Doubt (I) (2008) User Reviews (432)

Doubt will make you think. Both the movie and the emotion.

[mark.waltz · 8/10 · 25 May 2022]

The film version of the John Patrick Shanley play for me shows the best performance of Meryl Streep in the 21st century. As the very strict sister Aloysius, the principal at a Bronx Catholic school, it is her job to make the children fear her and tow the line, and even in Sunday mass, she is not one to avoid stepping up and discipline them. Being sent to her office is worse than a prison sentence, because her cold stare and hard words of discipline will cut the victim to the quick. Haven't been to Catholic schools in grade school, dealing with a principal like this would lead to nightmares for me, especially after watching the witch in "The Wizard of Oz". The nuns in the school do not wear the traditional habits, but long black flowing Cape like dresses and bonnets instead of wimples. Sister Aloysius is the only one with this type of coldness in the school. The younger nuns, particularly the one played by Amy Adams, are warm and discipline only when they need to, and the older nuns are sweet and grandmotherly. But as the audience learns later, Sister Aloysius came late to the convent, a war widow with a lot of bitterness attached to her life.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is priest Philip Seymour Hoffman, his greatest green performance and the one for which he will always be remembered. He represents the new Catholicism to the very traditional Streep who isn't happy that the church is changing as a result of Vatican II. She wants to keep the status quo the same, utilizing the winds as a metaphor for things she doesn't like. Hoffman on the other hand, wants to bring a lighter relationship between the working-class neighborhood and the church officials, and especially create a bond with the students that makes them respect them but not fear them. Streep's Sister Aloysius is definitely a bully, but in her performance, Streep indicates so much more underneath that hard demeanor that shows that even with her determination to prove Hoffman guilty as inappropriate behavior, there is a doubt that challenges her determination and especially her quest for power which he has gained in her position as principal.

The issue of the film is not about the suspicion of molestation, but whether making assumptions based on suspicions is justified, and the aggressive way in which Sister Aloysius pursues her cause. She has a long, magnificent scene with the fantastic Viola Davis, playing the mother of the young black boy whom Hoffman has been mentoring. Davis dominates that scene and that accelerated her rise to becoming one of the most prominent actresses in the 21st Century. The film is very powerful because it is not going to make you find Hoffman guilty or not guilty, and nor does it make you judge Streep for actions that would make her instantly hateable had she not balanced it out with little nuances that are subtly revealed. For me, it is a film about ethical decision-making, and the subject surrounding that in this film is basically supporting to that philosophy of finding all the facts before you make a decision on whether or not something was right or wrong and how to proceed with it. That indeed makes a powerful drama and one of the great stage adaptions to film in many years.

The Movie and the Case

[p_radulescu · 9/10 · 22 June 2010]

I think there are two distinct cases to discuss: the case in the movie; the case about the movie.

The case in the movie: it is 1964 and in a Catholic school in Bronx a conflict erupts between the principal (Meryl Streep) and the priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman). The principal is Sister Aloysius, a nun very strict about the discipline. The priest, Father Flynn, is just the opposite, a very natural guy, open to people and to the world. The nun suspects him of pedophilia. The suspicion will never be confirmed, never thrown away. Eventually it's up to us to decide, and our role of spectators is played in the movie by Sister James (Amy Adams), a younger nun who is trying to understand what really is, oscillating between the two. By the way, genial idea of using male names for the Catholic nuns, to stress out the strictness of their rules.

The case about the movie: the epoch Doubt was made and the epoch the picture takes place are very different. The sixties were the years of Vatican II; the Catholic Church was opening largely its windows. It was the conflict (often brutal) between new and tradition, between progressives and conservatives. This was then. Today the Church is facing the scandals of pedophilia (and the way they are handled by the Catholic hierarchy).

So, if we take the epoch of the sixties, we take the side of Father Flynn, a man open to modernity, empathizing with the youth, with their questions and their way of seeing the world, speaking the language of his epoch, a wonderful man suspected by a retrograde nun.

Only the movie is made today, for today's viewers, and we are focused on today's issues. So here is the question: once the nun had suspicions that the priest was a pedophile, what was the right way to take? To not follow a case without positive evidence? Or, by the contrary, to follow the case, to force him to come with proofs of his innocence? What was more important: his right to privacy or the safety of the boys? We can say that the movie leaves the case open. Nothing demonstrates positively that the priest is a pedophile; nothing demonstrates that he isn't.

Well, the movie brings something more: what if? What if the boy is born with another orientation and the priest is just understanding and protecting him? Maybe just because the priest has the same orientation? There is a key scene in the movie, the discussion between Sister Aloysius and the boy's mother (wonderfully played by Viola Davis), leading to an unexpected outcome.

And I think here is the doubt the movie is putting forward: more than the doubt of Sister James (is Father Flynn an abominable pedophile, beyond his openness?), more even than the doubt of Sister Aloysius (was she right in following a man without positive proofs?), there is the doubt of humanity. Human behavior is complex, each human case is unique and cannot be assimilated to a general pattern. Things aren't every time what they look like, we should always consider this question, what if?

Spectacular ambiguity.

[GrafZeppelin127 · 8/10 · 9 August 2020]

Watch this movie once, with the idea that Fr. Flynn is guilty. Then watch it again, with the idea that he is innocent. Or do it the other way around. Shanley's dialogue is so perfectly, brilliantly ambiguous that this is really two movies in one. Both are powerful, and both possibilities are horrible to contemplate, for very different reasons.

Having seen both the play (during its original run with Cherry Jones and Brian F. O'Byrne) and the film, the play obviously has the edge because it's more intimate, consisting only of four characters. The film expands its milieu (as film versions of plays typically do) but I think having the schoolchildren, other nuns, and school staff present in the film diminishes it just a bit. The play, of course, is about "knowing" things that we don't actually know, and the movie shows us some of what the play leaves to the imagination. Although the ultimate question remains ambiguous, the viewer may be distracted by looking for clues in the other characters, especially the kids.

What gives this piece its power, though, on both stage and screen, is its stubborn refusal to answer that ultimate question, or to provide any solid evidence of either conclusion, leaving it entirely up to the viewer to judge these characters.

There is No Doubt Indeed!

[Yanyawa · 10/10 · 31 March 2019]

You may doubt that Sister Aloysius's suspicions about Father Flynn are correct. You may doubt that Father Flynn isn't guilty of inappropriate behavior with a young boy. You may doubt Sister James's position in this situation....whether she agrees with Sister Aloysius or whether she agrees with Father Flynn. You may doubt whether Mrs. Miller is a good mother due to her comments and actions but there is no doubt, that the real victim here, is Donald Miller.

This is how real life plays out. The true victim is forgotten while we spend so much time trying to figure out whose side to take due to all of the sensationalism. Donald Miller is a victim of Sister Aloysius, Donald Miller is a victim of Father Flynn, Donald Miller is a victim of Sister James (she signaled him out in the classrooom). Donald Miller is a victim of his abusive Father, Donald Miller is a victim of his Mother's moral judgement. Donald Miller is a victim of society's treatment towards minorities, gays and lesbians. Nevermind the adults, what will happen to this young innocent boy as he grows up?

So do we really care about Donald Miller and how he's being impacted by all of this? He delivers a powerful statement right at the beginning that undoubtedly got lost in all the melee of shouting adults. He asked James Hurley if he thought he was fat. There lies a tragedy and a forgotten victim. One scroll through the comments and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about with absolutely, no doubt!

"What do you do when you're not sure?"

[classicsoncall · 10/10 · 7 October 2012]

"It's an old tactic of cruel people to kill kindness in the name of virtue." That's what Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) says to Sister James (Amy Adams) in attempting to explain her superior's behavior by accusing him of molesting an altar boy. At this point the confrontation between Flynn and Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep) hasn't taken place yet, but you know it will. The principal is guided by one stunning admission that inspires her motivation to expose Father Flynn - "I'll bring him down".

Some of my best and favorite movies have a certain ambiguity about them. There's the scene at the end of "Angels With Dirty Faces" when Father Jerry challenges Rocky Sullivan to show cowardice when he faces execution for his life of crime. So does Rocky go to the chair a hero or a yellow rat? As the viewer you have to decide.

Just as you have to decide here whether Father Flynn was a pedophile or a victim of circumstantial elements that cast doubt on his character. I have to admit, this one is a baffler, although the way the script carries the story forward, it just may be that Flynn was guilty. However the film offers a complex dynamic to the proceedings with the introduction of Mrs. Miller (Vioa Davis), who reveals a seriously more disturbing picture of her son's home life than one would expect. By attempting to balance her son's well being against an accusation that may or may not be real, we see how conflicted and torturous it can be to learn the truth.

What comes across most strongly, as well it should, is the idea that once a reputation is damaged, there's no going back. Father Flynn's analogy of the pillow and the feathers was a brilliant way to demonstrate how lives can be affected by repeating an assertion that cannot be demonstrably proved, but is accepted and repeated, often to the detriment of the parties on both sides of an accusation. The film's ending bears this out, lending further resonance to the movie's title, because we now understand that doubt has been cast in both directions. That was an effective way to end the story, even if it leaves most viewers with more questions than answers.

The Power Of Doubt

[Chrysanthepop · 20 March 2009]

'Doubt' has turned out to be quite a fascinating puzzle. The story is pretty much told through dialogue rather than portrayal of events. Shanley's overwhelming screenplay is so effective and the element of mystery is carried out so strongly that even the viewer is left doubting the actions of the priest and the motives of the head nun (were her accusations legitimate or was it all an intent to ruin the priest). His incredible direction takes us through the psyche of the four principle characters.

Needless to say, the outstanding performances are just the necessary requirements that Shanley has successfully met. After all, who could ask for a better cast than Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams and Viola Davis? All these actors display some of the best acting of their career. It is both the dialogue delivery and the non-verbal gestures that strengthens the doubts in the viewers mind and makes the characters nonetheless more convincing.

The slightly washed-out colours give the look of the 60s but also adds to the mysterious atmosphere. 'Doubt' is a very thought-provoking film. It has one questioning. Should the nun have reacted or should she have waited for evidence? But what if it was already too late for evidence? What has doubt done to them? It has them questioning themselves constantly. It has stolen their sleep. We accept that it is human to doubt but what does doubt do to us? What kind of power does it hold above us? How do we react on it? When should we react on it? The director beautifully manages to convey and provoke this without appearing pretentious or preachy.

Gut-wrenching film that is tough to take

[blott2319-1 · 7/10 · 19 January 2022]

Doubt is a movie that pulls no punches and wastes no time. It is about a nun who suspects a priest of having an inappropriate relationship with a student in their school. I had fully anticipated that there would be a slower build to the confrontations in the story, but I'm not sure why I thought that might happen. Considering how brash and brazen Meryl Streep plays the Principal of the school, I should have known that subtlety wasn't going to be her preferred method of handling things. Her first confrontation with the priest was a heart-pounding scene that almost made my palms sweat as if I was part of the uncomfortable situation. It was perfect that they chose to also have Amy Adams there to offer a contrast as someone who wants to avoid the conflict.

I applaud Doubt for some wonderful acting performances across the board. This movie features an all-star level of talent, and they have some serious dramatic scenes that feel tailor-made for Oscar nominations. The film is hard to watch, though. I almost squirmed right out of my chair during the scene with Viola Davis, and there are several scenes with a similar tone. It doesn't have a cathartic release at the end, in fact many of the worst elements of the plot never feel resolved. There's an uncomfortable ugliness to the way things play out in this movie, and it makes me want to watch Spotlight right after so I feel satisfied that something more has been done. Doubt is one of those movies where I respect it more than I like it. There's no denying this is quality film-making, but it is not the kind that I want to subject myself to many times in the future.

To Doubt Is Human

[evanston_dad · 8/10 · 22 December 2008]

"Doubt can be a bond as strong as fear." If ever there was a time in our country's recent history where that line carried the force of relevance, it's now.

And though it's set in the early 1960s (roughly a year after the Kennedy assassination), there's no doubt that John Patrick Shanley's adaptation of his own Pulitzer-Prize winning stage play is a response to these dark times, when the only thing that seems to be uniting Americans is their collective insecurity and ever-weakening belief that things are going to get better.

At the center of "Doubt" is the mystery of whether or not a priest (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman) is guilty of taking advantage of an altar boy. The priest's primary (and really sole) prosecutor is Sister Aloysius, the uber-stern and terrifying principal of the Catholic school that provides "Doubt" its setting. Watching Hoffman and Streep spar is like watching two professional tennis players at their best, and fans of expert movie acting should waste no time in seeing the sparks fly between these two. The movie purposely never clarifies the ambiguity of the charges -- is Hoffman's priest truly guilty of something, or is Sister Aloysius simply on a mad witch hunt? Streep's character is the most fascinating. From one perspective, she's a nearly maniacal harpie, intent on ruining a man's life and career for no clear reason. However, if her accusations are legitimate, she's a sort of hero, demanding justice from a male-dominated world that's willing to look the other way. Streep's performance is something fascinating to behold -- she can convey more with an arched eyebrow than another actor can with his entire face.

Amy Adams gets the pivotal role of a young, innocent nun who first brings her suspicions about the priest to her superior, and then sees them become Frankenstein's monster. In many ways, Adams' character is us, the audience, placed in the position of having to come to a conclusion on our own when empirical evidence is lacking. Adams' role is the least showy, but she does much with it.

And then there's Viola Davis, who, in five minutes of screen time, decimates the audience with some shocking conclusions of her own as the altar boy's mother. The insulated, hushed world of the Catholic Church is blown wide open by this struggling mother, who's seen more of the world than any of the priests and nuns sheltered behind the church's walls, and who puts the film's running themes of racial and gender inequality into harsh perspective.

The central conflict in "Doubt" in many ways comes down to each individual's view of the world and his or her ability to accept the ambiguity of day to day living. There's a lot about the world we will never know and much about our futures we'll never be able to control. So what's better -- anticipating the worst and therefore being prepared when it comes; or believing in the best and running the risk of being disappointed when it fails to arise? The movie just poses this question -- it doesn't try to answer it.

"Doubt" is not a fancy movie and will win no awards for its cinematic audacity. But in looking back at the movies of 2008, I imagine it will stand as one of the best-acted films of the year.

Grade: A

interesting theme only sporadically well executed

[Buddy-51 · 6/10 · 5 January 2009]

Strong performances are the saving grace of "Doubt," an otherwise uneven, overly glib tale of possible sexual abuse in one New York City parish circa 1964.

Sister Aloysius is a tradition-bound nun who goes through life utterly untroubled by uncertainty or doubt, running her convent and grade school with unyielding self-righteousness and the iron fist of unchallenged authority. Sister Aloysius doesn't take any more kindly to the accoutrements of the modern world - she has banned all ballpoint pens from the premises and decries "Frosty the Snowman" as a celebration of pagan magic - than she does to the "liberalizing" effect Vatican II has had on the Church she views as the last bastion of morality in an increasingly permissive and immoral world. This puts her in direct conflict with Father Flynn, a reform-minded, man-of-the-people priest who is more concerned with his parishioners' needs than with church ritual per se - yet whom Sister Aloysius has reason to suspect might be a pedophile. Or is she simply targeting the man and seeing what she wants to see because his view of the Church is so at odds with her own? The third main character, Sister James, is a perpetually upbeat but generally naïve novice who becomes more than a disinterested bystander in the war-of-wills that erupts between her two equally hardnosed superiors.

In adapting his play to the screen, writer/director John Patrick Shanley hits on some intriguing themes revolving around certainty vs. doubt and traditionalism vs. progressivism, but the movie isn't always as intellectually honest and convincing as one might wish it to be, especially when Shanley indulges in such hokey effects as the winter wind batting against the windows or well-orchestrated thunder bolts crashing overhead at "meaningful" moments in the picture. Similarly, the reactions the characters have to one another and the situation they're involved in don't always ring true given the less enlightened time period in which the story takes place. And the final "transformative" moment comes upon us with such abruptness and with so little preparation that it quite literally rings down the curtain on the entire enterprise.

Yet, despite all these flaws, "Doubt" periodically rises to the occasion and does justice to the complexity of its subject matter. This is particularly the case in a searing scene between Sister Aloysius and the mother of one of the boys who may have fallen victim to Father Flynn's inappropriate conduct, a scene that catches us completely off-guard with its sheer unexpectedness and its paradigm-shifting effect on the story.

Moreover, the performances are uniformly excellent, starting with Meryl Streep who brings a surprising amount of humor and even warmth to a character who is, for all intents and purposes, cut off from her emotions by her dogmatically rigid nature. Phillip Seymour Hoffman effectively keeps us guessing as to the truth about his character, never tipping his hand one way or the other as to what is taking place in the depths of his soul. Amy Adams makes a compelling stand-in for those of us in the audience who are trying to reserve judgment on these two characters before all the facts are revealed. Special note must also be taken of Viola Davis, superb in her brief but unforgettable appearance as the mother who delivers an unsettling response to news that her son may have been the victim of a sexual predator.

The movie seems to suggest that one can never have one hundred percent certitude about anything in this life and that actions must often be taken even when all the "facts" in a particular case can never be fully known. Yet, what happens when such an action could result in the destruction of another person's livelihood and reputation? It's an interesting theme that is only sporadically well addressed by "Doubt," but the food-for-thought that the movie provides makes it worth checking out anyway.

Absolutely riveting!

[manxman-1 · 10/10 · 31 August 2009]

Wow! Incredible performances from Meryl Streep and Philip Seymore Hoffman. Mesmerizing intensity from Streep as the nun seeking to find Hoffman guilty of a sin he may or may not have committed. Amy Adams gives a sincere performance as the nun who sets the ball rolling with her suspicions that Hoffman may have molested a black student. The scenes between Streep and Hoffman crackle with intelligence and frightening intensity. Streep, as the unrelenting figure of justice, determined at any cost to destroy Hoffman, is terrifying and unrelenting. Hoffman gives a performance less restrained and mannered than the one he gave in Capote (and won the Oscar for) and boy, does he ever deserve to have won a second one for this outing. An absolute knockout, nuanced and convincing in every way. What a masterful performance! John Patrick Shanley's script is riveting from start to finish. If anyone has any doubts about watching this movie due to the theme then put those doubts aside as the writing and acting are without doubt amongst the finest ever committed to film. A superb piece of work.

Doubt 2008

[anufrieva_nastya · 7/10 · 23 April 2018]

In 1964 the winds of change are sweeping through Sister Aloysius' (Meryl Streep) St. Nicholas school. Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a charismatic priest, is advocating reform of the school's strict customs, and the first black student has just been accepted. When a fellow nun (Amy Adams) tells Sister Aloysius that Father Flynn may be paying too much personal attention to the student, Sister Aloysius begins a personal crusade against the priest -- despite her lack of evidence. A Catholic grade school could seem like a hermetically sealed world in 1964. That's the case with St. Nicholas in the Bronx, ruled by the pathologically severe principal Sister Aloysius, who keeps the students and nuns under her thumb and is engaged in an undeclared war with the new parish priest. Their issues may seem to center around the reforms of Vatican II, then still under way, with Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) as the progressive, but for the nun I believe it's more of a power struggle. The pope's infallibility seems, in her case, to have descended to the parish level. Some will say the character of Sister Aloysius, played without a hint of humor . Sister Aloysius of "Doubt" hates all inroads of the modern world, including ballpoint pens. This is accurate. We practiced our penmanship with fountain pens, carefully heading every page "JMJ" -- for Jesus, Mary and Joseph, of course. Under Aloysius' command is the sweet young Sister James, whose experience in the world seems limited to what she sees out the convent window. Gradually during the autumn semester, the situation develops. There is one African-American student at St. Nicholas, Donald Miller, and Father Flynn encourages him in sports and appoints him as an altar boy. This is all proper. Then Sister James notes that the priest summons the boy to the rectory alone. She decides this is improper behavior, and informs Aloysius, whose eyes narrow like a beast of prey. Father Flynn's fate is sealed. But "Doubt" is not intended as a docudrama about possible sexual abuse. It is about the title word, doubt, in a world of certainty. For Aloysius, Flynn is certainly guilty. That the priest seems innocent, that Sister James comes to believe she was mistaken in her suspicions, means nothing. Flynn knows a breath of scandal would destroy his career. And that is the three-way standoff we watch unfolding with precision and tension. Something else happens. Donald's mother fears her son will be expelled from the school. He has been accused of drinking the altar wine. Worse, of being given it by Father Flynn. She appeals directly to Sister Aloysius. It lasts about 10 minutes, but it is the emotional heart and soul of "Doubt". Doubt. It is the subject of the sermon Father Flynn opens the film with. Doubt was coming into the church and the United States in 1964. After the assassination of Kennedy and the beginnings of Vietnam, doubt had undermined American certainty in general. What could you be sure of? What were the circumstances? The motives? The conflict between Aloysius and Flynn is the conflict between old and new, between status and change, between infallibility and uncertainty. And Shanley leaves us doubting. "Doubt" has exact and merciless writing, powerful performances and timeless relevance. It causes us to start thinking with the first shot, and we never stop. Think how rare that is in a film. I came to a different conclusion seeing this film. The entitled "doubt" was not about Father Flynn's guilt (which I believe becomes apparent toward the end of the film). The "doubt" is manifested in Sister Aloysius as she comes to doubt the institution of the Catholic Church she has devoted her life to. Instead of getting rid of the priest, the church covers up the crime. I think that would be enough to cause anyone to have "doubts". This was the last straw that caused this nun to have an emotional break down, reducing a once rigid woman certain in her beliefs to a sobbing and lost wreck of a human being. To answer the obvious mystery in the film - whether Father had some sinful (or criminal) relationship with a twelve year boy? The one word answer on the platter is 'Yes'. I don't think the plot of this movie made a lot of sense for its 1964 setting. Would a nun in 1964 really suspect a priest of sexual abuse based on nothing more than a shirt being placed in a locker? In 2018, after two decades of priest abuse stories in the media, sure; however, in 1964, at a time when no one would dare criticize a man of the cloth, I have my doubts. Either way, I did enjoy the film and thought it was well-acted.

American Film's heavyweight acting champs square off.

[st-shot · 8/10 · 29 December 2008]

There are no better actors working in American film today than Meryl Streep and Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Streep has been on top for some time now and Hoffman has an unmatched resume of fine performances over the past five years. Pairing off as adversaries in John Patrick Shanley's stage play brought to screen they parry and prod throughout with each landing hay makers along the way.

Change is in the wind in 1964 for both the world and the Catholic Church (Second Vatican Council) as the country moves from conservatism to liberal thought. Sister Aloysius (Streep)is the principal of an inner city Catholic school who rules with an iron fist. Lamenting the loss of tradition (she thinks Frosty the Snowman is a song about worshiping false idols) she crosses swords with the popular and laid back Father Flynn who takes a more liberal view seeing the need to keep up with the times. His progressive ways gnaw at Sister Aloysius and she is soon suspecting Father Flynn of inappropriate relationship with altar boys even though she is without concrete proof.

The scenes between Streep and Hoffman are riveting from start to finish. Both attempt at first to be civil with each other but eventually they end up at each others throat bullying and threatening. It is a titanic emotional struggle that makes for a gripping drama flawlessly acted. I'm no big fan of Streep, finding the adopted accents she employs in some of her films false and hollow, but as the self righteous Nunzilla her pugnacious style and inflection rates with her Sophie's Choice performance. Hoffman has his work cut out for him to keep up with the formidable legend but he holds his own with equal footing.

In supporting roles Amy Adams is very effective as the unintended go between Sister James. Seized with doubt she like the audience mirrors our own misgivings as conflicted objective observers. Viola Davis as a troubled boy's mother has one lengthy powerful and painful scene that begins to tie loose ends together but offers no easy solution.

Writer director John Patrick Shanley does an admirable job in keeping the plot nebulous with ambivalent scenes and peripheral characters that purposefully enhance the suspense. Scenes are tightly edited with sparse but effective dialog giving the film its steady pace. Other than some jarring oblique angle shots the camera compositions and set design provide a somber ambiance for the drama and an arena for the perfectly measured performances by two masters of the craft in this fight to the finish that remains absorbing from beginning to end.

Entertaining Drama In One Single Note

[arichmondfwc · 6/10 · 24 November 2008]

Let me start by saying that I wasn't bored for one second and that it is always fascinating to see great actors chewing the scenery. Meryl Streep is one of my heroes she will always be be here something happened. Her performance is devoid of highs and/or lows. She goes through it in second gear. I had hoped for a performance of the Louise Fletcher as Nurse Ratchet with a pleasant almost benign exterior but a monstrous center and Philip Seymour Hoffman, another great, doesn't project any kind of sexual vibe so the sexual allegations may work on a stage play but not on the screen. The part needed a John Garfield. On top of that, there is something missing on the structure of the story. We're taken through two acts but the third act is missing. I didn't believe in that ending it felt to come out of left field. So yes, I was entertained but dissatisfied.

The Dragon Nun and The Wimp

[mocpacific · 5/10 · 10 January 2009]

I was taken aback by the lack of nuance and subtlety. Meryl Streep is a monstrous nun from the very beginning and Philip Seymour Hoffman is a wimp that can shout but remains a wimp. I just didn't believe any of it, which is a pity because this are among my favorite actors of all time. I think that John Patrick Shanley (the writer, director) didn't have enough muscle to handle this enormous talents. Meryl's nun couldn't hide anywhere, she carries her intolerance, frustration and repression on her sleeve. She knows she is hated but according to her, that's her job. No, I didn't believe it. I thought what Vanessa Redgrave, Liv Ullman, Helen Mirren even Cherry Jones who played her on the stage could have done with this creature and then, Philip Seymour Hoffman's priest, without a single vibe of sexuality, imagine what Montgomery Clift could have done with that! After saying what I've said I also have to add that the film is never boring and that is also merit of the miscast leads. They are great fun to watch. The film is dedicated to Sister James, the young nun played by the wonderful Amy Adams, so this is based on a real case? I don't believe that either.

I still have doubts

[gooelf50 · 8/10 · 24 March 2012]

This was the most unsettling movie I have seen in many years. Throughout the showing I found myself wandering back and forth between condemnation of the Priest's behaviour, the Principal's behaviour and the behaviour of the young black student's Mother. The part of the traditional nun who is principal of a Catholic School is played perfectly by Meryl Streep. She's unhappy with change and views it almost as a loss of the comfort and peace of mind that comes with tradition. The part of the new Priest is played just as perfectly by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. He views change in the way religion is practiced as absolutely essential and wants to see the iron fisted traditional rule of the principal disappear into the dark, inflexible past where it belongs. Thus, from the beginning of the movie there is a silent war between the two main characters. If you are a trusting and positive person, you may find yourself believing that the new priest is a wonderful man who cares about nothing more than the religious health and happiness of the parishioners and young students of his church. The affection that he displays for the troubled young black student at the centre of the controversy is touching and absolutely appropriate. On the other hand, if you are a more cynical person, likely to be suspicious of any behaviour that strays from the reserved understanding that a priest traditionally expresses in a more sombre way to his parishioners and students, then you may quickly decide that he is all of the things that the principal suspects him to be. In the end, the principal wins out and succeeds in driving the new priest out of the parish. He moves on to another parish where he has greater responsibilities and enjoys a higher level of professional respect. But I, the viewer, am left wondering if the principal is a paranoid cast back to 17th century religious practices, who victimizes a new priest simply because he represented change that she wasn't prepared to accept, or if the new Priest actually is an abuser who took advantage of a young vulnerable boy who had no one to turn to for comfort, but was ferreted out by a wise, no nonsense adherent to purity in religion.

New genre - the moral thriller

[jsorenson777 · 10/10 · 2 February 2009]

Normally we give too much credit to actors. They often work for short periods and force myriad takes. Directors manipulate and cajole them. Then the filmmakers spend months choosing the best shots, carving them and stringing them together to make the story (and the long-gone actors) look good.

"Doubt" is an exception, only in that the actors are especially marvelous. The many close-ups and the length of the shots attest to the trust John Patrick Shanley puts in them. Streep and Hoffman are superb. Adams and Davis are remarkable as well.

Still the most credit for this phenomenal effort must go to Shanley.

What a fascinating story, with layers and springbacks that will leave you thinking and rethinking.

Thank you very much to all involved with this fine film.

To Catch a Predator

[tieman64 · 14 February 2010]

John Patrick Shanley directs "Doubt". The plot? A Catholic nun accuses a priest of abusing a child. She has no evidence, but trusts her instincts. He did it. Others disagree, but she insists. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing. A scheming, self-serving man who sings sermons of tolerance, love and the dangers of gossip only as a smokescreen for his own wicked ways. She will catch him, and her brand of militant Christianity will cast him away!

The priest, of course, denies ever committing abuse. He insists that the nun is deeply misguided. She, he believes, is an authoritarian figure who has turned Christianity into a religion of fear, suspicion and intolerance. She, he insists, is on a quest to expunge symbols of tolerance and "progressivism" from the Church.

What follows is an epic battle of truth, doubt, denial and suspicion, but more importantly, a battle between two heavy weight acting legends. Meryl Streep plays the nun and Philip Seymour Hoffman the priest, and when the duo square off in a single room towards the film's climax, its hard not to grin. They spout dialogue like arrows, trade gazes like cannon fire, both actors showing shades of vulnerability, weakness, strength and righteousness. Who do we trust? Who do we side with? Who is right? Who is wrong? That the film keeps us enthralled and guessing so long is a testament to a tight script and some brilliant performances by both Streep and Hoffman.

8/10 – An excellent drama, marred only by an overly tidy ending. Makes a good companion piece to "The Magdalene Sisters" and "Black Narcissus".

Only the acting

[obrofta · 6/10 · 21 July 2009]

I was disappointed, not in the acting, but in just about everything else. I read some encouraging reviews, and as the movie started Meryl Streep took me back to my teacher, Sister J. . As Streep wandered the aisles of Church and school, I said to myself, "Yes, this is an accurate scene. This is just how it happened." However, what was the purpose of this movie, and what is it's message? This is where I am deflated, let down and discouraged. I thought perhaps that the writers don't really have the insight into the real world of the Catholic Church just the periphery. Sure, recent years have uncovered a plethora of pedophiles, and if more was said of the movie in this, perhaps maybe the better, but little was said, just inferred. It seems that the message of this movie is it's title, and as the not so good Father tells us in the opening sermon, we can all find unity in having the same flaw. WHAT!!!??? This is a secular pile of dung. If priests and nuns wrote this movie they would write and act of doubt's antithesis, the all important credo in unity, which is Faith. Now, writers and audience alike may criticize my viewpoint, saying it is I who don't understand, but that is what I think is all wrong...with the world viewpoint and with this movie. I hate to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen the movie, but the end says it all. In the end, Streep becomes a bad person. The movie tells us Father Flynn's next residence is larger and therefore puts more boys at greater risk, not to mention that Streep.... Well, I don't have to tell you if you want to watch it.

I have another problem with the movie as to how it handled the Miller boy. The movie let's us believe one thing, but the boy never shows any signs of being of a certain orientation, only the word of his mother in close conversation. Was the movie's point that gay boys attract the pedophiles? That whole line was confusing, and arguably underdeveloped. Point is if you're going to divulge the conversation with the Mother than something more has to be done with the subject matter, even if it's closed off quickly.

I can't recommend this movie except for the individual performances of Adams, Seymour and Streep (order by alpha or ind. rating, take your pick). They were all fantastic. I just wish they had a better script with which to work.

Bleak and dark

[kosmasp · 10/10 · 6 August 2009]

And when I say dark, I'm not referring to the clothes in the movie. It's morally ambiguous and it might leave you with more questions than answers, but it's striking nevertheless. The powerhouse performances we get to see in this movie, are worthy Oscar contenders and leave free interpretations as to which character will be to your liking (or which character you despise the most).

While many movies do give you moral clarity, this one plays with many things, that are never fully uncovered ... or maybe they are and I'm just not willing to accept them? Actually it leaves room for some interpretations of things that went down (no pun intended). It's about guilt, it's about doubt and many other things, that makes us human. How you receive the movie might say a lot more about yourself than the movie itself. Which is a great thing. A movie that actually makes you think, even long after the credits finished ...

Avoids easy answers

[howard.schumann · 9/10 · 22 December 2008]

According to a report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, over four thousand clerics were accused of sexual abuse during the past fifty years. Although approximately thirty percent of these accusations were not investigated because they were unsubstantiated, given the proclivity of the bishops to cover up these incidents, the figures are widely suspected to be underestimated. What may be lost in the discussion of statistics about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, however, is an understanding of the humanity of the people involved or the complexities of the circumstances.

This factor is brought to light in Doubt, John Patrick Shanley's filmed version of his Tony Award and Pulitzer Prize winning stage play. Based on Shanley's personal experiences at Catholic School, the film explores not only the issue of possible sexual abuse but conservative versus progressive religious values and how far one can rely on suspicion in the absence of proof. Set in 1964, one year after the Kennedy assassination, Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Meryl Streep) is the dragon lady of St. Nicholas school in the Bronx. A strict taskmaster, she relishes her role as the upholder of tradition, rejecting such modern devices as ballpoint pens and the singing of secular songs at Christmas like Frosty the Snowman which she equates with pagan magic.

Under Aloysius is the sweet and innocent Sister James (Amy Adams) whose easy going manner and charming personality is a welcome antidote to her authoritarian superior. The priest at St. Nicholas is Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who is the closest thing to a progressive at the school. He is open to new ideas and the changes initiated by Pope John XXIII, being much more open and relaxed with the children and engaging them in sports and conversation. In his sermons he brings the language of religion into the twentieth century, talking about the positive aspects of doubt and the injurious effects of gossip. "Doubt", he says, "can be a bond as powerful and sustaining as certainty. When you are lost, you are not alone." Resentful of the role of women in the Catholic Church and suspicious of Father Flynn, Sister Aloysius assigns Sister James to keep an eye peeled for anything unusual in his conduct. Her fears appear justified when Sister James reports that Father Flynn asked Donald Miller (Joseph Foster II), the school's only African-American student, to a private conference in the rectory and was seen hanging up the boys undershirt in his locker. Sister James also informs her that there was alcohol on the boy's breath and that the boy seemed upset when returning to his desk.

Although no inappropriate behavior was witnessed, Sister Aloysius suspects wrongdoing and summons the priest to her office on the pretext of discussing the Christmas pageant. She accuses the priest of misconduct with the altar boy who denies that he gave altar wine to the boy or that anything unusual happened. The drama takes more twists and turns, especially when Donald's mother (Viola Davis) raises Aloysius' eyebrows by suggesting that, in spite of the allegations, the boy, who is due to enter high school in a few months, may be better off in the hands of the priest than having to face his intolerant and abusive father.

Doubt avoids easy answers and challenges us to view inflammatory issues from a broader perspective, embracing the essential mystery of human behavior. The acting in the film is uniformly brilliant. Streep is mesmerizing, even if at times more theatrical than may be necessary for the character. Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance is more restrained and draws our sympathy with his broader view of church doctrine and display of love and compassion, although his demeanor at the end tantalizingly suggests remorse.

What may be the most noteworthy performance, however, is that of Viola Davis whose dialogue with Aloysius is one of the dramatic high points of the film. The issue of whether Father Flynn acted as a friend and mentor to the boy or a sexual partner is ultimately left to the viewer to resolve, though what is beyond doubt is that absolute certainty without considering other points of view is a dead end for all involved.

More like Vagueness than Doubt

[fung0 · 6/10 · 14 May 2009]

Doubt is almost a great film, but it falls short on logic. The many 10/10 ratings seem to refer more to what the film *should* have been, than to what it turned out to be.

For me, the main problem is the trick that Meryl Streep's nun plays on Hoffman's priest - lying about calling a nun in his old parish. This seems to reveal with far too much certainty that the man is indeed guilty - of something. If he wasn't expelled from previous positions, why does he not question the (supposed) phone call more strongly? If we are to believe that the priest resigns simply because he feels unable to fight the slander, then we should hear him say so. Instead, we see only that he's running away; apparently, the nun's tactic has worked.

As a result, the nun ends up looking far too 'right,' and the ending sounding far too glib. There's no other explanation offered, no discussion of ramifications or possibilities. Could the priest's obvious good works excuse some wrongdoing? The question is not asked, nor answered. On the other hand, is the nun right to be malicious and inflexible, because in the end she accomplishes the correct result? Apparently she is, since any ill effects - especially on the naive younger nun - are not really delved into. (They're suggested in one scene, then abandoned. If there have been no ill effects, then clearly the older nun was right.)

So far, the film's point of view is clear as mud. (In fact, various reviewers here have come to entirely different conclusions. That's not Doubt; that's just vague.)

On top of all this there's the historical perspective. I was actually IN Catholic schools at about this time, and I happen to know the real guilty party, beyond any Doubt: it was the Church as an institution. The film seems prepared to tackle this issue, but again fails to carry through. We have the older nun, representing the stiff, traditional past. Contrasted with the priest, who reflects the much-needed modernization brought in by Pope John XXIII. Yet it's the priest who ends up in the wrong. What are we to make of this?

And what about Meryl Streep's character - who quite accurately represents generations of venomous, domineering nuns who terrorized small children - a legacy of institutionalized bullying that did easily as much harm overall as any priestly molestations. Do we hate her for the harm she does? Well, it's not really shown. She's right every time she deals with a child, and none show any obvious ill effects of her domination. (Though I would suggest that in fact the film's characterizations are accurate; Catholic schools tended to either crush children's will, or turn them into obnoxious rebels. Both outcomes are represented in the film, but the point of what we're seeing is not raised.)

With all this in mind, Streep's final cry of "Oh, I'm so wracked with doubt!" sounds very hollow indeed. What is she so doubtful about?? She has absolute certainty that the priest was guilty. Is she just agonizing over the methods she used to defeat him? Could it be that the *real* doubt in this movie is merely whether or not the ends justify the means?? If so, how disappointing, when so many other questions have been raised! And how uninteresting, given that no real ill effects of her tactics are shown.

Which brings us to the central dramatic failing of the film. The real pivotal character of this story is clearly that of the younger, naive nun. She is the only character that undergoes a major transformation, and hence begs to be spotlighted. Yet we are left entirely unclear as to how the events of the film have affected her. Has she been poisoned by the elder nun's harsh attitudes? Or has she absorbed the love and humor of the (possibly flawed) priest? Or, ultimately, can she find a middle course, that would show a way forward for the Church: due caution, tempered with a love that puts the children's welfare first? Unfortunately, the film's ending veers away from this, THE key question, and focuses on Streep's deeply uninteresting "Doubt."

It seems like Shanley set out to create one of those knife's-edge dramas, where difficult questions are raised but not given absolute answers. But at some point he slipped off, ending up not with ambivalence and "Doubt," but with logic that's just muddled. Or maybe the gaps were filled by material that ended up on the cutting room floor. I had the strong feeling the film wanted to be about fifteen minutes longer. A bit more exposition might have at least told us what we were supposed to be in Doubt *about.*

On the positive side, I'd say that the film looks terrific, and the (three!) main performances are brilliant - even though constrained by by Shanley's confused script.

Spectacular, gripping, shattering

[fnj2002 · 10/10 · 22 December 2009]

"Doubt" dares to explore one of the most compelling issues of recent years, and to do so with a completely unmanipulative perspective with no sermonizing.

The linear narrative style is refreshing, with no flashbacks and flash forwards, and no contamination of the story (set in the early 1960s) with the hindsight of recent events. It is relentless. We see the events of those days without any cinematic deus ex machina. We are not privileged to any all-showing exposition of critical events. We have only the souls of the principles as expressed in their dialog and in their faces.

With the mighty acting duo of Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep, and a more than able supporting cast and superb direction, "Doubt" has dramatic fireworks without cheap gimmicks.

The final 30 seconds puts a fitting cap on the message. The effect is devastating.

A good film but demonic Sister Aloysius is silly to the point of causing giggles

[dbborroughs · 7/10 · 25 January 2009]

I was not a fan of Doubt when it was on Broadway. I liked it but didn't love it,certainly not Pulitzer worthy. I found it too much of a problem play where people sit around and discuss ideas in ways that were meant to explore the ideas more then they were meant to be real. I found Sister Aloysius monstrous and almost comical. I did think it was nicely compact and did what it did and got off.

It was with some trepidation that I sat down to watch John Patrick Shanley's film of his play. My reaction was less than I had hoped.

The plot has Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep) suspecting that all is not right with Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), particularly with his relationship with one of the boys in the school. There is no evidence that anything really happened but the Sister is damn certain something did and she is going to make sure that Father Flynn is removed. As events occur that can be taken any number of ways the heat increases and a battle of wills transpires.

In opening up his play Shanley has brought the story closer to the real world. There are more characters, more events and many characters are deepened. Unfortunately, in my eyes anyway, the resulting opening up has made Sister Aloysius seem almost laughable. To be certain she is a monster of epic proportions and I know that there are and were many nuns (and people) who are very similar to her but what worked on stage as a symbol of the stone like past of the church and the world, refusing to change, comes off on screen, in the real world, as a caricature. I found her silly and I found I was giggling more than anything else, especially with her ever shifting accent. Several critics in their reviews of the film said they found Streep to be in another movie from the rest of the cast, and in some ways I did too. Its the construction of the character, as I said she is the symbol of stagnation in a world of change, and she is more archetype then real person. She is just a rigid construct and not a real person, this would have worked on stage but not in a reality based film. (And mark my words its going to be role that becomes spoofed for years to come to the point of becoming a cliché)

The battle between stage and the screen is all over the film. What was a series of scenes on the stage where people effectively sat around and talked about what they have seen or might have seen now become a series of scenes where we actually see the events.For me the opening up of the play makes the story not one full of doubt, rather one that seems confused. Events that on stage were only revealed as events others saw transpire are now seen by all to happen. The angst some characters feel at what they saw is now lessened because we see the events (the locker) for example. We also have to contend with a a vastly increased number of characters (the original play had four) so additionally the story is shaded by actually seeing all of these people. How can we feel the uncertainty of what the sisters saw or feel when we see the same events. On some level, the very thing the film is about, doubt, is removed because we see things.

I know its not fair to compare the film with the play, since they are different, but at the same time I couldn't stop doing so because there were things the film was doing that didn't work for me (as opposed to the recent Frost Nixon which transcended it stage origins into something truly cinematic). Perhaps Ihad I not been exposed to the play I might have liked this better. As it stands now I found it a good but not great adaptation of a good but not great play.

Around 7 out of 10 (when Meryl Streep doesn't cause me to giggle)

Meryl Streep channels Margaret Hamilton in "Doubt."

[wgg-1 · 3/10 · 3 January 2009]

I saw John Patrick Shanley's "Doubt" on Broadway with Cherry Jones as Sister Aloysius and Bryan F. O'Byrne as Father Flynn. It was one of the most riveting afternoons of theater I have ever experienced: forceful and clean acting, minimalist staging, no sound effects (other than the gasps of the audience). Cherry Jones played the hawkish Sister without any notion of Catholic school stereotypes. The plot twists provided all the thunder and lightning necessary to keep the attention of an audience left exhausted by the emotional battle between Aloysius and Flynn, whom the Sister perceives as a threat within the faculty of the school where she is the principal.

Shockingly Shanley has added all the clichés, including thunder and lightning, to his film of "Doubt" that he so effectively stripped from his play. In sabotaging his own play with stereotypes on screen, Shanley has found a ready ally in his lead actress, Ms. Streep, who lacks only the green warpaint for her depiction of Aloysius as the Wicked Witch of the West. She does wear the shiny black gown and requisite spiked hat. It would take only long fingernails to turn her into Margaret Hamilton, but those are reserved for co-star Phillip Seymour Hoffman who makes Flynn about as threatening as the morning milkman. With the exception of Amy Adams and Viola Davis to round out the central foursome of the play, the movie of "Doubt" bears no emotional resemblance to its vastly superior stage incarnation. By the time of the film's climax, so devastating as portrayed by Cherry Jones on Broadway, Streep has become such a cardboard cutout of the Catholic School nun that any suggestion of her personal redemption, or regret, is laughable. She even slaps the students with rulers as she purses her lips underneath that black cap.

With maturation, Streep appears to be entering the arena of late-career overacting previously pioneered by Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino, and Dustin Hoffman. Well, it works for the Motion Picture Academy. She will certainly score a nomination and probably win an Oscar for her hammy work in this anemic adaptation of a great theatrical entertainment. For some of us, Margaret Hamilton will remain the genuine witch to watch. And "Doubt" will linger in the memory as a great Broadway experience, shamelessly reduced to camp on screen.