An Alternative to The Passion of The Christ...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Macfistowannabe

Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Messages
4,197
Location
Ohio
A film about the life of Martin Luther, for those interested. I enjoyed it, and recommend it.
___________________________________________________________
http://www.crosswalk.com/fun/movies/1222106.html

"Luther" - Movie Review
Holly McClure
Movie Reviewer


Genre: Drama

Rating: PG-13 (for disturbing images of violence)

Release Date: September 26, 2003

Actors: Joseph Fiennes, Alfred Molina, Jonathan Firth, Claire Cox, Peter Ustinov, Bruno Ganz, Uwe Ochsenknecht, Mathieu Carrière, Marco Hofschneider, Torben Liebrecht, Herb Andress, James Babson, Jeff Caster, Cesare Cremonini, Jens Winter

Director: Eric Till

Special Notes: Ironically, prior to accepting the film, Fiennes reluctantly turned down the role of Luther in the London National Theater’s Production of John Osborne’s play because of a schedule conflict. So, he already had a passion for the character and was prepared to play this role.



Plot: The story begins in the year 1505 showing a young Martin Luther in a rain storm when a bolt of lightening lands close to him and prompts him to hang up his study of law and apply for acceptance the following day in an Augustinian monastery. The film then narrates Luther's pilgrimage to Rome in 1510 and shows people all over the steps of the church buying indulgences for relatives – a practice that makes the church wealthy and fools the poor. Luther rebels against the church and writes an essay of 95 theses which he nails on the church door. He is then hunted by the church which forces him to defend himself. Luther's life as an outlaw – excommunicated and banned by the Pope as well as the emperor – is depicted in the film, as well as his "exile" in the tower of the Wartburg castle, where he translated the entire New Testament into German within 11 weeks. The story shows how Luther’s deep faith and convictions made this German reformer both a rebel and a leader of his day.

Good: This is an impressive production filmed with a big budget on over 100 sets and in 20 locations throughout Germany, Italy and the Czech Republic. Fiennes does an incredible job at taking a difficult role and making the man of history come to life in a real and deeply moving story. His portrayal of Luther showed him to be a charismatic man as well as a bit shy, defiant, playful and intense. And you can definitely see where Fiennes' Shakespearean training helped him portray this character. I always enjoy Ustinov on screen, and this time out he provides the comic relief and a few chuckles in this otherwise very serious movie. I liked this movie because for the first time I clearly understand what Luther did for the Christian church and how liberating it must have been to get out from under the tyranny of the Catholic church of that day. Realize that I am saying “of that day” because what the church was doing to the common people and the control it had on society back then was much different from the Catholic church of today. The movie doesn’t bash the Catholic church, rather it highlights how the Pope and Emperor Charles V exiled Luther because they didn’t understand his radical thinking and were afraid of the power he had over the people who were repressed and wanted a leader. Sound familiar? His teachings were considered radical because he told people to read the Bible – something common people didn’t do in those days, so no one knew the Word. Luther's whole message pointed back to reading the Word of God to tell them how to live and free them from paying for dead relatives to be freed from purgatory – a racket Luther clearly saw through. Luther didn’t enter the Church to change it, but obviously God wanted people to read His Word.

Bad: There are several scenes of poor people dying, numerous people killed in a bloody battle and lots of discussions about the Church, relics and selling one's soul for money. The movie tends to feel a little long because it's such a detailed story and there are so many aspects to it. I think some of it could have been edited or more about his wife and children could have been added to bring some levity to the story. But if you’re interested in history, especially church history, you’ll be enthralled with this movie.

Bottom Line: I really enjoyed this movie. It will explain in a detailed and wonderful way exactly what Martin Luther was all about and how God used him to change the Church. It's a perfect movie to show a church group or for teaching in a teen group. I also enjoyed seeing the fact that he married a former nun and had children and enjoyed the rest of his life with his family.
 
It's not exactly an alternative, but those looking for more plot and less violence would probably enjoy this one more.
 
haven't seen this movie, but if one wanted to watch a movie that actually showed the brilliance and love of Christ, and his life's work, they should take the 6 or so hours and watch 'Jesus of Nazareth' and throw that Passion flick into the garbage bin.
 
I heard that this movie was being made a long time ago and am happy to hear it has been released. Someday when I am back in the land of video rentals and television, maybe I'll see it. :)
 
U2DMfan said:
haven't seen this movie, but if one wanted to watch a movie that actually showed the brilliance and love of Christ, and his life's work, they should take the 6 or so hours and watch 'Jesus of Nazareth' and throw that Passion flick into the garbage bin.
Or even better than "Jesus Of Nazareth" (which I loved), watch "The Gospel Of John". Ian Cusick did my favorite portrayal of Jesus ever.

But I wouldn't throw "Passion" in the garbage; it is a very powerful film that very accurately showed the suffering Christ bore for our sakes. Crucifixion was the most brutal and horrible execution ever invented at that time.
 
80sU2isBest said:

Or even better than "Jesus Of Nazareth" (which I loved), watch "The Gospel Of John". Ian Cusick did my favorite portrayal of Jesus ever.

Hey, i just saw that also. Aside from Willem Dafoe's Jesus, this [Gospel of John version] was my favorite. The way he kept saying "I am telling you the truth!" with such convincing passion. [He even almost had me convinced.]
 
Ah thanks for this thread. Luther is basically my dad's idol (along with Martin Bucer) and he wanted to see this film but was kind of turned off by bad reviews, so I'll recommend it again.
 
U2democrat said:
Ah thanks for this thread. Luther is basically my dad's idol (along with Martin Bucer) and he wanted to see this film but was kind of turned off by bad reviews, so I'll recommend it again.

Bad Reviews? That really surprises me. I've only read one bad review and I think that came from the same guy who trashed The Passion in our local newspaper, the same guy who trashes anything to do with Christianity, basically.
 
I may be a practicing Catholic, but hey, Church history is my favorite kind of history. I'm definitely going to see this movie. In my mind Luther played a very useful role in the history of Christianity even though I obviously don't agree with his conclusions.
 
No, I think that watching The Passion really motivates a person to understand Christ's sacrifice on a deeper level.

It's an entirely different experience to watch it happen than to be told how it happened. (Please, spare me the comments about how some things are not accurate; I've heard it all before. IMHO It's accurate enough.)


------------------------

Bring back Jick and freedom of speech...
 
verte76 said:
I may be a practicing Catholic, but hey, Church history is my favorite kind of history. I'm definitely going to see this movie. In my mind Luther played a very useful role in the history of Christianity even though I obviously don't agree with his conclusions.
The Catholic Church in Lutheran times was thankfully much different than it is today. It didn't help that you's and me's didn't have access to the Bible back then.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
No, I think that watching The Passion really motivates a person to understand Christ's sacrifice on a deeper level.

It's an entirely different experience to watch it happen than to be told how it happened. (Please, spare me the comments about how some things are not accurate; I've heard it all before. IMHO It's accurate enough.)


------------------------

Bring back Jick and freedom of speech...

Then spare me how it helped you.
 
Allow me to intervene. This thread is not for debating The Passion of The Christ. If you wish, you may start a separate thread. For now, let's focus on "Luther."
 
Macfistowannabe said:
The Catholic Church in Lutheran times was thankfully much different than it is today. It didn't help that you's and me's didn't have access to the Bible back then.

Oh, absolutely. No one would be caught selling indulgences, church offices and every other blasted thing they had for sale to raise $$ for some archbishops' fee. All of this stuff was actually against proper Church teaching, but the officials of the day couldn't be bothered with the rules. Luther's advantage over earlier reformers was that he had the printing press to print vernacular Bibles with. Jan Hus did not, and he went to the stake.
 
Back
Top Bottom