Die Entdeckung des Himmels (2001) Online

The discovery of heaven is the magnum opus of Dutch writer Harry Mulisch, where science, religion and philosophy meet in a 900-page book full of autobiographical details, among which the persecution of Jews in WW2 and the roaring sixties. The story in a nutshell: Science and technology have on earth substituted the Ten Commandments of Moses, so a plan is conceived by God and his angels to bring the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments back from earth to heaven, as the contract between mankind and God is abandoned. Angels are given this task by God, and a child is born on earth to accomplish heaven's plan. The child is the result of a love triangle between astronomer Max Delius (the writer Mulisch), politician Onno Quist and a cellist Ada Brons. (One example of the level of detail in the book: A remarkable congruency is that Max's father, who betrayed his Jewish wife in WW2, has three important locations where his life played out and Auschwitz is the center of again a triangle) As the book states that coincidence does not exist and everything has a reason, all events happening are arranged by angels in heaven including the conception of the child, although Max Delius is on the brink of scientifically discovering heaven.

In the script they made a good effort to condense the book to its bare essentials by selecting the most relevant parts for the movie. But there are (also in the book) irrelevant loose elements that seem redundant and distract from the core message: Vietnam demonstrations, the whole Cuba part, some characters and relations add little. And there are things from the book they could have used like all mothers having the same face after the tablets are placed. Stephen Fry's often failed attempts to be funny are out of place although the book contains some humor: The weapon course in Cuba and Onno's walking stick interpreted as a miracle when seen as Moses' stick. The ending is better in the book than in the movie, where it is somewhat banal.

The pacing is unnecessarily slow despite the enormous amount of events happening in both the movie and the book. The story is told in a very predictable and straightforward way; the director Jeroen Krabbé is just not up to this job and has little imagination and visual style. Take the many direct references to religion and heaven and even the way heaven is represented. Or the clumsy way the deaths are foreshadowed with a short flash. I guess Peter Greenaway (planning to do a movie on Rembrandt) would have been a better choice as director, but this had to make some money being a lavish production for Dutch standards.

The role of God and angels is comparable here to that of the writer of the book; in the movie to the role of the director (and even actor Krabbé as angel). Because the best movies are usually about other movies, the book and script lacks writers, photographers, painters or publishers to lift this to a meta-level. Here we have the relative mundane politicians and scientists.

As science is about everything that can be potentially explained, religion is about everything that can not be explained rationally. The book and movie's statement that physics may one day take over religion, or make religion redundant, is fairly accurate as metaphysics is coming increasingly closer to a theory of everything. But as our knowledge increases, a warning is issued that it will not necessarily lead to a greater happiness or higher morality. The book and movie mixes small, uninteresting stories with larger-than-life stories in a strange and awkward way. It also messes things up inconsistently (e.g. in the book there is an image of concentration camps in space). Some of the book and movie consists of contrived, pseudo-intellectual nonsense, being deliberately pretentious lacking any mastery of the art form at hand (be it writing or film-making).

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** It is a complete riddle to me why the press is so unanimously full of praise about this film. The hype surrounding this movie by Jeroen Krabbe reminds me of the hype surrounding the book on which the movie is based, Harry Mulisch's "The Discovery of Heaven". The book triggered hysterical reactions in the press. One of the leading Dutch literary critics, Carel Peeters, was so taken with the book that he dedicated not one review to it, but a series of reviews spanning several issues of the Vrij Nederland, a rather serious Dutch weekly magazine. The public reaction to so much hype was predictable: the book became a national best-seller. Almost everyone interested in Dutch literature has read the book, and I guess that this is the reason why so many people are so favorable of the film: the film brings back memories of the book, and obviously these are fond memories. However, that doesn't make this picture a good one.

I for one did not read the book, so there were no memories to cloud my eyes. I was sad to discover that this emperor isn't wearing any clothes whatsoever.

The main story is rather simple. God has decided to unilaterally cancel His contract with mankind, and He wants the stone tablets with the ten commandments returned to heaven. Instead of just sending down an angel, heaven chooses the rather awkward method of bullying a couple of humans into producing and raising a child that must retrieve the tablets and return them to heaven. I am not giving away too much plot here, because we are told so in the first five minutes of the film. This is the first major mistake, because the viewer's initial curiosity as to what the film is about is satisfied immediately, bereaving the movie of what could have been the most important tension arch. The movie is full of this kind of tension killers, which makes it predictable and rather dull to watch. That would all be fine if there was enough to compensate for this shortcoming: e.g. fine actors playing believable characters having sparkling conversations and handling interesting situations in surprising ways.

I am sad to say that the film falls short in these respects too. Although the acting is bearable, it is certainly not uplifting. I agree with the majority of reviews that Stephen Fry does a decent job (although Diana Quick as Ada's mum steals the show, IMHO). However the characters are all as flat as a Dutch dime. The director is too busy stressing their respective peculiarities that he forgets to turn them into people of flesh and blood. He makes some feeble attempts to flesh out Max a bit, by shedding some light on a tragedy that tore his family apart, but instead of making Max more believable, it only alienates him more from the audience.

This lack of real characters in turn adds to the sterile atmosphere of the movie, which piles contrived situation upon contrived situation. Take for example the scene where Onno and Max meet their angel-like love-interest Ada: she happens to be sitting in a second-hand bookstore, practicing Janacek on the cello. If you are allergic this kind of snobbish adolescent fantasies, you better run for cover, because the film is drenched with insipid allusions. The director and scriptwriter are constantly proving their wit--with a sledgehammer in case you should miss it. It lends the film an air of intellectual graveness, and betrays grand pretensions that it ultimately doesn't live up to.

The grand thing it does live up to is a pompous finale, Hollywood style, which seems to be mandatory nowadays for every movie that wants to play with the big boys. I guess that's what mr. Krabbe must have been thinking, because at the end of the movie he treats us to a ludicrous display of outdated computer graphics. It leaves the viewer blinking his eyes in utter bewilderment and asking himself: this was meant to be a joke, right?

Are there any good things to be said about this movie? Let me think. Well, it was very expensive. It cost about 13 million euro, making it the most expensive Dutch film in history. So it proves that we can make expensive films too. On the other hand, if you want a film that proves that the Dutch can make beautiful, witty and profound films as well, go see Mike van Diem's "Karakter" or Paul Verhoeven's "Turks Fruit", and, please, forget about this film.

It's been a long time since I've been impressed by dutch movies. I think Jeroen Krabbe managed to create a pice of art by filming this movie, after the book of Harry Mulish. I have not read the book, but I am convinced mr. Mulish will be proud of the end result. Beforehand, I was a bit sceptical about Stephen Fry, but all prejudice was unjust: this is a perfect cast. Unfortunately Jeroen appeared in this movie as Gabriel, his dutch accent makes his english sound funny. Luckily he had just a few few lines. In the spirit of dutch movies a lot of naked people, but everything was filmed with class.

In a tv interview, Jeroen recently told that people would talk to him on the streets, just to thank him for making this movie. If I would come across him in Amsterdam, I would do the same.

A must-see!

Of course, the book was too good to make it into a movie. Nevertheless, the film is entertaining for non-readers and is above all, it's an equivocal enterprise. Acting is not very convincing (ada is terrible played, and humiliating is the acting of Krabbé himself, why does he always want to be "in the picture"?). The book is 900 pages and you can't fit that in two hours. The magical atmosphere, the unreal aura, and the creative style are not recognizable in the film. For example; the interventions from God and his angels are ridiculous as you see the film, where in the book, it's strange, magical and structuring. Another example; the friendship between Onno and Max is heavenly in the book, fragmentary in the film. For me, it was a 6/10; if you want a 10/10 go and read the book. But i know, it's "time-consuming" as they say, and time still seems to be money, bullsh*t of course! Time is life, time is the discovery of a heavenly book...

I went to see Discovery of Heaven with a lot of anticipation. Having read the book it's based on by Harry Mulisch, and loving it, I really wanted this picture to succeed. But you've got to be honest and understand that a 900 page epic spanning 3 generations and so many different locations is impossible to translate to a movie no longer than about 135 min., right?.. Wrong!! I'm extremely pleased to say that Jeroen Krabbé has done the -almost- impossible and pulled it off! He translated the book into an amazing piece of cinema wich sets new standards for motion-picture in the Netherlands, and may well be one of the best foreign language films of this year.

Just like the book, the movie has so many layers on wich it works. You've got the wonderful, extremely well acted, roles of Onno Quist (Stephen Fry), Max Delius (Greg Wise) and Ada Brons (Flora montgomery). And although they all acted very well, it was Stephen Fry's role wich is most memorable. With extreme charisma and charm he brings the role of the exentric Onno to life in a magnificent way. Then there is the screenplay, wich so brilliantly succeeds in summarazing the book and making sure all the important elements of the book are in place. And better still, it adds to the book on numorous levels, giving extra emotion to key scenes and extra meaning to certain themes. The screenwriter Edwin de Vries had a difficult task but he succeeded, with help of Mulisch himself, in creating a captivating story wich never bores throughout.

I could go on much longer now, covering about any aspect of the picture (most of it with praise), but I won't. I just want to finish with a big thanks to Krabbé and the whole crew who worked on this picture. You've pulled it off brilliantly, and brought a bright shining light in the otherwise often relatively dull Dutch Cinema.

Final score, a solid 9 out of 10!

This is a very complicated movie, with implications that some people probably will not want to consider. If you can go with the premise and not have a cow at the implications, this is an excellent movie that raises some interesting questions about, God, the universe, relationships and a few more subjects.

The overlying plot has God deciding he has had enough of mankind and that he wants the covenant he made with Moses back. To that end he has several angels manipulate events so that a child can be produced who will be able to find the tablets it was written on and return them to heaven. The main plot has to to with the relationship between Onno, Max and Ada, three friends who unwittingly end up the focal point of the divine plot. It would be futile to try to simply explain the plot further since the film is very novel like in its structure and its unfolding.

This is a wonderful, heady film that makes you care deeply about all of the characters It also does what great films do, which is make you stop to think about what you believe, while telling you a damn good story. The more I think about it, the more I really like it.

The performances, with one exception are first rate. I think this is probably the best thing that Stephen Fry has done to date. His Onno is a wonderful cad, who is also a loving father. A wonderful, Oscar worthy performance.

The one exception are the young actors who portray Quentin. The performances are a bit uneven and don't make up a cohesive whole so that when we end up with the actor playing Quentin at 17, we don't particularly care for him much. You do warm to him, but it takes a while.(His part is also a bit odd which doesn't help.) I can't recommend this movie enough. Its a great great film that seems to have gotten lost on its way to a large part of the world. Its the cinematic equivalent of curling up with a really good novel. If you run across this film make an effort to go see, rent or tape it. You may not love it like me, but you certainly will be happy you saw it.

First of all, I am obliged to say my view on this movie was somewhat coloured, because the novel this movie is based on is one of my favourites and I know it by heart.

If you have read the novel, you should watch this movie really open-minded. The novel is a 900+-pages book with a lot of details and symbolism which you cannot completely explain in a 2-hour movie. However, the main story line and the highlights have been pretty well preserved, although the plot has been simplified and explained a bit.

On the other hand, if you haven't read the novel, I'm not too sure whether or not this is such a great movie. Of course, at no point the picture gets boring or inexplicable, but because so much details of the novel have been left away, the true meaning of the book and the real mission of the main character get drowned in the special effects and the smooth directing.

In the end, I'd have to give this movie a 9 out of 10, with one of the main drawbacks being the length: if this picture has lasted for another hour or two, the power of the novel would have remained so much more intact.

After going to the cinema to view this unusual movie, we decided to purchase it when it came out on DVD. After viewing it again, we were glad we purchased this movie. Jeroen Krabbe did a splendid job of directing it, and the cast was perfect for their roles. I am trying to obtain a copy of this book in English, and my boyfriend has read it in its original language and loved it very much. We give it a definite 2 thumbs up!

Casting is brilliant (apart from the 5 year old Quintin who had a funny foreign/cockney mixed accent which threw me, but luckily he's only got a short part in the film). Usually I can't see Stephen Fry without getting irritated, but he Is Onno Quist! Jeroen Krabbé as usual gave himself a nice little part in the film he was directing... All in all a fitting tribute to a brilliant book, and ok, yes the end is a bit dodgy but then again the end of the book was the same and if you think about it, there was no other way to end the story... Usually if I go to see 'the film of the book' I'm left feeling disappointed, but this time I was pleasantly surprised.

There is a lot to say about the movie, but I think you should enjoy it yourself. For me it was balancing the odds. First of all Harry Mulisch is not your average writer. I could never get into his books.

You might wonder why bother? Well that can be told in two words 'the Assault'. It got a Oscar, but even beyond that. The movie is an amazing story about the life of a boy that changes when a collaborator is executed in front of his house. The second factor was Jeroen Krabbe. He is an okay actor. Over the big international field nothing fantastic but for Dutch terms one of the best actors we have. When I saw his movie 'left luggage' I was totally overwhelmed. As a director he is at least 10 times better then as an actor. These factors made me check out 'The Discovery of Heaven.' The book I could never read. Well, it was an amazing journey. From the very beginning you will be mesmerized with the images of places unlike you would expect. The dialogues, the personality of the people and the settings. It is almost like the settings in the world politics were set up especially for these events. I think that the most amazing part is that you can go through the dialogues without ever wondering when the next action scene will be. Jeroen plays with the settings like they are part of the conversation itself.

But what is it about?

Well apparently god is not too pleased with the way the world turns. So he decides to remove his influence. This can only be done by sending someone down to get the tablets. So two men will meet a woman, the beautiful Ada Brons (Flora Montgomery) one will become the father and the child will grow up slowly receiving the images that will lead to the tablets containing the 10 commandments. The only problem is that time is running out. God's deadline must be met.

I can't wait to get this one on DVD.

Directed by that mediocre Dutch actor Jerome Krabbe, this might as well be a Ken Russell movie: plenty of manic behaviour, disconnected dialogues (sometimes with literary and historic references), etc. Russell isn't much of a director but he certainly made better films than this. The movie is an unfocused, confusing hodge-podge of religious horror, thriller, drama, and comedy.

It starts off in Heaven, a dark place in which the angels are like semi-robots with the kind of contempt for humanity that would be more suitable for Hell. The angels discuss something that makes little sense. Then, suddenly, we are in the ever-political 60s, in which two men (Stephen Fry and some other guy) meet and find out they have things in common - hence they soon celebrate their "cosmical brotherhood" in a typical Russellian manner. They meet a cellist (Flora Montgomery) with whom they soon form a silly love triangle, in the best French garbage-movie tradition; no one minds who anyone else is screwing. Ahhh, free love! How very progressive and tolerant of them… Their trip to Cuba is an idiotic affair, not least of all because the "Holy Child" is conceived there, of all places - in Castro's Communist Cuba. Why would angels want this second Christ to be born in the pits of atheism and tyranny? Oh, I forgot: this movie's Heaven is a brooding place, a Purgatory at best. So Flora screws both guys in the same day, and we don't know who the Godchild's father is. Yawn. Various accidents occur in the movie - every which one ends in death or a coma and is instigated by the evil Archangel Gabriel, played uninterestingly by the director Krabbe. After Flora falls in a coma, the child's real father starts having sex with her mother - i.e. his child's grandmother! The child grows up, while this guy seeks for Heaven within an observatory!! Who in his right mind would finance anyone to look for Heaven?? The dope eventually finds it, and is duly killed by the Heavenly ones for this. Fry's wife is also killed - her throat slashed in a bizarre street attack. Eventually, the boy grows up and finds the Ten Commandments and brings them to Israel where he swooshes up into the sky/Heaven with them, and Gabriel is happy but he leaves mankind to disaster because it's been so sinful and atheistic. Sinful? The previous centuries weren't sinful, or? Especially in the name of religion! Non-believing? 95% of today's entire population still believes in God. As you can see, the movie is totally absurd, not at all thought out - and it doesn't even hold on to basic rules of religious thrillers. Merely a silly mess, this movie, hardly an intelligent approach to anything.

Holland seems to squeeze out a couple of good films every once in a while, like Soldier of Orange or Left Luggage. The Discovery of Heaven is another one. Again directed (like Left Luggage) by Jeroen Krabbé (who also stars (AGAIN)). I can understand that the film is not for everybody, but I liked it, even though I am of the generation that is used to big explosions, a lot of action and no story. The film is in English, so you won't have to struggle with that stupid Dutch and I sincerely thank Krabbé for filming Harry Mulisch's classic book entirely in English, for otherwise, I would not have seen it. It sure is the best Dutch film of the 21st century. Keep it up.

7 out of 10

Perhaps the fact I haven't yet read the book this film was so absolutely gorgeous to watch. The story develops so naturally one barely can wait to see the next scene, and the next and so forth. Very wise choice to shoot it with a predominantly English cast I think, and even the (still) horrible pronunciation of the English language by Krabbé himself wasn't disturbing enough to distract from the compelling story, events unfolding well-paced, without any of the important characters having difficulty to rise above stereotype cliché's. I am deeply touched by the angelic Flora Montgomery (Ada Brons; wow, what a fresh, divine and utterly unblemished creature, she must have loved playing her role), Stephen Fry (Onno Quist) stunned me with a very impressive performance, Neil Newbon was IMHO well-cast in his role and held his ground. Mulisch may be (or come across as) an annoying public figure, his work on which this film is based must be nothing short of Great Art. I look forward to reading it.

Wholeheartedly recommended for anyone but those who only dig brute action or sappy Hollywood all's well that ends well crap. A must-see!(9/10)

The discovery of heaven is a must see movie. The makers have achieved a full transcription of Mulisch' novel into a movie. The storylines in the book are complex and can easily be distorted but this has not happened.

With the casting of Stephen Fry as Onno they couldn't have made a better choice. In the movie, Onno has the chance to develop his rebellious and witty character. Greg Wise as Max did not have this chance (for some reason his part in the story as a brilliant scientist has been greatly underexposed) and maybe that's why his performance was not nearly as good as Onno's.

It seems that the makers have focussed on creating, in a technical sense, a perfect movie without missing anything. But, by doing so, some parts of the story have been exaggerated and some details, though crucial for the story, have been neglected. For instance the scene where Max, in a drunken mood, discovers heaven is made into a slapstick scene. A second example is the, in my opinion, weak moment where Onno finds out that Quinten is not his son. Scenes like these take time to build up in order for the magic to come out and overwhelm the viewer.

Probably this is due to the fact that the book is too complicated to tell in 2 hours. Had the makers accepted this impossibility and simplified some parts of the story, then maybe the thrill towards the end of the movie that makes the unlogic actions of Quinten in Jerusalem logic, would reappear.

Reading these comments I have to say that turning Mulish' novel into a film is very hard. The book is considered as one of the best recent dutch books. All eyes will be focussed on the movie and it's makers because nobody wants their national heritage to be spoiled. In this light my comment has to be seen.

After all, an excellent movie, unseen in this genre in Holland. I want to thank Krabbe and the filmfund for this movie.

Jesus can't pass through the gate because Moslems are buried on the other side.

The first 3rd or so was very good if you like hot young blonds in a state of undress. It goes downhill fast after that.

The entire premise is ridiculous, there is an all powerful god who isn't powerful enough to come to Earth. Then the story doesn't go downhill, it falls off a cliff. It reminds me of The Omen and Boys from Brazil, but this is a perfectly good child created.

God wants the original 10 commandment tablets returned for some reason.Actually this is the second set, Moses smashed the first ones in a pique of anger when the people made the golden calf.

I must have seen a completely different movie, because I cannot identify in any level with most of the comments here. What work of art? The movie is boring, the acting is contrived at best and the only redeeming factor would be that the story itself is great, but unfortunately it was transformed in a 127 minutes borefest. To be completely fair, the movie has its moments, mostly on the first half hour when you anticipate everything that is supposed to happen and you get to know the characters and the storyline, but then..nothing else! I really had high hopes on this movie mostly based on the IMDB reviews, but I learned a lesson. Obviously oppinions are very subjective, but I still wonder why such a high grade for a very flawed movie..

It's rare to see a film and have everyone in the audience sit silent through the entire film, and closing credits, until the lights go back up -- such was the impact of The Discovery of Heaven at the showing I saw it at.

A philosophical drama that is extremely apropos at this point in human evolution, regardless of your religious beliefs, this film provides stellar performances from Stephen Fry and Greg Wise, and the entire cast. If you appreciated the life-tapestry and serendipity of P.T. Anderson's "Magnolia" then you'll find similar satisfaction here. Sometimes the life paths we choose with our free will may have unforseen consequences, not to mention an unforseen impetus.

Don't expect a Dogmaesque irreverence from this film, but do expect to say "ooh! clever!" at least a few times. There's an artistry in The Discovery of Heaven which is rare for modern cinematic offerings. Subtle and symbolic, this film will definitely earn a place in my DVD libarary when it becomes available. Definitely a "must see" if you appreciate films on a deeper level than many Hollywood productions could provide.

Frankly I do not understand why so many people like this movie. I guess that most Dutch people find it reasonably OK judged by the rather low Dutch standards, but that does not take away the fact that this is a terrible movie.

What is comes down to is this: The Discovery of Heaven is Boring as Hell.

The main problem with this movie is that the entire story (which itself is not even very interesting to begin with) is revealed in the beginning of the movie, and from then on absolutely nothing exciting or surprising happens to keep you interested. To make matters worse, the acting is rather poor too.

Some people mentioned the pace being so quick. I think the movie is way too slow, it just drags on and on, and is way too long. This is a movie that makes you fall asleep.

I'm sorry I have to say this: but trying to watch this movie was a complete waste of time. One of the worst I've ever seen. :-(

Okay, just watched the movie and finished the book today too, and here's what I think of it (for what it's worth;). The book is of course one of the many masterpieces of Harry Mullisch, most of the serious critics do at least agree on that and who am I to ignore them (and really, I did think it was a great book). The movie however doesn't make me this enthusiastic.

I think that on every front on which movies can be criticized, there is something to criticize in this one, leaving it to be, at best, a mediocre movie. I wouldn't go as far as to totally banish the movie into the realm of the unseeables (as the only american reviewer on this page suggests), but their is lot that could be done better. First of all an obvious one, often commented on, the speed is to high. Were jumping from one event to another, sometimes without even noticing what has happened in between. The people who have read the book (the readers) will automatically think "oh, well, this and that have happened" which to me still was irritating sometimes, but what's worse, i can imagine that non-readers will sometimes miss the plot. Now, it is logical that you can't show all 900 pages of events and dialogs in a 2 hour movie, but that still makes the movie's story a lot weaker than the book's story. And you miss a lot of layers, since the philosophical, psychological, scientific, political, developmental and historical elements are almost totally absent. What's left is indeed only a love and mystery/adventure story with some pseudo theological semi spiritual edges. That's only a fraction of what made the original story so attractive. And above that, some of the missing elements were quite essential for a good understanding of the story. The movie tries to solve these 'missing links' by some small changes in the story, which I don't object too in principle, but it does make the mystery/adventure story a lot weaker. It doesn't surprise me that the hardest reviews come from the non-readers (my advise to them, read the book!).

Well, perhaps there can still be some good in the entire movie if we see it as the "pictures" that go with the book. A mere illustration of the people and places. It could be this, and it could be a great project. But then I'd expect to see overwhelming acting, great direction, and a script that is beautifully adapted for play. Sadly (and I must add here that this is of course a personal feeling) the movie failed here too. Well, there were two specks of light in this darkness (okay, that's perhaps a bit too strong, but admit that it sounds good!:), Stephen Fry (Onno) and Neil Newbon (Quinten). Luckily two good (not great mind!, Newbon because he's just not great, only good, Fry because he's only great when he's being funny, and although there are some humorous scenes, sometimes he has to be serious too) actors. The rest were okay but nothing special or sometimes even below average (but these are only minor roles, like the girl in the toilet, who greets ada:"Hi Ada!" the 'personal-friend-of-the-director-who-acted-when-she-was-in-high-school'-ness oozes off of it;). And why oh why did Jeroen Krabbé have to give himself a role again? Well, he always seemed pretty vain to me, so probably that's it. Anyway, he's not a terrible actor, but I do think that most actors could have done a better job.

But still, the main actor might be (very) good at their jobs, dialogues were often terrible I think, because of the terrible script. Not even the best actor can change that. Although I almost feel I'm doing the movie injustice be saying it so hard, still.... Well, perhaps this is to be attributed to the speed of the movie, since a lot of info has to come in very short conversations.

As for the direction of the whole movie (which is done by Jeroen Krabbé for those who didn't know), I would say it is mediocre, some times a bit worse, sometimes reasonable. Heaven looked ok to me, but most scenes were not so spectacular. On the one hand this is logical, since they're mainly about the ordinary lives of some people, on the other hand, it would be nice to see the important events a bit more climaxic, in music, cameraviews, etc. Still, I liked some, like the 'conception of Quinten' scene for instance. The Sanctui Sanctorum (if that's what it was, I can only remember the dutch name) however is the other side. But perhaps this is also to be ascribed to the speed of the movie. There's just not enough to time to show you every important event or place or conversation in a restful moment, and that means that you can't really create atmosphere. And at least I think that that's very important, certainly if you want your movie to be an, or even better, the illustration of a book.

Perhaps you could say that the movie tries to tell you both the entire story in a way that everybody (readers and non-readers) will follow it, and to show you the beauty of places, events and conversations that the book evokes, but by doing so fails miserably in both fields. This leaves the non-reader confused over the enthusiasm of the readers, who desperately try to explain to them why the story (and thus the movie) is so great. Really a shame, since the book actually is really really really great. Therefore I shall give it a five out of ten. Now go out, away from you computers and tv's, buy it, and read it! Love and Greetings, Menno

I can't fathom all the praise that this film has received on this site (or any other for that matter). I saw a screening of this movie months ago and was asked to be in the focus group. After the screening, people were lined up asking to be in the focus group because they wanted to express to the film makers what a waste of plastic the movie is and to suggest that it never be released in the U.S. After the focus group was over, several audience members got together outside the theater to continue talking about the painful experience we had all just been through...a kind of bad movie support group.

This is a terrible film. The performances are phoned in. The plot is absolutely ridiculous. It starts out as a bad romantic comedy and becomes an even worse biblical epic. Embarrassing. Absolute tripe.

This film, based on a novel, made a deep and lasting impression on me. The acting, photography and editing were all top notch and it was very refreshing to see that the film was shot on location rather than in a stuffy lot in Los Angeles.

If you don't want to read the 900+ page book, watch this film!

Impossible job well done: the original book (9 out of 10) transformed into well told story, with some good acting and nice camerawork. Downside: not-so-good fx. My rating: 8 out of 10.

Pimster

Absolutely awful. Extremely sexist, theologically nonsensical, politically uninformed, . . . Characters behave in ever more absurdly uncharacteristic ways. Very irritating and boring. Also disappointing, because it is based on a book by a very good writer, Harry Mulisch and directed by Krabbe, who usually seems to be an intelligent actor. Here, he directs his actors with a lack of respect that appalls me.

The Movie contains a few differences with the book.

For Example: The Angels are dressed in black clothes and also "heaven" is black. This is contradictory of the white-color most of us think...

When you look at the technical details you can see a few scenes had been cut or where in the book a few scenes take a page of 40 to describe, happens in the movie within a minute. (The scene that Ada, will have dinner with the two men and she has to go to the toilet, as example....)

Stephen Fry does his role perfect and for a dutch movie it's excellent act- and produce-work. When you've been in Italië, like Rome, you will recognize many shot in the movie.

To my opinion: the movie gives a good representation of the book and is absolutely worth while to see and...go to cinema and just enjoy...

This is a superb film that deserves a respectable worldwide release. I'm not particularly fond of films with religious themes or sub-texts, but I found myself transfixed by a deeply interwoven plot and engaging performances all around. This is a film that requires all of your attention, but refuses to demand it by resorting to Hollywood 'whizbang'.

This movie has yet to be released in the United States, apart from screenings at a couple of smaller film festivals. To see this film I had to 'hack' my player and order the DVD from the Netherlands, but I am so glad I did - especially because I'm going to have to watch it two or three more times to catch all of the inter-connections. I hope that I will be able to see this on the big screen. Soon.