Recensioni degli utenti

Doubt is a movie that pulls no punches and wastes no time. It is about a nun who suspects a priest of having an inappropriate relationship with a student in their school. I had fully anticipated that there would be a slower build to the confrontations in the story, but I'm not sure why I thought that might happen. Considering how brash and brazen Meryl Streep plays the Principal of the school, I should have known that subtlety wasn't going to be her preferred method of handling things. Her first confrontation with the priest was a heart-pounding scene that almost made my palms sweat as if I was part of the uncomfortable situation. It was perfect that they chose to also have Amy Adams there to offer a contrast as someone who wants to avoid the conflict.

I applaud Doubt for some wonderful acting performances across the board. This movie features an all-star level of talent, and they have some serious dramatic scenes that feel tailor-made for Oscar nominations. The film is hard to watch, though. I almost squirmed right out of my chair during the scene with Viola Davis, and there are several scenes with a similar tone. It doesn't have a cathartic release at the end, in fact many of the worst elements of the plot never feel resolved. There's an uncomfortable ugliness to the way things play out in this movie, and it makes me want to watch Spotlight right after so I feel satisfied that something more has been done. Doubt is one of those movies where I respect it more than I like it. There's no denying this is quality film-making, but it is not the kind that I want to subject myself to many times in the future.

Watch this movie once, with the idea that Fr. Flynn is guilty. Then watch it again, with the idea that he is innocent. Or do it the other way around. Shanley's dialogue is so perfectly, brilliantly ambiguous that this is really two movies in one. Both are powerful, and both possibilities are horrible to contemplate, for very different reasons.

Having seen both the play (during its original run with Cherry Jones and Brian F. O'Byrne) and the film, the play obviously has the edge because it's more intimate, consisting only of four characters. The film expands its milieu (as film versions of plays typically do) but I think having the schoolchildren, other nuns, and school staff present in the film diminishes it just a bit. The play, of course, is about "knowing" things that we don't actually know, and the movie shows us some of what the play leaves to the imagination. Although the ultimate question remains ambiguous, the viewer may be distracted by looking for clues in the other characters, especially the kids.

What gives this piece its power, though, on both stage and screen, is its stubborn refusal to answer that ultimate question, or to provide any solid evidence of either conclusion, leaving it entirely up to the viewer to judge these characters.

'Doubt' has turned out to be quite a fascinating puzzle. The story is pretty much told through dialogue rather than portrayal of events. Shanley's overwhelming screenplay is so effective and the element of mystery is carried out so strongly that even the viewer is left doubting the actions of the priest and the motives of the head nun (were her accusations legitimate or was it all an intent to ruin the priest). His incredible direction takes us through the psyche of the four principle characters.

Needless to say, the outstanding performances are just the necessary requirements that Shanley has successfully met. After all, who could ask for a better cast than Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams and Viola Davis? All these actors display some of the best acting of their career. It is both the dialogue delivery and the non-verbal gestures that strengthens the doubts in the viewers mind and makes the characters nonetheless more convincing.

The slightly washed-out colours give the look of the 60s but also adds to the mysterious atmosphere. 'Doubt' is a very thought-provoking film. It has one questioning. Should the nun have reacted or should she have waited for evidence? But what if it was already too late for evidence? What has doubt done to them? It has them questioning themselves constantly. It has stolen their sleep. We accept that it is human to doubt but what does doubt do to us? What kind of power does it hold above us? How do we react on it? When should we react on it? The director beautifully manages to convey and provoke this without appearing pretentious or preachy.

In 1964 the winds of change are sweeping through Sister Aloysius' (Meryl Streep) St. Nicholas school. Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a charismatic priest, is advocating reform of the school's strict customs, and the first black student has just been accepted. When a fellow nun (Amy Adams) tells Sister Aloysius that Father Flynn may be paying too much personal attention to the student, Sister Aloysius begins a personal crusade against the priest -- despite her lack of evidence. A Catholic grade school could seem like a hermetically sealed world in 1964. That's the case with St. Nicholas in the Bronx, ruled by the pathologically severe principal Sister Aloysius, who keeps the students and nuns under her thumb and is engaged in an undeclared war with the new parish priest. Their issues may seem to center around the reforms of Vatican II, then still under way, with Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) as the progressive, but for the nun I believe it's more of a power struggle. The pope's infallibility seems, in her case, to have descended to the parish level. Some will say the character of Sister Aloysius, played without a hint of humor . Sister Aloysius of "Doubt" hates all inroads of the modern world, including ballpoint pens. This is accurate. We practiced our penmanship with fountain pens, carefully heading every page "JMJ" -- for Jesus, Mary and Joseph, of course. Under Aloysius' command is the sweet young Sister James, whose experience in the world seems limited to what she sees out the convent window. Gradually during the autumn semester, the situation develops. There is one African-American student at St. Nicholas, Donald Miller, and Father Flynn encourages him in sports and appoints him as an altar boy. This is all proper. Then Sister James notes that the priest summons the boy to the rectory alone. She decides this is improper behavior, and informs Aloysius, whose eyes narrow like a beast of prey. Father Flynn's fate is sealed. But "Doubt" is not intended as a docudrama about possible sexual abuse. It is about the title word, doubt, in a world of certainty. For Aloysius, Flynn is certainly guilty. That the priest seems innocent, that Sister James comes to believe she was mistaken in her suspicions, means nothing. Flynn knows a breath of scandal would destroy his career. And that is the three-way standoff we watch unfolding with precision and tension. Something else happens. Donald's mother fears her son will be expelled from the school. He has been accused of drinking the altar wine. Worse, of being given it by Father Flynn. She appeals directly to Sister Aloysius. It lasts about 10 minutes, but it is the emotional heart and soul of "Doubt". Doubt. It is the subject of the sermon Father Flynn opens the film with. Doubt was coming into the church and the United States in 1964. After the assassination of Kennedy and the beginnings of Vietnam, doubt had undermined American certainty in general. What could you be sure of? What were the circumstances? The motives? The conflict between Aloysius and Flynn is the conflict between old and new, between status and change, between infallibility and uncertainty. And Shanley leaves us doubting. "Doubt" has exact and merciless writing, powerful performances and timeless relevance. It causes us to start thinking with the first shot, and we never stop. Think how rare that is in a film. I came to a different conclusion seeing this film. The entitled "doubt" was not about Father Flynn's guilt (which I believe becomes apparent toward the end of the film). The "doubt" is manifested in Sister Aloysius as she comes to doubt the institution of the Catholic Church she has devoted her life to. Instead of getting rid of the priest, the church covers up the crime. I think that would be enough to cause anyone to have "doubts". This was the last straw that caused this nun to have an emotional break down, reducing a once rigid woman certain in her beliefs to a sobbing and lost wreck of a human being. To answer the obvious mystery in the film - whether Father had some sinful (or criminal) relationship with a twelve year boy? The one word answer on the platter is 'Yes'. I don't think the plot of this movie made a lot of sense for its 1964 setting. Would a nun in 1964 really suspect a priest of sexual abuse based on nothing more than a shirt being placed in a locker? In 2018, after two decades of priest abuse stories in the media, sure; however, in 1964, at a time when no one would dare criticize a man of the cloth, I have my doubts. Either way, I did enjoy the film and thought it was well-acted.

And when I say dark, I'm not referring to the clothes in the movie. It's morally ambiguous and it might leave you with more questions than answers, but it's striking nevertheless. The powerhouse performances we get to see in this movie, are worthy Oscar contenders and leave free interpretations as to which character will be to your liking (or which character you despise the most).

While many movies do give you moral clarity, this one plays with many things, that are never fully uncovered ... or maybe they are and I'm just not willing to accept them? Actually it leaves room for some interpretations of things that went down (no pun intended). It's about guilt, it's about doubt and many other things, that makes us human. How you receive the movie might say a lot more about yourself than the movie itself. Which is a great thing. A movie that actually makes you think, even long after the credits finished ...

Wow! Incredible performances from Meryl Streep and Philip Seymore Hoffman. Mesmerizing intensity from Streep as the nun seeking to find Hoffman guilty of a sin he may or may not have committed. Amy Adams gives a sincere performance as the nun who sets the ball rolling with her suspicions that Hoffman may have molested a black student. The scenes between Streep and Hoffman crackle with intelligence and frightening intensity. Streep, as the unrelenting figure of justice, determined at any cost to destroy Hoffman, is terrifying and unrelenting. Hoffman gives a performance less restrained and mannered than the one he gave in Capote (and won the Oscar for) and boy, does he ever deserve to have won a second one for this outing. An absolute knockout, nuanced and convincing in every way. What a masterful performance! John Patrick Shanley's script is riveting from start to finish. If anyone has any doubts about watching this movie due to the theme then put those doubts aside as the writing and acting are without doubt amongst the finest ever committed to film. A superb piece of work.

Let me start by saying that I wasn't bored for one second and that it is always fascinating to see great actors chewing the scenery. Meryl Streep is one of my heroes she will always be be here something happened. Her performance is devoid of highs and/or lows. She goes through it in second gear. I had hoped for a performance of the Louise Fletcher as Nurse Ratchet with a pleasant almost benign exterior but a monstrous center and Philip Seymour Hoffman, another great, doesn't project any kind of sexual vibe so the sexual allegations may work on a stage play but not on the screen. The part needed a John Garfield. On top of that, there is something missing on the structure of the story. We're taken through two acts but the third act is missing. I didn't believe in that ending it felt to come out of left field. So yes, I was entertained but dissatisfied.

I was taken aback by the lack of nuance and subtlety. Meryl Streep is a monstrous nun from the very beginning and Philip Seymour Hoffman is a wimp that can shout but remains a wimp. I just didn't believe any of it, which is a pity because this are among my favorite actors of all time. I think that John Patrick Shanley (the writer, director) didn't have enough muscle to handle this enormous talents. Meryl's nun couldn't hide anywhere, she carries her intolerance, frustration and repression on her sleeve. She knows she is hated but according to her, that's her job. No, I didn't believe it. I thought what Vanessa Redgrave, Liv Ullman, Helen Mirren even Cherry Jones who played her on the stage could have done with this creature and then, Philip Seymour Hoffman's priest, without a single vibe of sexuality, imagine what Montgomery Clift could have done with that! After saying what I've said I also have to add that the film is never boring and that is also merit of the miscast leads. They are great fun to watch. The film is dedicated to Sister James, the young nun played by the wonderful Amy Adams, so this is based on a real case? I don't believe that either.

There are no better actors working in American film today than Meryl Streep and Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Streep has been on top for some time now and Hoffman has an unmatched resume of fine performances over the past five years. Pairing off as adversaries in John Patrick Shanley's stage play brought to screen they parry and prod throughout with each landing hay makers along the way.

Change is in the wind in 1964 for both the world and the Catholic Church (Second Vatican Council) as the country moves from conservatism to liberal thought. Sister Aloysius (Streep)is the principal of an inner city Catholic school who rules with an iron fist. Lamenting the loss of tradition (she thinks Frosty the Snowman is a song about worshiping false idols) she crosses swords with the popular and laid back Father Flynn who takes a more liberal view seeing the need to keep up with the times. His progressive ways gnaw at Sister Aloysius and she is soon suspecting Father Flynn of inappropriate relationship with altar boys even though she is without concrete proof.

The scenes between Streep and Hoffman are riveting from start to finish. Both attempt at first to be civil with each other but eventually they end up at each others throat bullying and threatening. It is a titanic emotional struggle that makes for a gripping drama flawlessly acted. I'm no big fan of Streep, finding the adopted accents she employs in some of her films false and hollow, but as the self righteous Nunzilla her pugnacious style and inflection rates with her Sophie's Choice performance. Hoffman has his work cut out for him to keep up with the formidable legend but he holds his own with equal footing.

In supporting roles Amy Adams is very effective as the unintended go between Sister James. Seized with doubt she like the audience mirrors our own misgivings as conflicted objective observers. Viola Davis as a troubled boy's mother has one lengthy powerful and painful scene that begins to tie loose ends together but offers no easy solution.

Writer director John Patrick Shanley does an admirable job in keeping the plot nebulous with ambivalent scenes and peripheral characters that purposefully enhance the suspense. Scenes are tightly edited with sparse but effective dialog giving the film its steady pace. Other than some jarring oblique angle shots the camera compositions and set design provide a somber ambiance for the drama and an arena for the perfectly measured performances by two masters of the craft in this fight to the finish that remains absorbing from beginning to end.

Normally we give too much credit to actors. They often work for short periods and force myriad takes. Directors manipulate and cajole them. Then the filmmakers spend months choosing the best shots, carving them and stringing them together to make the story (and the long-gone actors) look good.

"Doubt" is an exception, only in that the actors are especially marvelous. The many close-ups and the length of the shots attest to the trust John Patrick Shanley puts in them. Streep and Hoffman are superb. Adams and Davis are remarkable as well.

Still the most credit for this phenomenal effort must go to Shanley.

What a fascinating story, with layers and springbacks that will leave you thinking and rethinking.

Thank you very much to all involved with this fine film.

"Doubt" dares to explore one of the most compelling issues of recent years, and to do so with a completely unmanipulative perspective with no sermonizing.

The linear narrative style is refreshing, with no flashbacks and flash forwards, and no contamination of the story (set in the early 1960s) with the hindsight of recent events. It is relentless. We see the events of those days without any cinematic deus ex machina. We are not privileged to any all-showing exposition of critical events. We have only the souls of the principles as expressed in their dialog and in their faces.

With the mighty acting duo of Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep, and a more than able supporting cast and superb direction, "Doubt" has dramatic fireworks without cheap gimmicks.

The final 30 seconds puts a fitting cap on the message. The effect is devastating.