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.
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.
Someone on a game show once named this as his favorite bad movie, citing that hilarious scene in the church when Genevieve Bujold, playing a tramp postulant, realizes that her boyfriend is a priest.
There's nothing good to be said about this film except that it has glorious scenery. It's sad today to see Christopher Reeve healthy and walking - and wasting what little time he was going to have in rotgut like this. As someone raised in the Catholic church, I loved hearing the Latin again. Also with the recent scandals in the church that have come to light, I don't really put much past the Catholic church or the high mucky-mucks. But this movie is really ridiculous.
The performances were okay, given what these poor people had to deal with. The Genevieve Bujold character is a riot; the role is a career-killer. I mean, bare breasts exposed, the woman is asking the Reeve character, "Do you think I'll make a good nun?" The Christopher Reeve character - that of a mafioso priest - is preposterous. I used to love Jason Miller. Not in this. I'm old enough to remember the old pope - were they kidding with that characterization of him?
Alas, today, you really wouldn't watch this with friends for a few laughs (as one of the older posts suggests) because it's just too awful to see young, handsome Christopher Reeve. So probably the best thing some higher-up can do is take this baby out of circulation. If I'm going to watch Christopher Reeve, I'll watch him fly and remember him when he was just starting out, vital, handsome, with it all in front of him.
There's nothing good to be said about this film except that it has glorious scenery. It's sad today to see Christopher Reeve healthy and walking - and wasting what little time he was going to have in rotgut like this. As someone raised in the Catholic church, I loved hearing the Latin again. Also with the recent scandals in the church that have come to light, I don't really put much past the Catholic church or the high mucky-mucks. But this movie is really ridiculous.
The performances were okay, given what these poor people had to deal with. The Genevieve Bujold character is a riot; the role is a career-killer. I mean, bare breasts exposed, the woman is asking the Reeve character, "Do you think I'll make a good nun?" The Christopher Reeve character - that of a mafioso priest - is preposterous. I used to love Jason Miller. Not in this. I'm old enough to remember the old pope - were they kidding with that characterization of him?
Alas, today, you really wouldn't watch this with friends for a few laughs (as one of the older posts suggests) because it's just too awful to see young, handsome Christopher Reeve. So probably the best thing some higher-up can do is take this baby out of circulation. If I'm going to watch Christopher Reeve, I'll watch him fly and remember him when he was just starting out, vital, handsome, with it all in front of him.
saw this as a sneak preview, and there was a lot of mumbling in full theater as reeve was cast as priest, to begin with. more mumbling ensued as film went on, then laughter, and occasional comments from crowd. loved scenes as lines of people approached the pope, and the overhead camera view was hysterical when eyes met. one comment from crowd was directed at diminuative pope character- "ET phone home". i've been looking for it on video for years for a good laugh, but couldn't even find it among reeve's credits. kudos to bujold for listing everything no matter how nasty... i don't remember anyone leaving the theater, as i've seen in some sneak previews, probably because the of the 'so bad it was good' factor.
I had watched this movie when I was growing up. May be I was 20 or so. There are only few movies after which I would think "what the hell did I watch just now?". This is one of them. What impressed me most were two things: 1. Character of Christopher Reeve wants to experience everything without inhibition. And is prepared to face consequences. In a way he is crazy brave. 2. Someone asked in one of the question\answer site if they knew a movie in which character goes in gradual degradation. This movie came to my mind. No matter what happens in the end, the character is aware that he has lived his life to the fullest (in a sense in a immoral bad way but I don't think he cares much about rules laid down by some other man).
One of my favorites.
One of my favorites.
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