Pluskylang Great Film overall

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

gavin6942 How do we understand faith and prayer, and what of miracles? August 1925 on a Danish farm. Patriarch Borgen has three sons: Mikkel, a good-hearted agnostic whose wife Inger is pregnant, Johannes, who believes he is Jesus, and Anders, young, slight, in love with the tailor's daughter.All I wanted to say about this one was a general comment on the cinematography in the Scandinavian countries. Dreyer and Ingmar Bergman seem to prefer black and white over color, and they both know how to make it look sharp and crisp, the contrast and shadows even bolder than any use of color could allow. Today, making a film in black and white is hard to do unless you are independent... "Pi" comes to mind. It is an art form that should not be dead.Beyond that, this is a beautiful take on faith and "the word". Again like Bergman, this seems to be a preoccupation of Scandinavian cinema. Perhaps it is not -- maybe only the great films (and thus those that reach America) have such a worldview... but it is wonderful just the same.

Jackson Booth-Millard From director Carl Theodor Dreyer (The Passion of Joan of Arc, Vampyr), this Danish film featured in the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die book, and besides knowing the director that was good enough reason for me to see it. Basically this film is a good representation of questions we ask about faith, such as what we believe, whether or not to believe, the reasons and needs for prayers, and our ideas of what miracles are. It is August 1925 in Denmark, where on a farm Patriarch Morten Borgen (Henrik Malberg) has three sons in different situations, good-hearted agnostic Mikkel (Emil Hass Christensen) whose wife Inger, Mikkel's Wife (Birgitte Federspiel) is pregnant, Johannes (Preben Lerdorff Rye) who is crazy or having a breakdown where he believes he is Jesus Christ, and young Anders (Cay Kristiansen) who is in love with and wants to marry Kirstin (Sylvia Eckhausen), the daughter of tailor Peter Petersen (Ejner Federspiel). Petersen objects to the idea of his daughter marrying a man who believes in Lutheranism, i.e. the freedom of black people as protested by Martin Luther King, but Borgen is demanding it because of his pride taking over. Inger has problems during the pregnancy, and a Doctor (Henry Skjær) is brought in to help her and ease the pain, and the night sees all four different views of faith come in to play, including Johannes who claims, as Jesus, that he can heal her, or that when she dies she will resurrect, like the true Holy son did. Of course tragedy does strike when Inger does indeed die from the pain during the labour, and there is a funeral with an open coffin, and it is there that Johannes does ask God to raise her from the dead, and the miracle does occur, with Morten and Petersen rejoicing that she alive, Mikkel regaining his faith and understanding the stillborn son is with the Lord. Also starring Ann Elisabeth Groth as Maren Borgen - Mikkel's Daughter and Susanne Rud as Lilleinger Borgen - Mikkel's Daughter. The acting by many of the players is very good, I personally and particularly liked Lerdorff Rye as the son believing he is Jesus, the story has some very interesting scenes questioning sanity, and it really establishes that religion plays a big part of lives in the world for all sorts of reasons, it is a terrific religious drama. It won the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film. Very good!

Tim Kidner I watched this very late at night on UK TV, when tired and drunk, many years ago. I remember very clearly how it had a very moving, powerful climax. Now sober - and wiser etc, I got it on DVD - it had less of an effect, though the trepidation of something arising meant the final 20mins or so was quite nerve-racking. Then, there was the 'does she/ doesn't she'? flitting back and forth in my mind. Of course this belies medical and logical resurrection which leaves only a spiritual one. It seemed unsettling and unsatisfactory almost that she simply wakes up, though it was quite well realised. If that happened in a lesser film without the religious and moral issues being thrashed out then it would be meaningless and a waste of time.Whichever way you want to look at it, those scenes are very moving. The steady, thoughtful pace, the small but significant issues that raise the saga beyond period drama all lead to this. The simplicity in design, cinematography, dialogue all bring this anticipation....we have to see what will happen, even IF anything happens.To a not terribly devoted Christian, it does reveal to me that a unification in prayer, thought and resolving of family disagreements and neighbourly dispute all added to a wave of human love and power. Whether that would have pulled her through or not is the BIG question, of course. I haven't used God's name in that sentence; maybe I should have - but it's a film! I'm viewing Christians who seem to interweaving moral judgements far too tightly into the big issues that affect them. Of course I'm going to say that - I'm of a different period, country, culture and watching a director's version of his interpretation of what he had in mind. They're too removed from my reality to strike a chord with me.My point has always been that I know other people of intelligence see deep and meaningful qualities, spiritual and morally, within it. I did too, and still do. I'm not likely to think any deeper of its intentions or qualities, other than it's a very good film and would recommend it to others, if I thought their tastes could be open to it.Lastly and not knowing where to put this in, I also found it baffling and a trite annoying that the two neighbours' opposing, yet "same" religion wasn't better defined. But - I can see many gremlins and questions being raised if they had; there's always going to be someone of either, or another faith saying things like 'we don't think that way' etc. It's like a location that's characterised very specifically and is named - someone's going to want to sue someone for slander....I also found it easier to place Johann's severely distorted and potentially disruptive over-delusional ramblings - his witterings add sincerity and meaning to, in particular, the priest and the doctor, as well as to their importance. Without these distractions the film would be too earnestly religious, for me at least. It showed the fine line between a force that helps people and gives strength and one that was in fact a real danger - as fanaticism is in any area of life.

Cosmoeticadotcom Denmark's Carl Theodor Dreyer was one of the great auteurs of early cinema, and such masterpieces as Vampyr and Day Of Wrath attest to that fact. Many critics, however, have hailed either his earlier silent film, The Passion Of Joan Of Arc, or his later Ordet (The Word) as his greatest work, and while I've never seen the earlier film in a full restoration, having just watched Ordet I can say, uncategorically, that it is not in a league with Vampyr nor Day Of Wrath. This is not to say that the film is a bad one, but it is nowhere near a great one…. Ordet is not even a direct allegory on evil and complicity with it, as was the earlier Day Of Wrath, made during the occupation. In fact, it is not really an allegory at all, merely a simple tale of faith, and a none too original one, at that. Its ending is telegraphed all throughout the film. Its ultimate message, about the power of faith over strict rationality, is also not a new one, and its rendering here is not in the least powerful. Compared to, say, Ingmar Bergman's Winter Light, made only a few years later, this film pales in every measure of comparison. That later film was loaded with vitality, even as it was a despairing film. Despite this film's seemingly upbeat ending (resurrection is a good thing, right?), it has none of the verve nor power Bergman's film has. Its characters never resonate with the viewer the way Bergman's tormented pastor and his scorned lover do, in their anomic faith and intellect, and their probing of it. Nor were Munk nor Dreyer the writers that Bergman is. And, compared to Day Of Wrath's ending, wherein that film's female protagonist's descent, into the insanity of feeling she has become a witch, haunts a viewer with regret, the resurrection of Inger seems too pat an ending, and not too challenging in terms of religion, nor science. To answer, though, that this is because this film is about faith and its necessity doubt, as framed by Kierkegaard, therefore one must suspend disbelief to 'get it', is to let Dreyer's own filmic and writing failures off the hook because those things he was in control of also fail, despite or because of that belief system. I'm sure that there are many critics who have been, and are, more than willing to grant the director such favor, as I read enough of them in my researching the critical reception this film got, but you'll have to look elsewhere for such poor critique. If the Internet bores you, try the books of Leonard Maltin or Roger Ebert. I'll be rewatching Vampyr in the meantime. I need its fillip after Ordet.