Stella Days

Just watched this independent film starring Martin Sheen on Netflix disc with my mom. We both pretty much enjoyed this drama about Sheen as a priest finding himself stuck in Ireland instead of going back to Rome when a bishop inquires him about building a new church. In order to get some funds in order, however, Sheen suggests a cinema which meets some opposition from a politician who decries the "American filth" invading the Irish populace during the not-so-modern '50s timeline as the public is also starting to get used to some electric appliances. There's more to this drama but I'll stop there and just say that while I didn't always know what was going on initially, by the end, I think I understood enough. So on that note, Stella Days is recommended.

I took my Mum to see this film, never imagining I would enjoy it as much as I did.

Martin Sheen is commendable as the world weary Fr. Daniel Barry - a man living with the legacy of a vocation thrust upon him as a young boy by ambitious parents. The film offers a snapshot of life in claustrophobic, rural 1950's Ireland, with overlaying themes of longing, control and unfulfilled desires - set against the backdrop of an oppressive status quo.

Recommended - but don't expect to emerge from the cinema bellowing with laughter.

The main character,played by Martin Sheen ,is the most interesting;too bad they focused on his passion for cinema and his will to have a movie theater ,in spite of the well-meanings from his flock .The question of his faith is much more important:when the old lady passes away ,he realizes that she was not a true believer ,and flashbacks about the priest's childhood show that he did not feel a vocation for priesthood (he tells it so:"God never called me" ).It was his mother's dream (and selfishness),not his.

But this side of the priest (which is ,all in all,essential) is too underwritten .The other parts are cardboard ,particularly Stephen Rea's grumpy notable.The young teacher is more endearing but his affair with his (married with a kid) landlady is quite derivative ,even if he compares her to Jane Wyman in " All that heaven allows" -thus we learn that the story takes place after 1955,whereas the hints at Rex Ingram's "four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" and " The prisoner of Zenda" ,could make us believe the action happened much earlier.(though they were remade later)

Besides ,the choice (by chance?) of "from here to eternity" ( 1953) is not what you call a smart one to test the equipment;and it includes the famous scene when Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr (mistaken for Liz Taylor!) have an adulterous relationship at that! See it for Martin Sheen's moments of doubt and fear.

I saw this recently in a sneak preview,I was expecting a bit more from the story and the cast but I was disappointed with both.It started off at a slow pace and stayed that way.That is not always a bad thing in a film,some can be wonderful and slow moving for example Spring,Summer,Autumn,Winter and Spring(2003)dir:Ki-duk Kim,but it would have been good to see it get out of 2nd gear.Martin Sheen could have phoned in his performance with the effort he put in to it and Stephen Rea played the part of... Stephen Rea,surprise that. The cinema was half full and it was a free show,which says a lot.People were laughing at a lot of the customs of Irish people and the influence of the church which was at the height of it's power in Ireland at that time.This saddened me as I was born,reared and still live in that land.Go see it if you want to have a look at rural Ireland in 1956 as the production values were excellent and very accurate.The sad thing about a freebie is that you cannot ask for your money back,but in a recession I cant say no as I paid 13.20euros the day before to see Hugo in 3D in the same cinema. J.Lavelle - Dublin,Ireland 2012

Two stars. This story was a profane look at the Catholic Church. It contained unnecessary language and sexual content, both of which indicate to me a lack of imagination on the part of the writers. There were no virtuous messages gained from this movie. Pictures in the 30s and 40s were able to be captivating without language or sex. Why do modern writers and producers lack the ability to present a story without salacious content. As I was always told, when a person uses vulgarity or obscenity to express themselves, it is an indication that they lack the ability to communicate intelligently.

The priest has no biblical Christian values to share with the audience. Martin Sheen is supposedly a Roman Catholic in real life. He makes the priesthood look like nothing more than a new-age, "god within you" sort of role. He overlooks and actually condones the sexual immorality of a parishioner, and sides with the adulterers as if they are the heroes of the story. The movie uses profanity that I know was not common in the 1950s. Just overall a lackluster, meaningless movie.