Lutero

I just came from the St. Louis premier (in conjunction with the 14th annual Theological Symposium at Concordia Seminary) and am very impressed with the film. Not only is it entertaining, but it follows the history of Luther's early years of ministry quite faithfully. Sure, some things were fictionalized to get us from one scene to another, but the facts of the reformation movement, and the realities of life in the 16th century are brought to great realism on the screen.

The performances of Fiennes, and Ustinov were particularly strong, but I think viewers will fall in love with Ustinov's portrayal of Prince Friedrich, the Wise. He's like the cuddly grandpa you always wished you had (or maybe you did have) who didn't care what people thought of them, said and did what they pleased, and no one gave them any crap for it. I truly think it is Oscar calibre work. I think you will too.

Firth as Aleandro was convincing as the Roman Bureaucrat determined to get ahead by keeping the peace between Leo and Charles. Ganz plays a great pastor to Luther - throughout his life - one that we should all be so lucky to have looking after our spiritual well being.

Hofschneider, as the eager to learn and willing to "suffer all for the Gospel" assistant (Ulrick) to Luther made it very easy for the viewer to feel a connection to him. His loyalty was genuine, and not self serving. A true man of the cloth.

Although not on screen long, Clair Cox does a nice job showing just how strong a woman Katie was. Is it any wonder that she went on to run a rather successful business apart from Martin's influence?

For sure this is a courageous movie about a stalwart leader of Church, state, and society to whom western civilization owes a great debt. While the 1950's version of Luther may be more complete in some respects, it is not nearly as accesable to today's viewers who are used to big budget, visually stimulating, and fast paced movies

I was expecting a Christian movie with a tight budget,and a goofy script...Not so!! This movie brought back memories of Chariots of Fire and Braveheart in its dipiction of courage and the conviction of Martin Luther. The script was excellent as well as the filming,music and editing. All of the characters were so believable that I felt that I was there among them. During most of the movie, you could have heard a pin drop it the theatre as well all felt the wide range of emotions. This is not a Catholic bashing movie, but rather and expose of the elitist powerbase of not only the early european church but the government of many of the countries in the 14-1500's. Even if you know nothing of church history or Christianity, you owe it to yourself to experience this movie...you won't be dissappointed.

The life of the 16th-century German monk Martin Luther (1483-1546) was filled with inner compulsions, focusing on his crucial years of his crusade against the Catholic Church, leading to his break with the Roman Catholic Church…

Director Eric Till presents Rome as a shattered city where depravity was everywhere… This infuriated Luther who could not believe that Rome is a circus describing it as 'a running sewer, where you can bye anything, sex, and salvation, and where they also have brothels for clerics.'

He also witnesses the church collecting coins from the people supposedly to free their sins to build Saint Peter's Church and would be therefore released from Purgatory and enter the Heaven…

Luther was eventually branded a heretic, his books examined and burned, and anyone who presumes to infringe Pope Leo's excommunication will stand under the wrath of Almighty God and the Apostles Peter and Paul…

The reaction of the peasants in Germany was against the reaction of the Inquisition who was burning his writings…For the German people "you can't burn his ideas." For the Church, his works shall be erased from the memory of man!

Luther's criticism was not against his Holiness, Pope Leo X, but of those rogues who claim to represent him… His goal was not to quarrel with the Pope or the Church but to defend them than mere opinion! The Gospel, as he affirmed, cannot be denied for the word of man!

As a loyal son of the Church, Luther finds sanctuary with Prince Frederick, who finds him too daring for him but decides not to surrender him to Rome… Luther goes on to produce his first translation of the New Testament Bible into German language… He marries the ex-nun, Katerina Von Borg, becomes a hero to the people and in spite of his outlaw status with the Church authorities, his followers ultimately break with Rome…

Joseph Fiennes played intensely the intriguing story of a brilliant Augustinian monk with an independent mind who is not interested in comfort but in the truth!

Sir Peter Ustinov—in his final role—realizes the danger Luther poses to the Catholic Church…

Alfred Molina as Brother John Tetzel, is the showman terrorizing the good people of Jüterbog into purchasing special indulgences letting everyone know the fires of hell awaiting those who did not contribute…

Johann Von Staupitz is the spiritual counselor who knows that Martin has aptitude for law, and could be send to Rome for a legal brief…

Claire Cox is Luther's beautiful wife who stood behind her young 16th century monk driven by courage and outrage against a powerful Medieval Church

The beauty of Luther is its drama and its casting. Joseph Fiennes did what he does best as the angst-riddled Luther, playing a complex and haunted character that filled the screen even in his quietest moments. The supporting cast was also fabulous, particularly the merry-in-the-face-of-danger performances by Bruno Ganz and Peter Ustinov.

What's troubling, then, about Luther is that the movie just isn't long enough to portray the story accurately, and therefore it feels not only unfinished but full of gaps. Things happen one against another, people come and go with little explanation, and yet the story marches on. Luther's mission is clear, but his purposes are so boiled down that only a few of his famous Theses are actually voiced in the movie. Shortening the story was obviously necessary for a movie, but in all, I think it acts against the dramatic effect of the film as a whole because things end up with a certain disjointed feel.

Still, the cinematography is brilliant and the acting nearly perfect. The film is worth seeing for its visual splendor (in both performance and sets) alone, and certainly as an introduction to a complex historical topic.

The title of Bryan Adams' song "Can't Stop This Thing We Started" aptly describes this 2003 retelling of the story of Martin Luther. The film basically depicts Luther as a good Catholic, loyal to the Pope but horrified by the scandals and corruption that plagued the 16th century Church. He is even more horrified when his effort to reform the Church gets out of control, is co-opted for political purposes, and becomes a popular revolution with the attendant carnage and bloodshed. I suspect Luther has been highly romanticized here. For one thing, the film follows him from age 34 to 50, yet (as embodied by the angelically handsome Joseph Fiennes) he never ages a day. His relationship with Katharina von Bora seems astonishingly chaste -- no struggle with the lusts of the flesh for this pious monk! His demons are of a different kind. We see scenes where Luther seems plagued by demons, thrashing about in his cell, hearing unseen voices. (I know Luther was manic-depressive, but I hardly think he was a madman.) The film provides a good summary or outline of the major events of Luther's life and times: the selling of indulgences, the Ninety-Five Theses nailed to the door of Wittenberg Church, the Diet of Worms (a council presided over by Emperor Charles V), the Confession of Augsburg. The costumes accurately reflect historical reality. If I have any quarrel with the film in this regard, it is that it does not adequately mirror a key factor in the struggle between Germany and Rome: the principle of "cuius regio, eius religio". In other words, local princes and kings imposed their own religious beliefs on the peoples they governed. The cast is a constellation of stars, veritable luminaries, including Sir Peter Ustinov in one of his last roles as Frederick of Saxony. The actors are uniformly excellent in their roles, and the dialogue is well written. The photography is somewhat static, leading me to believe this film was made with television in mind -- albeit of the highbrow kind, in the Masterpiece Theatre tradition. Still, if anyone asked me if I recommended "Luther", I would reply as he did at the Diet of Worms: "Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."