Djard Folks who have never read the whole Bible, and those who don't accept it as the only reliable source of information about God, will not find this historically accurate portrayal of Christianity's rejection of man-made religion as appealing. Truth is often most inconvenient. As Christ conveyed, to the saved, servants like Luther will be the "fragrance of Christ"; to the unsaved, he will be as the "smell of death." The only shortcoming in this moving biography is the lack graphic attention to Catholicism's vicious persecution of genuine Christians (belief in 'Sola Scriptura' was, and today still is, deemed as heresy). This powerful movie may properly have been called 'The Rejection of Babylon the Harlot' as detailed in Rev. 17.

RainDogJr My homework for one of my Communication and Journalism classes was to watch Eric Till's 2003 biopic of Martin Luther. I never heard a thing about this film before and hell I only knew the name of Martin Luther but not really who the man was and stuff. So if not for doing my homework I would never had seen this religious film and learn something about Martin Luther. My first impression was good, I was like "well at least some names in the credits are familiar, Alfred Molina and Bruno Ganz". Technically the film is competent, is a well-done film even that sometimes it looks quite like a TV movie. The acting is good and is actually Alfred Molina the one who for me delivers the best performance in the film. It is a very small performance tough, but when Alfred Molina appears everything comes together: his very good performance and what is for me the most enjoyable, the best part of the film. And is not that it's like a great piece of film-making, no, is just that is an engaging part with Martin Luther (Joseph Fiennes… he's decent if not fantastic. I'm just realizing he played William Shakespeare in the famous Best Picture winner Shakespeare in Love, certainly I haven't seen that picture… I'm waiting until I have to do it to do my homework!) continuing to see what's really f***** up with the church. Actually, I quite enjoyed all of the stuff with Luther opening the eyes to the people who were buying their stairways to heaven and later facing the superiors. Is pretty much obvious and classic stuff, you can forget the religious aspect since is just the classic situation of a man doing the right thing and because of that going totally against the ones with the power, the evil ones, you know ("f*** the indulgences, better give that money to the people who really need it"… that was basically the main thing with Luther). But the film stops being engaging to eventually be totally uninteresting and plain boring, pretty much when Luther goes to see the church people ends the entertaining parts and when Luther confirms that wrote the certain books the film begins to be totally uninteresting. So, I did learn a bit about Luther (the main connection with the stuff I'm doing in the class is the stuff of the church treating people that they are going to suffer forever in hell and stuff) and for some moments I wasn't very p*ssed off with the fact that I was seeing a religious film on a Saturday afternoon instead of one of the DVDs I got the day I rented Luther (I got The People vs. Larry Flint, 6ixtynin9 and a documentary of James Dean). If you don't care about Martin Luther, there's no reason why you should check out this film, it's not bad (though some bits like the whole stuff with Luther "fighting" with God are pretty ridiculous) but very far from being something special.

lorddarkstorn I'm a bit of a history geek so I try to watch most of the movies that are set in a historical setting. Luther was, in the lack of a better word, interesting.There's some fine camera work, acting,the works but it just can't get top marks. It was too modern. Dialogues, interactions, it's too much 20th century. Luther speaks like a modern professor at the university, his students look like a bunch of twenty year olds who can't keep attention during class because they think where they will go out Friday night and so on. You just can't get immersed in the movie because of that.All in all, it's worth watching, but don't expect a masterpiece. 6/10*

Lee Eisenberg I had known for some years about Martin Luther nailing the theses to the church. Until I had seen the movie "Luther", I hadn't really known anything about the rest of his life (except that he was a notorious anti-Semite). The movie does a pretty good job showing the events that led up to his famous deed and then what resulted. Granted, they can't show everything, and I can't verify how accurate the movie is, but I will assert that the movie marks a major achievement for all involved. I just find it fascinating to learn about the circumstances surrounding these historical events. Speaking of which, I learned in ninth grade that there had been several rebellions against the Catholic Church prior to Luther's famous action; it was just that the theses-nailing was something that everyone could follow easily.Anyway, certainly worth seeing. Starring Joseph Fiennes, Peter Ustinov (in his final role) and Bruno Ganz.PS: the book "Non Campus Mentis: World History According to College Students" says: "An angry Martin Luther nailed ninety-five theocrats to a church door. The pope's response was to declare Luther hereditary...Martin Luther King stood for the priesthood of all relievers."