TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

lastliberal I was looking for the Australian western of the same name and the Sundance credits writer got it wrong and roped me into this 1930s Boston Catholic melodrama. I still want to see the western, but this was not a bad misdirection.Whoever cast A History of Violence had to see this film as William Hurt plays the same character in both films - marvelously, I might add. He is a rich Catholic businessman here instead of a mobster, but the basics are the same. He wants to give his wife (Madeleine Stowe in a great performance) a child and Viagra was not yet invented, so he hires someone (Neil Patrick Harris) to do the job. His only mistake was picking a 24-year-old who couldn't just take the money and walk away. OK, so we have a moral question here, but we ignore that for the movies sake.Into his parish comes a new priest (Kenneth Branagh) and he jumps the Rabbit-Proof Fence, uses The Magic Flute, and we have an Alien Love Triangle. Didn't Richard Chamberlain do that naughty priest bit in The Thorn Birds? There is a lot of Catholic malfeasance, guilt and remorse and penance and symbolism here, but don't let that turn you off as it doesn't interfere with the story. And, no children were hurt in the making of this film.There are some fine performances and an interesting story. You should check it out.

Scoval71 As another reviewer said--either you love it or you hate it. I loved it. A well acted movie--somewhat far fetched in the storyline. Very intense deep story and you really get caught up in it. I do not think a lot of the comments from other reviewers really see the value of the movie, or look at it from all of the character's points or motives. William Hurt as Barret is totally selfless in his quest for a family and Madeline Stowe as his wife is also very convincing. The big surprise comes from Blythe Danner, although I really cannot figure out exactly what her role was--is she secretly in love with Hurt? Hard to say. But the acting is fine and Kenneth Branaugh does a terrific and convincing job. He is a good actor and this role suits him splendidly. I do recommend this movie.

overseer-3 This film is a waste of time, even for romantics. The actors looked embarrassed to be mouthing off such ridiculous lines. The characters' actions made no sense; they seem to act totally on whim and not conscience at all. After having an extra-marital affair with an attractive Roman Catholic priest we are expected to believe that all of a sudden Eleanor falls in love with her wimpy husband again? Come on! William Hurt's Arthur was such a stiff, he reminded me of a cardboard box. And the priest's decision at the end was hypocritical and totally unbelievable. The last line of the movie had me laughing hysterically, it was so preposterous. Only good thing about the film was the music, but even that got on your nerves at times. Skip it.

Emily (MummyPhan) I've seen him in few things, but all that I have seen him in has been good. This includes "Hamlet," in which he was brilliant. That showed that he can take Shakespeare and make it his own. This movie was no Shakespeare, but I was drawn into each character, wanting to know what was going to happen to them each second of the movie. As someone else said, there was a visual appeal also, but they failed to see the beauty in the characters' many flaws, especially Kenneth's character. I failed to see any plot holes, but I could be blind to them, and I was moved by it's message which you may figure out for yourself. If you don't like Kenneth Branagh, this movie and "Hamlet" might just change your mind.