What makes it different from others?

That was an excellent one.

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

How sad is this?

In December 1595, a baby is left at the Capuchin monastery just outside of Madrid. The monks debated and decided to raise the boy in the monastery. He would become their best orator Ambrosio (Vincent Cassel). The church is packed as his brand of strict faith inspires the congregation. Only his actions may lead him down a thorny path.Vincent Cassel has a natural intensity. This could have been a very powerful and profound movie. The story is there to put on film. But this movie has little movement. Most of the time, the characters do not move at all. It is all talk, and some of it is confoundingly slow. Other than two or three exchanges, most of the dialog could have been slash in half. The story is there. If starving a pregnant nun to death in a dungeon cell isn't compelling, then I don't know what is. The problem is everything in between. And the twist is as telegraphed as they come. This could have been a great character study as this man get more outrageous as the movie goes along. Instead, Cassel isn't allow to physically act. There is a good story but this isn't a good film. It's a promise unfulfilled.

Historical and monastery- or palace-related films are usually catchy and intense as both external and internal reclusion provide sufficient basis for these - particularly together with religious mystique. Le moine is a good example here, but not among the finest: its run is sometimes protracted, many supporting actors are unvaried (female ones, above all) and the ending does not summarize all "loose ends" recognised during the film. As of today, the issues approached do not awake the same feelings as centuries ago when the novel The Monk: A Romance was written by Matthew Gregory Lewis (1796) - at least in agnostics like me.The gem of the film is undoubtedly the star Vincent Cassel as Capucino Ambrosio (= the Monk); he outperforms his counterparts and there are scenes where his presence could have been more visible (well, usually I am not so much into so-called solo films).Thus, as for tenseness and uniformity of characters, Le moine leaves to be desired; e.g. The Name of the Rose is better.

The movie is too predictable to really shock. The twists are telegraphed (or phoned in or emailed or whichever way you like to communicate). That doesn't make the movie bad, but it doesn't help making it great either. So while Vincent Cassel gives it all in a very complicated role and he delivers on it, the story and the way it is build up does not help him elevate the movie.Acting is good, cinematography is good too and you have a decent sound design. The themes might speak to you (depending on your world-view), which is why some even saw a masterpiece in this. And I don't blame them, if they prioritize on other points than I do. I like the themes too, but again, there are quite a few shortcomings along the way.

"Isn't it strange how we fail to see the meaning of things, until it suddenly dawns on us?" Are monks greater than common people spiritually? Finally, this monk sees purity in common people more than him. What is right, what is wrong, who will decide it? What is sin, who will judge it? Is it church? Or priests? Is it relation between man and women a sin? It is the story of monk who has seen the cruelty of his traditional monkhood and illusions of his purity. At the time of facing world and his inner instincts, he becomes meaner than a criminal. His cruel pride of holiness becomes not but vein. Director Dominik Moll becomes one of the great directors in the world with this move. The way he made this movie is highly spiritual. His insight is outstanding. Photography and music are soul stirring. Amazing sound recording and art. Some Traditional Catholics may not like this movie. But seekers of truth belong to any religion must watch this movie. It is truly artistic and philosophical. It is highly recommended.