Luther (2003) User Reviews

Luther biography based on true events about the reformer monk

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 21 November 2006]

The film is a biopic concerning the Agustinian monk (1483-1546) Martin Luther (Joseph Fiennes) and mostly set in Germany , during the Holy Roman Empire. Luther attempts to reconcile his desire for sanctification with his sour denounce against corruption and hypocrisy pervading the Church's hierarchy . His life and the famous deeds from how was orchestrated the Protestant Reform are the following ones : Martin becomes a good priest and he goes Rome . There he buys indulgences for his grandfather , but he sees the reality , a corrupt Rome with the selling the indulgences to finance the basilica of Saint Pedro built by Leo X and previously begun by Clemente VII and Julius II . He returns Germany where his preceptor (Bruno Ganz) sends him to Wittemberg to doctorate himself in theology studies . There preaches John Tetzel (Alfred Molina), a dreadful inquisitor . But his point of view about the Catholicism has changed and he rebels and nails himself the 95 Thesis on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany . Luther's Theses argued that the sale of indulgences was a gross violation of the original intention of confession and penance, and that Christians were being falsely told that they could find absolution through the purchase of indulgences . He rejected the Pope authority , the Saints cult , the celibacy and to practice mass . Luther , along with Melanchton (Rudolph) , starts the Protestant Reform . The printing press has been recently invented by Guttemberg and the Luther's ideas are quickly printed and spread everywhere as the written books titled ¨The captivity of Babilony¨, ¨The freedom of Christians¨ and ¨ The confession of Ausburg (1530)¨. Pope Leo X (Uwe Ochsenknecht) threatens Luther on ex-communion , but he refuses to recant . He ultimately gets the ex-communion by Bulla ¨Exsurge Domine¨ , but he burns it in the public square of Wittemberg , where the Ninety-Five Theses famously appeared . He is appointed in Worms (1521) with the presence of the emperor Charles V (Liebrech) , but he doesn't regret . Prince Frederick of Xaxony (Peter Ustinov) keeps him protected in his castle of Wartburgo . There Martin translates the Bible into German language for ordinary people to understand the New Testament . The common people follow the Martin's lectures and accuse to Catholic Church of their penury , burning churches and palaces . Luther is finally charged as a heretic priest and has to face off the ruling Cardinals and some Catholic Princes, urging them to make the Scriptures available to the common believer and lead the Church toward faith through justice and righteousness . Meanwhile , Luther meets an ex-nun named Katherina Von Bora (Claire Cox) and marries her . The emperor summons all the German princes for confronting the Luthero's doctrine . The princes encourage and contend the great emperor of the Holy Roman-German Empire , as they stand up against Charles V . The Luther's thesis have won in spite of the princes were defeated in Mulberg (1547) and they signed the treatise of Ausburg .

In the film appears famous historical characters who are well performed by a sensational plethora of British and German actors such as Ralph Fiennes (Shakespeare in love) , Bruno Ganz (Hitler in The Downfall) , Alfred Molina (Diego Rivera in Frida) and in his last film , Peter Ustinov (recently deceased , he was the immortal Nero in Quo Vadis) . The motion picture gets a colorful cinematography by Robert Frasse , as well as an atmospheric , evocative musical score by Richard Harvey and being alrightly directed by Eric Till . Devotees of the history will love this movie which is a fine tribute to Martin Luther .

Beautifully done, yet still a bit sparse

[jennkepka · 7/10 · 30 September 2003]

The beauty of Luther is its drama and its casting. Joseph Fiennes did what he does best as the angst-riddled Luther, playing a complex and haunted character that filled the screen even in his quietest moments. The supporting cast was also fabulous, particularly the merry-in-the-face-of-danger performances by Bruno Ganz and Peter Ustinov.

What's troubling, then, about Luther is that the movie just isn't long enough to portray the story accurately, and therefore it feels not only unfinished but full of gaps. Things happen one against another, people come and go with little explanation, and yet the story marches on. Luther's mission is clear, but his purposes are so boiled down that only a few of his famous Theses are actually voiced in the movie. Shortening the story was obviously necessary for a movie, but in all, I think it acts against the dramatic effect of the film as a whole because things end up with a certain disjointed feel.

Still, the cinematography is brilliant and the acting nearly perfect. The film is worth seeing for its visual splendor (in both performance and sets) alone, and certainly as an introduction to a complex historical topic.

The passion account of a theologian who stood against The Vatican and the Inquisition 450 years ago

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 8/10 · 29 December 2007]

The life of the 16th-century German monk Martin Luther (1483-1546) was filled with inner compulsions, focusing on his crucial years of his crusade against the Catholic Church, leading to his break with the Roman Catholic Church…

Director Eric Till presents Rome as a shattered city where depravity was everywhere… This infuriated Luther who could not believe that Rome is a circus describing it as 'a running sewer, where you can bye anything, sex, and salvation, and where they also have brothels for clerics.'

He also witnesses the church collecting coins from the people supposedly to free their sins to build Saint Peter's Church and would be therefore released from Purgatory and enter the Heaven…

Luther was eventually branded a heretic, his books examined and burned, and anyone who presumes to infringe Pope Leo's excommunication will stand under the wrath of Almighty God and the Apostles Peter and Paul…

The reaction of the peasants in Germany was against the reaction of the Inquisition who was burning his writings…For the German people "you can't burn his ideas." For the Church, his works shall be erased from the memory of man!

Luther's criticism was not against his Holiness, Pope Leo X, but of those rogues who claim to represent him… His goal was not to quarrel with the Pope or the Church but to defend them than mere opinion! The Gospel, as he affirmed, cannot be denied for the word of man!

As a loyal son of the Church, Luther finds sanctuary with Prince Frederick, who finds him too daring for him but decides not to surrender him to Rome… Luther goes on to produce his first translation of the New Testament Bible into German language… He marries the ex-nun, Katerina Von Borg, becomes a hero to the people and in spite of his outlaw status with the Church authorities, his followers ultimately break with Rome…

Joseph Fiennes played intensely the intriguing story of a brilliant Augustinian monk with an independent mind who is not interested in comfort but in the truth!

Sir Peter Ustinov—in his final role—realizes the danger Luther poses to the Catholic Church…

Alfred Molina as Brother John Tetzel, is the showman terrorizing the good people of Jüterbog into purchasing special indulgences letting everyone know the fires of hell awaiting those who did not contribute…

Johann Von Staupitz is the spiritual counselor who knows that Martin has aptitude for law, and could be send to Rome for a legal brief…

Claire Cox is Luther's beautiful wife who stood behind her young 16th century monk driven by courage and outrage against a powerful Medieval Church

An Oscar for Sir Ustinov (Feinnes too)

[pts2000 · 23 September 2003]

I just came from the St. Louis premier (in conjunction with the 14th annual Theological Symposium at Concordia Seminary) and am very impressed with the film. Not only is it entertaining, but it follows the history of Luther's early years of ministry quite faithfully. Sure, some things were fictionalized to get us from one scene to another, but the facts of the reformation movement, and the realities of life in the 16th century are brought to great realism on the screen.

The performances of Fiennes, and Ustinov were particularly strong, but I think viewers will fall in love with Ustinov's portrayal of Prince Friedrich, the Wise. He's like the cuddly grandpa you always wished you had (or maybe you did have) who didn't care what people thought of them, said and did what they pleased, and no one gave them any crap for it. I truly think it is Oscar calibre work. I think you will too.

Firth as Aleandro was convincing as the Roman Bureaucrat determined to get ahead by keeping the peace between Leo and Charles. Ganz plays a great pastor to Luther - throughout his life - one that we should all be so lucky to have looking after our spiritual well being.

Hofschneider, as the eager to learn and willing to "suffer all for the Gospel" assistant (Ulrick) to Luther made it very easy for the viewer to feel a connection to him. His loyalty was genuine, and not self serving. A true man of the cloth.

Although not on screen long, Clair Cox does a nice job showing just how strong a woman Katie was. Is it any wonder that she went on to run a rather successful business apart from Martin's influence?

For sure this is a courageous movie about a stalwart leader of Church, state, and society to whom western civilization owes a great debt. While the 1950's version of Luther may be more complete in some respects, it is not nearly as accesable to today's viewers who are used to big budget, visually stimulating, and fast paced movies

Mediocre historical biopic

[=G= · 6/10 · 5 December 2004]

"Luther" tells the story of 16th century monk Martin Luther who waged a war of ecclesiastical principles with a corrupt Roman Catholic church and set the stage for what was to become Protestantism. Part biography, part history, and part drama, "Luther" does a better job of representing the fine points of Martin Luther's disagreements with Church dogma than it does fleshing out a realistic character or promoting a clear understanding of the social-political forces of the time which gave rise to the reformation movement. Many of the characters aren't clearly identified by title/station and some of the history is difficult to follow. There's little human story beyond the title character's struggle with conscience and corruption and two hours (the films approx run time) on the internet will provide more historical context and detail. Therefore, "Luther" will work better as a dramatic supplement to history while offering some sense of the man and the time in an entertaining as opposed to didactic format. (B-)

good but flawed

[paduken · 7/10 · 24 June 2005]

My mixed feelings about this film are parallel to my feelings about Luther himself.

As a Protestant Christian, I am grateful for the courage of this man and the enlivening impact he had on Christian history. He challenged not only some corrupt church practices but the very authority of the church over life and thought. He emphasized personal faith and integrity over ritual and blind loyalty. His translation of the Bible helped empower Christians to come to their own conclusions. The example he set by getting married surely was a liberating force for those who wondered if they could be devoted to God and also experience the love of family. These elements were treated quite well in the film, and can be appreciated by Christians of whatever stripe.

The film also contains hints of a darker side of Luther and what he helped unleash. Battling demons was just one aspect of his personal life. His role in first inspiring the Peasants' Revolt and then supporting the merciless suppression of it - the film tones it down into a kind of inner regret and sorrow, not fully displaying the harshness with which he tended to speak of people once he decided they were his enemies. The film does a decent job of showing that the line between religious and political conflict can be very fuzzy. The German nationalism that factored into the princes' resistance to Rome was evident.

I was disappointed that the film chose to completely ignore the most negative side of Luther's legacy: his seething contempt for Jews and his recommendations for dealing with them. In this, he was very much a product of his times - he certainly didn't invent anti-semitism. But the very fact that Luther was so influential probably amplified the effect of his words on the matter. He was also not at his best when he helped persecute some of the smaller and more radical protestant movements. History seems to show that once Luther gained more power and influence, he grew more sure of himself, more combative and power-oriented, and more hateful toward his enemies.

In this, he can be seen as very human, instead of either angelic or demonic. In ignoring this side of Luther's imperfect self, the film seems to me flawed, as the man himself was. Perhaps the film-makers will have the courage to create a sequel that balances the view a bit more.

good biopic

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 8 December 2015]

Martin Luther (Joseph Fiennes) is a doubting monk in 1507 Erfurt. He is angered by indulgences after a 2 week trip to Rome. He is sent to Wittenberg to study. He starts preaching against profiting from fake relics and the selling of indulgences. The church is raising funds to build St. Peter's Basilica. Father John Tetzel (Alfred Molina) is a traveling monk selling the new indulgences. Luther's frustration boils over and he nails "The Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences" on the doors of his church. It's the start of the Protestant Reformation as his declaration puts him at odds with powerful forces, most importantly the Pope.

I am not a theologian or a history expert. I don't know how much of the real story is retained and how much is simplified. I also take no sides in the battle. I feel for any Catholic who takes offense to the portrayal of the papacy. All of that is beyond the scope of this review. Joseph Fiennes is great with a few moments of overwrought acting. As a movie, it's compelling for the most part. The ending does lack a certain excitement. It ends at a perfectly good spot. The problem is that nailing the Theses is such a climax. The rest of the movie isn't quite as iconic.

Reformation

[jotix100 · 6/10 · 14 December 2010]

The life of Martin Luther, examined in this film, presents a man that started out his life by being a devout catholic. He even became an Agustinian monk, following his desire to be a better man. His faith was tested as he went to Rome. There, Martin experienced a world in which there was corruption and the men that called themselves followers of the doctrine, did not hesitate to break the precepts that were the basis of their religion. That experience, set Luther on the road that led to his eventual break with the church which he vowed to serve.

In attending the university, Luther became aware of other way of thinking. Having seen first hand the way Rome conducted business, as the ambitious Pope Leo X, the ruler of the church wanted to build, what would later become, St. Peter's basilica, as a monument to his reign, to be financed by the selling of special indulgences, a sort of panacea that would benefit the ones buying them.

Luther's rebellion came about when he started questioning things that up to that point, no one had dared to ask. Thus, he was deemed a heretic because he wanted to simplify things and worst of all, he decided to translate from the Greek the sacred scriptures that up to that time was only the domain of an inner group of Roman higher ups.

"Luther" is not a great film. It plays like a documentary by stating highlights in the life of Martin Luther. The film, directed by Eric Till, and written by Bart Gavigan and Camille Thomasson, is based loosely on the play by John Osborne. Of course, this is a re-imagination of a piece of history. How accurate it is, we have no idea. This is the kind of international co-production where the cast includes the basic English actors in the main roles, but there are different accents, depending on the nationality of the actor.

Joseph Fiennes in the title role shows an inspired Luther. Others in the large cast include the excellent Bruno Ganz, Alfred Molina, Sir Peter Ustinov making his last appearance in a theatrical movie, and others. The film was splendidly photographed by Robert Fraisse, whose camera takes us to some breathtaking locales that span from Germany, to the Czech Republic and Italy. Our only objection was the Richard Harvey music score that has a way to interfere with the action.

Incredible experience

[KatharineFanatic · 10/10 · 2 October 2003]

Possibly one of the most insightful, fascinating, and profound movies to come out in twenty years, "Luther" follows the turbulent struggle between the Catholic church and the country of Germany in the 1500's, revolving around the greatest religious liberator of the middle ages, Martin Luther. Both historically correct in many respects, as well as a fantastically well-written epic with an excessively well-rounded cast (all of which deserve Oscar nominations), the film has many insightful glimpses into one man's journey toward his greatest triumph... the translation of the scriptures into "common" German. If you have any opportunity to view this big-budget Independent film, take it.

From a purely historical standpoint, the film offers a shocking glimpse into power and politics, as Cardinals attempt to bend and wrestle princes and monarchs to their side. It's a shame, but this film will probably not be recognized at the Oscars due to its strong religious tone. Therefore allow it to be said that the center core of actors all deserve Oscars for their performances, particularly Fiennes, Firth, and Ustinov. It was a pleasure to see Fiennes conform to an astonishingly strong, charismatic man who is not faultless, but instead human. The costuming, visual effects, and writing are all fantastic. The dialogue is unusually rich, spattered with direct quotes from Luther's literary works.

The best thing about "Luther" is the quality of the filmmaking. A lot of money was poured into this production, leaving Christian films like Megiddo and Left Behind in the dust. Not only will this receive greater recognition as a "serious" movie, it will also attract larger audiences due to the quality, budget, massive locations, and cast list. Secular audiences will get an open story of salvation. Christian audiences will have the pleasure of finally having a hero to root for in the cinema, a man who stands up for his faith against all odds.

While flawed, a fascinating movie

[lynton · 7/10 · 7 July 2005]

This a biopic of Martin Luther (played by Joseph Fiennes), is certainly flawed in structure and jumpy (the editor seems to have given the job to his 11-year-old niece about half way through the film), but it's still an intriguing look at the person – and history – behind one of the most defining stances in history.

Yes, there are issues with the direction, which seems at times either trying too hard or not trying at all, and Fiennes doesn't seem to have been directed at all.

Brilliantly supported by Peter Ustinov, Fiennes is occasionally out of his depth – but history buffs and Christians will find this eminently watchable and fascinating.

Viewers who liked this 2003 ought to move up to the 1976 film

[Mentor-2 · 5/10 · 8 November 2003]

"Luther" (2003) pleasantly surprised this Catholic for being as accurate as it was.

In the credits, I noticed with pleasure that the film makers consulted famed Lutheran theologian Martin Marty, who is greatly respected by Catholic theologians, as well as a Jesuit whose full name I did not catch. Perhaps they influenced the script writers to ditch references to the false dichotomy of "faith versus works" which sidetracked a fruitful Lutheran-Catholic dialogue for centuries.

No doubt because of its funding (by some investment group "for Lutherans"), this film came across as a reverential cartoon-brought-to-life, suitable for a Lutheran Sunday school. Joseph Fiennes handsomely portrayed Luther as a comic-book hero. The film wisely avoided the last 16 years of Luther's life. While the early Luther needed to tell people he was not a saint, few would have mistaken the later Luther for one. (See the transcripts of Luther's table talk.)

There is nothing wrong with telling a story in terms children can understand. I assume that was why the film makers added the cloyingly sentimental poor woman and her crippled girl.

However, the real Luther was far more complex and far more interesting than portrayed in this film. Advanced children, and adults interested in a college-level approach, should move up to something more accurate and challenging: the 1976 film version of John Osborne's award-winning play "Luther," starring Stacey Keach. Osborne's play, and this film, are definitely not for children. If you can't find the film, at least read the text of the play, which has been published.

Great Emotional Film - One of This Year's Best!

[solar_son · 10/10 · 30 October 2003]

Martin Luther is without a doubt one of the most important figures in Western Civilization. His actions not only reformed Christianity, but also shaped the direction in which Europe developed and opened the door for additional reform and individual freedoms. "Luther" the movie does a fine job at highlighting Luther's actions prior to and during the Reformation.

"Luther" is a very rich movie to say the least. The costumes, scenery, music, acting, and characters all compliment the film nicely. Joseph Fiennes turns in a fine performance portraying Luther and making the audience both admire and feel pity for him throughout the film (the sticklers to realism just have to forgive the fact that Fiennes and Luther do not look very much alike). All the supporting roles were well done as well, especially Peter Ustinov as Prince Friedrich and Uwe Ochsenknecht (say that name three times fast!) as Pope Leo.

Personally as a Lutheran, I was very pleased to see the movie focus mainly on Luther's scriptural interpretations and 95 Theses rather than solely on the secular politics of the time. Thankfully, the creators of "Luther" do not tip-toe around including and expressing Christian messages as to "not offend" non-Christian viewers. If anything, all the direct references to the Bible and doctrine may win people over by showing just how much Martin Luther was a model of Christianity through his love of God and strict belief in only the scriptures (and not unjust rules of men). All that he used to battle the ridiculous man made ordinances and general corruption of the 16th century Catholic Church.

The only things I can really pick apart in "Luther" is the ending - I just wish the ending was slightly more rounded than it is, it seemed that things were sped up in the last 1/4 of the film and then it kind of ended abruptly. Nonetheless, the ending was still very emotional and made me want to stand up and applaud. I highly recommend this film to those wishing to learn more about Luther, the Reformation, or even just basic Christianity. But keep in mind, at times this film is violent. But the violence is used sparingly and only to drive home some important points in the film (such as Luther's despair over feeling responsible for so many gruesome deaths). All in all, this is a very emotional film which works on so many levels and it was a great pleasure to watch.

An exciting telling of a pivotal moment in history.

[johnginn · 7/10 · 20 September 2003]

"Luther" is an exciting, well made film about Martin Luther and his struggle to make a break from the all-powerful Roman Catholic church.

It is the early 1500's and the church dominates in almost every aspect of daily life. Martin Luther (Joseph Fiennes) begins the movie as a priest who does his best to obey the teachings of the church, but increasingly has trouble reconciling those teachings with the actions he sees the church taking in the world. He sees a church obsessed with collecting money, crushing intellectual inquiry and unresponsive to the needs -- spiritual or physical -- of the people.

Sent to the University at Wittenburg to study theology, Luther begins to preach a less dogmatic form of religious doctrine, questioning several tenets of the faith as dictated by Rome.

Acting and technical aspects are all excellent. Film does a superb job of avoiding a pious, preachy tone by focusing on Luther's conflict with the church and the very real danger he was in.

Luther's battle for the right to merely speak his mind broadens the movie beyond its religious context to secular audiences. His fight for self-expression is something that everyone -- atheist, agnostic or believer -- can identify with.

Film also is honest in dealing with the costs of fighting the status quo. The break with Rome leads to a political struggle that left thousands of peasants dead.

Bottom line: if you are a secular-minded individual, don't let the religious content keep you away. The film first and foremost is a profile in courage story about the importance and consequences of standing up for what you believe in -- a message that is always relevant, yes, even today. Perhaps especially today.

Disjointed History, Accurate Message

[mmrevans · 2/10 · 12 October 2003]

Luther is not a historical journey. It bounces around without establishing who the prince is, where the emperor fits in to the church, or that the Germanic states are separate and independent from Rome. Also the peasant war made no sense; who were the barbarians Luther referred to?

The film did well to portray Luther. He was against violence and was not anti-God, but anti-corruption and anti-establishment, the mainstays of his teachings.

Can't stop this thing we started

[livewire-6 · 24 October 2004]

The title of Bryan Adams' song "Can't Stop This Thing We Started" aptly describes this 2003 retelling of the story of Martin Luther. The film basically depicts Luther as a good Catholic, loyal to the Pope but horrified by the scandals and corruption that plagued the 16th century Church. He is even more horrified when his effort to reform the Church gets out of control, is co-opted for political purposes, and becomes a popular revolution with the attendant carnage and bloodshed. I suspect Luther has been highly romanticized here. For one thing, the film follows him from age 34 to 50, yet (as embodied by the angelically handsome Joseph Fiennes) he never ages a day. His relationship with Katharina von Bora seems astonishingly chaste -- no struggle with the lusts of the flesh for this pious monk! His demons are of a different kind. We see scenes where Luther seems plagued by demons, thrashing about in his cell, hearing unseen voices. (I know Luther was manic-depressive, but I hardly think he was a madman.) The film provides a good summary or outline of the major events of Luther's life and times: the selling of indulgences, the Ninety-Five Theses nailed to the door of Wittenberg Church, the Diet of Worms (a council presided over by Emperor Charles V), the Confession of Augsburg. The costumes accurately reflect historical reality. If I have any quarrel with the film in this regard, it is that it does not adequately mirror a key factor in the struggle between Germany and Rome: the principle of "cuius regio, eius religio". In other words, local princes and kings imposed their own religious beliefs on the peoples they governed. The cast is a constellation of stars, veritable luminaries, including Sir Peter Ustinov in one of his last roles as Frederick of Saxony. The actors are uniformly excellent in their roles, and the dialogue is well written. The photography is somewhat static, leading me to believe this film was made with television in mind -- albeit of the highbrow kind, in the Masterpiece Theatre tradition. Still, if anyone asked me if I recommended "Luther", I would reply as he did at the Diet of Worms: "Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."

Brilliant movie

[your_secret_detractor · 7/10 · 10 October 2005]

As far as silver screen productions go, this was absolutely amazing: the weaving of the atmosphere truly portrayed the great misery and vice that much of Europe was embedded in; Joseph Fiennes' acting was brilliant, as was that of Peter Ustinov; the screenplay was fantastic.

My only critique of the movie is that, though it accurately shows how Luther's concepts lead directly to modern ideals of freedom, justice, and individualism, it does not show in the least how the Reformation also resulted in centuries of war for Europe that even continue today, nearly five centuries after the ninety-five theses' publication.

Furthermore, the movie only lightly touches on Luther's period of self-torture and asceticism, and nor does it show very well how he abandons the peasants after they revolt against the Princes of Germany. The scene after the massacre shows once again a compassionate, loving Luther, who has been shaken by the death but feels no guilt for it. There is no mention of his anti-Semitism in the film. In essence, the vices of Luther are quieted, while his humanity and love are flaunted.

Historically, it was not an accurate representation. As far as movies go it was amazing.

Interesting

[lorddarkstorn · 6/10 · 1 September 2008]

I'm a bit of a history geek so I try to watch most of the movies that are set in a historical setting. Luther was, in the lack of a better word, interesting.

There's some fine camera work, acting,the works but it just can't get top marks. It was too modern. Dialogues, interactions, it's too much 20th century. Luther speaks like a modern professor at the university, his students look like a bunch of twenty year olds who can't keep attention during class because they think where they will go out Friday night and so on. You just can't get immersed in the movie because of that.

All in all, it's worth watching, but don't expect a masterpiece. 6/10*

Leni Riefenstahl Where Are You?

[bbagnall · 7/10 · 22 December 2004]

The film does a great job of showing how Luther reformed the church, but Joeseph Feines does a mediocre job of portraying the great man. Basically Feines just turns in an "epic" Hollywood type of performance, rather than getting to the truth about the character. The only time he addresses Luthers craziness is when he's talking with the devil in his cell, but at other times he's just a straight man. At one point, Luther is giving an interesting sermon that is eye opening and humorous. Unfortunately, the faithful are rolling in the isles as though he's a comedian delivering gut-busters. In real life they would have been captivated and occasionally chuckling, but the director goes all wrong with the scene.

I couldn't believe they used Uwe Ochsenknecht in such a minor part. Uwe is a fantastic actor and he could have pulled off the humor, charisma, and craziness that is Luther. Poor choice of casting in my opinion.

Biased but worth the watch

[DarthVoorhees · 7/10 · 29 September 2007]

Not a great film by any stretch of the imagination but it has it's worth. Joesph Fiennes stars as Martin Luther, a man who would shape the history of Europe.

The problem I found with Luther is it's representation of Catholics. They are portrayed as villains, when they were just conservative and would not bend. Luther was a man ahead of his time and portraying the Catholics as cut out villains eventually weakens Luther's character. Luther was a visionary and when you put him next to stereotypical villains, the story becomes good vs evil, instead of an inspiring film which it should be.

Fiennes' portrayal of Luther is worthy but the script doesn't give the character any depth. You get the traditional reasons for why he posted his 95 theses but we don't see why these things bother him so much. The movie doesn't go into why he was such a great leader.

An old and frail Peter Ustinov gives a sad performance as Frederick the Wise. We know death is looming over him.

Overall the film seemed very low key to me. The set design and visuals aren't impressive. The cinematography is poor and overall it has a direct to video feel.

I recommend Luther for Fiennes and not much else

Surprisingly Faithful Account

[ccthemovieman-1 · 9/10 · 13 January 2006]

Wow, here's an oddity: a modern-day film faithful to theological history, an uncompromising biography of Martin Luther.

Knowing the film world, I doubt this film was made to glorify God. It probably was made more to make the Roman Catholic church look bad, or to glorify a rebel and a man of the people: "the peoples' liberation" as the back cover of the DVD states.

Whatever the motive, it stays true to history and it's nice to see that for a change. To those unfamiliar with Luther, he was the founder of the Protestant denomination. Luther was monk who saw and heard things he thought were unscriptural and broke off from the Catholic Church in "protest." Hence, the "Protestant" church was formed.

Anyway, not only was the story done well, so was the cinematography. This is one gorgeous movie to ogle, well-filmed with high production values. The scenery, sets and costumes are all first-rate.

Joseph Fiennes (Luther) is a bit wimpy-looking but his character certainly isn't. As the subject of indulgences and other practices begin to transform Luther's ideas of what Jesus' church should be, the story grows in intensity as Luther gets pressured by the Catholic hierarchy as his protest issues become public.

What happens to him and to the masses because of his actions are revealed in pretty dramatic form. Obviously the story is far more complex than two hours can give it but the filmmakers did a pretty good job condensing it to make the time constriction.

Notes: This was Peter Ustinov's last movie. On the DVD, being that is was a fairly expensive one, I am surprised there were no "extras." In all, however, a solid film but it will definitely offend Roman Catholics.

Like watching Elvis on TV

[j_a_newton · 7/10 · 24 January 2005]

The film Luther is absolutely first-class as far as acting and actors is concerned; sets, props, costumes and the like are accurate down to the seams: everything is there ready for a BIG take-off. But then, enter the scriptwriters, director and cinematographer, who fail to ignite the fuse - or rather, spray sedatives over it all.

It's like watching that famous Elvis TV appearance from the 50s, where everything from his chest down was kept off camera: all the thrills are kept down. Instead, the film is satisfied with surfing the surface of what could had become a gut-felt, passionate drama: the paradox of being a spiritual drama that never stirs the soul.

Instead of the filmmakers aiming a full frontal attack on our glands, guts, nerves and hearts, we end up with a pretty bloodless CD-ROM dictionary kind of experience. Yes, the characters talk and move in their historical setting, but we don't go out and weep for them afterwards. Yes, we understand Luther's motifs, but we never *taste* the drives, the passion, the wrath the anger, the struggle. Yes, we *learn* the whole story in a nutshell, but we never *feel* it.

Frigid scriptwriting is one of the problems. Static directing is another, not to mention the pretty uninterested cinematography, which is best compared to a Volvo: safe, posh, shiny - and dull.

Imagine what James Cameron could have done with this, for instance (compare early quasi-documentary Titanic movies with the Cameron Titanic and you see what I mean).

Add to that a score that keeps every attempt to infuse some sort of dynamical span of conflict-to-climax firmly planed down to one even continuum of like-minded action, and you feel a certain frustration about what this film could have been. Now, it's a rosebud that dies before it blossoms, not because of any lack of inherent potential, but due to simple malnourishment.

However, mitres off for the w-o-n-d-e-r-f-u-l little side role played by Sir Peter Ustinov, bless his soul. Someone else here wrote that he absolutely stole the movie, and I cannot but agree. The scene where he receives the German Bible is worth going out and buying the DVD alone!

FINAL GRADE: good ingredients, poor cooking.

This film white-washed Luther.

[rapro91 · 1/10 · 16 September 2007]

This movie is more fantasy than fact. The real Luther, was a crude, anti-Semite, who boinked his maid while married, and is responsible for the slaughter of thousands of peasants. While the Church was corrupt at this time, there was a Catholic reform/renewal movement taking place w/in the Church such as St. Thomas Moore, St. Theresa, the Jesuits, the Oratory, ext.,this movie portrays all Catholics as sinister, the Church as evil,and Luther as a great saint, rather than the deeply troubled, neurotic, sexually addicted,ego maniac he was. The acting was weak. This movie is promoted strongly in many Protesant churches, but needed more balance.

A Masterpiece of Historical Presentation

[Doodles23 · 10/10 · 28 September 2003]

It is unfortunate that this film has such limited distribution as it to become one of the shining stars of historical dramas. Here in Miami it is only showing in 3 theaters. On opening day at 4:10 in the afternoon there were less than 10 people in the theater! Its attention to historical accuracy is commendable. The acting by Fiennes and Ustinov could not be improved in my view. I was swept away with drama and emotion of the portrayal of Luther at this time of crisis in Christianity. Interestingly the pivotal moment of the nailing of the 95 thesis to the door of the church in Wittenburg is regarded as fictional by most careful scholars of Luther! But the legend is so ingrained that I am glad it was presented. If you have any interest in the foundations of the schism with Catholicism you must see this film.

as it was, Martin Luther wasn't the first religious rebel of the era

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 11 November 2007]

I had known for some years about Martin Luther nailing the theses to the church. Until I had seen the movie "Luther", I hadn't really known anything about the rest of his life (except that he was a notorious anti-Semite). The movie does a pretty good job showing the events that led up to his famous deed and then what resulted. Granted, they can't show everything, and I can't verify how accurate the movie is, but I will assert that the movie marks a major achievement for all involved. I just find it fascinating to learn about the circumstances surrounding these historical events. Speaking of which, I learned in ninth grade that there had been several rebellions against the Catholic Church prior to Luther's famous action; it was just that the theses-nailing was something that everyone could follow easily.

Anyway, certainly worth seeing. Starring Joseph Fiennes, Peter Ustinov (in his final role) and Bruno Ganz.

PS: the book "Non Campus Mentis: World History According to College Students" says: "An angry Martin Luther nailed ninety-five theocrats to a church door. The pope's response was to declare Luther hereditary...Martin Luther King stood for the priesthood of all relievers."

Too Flattering

[iron_jawed_angel91 · 5/10 · 25 June 2005]

I admit that I was forced to go. Although I follow the Lutheran religion, I would by no means glorify Martin Luther this much. The movie leaves out the fact that he was an alcoholic and antisemitic, making him not much better than his Catholic counterparts. The movie was slow and boring. I only stayed awake because and elderly woman kept yelling at the screen and Joseph Fiennes good looks and acting made it tolerable. Honestly, it was a story that could have been told in ten minutes, much like it was in Sunday School, and left at that. It actually made me want to be a Roman Catholic, at least their scandals are interesting.