Last night I took my family to see "Luther", the new flick on the life of the great reformer Martin Luther. The good news is, the picture was very good. The bad news is, if you want to see it, you'd better do it soon (like tonight), because there were only two people in the auditorium besides us.

Considering the inherent drama of the Luther story, along with Hollywood's propensity for Rocky-type "little guy against the establishment" genre, it's actually shocking that it's taken them this long to produce a full-blown motion picture treatment of his life.

Though the film is engrossing, it (somewhat mystifyingly) is not as compelling as it could be, considering the magnitude of the story. Nonetheless, it is well-acted, fairly historically accurate, and faithful to period detail. The performances are strong (particularly Sir Peter Ustinov as Frederick the Wise and Alfred Molina as the conniving, indulgence-peddling Johann Tetzel). Joseph Fiennes does a fine job as Luther, though as scripted many of Luther's more...ahem...eccentric qualities are left out. Give the filmmakers credit, however, for resisting the temptation to portray Luther as a pure iconoclast (which he wasn't) rather than a true reformer (which he was). It was the Roman Catholic Church that separated from Luther, not vice-versa.

Luther's story is inherently problematic in that its natural climax, the stirring "here I stand" speech at the Diet of Worms, occurs fairly early in the timeline of his life and work. After that point (the film's most stirring moment), the movie never quite regains the steam it had going, making the final 45 minutes or so seem like a very long epilogue. But this weakness is somewhat compensated for by the meat the film places on the historical skeleton of these watershed events. Anyone who's taken a history class (or at least a church history class) has read about Tetzel's indulgences, for instance. But while on paper his approach may look a little corny and medieval ("When into the coffers a coin rings, another soul from purgatory springs..."), in the hands of good actors, you can see how terrifying and compelling his pitch may have actually been. This guy's work raised a lot of money and built a lot of huge cathedrals, so there was something about what he was doing.

Anyone with an interest in history will enjoy "Luther." Anyone with an interest in the Church will enjoy "Luther." Even if it's not perfect. I mean, how often does Hollywood release a quality, sympathetic movie about a Christian giant? Rarely enough that when it does, you ought to go out of your way to see it.