"Could've been a nice TV mini-series I wouldn't have watched."
There is a seemingly unavoidable catch-22 of historical films, compromise historical accuracy for entertainment's sake, or stay true to fact and risk losing a wide audience for presentation. The depiction of early American crime and politics in last year's Gangs of New York was generally thought of as an exaggeration. Audiences didn't care so long as the blood kept consistently spilling. Luther suffers on all accounts; its portrayal of Martin Luther lacks biographical credibility, doesn't have a wide audience and has less entertainment value than a textbook.The movie gets off to a sputtering start, as a series of random scenes, rather than a coherent introduction, gives us the basis of Luther's life. We see him as a student questioning the infallible ideas the professor presents, getting shocked by lightning and converting, then as a monk gaining an audience for his relatively radical views of faith. He impresses an elder and is sent to Rome, only to be dismayed over the Church's new idea of indulgences and Pope Leo XII in general. That may or may not be the chronological order of events in Luther's life or the film, but the film's biggest problem is that it only evokes attention, not interest.
To take on the Holy Roman Empire and create a Reformation would require a character of strong mind and self-confidence, of unbreakable spirit and unstoppable persistence. Joseph Fiennes is undoubtedly a talented actor, but he seems to have gone about Luther from a completely different angle. His Luther is filled with self-doubt and when he speaks about the church policies he rarely seems inspirational, sometimes it's just whiny. Sure Luther was angered and disappointed by the Peasants' revolt in his name, Fiennes' performance of Luther would make us believe he was bi-polar.
Jonathan Till has directed dozens of TV movies, and everything about Luther feels like a cable network's movie of the month that's shown repeatedly for a week. The complexities of the power struggle between church and state of the time are nonexistent; the origins of the Reformation are captured in only a small way. For the sake of finding a silver lining, though misguided, Fiennes' performance is well crafted. The film feels like a cable movie, but based on those standards it's pretty good.The film leads us to believe that the Reformation happened solely because Luther didn't like the idea of indulgences. The creators of this film have completely missed the scope of a movement that changed world religion. What we're left with is a soap opera between corrupt church leaders and Luther trying to legitimize it. What is learned from this version of Martin Luther's life is something easily found in a book or a well-made documentary.
eFilmCritic.com: Australia's Largest Movie Review Database. Privacy Policy | HBS Inc. | | All data and site design copyright 1997-2010, HBS Entertainment, Inc.