Console best movie i've ever seen.

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Kirpianuscus a monk. and the balance between virtue and sin. a medieval story. and the realities of each century. it is not easy to use, in right manner, a delicate theme like this. but The Monk is a decent example and its basic virtue is the performance of Vincent Cassel who gives to the father Ambrosio the right portrait of fight against temptations and who has its fail as result of the need to be yourself. a film about solitude and mission, it is one of films who preserves the flavor of a fascinating period , talking, with delicacy, about ours. and this fact does the film interesting. seductive. strange. because it is only the chronicle of an war who has the virtue to be not only the war against himself of a man of Church. it is a film about choices. who are more than choices of a monk. and, more important, it is a bridge to a manner to discover and assume reality who could not be reduced at a sketch of a past page from history.

Roland E. Zwick Based on the Matthew Gregory Lewis novel published in 1796, the oft-adapted "The Monk" is a cinematic oddity about a 16th Century Spanish friar (the understated Victor Cassel) who's winning souls to Christ despite the fact that he is deep into his own crisis of faith (though the movie takes place in Spain, the dialogue is in French). The screenplay by Dominik Moll (who also directed the film) and Anne-Loiuse Trividic is rich in irony as Friar Ambrosio seeks salvation from the very same people who are seeking it from him. Only, in his case, salvation lies in becoming MORE worldly - particularly in the realm of sexuality - not less so. Raised an orphan in the monastery, Ambrosio is coming to realize that there are aspects of the outside world that his cloistered existence has never allowed him to experience, and that, perhaps, God is reaching out to him with the message that it might not be all that bad for him to give himself over to them.Many people and factors seem to be conspiring to bring him to this realization, including a woman disguised as a mask-wearing monk (her cover is that she claims to have suffered disfiguring burns to "his" face); a beautiful, innocent young woman who comes to him for spiritual guidance; a pregnant nun; a series of supernatural dreams and visions; a really nasty poisonous centipede, and a strategically placed, crashing gargoyle.Or is he simply falling prey to the Devil's lies and machinations and trying to find a way to justify rebelling against God? It takes about half the length of the movie before we are finally hooked into the story, but, once we are, it becomes a powerful dissertation on the struggle between the flesh and the spirit that has defined the human condition for as long as we have inhabited this planet. The overly enigmatic plotting and deliberate pacing that function as distancing devices at the outset of the movie eventually pay off as the movie's theme crystallizes into sharper view.

brianejsmith This film is a very slow paced - they even walk slowly - procession of characters, some mystical, others real, but all of whom come and go without explanation or point. I assume that their characters and their reason for being in the film are better explained in french and that the English subtitles are the problem. But, as it is, subtitled, the film simply makes no sense. In the end, you just don't care. None of the unexplained characters grab you because you don't know what their purpose in the plot is. They are all dull, two dimensional and completely lacking in identifiable personality.And, when all is done and the film is concluding, is the final scene mystical or real? Thought about it for about 30 seconds and decided I didn't care. I didn't like Ambrosio - the main character - and I didn't like this movie.

Paolo A. Gardinali Yes, we get it, it's the sixties/seventies all over again. Did we need 101 minutes predictable bore to remind us how films were (poorly) shot? So we get it all in one dose: bad special effects, a papier mâché Madrid with thunder and lightning, overexposed sun-blanched exteriors . And of course the erotic and religious ecstasy in the convent, the self-flagellation, sacrilege, incest, murder soft porn shot in soft lights, a pact with the devil, a novice in an iron mask. It would have been great if shot by Roger Corman or Mario Bava 40-50 years ago (think The Whip and the Body). Unfortunately, I have seen this movie already multiple times back then, Did we need a reminder? I'll give it 3 stars for the nostalgia effect and the sparse erotic scenes. If you don't care about that, stay away from this waste of time.