Godless

I disagree with others who have said the movie was slow or had slow parts. The film progresses as it should, a slow simmer, not a quick boil. I like the actors that play brothers Nate & Steven - I bonded with the characters- perhaps that led me to like it more. I can not touch upon the movie without giving spoilers- so I will say this: go in with an open mind, enjoy the acting, the actors, summer with the pace - you might find that you enjoyed it.

If you liked the film - you might care to watch, also on Amazon - From Beginning to End 2009, from Brazil.

I really enjoyed this movie...enough to have seen it three times so far. Lim handles an interesting subject pretty darn well. I read here some people thought the film was "slow". I disagree. I think the perceived "slowness" by some added to the film. It almost made the house itself a character. Overall this movie is very entertaining, but the highlight of the film is, without question, the great acting by Craig Jordan. Craig really brings the character of Nate to life. I really think Craig's acting takes this film from a 7 star film to the 9 stars I gave it. He really becomes Nate. I will recommend this film to all my friends to watch.

I had read reviews about how the pace was plodding along throughout the movie, but this did not bother me at all. Yes, some of the script sounded a bit wooden, but in general it was very sincere and I thought they handled the subject matter very well. The performances by the actors were very good and I thought the cinematography did the job too, even though there wasn't anything fancy.

I have two big problems with this movie.

First, the only relationship I believed in was the one between Nate and Trent. There was real, palpable sexual and emotional attraction between those two, but there was none anywhere else in the movie. I didn't believe in Steven's relationship with Ray; every time he called him "Babe" I gave an involuntary shudder that he would say something like that to a stranger. Even worse, I didn't believe in anything at all between him and Nate, even conventional sibling affection, and the whole movie hangs on that supposedly overwhelming passion.

Second, the movie is based on a strange assumption that there's something so profoundly bad about sex between brothers that they have to sacrifice everything that matters to hide it and do everything they can to kill it. I never have understood that taboo. It's not like they'd have deformed babies. It's an absurd prohibition. But I suppose even now they wouldn't be able to get married, and since vicious lunatics have taken over the US government, that's not likely to get better anytime soon.

So I guess what I'm saying is that the actor who played Steven was badly miscast (he wasn't able to create any believable relationships on screen) and that the premise of the movie is absurd.

However, unlike many other reviewers, I loved the ending, for reasons that may be obvious from what I said earlier.

A film of actors more film of story story. Not because the story remains a sketch, useful for atmosphere, but because, except the first and the last scenes, it is only the frame of acting. Only a frame for a gentle , precise and profound inspired portrait of brotherhood, emotions, love in intense form, loneliness, jealousy, the others, family, relations, affection, a room and a house and people around table at dinner,m talking, and the past, and the fracture almost like a womb. The details of house and definitions of small, ordinary things are the basic virtues of this film beautiful, in some measure, for different motives, against itself. A beautiful film about loneliness, the closed other and the way to define as yourself.