Opiniones de usuarios

Someone on a game show once named this as his favorite bad movie, citing that hilarious scene in the church when Genevieve Bujold, playing a tramp postulant, realizes that her boyfriend is a priest.

There's nothing good to be said about this film except that it has glorious scenery. It's sad today to see Christopher Reeve healthy and walking - and wasting what little time he was going to have in rotgut like this. As someone raised in the Catholic church, I loved hearing the Latin again. Also with the recent scandals in the church that have come to light, I don't really put much past the Catholic church or the high mucky-mucks. But this movie is really ridiculous.

The performances were okay, given what these poor people had to deal with. The Genevieve Bujold character is a riot; the role is a career-killer. I mean, bare breasts exposed, the woman is asking the Reeve character, "Do you think I'll make a good nun?" The Christopher Reeve character - that of a mafioso priest - is preposterous. I used to love Jason Miller. Not in this. I'm old enough to remember the old pope - were they kidding with that characterization of him?

Alas, today, you really wouldn't watch this with friends for a few laughs (as one of the older posts suggests) because it's just too awful to see young, handsome Christopher Reeve. So probably the best thing some higher-up can do is take this baby out of circulation. If I'm going to watch Christopher Reeve, I'll watch him fly and remember him when he was just starting out, vital, handsome, with it all in front of him.

The tag-line for this film begins "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned".

And that's not so much being said by the protagonist of "Monsignor" but by the director, actors, writers, best boys, gaffers, caterers and the guys who swept the floor afterwards on this disaster.

As the "Monsignor" of the title, Christopher Reeve plays a man who moves his way up through the Catholic church through dubious means - murder, theft, the Black Market during WWII... you know, the usual stuff. And there's even enough time for him to seduce a nun (Bujold)!

I know next to nothing about Catholicism, so I cannot say what if any of this kind of activity holds any validity. But what does this mean: that those involved in the Vatican's business affairs are only bookkeepers who work under the guise of religion for otherwise nefarious means? I'd hope not, but this movie seems to think otherwise.

Reeve is a good actor, always will be. What he saw in this kind of film is beyond me. Maybe he thought (like Faye Dunaway did in "Mommie Dearest") that something so broad and unimaginably coarse could only be played as a comedy, so why not just go with the flow?

And if he thought that, he was right! "Monsignor" has scenes that play as out-and-out comedy; never have you seen so many (unintentional?) sight gags in your life, and the stony faces that permeate this film might make you believe that Buster Keaton must have been a busy man at one time or another.

So, "Monsignor" is a bad film, but it's also good for one of those nights when you have a few friends over, a few beers, lots of popcorn and nothing better to do than have a few laughs at someone else's expense.

Those involved in organized religion, say.

Two stars. Eight if you're an agnostic.

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.

I had watched this movie when I was growing up. May be I was 20 or so. There are only few movies after which I would think "what the hell did I watch just now?". This is one of them. What impressed me most were two things: 1. Character of Christopher Reeve wants to experience everything without inhibition. And is prepared to face consequences. In a way he is crazy brave. 2. Someone asked in one of the question\answer site if they knew a movie in which character goes in gradual degradation. This movie came to my mind. No matter what happens in the end, the character is aware that he has lived his life to the fullest (in a sense in a immoral bad way but I don't think he cares much about rules laid down by some other man).

One of my favorites.

If you love bad movies this rates a 10. A sad Camp Triumph for the great, for a while, Frank Perry the director. Christopher Reeve stiffly makes no impression, as he did in most of his non superman roles. Some good European actors do what the can, for Genevieve Bujold all this amounts to is stripping naked. John Williams composes perhaps the most over the top piece of music in film history for the scene in the cathedral where sinner and saint meet. Also in the mix are some mob killing scenes leftover from a Godfather movie, actually these are the best done scenes in the film, the only ones that work. The rest is either over or under acted and done in a way that tries to be serious in a way that makes it totally campy. A better approach would have been to just go for the sleaze and make this one of those sort of exploitation sex-in-the-confession-booth films, that's really all this is at heart. In case you are a snob and think that only low budget films can suck, look at this beauty and realize that with money you can suck really really hard, and I mean that in a bad way. Everyone involved in this should or could rate this as a career low. Reeve claimed there was a great film and they lost it in the editing room. Well, no it's still here to be enjoyed. One of the worst Hollywood films ever, but if you take in in the bad film frame of mind there are many highlights.

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.

A really bad movie essentially has to be a broken promise. You go to see a Troma flick or something by Ed Wood, and you pretty much know the expectations are low, and they'll be realized. On the other hand, when you've got a decent budget, a fairly ambitious plot, studio backing, and a cast of well-known actors -- that's what it takes to set up a really bad movie. Monsignor is harder to appreciate for all its awfulness in light of the real life tragedy suffered by Christopher Reeve. But it must be said that Reeve's acting is at the heart of this Really Bad Movie. Reeve plays a priest who essentially breaks every rule and vow -- and is rewarded with rapid and consistent promotion, all the way to the heights of the Vatican. Corrupt, sleeps with nuns -- and he becomes the Vatican's trusted financial manager. There doesn't seem to be much logic behind his brilliant career -- or behind much else that happens in this film. Some bad films are hard to watch, but this one is more in the head-scratcher category... what the hell were they thinking?

I have read some of the negative comments on this film, they must have been written by staunch Catholics. One person said Miss Bujolds career was ruined by this movie if that is so it is a shame.

I have watched this Movie many times. Monsignor delves into the many aspects of human sin and how we all fail God every moment of every day that we live. I think those who dislike this film have latched onto the notion that nuns and priest are perfect,they should pick up the paper.

Monsignor is a sad film but a good one,sad because of the longings of the heart not fulfilled. This film hit home with me because of the many times our deepest longings go unfulfilled.

This movie also had many redemptive qualities to it. I also think I liked it because it did not go the way I wanted it to.

One of the worst films ever made by big Hollywood. Sometimes it's so bad, it's funny, but not funny enough. Reeve is out of his depth, but the script is so bad no one could have saved it. Genevieve Bujold is a fine actress and tries gamely, but this part nearly destroyed her career. Classic scene: when the postulant (Bujold) discovers (in church) that the man who seduced her (Reeve) is a priest. We're supposed to feel her pain, but it plays as comically absurd rather than tragic. A complete miscalculation on all fronts.

Now, I didn't rent this thinking it would be a good movie. I had heard this was an uproarious unintentional comedy, so that's what I was expecting. There are a few laughs to be found, but I found this movie to be a mostly dull and murky drama. Reeve is totally miscast and out of his league here, even if the screenplay was better.

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.

The review in the annual paperback guide to movies by critic Leonard Maltin and his cronies classify this as a "camp classic", and after reading the synopsis, I certainly wasn't prepared to take this hilarious, trashy melodrama seriously at all. It has a young, ambitious priest, John Flaherty (Christopher Reeve) hired as business manager for the Vatican, and it doesn't take too long for the guy to start doing some dubious things, such as entering into a shady deal with the Italian mob. The best bit of business has this guy carrying on a romance with a nun- in-training named Clara (Genevieve Bujold). That's got to be trash at its finest, especially when Ms. Bujold strips for the camera as Flaherty and Clara prepare to go at it. Now, this movie admittedly is somewhat slowly paced and goes on for quite a bit, but this story (scripted by Abraham Polonsky and Wendell Mayes, based on a novel by Jack-Alain Leger) is still entertaining in its ridiculousness. Superb production design (by John DeCuir Jr.), cinematography (by Billy Williams), and location shooting help in the enjoyment - this is nothing if not a good looking film. And speaking of good looking, the lovely Bujold is definitely an easy performer to watch. The performances are all admirably sincere, with the ever likable Reeve well supported by a fine, fine group of actors: Fernando Rey, who has a warm presence, as Cardinal Santoni, Jason Miller as mob boss Don Vito Appolini, Joe Cortese as Flaherty's buddy Lodo Varese, Adolfo Celi as Cardinal Vinci, Tomas Milian as Father Francisco, Leonardo Cimino as none other than The Pope, Robert Prosky as Bishop Walkman, and Joe Pantoliano as wounded soldier Private Musso, with Joe Spinell in a great, brief cameo as the father of the bride in the wedding sequences. Give this cast credit, as they really sell this thing. It may be pretty long, but it's such an amusing story as to keep one watching (at least, this viewer kept watching). Recommended to fans of silly cinema. Seven out of 10.

Dull and tiresome, this story should be fascinating. A corrupt priest, global shenanigans, love, lust, war. But the action seems to go on in a weird Vatican vacuum. when I first watched this years ago I assumed I'd napped and missed huge chunks. Large numbers of years seem to Elapse without explanation. Rome goes from war time to peacetime without anyone seeming to notice. The woodeness of reeves is reminiscent of one of those jokes where they show the sae face 100 times with different emotions under them. Beaujold is lost but still cute. Reeves apparently blamed the editors of the film, but although we don't know what they cut, what they left is expressionless. In love scenes, when angry, when stressed his demeanor remains the same. After two hours of this I feel I've done penance. do watch it, the scenery is nice as is Genevieve.

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.

saw this as a sneak preview, and there was a lot of mumbling in full theater as reeve was cast as priest, to begin with. more mumbling ensued as film went on, then laughter, and occasional comments from crowd. loved scenes as lines of people approached the pope, and the overhead camera view was hysterical when eyes met. one comment from crowd was directed at diminuative pope character- "ET phone home". i've been looking for it on video for years for a good laugh, but couldn't even find it among reeve's credits. kudos to bujold for listing everything no matter how nasty... i don't remember anyone leaving the theater, as i've seen in some sneak previews, probably because the of the 'so bad it was good' factor.

This movie is based in the life of Archbishop Paul Marcinkus, which had deals with the mafia and the Ambrosiano Bank (Bank of the Vatican). Pope Juan Pablo I , thread to Archbishop Paul Marcinkus with put him after the white line (frontier of the Vatican) , after that Pope Juan Pablo I appeared dead just 2 months after his election as Pope.

This case is not known for many people inside the vatican and of course the Vatican never talks about it.

Is a shame this film is not enough know it and the most of the people even know who was Archbishop Paul Marcinkus and his direct implication in the dead of the Pope.

Since I'd like to live in the Vatican and be surrounded by all that beauty, I'll give this film 10 stars to improve its rating. And Christopher Reeve is like a crown jewel, it's so overwhelming to look at him shining so brightly with his sapphire eyes on fire! I don't care what happens or who else appears. This movie could have been just Christopher Reeve walking through those majestic gardens and chambers and I would still want to sit through the whole moviet. It does feel like some parts are missing, particularly one huge chunk. I guess we can call it director's leap of faith. Or editor's. The score is rightfully horrific and highlights the drama, or the horror of realization and acceptance that you're going straight to hell. Really, that intense red color of the cardinals mixed with that intense music can make you faint. You do feel unwell just like the principal characters in that particular scene. Better than most films made today.