Continue with Google
>
The Crime of Father Amaro Reviews
I am surely liked the context
felt like the characters in this movie could feel the happiness and difficulties that they faced in real life.
In The Crime of Padre Amaro, it's hard to blame director Carlos Carrera for his full-frontal assault on the Catholic church and its long-standing love of ecclesiastical hypocrisy. Unfortunately, there are so many storylines to sort through over the course of the movie that the message tends to get diluted. When recently ordained Father Amaro arrives in a small Mexican town to start his life's calling, he finds himself immersed in a cesspool of religious skullduggery and ultimately finds himself in the midst of an affair with a devoted schoolgirl. Had Carrera focused his attention solely on the priest's sexual relationship with the girl instead of getting tangled up on all of the extraneous subplots, there's a chance that the film would have packed more of a punch. As it is, it's only a fraction of what it should have been.
Flawed and sometimes old-fashioned, but remains as a central mexican film for its bravery and smart critique to catholic church and its connections with crime and ¨forbidden¨ pleasures.
El claro ejemplo de que cuando se quiere hacer buen cine mexicano; se hace.
This movie has a great story but maybe its flow could have been a little smoother. This is a Mexican adaptation of a book written by the Portuguese writter Eça de Queiroz, which tells the story of a young promising priest (Father Amaro) dealing with the reality of the "profession". He first arrives in this Mexican community to spend some time working with an older priest, a community where everyone seems to know each other and where the church plays a center role in most people's lives. He initially seems to be a pure and naive person but a transformation happens as he witnesses some wrongdoings from his colleagues, as he gets more power from the bishop of his church and as he meets and is enchanted by a young woman. The story evolves as he gets more and more used to being envolved in these "sins", especially regarding his prohibited affair, but here I feel is the first thing that I disliked about the movie. To me he looks to be so naturally accepting all of his and others wrongdoings that there seems to be no huge conflict in his mind between the purpose of his "profession" and his true desires. In my opinion this conflict could be the most interesting aspect of the story because a part of his wrongdoings are only wrong at the eyes of the churc. It is hard to believe that a young and apparently well intentioned man who believes he has a vocation to help others would so easily jump to the other side of moral without this becoming a heavy weight (this burden seems to be in his mind at the end but only after horrible consequences occur). The second point that made me less excited about it was that some of the scenes seemed too forced into the spectator in order to make the message clear. The first example would be one of the first scenes when the bus that is carrying the young priest gets robbed. This scene is likely one taken from the book where I believe there is a whole context behind it but here it seems to have no other point than to show Father Amaro's good heart in helping an old man in the bus. A few scenes later, the priest arrives at his new church and asks a young girl for information (that young girl). Less than a second after she answers him and he continues walking, her look towards him is so obviously saying how she is attracted to him that, in a way, it sums up a part of what will happen next (this happens frequently in movies but maybe there are smoother ways to do it). I liked the story very much, it did work in making me want to know what will happen next after each event and it has some nice views about priests, church rules and their role in the society but my feeling in the end was that it could be a much better movie with some tweaks in the way the story was told.
Not bold enough, predictable and a little too much soap opery. Longer than it should've been, movie doesn't commits to develop side stories making them feel hollow. Grey enough to create some buzz in it's release, bur not enought to stand the test of time.
A harsh and bitting critique of the corruption within the Catholic Church and the hipocresy of its most corrupt members that's not without some melodrama and controversy, but it offers a well-crafted and compelling narrative, solid direction and excellent performances.
if this is at all what life is like in mexico, the un should bomb it into the modern world. carpet bomb them, mercy for the raped and justice to rapists... fuck this snuff film and fuck the marketers that sold it as sexy. would measure should be taken to protect civilization from these monsters?
Carlos Carrera otorga un crudo y socialmente crítico ensayo cinematográfico en lo que respecta a la hipocresía eclesiástica, así como el lado corrupto del mundo en el que se desenvuelve la iglesia dentro del ambiente rural, sin mencionar un sólido y controversial punto de vista romántico que funciona por la efectividad que poseen histriónicamente, tanto Gael García Bernal como Ana Claudia Talancón, en dos roles que definieron las carreras de ambos, en un filme que hasta la fecha continua dando de qué hablar.
Excellent film about the hypocrisy and the corruption of organized religion that provides a harbor for the corrupt, while they throw out those who truly try to follow their morality uncompromisingly..
It isn't the best job of Gael García Bernal, but it's a acceptable performance. This film shows us the Catholic church's dual morality, and the thin line between good and evil. It's interesting, but I expected more controversy that an bored and overreacted melodrama. Undoubtedly, it's not as good as another mexican movies.
Sluggish and unfocused.
A despeito das inúmeras alterações na história original, consegue capturar a essência da obra-prima de Eça de Queirós na medida em que denuncia as corrupções e hipocrisias existentes na Igreja Católica (e praticados, no caso, tanto pelos médios e grandes sacerdotes quanto pelos fiéis dito fervorosos). O filme, inclusive, comprova a atemporalidade do romance de Queirós, uma vez que a transposição da história de 1875 para 2002 jamais soa inverossímil ou artificial (o que não deixa de ser lastimável, claro). Entretanto, é uma pena que o longa não dê o mesmo espaço para os conflitos entre a fé celibatária e o prazer amoroso-carnal, tão duramente enfrentados pelo casal protagonista. Menção honrosa para as sensíveis performances de Gael García Bernal e de Ana Claudia Talancón.
A Oscar nominee for Best Foreign Film, plus Gael Garcia Bernal, plus anti-religious overtones? What's not to like about this movie. Well, several things. It's okay, maybe even above average, but it falls short of my standard set by some recent Oscar noms in that category. Bernal is one of my favorite actors. He's flat in this, as is just about everything. It's clearly a story with a point, and said story takes center stage. The actors are merely there to deliver the lines. So in that regard, Talancon as Amelia shines as a complete smokeshow. She's not a real likable character (there is about one in the entire movie), but she's nice to look at. The topic is quite controversial and, I'm guessing, is why it was nominated for an Oscar. Certainly none of the acting performances were mesmerizing. You have strife and cover up and hypocrisy within the church, all building toward a (sadly) predictable end. I had a pretty good idea of what was coming. Definitely, there are some valid ideas to take from the film. More than the final questions posed, I like the conflict throughout the movie. Power corrupts and why should the church be any exception? Given the amount of power it has, it only follows it would be more corrupt.
nice to look at but no substance
It was good, but forgettable.
Brilliant film. Challenging, well scripted and acted.