The “film” I’m addressing today is genuinely strange: it's a Brazilian production centered on the life of a French researcher whose writings formed the basis for a kind of religious-philosophical system that never fully established itself as a religion, despite being considered one by many who adhere to it. Wagner de Assis directs this project; he’s an obscure filmmaker who has dedicated his career and (limited) abilities to creating “films” about Spiritism, which he supports and likely practices himself. As someone capable of independent thought, I can't define what Spiritism is or isn't—if its own followers struggle to articulate it, I certainly won’t pretend to resolve their existential questions. What I *can* say is that this work isn't a film deserving of the title, nor worthy of our time or money. I have a long-standing principle: be wary of films backed by religious organizations. They are rarely good and almost always intended to subtly indoctrinate audiences. I learned this during my most fervent atheistic period and have maintained it even after embracing faith and moving past a “Nietzschean” nihilism. While I am now a believer, I haven’t lost my ability to judge critically, and I won't endorse any law or dogma without careful consideration—not even those of my own church. It seems likely that this “film,” created by Spiritists to honor the man who founded it, received funding and support from the organization, which is based in Brazil. Consequently, it’s overtly biased; it ignores how Rivail amassed wealth through his writings and the controversies they generated, or how he exploited the assistance of self-proclaimed mediums to write them, taking credit for their work and suppressing their desire for recognition. We've seen this pattern before: many religious groups today have similar leaders. Some faced legal scrutiny, but religion remains a profitable venture. My criticisms extend beyond any potential connection to a “church” or its hagiographic approach. It also lacks qualities that would classify it as a cinematic work. The visual effects are substandard; I’ve never seen Paris, the City of Light, appear so bleak and devoid of life. The sets and costumes look like rejects from Globo productions, feeling as artificial as any period drama by Walcyr Carrasco. The actors are uninspired unknowns who would have been better left in obscurity. Leonardo Medeiros and Sandra Corveloni, the only performers worth noting, seem to be struggling to elevate the material, and they’d likely have served themselves better with a more respectable project. This “film” is deficient in every aspect, beginning with its budget. Perhaps the “church” wasn't very generous financially? Brazilian cinema, despite what some Brazilians claim, possesses merit and value. Brazil has talented actors and skilled professionals, but limited funding and language barriers have historically hindered international recognition of their efforts—something Fernanda Montenegro can attest to. However, Wagner de Assis’s work falls far short of the standards Brazilian cinema should strive for.

Source on TMDB