Heart of the Beholder (2005) User Reviews (8)

Freedom of speech and watching movies

[Bored_Dragon · 6/10 · 6 July 2020]

In the 1980s, a chain of video clubs opened in St. Louis. But when the legendary Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" appears on the shelves, all hell breaks loose on the owner and his family. A group of religious fanatics is trying in every way to force him to withdraw the film from distribution or to kick him out of business, but he decides to fight for freedom of speech and choice at all costs. Years later, he decides to tell his story through this film, which he wrote and directed himself. As this is his first and only film, it is not particularly good in any aspect, but because of the story it tells and the message it sends, it is worth watching.

6/10

Heart of the Beholder is the story, based on real events, of a man destroyed by persecution who managed to come back and achieve a measure of revenge.

[john_cberry · 15 February 2006]

The Heart of the Beholder is the story of a dreamer who finally achieved one of his dreams: his own business, a chain of video stores in St. Louis, Mo, only to be driven out of business by a group of fanatics who are outraged when he won't remove The Last Temptation of Christ from the shelves of his stores. It is, as they say, based on real events. In fact, the movie was written and directed by the man himself on the advice, he says, of Robert Wise. Undertaking the project helped in his recovery process. At the time I write this, he is having trouble getting distribution for the movie.

This is a story that needed to be told. The trouble is that the movie isn't very good, more like a worse than average TV movie. The actors in the main roles don't quite pull it off. Michael Dorn in wasted in a small role. Greg Germann's performance is the best in the movie.

This is definitely a movie to see on DVD because all the background information is what makes it interesting. We learn that the most unlikely things depicted in the movie actually did happen. Freedom of speech is everywhere under threat so everybody should either see this movie or read about the story on-line.

Disappointing - should have been rated for its porn content

[bkm-7 · 1/10 · 19 December 2012]

I was very interested to learn about this supposed based-on-real-life story of censorship campaign by religious folks, but was completely unprepared for the porn content. It was such a disappointment! It may very well have been intended to highlight an important cultural issue, but I could not stomach the rest of the film - nor can I recommend it at all.

Surely any corruption that may have led to the banning of Martin Scorcese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" in the community in question could have been portrayed better and without putting younger viewers at risk. As a teacher, I would have liked to had the film as a resource to spark discussion of the issues in class, but this film - sadly - would be completely inappropriate and unusable in that context. Such a wasted opportunity!

The mood of the film was also very heavily negative and one-sided, reminiscent of a political campaign rather than an educational or informative film. A better film would have compassionately portrayed both sides of the issue well enough to have sparked true debate. A documentary or docudrama, this is not.

Excellent presentation of a controversial subject/

[tedcordes · 8/10 · 10 October 2006]

Since this movie deals with the controversial issue of freedom of expression of even disagreeable subject matter, it is bound to elicit extreme views on all sides of the issue. HEART OF THE BEHOLDER successfully deals in a humanistic way with the controversy surrounding one business and it's belief in the free market system of making video tapes of commercial movies available for sale to those who were interested. This did not mean pornography, but rather several main stream movies that aroused objections because they dealt with subject matter that often challenged certain strongly held beliefs. While the movie definitely has a point of view, it fairly deals with all facets of the controversy and delivers an emotional impact in telling it's heartbreaking story.

An Illustration of emotional/verbal terrorism

[d-grogg · 8/10 · 13 January 2007]

When people's control issues get mixed up in their religion, then it is trouble for anyone who does not agree with their rigid, jargon based belief system. This is well illustrated in "Heart of the Beholder." Well worth the viewing. The script, however, though chock full of possibilities, came off a bit shallow in the story-telling. I believe this was due to the fact that there is so much of the story to tell and you only have two hours to tell it. There are some great scenes throughout the film where each actor gets their moment to shine.

This is a great film to see on how NOT to behave as a Christian. "Heart of the Beholder" illustrates that fundamentalist terrorism exists in every religion. There is no 'right' in ruining someone's life, livelihood, or terrorizing their family and saying that God says it's okay. One cannot say that God is love and then behave with violence, verbal or otherwise, to prove it.

I happened to have seen "Last Temptation of Christ" when it came out in the '80's and found it a great film bringing home the fact the Jesus was human, he had doubts and he most likely went to the bathroom just like the rest of us. Funny how Jesus never terrorized people into seeing things his own way. His temper tantrum in the temple was based on the fact that the vendors had turned sacred ground into a market place. In that cast he became what one might call "A Holy Terror," but never when he was teaching or healing did he behave with verbal/emotional/physical abuse. Neither should we.

A Perfect Gift for Those Who Simultaneously Have Their Heads in the Clouds, Buried in the Sand, and Shoved Deep Into The Place Where the Sun Don't Shine

[steve-974-698135 · 22 October 2011]

Based on real events, yes. Based on the actual facts of those real events, no.

This movie, according to the principals, was the darling of the film festival circuit for almost three weeks. The term "film festival," again according to the principals, is any event in which four or more people watch a movie.

The movie takes the odd stance of championing freedom of speech and suppression of speech -- both under the guise of the First Amendment. Apparently, if you are "in the right," you should be able to say whatever you want, but if you are "in the wrong," anything you say is oppressive and illegal. In this movie, one group is definitely pegged as being "in the right."

Personally, I like the rules in America that say nobody has to shut up. Everybody gets to speak their mind. Even those with ugly, revolting points of view get to say what they want. That's America.

People are allowed to say "Don't shop at XXXXX. They do things we don't like. Go ask Wal-Mart, Sony, Disney, Burger King, etc. All of them have had campaigns against them.

And people are allowed to sell anything legal despite protests. Again, go ask Wal-Mart, Sony, Disney, etc.

And no crime has been committed by these protests even if one party feels "forced" to withdraw a product. They can still sell it. It's their choice.

Disney is a perfect example. They have top movies and cartoons that will never be seen again because of protests over 50 years ago. It's their choice. No law is being broken because of the protests.

In America, people are allowed to say, Don't shop at XXX, their commercials are xxx. People are allowed to say, Don't shop at XXX, they made fun of xxx. People are allowed to say, Don't shop at XXX, they sell a T-shirt with a slogan that offends us.

The oil companies, Big Tobacco, automakers, chain stores, restaurants, Wall Street -- all have endured fanatical protests of a much higher and more strident nature. Are they victims also?

The actual facts would have made an accurate, but boring, portrayal of the down-and-dirty dealings of activists versus business. Accurate and boring, yes, but quite a bit better than horribly slanted and boring.

The saving grace of this movie, unlike other doggie doo, is that you won't run across it unless you actively search for it. It has never risen to "discount bin" status.

Who's the man?

[nogodnomasters · 8/10 · 10 February 2018]

The movie brings back those fond memories of biggest controversy of the 1980's: VHS or Beta-max. The era when only two types of people wore large crosses: Madonna fans and terrorists. This film is set amidst of the era when the far political right gained power by murdering abortion doctors, protesting evil Disney films, and manipulating DAs. Mike (Matt Letscher) and Diane (Sarah Brown) open a successful chain of video stores. In spite of the fact these stores closed down most of the adult movie theaters in the world, the religious right was upset it was renting a video entitled "The Last Temptation of Christ" to people who wanted to see the movie, unlike the protesters who never saw the film. Rather than toss the movie out, Mike and Diane decide to keep renting the film under some obscure law seeming known only to liberals as "The First Amendment."

Now personally I would not consider this film worthy to draw a line in the sand over. In my neighborhood they stuck the film in the adult section and claimed to have removed it from the store. This film progresses at a good clip. The drama wasn't overly intense. There was some minor humor to keep the subject matter from getting too dry.

Tony Todd plays a minor role as Chuck Berry. This was Chloë Grace Moretz debut film, and she doesn't have much of a role.

The movie tosses in an F-bomb with some sex and nudity (Katelin Chesna) which was a bit disappointing. Not that Katelin was disappointing, but that they had it in the film to begin with. It really didn't add anything to the film and could have easily been done without it, reaching a younger audience.

The kind of movie they just don't make anymore

[TalkProductions · 14 June 2022]

If you're anything like me, you're fed up with all the generic overly polished stuff the entertainment industry is peddling nowadays. Yeah the acting is better than it used to be, and special effects came a long way, but that's not enough. The reason you can't find any movies to watch on streaming services isn't because there's something wrong with you, it's cause most of them are well made, but boring!

Lots of things can be said about "Heart of the Beholder", but certainly not that it's boring. This movie takes so many liberties with its portrayal of a story based on true events, it just keeps you entertained. It made me laugh a bunch of times, even when that definitely wasn't the director's intention. It's such a weird blend of odd story twists and good to great acting mixed with horrible soup opera stuff, I can't help but love it.

Most praise has to go to Matt Letscher. He really carries the movie as the main character and I actually cared about him. Some of his acting is downright bad, but in other parts he's surprisingly good. Honorable mention for the woman from SNL (I forgot her name), her character was quite likeable and entertaining too.

So all in all, I say it's worth a watch if you're not in the mood for anything serious. There's some surprisingly strong R-rated scenes and some dialogue that's so on the nose it's downright hilarious. Then at other times it's almost like a lifetime movie. You gotta see it to believe it.

I'll take this "bad" but entertaining movie over a "good" boring movie any day!