Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

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

gradyharp Matthew G. Lewis wrote this cult classic THE MONK in 1796, and while it was a scandalous work at the time it has survived as a window into the depravity of certain orders of the church. It is particularly timely as a film now, released amidst the scandals of the Catholic Church. Dominick Moll transforms this story in to a film so reminiscent of 16th century Spain in deco and costumes (Maria Clara Notari and Bina Daigeler), music (Alberto Iglesias), and atmospheric cinematography (Patrick Blossier) that the few lapses the story takes form the novel simply do not detract from the visual beauty of this film.The film opens with an old beggar dropping off an infant on the church steps of a Capuchin monastery in 16th century Spain. The friars raise the child, convinced he is a miracle from the Virgin Mary and at age 18 Ambrosio (Vincent Cassell) takes the vows and becomes a sanctified Capucin monk, but not just a monk but also one blessed with righteousness and distance from temptation. Scores come to the monastery to simply see him and have him hear their confession. His beneficence to a young nun (Roxane Duran) who has become pregnant is cancelled by the abbess of the nunnery (Geraldine Chaplin) and evil begins to shroud the film. A young monk Valerio (Déborah François) is brought to the monastery masked to apparently cover the brutal burn wounds on his face, but in actuality Valerio has healing powers, is able to heal Ambrosio's frequent severe headaches, and finally reveals to Ambrosio that there is a women beneath that mask. From this point the near holy monk Ambrosio falls from grace and descends into seduction, depravity, satanic secrets and murder.Yes, there are lapses in the story that beg explanation but the atmosphere created by the cinematic team and the performances by Vincent Cassell and the rest of the cast more than make this a fine cinematic achievement. Grady Harp

Armand Beautiful images. Good cast. Generous idea and inspiring option for a successful adaptation. And final taste of sand. Result - a movie who may be more interesting, a seductive dusty story and silhouette of Vincent Cassel,drop-presence of Geraldine Chaplin and a tale told in haste and careless. Few crumbs from Spanish picture and fruits of sufficiency and self-deception. Sin as shadow of snake in the heart of every Faust. And music as oil for dark bread. A Catholic movie about price of Icarus flight. The rush is principal error. And the desire to create a powerful moral lesson. So, at final, the basic virtue is inspiring play of Cassell. Is it enough ? Maybe.

shu-fen The book is a very thick one, offering myriad materials, why does it turn out to be like a milk-and-water man? Has D. Moll shot any pilot footage for potential audience to comment? While working on this project, did he still remember MG Lewis's "The Monk" was among the very first Gothic novels in the history of the western literature? Mystery, darkness, suspense are necessary elements, however, the lack of the intensity and the excitement which should be generated by these three makes it less bright. The best treatment or suspense I find thus far is the very slow revelation of the relationship between Ambrosio and Antonia. Truly, all ingredients are ready: beautiful, poetic visuals, high quality music score, good acting. It is so promising to be more powerful than J-J Annaud's "The name of the rose"! Only, seriously, truly, absolutely… re-editing is definitely imperative. Just a couple of revisions may make the work far much better: 1) more on Valerio and Le débauché for they prove Ambrosio's pride to be wrong, 2) score with Bach's St Matthew Passion and St John Passion or other church music of his on the shots of Frère Iago being struck by a heavy stony object from the façade, 3) adjust the lighting, use more candle light to reflect the darkness to create suspense and mysterious ambiance (I guess that something can be done on the footage/film), 4) re-arrange the storyline order, for example, right at the beginning, put the crow-pecking on the baby and the dead body of Ambrosio together to rouse people's curiosity, 5) more on his demure sermons to exhibit his hypocrisy, 6) close-up shots of Ambrosio's face while he is on the way to drug and rape Antonia, and a couple of other revisions...While leaving the cinema house, my only comment: the editor is too lazy or busy to think. I for sure will be 100% happy to see the re-edited version if there will be one.

guy-bellinger Dominik Moll makes few movies : this is only his fourth feature film in 17 years. But his themes are always very consistent. And his latest choice, "The Monk", Matthew G. Lewis's 18th Century cult novel, cherished by the Surrealists, appears as particularly relevant in the wake of "Intimacy", "Harry, He's Here To Help" and "Lemming". It is a good pick because the book's fiendish subject allows the director to go further into the issue he has explored in his two former movies : evil lurking behind the reassuring codes of polished society. The only real differences with his former works are that "The Monk" is a period film (the scene is set between the late 16th Century and the early 17th Century) and the first one made by the gifted French director outside France (it is filmed entirely in Almeria and Madrid, Spain), which only brings added value to his questioning : what more fertile soil is there indeed for evil to flourish than the cult of austerity and purity in a society permeated with religiosity? The strange thing is that "The Monk", with such potential assets, failed to draw large audiences as well as to get good reviews. Most critics even hammered the film, going as far as to call it a bomb. But is it really such a bad work? Personally, I do not think so. For sure, "The Monk" is not the masterpiece it could have been. Its main flaw may be that the film is too wise, more illustrative than really profound and unsettling (Ken Russell's 'The Devils", or even Stephen Frears's "Dangerous Liaisons", were much more troubling and inspired), but as it is, it does not deserve such rough treatment. The critics' excessive harshness may simply be due to expectations set too high and disappointed. For despite being too controlled, Dominik Moll's last effort IS a finely crafted film with beautiful, well-framed images (some, like Ambrosio preaching to his ravished congregation, even have the splendor of a Spanish painting of the time) , high quality sound design, and a very good (though occasionally a bit invading) score by Alberto Iglesias, well-chosen locations and a good cast. Brother Ambrosio, the Capuchin friar of the title, is aptly played by Vincent Cassel, who makes you believe throughout that he is this austere and uncompromising man of God who believes only in virtue and has no doubt he will remain safe from evil and lust. Also to be noted are Catherine Mouchet, moving as an ailing woman who suffers without losing her dignity, and young Camille Japy, whose presence in the role of the ingénue untouched by evil is refreshing.When leaving the theater you may feel slightly frustrated for, yes, "The Monk" lacks a little intensity, but slightly only, as you will just have seen an interesting, well-made film. Not such a bad experience after all.