It helps to first understand who Luther is before watching the film. Certainly quite an undertaking to summarize a time in history when religious, political and social reformations were deeply influencing each other. I would have appreciated more of a Luther who showed more conviction, hearing the word "grace" at least once in the movie, and less of the wimpering Luther wrestling with evil.

Late in "Luther", there's a scene that reminded me of "Rudy", the one in which his Notre Dame brethen enter Coach Devine's office and lay down their jerseys atop a desk. That is to say, "Luther" gets corny, and corn looks awfully conspicuous in the 16th century. We're still recovering from the "Luther's in love" sequence, when this film's increasing allignment with mainstream sensibilities cancels out what small pleasures that came before the maize. … Expand

While not entirely historically accurate, it draws out major events and prevailing practices of the church at the time while cativating viewers with Fiennes' monumental development of Luther as a very "human" theologian.

Deciding how historically accurate "Luther" is is best left to those familiar with the religious and political intrigue in 16th Century Europe. For the rest of us, it is a generally well-told and sometimes even absorbing tale. Sir Peter Ustinov easily manages to steal all of his scenes; the same cannot be said for Joseph Fiennes. We have to take the script's word that Martin Luther was such an influential man because nothing in Fiennes' performance remotely suggests it.… Expand

A wonderful depiction with only minor historical inaccuracies. A movie every Christian should watch.

Alternately absorbing and laughable, it bites off WAY more than it can chew in 2 hours - - it's an immense topic, worthy of, say, a TV mini-series? I give them credit for good intentions. (I'm a sucker for 16th C. drama).