Le purificateur

I must disagree with many of the reviewers on this film. I consider The Order to be a mature, well-constructed horror story. The "horror" is subtle at first, but it builds, along with the suspense, into several, intense episodes that culminate the film decisively. It is a complex flux of development, change and ever-increasing intensity of suspense and anxiety. As with any horror film, indeed almost any film, one must become immersed in the culture and story that is created. One must assume certain elements of the film to be valid, then flow with the plot. The Order fills all of the requirements of a good horror tale, done smoothly and skillfully. The characters and the actors portraying them fit well into the development of it all. I was most impressed with the lead actress. Her portrayal was stunningly sympathetic. And I really loved the ending. It melded all of the elements of the film together in a satisfying conclusion. This film creates a sense of doom and inevitability that constantly grows with its progression. That is what drew me to keep watching. I am not generally a fan of "Religious" horror. I shall gladly make an exception for The Order.

In New York, Alex Bernier (Ledger) is a young priest and one of the three last members of an arcane order called Carolingians. When the old leader of the order dies, Alex goes to Rome with his friend Mara Sinclair (Shannyn Sossamon), a troubled painter who tried suicide in the past and for whom Alex is in love with. Thomas Garret (Mark Addy), the other member of the Carolingians, meets them in Rome. Alex notes that the body of the old priest bears two marks on the chest and a further investigation reveals that they are the symbol of the 'Sin Eater', a renegade priest called William Eden (Benno Fürmann) who exchanges absolution per money. Lots of mystery surrounds Alex, Mara and Thomas while they stay in Rome. This movie has a good premise, cast, director, photography, budget, locations, but something is missing or does not work well, and in the end the plot is very confused and quite boring. A waste of a good idea. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): 'Devorador de Pecado' ('Sin Eater')

In this film, a young Catholic priest is sent to Rome to investigate the death of the superior of his congregation, ending up with a scenario that crosses the supernatural with the mystery. This plot looks perfect for a horror movie, doesn't it? But this isn't the case and this is one of the problems because it clashes with public's expectations, since half of them goes in search of horror. Despite this risk, the plot is interesting, engaging and manages to create an atmosphere that makes you stick to the screen to see what will happen. Its evident from the beginning that this priests are totally unorthodox and would hardly be priests in real life, but the movie's credibility depends more on how willing you are to swallow the "sin eater" story. Personally, I didn't have major problems with that, even though everything stinks false. Despite the cold start and the slow pace, the film grows as it unfolds and the final is very good, but I was able to anticipate it sensibly from the middle.

The film has some well-known actors, starting with Heath Ledger, Mark Addy, Benno Furmann and Peter Weller. This last name was probably the most renowned and experienced at the time and he did a positive work, but his character was so secondary that he had very little to work with. The others limited themselves to doing what they really had to do, without merit or brilliance, in woody performances that didn't add anything praiseworthy to their careers. Cinematography presents nothing particularly interesting as well but the few special effects used are far better than the avalanche of bad CGI that some films present to the public.

Far from being a good movie, this is a medium-quality thriller that fits anyone who likes the genre or just wants to spend some time idle. Its not good enough to deserve a second watch, nor its bad enough for you to consider poorly spent the time you've been watching it.

In the bygone days of the Catholic Church, a sin-eater was an individual that, through ritual, would take the sins of a dying person upon themselves. Often, these people were excommunicate or similar individuals who the church would not absolve, thereby denying them entrance into Heaven. The sin-eaters were seen as blasphemous, circumventing the chruch's monopoly on redemption. Sex this up a bit with some overt supernatural mojo, let the concept wander where it may, and you have "The Order", a movie that combines "Stigmata"'s religious anti-authoritarianism, "The X-Files"' paranormal investigation, and "The Thorn Birds"' sexual spirituality into an odd melange that sometimes works.

Alex (Heath Ledger) is a rogue priest, one of the last members of the Order of the Carolingians, a semi-heretical order of knowledge-seeking, demon-fighting priests. When Alex's mentor is found dead under bizarre circumstances, Bishop Driscoll (Peter Weller) sends Alex to investigate. Tagging along are fellow Carolingian Thomas (Mark Addy) and Mara (Shannyn Sossman), who was subject to one of Alex's exorcisms a year prior. The three go to Rome to investigate and are drawn into a dark underworld of bizarre Catholic heresy, ominous prophecies, demonic intrusions, and a man claiming to be the last surviving Sin-Eater (Benno Furmann).

Written and directed by Brian Helgeland (who worked with the same principals on the scattershot and half-hearted "A Knight's Tale"), the film is an odd one, and difficult to classify. It wants to be several things at once -- supernatural thriller, religious intrigue, dramatic television pilot -- and only sometimes succeeds at any of them. This isn't helped by the slow pace or the fact that most of the actors seem to be sleepwalking through their performances with occasional bursts of brilliance. Ledger, in particular, has a particularly stunning scene of despair in an otherwise monochromatic performance. Sossman, however, displayed the same disconnected performance that she's given in all of her films (most notably in "The Rules Of Attraction").

The plot itself meanders back and forth between several different story arcs, leading you to wonder which is the main one with each arc containing its share of red herrings. Large gaps of narrative appear to be lost between scenes at times, which can be confusing for many, but this is also one of the film's saving graces. The structure of the film -- coupled by the fact that there is never a truly clear antagonist until the very end of the film -- forces the viewer to analyze and reason in a time when most films are blatantly obvious about everything (the exception to this is historical background on the Carolingians and the practice of sin-eating, both of which are explained in dry exposition). Even at the beginning of the film, character relationships and history are inferred instead of explained. Combine this with the on-location shooting and judicious use of special effects, and you have a very old-world supernatural thriller, with even the opening credits reminiscent of something from the late 70's/early 80's.

A brief mention here, as well, for the subtle and organic score by David Torn, a combination of minimalist orchestration and Lisa Gerrard-style exotic vocals. A very nice score that is evocative without being bombastic and exists in a very deceptive simplicity.

A confusing plot, a lack of purpose, and sometimes sleepy performances would often damn a movie, but for some reason, "The Order" remains watchable. Many people will be very turned off by the movie for its odd sensibilities, and some may even become angry that they are forced to engage the higher functions of their brain to understand it. Still, the film's sheer intangibility will prevent it from being either a critical or commercial success until the DVD, which I'm sure will be stocked with copious amounts of deleted scenes. A recommended film only for people who like to think while they watch. 6 out of 10.

I'm not sure what to make of this film. It was written, directed, and produced by Brian Helgeland, who also wrote the Mel Gibson film "Conspiracy Theory" and wrote and directed "A Knight's Tale", a take-off on Chaucer's Cantebury Tales. Unlike both of those films, which I quite liked, there is no focus as to what this film is supposed to mean.

Heath Ledger plays Fr. Alex, a young priest whose mentor, the former head of a religious order, appears to have committed suicide. Ledger is skeptical, and accompanied by friend and fellow priest Thomas (Mark Addy) and a young woman whom he had exorcised the previous year (Shannyn Sossamon), he goes to Rome to investigate.

He finds that his mentor had employed the services of a "sin-eater", a person who takes on the sins of those about to die who have been excommunicated (apparently unjustly?) by the Roman Catholic Church.

Once he finds the sin-eater, the rest of the film deals with Ledger's motivations for being a priest, his conflict between his vows and his love for the young woman, and the sin-eater's offer to make Fr. Alex his successor, as well as interference run in these matters by demons and pagans...

While this description suggests a compelling drama of religious conflict, the execution is schematic, murky, half-witted...characterization is imcomplete and inadequately subtle, motivations remain unclear, tension is diffused- in short, the project was not well-thought out.

Some things to keep in mind when watching-

1. Real priests do not chase demons (Helgeland has been watching too much Buffy!) nor do competent priests permit themselves to be taunted by demons so that the priest feels the need to challenge them...

2. Fr. Thomas encounters Fr. Alex in the graveyard, where he has just buried his mentor. Sensing something he asks Fr. Alex what has happened, and Fr. Alex (who had just been attacked by demons) responds "demon spawn in the form of children- nothing I couldn't handle". That disposition is so wrong! Relating the casting out of demons to your own ability would only invite the demons to attack you more fiercely! We defeat Satan through humility. Jesus said, "Don't be glad because the evil spirits obey you; rather be glad because your names are written in heaven." (Luke 10:20, Today's English Version)

3. "Knowledge is opposed to faith" one character says. This is the most annoying line in the film. What kind of knowledge is he referring to? Knowledge of sin? Well, we may say that knowledge of sin obscures faith but is directly opposed to love. Knowledge of the occult? Beyond certain limits, knowledge of the occult is dangerous and unnecessary, and thus opposed to faith. But what about scientific knowledge, as in the laws of history or physics? Or knowledge of the faith itself? Does the Scripture not say "My people perish for lack of knowledge?" (Hosea 4:6)

4. In one instance, Fr. Thomas denounces a pagan as a "blasphemer"; yet, in another, earlier scene, he practically goads Fr. Alex into breaking his vows. Why does he act honorably in one scene and not in the other?

5. If the relationship between the young woman and Fr. Alex did not deserve to be developed more than what is here, it deserved to be excised from the film as a needless distraction from the story arc. When Fr. Alex breaks his vows, what could have been a meaningful scene between the two, is instead a PG-13 lovemaking montage with no dialogue at all!

Is the director being anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, or anti-God? It seems to me none of these things, but rather he objects to his perception of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. I do not think he realizes there is a conflict between the genuine Catholic dogma of sin and redemption and the false one portrayed here, a false understanding no doubt arising from exposure to distorted and legalistic expressions of the Roman Catholic faith.

To unspiritual people, this will seem a silly, cheesy film. But I doubt that Helgeland just decided to arbitrarily throw together supernatural elements in order to make a thriller. He seems to be aware that these elements do exists, but he is confused about their nature.

This is not a film that should be seen without someone wise and mature in the Catholic faith.