L'épreuve

I think this film is worthy of comment because of the competent way in which it was directed, the general standard of acting, and the filming qualities. A moving and sensitive storyline, excellently portrayed in an attractive setting. A greatly memorable film.

What a dull film which only really perked up towards the very final stages. So much more could have been made of this narrative - and there was some decent acting talent on board too: Anthony La Paglia is almost always a stalwart; Peter Firth is generally good value; and Jorge Sanz is a charismatic actor and a big star in his native Spain. However Sanz was woefully under-used here, and the lead female Embeth Davidtz, while undoubtedly a reasonable actress, is best when arch and witty, but is badly miscast here as too soft and winsome.

The plot meandered, the script was lifeless, the actors had assumed horribly phony sounding accents which grated after the first five minutes: this was really was a case of direction-by-numbers. The La Paglia/Davidtz will they, won't they 'romance' was mildly intriguing - carried by LaPaglia who has to grapple with his inner conscience throughout, as he is a Catholic Priest but is clearly very attracted to Adriana (Davidtz). So this gets a 4 for LaPaglia, and for a minor fillip of interest due to a suspenseful and tragic finish.

This isn't the most original plot in the world, but it's definitely a sweet and touching tale nonetheless. The beautiful visuals highlight LaPaglia's tender performance of a shy, quiet priest trying to get by during WWII. In particular, this is a showcase of LaPaglia's wonderful array of sad-eyed expressions, puppy-dog guilty looks, and heart-grabbing sighs. If you dig LaPaglia in emotional settings, you will definitely want to see this movie.

The other acting is also quite good.

The "Italian" accents aren't always top-notch and I would have preferred the movie to not have used accents in that way at all, but it's a minor complaint.

This turgid, badly directed film is of a genre which was done so much better in the 1940's and '50's that you must ask: "Why did they bother?" It must have cost the usual millions - they would have done much more good if they had given to the Society for the Support of One Winged Butterflies or something. Boring.

Saw this film the other night on BBC 1. It was timed for transmission shortly after an episode of "Without a Trace" being screened on Channel 4. As Anthony LaPaglia was the starring role in the film and the TV show it made for an interesting comparison. In the event LaPaglia was in sensitive mode in both, which though he is admirably capable of chewing up the scenery as good as Al Pacino, that he didn't, instead investing the characters with warmth and an amazing depth of feeling, just served to indicate what an excellent actor he is(see "Without a Trace - Malone v. Malone" for comparison). The film in question was good, and very understated, much to its credit. The cinematography was beautiful. The acting by all the cast was good throughout. Though this kind of story (priest suffering a crisis of conscience) has been done before I don't think I have ever seen a version of this theme executed in such a restrained yet tender manner. For this the credit must go equally to the scriptwriter and the wonderful sense of callowness mixed with sensitivity with which LaPaglia endowed the role of Don Paolo.