Of Gods and Men

Such a profound film. Its monologues AND dialogues reminded me of the profoundness of Stalker, and once I got used to that steady nature-seeking camera, I was convinced. A very mixed audience in the theatre seemed convinced too, as there was complete silence after the film. I loved that the nature of the monks' lives was so beautifully integrated in the storyline; if we saw them do the same thing twice, there was a reason. A great experience in many ways.

The monks were an odd bunch, in the best possible way, but the whole Swan Lake laughing/crying routine rubbed me the wrong way. It's a solid, if rather leisurely paced, film that needed to be slightly more focused. If you want existential musings on the lack of religious reassurance, early sixties' Bergman is still the way to go.

Masterful filmmaking. Nuanced and understated without being indulgent. Loved the final shot.

A pad on the back to the monks holding down the fort while war was raging on! Of Gods and Men's pace and cinematography was superb, but still I find monks, and most other people who devote their lives completely to any religion kinda ridiculous. So if they don't know kung fu or has some other special trait I really don't care about them...

1) The cure for religious vomit is not *more* religious vomit. 2) This is a very dull film. 3) You just know those monks were buggering each other with glee during their off-hours

Fantastic characterization, performances, and ambiance. The movie manages to be contemplative and somber without ever losing your attention.

Never hits hard enough compared to past Grand Prix winners such as A Prophet or La Vita e Bella and doesn't get its message across effectively. I was rather bored stiff by this one.

I love myself a slow paced arthouse feature but this is viciously, laughably boring and i don't think it's all that deep. An assault on my patience. Also annoyed by the characterization of these men as completely innocent and peaceful. Doesn't feel human

Christianity has always had an uncomfortable comfort with martyrdom: while a paramount manifestation of suffering and evil in the world, it can also become a vehicle for Grace and transcendence. This film aims to display this concept of radical faith (and it succeeds), but it doesn't provide answers - those should be made on our own terms. What I found most fascinating is the film's inevitability of violence: at the beginning of the film we know they'll die. They seem to know it too.

A cinematic proof that sometimes questions have a much more profound power than answers. With an exceptional calm, patience and use of mise-en-scène and tracking shots Beauvois leaves you in a trance both physically and mentally.

A film about coming to terms with giving one's life--in a figurative and literal sense. I was concerned the film would portray the Monks in a saintly fashion, as if they were gods more than men. But the film focuses on their weakness and frailty in a compelling and realistic way--i.e. we see their full humanity--and that makes the more beatific and spiritually triumphant moments more satisfying. One critic called this a film that describes what it means to be Christian. Yes, absolutely.

Love endures. This is a film about a group of men on a mission to love people as best they can, to be neighborly, to give of themselves however they can for the betterment of others. This is a physical and social task, but these men reveal that it is also a spiritual task, one deeply connected with who human beings are and ought to be. The quiet rhythms of the film mimic those same rhythms of monastery life, including sequences of profound goodness & beauty and a Christian ethic made tangible.

Just monks being brave and heroic and staying true to God. Moving but I can't stand invincible heroes. Give me Batman, and never Superman.

While I question some of the editing choices (most especially: with hundreds of years of church music, the climactic scene has Swan Lake?), it's a moving (if, admittedly, sometimes slow-moving) meditation on monks choosing to help others while putting themselves in danger. It's rather amazing to have such a spiritual message without coming across as preachy.

A solid representation of the cognitive confusion when peaceful people are forced to confront violent people.

The film focuses deeply on what their lives are like, administering to the sick and working in their garden and praying together, and on the decision process that lead to them staying. All of the actors playing the monks are superb, in particular Michael Lonsdale as the doctor and Lambert Wilson as their nominal leader. It's kind of a joy to see a movie that's content to quietly discuss a moral quandary.

Absorbing depiction of community at work, with some lovely liturgical music.

The pace of the film is the most attractive thing about it. This aside, it seems to contain little inherent substance.

A beautiful, reasonably moving and well observed film. The film puts you amidst the rhythms of the life at this monestary, and the central conflict and the ideas surrounding it I found very compelling not least of all because the monks' conflicted state was presented in such a way as to help (without being condescending or didactic) me, as an agnostic, understand what it is that leaves them so torn as regards the choice they have to make. I wasn't blown away but I was certainly impressed.

A thorough demonstration of how Christian principles of sacrifice and love can allow holy men to martyr themselves for ideological purpose. The Islamists could care less about their sacrifice. The world is unchanged and maybe even further endangered by the perceived weakness.

Beautifully crafted in a minimal way, this film contemplates the nature of faith.

I'm not sure it really needed to be that slow and empty. I found that more pretentious that useful for the story, or maybe I just didn't get that much into the film this time. What I appreciate is the look, the care, and the honest the story looks, and the conflict it supposes, both out of the monastery and inside the monastery, both between the monks and inside every monk. But even that could have be done better. By the way: fuck Gall-Peters projection.

A movingly spiritual work with absolutely masterful cinematography. It's got a lot going on in it but what it boils down to is a group of men personally inquiring what their faith means and whether survival is more important than making a difference. They differ in how they deal with it but it's all interesting. The climax, a feast day with Tchaikovsky and red wine, is pretty much perfect without having to do very much at all. It's a beautiful piece of art, both visually and emotionally.

So dull. Every little scene dragged on and on and on. Every motivation seemed so tenuous. It may touch people of faith, but I don't even...

hristyanlik, misyonerlik, müslüman terörist, cezayir, manastir

The story and the music are beautiful. However, the movie is too much slow.

:Loses some power by letting the central debate fizzle out...but rallies in the end with an eloquent post-climatic testament by Christian, an attempt to respond rationally to the irrational.

The economical storytelling might bore some but those looking for a layered, masterfully executed, and restrained but meaningful drama about life and faith in times of crisis will find this a rewarding movie experience. The pacing may be slow but the scenes are purposeful and the constant albeit subtle threat of danger kept me on edge. The emphasis on transcendent spirituality and vulnerability instead of religion is also refreshing as it made the monks more "human" and less "saintly."

Charming cast, good storyline. But not my cup of tea.

You almost have to become a monk to summon the Stoicism to sit through it. It's one of those movies you congratulate yourself for baring up under the many slow boring parts waiting for the point (heaven?), which was only there sort of. And it was subtitled. Even the credits were in French with subtitles, sometimes.

I'm especially susceptible to movies about cross-cultural, cross-religious understanding and I found parts of this film quite moving and beautiful; however, structurally it seems a bit too free-form for its own good. Not only did the many scenes of singing interfere with the narrative flow but I also rolled my eyes. (And, Swan Lake???) More importantly since the setting is Algeria and since France was the colonizer, I'm more than a little bit suspicious of all the good will.

These monks deserved a better tribute.

Beauvois deliberately avoids Nationalist reproach, seeking commiseration that goes deeper than the acquiescence for which French liberals are typically known.

consistently true to a main theme, but remains at a pretty modest level overall

A more cynical director might have questioned the paternalism of the monks towards the village they co-exist with, and that could be linked to the role of NGO's in general, but Beavious' film focuses on the brotherhood and collective strength of the monks in the face of grave uncertainity.

The predicament the monks face is an interesting one and is discussed intelligently both through dialogue and prayer, but there is too little sense of dread, or any sort of emotion, pertaining to this story. A lukewarm effort, elevated by only a handful of scenes of greatness.

5-12-2010 gives representation of the situation there at the time. Impressive, but not heartbreaking.

"Breaking up its quiet, contemplative tone with occasional fevered outbursts of activity, Of Gods and Men maintains a tension borne of uncertainty while paying proper respect to the hushed, unhurried lifestyle of the monks." - Andrew Schenker

10 ekim 10, filmekimi 10, gmall2, 13:30, cansuyla & terorist muslumanlar ve onlari sevgi ile kucaklayan hristiyanlar hakkinda bir film. sevmedim, cunku tarafli bir bakis acisi vardi. bir yanda hem kurani hem de incili cok iyi bilen, ibadetini sonuna kadar yapan hristiyan din adamlari, diger tarafta ise koy basip, bogaz kesen ve noelden bile bi haber muslumanlar vardi. filmin sahip oldugu bakis acisini (dolayisiyla da filmi) ne sevebilirim ne de kabul edebilirim.