Reviews

I have loved and appreciated many movies in my lifetime. If someone asks me what my favorite is, the one that comes to mind first is Forrest Gump. It doesn't matter that some other films might be greater, or more important, or more beautifully executed. I think "favorite" is still a measure that shouldn't be dismissed.

Maybe the major reason it's my favorite is what I consider the main message. Jenny is a *perfectly* beautiful woman who is focused on herself. She seems determined to please herself, get high, pursue whatever adventures she can, without much regard for others. And she ends up more miserable than satisfied.

Forrest is an *imperfect* man, whose every action is focused on serving others as best he can. He knows how to take risks, make sacrifices. He knows what love is. And ultimately, imperfect as he is, he is blessed by being a blessing to others. Everyone he touches in his life is blessed by knowing him.

The fact that he also achieves material success is not the point; we all know that's a fleeting reward. I think the most meaningful point, the heart, of this lovely movie is that true happiness depends more on being blessful than successful.

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.

I can't believe nobody has commented on how completely adorable Giorgia Moll is. I too first saw this film at age five or six, and had always thought it was called The Blue Rose. When I learned the real title, I found it on a classic movie channel. Once again I was enchanted, but now it's more by the lovely princess Amina than any other merits the film has. The atmosphere usually works, the story is OK, but the acting is often on the hokey side, except for Giorgia herself, who comes across as real every time. The main reason I watch it now is to see a lady that must have been planted in my subconscious mind at a very early age as the ideal of feminine beauty.

OK, I haven't read through all the comments yet, but just in case it hasn't been mentioned: Kevin Costner's accent is a non-issue. If Robin Hood did exist, and was a contemporary of Kings John and Richard, he would have spoken middle-English, which probably sounded much more foreign from a modern British accent than Kevin's American accent does. If we were to insist that the accents be "authentic," it would likely be hard to understand by today's audiences on either side of the Atlantic. Try reading Chaucer in the original middle-English if you want to get a feel for what I mean. So to fault the movie for not achieving that kind of authenticity is misguided.