The Proposition

Though there may have been some inconsistencies to real life, I enjoyed the movie and so did my friends and acquaintances...I was taken by the snowball effect...though some scenes could have been done differently...I accept it for exactly what it is...movie drama, not real life...some scenes were predictable and some I never saw coming...I was impressed with the job interview...the job...and then the transition from BOY to MANHHOOD and then the snowball effect that changes the lives of all persons involved including the priest...for me personally...the movie was well done...I am sure it could have been better but so could every movie once it has been seen and critiqued...GOOD JOB!

I was looking for the Australian western of the same name and the Sundance credits writer got it wrong and roped me into this 1930s Boston Catholic melodrama. I still want to see the western, but this was not a bad misdirection.

Whoever cast A History of Violence had to see this film as William Hurt plays the same character in both films - marvelously, I might add. He is a rich Catholic businessman here instead of a mobster, but the basics are the same. He wants to give his wife (Madeleine Stowe in a great performance) a child and Viagra was not yet invented, so he hires someone (Neil Patrick Harris) to do the job. His only mistake was picking a 24-year-old who couldn't just take the money and walk away. OK, so we have a moral question here, but we ignore that for the movies sake.

Into his parish comes a new priest (Kenneth Branagh) and he jumps the Rabbit-Proof Fence, uses The Magic Flute, and we have an Alien Love Triangle. Didn't Richard Chamberlain do that naughty priest bit in The Thorn Birds? There is a lot of Catholic malfeasance, guilt and remorse and penance and symbolism here, but don't let that turn you off as it doesn't interfere with the story. And, no children were hurt in the making of this film.

There are some fine performances and an interesting story. You should check it out.

You know there must be a problem when a recent film appears on TV with a cast that includes William Hurt, Kenneth Branagh, Madeleine Stowe, Robert Loggia and Blythe Danner and you've never heard of it. I guess my suspicions were aroused when the TV Channel shoved it out at 3 o'clock in the morning, but I really didn't think it could be that bad.

I was wrong. One of the previous comments summed this film up far better than I could but I would still like someone to tell me who the hell is Blythe Danner supposed to be? The mother, sister, best friend,'Mrs Danvers', I still haven't got a clue. I'm certainly not going to watch it again just to find out..

However, by far the saddest thing about this movie is watching talent like Blythe Danner, Madeleine Stowe and William Hurt being wasted in rubbish like this (I didn't miss out Mr Branagh by accident , incidentally).

Come on Hollywood, give them something decent to get their teeth into!

Kenneth Branagh, as expected, performed very well. What was difficult to absorb as "possible" were the Catholic religious elements depicted. They were wrong and inaccurate. For example, the Mass vestments were not correct. The conversations and characterizations of the pastor and the young priest, for that period of time (Boston in the late 30s, early 40s) were off key, to say the least. The plot was interesting, but the film was too long, and there was too much "symbolism", and the "next move" was always predictable. With such a fine cast, and a great story, the producers and the directors should have taken time to be more accurate and correct about details. Another example of the lack of care was the scene where the young priest is seen administering "Anointing of the Sick" [formerly called "Extreme Unction"] to a corpse about to be buried. This never happens and is actually forbidden in the RC Church. Dead people cannot receive "sacraments." Attention must be paid. Details, details, details. The truth is in the details. However, I did enjoy it. I think most people would find this film interesting and entertaining.

This movie is visually stunning and very well acted by the WHOLE cast. I think it is better seen at home where you can go back and watch portions over again, because in some scenes you must hear every word and pay attention to body language and expression quite closely or the plot can easily lose you. Bad acting or directing would have made this movie impossible to understand, because the writing is extremely subtle. I think the directing and acting is amazing because of what it conveys without language. (Some of the negative reviews were written by people who did not pay attention to key things are explained in few or no words, once, and once only, or to things that were shown only through non-verbal language. You must look and listen the whole time.) It does have the tragic-amazingly-coincidental stuff going on, but so what? It is entertainment, for goodness sakes, not a documentary! Apparently someone who was involved in making it is embarrassed, because it is impossible to get it on DVD in American format, which is a real shame. I love this movie, and am very sad not to be able to watch it since my VHS player broke. It always absorbs me and lets me forget about my own life for a few hours. I like to watch it once or twice a year, and enjoy sharing it with friends who have not seen it. It has been enjoyed by many people I know, but some did say that my pointing out key scenes was necessary for them to follow the plot. A few friends really did not like it, but none of those particular friends like tragic drama in general. I will continue to look for it on DVD every several months, and I will be looking to fix or replace my VHS player just so I can watch this and one other movie that I also love and can't get on DVD.