IMDb रेटिंग
5.1/10
1.1 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंAn ambitious priest seduces a nun and leads the Vatican into shady business during and after World War II.An ambitious priest seduces a nun and leads the Vatican into shady business during and after World War II.An ambitious priest seduces a nun and leads the Vatican into shady business during and after World War II.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
- पुरस्कार
- कुल 1 नामांकन
Robert Prosky
- Bishop Walkman
- (as Robert J. Prosky)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
The tag-line for this film begins "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned".
And that's not so much being said by the protagonist of "Monsignor" but by the director, actors, writers, best boys, gaffers, caterers and the guys who swept the floor afterwards on this disaster.
As the "Monsignor" of the title, Christopher Reeve plays a man who moves his way up through the Catholic church through dubious means - murder, theft, the Black Market during WWII... you know, the usual stuff. And there's even enough time for him to seduce a nun (Bujold)!
I know next to nothing about Catholicism, so I cannot say what if any of this kind of activity holds any validity. But what does this mean: that those involved in the Vatican's business affairs are only bookkeepers who work under the guise of religion for otherwise nefarious means? I'd hope not, but this movie seems to think otherwise.
Reeve is a good actor, always will be. What he saw in this kind of film is beyond me. Maybe he thought (like Faye Dunaway did in "Mommie Dearest") that something so broad and unimaginably coarse could only be played as a comedy, so why not just go with the flow?
And if he thought that, he was right! "Monsignor" has scenes that play as out-and-out comedy; never have you seen so many (unintentional?) sight gags in your life, and the stony faces that permeate this film might make you believe that Buster Keaton must have been a busy man at one time or another.
So, "Monsignor" is a bad film, but it's also good for one of those nights when you have a few friends over, a few beers, lots of popcorn and nothing better to do than have a few laughs at someone else's expense.
Those involved in organized religion, say.
Two stars. Eight if you're an agnostic.
And that's not so much being said by the protagonist of "Monsignor" but by the director, actors, writers, best boys, gaffers, caterers and the guys who swept the floor afterwards on this disaster.
As the "Monsignor" of the title, Christopher Reeve plays a man who moves his way up through the Catholic church through dubious means - murder, theft, the Black Market during WWII... you know, the usual stuff. And there's even enough time for him to seduce a nun (Bujold)!
I know next to nothing about Catholicism, so I cannot say what if any of this kind of activity holds any validity. But what does this mean: that those involved in the Vatican's business affairs are only bookkeepers who work under the guise of religion for otherwise nefarious means? I'd hope not, but this movie seems to think otherwise.
Reeve is a good actor, always will be. What he saw in this kind of film is beyond me. Maybe he thought (like Faye Dunaway did in "Mommie Dearest") that something so broad and unimaginably coarse could only be played as a comedy, so why not just go with the flow?
And if he thought that, he was right! "Monsignor" has scenes that play as out-and-out comedy; never have you seen so many (unintentional?) sight gags in your life, and the stony faces that permeate this film might make you believe that Buster Keaton must have been a busy man at one time or another.
So, "Monsignor" is a bad film, but it's also good for one of those nights when you have a few friends over, a few beers, lots of popcorn and nothing better to do than have a few laughs at someone else's expense.
Those involved in organized religion, say.
Two stars. Eight if you're an agnostic.
I have read some of the negative comments on this film, they must have been written by staunch Catholics. One person said Miss Bujolds career was ruined by this movie if that is so it is a shame.
I have watched this Movie many times. Monsignor delves into the many aspects of human sin and how we all fail God every moment of every day that we live. I think those who dislike this film have latched onto the notion that nuns and priest are perfect,they should pick up the paper.
Monsignor is a sad film but a good one,sad because of the longings of the heart not fulfilled. This film hit home with me because of the many times our deepest longings go unfulfilled.
This movie also had many redemptive qualities to it. I also think I liked it because it did not go the way I wanted it to.
I have watched this Movie many times. Monsignor delves into the many aspects of human sin and how we all fail God every moment of every day that we live. I think those who dislike this film have latched onto the notion that nuns and priest are perfect,they should pick up the paper.
Monsignor is a sad film but a good one,sad because of the longings of the heart not fulfilled. This film hit home with me because of the many times our deepest longings go unfulfilled.
This movie also had many redemptive qualities to it. I also think I liked it because it did not go the way I wanted it to.
As Christopher Reeve said himself, this movie could have been really good but the bad editing ruined it. And I wholeheartedly agree. It was a pretty bold movie, even for the bold 80's: a tale of a Vatican priest who deals with the mafia, seduces a nun and takes up arms in the war, bloodying his hands. This was clearly still a taboo, any kind of negative portrayal of the Catholic church and the Vatican. But somewhere during its 2 hours this movie lost its boldness and became just another failed experiment with an interesting idea.
In the year 1982, Reeve was clearly looking to establish himself as a serious actor and it couldn't have been easy for a guy who so convincingly looks like a superhero and who came to prominence as THE superhero. He was in Deathtrap that same year and did well in that part. One might say that this role has something in common with that one, because he plays an opportunist who is morally unclean. This movie has a really top notch cast, with Jason Miller, Fernando Rey and Genevieve Bujold as the brightest part of it. Miller, though somewhat miscast in the role of the Sicilian mafioso, brings the dark intensity similar to the one in his role as Father Karass. Only difference is, here he has a mustache. Joe Cortese is also good in the part of Reeve's old friend who becomes his business partner and the link with Miller. Fernando Rey plays the part of cardinal Santoni, who represents the political side of Vatican, the ambitious and power-hungry priest who is willing to close an eye to illegal stuff in order to achieve his own goals.
Anyway, this movie is interesting to follow but sometimes it can't decide whether it wants to be a drama about corruption and moral or a love movie. Some scenes are well shot and gripping, like the scene where the nun played by Bujold discovers Reeve's true identity and occupation. It is the dramatic highpoint of the film. But the love story lasts too short to really give the movie the edge it needs, another angle. Christopher Reeve is one of the film's bright points because he really does make his character believable. He's a priest who tried to be both a priest and a man. I guess you can say that this is the ultimate theme of the film, how hard it is to be a priest and give up the good things in life in order to serve God.
I think it's a great shame that this film has been largely forgotten and scorned by the critics and by the audiences. For despite it's editorial flaws and despite the screenplay not holding up till the very end, it still can be an interesting watch and a spiritual lesson.
In the year 1982, Reeve was clearly looking to establish himself as a serious actor and it couldn't have been easy for a guy who so convincingly looks like a superhero and who came to prominence as THE superhero. He was in Deathtrap that same year and did well in that part. One might say that this role has something in common with that one, because he plays an opportunist who is morally unclean. This movie has a really top notch cast, with Jason Miller, Fernando Rey and Genevieve Bujold as the brightest part of it. Miller, though somewhat miscast in the role of the Sicilian mafioso, brings the dark intensity similar to the one in his role as Father Karass. Only difference is, here he has a mustache. Joe Cortese is also good in the part of Reeve's old friend who becomes his business partner and the link with Miller. Fernando Rey plays the part of cardinal Santoni, who represents the political side of Vatican, the ambitious and power-hungry priest who is willing to close an eye to illegal stuff in order to achieve his own goals.
Anyway, this movie is interesting to follow but sometimes it can't decide whether it wants to be a drama about corruption and moral or a love movie. Some scenes are well shot and gripping, like the scene where the nun played by Bujold discovers Reeve's true identity and occupation. It is the dramatic highpoint of the film. But the love story lasts too short to really give the movie the edge it needs, another angle. Christopher Reeve is one of the film's bright points because he really does make his character believable. He's a priest who tried to be both a priest and a man. I guess you can say that this is the ultimate theme of the film, how hard it is to be a priest and give up the good things in life in order to serve God.
I think it's a great shame that this film has been largely forgotten and scorned by the critics and by the audiences. For despite it's editorial flaws and despite the screenplay not holding up till the very end, it still can be an interesting watch and a spiritual lesson.
Now, I didn't rent this thinking it would be a good movie. I had heard this was an uproarious unintentional comedy, so that's what I was expecting. There are a few laughs to be found, but I found this movie to be a mostly dull and murky drama. Reeve is totally miscast and out of his league here, even if the screenplay was better.
It's inconceivable that a director like Frank Perry could have been associated with "Monsignor". Mr. Perry was a man responsible for some good movies in the sixties and seventies. Who knows what might have attracted him to direct this high camp picture that should be better forgotten.
The plot of the movie is preposterous, at best. The point the movie is trying to make is how the Catholic Church makes a perfect partner with the Mafia, something that could only make sense to the author of the novel. The second theme deals with the way Flaherty falls in love with the novice Clara, and how he keeps from her the secret of his identity, which is obvious, as the pair move in the same circles, so it would be inevitable for the young woman to find out who her lover really is.
"Monsignor" wastes two hours in trying to make sense without success. The cast does what it can trying to give life to these one dimensional characters they were asked to bring to life for the movie. Not even the musical score by John Williams does anything to help the movie.
Future viewers are warned as to what to expect.
The plot of the movie is preposterous, at best. The point the movie is trying to make is how the Catholic Church makes a perfect partner with the Mafia, something that could only make sense to the author of the novel. The second theme deals with the way Flaherty falls in love with the novice Clara, and how he keeps from her the secret of his identity, which is obvious, as the pair move in the same circles, so it would be inevitable for the young woman to find out who her lover really is.
"Monsignor" wastes two hours in trying to make sense without success. The cast does what it can trying to give life to these one dimensional characters they were asked to bring to life for the movie. Not even the musical score by John Williams does anything to help the movie.
Future viewers are warned as to what to expect.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाWhen Christopher Reeve was offered this movie, Reeve was keen to play against his 'Superman' super-hero screen persona, which he had also done in Deathtrap (1982) and Somewhere in Time (1980). Reeve once commented after being cast in this film: "I thought the chance to play a morally ambiguous character who was neither clearly good nor clearly bad, someone to whom life is much more complex than the characters I've played previously would be good."
- गूफ़At the end of his Requiem Mass in the field, Father Flaherty says "Requiescat in pace." The Mass, however, was clearly celebrated (as would be expected in a war zone) for more than one person (as indicated by plural pronouns in a previous prayer). In that case, the correct verb form would be "Requiescant" and not "Requiescat."
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटThe spelling of the names of two key creatives related to the film was slightly different to their billings in the film's credits compared to their actual correctly spelled names. Actress Geneviève Bujold was billed as "Genevieve Bujold" whilst source novelist Jack-Alain Léger was credited as "Jack Alain Leger".
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Hollywood vs. Religion (1994)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Monsignor?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $1,24,08,066
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $36,31,834
- 24 अक्टू॰ 1982
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $1,24,08,066
- चलने की अवधि2 घंटे 1 मिनट
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.66 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें