Watched 2003 Luther movie last night

Kim G · #1 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 08:52 AM

For those who have seen it, what did you think?

I always enjoy films about history, recognizing of course that events are added/changed to fit a 2 hour film. My biggest letdown was that the movie didn't portrayed Luther's conversion when he first understood the gospel of justification by faith alone. The movie almost seemed more like a political revolution than anything else. Did I miss something? Or was I expecting too much?

Zenas · #2 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 09:17 AM

Depending on who's reciting the history, you're going to get a different focus. A socialist secular movie-maker is going to ignore deep religious conviction and reduce any event into some sort of social revolution or change. While it may have been this or appeared like this, this doesn't mean it was the CAUSE of what happened; something they seem to not understand or care to.

toddpedlar · #3 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kim G

For those who have seen it, what did you think?

I always enjoy films about history, recognizing of course that events are added/changed to fit a 2 hour film. My biggest letdown was that the movie didn't portrayed Luther's conversion when he first understood the gospel of justification by faith alone. The movie almost seemed more like a political revolution than anything else. Did I miss something? Or was I expecting too much?

No, you didn't. I really don't like the new Luther movie very much - it was, to me, too 'prettified', and lacked much of the really interesting parts of Luther's story, that the old classic version catches (though sometimes clumsily). We own the old version - couldn't imagine buying the new one.

Contra_Mundum · #4 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 10:09 AM

My biggest annoyance with the new movie was their silly attempt to make a modern feminist out of Katie.

Otherwise, I thought it did a tolerable job in introducing Luther in his place and time. Peter Ustinov was great as the Elector. I liked the part where the "protest" was presented to the Emperor. That was bold, where these princes all present their necks.

So, I think the new movie has more good than bad, overall.

jfschultz · #5 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kim G

For those who have seen it, what did you think?

I always enjoy films about history, recognizing of course that events are added/changed to fit a 2 hour film. My biggest letdown was that the movie didn't portrayed Luther's conversion when he first understood the gospel of justification by faith alone. The movie almost seemed more like a political revolution than anything else. Did I miss something? Or was I expecting too much?

No, you didn't. I really don't like the new Luther movie very much - it was, to me, too 'prettified', and lacked much of the really interesting parts of Luther's story, that the old classic version catches (though sometimes clumsily). We own the old version - couldn't imagine buying the new one.

I own both versions. The 1953 film did a much better job with the theological conflict.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

My biggest annoyance with the new movie was their silly attempt to make a modern feminist out of Katie.

Otherwise, I thought it did a tolerable job in introducing Luther in his place and time. Peter Ustinov was great as the Elector. I liked the part where the "protest" was presented to the Emperor. That was bold, where these princes all present their necks.

So, I think the new movie has more good than bad, overall.

The elector's "protest" is one of the highlights of the new movie.

JBaldwin · #6 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 03:17 PM

I have seen both and pretty much agree with the above comments. I like the earlier version much better.

Augusta · #7 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 03:35 PM

I really like the new one. I haven't seen the old one though and I should. I really like how they portrayed Luther. After reading Bondage of the Will I think that the actor was pitch perfect in portraying Luther's wit, his fear of God, and his fights with his flesh and the devil.

Kim G · #8 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Augusta

I really like the new one. I haven't seen the old one though and I should. I really like how they portrayed Luther. After reading Bondage of the Will I think that the actor was pitch perfect in portraying Luther's wit, his fear of God, and his fights with his flesh and the devil.

I too thought they did a good job with Luther's passion and wit. And I did enjoy the movie. I just felt like the movie was more about his passion and wit than his theology. I guess I'm being picky.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #9 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 03:51 PM

No question, I think, that Joseph Fiennes did a good job. I also really liked Alfred Molina's Tetsel.

pilgrim3970 · #10 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 04:55 PM

I have to admit I slightly prefer the 1950s version to the newer one.

I found myself laughing outloud at the scene of Johann Tetzel selling indulgences "brother...do you have a coin for the Lord?" between that and the part feature the monks setting at the table ready to take their money just screamed TBN.

I also do like that the newer one did seem to show the sad state that the Roman church had put the laity in through its superstitious innovations (such as when Luther went to Rome).