ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Noutions Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Majikat Idris Elba emerced himself into this role so well he really could be no-one else but Luther for me ever. Top quality drama from the very start.

Ross622 This movie is arguably one of weakest and most boring history movies ever made base on a very interesting true story which makes this 2/10 rating for the film even more unfortunate, in real life Martin Luther was a man considered to be a hero to the people that liked him because in real life he stood up to the things that he thought was wrong without any hesitation, but unfortunately it is not the case with the 2003 film version which makes Luther look like he was a huge wuss. The film obviously is a character study about Luther (played by Joseph Fiennes) and the many key moments in his life such as "the protestant reformation", and writing his 95 theses which were arguments in which gave reasons why the things that the Catholic church was doing wrong during the 16th century. The main reason why Luther is more aware of what the Catholic church is doing is because of a priest named Johann Tetzel (played by Alfred Molina, who tries to act like a Native American chief in one of those old western movies) who is responsible for selling these indulgences which were pardons on paper in order to gain entry in to heaven which is one of the dumbest things a church could do from what I think was just about bribing people just so that they could get their own money so they could trick the people who are buying the indulgences by instead of making them get an entry into heaven but an entry into hell instead. There was one thing about this movie that disappointed me the most about this film is the fact that profanity in a church was thought to be appropriate for talking to one another for when in fact it isn't, and especially th cast ruining themselves of good money but they wasted it all on this film besides Fiennes and Molina, but as well as Bruno Ganz and the legendary Peter Ustinov (who looks like he is going to cry himself to sleep). Director Eric Till has made one of the least memorable historical film adaptations in cinema history because of what to me the answer is simple he just didn't put enough effort into this film that was supposed to be a landmark in American movie-making. Though I did like what the story was about the acting, directing, and poor writing is what made this movie to be a great cinematic flaw. I even hated this film so much that I hope never to see this film again in my entire life.

RainDogJr My homework for one of my Communication and Journalism classes was to watch Eric Till's 2003 biopic of Martin Luther. I never heard a thing about this film before and hell I only knew the name of Martin Luther but not really who the man was and stuff. So if not for doing my homework I would never had seen this religious film and learn something about Martin Luther. My first impression was good, I was like "well at least some names in the credits are familiar, Alfred Molina and Bruno Ganz". Technically the film is competent, is a well-done film even that sometimes it looks quite like a TV movie. The acting is good and is actually Alfred Molina the one who for me delivers the best performance in the film. It is a very small performance tough, but when Alfred Molina appears everything comes together: his very good performance and what is for me the most enjoyable, the best part of the film. And is not that it's like a great piece of film-making, no, is just that is an engaging part with Martin Luther (Joseph Fiennes… he's decent if not fantastic. I'm just realizing he played William Shakespeare in the famous Best Picture winner Shakespeare in Love, certainly I haven't seen that picture… I'm waiting until I have to do it to do my homework!) continuing to see what's really f***** up with the church. Actually, I quite enjoyed all of the stuff with Luther opening the eyes to the people who were buying their stairways to heaven and later facing the superiors. Is pretty much obvious and classic stuff, you can forget the religious aspect since is just the classic situation of a man doing the right thing and because of that going totally against the ones with the power, the evil ones, you know ("f*** the indulgences, better give that money to the people who really need it"… that was basically the main thing with Luther). But the film stops being engaging to eventually be totally uninteresting and plain boring, pretty much when Luther goes to see the church people ends the entertaining parts and when Luther confirms that wrote the certain books the film begins to be totally uninteresting. So, I did learn a bit about Luther (the main connection with the stuff I'm doing in the class is the stuff of the church treating people that they are going to suffer forever in hell and stuff) and for some moments I wasn't very p*ssed off with the fact that I was seeing a religious film on a Saturday afternoon instead of one of the DVDs I got the day I rented Luther (I got The People vs. Larry Flint, 6ixtynin9 and a documentary of James Dean). If you don't care about Martin Luther, there's no reason why you should check out this film, it's not bad (though some bits like the whole stuff with Luther "fighting" with God are pretty ridiculous) but very far from being something special.

jriddick07 Luther is without a doubt one of the best movies I've had the opportunity to see this year. Joseph Fiennes is Martin Luther, the professor-turned-revolutionary that shook 16th century Europe to its core.The film is remarkably in its historical accuracy, a rarity in dealing with films about historically-influential people. It doesn't pull punches, showing the brutal violence and persecution that religious differences caused among the people of Germany. There are some inaccuracies, however, most notably Luther's quoting of the Bible by chapter and verse when such a change in organization wasn't made until several years after his death. Other than this, the research that has gone into the film was very well done, with a good portion of the dialogue being direct quotes from the people portrayed.Of course, all this research would be useless without good casting, which this movie possesses in abundance. Fiennes gives an excellent portrayal of Martin Luther, showing him as the imperfect human being that he was, not the semi-deity that legend has made him out to be. His wife, Katharina von Bora, is played by Claire Cox, who rises above the limited screen-time that she was given. Then there is, of course, the late Sir Peter Ustinov, who undertook the role of Martin Luther's patron and protector, Prince Frederick (the Wise) of Saxony. Ustinov brings life to his character, who is mentioned often in historical records, but never discussed as much as his subject. Although his portrayal is inaccurate from what we know of the man – the real Prince Frederick was a shrewd political manipulator, not quite the grandfatherly figure he's made out to be in the film – it's not a detriment to the film in any way.In conclusion, Luther is an excellent movie that never quite received the attention it deserved. It portrays the world-changing events of the Protestant Reformation accurately and sets a new par for the historical film genre. I give it 9 Stars out of 10 and heartily recommend it to anyone interested in this period of history.