Doubt Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x1040 | 8137.41 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x688 | 4478.82 MiB | 720p | |
|
616x320 | 699.74 MiB | divx | |
|
320x166 | 478.17 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
Set at a Catholic school in the Bronx, it centers on a nun who grows suspicious when a priest begins taking too much interest in the life of a young black student. Is she being overly protective or not protective enough? And can she work within the system to discover the truth?
| Meryl Streep | Sister Aloysius Beauvier |
| Philip Seymour Hoffman | Father Brendan Flynn |
| Amy Adams | Sister James |
| Viola Davis | Mrs. Muller |
| Lloyd Clay Brown | Jimmy Hurley |
| Joseph Foster | Donald Muller |
| Mike Roukis | William London |
| Bridget Megan Clark | Noreen Horan |
| Lydia Jordan | Alice |
| Paulie Litt | Tommy Conroy |
| Matthew Marvin | Raymond |
| Evan Lewis | Parishioner John |
| Dennis Albanese | Angry Parishiner |
| Timothy J. Cox | Churchgoer |
| John Patrick Shanley |
7.90 out of 10 (15825 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Good performances, dull story
posted on 24 Aug 2009There were excellent performances, the Oscars this year are out of my mind already but I'm sure this won a few acting awards. The story was dull though. I didn't really want to see it but watched with friends. I wasn't alive in the 60s and I've no connection to the Catholic church or it's scandals, there was nothing of interest for me. If you WERE interested in the movie you probably would like it, it was okay overall. It did annoyingly jump from loud music and conversation to silence a little too often, it wasn't an effective technique because it was overused. It also reveled a little too much in everyone's "doubts." I can definitely see how it was once (or still is) a play, there certainly was a similar feel to the theater.
Yet another anti Roman Catholic movie
posted on 22 Aug 2009Bashing Roman Catholics and their church seems to be the latest acceptable thing to do in movies these days and I'm sure tired of it. With the thousands of priests, sisters and consecrated lay men and women doing the work of God throughout the world, why does Hollywood see the need to take an unfortunate (indeed, disgusting) series of scandals and milk them for all their worth? I personally know some wonderful priests and one of my closest friends is my 6th grade teacher, a member of the Sisters of Charity. None of these men and women has ever done anything improper. They are holy men and women and deserve the same respect as members of other religions. First, we had "The DaVinci Code." Soon we'll have "Angels & Demons," the sequel. And now we have "Doubt," which already has created Oscar buzz. Is its anti-Catholic theme the reason it's created the buzz? All I can say is if a movie about scandals in the Jewish or Islamic religions were made, the directors and producers would be pilloried or worse. Yet we Catholics are forced to take this nonsense because it's "great art." Forgive me if I disagree. I love my church and, while I do not accept or condone the scandals, I also don't judge my church solely by those events. The Roman Catholic Church has done tremendous work throughout the world but people don't know that because Hollywood is too busy making movies about the church's negative times. That's a shame. With all the holy men and women doing God's work, it is a very narrow-minded group that sees fit to make movies only about the church's scandals! I wish it would STOP. NOW.
Avoids easy answers
posted on 22 Aug 2009According to a report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, over four thousand clerics were accused of sexual abuse during the past fifty years. Although approximately thirty percent of these accusations were not investigated because they were unsubstantiated, given the proclivity of the bishops to cover up these incidents, the figures are widely suspected to be underestimated. What may be lost in the discussion of statistics about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, however, is an understanding of the humanity of the people involved or the complexities of the circumstances.This factor is brought to light in Doubt, John Patrick Shanley's filmed version of his Tony Award and Pulitzer Prize winning stage play. Based on Shanley's personal experiences at Catholic School, the film explores not only the issue of possible sexual abuse but conservative versus progressive religious values and how far one can rely on suspicion in the absence of proof. Set in 1964, one year after the Kennedy assassination, Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Meryl Streep) is the dragon lady of St. Nicholas school in the Bronx. A strict taskmaster, she relishes her role as the upholder of tradition, rejecting such modern devices as ballpoint pens and the singing of secular songs at Christmas like Frosty the Snowman which she equates with pagan magic.Under Aloysius is the sweet and innocent Sister James (Amy Adams) whose easy going manner and charming personality is a welcome antidote to her authoritarian superior. The priest at St. Nicholas is Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who is the closest thing to a progressive at the school. He is open to new ideas and the changes initiated by Pope John XXIII, being much more open and relaxed with the children and engaging them in sports and conversation. In his sermons he brings the language of religion into the twentieth century, talking about the positive aspects of doubt and the injurious effects of gossip. "Doubt", he says, "can be a bond as powerful and sustaining as certainty. When you are lost, you are not alone." Resentful of the role of women in the Catholic Church and suspicious of Father Flynn, Sister Aloysius assigns Sister James to keep an eye peeled for anything unusual in his conduct. Her fears appear justified when Sister James reports that Father Flynn asked Donald Miller (Joseph Foster II), the school's only African-American student, to a private conference in the rectory and was seen hanging up the boys undershirt in his locker. Sister James also informs her that there was alcohol on the boy's breath and that the boy seemed upset when returning to his desk.Although no inappropriate behavior was witnessed, Sister Aloysius suspects wrongdoing and summons the priest to her office on the pretext of discussing the Christmas pageant. She accuses the priest of misconduct with the altar boy who denies that he gave altar wine to the boy or that anything unusual happened. The drama takes more twists and turns, especially when Donald's mother (Viola Davis) raises Aloysius' eyebrows by suggesting that, in spite of the allegations, the boy, who is due to enter high school in a few months, may be better off in the hands of the priest than having to face his intolerant and abusive father.Doubt avoids easy answers and challenges us to view inflammatory issues from a broader perspective, embracing the essential mystery of human behavior. The acting in the film is uniformly brilliant. Streep is mesmerizing, even if at times more theatrical than may be necessary for the character. Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance is more restrained and draws our sympathy with his broader view of church doctrine and display of love and compassion, although his demeanor at the end tantalizingly suggests remorse.What may be the most noteworthy performance, however, is that of Viola Davis whose dialogue with Aloysius is one of the dramatic high points of the film. The issue of whether Father Flynn acted as a friend and mentor to the boy or a sexual partner is ultimately left to the viewer to resolve, though what is beyond doubt is that absolute certainty without considering other points of view is a dead end for all involved.
Can those in it have doubt
posted on 22 Aug 2009An interesting, intense drama centered around a conflict between two very different personalities that go to, the roots of their identity (as members of church) and, what is at many people's hearts (religion and morality), was weakened by an overreaching melodrama that pervaded the dialog.One gives his sermon on doubt probably with doubts of his own as possibly and probably sinful passions and temptations possess his body and soul. The other is a hard headed, strict school principal with a chip on her shoulder about being subjected to the male in the hierarchical ecclesiastical establishment in which she in a part of. She too has her "doubts". A mental battle ensues between the two, as one develops a strong suspicion without any concrete proof.-SPOILER ALERT- (Maybe) ----- The movie does not reveal what actually happens or what he did which leaves it for us to make our own interpretations of the situation. This will foster debate about the issues of whether or not he did do it and other more universal and larger ideas concerning religion and morality. -----A focus is on the characters and their personalities but the movie fell short of delving deeply into personal development. A revelation of this character's past or an explanation of why she is who she is as the extremely uptight, strict uncompassionate person could have fulfilled this necessary gap.The younger teacher caught in the middle had an innocent naivety throughout the whole situation. The play on her innocence against the probably morally tainted, sexually gregariously off priest and the embittered, "experienced" in the deceptive nature of individuals, principal/nun was one of the most delightfully amusing parts of the story.Much is said about the performances of the two great actors. When watching Hoffman you become immersed into his character, he does an excellent job. On the other hand, it feels as though you are watching Streep, which distracts from the character who she should create. She repeated the same emotions, mannerisms and expressions as we've seen in her other movies except in this case it was in a slightly over the top fashion. The greatest actors that are popular and so recognizable on the screen are just that great because we forget we are viewing them. They absorb their character reach out of their boundaries and themselves and are able to manifest a completely different individual.
Not perfect,but a very interesting movie
posted on 20 Aug 2009I understand the controversial nature of the sexual crimes committed by catholic priests who use their position and influence to take advantage of the trust the kids have on them,as well as the trust from the parents and the society.The film Doubt has a subject related to that horrible situation but what I mostly appreciated from it is that it tried to go a bit more far away than that.I will not tell more about that because if I do it,I may ruin the movie to some people.This is a very interesting movie.This film has an excellent atmosphere because that helps for increasing the intensity and tension.The dialogs are very well crafted,bot only because of their textual content but because of the subtle manipulation they make of our perception and ideology.I can mention for example the scene where Father Flynn defends the equality of a black race boy after a racist comment from Sister Beauvier.The dialog is perfectly reasonable but it has a totally different dimension because of its context and because of some things we already know...or we believe to know.Director and screenwriter John Patrick Shanley adapted his play to this movie and I think he did a very good work on both fields.As a screenwriter,he could adapt his play into an intense and very interesting screenplay; and as a director,he could find a minimalistic tone which helps to create the atmosphere of the movie,and he could extract extraordinary performances from the cast.Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman totally deserve the acclamation they received and I say it clarifying that I usually do not like Streep's work too much.She always brings detailed performances but they never feel natural because she does not become into her characters; she just interprets them (the most clear examples of this are her performances on the films The Hours and Kramer Vs. Kramer).But,on this movie,Streep could totally become on her character and make it really memorable.Amy Adams also brings an excellent performance.She expresses a lot with her expressions and she is completely natural on every scene she appears.Viola Davis also brings a brilliant work as a mother with solid motivations behind her actions.The fails I found on this movie are two.For one sight,Doubt felt a little bit slow on some moments; and for the other sight,the ending feels a little bit empty.I would have preferred a more compact conclusion.In spite of that fails,I liked this movie pretty much.Doubt represented a very interesting experience in my case and because of that,I recommend it with confidence.
Gripping movie, and the kind you should see at least twice.
posted on 20 Aug 2009I grew up Roman Catholic in the 1950s and 1960s and, while I didn't attend a Catholic school as the one depicted in this movie, I was educated by traveling nuns during the summer. The atmosphere and characters depicted in this movie are very authentic and brought back fond memories of growing up.Philip Seymour Hoffman is Father Brendan Flynn, the kind of priest that tries to give meaningful sermons, the kind that has congregants examining their own souls. As this movie begins he is delivering one on the subject of "doubt", and how our own personal doubts during times of trouble can have a strong bonding feeling.One of the congegants listening to that sermon is Meryl Streep as Sister Aloysius, who also is principal of the adjoining junior high school. She has been around a while and feels she "knows" people and is convinced that Fr Flynn chose "doubt" for his topic because of his own issues. Then, after observing one simple interaction through the window, between Fr Flynn and a student, decides she and the other nuns need to be watchful, to see if they can spot any improper behavior.Amy Adams is Sister James, young and bright-eyed 8th grade teacher. One of her students is Donald Miller, a new transfer from another school, and as the only black student (this is 1964!) is not easily accepted by the others. When Fr Flynn calls and pulls Donald out of her class for a meeting of unknown content, she takes note. Then, when she observes that he returns later with an abnormal demeanor, she gets more suspicious. Soon, after she sees Fr Flynn placing something into Donald's locker, she reports all this to Sister Aloysius.So the whole movie is about this, and what becomes a crusade where Sister Aloysius is certain that Fr Flynn is having improper relationships with the boy. She makes it very clear to Flynn, in what amounts to an improper investigation on her part, that she will cause his dismissal, and she assures him that if he tries to fight this she WILL WIN.The 4th key adult character is Viola Davis as Mrs. Miller, Donald's mother.This is a fine movie as it is more a character study than a commentary on 1960s Roman Catholic workings. Its focus is on Sister Aloysius and how she handles her own doubt, or in most instances her lack of doubt. As we observe we wonder, "How can she be so sure she is right when she has no evidence that anything is wrong?" This is the kind of movie you can see twice, which I did, on successive days and get as much out of it the second time. The actors are some of the best in the business and the exchanges between Streep and Hoffman are especially gripping. Don't be disappointed if you don't have all the answers when the movie ends, because there always is "doubt." SPOILERS FOLLOW: The movie ends without answering the key question of whether Fr Flynn was beyond reproach. In fact, the hint is that there may well have been some irregularities in his past, but probably not improper relationships with children. Maybe alcohol abuse? But within the context of this movie we cannot conclude that his relationship with Donald was improper at all. In fact Fr Flynn knew Donald was beaten by his own dad, perhaps because Donald had homosexual tendencies, and Fr Flynn was going out of his way to be supportive of Donald, to be his friend. Sister Aloysius did not like Fr Flynn. His fingernails were too long, he took sugar with his tea, he liked Frosty the Snowman, a song Sister Aloysius described as pagan. Thus her vendetta. At the very end, after Fr Flynn had been transferred and promoted, she confided to young Sister James, "I have doubts" and began to cry, the first time we see any emotion in her.
A Sister at a Catholic school has suspicions regarding the priest and one of the students.
posted on 16 Aug 2009Set aside the "goofs" that whoever was in charge of continuity missed (for a film of this caliber whoever was in charge should not be allowed to do this job anymore), the superb acting will win you over and you won't notice any of them. Streep, as usual (even in fluff movies), is spot on in her role as Sister Aloysius, who suspects that Father Flynn, played by Hoffman (man, can this man act) is up to "no good" with one of the students. Every scene in which the two of them are together is powerful. Davis, as the mother of the boy who in involved in this "scandal," is perfect as usual, and if her scene with Streep, when she is talking about how her son just needs to make it to June, does not move you, then, well, nothing I can say about that. Hate to use the word twice, but this single scene is the most powerful in the movie. She knows her son is a certain way, and that possibly something is amiss at his school, but what can she do? The real surprise, though, was Adams, as Sister James. I was getting weary of all her roles as some ditzy or silly character, especially lately, but this movie proved that Adams has the mettle to go head-to-head with some heavy hitters (Streep, Hoffman, and Davis). She starts out a little immature and juvenile, but so do all new teachers. Then reality kicks in. I look forward to seeing Adams mature, along with her roles. And I so want to see Streep and Hoffman do something else together as well. If you are looking for a movie with physical action, you'll not find it here. This movie is pure theater, put to screen, and done so quite well.
Killing kindness in the name of virtue … Doubt
posted on 14 Aug 2009Something about small-scale films adapted from theatre resonates with me. I love the emotional punch packed inside, tightly constructed for a powerful impact. Unlike a novel, plays need to get everything out in a short period of time, and that concentrated energy gets released with so much more weight. What I originally thought would be a back and forth between priest and nun, eventually ending in the truth coming out and all being over, instead becomes an exercise in humanity and ego. Everything we do as people has reasons and consequences, the truth is a strong thing, but speculation is even stronger. When someone gets an idea into his head, he will continue that course of thinking until the end, doing whatever he can to bring the wrongdoer to justice and vindicate the victim. No matter how much that judge may believe he is doing right, the toll and price of his actions may exceed the cost of finding the truth. Because if the truth isn't what he thinks, he will never believe it, therefore making justice void, ruining lives by allowing fear and the unknown take control over the pursuit and achievement of fact.While the idea of child molestation hangs in the balance, on whether this priest began an inappropriate relationship with a boy, it is not the main aspect of the story. Instead, the question of how someone deals with his own doubt comes to the forefront. As Father Flynn, the priest in question played wonderfully by Philip Seymour Hoffman, says early on, doubt can be as powerfully bonding as conviction. You may think it's you versus the world, but there are really so many out there sharing the same questions of faith and action as you. All it takes is one small event, one seemingly innocuous moment to make someone question another's actions. Once the seed of doubt is planted, however, it is very tough to remove, yet rather easy to spread onto others.The film doesn't even really need to tell you if the atrocity in question actually occurred or not, that isn't important. What is crucial becomes how everyone involved deals with the accusations. The power struggle of the church becomes a big factor as you start to question whether the men do have the women pressed under their controlling grip. At multiple instances the regimented structural hierarchy of nun to priest to bishop to pope comes up showing a chain of authority that cannot be questioned at any moment. The format only succeeds if it is followed to the letter, the entire system will topple if anything less occurs.As a result, so much is challenged. Religion, morals, that gray line between right and wrong, whether wrong can somehow be good if you allow yourself to see only the benefits and lie to yourself about the horrors happening along with them—this film will make you look deep inside yourself and wonder how you'd react. Would you be able to go against your vows, against the rules of God that you have followed for so long, in order to seek what you thought was right? Would you question a higher authority's word on a hunch? Would you have that much faith in yourself that he was lying? To be able to fully commit yourself in a course of action, consequences be damned, you must have no doubt at all. However, if at the end things change, if doubts start creeping in, you will be devastatingly lost, always unsure of yourself and whether you can ever trust your gut again.The strength and resolve of a human being is not shown better than in the two final confrontations of this film. Viola Davis is amazing as the possible victim's mother, a woman who is trying to keep her family together and give her son a chance at a life. No matter what is happening, she just needs until June, until he graduates, then he can go away to a good high school and possibly college. She is surviving and hoping her son does as well, because it isn't just the boys in school, or the teachers making accusations on each other around him, but also their home too, with a father that won't except a son who doesn't fit his ideals. When she and Meryl Streep, the nun at the head of Father Flynn's witch trial, have their walk together, that scene becomes the film. Davis, as a mother, begins to go outside the boundaries of that sacred job just as Streep goes out of hers as a nun. The two are so much the same, yet on opposite sides, that it becomes such a powerhouse of emotions and revelations.But it all culminates in the final showdown between Hoffman and Streep, the point at which the film takes a turn I never anticipated it doing. Whether the truth comes out or not, this is a scene containing two of the best, screaming and challenging one another with empty threats, lies, and half-truths. It becomes a test of whether a reputation becomes bigger than the person. Is it worth it to risk shame in order to keep a lie underwraps? Just because there is no proof for guilt doesn't mean the creed "innocent until proved guilty" will hold true. Once someone calls another's self into question, once a person's integrity becomes blemished due to fact or fiction, there is no turning back. Like the metaphor of a pillow's feathers flying across town, unable to be retrieved, gossip spreads like wildfire and it can never be overturned. People will always think twice, but it also works the other way too. If everyone seems to feel that person is just, and it's only you who thinks differently, well then the guilt all of a sudden transfers. It begins to eat away at you as you wonder if all that work, all those sacrifices with their dire consequences, were for nothing.
wishywashy and inconclusive
posted on 14 Aug 2009Is that what makes this seem thoughtful? OK - excellent acting by all concerned, great sets, lovely cinematography - but the script -? We don't know anything about anything - that's a profound summary of the motivations of the characters. There is nothing to grab on to, nothing but perhapses and maybes. This makes the film a big fat failure.The subject - molestation of minors by priests - is horrendous and awful. So why the mealy-mouthed treatment? What's the point? Perhaps to say that without proof we are in doubt? Then why bother with the film - really, a big effort for no return.I was very disappointed that such a serious topic, and so much hooplah about a film, with such great actors, resulted in so little. It was a waste of my time - be sure not to waste yours.
Yuck.
posted on 14 Aug 2009The acting was amazing. The writing was terrible, shallow, and boring. I cannot see what the fuss was all about. The camera angles, well, everything was on an angle at all times to show suspicion. Yuck. No thanks. Total waste of time. This is why realty TV has found an audience.What was the point? To show how the Church gets away with everything? To show how a strong woman becomes weak? To show how boys will be boys? I've had enough of that.It's too bad, really, because I like all of the actors in the movie. The children were well played (by children), the coustomes were very well done...just the story was weak at best.
Lame, Lame as Hell
posted on 12 Aug 2009It was probably one of the worst movies I've seen in full. I went in to see random film. The name Doubt seemed pretty promising so we bought the ticket. I've never seen the trailer before.Except the casting this movie was just bull-poop. No life, no fun, no sympathy NO nothing.PLEASE DON'T watch it, everyone in the theater came out with mumbling lameness of the movie. The Ending was especially the worst part!!! It made me feel "WTF????, that's it..." Not worth watching, Not worth buying the DVD, and not worth even thinking about it. I'm still angry that I've seen such bad film. Thank god it was only one hour.
Really solid.
posted on 12 Aug 2009Even though this movie always got praised a lot, there also had been some criticism at it, claiming that the movie was nothing more but a filmed stage-play. Normally movies based on stage-plays also sort of bother more, since it obviously got written for a different medium and this doesn't always translate too well to the silver-screen. This however really wasn't the case for me with this movie. It's simply a solid movie, with a good story and of course more than great actors.It's a pure movie, that only relies solely on its script and actors. It directed by the man who also was behind the play; John Patrick Shanley.The movie leaves lots or room for speculation, since it doesn't explain everything that happens in the movie. The movie is more about the human nature and how individuals act in certain situations. A real character movie, that gets made all the more powerful due to main actors. the movie got nominated for a total of 5 Oscar's, of which 4 were for actors. This already says enough about it I think.Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep are two favorite actors of mine and you already knew from the moment that they were cast in this movie, the movie was going to be something special. Amy Adams was a bit of a surprising casting choice as a nun, since she mostly plays the pretty girl, in romantic-comedy like movies. But she also dares to be ugly in this movie and due to this her acting skills becomes more visible. She is simply a great actress who doesn't feel out of place at all within this movie and doesn't get played off the screen by its two leading, acclaimed, powerhouse actors.A great movie to watch, though perhaps a bit too heavy and not cinematic challenging enough to watch for some people, since the movie in its essence is pretty simple and besides its story and acting doesn't feature much more elements that deserve to be mentioned.8/10
A battle of wits
posted on 10 Aug 2009I was a little wary of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised by it. It's much like another one of my favorite 2008 films, Frost/Nixon, which is also based on a play. Both are extremely well acted battles of wits. It's almost like watching a great wrestling match. The biggest muscles here belong to the venerable Meryl Streep, an actress who never ceases to surprise me. It's weird, because she's just given so many great performances. You don't think she'll be able to do anything new, but then she pops up here with a great character, one that doesn't really resemble anything else she's done. She's equally matched by Philip Seymour Hoffman, one of the finest actors of his generation. And I, for one, thought Amy Adams held her own against these two powerhouses. It helps that she's perfectly cast as the innocent, trusting nun. It fits her like a glove. And like everyone else who's reviewed the film, I'd give high praise to Viola Davis. It's pretty much a kind of one-scene-wonder performance, but it's certainly memorable. I have a couple of complaints that keep this film from the highest ranks of my year-end list. I thought Shanley's direction just plain sucked much of the time. Yeah, his script is brilliant, but he hasn't directed a film since 1990 (and it was Joe Versus the Volcano), and it shows. He resorts to some extremely cheap tricks in order to distance the story from its stage-bound origins. He likes to tilt his camera, like he's making The Third Man, and it feels ridiculous. During the climactic sequence, Shanley inserts a thunderstorm that keeps growing until the scene hits its peak. Just cheap and unnecessary. As is the sequence demonstrating Hoffman's sermon about gossip. There's so much power in the simple confrontations between the characters, all these flourishes should just have been dropped. The film is going to be accused of being stagy in any case. Shanley should have just accepted that. I also wasn't quite sold on the final moment of the film. It feels out of character for Sister Aloysius (Streep). I think I understood it, but it feels kind of false to me.
Doubt
posted on 10 Aug 2009Doubt is based upon the play of the same name by John Patrick Shanley who also wrote the film's screenplay and was the director as well. It takes place in 1964 at a Catholic school where after some suspicious behaviour, the school's priest Father Brendan Flynn is brought to the school's principal Sister Aloysius Beauvier who accuses him of abusing the one African American student that the school has. The boy's teacher Sister James who first brought the awkward behaviour of the boy and Father Flynn to Sister Beauvier's attention is very ready to believe that Flynn is innocent, but Sister Beauvier is not as easily convinced and is set to uncover the truth and find more evidence to prove whether, or not Father Flynn is actually guilty. I think that Doubt much like 2007's There Will Be Blood will divide the movie going audience seeing it for much of the same reasons. Both films are great in my opinion, but both also are very unconventional in their storytelling (which is a trait I admired of both films), but I think also the fact that both films reveal a dark side of human nature are bound to leave some audiences feeling disturbed, or disappointed that the films did not have more of a typical Hollywood ending resolving things and giving the viewer more satisfaction in knowing what really happened. If this is how you like your films then you should probably look elsewhere than with Doubt. This film is really highlighted by a great screenplay that really carries the film. It is good not only for it's top notch writing and dialogue, but also because of the thought provoking, philosophical and disturbingly accurate portrayals of human nature and power. The film mainly consists of just talking between the few main characters that carry the story, but because the situations and conversations between the characters are so riveting and compelling to the more thinking person's audience this film will be just as captivating and even at times thrilling than any summer movie blockbuster. The film moves along at a great pace and because of the style and mood of the film as well as the story, which may sound simple enough on the surface, actually has more thought and depth than most films this year and is completely fascinating because of the dissecting of each of these characters and their true emotions and motives. I also have to mention the acting from the three main leads because they are all at the top of their game here and give much truth and power to the words they are saying by great facial movements, the tone of their voices and body language. The performances are so strong that I am sure they will be nominated for Oscars as many of the performances are already being recognized by other film festival awards. The film's screenplay because of it's rich examination of the human psyche and behaviour as well as it's thought provoking and compelling writing will also no doubt be nominated for a screenplay award. I think the word entertained is the wrong word to describe how I felt during this movie, but perhaps I shall say challenged, riveted and completely fascinated by this excellent study of human nature and the fine performances and writing behind them. The sets and the film's low key and almost drab appearance also completely suit the film with a sombre look and feel that feels completely home for the script and makes the film almost have a cinema verite look to it and makes it feel all the more real, which I thought suited it perfectly. This was an ideal night out at the movies for myself, but for those who like more upbeat, traditional and straight forward storytelling you may have to look elsewhere. For those who want to think, be challenged and witness storytelling and acting at it's best with no gimmicks, but just great talent behind it, then look no further and give Doubt a view. One of 2008's best films.
A compelling story which is further helped by intense performances and a tight script
posted on 06 Aug 2009After leaving the cinema, upon Doubt finishing rather powerfully, my friend and I had a half hour long discussion about what we had just seen. This talk further made me realise just how good the film is, and how rich and layered it is. Based off a stage play (of the same name) by John Patrick Stanley, Doubt centres on Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Meryl Streep), the principal of St. Nicholas Catholic School. Sister Aloysius runs a tight ship, ensuring everything is done in an old-fashioned style (no ballpoint pens, no Frosty the Snowman as he is a heretic, etc) and that the children are afraid of her. Young Sister James (Amy Adams) is a sweet and innocent woman who stumbles across something she has suspicions about, that one of the priests, Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is having an immoral relationship with the only Negro student. She informs Sister Aloysius of what she witnessed and so begins an attempt to bring him down.It is hard to believe this is Stanley's second feature film as a director, as this is so well-made in all aspects. The acting is uniformly amazing from the cast, with Streep and Hoffman in top form, and Adams proving herself a talented young woman. However, it is a newcomer that is particularly pleasing, Viola Davis as Mrs. Miller, the mother of the boy, gives an emotional and mesmerising performance for her short amount of screen-time (I smell an Oscar nod here). I would not be surprised if the actors from this film sweep the awards' ceremonies. The script is incredible and provides the film's most tense and riveting scenes, especially towards the end. Furthermore, there is some subtle symbolism and imagery throughout the film which really adds an incredible amount of depth and leads to some great discussions. The cinematography is totally suited to the tone of the film, and Roger Deakins seems to be the man to go to for perfect filming. Howard Shore's score is in the same boat, suited and quite unnerving at time, leaving feelings of uncertainty throughout.Doubt is entirely based around its title, and I found myself feeling it for the entirety of the movie as much as the characters were. It is a movie where it is hard to take sides with the characters, because they all have their many positives and negatives, their flaws and strengths. Not enough can be said in any review about how good this film is, and I will wrap up by stating that this is by far the best film of 2008 from what I have seen.5/5
Save your $10
posted on 06 Aug 2009The film is fixed with a delicious title. Doubt. The word floods the potential viewer's mind with questions. The desire to know the uncertainty the title promises draws you in. That and the star studded cast of accomplished actors. However, Doubt leaves no doubt in the viewer's mind as to the guilt of Father Flynn. Within three minutes his culpability is clear. With Donald's first line (the first words of a major character), it is obvious that he had inappropriate relations which lead to a discomfort with his body. Why else would a twelve year old boy ask if he looked fat-- especially in a movie we know will be pondering pedophilia. Next came the sermon shot. "We're all hiding things": pan to lady hiding illness, then man who's lost his friends, then to Hoffman as he talks of those who have done something sinful. Then comes the shot of Donald looking up to the light, to purity, but it's tainted by the presence of a pigeon, the filthiest bird of all. Already knowing the ending, I could have left before running out of popcorn.Shanley puts no trust in his audience, leaving no nuances to be discovered. Every idea is conspicuous and symbols appear to be thrown in for the sake of creating something "deeper." Flynn's destructive winds of change that hurt the old fashioned ways Sister Aloysius' loves (ie Sister Veronica's fall due to the wind) are somewhat cliché along with the literal storm that accompanies the ideological storm the conflict unleashes. The high point came later in Flynn's conversation with Sister James when he said Siser Aloysius was trying to bring them back to the "dark" ages and away from the "light." This more subtle hint (Thank You!) which clearly contradicted Streep's actions in the previous scene further proved Flynn's place as a liar. The only other appreciable part was how Shanley humanized Sister Aloysius. The scene where she scoots Sister Veronica's fork to her is a first glimpse of warmth. The anecdote about her listening to the transistor radio for news about her husband during WWII and her newfound love for it proves that she has a capacity for love she's saved but kept hidden since her husband's death. Streep does this without forgetting the strict front her character lives with. But the viewer only sees her ability to love and her rigidness. Sister Aloysius only has two shades. Even worse, the other characters only have one! There is no true depth to any of these characters, especially Amy Adams. Though she's meant to exemplify innocence, that doesn't have to imply stupidity. All I see is butterflies floating inside an empty head. Sister James gets tugged back and forth like a rag doll to a point where the viewer tires of it. As far as acting goes, there were no mind-blowing performances. Viola Davis outshined her more famous castmates. Hoffman seemed out of touch with the time period and his character, Adams was so-so (overly emotive at times), Streep was good, but faded in and out of her accent. No Oscar nods to be deserved here (perhaps with the exception of Davis).In conclusion, this whole movie could have been ten minutes without losing anything. The plot was nonexistent, causing the movie to drag on. For the first time since I saw Wickerman I wanted to walk out of the theater. I love Streep more than anyone I know, but even I can't throw my support behind her on this one. What I expected to be my favorite film of the year has turned out to be my least.
Only Shadow(s) of a Doubt
posted on 02 Aug 2009The best thing about 'Doubt' was the outstanding performances by the two leads, Meryl Streep and the always, always impressive Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Unfortunately, even for just a 104 minute film, it seems dragged out for 304 minutes, starting off slow and rarely picking up the pace. There were a few good lines, including Hoffman directly criticizing the actually scary, narrow-minded and old-school Principal, Streep (in a word: "intolerance,") excellent sets and sometimes unique shots – but not always. I can tilt a camera, but it doesn't make me a genius. Though I loved Hoffman's gossip speech, it isn't at all original. I'm not sure if it's my own religious upbringing or if I've seen in films before, I've heard that metaphor dozens of times. And even then, it certainly does apply here. I work in a call center – and, honestly, that speech should absolutely be in any call center orientation video. As for the 2008 Oscars: What didn't surprise me: no nomination for best picture (it was good, but not great,) that both Streep and Hoffman were nominated. What did surprise me was Viola Davis and Amy Adams both nominated for supporting actress. Yes, they both good, but certainly there were more worthy roles in 2008 and I have heard of the Academy nominating people for 5 minute roles (see: 'Titanic' or 'Shakespeare in Love') but Davis was hardly worth a nod. (Absolute spoiler ahead) As I do like when movies make us think, allow us to make up our own mind (Yep, believe it, I am a fan of 'Basic Instinct' and it's "make up your own damned mind" finale) but come on – half the movie flip-flops back and forth without any conclusion. We get it already; he may/may not have given alcohol (or worse) to the child.
Was too boring.
posted on 02 Aug 2009***Spoilers included*** I think I may be alone on this, but I just found the film boring and lacking. There was no real evidence that the priest (Hoffman) had done anything wrong or not, just heresy and the opinion of one of the nuns (Streep).Examining what he did: Hugged the boy, smiled at him and gave him a toy. Had some alone time, the boy did say he wanted to be a priest.That's it really. It would hardly go to court or anything. I think it would have been smarter to update the story and have some kind of twist in the end involving DNA evidence or something.Throughout the film all I could think was, "Well go on then, prove it Creepy Streepy". There was not enough substance, not enough "doubt" one way or the other.It may also have been cleverer to start from the end, with the priest (Hoffman, who gets promoted!) already having left and the rest of the film being flashbacks as to possibly why.
Thrilling, thoughtful, intriguing. One of the best films of 2008
posted on 31 Jul 2009Doubt {dir. John Patrick Shanley} (****/****)Although it includes some heavy themes, Doubt, is one of the most entertaining and involving films to come along in quite sometime. Rarely have my heart and mind been so engaged in a film simultaneously. At its heart, Doubt remains the stage play upon which it is based, about a priest who is accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a young boy. The priest is played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and the nun investigating (Sister Aloysius, great name) the situation is played by Meryl Streep, the best living actress and the best actress of the year. The language used in the film treats the situation very carefully and the confrontations between the characters crackle with well- written intensity. The film's central theme is indeed the title: Doubt. As an audience, we are left to our own devices in judging Father Flynn's relationship to the young boy. This uncertainty is a rare and valuable thing in film today. Great performances, wonderful writing and tough themes.
Explores the dialectic between intimacy and personal boundaries.
posted on 28 Aug 2009Some reviewers have seen Doubt as a whodunit polemic against moral intolerance. Though that may be the creators' intent, the film itself is richer and subtler. It's a brilliant exploration of the role of doubt and conviction in the dialectic between intimacy and personal boundaries. If you haven't seen the movie and don't want to know about two major surprises in the plot, read no further. I can't make my point without revealing them. Father Flynn (FF, Philip Seymour Hoffman) is the progressive priest for whom kindness takes priority over belief and rules. Sister Aloysius (SA, Meryl Streep in a quirky tour de force) is the conservative nun for whom conviction and rules govern. Sister James (SJ, Amy Adams) is the innocent every-person who isn't sure which of the two to follow. Donald Miller (Joseph Foster) is the first and lone black student in a Catholic high school of Irish and Italian children. Donald's mother (Viola Davis in a stunningly artless performance) defends him against his father, who physically abuses him for being gay, the students, who could lash out against him at any moment, and SA, who would sacrifice him on the altar of her moral and prosecutorial convictions. FF's warm kindness and SA's cold intolerance are their most obvious traits. Yet there is also a troubling softness to FF, one that raises doubt whether he is wholly kind or also indulging a need for approval that blinds him to what is truly good for the youngsters in his care. In contrast, SA is truly kind to those whose need is obvious: the older, failing sisters in her community. She is also shrewd and practical, aware that the students' welfare often requires tough love, though she maniacally over-does the toughness. The interaction among these five personalities drives not only a compelling whodunit and polemic against intolerance, but at a deeper level, an interplay between intimacy and personal boundaries. Five scenes are particularly revealing. The first is SA's care to follow the rule that she and any priest not be in her office alone. The rule unnecessarily distances her from FF. But it also prevents unfounded suspicions. After all, had FF and Donald always had a witness to their meetings, there would be no suspicion, even from SA, that their encounters were sexual.The second scene is where SJ uncharacteristically asserts herself toward a student who disrespects her in class. A sensitive, timid, inexperienced, and unassertive young nun, she wins our approval in finally standing up for herself. Yet almost immediately, she apologizes to the student when she sees how mortified he is by her unexpected forcefulness. This is a highly ambiguous, subtle scene that can be read several ways. Those focusing on intolerance can see her as recognizing her error in judging the student to have done something wrong. Those focused on personal development can see her as rightly sticking up for herself but unable at this early stage to maintain her posture, quickly backing down lest she make anyone an enemy. But within the framework that I'm drawing here between personal boundaries and emotional intimacy, there is revealed the difficulty of asserting oneself while maintaining intimacy. New to the skill, SJ distances herself from the student while rightly insisting that she be respected. Recognizing the resulting rift between them and valuing intimacy more than anything else, she apologizes to the student in order to repair the breach. The film might have let us know that a more integrated Sister James could have asserted herself while maintaining intimacy. Whether deliberately or not, whether unfortunately or not, the film does not present us with that possibility. In the third scene, SA reveals to Donald's mother that she herself was married before becoming a nun. We are stunned to find this out. What are we to make of it? Was she happily married and embittered by losing her husband in the war? Or was she a frigid woman who was freed by her husband's death to become a nun free to follow her moral convictions and traditional preferences? Or what other clues to her character might this revelation give us? The fourth scene is the most morally sensitive one, where Donald's mother reveals to SA that her son is gay and being physically abused by his father for it. Rather than disgusted by the possibility that FF has seduced Donald, she is grateful for the priest's love for the boy in a world where the boy is loved by no one else. She therefore confronts SA, explaining how exposure of the alleged relationship between FF and Donald would only hurt the boy, and challenging SA whether she's on the boy's side or that of her heavy-handed moral understanding of love. In the final scene, SA confesses to SJ her own doubts. About what, she doesn't say. About FF? About her faith? About her many convictions of how life ought to be lived, including an almost moral fervor in her preference for fountain pens over ball-points? About how her grasping for conviction has robbed her of emotional intimacy with others? Characteristically, and with great integrity, the film does not say. In none of these scenes does the film indulge the audience with a clear answer. But the doubt in question is not primarily the immediately obvious one of whether FF really did seduce the boy. In all these scenes, we are left with conflict between behavior that distances us from others and behavior that draws us to emotional intimacy. Which does which under what conditions, we are left to ponder. The genius of the film is that it leaves us ultimately exposed to ourselves, challenged with our own inner discernment between practicality that is an emotional Pyrrhic victory and practicality that is constructive; and between intimacy that is merely feckless sentimentality and intimacy that is true communion between two flesh and blood mortals.