Woah. Seriously. It's like the lunatic fringes from every denomination of Christianity showed up at IMDB for this flick. Um, what do people think of the <em>film</em>? You know, the film? The movie? The subject of this database entry?
shareI enjoyed it. A compelling and well-rounded look at what must have been a complicated and tormented man. I think it probably does have more merit for its cinematic attributes, rather than the controversy it seems to incite (to my surprise). Any equally comprehensive look at any other religious figure (The Passion, for example) should be taken for what it is- a film, not a revolution or an affront to God. It's simply one interpretation, one attempt towards depiction and understanding of an individual who lived hundreds of years ago. It's one of the better attempts I've seen, regardless of my spiritual inclinations.
------------------------------------------------
There are no happy endings because nothing ends.
[deleted]
Luther was very egotistical and was known to jeer at those who disagreed with him in public debates. He also called for the people to 'wash their hands in the blood of bishops' and said it was 'good to sin.' The man was a horrible human being.
share[deleted]
Where do you get that Luther said it was 'good to sin'? I'd like to respond but need to know where you're coming from to make a cogent reply.
shareHaven't finished watching it, but some early reaction (as a Lutheran and sometime movie buff):
I'm OK with Ebert's review of it that Fiennes' portrayal of Martin is a little too broody and angst-y at times -- you only occasionally get a glimpse of the boisterous, humorous side of ML. Other performances I like so far are Sir Peter as Frederick the Wise -- but then, Ustinov is one of those "I'd pay to watch him read out loud from the Yellow Pages" actors anyway.
Also, if you caught Bruno Ganz as Hitler in Der Untergang, he has a fairly minor but nicely done role here as Fr. Johann von Staupitz, who was influential in ML's spiritual journey -- Ganz helps you see why, in a quiet, understated but pretty effective bit of acting.
Cinematography's incredible. Every shot, every scene -- even the ones in the monastery -- are visually sumptuous. If you're into enjoying a movie for how it looks, and if you couldn't care less about history or Xtian theology, you could still savor this flick with the sound off.
Bottom line -- again, so far -- is you could be only moderately interested in church and history stuff and still, if you have half a brain, find a lot to like in watching this film.
obviously written by reformed protestant nut jobs who think that martin luther is the second coming of Christ. he is presented as a superhuman full of more courage than king arthur, spiderman, and jack bauer, righteously crusdaing against the catholic church to bring down their evil satan inspired corruption. too epic for its own good in every scene. it brings the power that it could have had down by being way too idealized to ever be true. and i am only halfway through.
shareDo you read books? Most of the events from the movie are actual historic events. Which of course means that they are true.
shareBut many things are negelcted, showing a very biased and untrue version of events. Everyone knows the 'facts' about 9-11 yet everyone has their own idea about what happened. This film of Luther was sentimental and bogus.
shareI liked it. I think I preferred the John Osbourne take (Stacey Keach) for the issues confronting Luther - but Fiennes, Ganz and Ustinov were well worth watching.
Good question. This is a film board, not a religious one.
I loved it. It's one of the few movies I've ever bothered to purchase a dvd of because I liked it that much.
Let slip the Determined Kitten of Doom!share
I find it moving and beautifully acted, as well as beautiful to look at. Oh, and its score -- in case you didn't notice -- is magnificent. I honestly can't understand the hostile criticism of LUTHER.
share