It is well-made, yes, but has such pro-Catholic tunnel vision I began to question its view of events.
In that case it sounds great!
May 31 - 05:52 AM
What's wrong with Pro-Catholic? Would it be different if it were Pro-Muslim?
May 31 - 07:51 AM
Exactly, Father! Here is one of the most outspokenly biased men in newsprint, and he's worried about a movie that is telling a true story being too "pro-Catholic"
Jun 1 - 08:43 PM
I think you missed the words "tunnel vision" after "pro-Catholic". Based on what Ebert said in this blurb, the movie takes no other vantage point of historic events than that of Catholicism.
Jun 2 - 04:56 PM
1 Samuel 15:3 - "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" is wrong with being Pro-Catholic.
Jul 21 - 06:13 PM
No shock coming from Socialist, atheist, Christian hating Ebert.
May 31 - 08:31 AM
Uh, dude, this movie is resting at 16%. I think it's time to reel back your obnoxious comments and shut the fuck up.
May 31 - 03:03 PM
They shouldn't let 12 year-olds play on the internet without supervision. They can't string together 2 sentences without a profanity.
Jun 1 - 08:44 PM
Given the two seconds it took for me to look at your profile, see your vile comments on the last Mission Impossible movie about "watching a queer man jump around like he's a normal person," it's only too easy to understand why you would defend Matt S for calling a respected critic a 'socialist, atheist, Christian hater' for suggesting other point of views should have been included. See, that's the thing about middle-aged men who believe in talking snakes, parted seas, the rising dead and every other ludicrous thing in the Bible: they can't string together two sentences without making fools of themselves.
Jun 3 - 06:16 PM
To be fair to Roger he is not a Christian hater. He did give a good review to the Passion of the Christ. I understand his point of view although I do not totally aggree with it. I applaud the overall message of the film but I thought it lacked a little in the quality department. I would not encourage anyone to avoid it not would I enthusastically endorse it. A decent film with a important messege although not a great film.
May 31 - 09:38 AM
This is a good review, rotten label is a bit misleading though. Ebert's beef was that it is entirely Pro Catholic. In Mexico, especially in the 1920s, it practically was the religion. The majority of Mexico (like 90%) has always been Catholic so of course its going to be centered around the Catholic Church.
I can see why his Mexican American friend never heard of the conflict. The Mexican government tried to cover up the whole ordeal (there is a scene in a film that alludes to this, where the photographer has his pictures burned). Author (and Third Man screenwriter) Graham Greene wrote two books set shortly after this period, having traveld to Mexico himself during this time. He describes the results of the Calles laws as the "fiercest persecution of religion anywhere since the reign of Queen Elizabeth". I think I'll take his word for it since he actually went down there himself.
I can understand why Ebert would "question its view on events" because the film does come off as a bit one sided, but historically speaking, this actually happened. My grandmother was actually baptized underground in hiding, she still has her baptismal certificate, which wasn't even on paper but on a napkin!
May 31 - 10:42 AM
but it's not well made...
the dialogue, characterization, length; the film is plagued with problems not related to its theme
Jun 1 - 04:11 AM
Ebert obviously believes there is no good and no bad in this world. However, the movie is about Catholics driven to war in defence of their faith and the message is relevant today. The enemies of the Church should take note.
Jun 2 - 01:34 AM
You are moron. I went to see it,because you didn't like it and guess what? EVERYBODY LOVE IT.
GET A BOOK and read about it, you are very ignorant. Have some respect!!! 90,000 people died and you don't care?!!
Jun 2 - 08:31 PM
sO WHY WOULD YOU DOG THE MOVIE, WHEN YOU STATED IT WAS WELL MADE, LET PEOPLE DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER!
Jun 3 - 08:47 PM
I haven't seen this yet, but I'm worried that it's going to disappoint me, based on the pathetic reviews it's received. Even from the trailers, I detect an element of cheesiness. That being said, I think if a work of art does not resound with truth and beauty, then Catholics should not be afraid to criticize it. This movie most likely contains truth, but the producer and director should be taken to task if they make an attempt that fails at portraying the true and beautiful. An example of success in this is The Passion, and there are many others. I have not seen "For Greater Glory" yet, but I have seen other recent Faith Based productions that have a message, but no regard for the quality that this God given art form deserves.
It's so frustrating! I hope this one is not more of the same, and I can come back with positive comments.
Jun 5 - 11:45 AM
Dear Mr. Ebert,
Are you for real? The movie is based on the Mexican government's attempt to destroy the Catholic Church and make Mexico secular. Of course it's going to depict the Catholic Church as a David to Mexico's Goliath. Can a movie only be good if it's anti-Catholic? The Church is imperfect but it does a lot of good in the world (healthcare, feeding the poor, housing the homeless, etc.). I find it a refreshing change to see a movie that casts the Church in a positive light. Sadlym I think your hatred for Christianity has given you tunnel vision and forces me to question your view of events.
Jun 11 - 08:43 AM