject, following efforts by similarly renowned directors: Roberto Rossellini's THE FLOWERS OF ST. FRANCIS (1950), Michael Curtiz' FRANCIS OF ASSISI (1961) and Franco Zeffirelli's BROTHER SUN SISTER MOON (1972); curiously enough, Cavani had already dealt with the titular saint's life in her acclaimed (if rarely-screened) 1966 debut feature with Lou Castel. This particular version, then, got some mileage out of the fact that the lead role would be essayed by Hollywood bad boy Mickey Rourke – other than that, there seemed to be little discernible point in making yet another trip to this particular well…unless Cavani, the controversial lady behind THE NIGHT PORTER (1974), relished the opportunity of 'realistic' wallowing in the squalor inherent in the medieval setting (even including some unwarranted gore and full-frontal nudity). Rourke seems more mystified than mystic, wrong-headedly approaching the role as if it were an "Angry Young Man" type!; in that respect, the spiritual calling experienced by the nobleman of Assisi is distinctly unconvincing here (while his acknowledged affection for animals is barely touched upon) – with the result that the entire film is seldom inspiring. Interestingly, events play out in flashback – with St. Francis' disciples gathered to reminisce subsequent to his death: prominence, and an atypical though much-needed female perspective, is given to his former love (forcefully played by Helena Bonham Carter). While his work usually proved an asset to any film, Vangelis's electronic score in this case is clearly out-of-place and hardly memorable. Finally, the print on the budget DVD I watched was quite horrendous: apart from being the choppy U.S. theatrical version (which was cut down by almost 40 minutes from the Italian original), it sported a hazy sub-VHS quality and, at one point, even duplicated a few seconds of film within the same scene!

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".

In his best performances, Rourke is not a dynamic, nervous actor of the Cagney/Lemmon type, though he leaves the impression of supple energy; there are fits of rage, according to the needs of the role. But he is fundamentally a contemplative, even quiet performer (--that's one more reason why his so called action flicks are so abominably lousy …).There are,of course,his several performances as a mean person—there, he is violent, etc.—but one feels that is a periphery, ultimately untrue Rourke. His contemplative, discreet and hazy kindness was so far—away from the Hollywoodian clichés of the golden—hearted sissy ,that it passed almost unnoticed. Rourke played exquisitely several good, kindhearted man—in ;he was able to portray good, fundamentally kind men—and that is how he played St Francesco. As an Italian movie, this is very average and even unappealing; as a Rourke vehicle, it does have a secret warmth and is moving. Rourke portrays the saintly man that went through so many struggles. In the drear, stark, austere landscape, Rourke's face shines with a kind light. As the movie progresses, he installs himself progressively better in the role. In an old interview, he placed FRANCESCO among his dearest achievements, in the group of European or defining movies he made in the second half of the '80s. Rourke indicates the saintly love that united that Umbrian meek man to his lord, the Christ Jesus. (There is a scene in A PRAYER … and one in HOMEBOY where the same plenitude is to be found—Fallon leaning on Jesus' chest, in the first movie; and the fighter gazing at a small Jesus statue, in his sordid ugly dirty lousy room ….)A note rings very true in the few scenes where Rourke's characters are consumed by love for their lord, the Christ, Jesus.In fact, Rourke's best roles have an amazing quiet refined intensity, that makes them light like jewels. This actor had an amazing potential, huge virtual … of acting. It is only too pity that he did not succeed in having a career at least as fruitful as Matthau's or as Scott's.(In fact, there are, paradoxically, or, better, apparently paradoxical, lots of B actors, active in the '40s—'80s, who have luckier careers than his ….Rourke got a lousy time for pictures. Beginning in the '80s, movies meant, came to mean mostly crap. Ugly, stupid, boring, phony, banal, insipid things. That's why Rourke—and Willis, Gibson, etc., have fewer meaningful, good roles than Matthau, Caine, Connery, and ever many lesser actors ….) In his several Z movies, he was wasted (I mean the crap he did throughout the '90s). What distinguished Rourke the most in his worth—wile roles was his almost supreme authenticity, genuineness. Mme. Cavani's direction here is what one might call, euphemistically, neutral. In fact, she was a leftist hack with interesting projects and, above all, ambitions. I know that Rourke, grateful for this role ,got along very well with her. In '94,in a magazine, I saw a picture of the two, on FRANCESCO's sets, Rourke was addressing her his seraphic smile.

As far as I know not that many people have seen this underrated epic starring Mickey Rourke but if your a fan of his work you should definitely check this out.Rourke is cast as the historical figure Francis of Assisi and delivers a tour de force performance. Few actors can match Rourke for showing emotion in their acting but in this film he gives a masterclass. His character starts off rich in a wealthy family only for him to sacrifice all of this in favour of living the life of a beggar, having read in a book details of the life of Jesus Christ. Rourkes character then somewhat mirrors Jesus by spreading his gospel and becoming champion of the poor.What makes this film so great is the enormous emotion portrayed in the characters and the haunting music of Vangelis added to the beauty in the cinematography and the directors storytelling. There are many memorable scenes but the extraordinary final act from Rourke will live long in the memory long after the film has finished.A must for Mickey fans and a chance for new fans to witness him in a very different but remarkable film.