I agree with the OP, except that I wouldn't call it a "little" film (it's actually quite long, arguably slightly overlong). I'll bet that Leonard Maltin's bad review of this film has ruined for many people who would have otherwise enjoyed it. It's easy to go in expecting it to be a typical religious schmaltz film a la BELLS OF ST. MARY'S or THE BISHOP'S WIFE, but MIRACLE OF THE BELLS is actually a very serious, substantive movie, more of a film noir at times than the usual sentimental Yuletide flick.
reply
share
jarrodmcdonald-1
8 years ago
The problem I have with Maltin's review is that he's Jewish and a film with a Christian message apparently is one that he cannot look at with a gentle understanding (beyond his own religious culture). It would be like a Christian reviewing FIDDLER ON THE ROOF and giving it a low rating out of ignorance.
reply
share
MichaelMartinDeSapio
8 years ago
That's an interesting perspective, Jarrod. It makes me think of how the Lee J. Cobb character in the movie, who is obviously Jewish, nevertheless comes to sympathize with the "miracle" and support the Fred MacMurray character. Maltin's assessments sometimes strike me as surprisingly obtuse, and in the case of this film I don't doubt that his review has harmed its reputation. I think a lot of people simply have avoided this film out of a combination of Maltin's review and the fact that they can't get over the idea of Frank Sinatra as a priest - even though Sinatra had a rather "angelic" persona in the '40's that was very different from his later Ratpack image.
reply
share
jarrodmcdonald-1
8 years ago
Thanks for the reply. I'd prefer to believe Maltin doesn't have much sway with audiences, but he probably does to some extent. But anyone reading his reviews has a right to disagree with him.
As for Sinatra, he plays Father Paul very subdued-- and I think it's a fairly decent performance, his first time doing a serious dramatic role.
reply
share