Luther is a great movie. It was historically accurate and had good acting. My only problem is Fiennes casted as Luther. Instead of him playing the role of Luther, they should have given it to someone else, like John Goodman. Think about it: Luther was not exactly a pretty boy. They needed someone big and burly like Luther. Hence, John Goodman should have been cast.
sharejlabea, don`t think about the pictures of Luther. These pictures were made in the later years of Luther. Luther became a fat person when he got older, but this was after the time that was shown in the movie.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.
How do you know?
shareTake a look at the German and the English Wikipedia. There are to pictures, one frome the time he was monk, and at the age of 46.
Also I am a German from Schleswig-Holstein. Nothern Germany is mostly Lutheran and the reformation take a important part in history lessons, also the NDR (Norddeutscher Rundfunk)a German Broadcaster has always good documentions in programm around 31. October when Reformation Day is celebrated.
Luther take not only an important part in religious history, he was also important in German history. That something foreigners not often know, because their history lesson about Germany are mostly focused on Germany`s 12 dark years.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.
ltr-1:
That is interesting. I went to wikipedia and I have never seen some of those paintings or carvings of Luther before. I guess that I am just used to seeing the bloated Luther. But you have to admit: it would have been pretty cool to see Goodman as Luther, especially when Luther gets mad when he does not have the appropriate dictionaries to help him with his translation the Bible.
Goodman is a good actor, but the way he acts would not fit in this movie. Also I doubt that the script and the director let he have been cool in that scene.
Perhaps I have a diffrent viewpoint on this movie, because Martin Luther had a important influence on the history of my country, Germany and this influence was not only religious.
But your opinion is quit refreshing, because you put your focus on the actors and not on the religion.
Thinking about the older Luther, it would have rounded up the movie, if they had took a break in making the movie and Fiennes had did in the other way round what Tom Hanks did for Castaway.
Even Fiennes played the leading role in this movie, the best actor in this movie was Sir Peter Ustinov. I don`t know how Fredrick the Wise really was, but in my opinion a person who act like him must be so how Unstionov portrayed him.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.
I thought J. Fiennes fit Martin Luther -- the young Martin Luther, remember -- very well. According to written accounts, Luther as a monk actually was pale and thin: keep in mind that he habitually starved himself. Fiennes looked not unlike the one or two from-life portraits of Luther as a young man, and a great deal like many of the 19th-century depictions of him: see the paintings of Hugo Vogl, for instance.
More to the point, I think Fiennes did a superb job conveying Luther's extreme anxiety about damnation and his barely controlled rage at the Church corruption he sees. Watch him in the scene where he meets with Cardinal Cajetan: he's so shocked and indignant, he's shaking. Or the earlier scene in the monk's cell with his confessor, Staupitz: Luther is in such mental torment that there's actually perspiration (or tears -- I can't tell which) on his face. The scenes in Rome take Fiennes-as-Luther through a whole range of emotions, each one registering clearly. No, I think Fiennes was just right for the part.
I thought Joseph Fiennes was great n the movie, as was Alfred Molina, Jonathan Firth, and Peter Ustinov (R.I.P.) It was a great story and ended with
*****spoiler*****
Martin and Kate saying "We did it! We did it!)
Also, I didn't know Joseph Fiennes was a brother to Ralph Fiennes!