The Ways of Man (2014) User Reviews

'Arthouse' Spanish (Catalan) reimagining of the end of Judas – that is a tad dull

[t-dooley-69-386916 · 4/10 · 5 November 2016]

If you are an art-house aficionado then you may revel in this – so I am writing two reviews. The first is for the art-house lovers – here goes. This cinematic work opens with a landscape of washed out colours and the shot of a tormented soul who has lost all for a mere pocket full of silver. Pensive shots and a narrow aspect screen lending itself to the confines of a man whose existence has started to close in on him.

The thirty pieces of silver that are constantly clinking in the pocket of the traitor; playing like a metronome for the death of his very soul. Coupled with minimal dialogue with his unwanted companion as if words are never going to be enough to describe the chasm that is the place where his heart once freely beat. Leading us, as if in a waking dream, to an inexorable dénouement that is already writ large.... And now for the viewer who just wants a good film... Two blokes ponce about in the woods – one with some Euros in his pocket and the other with a need to climb trees all the ruddy time. They say virtually nothing – which is good as they are both about as interesting as a hole in your underpants. Then they have a bit of a camp fire – go for a bit of skinny dipping and then sort of do nothing while the camera man leaves the film rolling and goes off to find something better to do – like clean his toe nails or something.

This fails on every level, to be art house you need some 'art' or surely even a 'house' – this has neither and the plot is harder to find than a guilty investment banker. If you like good films then just pretend this was never made; it fails worse than a one armed chain saw juggler – with Alzheimer's – in a wind tunnel – on a uni cycle – with a puncture and a coughing fit – I think you get it

And, dear reader, the truth is somewhere in the middle, that said I would still give it a swerve.

This film succeeds in every way possible except to satisfy movie goers.

[cbell97 · 10/10 · 5 January 2020]

... Using Christian allegory to portray redemption of an older man through a younger man in a totally male way. The original title in Catalan, All the Ways of God, and the English title, The Ways of Man, are equality apt for different purposes, for the actions of the two men are exclusively male (with no hint of femininity) to come to terms with deep philosophical-moral quandary, i.e., think Nietzsche (male) versus Kant (female). All the Ways of God refers to a set of improbable coincidences to put the men together, to put them at odds with each by Hobbesian Man in a State of Nature, to bring them together by Lockean Social Contract, which cannot be explained satisfactorily by deterministic-physical laws.

One of the best films ever made that will scarcely be seen, for not that movie goers do not like plots with all action and little dialogue but prefer banality over substance.

two men in forest

[Kirpianuscus · 21 November 2023]

The title is the guide to understand this film , offering a new, modern at first sight, of the drama of Judas after the crucifixion of his Master. His walk in forest, a young man following him, a sort of comradery , beautiful photography and seductive underwater scenes and the end reminding Pieta.

At the first sight- eulogy of nature, manhood or only sketch about an NT episode.

In fact, a poem about reconciliation with yourself and the pressure of sin , answer to gulty feelings and acceptance of unacceptance of yourself, isolated in your only answer.

A beautiful, not only for image virtues , film, good support for reflection and fair poem about sources of freedom.

All the ways of God

[Stefan_Glasgow · 8/10 · 15 February 2024]

This is an intriguing movie. It's not big on dialogue that needs to be followed and all the plots are more subtle than expressed.

It's intended to be thought-provoking and in this respect it succeeds.

Whoever the cynical "genius" was that determined that the movie title in English should be "The ways of Man", rather than the correctly translated "All the ways of God" should be booted firmly and repeatedly in the posterior until they realise that their decision has left a majority of English-speaking viewers utterly bemused and totally nonplussed as to what was the point of the movie.

As far as plot goes, the "ways of man" is something we ALREADY knew about before the movie started. It was the ways of man, i.e. Judas' betrayal of Jesus, that led to the point of the movie being made (as gets explained in the biblical quote in roughly the first five seconds of the film). This film is to show all the ways of GOD, not man. In other words, the English title totally misses the point.

This is an interesting reflection on guilt and how it can make us behave, and on any possibility of forgiveness.

As is stated right up front in the film, this is a modern interpretation of the story of Judas Iscariot after he betrays Jesus in the St Matthew Gospel. This is not, however, an overtly religious movie.

In theatrical terminology, you need to expect that this is a going to be a tragedy - depending on how you examine tragedy.

This is an appropriate point to reiterate that the film is correctly titled "All the ways of God". Knowing that will help you understand the point of the movie.

If you like to watch artistic, thought-provoking movies where the meaning is subtle, the action is dead slow and mostly non-existent, with neglible dialogue, and with religious undertones (not overtones) then you may benefit from watching this movie.

I enjoyed the experience of allowing these concepts to be portrayed before me to provoke within me ideas and curiosity, but this is not a movie for mainstream viewers imo.

It is more of interest to those whose minds tend towards philosophy and who have at least some appreciation of Christian doctrine.

FWIW, given the microsecond or so of male nudity during a brief underwater swimming scene, the warnings about nudity are rather overstated, depending on how prudish you are. Also any suggestion that this may be relevant to LGBTQ viewers is largely unwarranted or no more than hinted at as a faint possibility.

This movie is more a reflection, ideas, sadness, hope, guilt, loss than a traditional movie, and as such you should determine whether it sounds like something you wish to watch, or would prefer to steer a wide berth.

Basically, if you like, very slow, thought-provoking, action-free art films then this might intrigue you, but if you only enjoy mainstream cinema then walk away, avoid.