Maidgethma Wonderfully offbeat film!

Diagonaldi Very well executed

MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

ereinion 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.

salignac2 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.

dawny-doo 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.

smccallister 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?