Interesteg
What makes it different from others?
Spoonixel
Amateur movie with Big budget
ereinion
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.
lpersons-2
I had never heard of this movie but thought I would spend the 2 hours watching it. I was very disappointed. The acting, including Christopher Reeves was very disappointing. Many times throughout the movie the sound seemed impossible to hear clearly what was being said, so it made the movie hard to follow. I am surprised that the catholic church didn't object to this movie, it paints the catholic church and the Vatican in very poor light. The plot line left much to be desired as well. The entire movie did not fit well.... I believe there was suppose to be time lapses, but they are never explained and it leaves you scratching your head wondering what is going on. This movie is not worth the 2 hours to watch it.
mjhuber
This movie is a smart, absorbing and different take on the Vatican, exposing the high stakes politicking and personal vanities that impact the actions of the Church. There are no saints in this movie, only real people played with empathy and unusual perspective. A very young Christopher Reeves takes on a challenging role and pulls off the complexity and credibility the movie calls for. The supporting cast is excellent, a joy to watch. The movie keeps you guessing and praying. This is not a movie for dullards, if you appreciate an intelligent and compelling movie, try this one. It will surprise you, pleasantly. It tackles a subject matter that is very timely now with the various Church conspiracy books fad, such as "The Da Vinci Code." I am trying to find more information on the subject of the movie, presumably Archbishop Paul Marcinkus.
jotix100
It's inconceivable that a director like Frank Perry could have been associated with "Monsignor". Mr. Perry was a man responsible for some good movies in the sixties and seventies. Who knows what might have attracted him to direct this high camp picture that should be better forgotten.The plot of the movie is preposterous, at best. The point the movie is trying to make is how the Catholic Church makes a perfect partner with the Mafia, something that could only make sense to the author of the novel. The second theme deals with the way Flaherty falls in love with the novice Clara, and how he keeps from her the secret of his identity, which is obvious, as the pair move in the same circles, so it would be inevitable for the young woman to find out who her lover really is."Monsignor" wastes two hours in trying to make sense without success. The cast does what it can trying to give life to these one dimensional characters they were asked to bring to life for the movie. Not even the musical score by John Williams does anything to help the movie.Future viewers are warned as to what to expect.
