I spoke to my sister tonight, who also saw the movie The Crime of Father Amaro the other night. I asked her what she thought of it and she said that she thought it was good and interesting. I then tried to regurgitate my ill-formed thoughts of unease about its quality and she scoffed, and then stated her belief that I was only irritated by it because the total unlikeability of Gael Garcia Bernal's character was unwelcome to me, and that I was probably over-analysisng or merely grasping to find an artistic platform on which to base my distaste. So it was probably a good and enjoyable film, and my previous comments might well be disregarded.

THIS IS AN EDIT I have found a review that perfectly captures my feelings about The Crime Of Father Amaro. In a two-and-a-half star review, Tom Ryan of The Sunday Age writes that the film tells the story of a priest "whose assignment to a small parish in rural Mexico brings him face to face with his moral frailty. The dialogue keeps pointing to him as a divided character - torn between his ambition to rise through the ranks as a priest and his recognition of the corruption he discovers within the Church bureaucracy, and between his vows of celibacy and his carnal yearnings for a pretty catechism teacher - but there's little sense of any turmoil within. And while the scornful depiction of clerical hypocrisies and a couple of steamy sex scenes featuring the randy priest make a subversive political point and have already won considerable notoriety, the film as a whole isn't especially satisfying at the level of character". He also notes that the film is "directed with little subtlety". Exactly, exactly, exactly. Bravo, reviewer man. So, without taking any credit for the review, I would just like to say that the above is also my estimation of the film. And we can only hope that it has provided closure to my ditherings on the subject.