Le purificateur

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.

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.

Although I really, really liked this movie, I must admit it's not for everyone, and here's why. The Order encompasses one or two intriguing ideas gone a bit awry.

A priest (played by Heath Ledger) is called upon to investigate the apparent suicide of his mentor, and uncovers the mystery of an ancient being, the Sin Eater, who is able to absolve the sins of those (unrepentant sinners, excommunicated persons, suicides) a normal Catholic priest would be unable to forgive due to church dogma. The knowledge of this creature forces the priest to face his own conflicted feelings about the priesthood. Before he has even begun to sort out his confusion, the larger plot begins to unravel and he finds that he has been at the center of it for longer than he had ever realized.

Well, it would have been excellent if left at that and fleshed out for the 100-minute duration, but it was not to be. The best bits of turmoil and conflict, of passion and temptation and surrender, were skimmed through so quickly it seemed as if someone thought they were the annoying-but-necessary bits when they should have been the real meat of the film. The rest was a clogged up mess of random (and inexplicable) demon children, a power-hungry cardinal, and worst of all: a love interest who had absolutely no chemistry with the main character, an accent that was completely out of place, a confusingly pointless back story, and who seemed incongruous with the setting and plot. Sadly, there were very few shots of the film's locations, only one wide shot of Rome in fact, which could have been used to set the tone much more effectively than all those shadows and candlelight.

That all said, there were many redeeming features. The soundtrack was hit-and-miss, but more hit than miss and at least it was never distracting. The duo of Ledger and Mark Addy was charming and the chemistry between Ledger's character and "William Eden" (played by Benno Fürmann) was sizzling. That adversarial relationship should have been the focus of the film rather than a sort of easter egg hunt during bits of the second half, but it was more than enough for me to consider this movie an hour and a half well spent.

Certainly something different - a religious-based 'sci-fi' drama. Sin Eater, as it's known in UK, is a complicated story of love, fate, realisation, and a hint of gothic underworld religion thrown in. As Alex, the main character, is informed his mentor has died, he gets drawn into something which could alter his own destiny.

Without wanting to give away the entire plot Sin Eater is a movie which takes risks - it's not afraid of its take on religion and is filmed with panache, boasts good performances, and some effective cinematography.

Fine effort.

The head of the Carolingian order is killed and one of the last members is called to investigate the death. The Carolingians fight demons, apparitions and perform exorcisms. Can he stop a murderer who is not human?

Apparently all that is required to banish the most powerful denizens of hell is a small wooden Crucifix and the Chant'.I order you back to Hell!' Well I order you to save your ten dollars. Ledger, Sossamon and even Addy are not the problem in this film. The borderline special effects are also not the problem in this film. The problem is this film's trailer (the preview for the film) that promises a horror thriller with a mysterious supernatural killer, involving rogue priests. The problem is the trailer writes checks that the plot can't cash. Now I know we have enough rogue priests in our regular everyday life, but these rogue priests have cool black crucifix tattooed on their legs. The entire cast which, seems to be little more than a Knight's Tale reunion all turn in great performances. The first Forty-five minutes make me think of Stigmata with a taste of The Exorcist. After that it becomes boring, predictable and criminally unimaginative. Not only is it not scary or suspenseful after that, but it wastes what was shapping up to be a fine plot. Originally scheduled to release Jan 17, 2002 it was postponed to redo the special effects, maybe the plot should have received a rework as well.

Though not big box office fare, the special effects weren't completely horrible. The sets were actually very nice and I liked St. Peters in particular. Maybe a Hollywood clone would do the justice that this movie couldn't, or even a direct to video movie about the Carolingians in which we pretend the first movie didn't even exist.