Martin Luther

The film is the accurate representation of culture being adapted to the modern audience, and this is why it is a must watch for people of all ages. It provides background and historical insights into one of the most pivoting points in the history of religion. However, instead of being a commentated documentary, it is a biographical film about the life of one of the most influential and controversial figures in the history of Christianity. It accurately tells the story of Martin Luther - from the big events like the posting of his Ninety-Five Theses, to simple get-togethers with his ex-colleagues from school. It has a very classical, narrow story line without any plot-twists that are so popular in the cinema culture of today. It tells the story as it is, without over-complicating it; and I find this rather nifty, because Martin Luther's philosophy also focuses on the simplicity of religion. However, in my opinion the largest thing that the film accomplishes is not the historical account of things, but rather the depiction of the atmosphere and the "vibe" of the time period. First of all, it shows the great value that was put on religion during the early sixteenth century. This can accurately demonstrate how people's psyche worked at the time period, and allows for a theoretical explanation of their behaviors. It explains the familial and spiritual values of the common people, but it also explains the serious decisions made by political leaders that were influenced by religion. The film successfully shows how religion used to be at the epicenter of everything, and how everything was filtered through a different prism. If today one's religious views and position only affect that person, and the community that he is part of; before, a different opinion in regards to religion would mean a large conflict, because religion lied at the basis of everything, and when it was challenged - a lot was being put at risk. Furthermore, it depicts the manners of people of the time and helps the viewer have a better understanding of the social structure; which to my surprise was less conservative than I had expected. However, not being a historian, I cannot state whether or not the film does and accurate job of depicting the culture of the time period. Secondly, the film does a great job of opening up Martin Luther as a character - Instead of being an abstract figure in the heads of people, he becomes a real person who went through law school, a monastic lifestyle and rebellious, religious activism. The viewer is showed how real people can have an impact on the world. However, despite being very inspiring, I was a little bit disappointed in the lack of depth in Martin Luther's character. I had expected to be presented to his "realness," but instead I was introduced to a pretty much perfect human being. When there is an obvious protagonist in the film, a character who is too perfect for the world, the film becomes a little bit boring. In modern day cinema, this phenomenon occurs rarely, because producers have figured out the audience prefers real and relatable to perfect and unreachable. However, this practice did not yet come into action when the film was shot, and so we, as the audience, do not get too much depth to the character. The film, in my opinion, is very biased - it presents Martin Luther as the good guy and the founder of Protestantism, and it presents Protestantism as the dominant religion; This is not necessarily true, because Luther was one of the many activists who had this approach to religion. The film is more theological than analytical and objective; but despite being so one-sided, it actually provides a better insight into the Protestant culture and philosophy. However, all this aside, the film is done very masterfully. Despite being rather old and black and white, it has amazing cinematics. The scenery is not beautiful and authentic, but it is actually the real-life places in which the events of the film were taking place in. The camera movements are very professional and modern - from the following shot, to close-ups. The non- diegetic and diegetic sounds create a great atmosphere and are of a surprisingly high quality. However, one thing that I did not enjoy was the abundant use of voice-over, as it is a rather cheap trick that often goes against the "show don't tell" policy. The costumes were also fantastic. I personally am not sure whether or not they are historically accurate, but they did create an aesthetic and a very unique atmosphere to the film. I particularly enjoyed the final scene when people came together to sing the hymn - not only did it show us the full grandness of the church and the power that the unity of people with common belief create; but it also shows great diversity. I had chills when I was watching this. It highlights the themes of togetherness and unity; and it brings everyone together. Finally, I want to say that I really enjoyed the acting in this film. I always noticed how movies that are aimed at portraying a different time period often have trouble with casting, as it is incredibly difficult to play something that you have never experienced for yourself, and make it seem real. Once again I would like to mention that I have no way of knowing whether or not the film is culturally accurate, but it certainly does seem so - from the actors' accents and manner of speech to their gait, everything seemed so organic, that at times I was forgetting that the film was shot in the fifties and not when the events were happening. Overall, I think the movie is a must watch as it provides a valuable insight into the cultural and historical background, as well as into the theology of Protestantism. However, it must be viewed with caution, as it leaves many things out and is also very biased.

This reverential biographical film of the founder of the Lutheran Church by the Lutheran Church would hardly have been anything else. The many flaws of Martin Luther, his sexism, his anti-Semitism, get no mention here. His contributions to theology and to the German culture the good ones are discussed at great length.

Martin Luther is not THE founder of Protestantism, he's the founder of one of the Protestant denominations. There was a fellow over in Switzerland named John Calvin, a guy later on in Scotland named John Knox, and even that wife slaughtering monarch in England Henry VIII all founded various Protestant denominations.

Yet Luther, a priest who originally wanted to be a lawyer and who attacked the ruling Roman Catholic Church, certainly showed a lawyer's training. His famous 95 questions nailed to the church door in Wittemberg was nothing less than an indictment.

The great contribution theologically speaking that Luther made was the notion that no one, not even a Pope intercedes for man in his relationship with the Deity. One is saved by faith alone in the fact that Jesus is the Messiah who sacrificed himself for the sins of man.

It should not be forgotten that at this time the Catholic church was very engaged in the geopolitics of Europe and the world as a temporal power as well as a center of faith. The Pope as a temporal ruler had temporal needs like the ruler of any other state, maybe more so with his dual function. Hence the sale of indulgences which according to the Lutheran versions were dispensations for sins to come. I'm sure Catholics will differ, but they didn't produce this film.

Niall McGinniss makes a fine and upstanding Martin Luther. The film was shot on location in West Germany in the places mentioned in the story. The film also got Oscar nominations for Art&Set Design and black and white cinematography in its very graphic depiction of medieval Germany.

It's not my view of Martin Luther, but it certainly is the view that Lutherans certainly have of him.

Before he could be formally blacklisted Irving Pichel fled to Europe where he channelled his feelings about the UAAC into this forthright account of an obvious historical precedent.

With the camera in the able hands of Oscar-nominated Joseph Brun, Niall MacGuinness gives a performance of evangelical zeal in what was probably his only leading role in a film.

There are quite a few films about Martin Luther, though this one is unusual because it was produced by the Lutheran Church--not Hollywood or some other secular group. Not surprisingly, when I grew up a Lutheran, this is the version they occasionally showed at church functions. Also, not surprisingly, it's filled with church doctrine and other teachings that you won't get in a Hollywoodized version of the life of this church leader.

At times the film is very much like a documentary in style--with narration and explanation of Luther's inner torments when he began having doubts about his Catholic faith. You see a slightly less human side to Niall MacGinnis' characterization of Luther--more the authoritarian and scholarly in nature and fewer insights into his personal life. Considering the film's goal is to elevate this made to greatness as the leader of the faith, it does a very good job in inspiring the masses and putting across many of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. Very well made and well worth seeing.

McGinnis' performance is stellar; he was very much like I imagined the real Martin Luther to be; unmovable in his personal beliefs, but compassionate to individuals; enthusiastic about bettering mankind, but merciless about his own weaknesses. The on-location shooting for this movie is wonderful, and the black-and-white cinematography concentrates attention on the actors facial expressions. Supporting actors were very well selected for their characters. Period costumes, activities and dialogue were well-researched and very-well done. The copy of the movie I saw was not restored...so to get the most out of it, you need to give it your full concentration, but you'll be well rewarded. It portrays one of the most pivotal individuals in history, and does it well. As with all the best movies, you wish it didn't have to end...