Too much of everything

To me, this movie is perfection.

The Worst Film Ever

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Luther is a biopic about the life of Martin Luther.It stars Joseph Fiennes in the title role.Alfred Molina,Jonathan Firth,Claire Cox and Peter Ustinov co-star to play key supporting role. It covers Luther's life from his becoming a monk in 1505 to the Diet of Augsburg in 1530.Martin Luther was an intelligent and principled young man that was studying law in early 16th century Germany when a close brush with death led him to follow a spiritual path and join a Catholic monastery. Under the guidance of Johann von Staupitz, Luther became a valued member of the monastery's hierarchy, and as a sign of his trust, von Staupitz asked Luther to join him for a voyage to Rome as part of church business. Luther was appalled by the corrupt practices of the leading church officials, in particular the sale of "indulgences" in which the wealthy could purchase forgiveness for a wide variety of sins. Luther left the monastery to study theology in Wittenberg; a keen student, he later became a professor and won the support of Frederick the Wise, who also recognized the potential controversy of Luther's iron principles. When a new pope, Leo X, assumes the throne at the Vatican, he orders the construction of St. Peter's Basilica. To pay the costs, an ambitious monk, Johann Tetzel, was sent out to sell indulgences to both the wealthy and the poor, leaving his audiences with little doubt of the eternal consequences that awaited those who did not empty their purses. An infuriated Luther wrote an angry essay on the corruption of the church entitled "95 Theses," and thanks to the recent invention of the printing press, Luther's words were soon circulated throughout Europe, leading to an angry conflict with Catholic officials which threatened to tear the church in two.A few too many amateurish techniques and oversimplified confrontations hold Luther back a notch or two from greatness, and stamp it instead as entertaining film.Also,it makes up for what it lacks in vigorous storytelling with adorable production values.But overall,it is a biopic that is simply uninspiring and far from unforgettable.

Folks who have never read the whole Bible, and those who don't accept it as the only reliable source of information about God, will not find this historically accurate portrayal of Christianity's rejection of man-made religion as appealing. Truth is often most inconvenient. As Christ conveyed, to the saved, servants like Luther will be the "fragrance of Christ"; to the unsaved, he will be as the "smell of death." The only shortcoming in this moving biography is the lack graphic attention to Catholicism's vicious persecution of genuine Christians (belief in 'Sola Scriptura' was, and today still is, deemed as heresy). This powerful movie may properly have been called 'The Rejection of Babylon the Harlot' as detailed in Rev. 17.

Exactly fifty years earlier Martin Luther got himself an autobiographical film that starred Niall McGinniss and got great critical acclaim. With better production values, color, and an impeccably cast group of players this story of the founder of one of the sects of Protestantism is destined to be a classic. In the review I did of the earlier film I noted that Martin Luther was one of many founders of Protestantism. His Lutheran church became the majority faith of northern Germany, the low countries and of Scandinavia. Other folks like John Calvin in Switzerland, John Knox in Scotland, and even Henry VIII in England all can claim some credit for the Protestant Reformation. I think Luther's legacy in the political sphere may be a bit more unassailable. That other German, Johannes Von Guttenberg, may have invented the printing press and used to print a Bible, but Luther had the Bible translated in his native tongue of German. That book was a declaration of political as well as spiritual independence from Rome.As the previous film had to observe the Code, this version of Luther took us into young Martin's spiritual journey and what might have repelled him from the Catholic faith when he first went to Rome to study. The Papacy was at its lowest ebb at that time, it was a prize to be bargained for among the rich Italian families like the Borgias and the Medicis. Salvation was for sale, a contribution to the church could buy your way to a good afterlife. My favorite scene in the film is the young priest Luther in a sermon talking about all the relatives he bought or is planning to buy from the devil in hell. Luther also disdained the idea of a celibate clergy. In that one he certainly was ahead of his times. My own feeling is that part of the reason the Catholic Church today insists on the celibate priesthood is that they don't want to appear to be giving into one of Luther's main tenets.Joseph Fiennes makes a passionate Luther, a man willing to risk all for the sake of his new found faith. Which is an unshakable belief that faith alone insures salvation, that no human intercession by priest or Pope is necessary and that it follows that the Word of God is not something spoon fed to people by a clergy reading it from an ancient language that they alone know.Luther was not the first religious reformer, but what kept him from being burned at the stake like others was the protection of the Duke of Saxony played here by Peter Ustinov. Luther turned out to be Ustinov's final theatrical film. Playing the cultured and politically attuned Duke, Ustinov goes out with one of his best big screen performances.The less attractive aspects of Luther's character are left out of the film, his misogyny, his sexism, his raging anti-Semitism. As he got older, Luther suffered from a variety of health issues that made him a nasty tempered fellow. His later writings certainly reflect that.Our film ends with the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V having to deal with a whole gang of new Protestant states in the German portion of his realm in 1530. This was due to Luther and as I said before, Luther's legacy may be more political than spiritual.Luther is not only good entertainment, it's very good history and that's an unbeatable combination.

Its historical accuracy (and I know what I'm talking about I am highly interested in church history) coupled with surprisingly good acting makes this film rise above many others I have seen. I could not have expected such quality from a film of it's production values (in fact I didn't). Also It does fairly well with not being overly cruel to the Catholics. It portrays them fairly with out being unrealistic (I was concerned it would just be a huge Catholic bashing fest when I went in). As for direction I found it pleasantly exciting, not Spielberg by any means but the film was made in and extremely interesting manner. Allow me to elaborate, the film is generally cut into very short scenes and switches rapidly (accept for scene's of special significance for witch it takes more time obviously). This style gives the film a well earned since of pace that make it far more exciting than any film I have seen in this genre. It is a must see!!