There Be Dragons (2011) User Reviews

Historical film about a journalist who discovers an intense drama plenty of war , love-hatred , treason , and religion

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 30 July 2012]

Spanish/US co-production developing dramatic deeds during Spanish Civil War and the historic figure about Jose Maria Escriba De Balaguer . Enjoyable biographic movie well written and played , being compellingly directed by Roland Joffé . Arising out of the terror of the Spanish Civil War, a candidate for canonization is investigated by a reporter (Dougray Scott) who aware his own estranged father (Wes Bentley) had a deep, dark and devastating connection to the saint's (Charlie Cox) life .

This interesting film is full of compelling drama with love , passion and subsequent betrayal , touching scenes , historical events and good feeling . It is a simple , dramatic and intelligent portrait of a time when the Spanish people live taking on among them . This is an agreeable account of the survival of the human spirit against difficulties ; an epic portrayal of Faith, Forgiveness and Redemption . The movie is plenty of graphic , striking and memorable moments about timeless power of forgiveness and dictating a strong emotional response from the spectator , though some moments is unrealistic . Interesting and thought-provoking movie with evident excitement that can sometimes be undercut by inadequacies in the screenplay , being written and adapted by the same Roland Joffé . This moving picture results to be a breathtaking spectacle about dramatic consequences of Spanish civil war , including strong emotions , brooding dialog and a heartbreaking final . ¨There be dragons¨ or ¨Encontrarás Dragones¨ results to be other of the innumerable stories to deal with dramatic deeds regarding the Civil War background , a familiar theme about the global horrors of a fratricide war , impossible to forget to Spanish cinema . However the story needs a vibration more real than the one offered in this slow-moving and sometimes dull film . But anyway, its is compensated with the great performances from main cast as Charlie Cox as Josemaría Escrivá , Wes Bentley as Manolo Torres as Dougray Scott as Roberto Torres as Rodrigo Santoro as Oriol , Olga Kurylenko as Ildiko and sensational support cast , mostly Spanish , such as Unax Ugalde , Ana Torrent and Jordi Molla , interpreters who provided a considerable boost to the result . Furthermore , a spotless pictorial cinematography by Gabriel Beristain and a willingness , almost perfect of the elements of each shot , every sequence, every space .

The film develops an intrigue by means of flashbacks and dealing with Jose Maria Escriba De Balaguer's life . The events were the following : during the Spanish Civil War , Escrivá was hidden in a psychiatric sanatorium and fled from Madrid, which was under republican control, via Andorra and France, to the city of Burgos, held by the nationalist forces of General Francisco Franco. After the war ended in 1939 with Franco's victory, Escrivá was able to resume his studies in Madrid and complete a doctorate in law. His principal work was the foundation, government and expansion of Opus Dei.

The motion picture was well directed by the British Roland Joffé , being realized in academic style and general coldness , filmed in his usual formal and stylistic scholarship , without leaving a trace the thought-provoking issues , in terms of dramatic and narrative excitement . He is a good filmmaker mainly of epic subjects . After a long career filming for television , he made his movie debut in a big way with ¨The killing fields¨ winner of three Oscar and dealing with madness and atrocities committed by humans , Joffe's usual theme. ¨The mission¨, one of his greatest hits , had Palme d'or at Cannes , a graphic monument to Portuguese oppression in South-America , but Joffe has not quite held his place at the top level . He subsequently directed ¨Fat Man and Little Boy¨ referring to two atomic bombs dropped by America on Japan . Joffe's meagre output for the cinema makes it all the more surprising that he has turned out three splendid films and several others near-disasters such as ¨The scarlet letter¨, ¨Captivity¨, and ¨You and me¨. Rating ¨Encontraras Dragones¨ : Better than average , worthwhile watching .

This movie is mis-titled...

[va_eer · 5/10 · 19 February 2012]

"There Be One Draggin' Movie" is more like it... I respect the tragedy of the Spanish Civil War and the hatred for Franco but pullllllease... get to the point... I don't want to feel EVERY bullet... the ones that should have been meant for me.... ugh!

I liked that the film reflected the pain, confusion, and agony of war but it's not the first time something has been made of the topic... the movie goes on and on and on switching between battles scenes, treachery, religious strength and doubt, love... thank God for no cheap sex scenes... maybe I just don't get it but the wringing of hands can only be put up with for so long... and NOT for two hours.... aaaaaargh!

Roland Joffé's overwrought epic

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 4 January 2016]

In 1936, the Spanish civil war pitted the fascists against the leftist Republican army. Manolo Torres (Wes Bentley) and Josemaría Escrivá (Charlie Cox) are childhood friends. Manolo's family is rich but he's envious of his friend's attentive father. Manolo's father is killed by a communist and Josemaría becomes a priest. In present day Spain, Manolo's son Robert (Dougray Scott) is writing a book on Josemaría Escrivá who is in line for canonization. Roberto is estranged from his father and tries to understand him and his complicated friendship.

Director Roland Joffé has written a confused convoluted epic. It tries to do so much that it ends up doing nothing. Roland is trying so hard to have this an overwrought melodrama. I don't find Robert and his investigation that compelling. Manolo and Josemaría are competing to be the lead. I would have preferred a more straight-forward telling of their story and less epic musical cues. He should let their story speak for itself and not try to make an opera.

Boring, slow, apologetic, badly acted ... and boring at bit more

[vdmsss · 6 August 2011]

I found this film so pretentious in its aspiration and claims, so boring badly-acted and obviously propagandist in its execution to compel me to write my first review. (When I woke up after the big ZZzzz, I mean...) What it does is to paint a glorified history of the "Saint" and the birth of the Opus Dei, in pure ecclesiastic style, never mind historic accuracy.

It would still be all OK to me if the film had any cinematographic merits, if the acting was good, if dialogue was credible But it really isn't (e.g., "I wasn't allowed to play with Jose Maria anymore, my father thought poverty was contagious... My dad had more money, ... but Jose Maria had more dad." Excuse me! And also: "Like or not, most young men were celibate, at least as a priest you got paid for it". What? Excuse me!)

So, my advice is: really don't waste your two hours trying to stay awake during this: if you're interested in the Opus Dei and Escriva De Balaguer, find a more serious and reliable source, if you only want to go the movies, find a better film. This one should stay in the religious circles were it belongs, not in theatres.

Not great but at least it does not support communism

[Shaolin_Apu · 6/10 · 13 September 2016]

While the film generally manages to avoid the worst pits, it still falls to some of them. The absolutely best thing about the film is, that it does not attempt to establish one side as the good side and the other as bad. The sentiment is fairly neutral, though it may be seen leaning more to Franco's side than to the Republican. It is also stated in the opening credits, that wars start long before the battles, and will end only long after those. Also true.

The main characters appear to be fighting for both sides, and especially Kurylenko is doing a fine job. Other main characters include a good-willing Catholic priest who has to testify atrocities committed against the church. That the church is depicted as a victim, could be to some a 'refreshing alternative' in this contemporary context at least.

This maybe sounds good to some, but unfortunately it does not seem that good. Many scenes are shot in dark, and at least I was totally confused what was going on then. Maybe it was a fault of my DVD and television set, but maybe it was not. Another annoying thing was the soundtrack that seemed to live its own life regardless of what was happening on the screen. I also wished that the film language had been Spanish and not English. Using English was a big loss of immersion for me.

In need of new director

[leal-895-895113 · 6/10 · 12 April 2012]

This could have been so much better...The story is a good one, but the acting is off the stage, as in overdone and it comes across as a bit wooden on screen. When practicing for a stage part which included use of a fencing foil, I remember being taught to exaggerate my swings for the benefit of the audience. Over-working something on film might work for slap-stick comedy, but it's out of place in this drama. Speaking of heavy-handing, the end of the movie reminds me of something done by Spielberg: a point is driven hard and openly upon the audience, but it doesn't go well with the final scene! Something seemed to have fallen out of the script, or been plugged in at the last, very detrimental! I felt the movie had a lot to say, but there seemed only about fifteen minutes of drag. Lots of emotion was generated, and this in a person who is not into traditional religion. A serious film that is seriously flawed by bad directing! (actors are better when you ask it of them; script seemed worthy, which meant major flaw at end was one of interpretation, not writing) Vote: the 6 which could have been at least an 8.5!

There be Sludge

[jeroduptown · 4/10 · 19 January 2022]

What a dirge of a movie. Trying to be an epic film about the Spanish War, the Catholic church and the unearthing of grave secrets...it really doesn't hit any of those points well.

Not Exactly About Josemaria Escriva nor Opus Dei

[3xHCCH · 7/10 · 14 November 2011]

This is a movie that has been well-endorsed by the Catholic Church here in our country. It is supposed to deal with the life of a saint, St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of the controversial organization, the Opus Dei. I must admit that even if I had friends who were members of Opus Dei, I do not really know much about them or about their organization, only what I hear from the outside. I am mostly interested to learn the historical milieu of this film that is why I wanted to watch this.

The story is told in flashbacks from the point of view of one Manolo Torres as his estranged son Robert interviews him about his friend Josemaria Escriva (who was then already on his way to becoming a saint in 1982). Manolo and Josemaria were childhood friends. Class differences broke up their friendship as the kids grew up. The outbreak of the Spanish Civil War broke them up even more, as Josemaria went into the priesthood and Manolo went with an anti-clerical militia group. Important revelations about Robert himself would also surface as his father begs for forgiveness for his past.

It felt ironic that Escriva was not exactly the central character of this movie since all the publicity was about him. We do see the beginning of his organization of lay workers who lived together, much like today's Opus Dei centers. But other than that, Escriva was merely a side character in the main story of Manolo and his efforts to find redemption for his terrible decisions in his life. You will not really learn much detail about Escriva by watching this film, but you may be inspired to learn more about him. In fact, during the latter third of the film, the character of Escriva was not even on screen until the epilogue.

The story was admittedly very slow to unfold (nearly two hours), but we are treated to some masterfully beautiful cinematography. I was excited to see the name of Roland Joffe as the director. It had certainly been a very long time since he gave us classics like "The Mission" and "The Killing Fields," and you can really see his classy touch here. For a film with heavy religious undertones, I was surprised to learn that Joffe was an agnostic. That may actually have been good for this film, as it did not go overboard with religious propaganda. The acting of the leads Wes Bently (as Manolo) and Charlie Cox (as Escriva) were proficient though a bit wooden. I also welcomed the unexpected presence of exotic Bond Girl Olga Kurilenko as Ildiko, the tragic woman in Manolo's life. I think this movie is worth the time to watch, and maybe even re-watch.

Well...

[richard-tomkins · 3/10 · 13 July 2014]

Nice cinematography. Weak script, Weak special effects. some dark scenes that didn't have to be.

The music, oh my horror, what can I say about the music. The swelling crescendos,everywhere, the loud volume, drowning out the dialog, and the most inappropriate music at the most inappropriate times, oh my horror, the most horrible music. After a half hour, I was left to myself to watch the thing, the music chased all the others away. Did I mention the music, oh my horror, the miserable horrible music, wrecking what could have been.

In the last half of the movie, I could see the actors were all tired of this, their efforts were drawn and tired, they had succumbed, they had had enough, long before the audience collapsed.

I'm sure the cutting room floor was littered with performances that were absolutely horrible, the actors were sick of this project and just wanted, no needed, to run away.

In Blu-Ray, at a cost of $2.99, cheaper than a bad movie at the theatre and I could at least drown myself in beer.

Interesting PR piece for Opus Dei

[dcreed · 3/10 · 21 January 2012]

Realistically, this is two movies. One about the writer and his father. One about Opus Dei. The two stories are related by the thinnest of threads and the relation doesn't actually need to be there at all.

I think the story about father and son, Monolo and Robert, would have been worth pursuing in more depth. The reason behind their rift is only alluded to and not explored terribly well, and their spontaneous reconciliation at the end felt forced. Deus ex machina. Perhaps a bit literally.

Meanwhile, the story about Josemaria Escriva -- I can't understand why Joffe didn't show him walking on water as he did just about everything else. I found that this felt like a really nice public relations piece for Opus Dei. I guess the Church and Joffe felt they'd taken enough hits from Dan Brown and needed some positive spin.

A deep touching picture

[sergiotapia · 8/10 · 11 March 2011]

I have just been invited to watch the movie during a screening presentation in Rome and after several hours I'm still deeply touched. It's a film that makes you think, reflect. It's not an easy action movie, and in that sense, some maybe would get disappointed if they are thinking of it as another war movie. It's a drama that despite the cruel events that portraits opens your heart to hope and puts you on the quest for transcendence. As "The Mission", this new Joffe's film, uses the "paralel" life of two friends to show how difficult it is to make a fair decision while you are under stressful circumstances. Some people may judge this film as the Opus Dei answer to the Da Vinci Code attacks, and in a certain sense it is, but the film is not a propaganda movie, but a deep meditation from an agnostic point of view of the sense of life.

Joffe Aims for Lean and Falls Short

[dglink · 7/10 · 6 January 2015]

A bloody civil war, a romantic triangle, and personal rivalry between boyhood friends are the makings of Roland Joffe's attempt to produce an epic film that would stand with those of David Lean. Despite the lofty ambition, Joffe's grand scale "There Be Dragons" fails to achieve that goal. While handsomely mounted and photographed, Joffe's script is not on a caliber with the literate work of Robert Bolt, who wrote the Lean epics. Joffe's cast of little-known or unknown performers can only be described as adequate; no Alec Guinnesses or Peter O'Tooles herein, only Wes Bentley as Manolo and Charlie Cox as Josemaria.

In early 20th-century Spain, two young friends and rivals travel life together from boyhood through their early years as seminarians. However, the two part company at that point, one to embrace God and the other to pursue worldly endeavors; Joffe intends the disparate characters to be opposing sides of the same persona, but with Cox and Manolo, the persona has little depth. "There Be Dragons" opens when Josemaria Escriva, founder of Opus Dei, is about to be canonized; seeing a news opportunity, Roberto Torres, a Spanish journalist, undertakes research into the life of the Spanish priest and re-connects with his estranged father, who knew Josemaria when he was younger. The story unfolds in flashbacks as the writer uncovers historical information on his subject, and secrets long held are revealed. The early scenes cover the boyhood years of Escriva and his friend, Manolo; evoking nostalgia, the childhood moments with family and friends glow against picturesque Spanish villages and countryside; Geraldine Chaplin and Derek Jacobi have effective, but small roles during these episodes. Throughout, the film cuts back and forth between the present, where Torres and his girlfriend tend and query the reporter's aged father, and the past, where both Escriva and Manolo are caught up in the turmoil of the Spanish Civil War.

The battles are effectively staged and shot, and memorable scenes occur in Madrid, where priests are persecuted, hunted, and murdered. Relatively short for an ambitious epic, "There Be Dragons" sags a bit in the middle, bogged down by the requisite romantic interlude, and moves to a sappy conclusion; Wes Bentley's old age make-up is particularly poor, and an homage to "2001: a Space Odyssey" is a head-scratcher; movie buffs will expect the monolith to appear and "Thus Sprach Zarathustra" to blare from the soundtrack. Although the theme of forgiveness crops up regularly in Joffe's screenplay, any attribute that might qualify Josemaria for canonization is left unsaid and unseen, although reference is made early on to a miracle that occurred in his name. Perhaps a great epic film could have been made from this material; a grand romance and personal rivalry against a sweeping historical canvas like the Spanish Civil War, but "There Be Dragons" is no "Dr. Zhivago." Although Joffe's film is worth a viewing and does generate interest, the results are disappointing in light of what might have been with a better script and cast.

Boring and Slow meets Horrible and Lame

[Tersault · 1/10 · 3 August 2011]

Sorry, I watched this movie without any prior knowledge or background to Josemaria nor the Opus Dei. I have to admit I couldn't stay interested in it. I found it boring, tedious, slow and just horrible. I had to register to save other people the excruciating experience of watching such a lame movie. Reading other reviews, I would have thought that the movie would explore the darker side of humanity or some other profound concepts, but the movie failed, and just kept going on and on. Two hours of my life I can not take back. If you like slow, tedious and overall epic failure at trying to make a movie with a deeper meaning, then watch this movie "there be dragons".

Waiting on a film

[sgbolzan · 25 March 2011]

The problem with this film at IMDb is to know the real and final score. Right now is eight (8). 119 users of 147 voted ten (10), 14 voted nine (9), 6 voted eight (8). The others users voted lower than six (6). Well, or this is a spectacular film or we have a problem here. This score seems to me a little unreal and unbelievably.

Knowing Opus Dei since 1980, I think these 119 users are probably Opus Dei voters only and want to keep the score so higher as possible.

Why does this matter? Because a score should be representative and product of neutral or spontaneous voting. Well, I can barely believe this is the case. Let's see what happen in the next months.

And what about the film? Well, if somebody wants to know about Escriva and his Opus Dei, this film does not tell too much.

This is a very light film without any real information and questions like: How Opus Dei as organization was actually built since 1928? Why Opus Dei is in a very deep internal crisis since ten or fifteen years ago? Why a lot of people are leaving Opus Dei in the last years (in Spain, Mexico, Argentina, etc.)? Why is not so easy to leave Opus Dei? Yes, it is not easy but a lot of people fight for. Is it true that Escrivá declared whoever leaves Opus Dei will suffer a lot in this life and his eternal salvation will be in danger? Why so many celibate members suffer from depression? Is it possible that Opus Dei psychiatrists do not keep the professional secrecy and inform to Opus Dei superiors if a member talks about leaving Opus Dei? Yeah, that is a tough question to be made. How is possible that Escrivá became saint mainly because the testimony of his confessor? Why celibate members have to make a will (pro Opus Dei) like monks do before the perpetual incorporation? Why celibate members have to give their salary away like some monks do? Why lay members have to request a pardon of departure (dispense) to leave Opus Dei (like monks do) only need in the case of sacred vows? Is that because without knowing they really are bounded by some kind of sacred vows? Why lay persons have obligations - without knowing and without consent- that the Code of Canon Law established only for a consecrated life? Is there any kind of deception in all of this?

After these questions, you know a serious film about Opus Dei and Escrivá is waiting to be made.

I am not going to vote. I rather write this brief review.

A mixed review

[jonathanruano · 6/10 · 13 June 2013]

Roland Joffe's "There be Dragons" aspires to the tradition of the great epic films, charting the life stories of Catholic priest Jose Maria Escriva (who became a saint) and Fascist spy Manolo Torres set against the backdrop of the Spanish Civil War (1936-39). Yet in contrast to the great epic films, my reaction to "There be Dragons" was quite mixed.

The first ten to twenty minutes of this movie - which deals with the childhoods of these two men - is quite boring and probably could have been edited out. Then as Jose Maria and Manolo make the transition to childhood, their lives go in two different directions and the result is that this film consists of two different stories that have no relation to each other. The story that works is Jose Maria's. If you put all the Roman Catholicism aside, this movie is essentially about a man's struggle to stay a good person under very trying circumstances. We see Jose Maria endure one tragedy after the other and resist the temptation of giving in to hatred and anger - and we are fascinated, not least of all because Charlie Cox plays him so well.

Unfortunately, Roland Joffe chose not to focus solely on Jose Maria and, because of this decision, "There be Dragons" suffers. For example, there is a dramatic scene in this movie where Jose Maria learns from his brother that the Red brigades are killing priests. Then in a later scene, we see Jose Maria make a dramatic escape from the church to avoid being lynched by the Reds. But the movie never takes the time to explain why the Reds are killing priests all of a sudden. Instead, Joffe's script is content to explain the killings in one line of dialogue: Jose Maria explains to his colleagues, "They hate the priests, because we are part of the system that makes them miserable." Somehow I think the anti-clericalism in Spain during the 1930s was the result of more complex factors than that.

Another problem with "There be Dragons" is that Manolo's story does not work. To begin with, we are never told why Manolo embraced Fascism or decided to become a spy, though apparently it had something to do with how his father died. Secondly, Roland Joffe relies heavily on war scenes in order to dramatize Manolo's life, which would not be a problem except that his latest treatment of war does not move with the times. Francis Ford Coppola captured the horror and insanity of war in "Apocalypse Now." Joffe's earlier film "The Killing Fields" makes the war in Cambodia seem very real with its gritty documentary look. The first twenty minutes of Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" is a magisterial and shockingly authentic depiction of the landing on the beaches of Normandy. We feel the tension of the soldiers as they approach the beach and see some of them vomit. We see the hail of bullets come their way and kill many of them even before they land on the beach. We see soldiers screaming out in pain and their organs and blood strewn everywhere. These scenes are so brilliant precisely because they succeed in capturing the essence of war. But the battle scenes in Roland Joffe's "There be Dragons" do not even come close to that standard. Joffe is actually directing a war film that is not that different from the black and white, shoot 'em up war films of the 1940s and 1950s, which tended to sanitize war rather than capture its essence. As a result, the battles scenes in this movie are remarkably boring.

Finally there is no pay off at the end of this film. I was led to believe that Manolo had a deep, dark and devastating connection to the Jose Maria's life. You could have fooled me! As I came to end of this film, I saw nothing deep, dark, or devastating about the connection between these two men, which was tenuous in the beginning and non-existent at the end. In fact, I was truly baffled about why Roland Joffe decided to tell two life stories instead of one. With "The Killing Fields" at least there was a connection between Dith Pran (Ngor) and Sydney (Waterson) which even thousands of miles could not sever. Yet in this film, you get the sense that you are dealing with two people, Jose Maria and Manolo, who would be perfectly content if they never saw each other again. Lastly, I was baffled that Joffe decided to make a film about this particular saint's life. Throughout the movie, I have not seen Jose Maria do anything out of the ordinary or remarkable to make him stand out as a saint. In fact, "There be Dragons" could have been about a simple man experiencing the Spanish Civil War and working through the emotional trauma of that war and it would still have worked. So overall a very mixed review for me.

5.7/10

Don't waste your money and eyesight on this propaganda film.

[migrogi · 1/10 · 10 May 2011]

Just a manipulation of history, again, by the Opus Dei. Don't forget many cabinet ministers in the Franco governments of the 60s were members of this "sect" and acknowledged ("enterado") the dictator's many death sentences in those years. As for the film and reconciliation, the forget the epilogue: 40 years of forgiveness? It seems that those years do not exist for the film-maker...For the director the war had no consequences, it is an "unfinished" film and totally biased: why the Spanish left, especially the rural working classes were so against priests and church? No look at this background of starvation for the poor and privileges for the church. In fact, many priests participated in the rebeld side with their guns at the side... Ask my parents about"forgiveness" in Spain during those Opus years... As for JoseMari... I bet he would be laughing at it!

Beware! - Heavy propaganda movie

[grandcirque · 1/10 · 30 December 2011]

The whole film is centered on the figure of the founder of Opus Dei, Josemaría Escrivá. Escrivá, who was made ​​a saint by Pope John Paul II, in the film is a stereotyped figure, depicted without defects or excesses, always merciful, sympathetic, forgiving, charitable, in a word, unbelievable: in reality Escrivá supported Franco and Pinochet, and Bishop Vladimir Felzmann affirmed that he heard Escrivá to say indulgent sentences about Hitler. This is only a total propaganda movie for Opus Dei, disguised as a drama. Certainly, the director is a great professional, and the film in itself, I mean as a product, is well done. But the uncritical script is so absolutely, heavily, blindly hagiographic that at the end I was completely disgusted.

twisting the truth

[popenya · 1/10 · 28 May 2011]

The movie has politically engaged to twist the truths during the rise of fascism. Catholic church was supporting fascist regimes, Nazis,Franco and Mussolini. During Spanish civil war church was supporting Franco with information of revolutionary forces and tormenting facilities heritage of famous Spanish Inquisition. War against fascist in Spain was between Army vs people. Assaults on churches were judgement of people after trial by people itself. And judges were already the habitants of the region who knows culprit best. So this movie is nothing more than a cheap way of propaganda and twisting of truth to cover Catholic church cooperation with the enemies of humanity.

Good and deep, really interesting, maybe not a classic, but must seen!

[jjesuss · 9/10 · 11 April 2011]

Roland Joffe wakes up after two decades of bad cinema. Like a the phoenix bird he come again with interesting cinema.

The film is technically quite interesting. It starts with a short sequence that shows the deepest Spanish soul in a lost village near France. This sequence has an impeccable cut and setting, and works as introduction of the characters and situation. In my opinion the best sequence (speaking as cinema "freak"). The best thing in the film is the photography, which takes the viewer 1920s Spain.

The script is also quite interesting. Although the main character in the film is the Spanish priest Josemaria Escriva, he is not the protagonist of the story. This makes the film more interesting, as it plays with 2 people weighting their importance by their personality and their role in the story. Josemaria is the alter-ego Manolo, both are attractive persons that keep the attention of the viewer, which at the end should judge. Another success of the script is the usage of time. The main story happens in 1920 and 1930, but it is told as memories in the 80s, when the son of Manolo has to write an article about Josemaria, which is going to be canonized by the Catholic Church. Robert discovers that his father came from the same little village of Josemaria, and asks to his father about him. The answer give the title to the film "there be dragons".

Now let's go with the dragons. The makers knew that the film was going to be surrounded by dragons. Opus Dei, communism, revolution, Catholics and the Spanish Civil War... this film has all the ingredients to be a big scandal. The film has the collaboration of some members of the Opus Dei (at least 2 of the producers are) and the organization has given information and access to the documentation about Josemaria. The film also shows a period of the Spanish history which still is a taboo in this country. In Spain, still today, there are mainly 2 opposite streams: pro-franquists and pro-republicans. The film success- in my opinion- to show that as in any war there were no good and bads (which has shocked the Spanish population), that in both sides there were good and bad people, good goals but bad means. My personal opinion is that it success to show the real left of Spain, breaking with the franquist propaganda of the left as communist criminals, but also breaking the view given to Americans by Hemingway that the left in Spain was the advocate of Democracy and freedom. Maybe the film fails to show the right-side of the war, but nevertheless is- in my opinion- the best representation of the civil war that I have seen in art.

Only a non-Spanish could make such a good representation of the Civil War, and only a person like Joffe could dive enough to make such a good representation. I like Joffe because he takes a field and goes deep enough to explain the reasons. It was shown in the Mission and in Killing Fields, and here we are in front of the same Joffe. I admire him because he forgets his own point of view (I have read that he is agnostic), investigates and tries to find the keystone. Some people has said that this film is the answer of the Opus to the Da Vinci Code… well I think it comes to late, because the DVC was released 5 or 6 years ago. On the other hand, if it is an answer, it works well. The DVC shows us a people that, in my opinion, is impossible that are real… I don't know but I don't believe that in the World are people so crazy… for example they are shown flagellating themselves (which is also shown in There Be Dragons), but in the DVC they are doing so… while they know that Christ wasn't God! It makes no sense, no one does something like that to offer to a God, that they know is not God at all… As this the film is full of incoherences… on the other hand There Be Dragons shows both what they do (not the myth) and also explains why… In my opinion this is what makes the difference between good and bad cinema (when your idea is to speak about real things).

I would also like to answer to some of the critics: please speak about the film, because people wants to know about it. If we would like to know about the Opus we could go to their web page, or just write Opus in Google. Here we come to speak about cinema. Also someone said that the rating is not trustful because all the Opus Dei's people will vote 10… well they rate 10 because they liked it as a 10, and have the same right as the people that are not members of the association… IMDb works democratically, so their vote counts as well. The only problem would be if they vote without having watched the film, if the organization has commanded to vote in IMDb… but well there are some 150 high votes, it doesn't seem to be the result of some strange "conspiracy"… Well, my final advice is: you will hear a lot about the film. Some people will speak really well about it, some really bad, and some will just speak about the Civil War or the Opus Dei… with this film is gonna be really difficult to know if it is good or not… so I suggest you to watch it and make your own opinion. It maybe not one of the best films in the last 10 years, but nevertheless it's a must watch.

How on earth...?

[sepial · 1/10 · 14 January 2012]

There are some reviews that won't do without spoilers. As this one, and since the bottom line reads, 'don't bother,' it's gonna spiked with them. Should you bother, don't expect to see an edifying depiction of the Spanish civil war. Starting with the purely dramatic aspect, you're in for an attempt of the sentimental that tries to follow in the footsteps of a number of past epics without ever succeeding. Every atrocity, every battle and every memorable scene of conflict desperately contrived to be one feels much like the flashbacks in other movies that only serve to clarify past events in order to drive on the plot, the music making it even worse and more unbelievable. Which would be bad enough. But the specific contents and their implications are simply uncomfortable, in an unwelcome sense. What is seen of murder and injustice is mainly committed by revolutionaries, e.g. the killings of priests, the unthinking mob-behavior against a single, wrongly accused. While one shouldn't doubt that each side in a civil war 'misbehaves', Franco's forces appear simply as an army in contrast and the only crimes on behalf of that side we see are committed by one of the two main protagonists, who in the end receives his personal absolution on the death bed, to sweetest music. The red rebells appear to a large part as the barbaric culprits. When this is not contrasted by what else happened the message is morally doubtful. No mentioning either that the pursue of priests had one of its roots in the catholic church indeed collaborating with Franco's regime. Does this excuse the killings? No. Does it help to make the rage a tad more understandable? Yes. But the movie doesn't intend to pay reference to what the above mentioned character called much more complicated. Latest with the end credits we know that it's a celebration of Josemaria Escriva, the founder of – Opus Dei??? Yes, indeed. And thus we follow the young priest through what the filmmakers intend to call his ordeals. Not that he has the opportunity to realize much action that makes his supposed later saintly status comprehensible. He flees, not that he shouldn't, hides, which is recommendable, crosses the Pyrenees, where the music reaches its intolerable climax. In between he has terrible moments of doubt, which perhaps moves us deeply if we are priests ourselves. To everyone who isn't but is still moved what is rather recommended is some scrutinizing of Opus Dei itself. So, what has ridden Mr. Joffe to hammer together this movie? Clearly blind catholic faith.

Great title... Bland movie

[jlm-6 · 4/10 · 8 August 2011]

I had reason to spend several hours with and paying close attention to the views of the filmmaker, just before the film premiered in Spain; and I found both him and his thinking, truly, fascinating! I found it equally fascinating that a man who had, once, moved audiences with The Killing Fields and The Mission, should believe that this overly plain, almost amateur feel-to-it film - which I had seen, the week before - could ever be expected to transmit to post-Avatar 3D audiences, far less caught up than Roland Joffé in the importance and purpose of redemption in modern-day society.

I, for one, agree that learning to forgive is essential and that without it, we can never find our humanity. Also, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with 'amateur': the word implies love and vocation, and I'm good with that. 'Overly plain', however, did all-too-frequently smack of 'low-budget, tinny dialogs' and 'shallow performances' - with, to some extent, the exception of Derek Jacobi.

I simply think that people turn to movie theaters for an experience they could never get from multimedia and home cinema; and movie theaters agree to deliver such an experience. And, though some of the action scenes were not entirely uninteresting (and we're, honestly, not asking for Terminators and Jurassics), to make - for general release - an entertaining and viable movie about the value of 'redemption' would appear to be as commercially unlikely as would making a movie about generosity or about humility. Such 'virtues' will either seep through the plot and hit viewers - and, hopefully, stay with them long - after they have left the theater or they won't! Yet, to play such virtues so close to the plot is - I feel - sadly counterproductive, from both a storytelling and a film-viewing point of view.

Mr. Joffé is sure to have enjoyed the experience, engulfed - as he will have been, throughout the film-making process - by this ubiquitous purpose, impregnating so many of his thoughts and actions. It's a shame he didn't give a little more importance to his side of this mutual selfishness pact we call 'film-going': that way, many thousands more might have enjoyed the experience, too.

At least the DOP did a reasonable job...

[chrisgilbey · 1/10 · 8 March 2013]

There are reviews in IMDb that praise this movie. I don't know by what standard they measure movie making, but I would have to say that this movie is one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time.

Lets take the music. It soars, but in all the wrong places. It emotes, with all the wrong signals. It is woefully inappropriate. It is so full of choral voices that I truly have to believe that the composer and arranger were reading a different script or watching different rushes when they wrote the score.

Lets take the script. It is full of utterly trivial dialogue. There just isn't very much that I can say other than it is horrendous.

The cinematography is not bad. The DOP did a fine job.

The acting. Why is it that we haven't seen the lead actors in other movies? Could it be that when they put footage from this movie in their show reels they were automatically dropped out of contention? Good looking actors with poor scripting, and worse storyline. You have to sympathise with them.... really.

So what on earth were people like Charles Dance and Geraldine Chaplin doing in this movie? You would have to believe that they owed the director or the producer a favour. I can't believe that they could need the money that badly!

So do yourself a favour and return the DVD to your local store before you waste the time to put it in your DVD drive....

Don't Bother unless you're a Catholic...

[klee-13-143104 · 1/10 · 28 March 2011]

Now I'm not a Catholic, my wife is - and I got dragged to go see this film. Though it has some interesting (but short) actions scenes, the storyline is kind of confusing and boring if you know nothing about the Spanish Civil War or Canonization or Opus Dei.

I constantly had to have my wife explain to me what was going on in the film in relation to the Catholic faith. Looking at the (laughable) reviews here, I imagine most were written by Catholics or the marketing team for the movie.

If your a religious nut, this movie might be for you. If you want to see a good war movie, just rent Saving Private Ryan. Much better action and drama. If your not a Catholic, avoid this movie like the plague.

Movie left me thinking...

[treosgsears · 10/10 · 24 March 2011]

I saw a screening of the movie a few weeks ago... to date, it continues to come back to me through out the day. It has left me thinking so much about my life, relationships, Love, my beliefs, my work, etc. There are so many layers to this movie... It's not a movie for the superficial or those who just want to be entertained over popcorn and then move on to their next thriller. It's a deep movie that engages the mind and heart, hopefully engaging the viewer to think of the morally pivotal moments in life and the choices made. I think there is a little bit of a Manolo in each of our lives... something each one of us needs to come to terns with. Hopefully, as with Manolo, there is a Josemaria in each of our paths. I highly recommend this movie! It's a movie you can't just see once!

Ha ha, this film is horrible

[bregund · 1/10 · 11 November 2023]

Laughter is the only suitable response to this clumsily-made film. Every single scene is terrible: terrible acting, terrible dialogue, terrible music. Maybe you can chalk up the acting to bad editing or bad directing, but the actors all look as though they'd rather be somewhere else. The dialogue sounds like it was written by committee and then translated from a translation. The music is dreadful, a never-ending assault on your eardrums from beginning to end. The description of this film looked good, and I kept hoping that it would get better, that it would have something meaningful or important to say, but that end scene with the facial prosthetics and thick accent and bad acting is just too much.