It’s time for one of those intense films based on a true story. Dealing with criminals can always be a difficult balance of going hard but also leaving room for redemption. Naturally it depends on the crime itself and the scenarios around it. Well this story is about one priest who decides to make a difference here but his methods are very controversial. Will you take his side by the end of the movie or will you agree with his critics? That’s the big question here.

The movie starts out with a guy asking Charles for help in setting up a big robbery. He just met a guy named Billy who recently got out of prison and figures this could be a good setup. Charles tells him that this is a mistake because Billy isn’t experienced enough and then after that it is revealed that Charles is a priest. The intro is pretty solid because with the dramatic music and sound effects, you are introduced to Charles as a villain. Then as the film goes on, you see exactly what is going on here. It turns out that he actually uses his position as a way to get close to people who are either criminals or who used to be in order to talk them out of it.

The approach isn’t 100% though. As Charles even admits, he can’t stop every crime. Some criminals are going to go through with their plans no matter what and at that point all he can really do is just try to mitigate the damage. The most controversial part is that he won’t report the crime ahead of time so it still happens and then trouble starts. I understand the logic of why he doesn’t step in, because if a plan leak even once then his influence will be gone. It’s a tough policy no matter what side of the fence you’re on though because at the end of the day a crime is a crime.

I think he could be a little too soft on the criminals like in the final scenes with the shootout but ultimately the film does go to great lengths to show his compassion. At no point does Charles ever forget that they are all people just like him and bad decisions just ended up putting them on the wrong path. Not all criminals are equal after all, context matters a whole lot in a crime. Some crimes are completely indefensible and I would argue committing them inherently means that the person is already too far gone. Other more mild crimes like theft are still bad but it’s easy to see how you could redeem someone from it.

All that is to say that the film takes a very fair approach to this. I didn’t feel like they slanted it too far in Charles’ favor or anything like that. They just gave you all of the facts and let you come to terms with it on your own. It’s a nice way to do it and it gives me the impression that the rest of the film was portrayed fairly as well. Aside from Charles and his battle with all the critics, the main subplot was about Billy. Billy tries to get back to earning an honest living but it isn’t easy as his direct supervisor doesn’t like him from the start. Then when there is a theft, Billy is automatically assumed to be the one who did it. We never learn who truly stole the merchandise but the important part is that Billy was blamed.

Unfortunately he takes it pretty badly and ends up doubling down which just makes the situation a whole lot worse. The climax really ends up being Billy’s fault, things had really been looking up to. It ultimately was a difficult situation and did show why Charles’ idea of the halfway house had merit. Giving people more tools to re integrate into society and also just people to talk to could go a long way. It’s a pretty solid concept and while it would be difficult to implement, at least he got it off the ground.

I didn’t think the ending of the film was all that good though. It would have been better to have just had a big time skip with the house in operation or ending right before the final scene. Having the drunk show up and all the craziness just felt like a super odd ending. I don’t think the halfway house itself was super controversial so the movie could have just gone with a more upbeat ending instead.

Since the film doesn’t have much time for subplots, I will say that the romance tends to be rather weak here. There wasn’t really a need to add a romance plot for Billy. I suppose if that was in the records then they wanted to set it up but it’s another example of a romance that just felt way too fast without any real reason for starting. I can’t critique it too hard though because if that’s how it happened in real life then that’s just how it went.

Overall, This was a pretty interesting story. I certainly didn’t know much about how the half way houses formed and Charles made for a very interesting priest. It must have been really tough to have been scrutinized so much and with everyone against him as well. Definitely not an easy spot but he didn’t falter and kept on making his arguments to the end. While I may not have agreed with him on everything, it is clear that he was trying to do the right thing. If you’re unfamiliar with the history of these events then it’s definitely a good one to check out. It really goes into detail here.