In today's society, most films are for entertainment. There are, however, films intended for entertainment but which provoke debate, such as Carlos Carrera's film, The Crime of Father Amaro (2002). Widely known for its corrosive view of the Catholic Church, the film focuses on young priest Father Amaro and others who break their vows of chastity, accept drug money, have a sexual relationship with fleeting nudity and abortion. Carrera's film has sparked much debate, with most debates dealing with corruption or controversies within the Catholic Church. It is for this reason that I will focus on raising the question of how this film is seen in other countries, because it presents an interesting point of view from an international point of view. I will focus specifically on two countries and then analyze how one country's view differs from another. And if the film provokes a negative reaction, what is the main cause? The two countries were chosen based on their importance to the film. The United States was chosen based on the American film industry, which allows studios to take a chance on riskier films, emerging screenwriters and unknown actors. Which therefore allows different genres to enter the “cinematographic scene” without any barriers. The film takes place in Mexico, which is the main reason why it was chosen. The majority of its population is Catholic, which may create a biased view in Mexican reviews of the film. In the United States, most film critics are either famous or just the average person who writes a review about a film. However, this does not stop the flow of people's opinions. I will use both the review of the film published by the New York Times and the website "Rottentomatoes.com", which...... in the middle of the article...... and conclude that both countries however present their strong points of view, the United States is able to see both sides of the film, while Mexico only looks at one side. American critics were able to view the film in both a positive and negative light. There is an equal balance in how they viewed the film: on one side, they see the technique and storyline of the film, and on the other, they see the truth behind the corruption. While Mexican viewers only see one side and turn away from the other. They only see the film as an attack on their religion. However, there are some implications when trying to generalize about a country as a whole, as not everyone has the same opinion or idea. Works Cited Thompson, Ginger. "Mexico City Journal; Uproar over movie priest who goes his own way." The New York Times. The New York Times, October 21, 2002. Web. November 14. 2013.