I'm definitely confused by the critique of "Lots of Evangelical frenzy praying and a fat Americana atmosphere." Why is this bad?
It's just something I usually do not like. For what it's worth, one of
mark f's favorite films,
Elmer Gantry, is also a film about a preacher, but I loved that one. It just felt and looked better. But maybe I need a certain level of artifice to get into oriental (occidental?!) atmospheres better.
You don't have to identify with it. You don't have to agree with it.
As much is clear. But the amount of preaching in this well exceeded the level of acceptance. Four times. And I don't mean the "style over substance" thing because the film's style is lacking, oh boy, is it lacking. Anyway, having the message is not enough. You also have to PORTRAY it well. Watch
Ordet or
Winter Light or
Diary of a Country Priest - all better religious films and also films that know how to PORTRAY the message well.
The Apostle looked like the average film you watch on TV. Like a character study undressed from everything that makes cinema good.
This sounds like exactly the kind of discomfiting thing you'd praise a film for doing (or, more frequently, chastise someone else for not appreciating). There's a degree to which you reacting to this film about "Americana" feels strikingly similar to critiques about Americans blanching at foreign films about places and customs strange to them. It seems like the same gut-level resistance to the Other, but with an air of high-mindedness based purely on who that Other is.
I think you overestimate my open-mindedness. No matter how open-minded you try to be, some things just aren't for you. It's not really that Americana is bad, but the way someone shows it can be. That being said, the film is pretty bland visually, too. It just doesn't *feel* good. If it doesn't feel good, I couldn't care less to go further than that. The same goes for the dance film I watched.
Also, I don't think understanding a film is necessary for liking (or disliking) it. From my experience, the opposite is true. I had some instances of films I initially loved but after talking about them with others and thinking about them myself, I better understood what they were about and ended up liking them less. Because they became kind of open books to me. And I like the mystery. So yeah, I didn't pick at people for disliking foreign films because they didn't understand them. If anything, I picked at people for disliking foreign films because they couldn't get into them. They couldn't feel them. You know, feel the film before understanding it, as Bresson said. And I say, if you don't feel it, what's the point in understanding it?
I am, of course, perfectly willing to accept that someone might not find this film as brilliant as I do (though admittedly thinking it's "borderline bad" is pretty hard for me to wrap my head around), but to find that acceptance I'd probably need to hear a more substantive critique.
The opening scene shows that Duvall seemingly really cares about converting the dying guy inside the automobile after the crash. But Duvall seems to be so much into the preaching thing that the dying guy himself stops mattering to him. What matters is just that Duvall converts him before the guy dies. That he kind of wins over the sinner by converting him. That he does his monthly number of conversions and can sleep well. But also that he sees his own salvation in the salvation of others. You can already tell he is a sinner himself even if only because we all are. And you can tell that he's persistent for a reason. Nice beginning to a character study type of film (not my favorite type of film, by the way) that tells a lot. But then, the movie continues. And all your guesses turn out to be true. And so after fkin up, Duvall tries again and he keeps on doing his thing, but we all know how it's gonna end for him. Though on the nose, I think the opening scene is good, and the film could've ended with it. There's not enough good style to be amazed with whatever comes after the opening scene. But maybe I'm missing something.
I guess I'd want to know more about what "humane" means, then, because if painting a subtle portrait of a tortured soul, a human struggling with the contradiction of their ideals and their behavior the same as all of us, then I honestly can't tell what would be.
Watch The Human Condition trilogy and you will know. To be truly humane, a film has to have something that is hard to describe. Something that TRANSCENDS its story.
All that said, I appreciate that you watched it.

Umm, I'd watch almost anything these days. I kind of went downhill in that way because I used to be much pickier and also more strict with my ratings.