There Be Dragons (2011)

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.

I can see why many may not enjoy this movie, it is rather long at 2 hours and involves a moderately complex story which includes the Spanish civil war in the 1930s. But I enjoyed it for the good story that it is.While most of the story is fictional, one of the two principal characters is real, Charlie Cox as Josemaría Escrivá, born in 1902 and who became a Catholic priest. He died in 1975 and in 2002 was canonized as a Saint in the Catholic Church. He founded Opus Dei which is simply a way of looking at faith and service as a daily mission, involving the ordinary things in everyday life. One priest who knew Josemaría Escrivá very well says that the film's portrayal of him is basically very faithful.However the character that Wes Bentley plays, Josemaría Escrivá's childhood friend Manolo Torres, who became involved in the civil war, is entirely fictional as far as anyone can tell. Bentley plays him as a young man in his 20s and 30s, and also as an old man on his deathbed.Which brings in Dougray Scott as the old man's son, Roberto Torres, also a fictional character, who is doing research on Josemaría Escrivá and wants his elderly father's views. They have not spoken in 8 years, and Roberto doesn't understand why. But it becomes the key element of the resolution of the story.There is an early scene where the kids are being told about dragons, more in the sense of demons, and that is built upon for the title of this movie. In the end the old man tells his son that he can tell him the whole story "but there will be dragons."SPOILERS: It turns out that Manolo was about the complete opposite of Josemaría Escrivá. Their lives went in separate directions. Manolo's motto always was "pick the winning side", regardless of your own principles. He personally killed people, or had them killed, but at the end of the civil war in a fictional scene where Josemaría Escrivá and others were about to escape to the safety of France, a sniper was about to shoot them but Manolo instead killed the sniper, saving his old friend. On his deathbed he still had the rosary given to him years earlier and had a vision of young Josemaría Escrivá standing there in his room right before he died.

There are certainly people more qualified than I to review a film such as this. You may want to check out Fr. Dennis at the Movies and the Opus Dei website.I have always been fascinated with the Spanish Civil War, and it forms the background of this story of the founder of Opus Dei. It is appropriate, as director Roland Joffé of The Killing Fields and The Mission is experienced in showing the dark shadows where the light can shine forth. The story of Josemaria Escriva is just such a tale and, despite the fact that Joffe is an agnostic, he manages to show the true devotion of the man of God.The story is so much more, however. It is the story of repentance and forgiveness. Forgiveness that does not do so much for the one forgiven, as it does for the forgiver.

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!