Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

stancym-1 what my permanent vote should REALLY be....The plot is so far fetched in places, you really have to suspend disbelief. However, there is something alluring about the film. A lot of visual beauty in the scenes. Some of the script is good, and some of it not so good.....Major spoilers ahead:The film does gloss over very quickly the healing and "falling in love again" that occurs between Hurt and Stowe as husband and wife. It's as though Stowe and Branagh have a period of close friendship, then a very brief and passionate affair, and then in the next scene we are supposed to believe they got over each other almost immediately? There is no transition from THEIR mutual love to the renewed love and passion that Stowe feels for her husband, played by Hurt. And Branagh is not struggling with any lingering romantic feelings for Stowe? And he's happy to just be a priest and watch her raise his kid as Hurt's child? Well, I'm giving it a 7 at this juncture because it's worth seeing Kenneth Branagh at his physical peak. He's really attractive in this movie and what a voice! He's a fine actor even in mediocre or "fine but flawed" material. I wish they'd shown the sex between him and Stowe in a slightly LESS tasteful and delicate manner! For some reason, I felt Madeleine Stowe could have seemed more like a Boston, 1930s aristocrat. She spoke too fast and came across as a bit contemporary, perhaps too modern and casual for the part she was playing? it's hard to explain.....just a feeling. I'll watch it again and give her another shot. Hurt was very good I thought.Definitely a soap opera and the plot strains one's belief in places, but enjoyable overall. I'm still waiting for Kenneth Branagh to give a really bad performance. Don't think it is possible.

frigginmo It is a well scripted movie. It holds your attention. It has a well laid out storyline and an excellent cast of polished actors. The characters are developed but not too deeply, keeping them all in a equilibrium. You can sympathize or identify with any or all of them. Predictability is not an issue. Some surprising twists and just the right amount of irony. Very believable and emotionally satisfying. The cinematography and original score make the movie complete. No down side to this flick and no violence, save one well deserved sock in the puss. You don't need to be Catholic or have an historical knowledge of post WWII morality. Just sit back and enjoy.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU This film is a deep moral more than social drama, in spite of the emphasis set on the social surroundings of the situation. It has nothing to do with the high class circumstances of the protagonists. It has all to do with their Christian conscience and then with their souls, or what they believe to be their soul.What can a rich man do if he is sterile and his wife wants a child. In the 1930s that was a real problem. What happens if another man is used to satisfy the woman ? Blackmail of course and death. The problem is who caused that death not what ? What happens if some nephew appears under a catholic cassock and realizes the wish of the woman ?Old family feuds are revived and amplified. What happens if the mother dies just before delivering twins? The drama thickens and the plot sickens too. A necessary agreement between the uncle and the nephew, a gentleman's agreement, a biblical agreement in which the mother is more important than the father and hence the filiation of the children goes through the mother to the husband, that is all. At this moment it is poignant.And it starts when the husband dies in his turn : what can happen then for the children and for the real father ? Nothing. The priest has had time to understand his faith has to be cultivated in humility and silence not blood and bloodlines, and the children would be destroyed if they learned the truth and the lie they have been raised and fed on. And so goes the world, sad and sinister, bleak and hopeless.It is all a lie because it is all a sham, a fake appearance. And appearances have to be saved above all other considerations.Dr Jacques COULARDEAUSECOND THOUGHTSThis is, or could have been, an interesting film, or subject. But it is in fact treated in some kind of shocked ethics that ends well without ending badly, or badly since it does not end well really, or is it really well?A supposedly liberated woman, before the age of women's liberation, at least in Boston, cannot get a child from her husband who seems to be sterile. So she decides to have one nevertheless, with the agreement of her husband. They recruit a young man for that, to be the surrogate provider but he suddenly wants to be the father. A meddling mother of some sort in front of the surrogate becoming demanding (and he could ruin the whole family of course) gets rid of him and the dead body appears in front of the poor woman who is pregnant and she falls into the grave and she loses her child, etc. And she hates her husband she accuses of the crime.This is melodramatic to the utmost. Then a priest comes into the picture as a solace to the poor woman, and that priest is the son of the Nazi- leaning brother of the husband. Isn't that all complicated and maybe far-fetched?And she falls in love with him. And she is going to have twins. But she gets sick and dies just at the proper moment, just before delivering. So a caesarian is performed, post mortem and the two babies are saved. The father will raise them as his in the full recollection of the woman he loved and in the total ignorance, at least proffered ignorance of who is the father.And we are back at the beginning of the film when the lawyer who is dealing with the will of the husband has to come to the priest and ask for his benediction and the full explanation. The husband did know the truth and the priest can remember all these Sundays when he gave communion to the father and the two twins who were in fact his own twin sons.Melodramatic and maybe effective to show what love can be in a man who cannot perform his procreative role. But that is all because the priest did not in anyway develop a relation with his sons, even be it as a priest, thinking maybe that the father's silence would be enough to clear or clean his sin.Too bad because the subject could have been so much more than just this hypocritical hiding of the truth.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

rrl-1 I ran across this film whilst flipping channels one rainy afternoon and found the storyline to be surprisingly engaging. I was glued to the couch waiting to see how it would play out and how such flawed characters could find redemption. I felt the casting was good and Madeline Stowe's character in particular was easy to relate to. As for William Hurt, such a somber and sympathetic character could be compared to the likes of Heathcliffe...so full of longing and unfulfilled dreams. While I am not always fond of movies that have a narrator, I felt that Kenneth Branaugh's voice and character added weight to the tale and only increased my interest in the movie as more was exposed about his involvement in the lives of the "Barrett family". The storyline contained plenty of interesting twists and turns, and was not altogether predictable (as many movies are today). Definitely worthwhile and a lovely depiction of love, charity and forgiveness.