ShangLuda Admirable film.

Abbigail Bush 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.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

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.

Desertman84 Luther is a biopic about the life of Martin Luther.It stars Joseph Fiennes in the title role.Alfred Molina,Jonathan Firth,Claire Cox and Peter Ustinov co-star to play key supporting role. It covers Luther's life from his becoming a monk in 1505 to the Diet of Augsburg in 1530.Martin Luther was an intelligent and principled young man that was studying law in early 16th century Germany when a close brush with death led him to follow a spiritual path and join a Catholic monastery. Under the guidance of Johann von Staupitz, Luther became a valued member of the monastery's hierarchy, and as a sign of his trust, von Staupitz asked Luther to join him for a voyage to Rome as part of church business. Luther was appalled by the corrupt practices of the leading church officials, in particular the sale of "indulgences" in which the wealthy could purchase forgiveness for a wide variety of sins. Luther left the monastery to study theology in Wittenberg; a keen student, he later became a professor and won the support of Frederick the Wise, who also recognized the potential controversy of Luther's iron principles. When a new pope, Leo X, assumes the throne at the Vatican, he orders the construction of St. Peter's Basilica. To pay the costs, an ambitious monk, Johann Tetzel, was sent out to sell indulgences to both the wealthy and the poor, leaving his audiences with little doubt of the eternal consequences that awaited those who did not empty their purses. An infuriated Luther wrote an angry essay on the corruption of the church entitled "95 Theses," and thanks to the recent invention of the printing press, Luther's words were soon circulated throughout Europe, leading to an angry conflict with Catholic officials which threatened to tear the church in two.A few too many amateurish techniques and oversimplified confrontations hold Luther back a notch or two from greatness, and stamp it instead as entertaining film.Also,it makes up for what it lacks in vigorous storytelling with adorable production values.But overall,it is a biopic that is simply uninspiring and far from unforgettable.

Jay Harris This movie was produced by a LUTHERAN INSURANCE Company, I did not take this very well acted & well made Biography as being overly factual.It is excellent entertainment & will eventually be a staple item on the Biography Cable Television Channel.This was filmed in parts of Germany where these events probably took place, directed by Eric Till from a screenplay by Camille Thomasson & Bart Gavigan.The cast stars Joseph Fiennes as Luther with Alfred Molina as Tetzel & in his last movie Peter Ustinov,(He left us a few months after the film was made). The entire cast was very good, The film is in English,I wonder if it would have been better if they all spoke German.Hardly any biographies are overly accurate. There was a film in 1973 same title, with Stacy Keach as Luther & it was written by John Osborne a noted play-writer. From what I remember it was very DULL & even more DULL.This film is energetic & alive & not the least bit dull. As I said it is Biography Light.,.It did have short run in the US in 2003 & played in about 400 theatres.See this film as entertainment & not history, thats what I did & I liked it very much.Ratings ***1/2 (out of 4) 95 points (out of 100) IMDb 9 (out of 10) **Note: If you take this as religious history the ratings would be lower.

esteban1747 A film like this one is to be appreciated. Cinema should also effectively contribute to the culture of people. Many know that Luther existed but nothing more than that. This material gives an extract of the life of Martin Luther, role played well by Joseph Fiennes. In a state of discontent anywhere a rebel will reign easily, and it was clear that many priests in Germany were not glad at all with the dictatorship of Roman Church.Historically many things were just imposed by the Roman Church like the bible in Latin when a few people understood this dead language, the celibate of the priests, their privileges among the poor populations and many others. Luther understood well this situation and became a rebel and hero for church re vindication. Many Germans and Nordic nations embraced the ideas of Luther, and this led to the establishment of a new church (the Lutheran) with temples without icons and with new approach for serving God and the suffering people.The film was able in a short period of time to give a vision of all these problems. May be split in two parts of 120 minutes each would have been a good idea for making such a film.Peter Ustinov played well the role of Frederick The Wise. Certainly one enjoys looking at his performance in this material. The rest of the cast did also a very good performance.