..that the reviewer went to Catholic School in 1964. She may have been more kind in her review. It is a spot on recreation of that time and place. I swear I could almost smell the Johnson's wood polish the nuns' used to clean things. And maybe the notion of Doubt is not one she is comfortable with. Our entire belief system at that time was based on Certainty. Shanley plays with that notion and gets to the very heart of all our sins. Only the sinner and God knows the truth. I thought it was a brilliant film ( I saw the play, and felt the same about that!)

I hate watching movies with people who insist on knowing how everything ends how everything ties together before it's even started. Luckily though, they're the ones in the bathroom, on the phone or asleep for most of the film.

Stick to Lost and similar train wrecks.

because rather than to give a constructive criticism of Ms. Streep's performance, she describes the actor's performance as if reviewing an inexperienced high school actor. Even though I think that Meryl Streep is a extremely gifted actor, I also realize that not everyone will feel the same as me. The writer of this review wrote of Meryl Streep's performance in a disrespectful and cruel way; in a way that is undeserving to one of the most celebrated actors of our time. This article was written unprofessionally, and unnecessarily nasty.

It's difficult to discuss this film without delving into the realm of spoilers, but I don't think the doubts in the film are meant to be ambiguous. They are meant to be doubts. Lacking any real evidence, Streep's Sister Aloysius is not admirable. The doubts are real and legitimate; her certainty is not. It is just certainty. Impervious. Indestructible. Unshakeable. Would knowing the actual status of Father Flynn's intentions/actions really justify the harm she is willing to cause by virtue of her need to remain unmoved from her predetermined belief?

Aside from that, I found Streep's performance to be anything but one note. In fact, the biggest surprise for me in seeing the film was how much humor she was able to bring out of her character. My main reaction to her character, as much as she angered me, was a kind of pity for how secretly miserable her life must be.

It will be quite amusing if Streep's performance eventually becomes as celebrated as those of Tim Curry's Dr. Frank N. Furter or Faye Dunaway's Joan Crawford.

I'll leave it to future midnight movie audiences as to what should be thrown at the screen: maybe ballpoint pens?

Whew! Pretty nasty review. I saw the play twice and loved it -- and was stunned by the ending the first time. And I had no problem understanding the motivations and needs of all the characters. Perhaps the movie is as awful as the reviewer thinks -- I definitely plan to see it after that over the top review. Doubt is a difficult concept in many circumstances and a common issue for most of us. Our current president could have used a lot more of it. So too, I think, this reviewer.

Meryl Streep did precisely what was asked of her. She is the finest actress of my generation by miles and miles. If you give her a good script and capable direction, she will be brilliant. If you give her less, she will still be good. She was good in this film.

If you really want the best take on 60s Catholic school, check out Christopher Durang's 'Sister Mary Ignatius Explains it All for You'.

Any negative Zacharek review means the film goes on my must-see list. These reviews consistently have an inverse correlation to the actual quality of the movie. And that in itself is why I religiously read them: no other critic allows me to make a better snap judgment on which movies should earn my $10.

I'm hardly an apologist for the Catholic church, but I do think that conventional bias against the church leads otherwise reasonable people to react negatively to dramas that do not excoriate Catholicism with the expected violence. Vitriol against the Mel Gibson Jesus flick comes to mind.

This review seems to be another example. The reviewer was uncomfortable watching a movie where either inapposite result (lying pedophile or destructively judgmental Catholic schoolmarm) leaves either a priest or a nun as the just and kind hero.

And to call Meryl Streep's character "one-note"? I don't think the reviewer was really paying attention. A thoughtful viewer didn't need to be bombarded with the last scene to know she was conflicted and complicated. Previously married? Response to the a abused child's Mom? Just scratch a bit below the surface.

For me it was a great flick exactly because of its ambiguity... just as intended. In life most times one just can't be sure.

Really??

I would never guess...

I agreed with nearly every word and couldn't have said it better myself. I don't know why so many people disagree with everything SZ writes. I almost think it's a form of bloody-mindedness.

I might be mistaken, but isn't this film about the alleged molestation of young African American male?

Knowing the impact of Emmett Till's death in August 1955 on Black America, is it probably that Mrs. Miller would be so cavalier about about her son's body?

Shanley is supposed to be a man of American Theatre. Might he have thought about Travis Younger of A RAISIN IN THE SUN (Lorraine Haneberry) or Spencer Scott of TAKE A GIANT STEP (Louis Petterson) or Foots of THE TOILET (Amiri Baraka) before contemplating a the life of a Black youth in the America mid-century?

I am an African American man trying to leave his Civil Rights Era sensibility and embrace the Age of Obama. This work is not helpful. Racial identities have material realities dispite the fiction of the flesh concocted by European Americans. This film loses its coherence because of its false connection to reality. It would have been more effective, if Shanley had made a sincere attempt to explore the intersection of religion, sexuality.....and race.

I wish Davis and her fellow actors all the best in this white male fantasy. I think I will wait until cable watch this film with its companion piece, TROPIC THUNDER.