User Reviews

Full of Grace is a movie about Mary, the mother of Jesus. It sounds promising, but it disappoints on every level. On the superficial viewing level, it is slow moving and boring and on the deeper and more theological level, there are many parts that are unbiblical, troubling and difficult to watch. The title of the book is misleading as well. It is just as much about Peter as it is about Mary. It could be called "Peter's Struggles". The climax and highlight of the movie occurs about 2/3rds of the way into the movie where Mary gives a good "hearts, hands, flesh, blood" pep talk to the apostles, who at that point, seem to be collectively struggling with doubts and fears. It's a good talk about the Incarnate Word in Mary with flashbacks to the birth, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection. I should have known that it was Roman Catholic. They are the ones that translate Luke 1:28 as "full of grace" from the Latin Vulgate instead of the original Greek text which is more appropriately translated, "the one who is graced - favored - blessed". The passive participle indicates that Mary is the recipient of this favor or grace. But even as a Roman Catholic, I would have objections to this movie. For one thing; It presents a very weak Peter, who is unsure of himself. Remember, he is supposed to be the rock- the first pope. It also presents a Christianity where explanations don't seem to matter. It is a mindless Christianity that provides no reasons; it is almost other worldly and gnostic. It is an inner light in opposition to a light shining outwardly on a dark world. How does this square with all the doctrine, dogma, creeds, and catechisms of the Church? The movie is one long dialog between Peter and Mary with others chiming in. Peter doubts and questions; Mary answers and offers wisdom. Contrasted with the Bible, and the movie comes up short. Here are few of the problems: 1. On the cross, Mary was presented to John, the apostle, not Peter. So, why Peter? And where is John? (John 19:26-27) Later he does show up in the movie with other struggling apostles. 2. Mary had other sons and daughters. Why are they not taking care of their mother along with John? And why does Mary now live alone with a servant? (Matthew 13:53-56) 3. Peter, along with the other Apostles were given the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth. Why does Peter and the others now need Mary to tell them the truth? (John 14:25-26; John 15:26-27; John 16:12-15) 4. Mary is sick, and Peter is doubting just 10 years after the resurrection. This contradicts the Acts of the Holy Spirit in Holy Scripture. (For example, Acts 5:15) 5. Mary tells Peter that the light will fade, yet this contradicts the power of the resurrection, John 1, and the view of the Church fathers. (For example, St Athanasius said, "And to sum the matter up: behold how the Savior's doctrine is everywhere increasing, while all idolatry and everything opposed to the faith of Christ is daily dwindling, and losing power, and falling. And thus beholding, worship the Saviour, Who is above all and mighty, even God the Word; and condemn those who are being worsted and done away by Him. For as, when the sun has come, darkness no longer prevails, but if any be still left anywhere it is driven away; so, now that the divine Appearing of the Word of God has come, the darkness of the idols prevails no more, and all parts of the world in every direction are illumined by His teaching." ("On the Incarnation" 55:2-3) 6. The movie depicts Peter as the head of the Jerusalem church whereas the reality is that James, the Lord's brother, was the leader. (Acts 15). Clement of Rome, who is supposed to have succeeded Peter as bishop of Rome and therefore, according to Roman Catholic dogma, the first pope, called James, the "bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Church of the Hebrews, and all the Churches everywhere". 7. Speaking of James; the movie has the disciples toasting James the son of Zebedee and asking him to pray for them. At best, we can say this is an anachronism. 8. Peter eventually overcomes his struggle and serves the eucharist to his fellow apostles and extreme unction (last rights) to Mary. 9. It ends with Mary dying outside of Jerusalem at a young age. What happened to the Ephesus tradition? I feel like I should like this movie because Mary does tell the story of Jesus in a unique way but there are too many obstacles in the way for the impact. Perhaps this is the trouble with Roman Catholicism; the gospel is there, but it is dressed up with so many trappings that it is not clear and appears to be only intended for the initiated.

When I saw this was a Catholic production I expected it to be Catholic! Instead...the fact that Mary was FULL OF GRACE meant that she was conceived without original sin and never sinned a day in her life. This was not mentioned or implied. Also... Peter's character seemed to me to be so lost!! Jesus chose him for a reason.. to LEAD not to be weak!! PETER is the Rock upon which Jesus built his Church for heaven's sake!!

Also why is the filming so dark??

And the real kicker at the end when they bury Our Lady in the ground... making no mention of her Assumption into Heaven!!! Very disappointing to say the least!!

Andrew Hyatt, who directed PAUL, APOSTLE OF CHRIST, made this film a few years ago. It was done a low budget, but he was able to make a fairly compelling film nonetheless. It's about the final days of Mary. Of course we don't really know what her final days were like, so this is fiction, but overall, pretty good fiction. Peter, the apostle of Jesus, finds out Mary is dying so he goes to visit her. He's dealing with the new Christian Church, which is only about a decade old. There are theological disagreements among some of its members. He wants Mary's advice before she dies. The other apostle soon follow Peter. The acting was good by non-famous actors, particularly the actress that played Mary and the actor who plays Peter. Hyatt, like his film on Paul, was able to show the humanity of these Biblical characters making the story quite compelling. My two complaints about the film is that it was sluggish in spots. There also was not a lot of conflict. Hyatt did a better job with conflict in his film on Paul. Those are minor flaws in a worthwhile film.

I just finished watching this movie, and I was impressed by the simple meditative mood: Mary at the end of her life reflecting on her journey as the mother, not only of her Son, but of the Apostles and disciples He left in her care. She shares her reveries, her pain at the slaughter of the Innocents as she and Joseph flee to Egypt to save the Child, the ordeal of participating in His suffering and death and the lifting of that sorrow replaced by the joy in her heart when He is resurrected. As the end approaches, Mary encourages Peter, whose faith in himself is challenged by the conflict among the early disciples, as well as the others who have gathered around her, by reminding them that Jesus lives within each of them, will strengthen them for the work ahead,and that like Him she, too, will remain with them always. Bahia Haifi as a believable older Mary realistically portrays the mother of Jesus, serene in the face of her approaching death.Her face with its gentle lines and loving smile as she shares her memories is just as I would imagine Mary to look in her latter years. Noam Jenkins effectively plays Peter,struggling with the weight of the role he feels that Jesus has placed on him as the leader of the disciples, and later renewed by his time with mother Mary, is strengthened to take up his task anew. Altogether a quiet reflective film for those who believe, and maybe even those who don't.