Monsignor (1982) User Reviews (21)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

[sol1218 · 6/10 · 6 January 2009]

***SPOILERS*** Not too convincing film about a hot shot and well intentioned priest who gets in over his heed in trying to saved his beloved Catholic Church from going bankrupt.

The Second World War is soon to be over and the Catholic Church has suffered major financial losses because of it. American priest Father John Flaherthy, Christopher Reeve, comes up with this master plan to save the church but there's just one hitch: It involves the Mafia who's the only one who can make it happen. Getting involved with his childhood friend-from Brooklyn NY- Lodo Varese, Joseph Cartese, a master sergeant in the US Army Father John has Lodo through his Mafia and black market connections sell thousands of cartons of cigarettes from the Vatican commissary, that Father John is the administrator of, for a mark up of over 400%. The very naive Father John thinks that his friend Lodo together with his Mafia boss Don Vito "the Apple" Appolini, Jason Miller, will be as honest about this strange arrangement that he cooked up in secretly saving the church as he is.

While all this is going on Father John, using the alias of US Army Lt. Finnigen, gets involved with the not yet confirmed Catholic nun Clara Genevieve Bjold, whom he rescued from getting drenched from a sudden downpour with her fellow nuns while driving his army jeep. In a matter of days the very handsome Father John, or Lt . Finnigen, had the impressionable Clara, who thought that he was a black marketeer, have an affair with him. Thinking that she was involved with a corrupt US Army solider not a Catholic priest, or Monsignor which he was at the time, Clara flipped out when she saw Father John at a ceremony at the Vatican together with his mentor Cardinal Santoni, Fernando Rey, and the Holy Father himself the Pope played by Leonardo Cimino!

Father John not knowing what to say later, while in Church praying for forgiveness, let himself have it, by being sapped around,by an outraged Clara who accused him of ruining her, as well as his, life! The relationship between Father John, a CPA before he entered the church, and his good friend Lodo also started to sour with Lodo taking off with some 40 million dollars of the church's money as well as losing over 600 million dollars playing the very speculative currency markets.

***SPOILER ALERT*** The mad as hell Don Vito who's money, in connection with the Catholic Church, Lodo also ripped off has a hit put out on him which a tearful Father John begs him to put off. This turned out to be about the only good thing that Father John did in the movie and even that backfired on him!

Insulting, especially to Roman Catholics, in how the movie treats members of the clothe by making them look worse then the hoods and gangsters that their shown to be working with. Christopher Reeve as the corrupt Father John is anything but sympathetic in his being so obsessed with both money and sex, as well as power, that whatever good there was in him quickly evaporated within the first ten minutes of the movie. Even though Father John's attempt to save the Catholic Church from going bankrupt was in the end successful his methods were anything but Christ-like. Which made you wonder if, in the movie, with the underhanded and sleazy tactics that Father John used to save it was in fact worth saving at all!

There aren't enough 'Hail Mary's in the world for this one...

[Mister-6 · 2/10 · 11 January 2000]

The tag-line for this film begins "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned".

And that's not so much being said by the protagonist of "Monsignor" but by the director, actors, writers, best boys, gaffers, caterers and the guys who swept the floor afterwards on this disaster.

As the "Monsignor" of the title, Christopher Reeve plays a man who moves his way up through the Catholic church through dubious means - murder, theft, the Black Market during WWII... you know, the usual stuff. And there's even enough time for him to seduce a nun (Bujold)!

I know next to nothing about Catholicism, so I cannot say what if any of this kind of activity holds any validity. But what does this mean: that those involved in the Vatican's business affairs are only bookkeepers who work under the guise of religion for otherwise nefarious means? I'd hope not, but this movie seems to think otherwise.

Reeve is a good actor, always will be. What he saw in this kind of film is beyond me. Maybe he thought (like Faye Dunaway did in "Mommie Dearest") that something so broad and unimaginably coarse could only be played as a comedy, so why not just go with the flow?

And if he thought that, he was right! "Monsignor" has scenes that play as out-and-out comedy; never have you seen so many (unintentional?) sight gags in your life, and the stony faces that permeate this film might make you believe that Buster Keaton must have been a busy man at one time or another.

So, "Monsignor" is a bad film, but it's also good for one of those nights when you have a few friends over, a few beers, lots of popcorn and nothing better to do than have a few laughs at someone else's expense.

Those involved in organized religion, say.

Two stars. Eight if you're an agnostic.

"Father, I'm a priest...and I love her."

[blanche-2 · 1/10 · 5 March 2006]

Someone on a game show once named this as his favorite bad movie, citing that hilarious scene in the church when Genevieve Bujold, playing a tramp postulant, realizes that her boyfriend is a priest.

There's nothing good to be said about this film except that it has glorious scenery. It's sad today to see Christopher Reeve healthy and walking - and wasting what little time he was going to have in rotgut like this. As someone raised in the Catholic church, I loved hearing the Latin again. Also with the recent scandals in the church that have come to light, I don't really put much past the Catholic church or the high mucky-mucks. But this movie is really ridiculous.

The performances were okay, given what these poor people had to deal with. The Genevieve Bujold character is a riot; the role is a career-killer. I mean, bare breasts exposed, the woman is asking the Reeve character, "Do you think I'll make a good nun?" The Christopher Reeve character - that of a mafioso priest - is preposterous. I used to love Jason Miller. Not in this. I'm old enough to remember the old pope - were they kidding with that characterization of him?

Alas, today, you really wouldn't watch this with friends for a few laughs (as one of the older posts suggests) because it's just too awful to see young, handsome Christopher Reeve. So probably the best thing some higher-up can do is take this baby out of circulation. If I'm going to watch Christopher Reeve, I'll watch him fly and remember him when he was just starting out, vital, handsome, with it all in front of him.

The cardinal

[jotix100 · 1/10 · 14 February 2006]

It's inconceivable that a director like Frank Perry could have been associated with "Monsignor". Mr. Perry was a man responsible for some good movies in the sixties and seventies. Who knows what might have attracted him to direct this high camp picture that should be better forgotten.

The plot of the movie is preposterous, at best. The point the movie is trying to make is how the Catholic Church makes a perfect partner with the Mafia, something that could only make sense to the author of the novel. The second theme deals with the way Flaherty falls in love with the novice Clara, and how he keeps from her the secret of his identity, which is obvious, as the pair move in the same circles, so it would be inevitable for the young woman to find out who her lover really is.

"Monsignor" wastes two hours in trying to make sense without success. The cast does what it can trying to give life to these one dimensional characters they were asked to bring to life for the movie. Not even the musical score by John Williams does anything to help the movie.

Future viewers are warned as to what to expect.

Gorgeous movie

[neelsmail · 7/10 · 2 February 2016]

I had watched this movie when I was growing up. May be I was 20 or so. There are only few movies after which I would think "what the hell did I watch just now?". This is one of them. What impressed me most were two things: 1. Character of Christopher Reeve wants to experience everything without inhibition. And is prepared to face consequences. In a way he is crazy brave. 2. Someone asked in one of the question\answer site if they knew a movie in which character goes in gradual degradation. This movie came to my mind. No matter what happens in the end, the character is aware that he has lived his life to the fullest (in a sense in a immoral bad way but I don't think he cares much about rules laid down by some other man).

One of my favorites.

one of the worst movies I've ever seen

[smccallister · 1/10 · 24 October 2004]

A really bad movie essentially has to be a broken promise. You go to see a Troma flick or something by Ed Wood, and you pretty much know the expectations are low, and they'll be realized. On the other hand, when you've got a decent budget, a fairly ambitious plot, studio backing, and a cast of well-known actors -- that's what it takes to set up a really bad movie. Monsignor is harder to appreciate for all its awfulness in light of the real life tragedy suffered by Christopher Reeve. But it must be said that Reeve's acting is at the heart of this Really Bad Movie. Reeve plays a priest who essentially breaks every rule and vow -- and is rewarded with rapid and consistent promotion, all the way to the heights of the Vatican. Corrupt, sleeps with nuns -- and he becomes the Vatican's trusted financial manager. There doesn't seem to be much logic behind his brilliant career -- or behind much else that happens in this film. Some bad films are hard to watch, but this one is more in the head-scratcher category... what the hell were they thinking?

Could have been great

[ereinion · 7/10 · 12 February 2015]

As Christopher Reeve said himself, this movie could have been really good but the bad editing ruined it. And I wholeheartedly agree. It was a pretty bold movie, even for the bold 80's: a tale of a Vatican priest who deals with the mafia, seduces a nun and takes up arms in the war, bloodying his hands. This was clearly still a taboo, any kind of negative portrayal of the Catholic church and the Vatican. But somewhere during its 2 hours this movie lost its boldness and became just another failed experiment with an interesting idea.

In the year 1982, Reeve was clearly looking to establish himself as a serious actor and it couldn't have been easy for a guy who so convincingly looks like a superhero and who came to prominence as THE superhero. He was in Deathtrap that same year and did well in that part. One might say that this role has something in common with that one, because he plays an opportunist who is morally unclean. This movie has a really top notch cast, with Jason Miller, Fernando Rey and Genevieve Bujold as the brightest part of it. Miller, though somewhat miscast in the role of the Sicilian mafioso, brings the dark intensity similar to the one in his role as Father Karass. Only difference is, here he has a mustache. Joe Cortese is also good in the part of Reeve's old friend who becomes his business partner and the link with Miller. Fernando Rey plays the part of cardinal Santoni, who represents the political side of Vatican, the ambitious and power-hungry priest who is willing to close an eye to illegal stuff in order to achieve his own goals.

Anyway, this movie is interesting to follow but sometimes it can't decide whether it wants to be a drama about corruption and moral or a love movie. Some scenes are well shot and gripping, like the scene where the nun played by Bujold discovers Reeve's true identity and occupation. It is the dramatic highpoint of the film. But the love story lasts too short to really give the movie the edge it needs, another angle. Christopher Reeve is one of the film's bright points because he really does make his character believable. He's a priest who tried to be both a priest and a man. I guess you can say that this is the ultimate theme of the film, how hard it is to be a priest and give up the good things in life in order to serve God.

I think it's a great shame that this film has been largely forgotten and scorned by the critics and by the audiences. For despite it's editorial flaws and despite the screenplay not holding up till the very end, it still can be an interesting watch and a spiritual lesson.

either the worst or one of the best depends

[HEFILM · 1/10 · 27 November 2005]

If you love bad movies this rates a 10. A sad Camp Triumph for the great, for a while, Frank Perry the director. Christopher Reeve stiffly makes no impression, as he did in most of his non superman roles. Some good European actors do what the can, for Genevieve Bujold all this amounts to is stripping naked. John Williams composes perhaps the most over the top piece of music in film history for the scene in the cathedral where sinner and saint meet. Also in the mix are some mob killing scenes leftover from a Godfather movie, actually these are the best done scenes in the film, the only ones that work. The rest is either over or under acted and done in a way that tries to be serious in a way that makes it totally campy. A better approach would have been to just go for the sleaze and make this one of those sort of exploitation sex-in-the-confession-booth films, that's really all this is at heart. In case you are a snob and think that only low budget films can suck, look at this beauty and realize that with money you can suck really really hard, and I mean that in a bad way. Everyone involved in this should or could rate this as a career low. Reeve claimed there was a great film and they lost it in the editing room. Well, no it's still here to be enjoyed. One of the worst Hollywood films ever, but if you take in in the bad film frame of mind there are many highlights.

Geat movie

[salignac2 · 10/10 · 19 December 2006]

I have read some of the negative comments on this film, they must have been written by staunch Catholics. One person said Miss Bujolds career was ruined by this movie if that is so it is a shame.

I have watched this Movie many times. Monsignor delves into the many aspects of human sin and how we all fail God every moment of every day that we live. I think those who dislike this film have latched onto the notion that nuns and priest are perfect,they should pick up the paper.

Monsignor is a sad film but a good one,sad because of the longings of the heart not fulfilled. This film hit home with me because of the many times our deepest longings go unfulfilled.

This movie also had many redemptive qualities to it. I also think I liked it because it did not go the way I wanted it to.

Somewhat "wooden" acting, but a good story

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 7/10 · 14 December 2016]

I was always very neutral about Christopher Reeve. Overall, I didn't like or dislike him as an actor. But there is one thing I never figured out, and it pops up for me anytime I re-watch one of his films: how good an actor was he? To be honest, since I begin thinking about the question with every film of his I watch, my conclusion is that he is "satisfactory" at best.

Here he is "satisfactory". Perhaps a bit wooden at some points. But it's an "okay" performance. Ironically, on the other hand, I rather like quite a few of the films Geneviève Bujold appeared in at her peak, but here she seems rather wooden, as well (with the exception of the scene where she lashes out at Reeve). The two main actors both wooden? Maybe we need to blame the director.

That doesn't mean this film isn't worth watching. It's a handsome production with a fairly good script...and filmed on location in Rome. And any film that tackles the politics of the Vatican is worth watching. The settings are lush (made me wish I had visited Rome) and the supporting performances (I particularly liked Frenando Rey) were solid. Great costumes and, it seems to me, attention to detail.

I'm glad I watched this, but I wouldn't even think of putting it on my DVD shelf.

Just dreadful

[twassel · 1/10 · 20 June 2003]

One of the worst films ever made by big Hollywood. Sometimes it's so bad, it's funny, but not funny enough. Reeve is out of his depth, but the script is so bad no one could have saved it. Genevieve Bujold is a fine actress and tries gamely, but this part nearly destroyed her career. Classic scene: when the postulant (Bujold) discovers (in church) that the man who seduced her (Reeve) is a priest. We're supposed to feel her pain, but it plays as comically absurd rather than tragic. A complete miscalculation on all fronts.

A few laughs, but mostly dull

[Wizard-8 · 3 September 2000]

Now, I didn't rent this thinking it would be a good movie. I had heard this was an uproarious unintentional comedy, so that's what I was expecting. There are a few laughs to be found, but I found this movie to be a mostly dull and murky drama. Reeve is totally miscast and out of his league here, even if the screenplay was better.

Just a bad movie

[taocpa · 1/10 · 5 January 2007]

I caught this movie the other night after seeing it many years ago. As a Catholic, movies about the Church don't bother me, they bore me. This film is just a poor film that exploits tired clichés about the Church (the Vatican Bank is run by the Mafia, the Pope, cardinals or anyone who works at the Vatican are corrupt, etc.). It's the equivalent of watching a movie about accountants (of which I am one) and they portray all accountants as boring, unfunny, etc. All this movie does is waste perfectly good film. Compared tothis, Plan 9 From Outer Space should have won an Oscar. Back in the time period of the film, a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church would never have worn the expensive suits/street clothes that Christopher Reeve wore. They would not have been allowed. The whole movie was far-fetched. Hollywood loves to portray the Church in a negative light and they did so with this one.

Catholic Church and Mafia

[lpersons-2 · 3/10 · 12 December 2006]

I had never heard of this movie but thought I would spend the 2 hours watching it. I was very disappointed. The acting, including Christopher Reeves was very disappointing. Many times throughout the movie the sound seemed impossible to hear clearly what was being said, so it made the movie hard to follow. I am surprised that the catholic church didn't object to this movie, it paints the catholic church and the Vatican in very poor light. The plot line left much to be desired as well. The entire movie did not fit well.... I believe there was suppose to be time lapses, but they are never explained and it leaves you scratching your head wondering what is going on. This movie is not worth the 2 hours to watch it.

It might be a sin to watch this

[Dcamplisson · 1/10 · 29 November 2014]

Dull and tiresome, this story should be fascinating. A corrupt priest, global shenanigans, love, lust, war. But the action seems to go on in a weird Vatican vacuum. when I first watched this years ago I assumed I'd napped and missed huge chunks. Large numbers of years seem to Elapse without explanation. Rome goes from war time to peacetime without anyone seeming to notice. The woodeness of reeves is reminiscent of one of those jokes where they show the sae face 100 times with different emotions under them. Beaujold is lost but still cute. Reeves apparently blamed the editors of the film, but although we don't know what they cut, what they left is expressionless. In love scenes, when angry, when stressed his demeanor remains the same. After two hours of this I feel I've done penance. do watch it, the scenery is nice as is Genevieve.

A silly, sordid movie that's a real hoot.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 14 April 2012]

The review in the annual paperback guide to movies by critic Leonard Maltin and his cronies classify this as a "camp classic", and after reading the synopsis, I certainly wasn't prepared to take this hilarious, trashy melodrama seriously at all. It has a young, ambitious priest, John Flaherty (Christopher Reeve) hired as business manager for the Vatican, and it doesn't take too long for the guy to start doing some dubious things, such as entering into a shady deal with the Italian mob. The best bit of business has this guy carrying on a romance with a nun- in-training named Clara (Genevieve Bujold). That's got to be trash at its finest, especially when Ms. Bujold strips for the camera as Flaherty and Clara prepare to go at it. Now, this movie admittedly is somewhat slowly paced and goes on for quite a bit, but this story (scripted by Abraham Polonsky and Wendell Mayes, based on a novel by Jack-Alain Leger) is still entertaining in its ridiculousness. Superb production design (by John DeCuir Jr.), cinematography (by Billy Williams), and location shooting help in the enjoyment - this is nothing if not a good looking film. And speaking of good looking, the lovely Bujold is definitely an easy performer to watch. The performances are all admirably sincere, with the ever likable Reeve well supported by a fine, fine group of actors: Fernando Rey, who has a warm presence, as Cardinal Santoni, Jason Miller as mob boss Don Vito Appolini, Joe Cortese as Flaherty's buddy Lodo Varese, Adolfo Celi as Cardinal Vinci, Tomas Milian as Father Francisco, Leonardo Cimino as none other than The Pope, Robert Prosky as Bishop Walkman, and Joe Pantoliano as wounded soldier Private Musso, with Joe Spinell in a great, brief cameo as the father of the bride in the wedding sequences. Give this cast credit, as they really sell this thing. It may be pretty long, but it's such an amusing story as to keep one watching (at least, this viewer kept watching). Recommended to fans of silly cinema. Seven out of 10.

Not even good enough to be bad.

[Bevan - #4 · 3/10 · 17 March 2008]

While I have some sympathy for the folks who cite this as a example of a "good bad" movie, to be honest, I don't buy it. So Reeve felt that a good movie was left behind on the cutting room floor? He'd have had more of a leg upon which to stand if he didn't turn in a performance on Prozac. Now granted, no one expected better of Bujold -- one of the most overrated actresses of the century -- but even by Reeve's low key standards, he turned in a sonnambulist's performance. About the only bit of genuine emotion coming from either of them was in the scene where she finds him "praying for a miracle," and her angry hissing "For US?" comes off as uncharacteristically genuine. Thirty seconds, however, a movie does not make.

As far as the credibility of the plot, well, the immediate post-War time was a cowboy era, no doubt, and from the Banco Ambrosiano business on forward, we can't quite claim unwavering financial probity for the Church. Possibly in the hands of less sleepwalking actors this might have been a better flick.

3/10.

Pragmatic priest

[tomsview · 7/10 · 25 January 2019]

Frank Perry made some intriguing movies: "David and Lisa", "The Swimmer" and "Man on a Swing". Although "Monsignor" has its moments, it doesn't reach out and grab us in the same way.

It failed at the box office and the star, Christopher Reeve, thought it was because of the editing. We jump from one episode to the next without feeling that the hero really has a heart.

Father John Flaherty is a pragmatic sort of priest. As an army chaplain in Italy during WW2 he shows he is not averse to manning a machine gun to mow down a German attack. When he is sent to the Vatican to sort out financial difficulties, we see that he believes the end justifies the means. As financial controller he engages in questionable dealings with the black market and the mafia.

However theologians would be left searching the scriptures for passages that apply when he beds Clara (Geneviéve Bujold), a noviciate nun - without telling her he is a priest. When she springs him at a major Papal ceremony, he has a look on his face like a schoolboy who has just broken wind in class.

Nevertheless over the years Flaherty advances through the ranks of the church, becoming a monsignor, but his shady associates prove his undoing. About then he finds God.

I couldn't help comparing "Monsignor" with Otto Preminger's "The Cardinal". Although "The Cardinal" also dealt with the hierarchy of the church, the central character played by Tom Tryon is guided onto a more spiritual path much earlier. For me, "The Cardinal" remains the more satisfying experience.

There was twenty years between the films and by the time "Monsignor" came around the gloves were coming off as far as criticism of the church was concerned. However the sins in "Monsignor" seem lightweight compared to the revelations about abuse within the Catholic Church and other institutions that came a decade later.

"Monsignor" suffers in comparison to "The Cardinal" in another area - the music. John Williams "Godfatherish" score isn't as appealing as Jerome Moross' impressive one for "The Cardinal" or Alex North's for "The Shoes of the Fisherman"; possibly it just needed more bells.

With that said, I still find "Monsignor" quite watchable and maybe even a bit of a guilty pleasure - and a little sad knowing what befell Christopher Reeve.

Smart, Absorbing and Different

[mjhuber · 10/10 · 23 February 2006]

This movie is a smart, absorbing and different take on the Vatican, exposing the high stakes politicking and personal vanities that impact the actions of the Church. There are no saints in this movie, only real people played with empathy and unusual perspective. A very young Christopher Reeves takes on a challenging role and pulls off the complexity and credibility the movie calls for. The supporting cast is excellent, a joy to watch. The movie keeps you guessing and praying. This is not a movie for dullards, if you appreciate an intelligent and compelling movie, try this one. It will surprise you, pleasantly. It tackles a subject matter that is very timely now with the various Church conspiracy books fad, such as "The Da Vinci Code." I am trying to find more information on the subject of the movie, presumably Archbishop Paul Marcinkus.

How the Church survived

[douglasgerb · 7/10 · 10 November 2010]

I loved this film. First, it showed very well the way the church managed to survive the complicated, and oft evil, manipulations of war. It did not condemn or condone, only showed the reality of the Catholic church and how it's mechanisms are very much capitalist in nature if not in scripture. It's historic value is priceless.We've seen since then how the church does act when it comes to it's own failings and inner turmoils. It's not whether you have sinned the great sin, whatever that is, or that you've been forgiven. Rather, it's does your value to the church out-way your individual corruption.

Historically, Catholic priest sold forgiveness in the form of 'dispensation' to the wealthy and powerful so they could sin without facing eternal damnation. This film just modernizes it. Many novels and films since this one have shown the same point. This one is just simpler in it's presentation.

one of the best worst movies i've seen

[dawny-doo · 9/10 · 11 March 2006]

saw this as a sneak preview, and there was a lot of mumbling in full theater as reeve was cast as priest, to begin with. more mumbling ensued as film went on, then laughter, and occasional comments from crowd. loved scenes as lines of people approached the pope, and the overhead camera view was hysterical when eyes met. one comment from crowd was directed at diminuative pope character- "ET phone home". i've been looking for it on video for years for a good laugh, but couldn't even find it among reeve's credits. kudos to bujold for listing everything no matter how nasty... i don't remember anyone leaving the theater, as i've seen in some sneak previews, probably because the of the 'so bad it was good' factor.