The story of Our Lady of Fatima is one that deserves to be dramatized on film accurately, without embellishments, in state-of-the-art Hollywood fashion.
I don't know why moviemakers can't tell a story like this the way it actually happened, or, in this case, the way Sister Lucia relates it. Always there has to be some alteration or omission. Writers seem to have a need to put their own creative touch on what is already a compelling story.
For instance, here they do mention the Angel's appearance a year prior to Our Lady's appearance, but it is portrayed inaccurately. It wasn't in a cave, as in this film, and in reality he came three times, even giving the children Communion on one visit, leaving a chalice suspended in midair while he did so. You'd think this could be a pretty impressive cinematic image to portray, so one can only wonder what the fiilmmakers were thinking. Likewise, after the miracle of the sun, everyone discovered their clothes to be dry, even though it had been raining. This aspect is omitted.
Otherwise, parts of this movie are very good, and effective. The vision of hell is shown, which was not mentioned in the 1950's version, as is the notorious "third secret." All of the acting is excellent and the children are believable. The film is best during the first 40 minutes or so, then it meanders too much and falls apart. More emphasis should have been placed on the actual apparitions and messages, less on incidental or fictionalized events like Lucia wandering around looking at the sky dreamily for no apparent reason. Framing the narrative as an interview by a skeptical journalist with an aged Sister Lucia is unnecessary and doesn't help anything.
But the producers deserve credit for making this movie at all, and for relating the basic events of these supernatural visions, in our modern age of cynicism and unbelief. I just wish they'd stick to the facts.
I don't know why moviemakers can't tell a story like this the way it actually happened, or, in this case, the way Sister Lucia relates it. Always there has to be some alteration or omission. Writers seem to have a need to put their own creative touch on what is already a compelling story.
For instance, here they do mention the Angel's appearance a year prior to Our Lady's appearance, but it is portrayed inaccurately. It wasn't in a cave, as in this film, and in reality he came three times, even giving the children Communion on one visit, leaving a chalice suspended in midair while he did so. You'd think this could be a pretty impressive cinematic image to portray, so one can only wonder what the fiilmmakers were thinking. Likewise, after the miracle of the sun, everyone discovered their clothes to be dry, even though it had been raining. This aspect is omitted.
Otherwise, parts of this movie are very good, and effective. The vision of hell is shown, which was not mentioned in the 1950's version, as is the notorious "third secret." All of the acting is excellent and the children are believable. The film is best during the first 40 minutes or so, then it meanders too much and falls apart. More emphasis should have been placed on the actual apparitions and messages, less on incidental or fictionalized events like Lucia wandering around looking at the sky dreamily for no apparent reason. Framing the narrative as an interview by a skeptical journalist with an aged Sister Lucia is unnecessary and doesn't help anything.
But the producers deserve credit for making this movie at all, and for relating the basic events of these supernatural visions, in our modern age of cynicism and unbelief. I just wish they'd stick to the facts.