velijn

(23 May 2013)

An ass between two bales of what?

Moretti is an interesting director and his documentaries and movies(like "The Son's Room") shows us why. But what in the name of the HolySpirit is he trying to tell us here? To get a foothold inside theVatican, the nucleus of one of the great (well, at least by numbers)religions in the world, is a daunting task. It becomes clear that thedirector had been more interested in the the mindset of the man who'sto be the next pope, than in any political or human machinations of theelectors. We know our popes of the past - Peter O'Toole's or JohnGoodman's pope are a delight - but any effort to get into the innerworkings of the Vatican has eluded us: Preminger's "The Cardinal" andAnderson's "The Shoes of the Fisherman" just scratch the surface andare too reverential, so Fellini still steals the show with hisdelightful religious fashion show in "Roma".And that for a job description to head a congregation of over abillion, elected by a college of a mere hundred or so cardinals. Stufffor either historical pageantry (we all love our Borgias) or an insightinto the mindset of electors or popes-to-be, about why a job can makeor break a man, or how the past does influence your future. Insteadwe're offered the choice of an ass between two bales.Is it is meant to be a farce? Then the bunch of actors hired to play abunch of totally idiotic cardinals playing volley-ball in the aftermathof the conclave are right fitting in. But because of that it is verydifficult to sympathize with the turmoils of a Pope-to-be with thoseallusions to All the world's a stage, the heavy references to Chekhovand all that. I mean, who wants to be a pope over this lot oftwittering morons? And Piccoli is certainly not a fool, but a tormentedsoul who seems to have lost his confidence and the past. How does thatfit in with farce? With a bunch of blabbering idiots playing pinocchioor volley-ball and a man in crisis? So, is it then meant to be aprobing insight into the soul of a man who's thrown into this world asthe next Pontiff? Is this a probe into the turmoils of a Pope-to-be -by the way, gently played by Piccolli - with allusions to All theworld's a stage, the heavy references to Chekhov and all that? Afterall, apart from power-hungry popes in fiction, it is indeed an almostinhumane job. Then the bunch of actors hired to play a bunch of totallyidiotic cardinals inside the conclave or playing volley-ball in theaftermath are totally unbelievable. They deny us any symphatising withthe main character as we're lead to believe that some of the mostpowerful men in the world are blabbering idiots playing pinocchio.Alas, the director, playing the part of an atheistic psycho-analist,fits right in with this cardinal bunch.The director should have known that the real world is barging in withalmost every frame, with a church and its board of managers wadingthrough a lot of controversial items. As a viewer you can't excludethat: we don't live in a vacuum. Moreover, the allusions to John XXII,Paul VI and John-Paul I are drawn with heavy strokes indeed.So, we're stuck between two bales of hay. Bad choice. The directorcouldn't make an artistic choice and left us with no choice at all. Inthe end we can understand the Pope's decision, but not because we carefor him or his struggle, but who in his or her right mind would governa church with a council of idiots? Mmm… that may be the point thedirector is making?

writers_reign

(22 May 2013)

Where's Poppa? ....

... off on a Roman Holiday may well be the answer. It may or may not besignificant that Moretti is so easily able to reference two earlierfilms although not content with that he throws in a performance of TheSeagull albeit he depends upon the viewer knowing the opening dialogueof the Checkov play. Clearly this isn't everyone's cup of incense andthose, like myself, who delight in seeing Catholicism taken down a pegor twelve, may be mildly disappointed. It may well be that for anyonebrought up as a Catholic there me be references to be savoured thatelude those of other denominations but the central idea of a totaloutsider who is elected only because the three front-runners are tiedand then, thrust into the limelight, suffers a panic attack, isinteresting and verges towards the surreal via the analyst who issummoned but not allowed to probe too deeply into the patient's libidoand/or relationship with his parents, plus the game of volleyballplayed by the Cardinals to beguile the time until papa is inclined toaccept his role.

jadepietro

(11 May 2013)

Il papa, Can You Hear Me?

This film is mildly recommended.In one of my all-time favorite romantic comedies, Billy Wilder'senchanting Roman Holiday, a princess, with an aversion to her royalresponsibilities and its added pressure of pomp and circumstance thatcomes with it, flees her guardians to escape to a simpler commoner'slife in Rome. Complications ( and love ) ensue. In Nanni Moretti'sengaging We Have a Pope, the job description might have changedslightly, but the same intensity and stress of duty and honor remains.And while the main character is never in search of love, complicationsbegin to pile up.The pope has died and a new successor must be elected. After multiplevoting, the conclave of cardinals decide that Cardinal Melville wouldbe the best candidate to fill that void. The crowds form outside theVatican awaiting their decision, all eyes focused on that centralbalcony of St. Peter's Basilica and its new pontiff. Yet inside, it isanother story entirely as the newly anointed and appointed leaderrefuses to take on that role. A psychotherapist is brought in toconvince Cardinal Melville that this big white whale of a job belongsto him. So what does the cardinal do? He escapes, seeking la dolce vitathat others have.Now Moretti's basic idea is an intriguing one, that one man who so manylook to for spiritual guidance is himself in search of that elusivegoal and is in the midst of his own personal crisis of faith. Morrettiserves his story well as a director, setting up his characters, all ofwhom are held captive in their grandiose surroundings and involving themovie audience with the regal pageantry and splendor. But as screenwriter, his script loses its focus with some subplots andactions that never quite gel. Just as his character becomes lost, sodoes his film. Scenes involving his interactions and experiences withthe common folk fall flat and don't seem to resolve the complex issueor provide any insight for this troubled soul's introspection. As thefilm progresses, the remaining cardinals become more one-dimensionaland their behavior, while slightly amusing, become easy folly as theyplay volleyball in their fancy silk trappings, merely decoration ratherthan real people. ( Only Renato Scarpi as Cardinal Gregori provides anydepth to his character. ) Plus, the role of the psychologist ( alsoplayed by Moretti ) becomes a mere afterthought, never really buildingany relationship with his patient. And, those annoying Leaps of Logiccomes to the forefront during his respite allowing him his "RomanHoliday", though those everyday "economic" expenses are not explainedin the least ( free hotel room, food, theater ticket, bustransportation, etc.).The film detours to an unsatisfying and unexpected conclusion thatbasically negates everything before it. As Cardinal Melville grappleswith the anxiety of becoming one of the world's most exalted religiousleader, Moretti too never comes to terms with his initial fascinatingpremise and his film's plot structure.Fortunately, the talented French actor, Michel Piccoli gives awonderfully subtle performance as Il papa. His nuanced facialexpressions and sad soulful eyes convey the character's humility, fear,and wisdom beyond his years. It is superb acting that nearly makes upfor some of the film's missteps along the way.While many of the compelling elements are up there on the screen for afine film, We Have a Pope simply needed to have a better script ( andending ) to achieve a level of success. Still, Moretti does stay trueto his vision and never becomes sentimental or mawkish. In We Have aPope, while the job may remain unfilled, the moviegoer in us allregretfully remains unfulfilled as well. GRADE: B-ANY COMMENTS: Please contact me at: jadepietro@rcn.com to add comments.Visit my blog at: www.dearmoviegoer.com

Olivo Miotto

(10 May 2013)

Imperfect but deep and perceptive

This film has had a very diverse range of reviews, and this is probablybecause its full appreciation requires a finger on the pulse of theCatholic world. Moretti makes a statement about the current state of the Church, whichbehind its omnipotent facade seems to be unable to truly face thechallenges of remaining relevant to its followers. Rather than set upan intricate political plot of intrigue and betrayal, Moretti choosesto represent this powerlessness through a single person, an unassumingcardinal who feels unable to take on the responsibility. At the sametime, though, he reveals that the state of unease is widespread amongthe cardinals, who dread the thought of having to take on thisleadership, as much as the thought of losing their leader. A banal way forward would have been for the cardinals to turn againsteach other, or against the Pope; instead, here they find relief inreverting to games and simple everyday activities, as if the isolationinside the Vatican walls is lifting an unbearable oppression from them,as they can do normal things as normal people do. The film has several imperfections, and one feels sometimes the storygets somewhat contorted, especially when the new Pope rekindles his oldlove for the theatre. Still, it is a visually attractive film,sensitively scripted and well acted. This is a surprisingly sympathetic film made by a non-believer who isoften critical of the Church. Moretti is appreciative of the magnitudeof the problem faced by the church, but most of all one has theimpression that he cares deeply about the people involved: those on thebalcony, those behind the curtains and especially those down below, inthe square.

alan-607-758799

(08 May 2013)

Wrong description.

The description of the movie is wrongly understood. This movie isdefinitely NOT about the relationship of Pope and his therapist. Thefailed therapist has and episodic side-role. The movie is about aBishop who cannot take the burden of responsibility and attention thatfalls upon him. How he struggles and how he finds courage to solve thesituation. There is no relationship between a Pope and therapist whohave a 10 sentence conversation. Even the other therapist - therapistswife does not have any major impact or role in the movie whatsoever.Okay she kind of connects with the Pope but has more of a satiricalrole considering the outcome and storyline. Misleading is thisintroduction. Please change it.

Nick Suess

(08 May 2013)

Suitability to lead

The one glaring plot hole in this charming movie is that in order tohave arisen to the rank of cardinal, the pope-elect must surely havefirst displayed more than his fair share of the characteristics ofambition and the desire to climb the slippery pole (no, no matter howappropriate it may seem, this is not a reference to the previousground-kissing guy in the job) to the top. But then it could be thatright there, three or four metres short of stepping onto the balcony tobe acclaimed by the faithful, he experienced his own personal 'Road toDamascus' moment, with the realisation that he was simply not up to theawesome task of leading such a vast global flock. However, if thesubtitles correctly translated his speech at he end, what he said thenwas that the entire pack of cardinals behind him was not up to the taskeither. To me that was a very pointed comment to sum up all we had seenin the preceding 90 minutes or so.That the college of cardinals was portrayed as a sort of boys' club wasa clever dramatic trick. Commenters here have asked why they weren'tacting out the roles of Machiavellian plotters, and I feel that Morettichose this depiction in order not to draw the viewer away from the mainplot of the pope's personal dilemma. There can be no doubt that duringthe election the two or three front runners displayed their desire towear the white skull cap, and disappointment when they felt it wasslipping away from them to a rank outsider, but Moretti left thepower-hungry story there.And so with what ultimately became a surreal display of old men inskirts playing volleyball, Moretti lampooned the Vatican and stated hisvery clear question - are these very strange elderly men even remotelysuitable to lead the hundreds of millions who still ascribe to theirbadly tarnished faith despite its amply demonstrated incapacity toembrace anything that has happened over the last five centuries, fromGalileo to gay rights?

squidesquide

(07 May 2013)

A light-hearted piece on worries and responsibilities

Every comment I see about Habemus Papam seems to focus a little toomuch on the depiction of the Catholic Church and its figures ofauthority, maybe because of the title. Let it go, it's not a criticalmovie of the religious institution, and it's certainly not a mocking ofanyone's faith.It is actually a story about a man's confrontation with greatresponsibilities, set in a very peculiar yet strangely believablescenario.I'd say that the central plot and general feeling of the story could bereasonably translated into a different setting. The Catholic Churchreplaced with a government, the newly-elected Pope replaced with thenewly-elected or crowned leader, etc. Maybe a different setting wouldfall short trying to depict the seriousness of the situation - can youthink of a higher position of authority than that of the Pope? -, andmaybe it wouldn't be such a charismatic movie if all the centralinfluential characters weren't light-hearted old men, such as thecardinals in this instance... but it could definitely be done.There are several high points in this movie, most of themstraightforward enough that you don't have to be a cinema-nut toappreciate. The acting is terrific, the general quality is comparablewith the most hyped Hollywood films (I'm guessing that not needinghelicopters, extreme CGI and explosions really helps keeping the budgetlow). I'm not an 'artsy cinema nut' - and I loved it. (In fact, likingit so much and finding only reviews about it being about 'the Pope'bothered me, that's why I registered to write this review). Anyway, this was different from everything I had ever seen before, andalways in a good way. Well, at least never in a bad one! There isindeed some kind of fresh entertainment and novelty in knowing thatyour finely tuned powers of plot prediction are useless against astoryteller's unusual way of telling an interesting story. I don't evenknow who this storyteller is, but assuming it is the director Moretti -he did a good job.Maybe a more 'conventional' viewer, if there is such a thing, might beunsatisfied because of the peculiarities - some open ended scenes, evenone untied subplot; unexplained character reactions that seem entirelysincere nonetheless. While I noticed these things, they didn't annoy meenough to detract from the general experience. And as long as you watchit without a 'conventional viewer's' mindset and expectations, I canalmost guarantee that you will be pleasantly entertained. Let me clarify: don't expect situation jokes. Don't expect an innerjourney into the darkness of a hero's troubled dark soul. Don't expecta wacky incarnation of comic relief. And let me repeat this one moretime: you don't have to be an 'artsy cinema nut' to enjoy it; justdon't expect to be presented to the same old situations and moviegimmicks. It's actually worth a lot more than just for it's quirkiness, but iffor nothing else, watch this so you can briefly purge your mind of thesameness that plagues the screens.

stensson

(06 May 2013)

Orthodoxy?

It's easy to mock the Catholic church, but the satire often repeatsitself and becomes rather boring. Monty Python is partly responsiblefor that and sincerely, why are they hyped that much? OK, so a pope ishere elected, but instead of presenting himself to the masses outsideSt. Peter's cathedral, he has a nervous breakdown. A psycho therapistis hired, but the pope escapes. And finds himself for the first timeamong the people he is supposed to master and guide. A very unusualexperience.Michel Piccoli does a quite touching portrait here. There is time forlaughter at cardinals too, but that's not the main point. This isanother kind of satire.

John Madden

(02 May 2013)

The key is in his name

This worthwhile film is a comedy the way Romeo and Juliet is: both havesome funny moments, BUT...The production values are high and the arcane court ceremony of theVatican is recreated meticulously--much better than in "The Shoes ofthe Fisherman". This is as close as most of us are ever going to get toa papal conclave.More remarkably, writer and director have shown realistically the humanside of this powerful, devout, celibate world. The cardinals aredepicted in all of their enormous ethnic and cultural diversity, aswell as in their frailties and strengths, not as a bunch of holy joesbut as real people struggling as best they can with hugeresponsibilities. Yes, some smoke, and they are capable of playingpick-up ball games.The character of the cardinal who is elected, and accepts, but then hasa breakdown when cannot face assuming the job, seemed implausible to meat first. After all, he has spent a lifetime assuming larger and largerresponsibilities--and he could have said, "No."But it slowly dawned on me that his otherwise unexplained name,Melville--unusual for someone apparently Italian--holds the key to themovie. When his corpulent frame is vested in his papal robes, he is thegreat white whale depicted by Herman Melville in Moby Dick, and thismovie is that story told from the whale's perspective. As Ahab wasobsessed in pursuing and catching the whale, this pope franticallytries to escape from the persona that will eventually lead him to hisdeath.

Chris_Pandolfi

(01 May 2013)

The Reluctant Pontiff

No matter how capable we are in life, there are some responsibilitieswe're simply not able to assume. "We Have a Pope" tells the story of aman who comes to this realization after several days of soul searching.His name is Cardinal Melville (Michel Piccoli), who's part of aconclave gathering in Rome following the death of John Paul II. Afterseveral tedious and psychologically grueling rounds of voting, he'selected Pope by a substantial margin. His initial reaction appears tobe speechless surprise. But then comes the morning he's to beintroduced to the faithful, who have gathered by the thousands in St.Peter's Square; the instant the Cardinal Protodeacon exclaims, "HabemusPapam!" to the cheering masses, Melville has a screaming panic attackand retreats to an inner chamber within St. Peter's Basilica.The spokesman for the Holy See (Jerzy Stuhr), who obviously understandsthe importance of good PR, attempts to buy time by announcing to thepress that the new pontiff needed time for prayer and reflection beforetaking office, and that he should be making an appearance in a fewhours, at which point his name will finally be revealed. Needless tosay, it doesn't go as planned. What's worse, the College of Cardinalsmust abide by the laws of the Church, which clearly state that, untilthe Pope actually appears on the balcony and addresses the people, theelection is not officially over. This means that the entire conclavecannot have any contact with the outside world. This is normally anendurable event. In this case, there's no telling how long Melvillewill take. It could be days, weeks, perhaps even months or years.The College, desperate to bring Melville out of his depression andlethargy, make a last-resort appeal to Professor Brezzi, apsychoanalyst (Nanni Moretti, also the film's director and co-writer).Unfortunately, he's so restricted by bureaucratic rules that he cannotadequately do his job. He's forbidden to ask Melville questionsregarding his past or anything even remotely related to sex. Dreams areokay, but only with extreme discretion. And he must do all this in thepresence of the entire College, who must hear everything that passesbetween them. The kicker is that, because Brezzi has actually spokenwith the pontiff, he must now remain within the Basilica, cut off fromthe outside world. In the meantime, the spokesman orchestrates asecretive mission to transport Melville to see Brezzi's estranged wife,also a psychoanalyst (Margherita Buy). The College will be led tobelieve that Melville is in room by having a similarly built guardwander through his bedroom and occasionally ruffle the curtain.At this point, the film becomes increasingly unclear in its intentions,with scenes that address the overarching issue in odd ways. Immediatelyafter Melville sees Brezzi's wife, he gives the spokesman the slip andbegins wandering the streets of Rome, desperately trying to figure itall out. We learn, albeit vaguely, of Melville's failed ambition to bean actor; we even get a few fleeting references to his mother andsister, the latter successful in becoming an actress. Meanwhile, Brezziorganizes an indoor volleyball tournament for the College, each teamdivided by continent. His reasons for doing this aren't made explicit.Presumably, it's to alleviate his own boredom and restlessness while atthe same time providing the College with some physical activity.However, his dialogue suggests an ulterior motive, perhaps driven byhis own hostile feelings. He seems resentful, for example, that heseparated from his wife, who he believes was in competition with himover being the best psychoanalyst.What this has to do with Melville's crisis of conscience, I'm notexactly sure. It could be that, like Melville, Brezzi feels inadequatein his field of interest. However, his failure to diagnose and treatMelville was the result of imposed religious restrictions, notprofessional incompetence. Here's some food for thought: Brezzi tries,unsuccessfully, to convince the cardinals that all of Melville'sdepression symptoms are mentioned within the pages of the Bible – theonly book they would give Brezzi access to. Meanwhile, the spokesmantries his hardest to maintain the illusion that Melville is within hisroom, although with each day that passes, it becomes clear that itcannot be maintained forever. What is clear is that this Melville mustwork through this on his own terms at his own pace.Given the fact that the plot addresses a man's reluctance to become theleader of a religious institution, and considering that both Morettiand the character he plays are both atheists, it's tempting tospeculate that "We Have a Pope" is about a crisis of faith. Let meassure you that faith never once factors into the equation. It's notabout belief or non-belief. Quite simply, it's about knowing yourlimitations, about understanding that passion and support doesn'tnecessarily equate to expertise. This movie could have been about beingelected President, or being crowned King, or getting a job promotion;because each deals with the acquisition of power, the message wouldhave been exactly the same. You can have a firm faith in anything andstill know that you're not qualified to be a leader.-- Chris Pandolfi (www.atatheaternearyou.net)

mad max

(22 April 2013)

Anti-Catholic, false, Godless vision of Vatican during a Conclave.

Anti-Catholic, false, Godless vision of Vatican during a Conclave. Thefilm humiliates the Church, shows the Pope, Bishops as brain-dead,infantile gaffers who doesn't manage everyday situations.From the film we can learn for example that Vatican is managed not bythe Pope or Bishos but by a civil spokesman.This is another leftist, atheistical vision (Nanni Moretti the directorof the film is a communist activist) which becomes part of witch-huntagainst the Catholic Church.It is said that a Pole (Stuhr) took part it the anti-Catholic film.Unfortunately if you see what is happening in Poland you shouldn't besurprised.

billcr12

(21 April 2013)

Interesting idea

We have a Pope, or Habemus Papem, starts with the death of the Pope andthe funeral procession at the Vatican. The scenery is spectacular withCardinals from all over the world reciting prayers. The story thenswitches to the voting for the new Pontiff. The election of the newVicar of Christ, played brilliantly by Michel Piccoli, is a veryinteresting concept.Piccoli has severe doubts as to his ability to lead the Catholic Churchand refuses to accept his fellow Cardinals decision appointing him tobe in charge of the great bureaucracy of Rome.The best psychiatrist in Italy is brought in to help the newly electedPope deal with his anxiety. He leaves the Vatican for a few days totravel incognito and find himself among the common people. I won'tcontinue so as not to spoil the rest of the film except to say that itremains interesting throughout. It never becomes preachy and the castis excellent, led by Michel Piccoli.

crottymcnaughty

(16 April 2013)

idk if i spoiled anything...so i marked it as a spoiler...but i didn't really give anything away...but the movie sucked

I am a Catholic and this film breaks my heart for the lack in respectsome people can have towards a faithful religion such as the CatholicChurch. The film leaves no message of hope and contains varied andmixed portrayals of the Catholic Church. In the history of the Church,it has been necessary to use secrecy within its walls, just as mostnations do, but to suggest that Cardinals and leaders are simply blindsheep, being strung along by their faith without reason is enough to bemad at this film. The Church leaders are not whimsical or frivolous innature. Nor are they weak minded, as the film suggests. They may befilled with humility, but they are not weak. Nanni Moretti is bold for making this film. He does, to some extent,capture the grandeur and solemnity of the Vatican and its practices,but then he destroys it by making the cardinals looks like a bunch ofdrug dependent old fools. I strongly suggest looking else where for acheap laugh because the implications the director wants to conveyweaken the Church, her honor, and the ability she has to continue to beone of the remaining moral voices this world still has. Also, the ending is, as wikipedia points out, a big let down.

Pablo Aguirre Solana

(16 April 2013)

Not credible in any way

This movie is actually money bad spent. The story line, is to myconsideration, not credible at all, not because it has to be, butbecause the fictional side of it does not make sense in any way. Theplot I assume is a bet, that intends to portrait the Pope as more humanthan humans, but in that intent I guess the story completely fails toengage with the audience. Imagine a Pope that denies himself thepossibility of being the Pope, because of his internal tribulations andpsychological doubts ? How that can happen ? Even in the utmost offantastic fiction. In this way, the movie fails to be a historic one, adrama one or a fictional one, in my humble opinion.

rossangela

(12 April 2013)

brilliant message, brilliant film

***this review may contain spoilers*** The other reviewers, in myopinion, focus too much on the minutiae of this story. I must admit myfirst reaction to the film is that it lacked coherence and punch.However, in the middle of the night, awakening with my own "road toDamascus" (as one reviewer said)regarding this film, I realized thatthe story elements served to make the statement that the authority andcredibility of the Catholic Church in the 21st century is about toundergo a complete transformation, if not collapse. With all the sexualabuse scandals worldwide, the lack of appropriate consequences for thebishops and cardinals who protected those offending priests (seeCardinal Bernard Law, who was given an important position in Rome,after leaving Boston in disgrace), and the appalling treatment of andattitudes towards women all point to an institution that can onlysurvive as long as a belief in the concept that the pope is "god'srepresentative on earth" prevails. Within the context of this film wesee that the newly elected pope is just a human being like any of us,and maybe only men, not god, have chosen him to lead. When theinfallibility of the pope is called into question, then the whole thingbegins to unravel. This belief in the pope's infallibility is what theauthority of the Catholic Church rests upon. If he's just another guy,does he have the moral authority to make pronouncements about gaymarriage, women as priests, celibacy of priests, birth control, and somany other controversial issues. At the end of the film, when Melvillefinally leaves, the cardinals are completely aghast, showing absoluteshock in their reactions, covering their mouths in horror, realizingthat their world is about to drastically change. It is no longer"business as usual." I think Moretti knew that this is exactly themessage he was unleashing with this film. And to him, I say Bravo!! Bythe way, I was raised Catholic, have a sister who is a nun, and Iattended a Jesuit university, until I was told upon entering a pre-lawclass on the first day of school that "all you women -- you go to theback of the room. You get a C for the term." There are many, many goodpeople who follow the Catholic faith. But I am referring to the malehierarchy which, since the beginnings of the church, have used allkinds of means to grasp and stay in power. This film takes a little ofthat power away from them.

Violet Weed

(11 April 2013)

Waste of time, written by an atheist so what do you expect

I am soooo glad I didn't pay anything but the eight bucks a month costof netflix for this piece of garbage. It is an insult to all Believersin God and Jesus Christ, not just an insult to Catholics. I am not aCatholic but I am a 'slain in the spirit' believer. If you are aBeliever, one of God's Children, then this 'comedy' (which it is notalthough described that way) is blasphemous. In the past 45 years Ihave read / devoured (as twere) many books by Christians and about Godand Jesus. Many of those books were written by the Popes. Each Pope hasproved to me, by his written words, that he is also Born Again. Would aCardinal, elected almost unanimously, to be Pope, reject that election?turn his back on God and God's people? I highly doubt it. I am going tolobby to have this movie removed from the 'faith and spirituality'group within Netflix to something 'darker'. It 'could' have been a goodmovie, but the only 'good' thing about it was getting to see some ofRome again after having been away from Italy for the past 30 odd years.Don't waste your time on this garbage. It's just another attack by thedevil as assisted by his minions.

Eksebeche

(09 April 2013)

Flamboyant crowd–pleaser

Not much to look at, commercial film with no foundation in reality, atool for bringing religion back to disappointed believers.Clumsyattempt at imitation of the movie "La vita è Bella" which makes it evenmore transparent. The role of the Pope was entrusted to a good actor, Iadmit to that. I thought the concept of rapid mixing of unusual, funnyand serious situation used only to receive a consolation prize at filmfestivals, but there are still people who would throw big money at thesame thing. On the other hand, one can see why they selected the actorsof this caliber and the language of course had to be Italian. Making itto be like some Hollywood blockbusters would not fare well, but atleast this can be used by the Vatican, provided they obtain a minimalpositive reviews.

davincirecebe

(09 April 2013)

Between Prometheus and this one, go play solitaire, it's more fun.

A few days ago, I watched Prometheus, and found it such a revoltingstupid waste of time, that I created my account here only to warnanyone from committing the same mistake; Now, unhappily, I have to addthis HABEMUS PAPAM to the "what-a-waste-of-time-and-money" list...Just like Prometheus, what starts out as a very well made film, withimpressively credible imagery, costumes, ambiance etc., and generatesvery high expectations, COMPLETELY loses track, and becomes an utterlymeaningless and pointless waste of time, with an INCREDIBLY bad ending.When the movie begins, we see the election of the new pope, almostunanimous...a man with a gentle and humble face, and we expect he willlead the church into a glorious new path of renovation...but then, ashe is being announced to the crowd, he screams and runs off to hischambers saying he just "can't do it". Would he had killed himself, or thrown himself off the balcony, itwould have been far better for us viewers...With this unrealistic but interesting premise, we are enticed intoexpecting "what an interesting situation, let's see the pope as anormal man", the movie then shows the church calling in a psychologistto help him out of his crisis...the 1st encounter is comical, with theshrink and the Pope surrounded by cardinals...At this point, still anticipating a good story, our expectationschange, added by the anticipation of comedy, of funny situations,something akin to "King Ralph"...but then, then...the movie DIES. Theplot simply STOPS. For the next hour and 20 minutes, we see the pope running off into thestreets, mumbling to himself, as lost as the storyline...NO deepinsights, NO FUN whatsoever, NOT ONE interesting or deeper dialogue, hejust hangs around a group of actors, one of whom is insane (a feebleand witless attempt at showing catholicism as a fraud?) so completelylost as to border insane. To think this sorry excuse of a mature manmight have been a cardinal is simply unbelievable.Oh yes, and all the while back in the Vatican, the shrink isdoing...NOTHING. He plays cards and - VOLLEYBALL(!!!) with the oldcardinals. He DOES NOT meet the pope again, don't be fooled by some"plot summaries" around.In the end, as lost and whiney as before, not one iota the wiser, thepope returns, and gives his 1st speech to the crowd: "I'm not the rightperson, sorry everybody, I'm not up to it." And walks away back intothe room. THE END. WTF??? He does NOTHING a normal man would - he does not resign, he does notappoint a successor, he does not warn the cardinals he wants to resign,he simply punches the whole of Christendom in the face with a "I'msorry" whimper. And the college of Cardinals, portrayed as a bunch of mindless agingold men fit for a nursery home, lets him go through to the end. Theleaders of a 2000 year old organization act like a collective bad caseof Alzheimer's...I'd rather they'd poisoned him the night before and chosen anothercardinal than watching that absolutely implausible "plot".A COMPLETE waste of time, money, scenery, everything...and betweenPrometheus and this one, I've wasted quite a lot of my time andpatience as well.Learn from my mistakes, keep away from these dumps, and please wish meluck, I'm trying to find a good movie to recommend, but it's not beingeasy lately.

chaos-rampant

(04 April 2013)

Habemus really?

This is going to be one of the most watchable films of the year, aconversation piece to shoot the breeze around religion. It is about anew Pope elect who, after the elaborate ritual has drawn thousands ofpeople in anxious anticipation outside the Holy See, discovers that hecannot go out on the balcony and give his blessing. He cannot be whathe's expected to be.So the eye turns inwards for self-discovery. On that level the filmadopts a tone of melancholy yearning. It is sad, just to see a manweighed down by the will of god, possibly dismayed at the silence. Onthe flipside it is funny, when all the ordained officials are worriedabout is the ceremonial shibboleth or a cup of cappuccino. It isgenerally bittersweet with old life greeting itself from a pulpit thatdemands closure, revelation. Meanwhile conjecture and idle speculationare continuously throughout the film being blabbed from the TV.But does it matter, which is to say can it weigh down on us or instilla silence in which to seek our words? I'm not just idling here, what Imean is this; although enjoyable on a very plain level, melancholy withred curtains fluttering in absence, and since it competed with bothTree of Life and Melancholia this year at Cannes, does it offer its ownascetic images to contemplate?The answer is likely no, but not for failing to provide opportunities.Exemplified in two instances, double perspectives both; one is ofcourse at the beginning, with outside the triumph and celebration oforganized faith, faith in god's will, but from inside there is only theconfused, agitated mind of a plain man who must embody that will. Theother is when the cardinals rejoice that the Pope is finally doingbetter; but of course, from our perspective, we know that inside thechambers is only an even more plain man as substitute, baffled at hisnewfound importance. He stages behind the papal curtains a play oflight and shadow for the gathered congregation outside, this is afitting image of what Moretti is looking to exemplify.So in both cases we are directed to recognize a charade of profoundestdeception or false hope. Where god should be made manifest, we haveinstead the same hapless poor schmucks as the rest of us. There is nohigher wisdom, atheists will rejoice in this. Another opinion is thathis depiction of cardinals, despite the odd sour face, as kindly oldmen, overgrown children really, is not as scathing as some might havehoped.But the old man heard at the sermon, about the wisdom that comes fromhumility. Some weighs we let fall on our shoulders, because there's notwo ways around it. So even though this spiritual absence becomesdeafening in the finale, I just cannot embrace any of it. Catholicism may or may not deserve our modern scorn, but faith isn'tdoctrine. Faith being a personal attainment, it is not an old mangreeting us from a balcony.

junkielee

(04 April 2013)

We Have a Pope

Saw the film in yesterday's Febiofest opening ceremony, with NanniMoretti and Sandrine Bonnaire's presence to receive special achievementawards for their dedication of cinema. As a Cannes' underachiever last year, the film sports a vigorouscomedic sugar-coat from the very beginning, after a majesticallyspectacular funeral of the deceased Pope and ignites by a cardinal'spratfall in the dark, then the new-elected Pope, a dark horse as noneof the potential candidates are willing to take on the burden title (anunconvincing but laughable situation inside the chamber election) isnot prepared for the supreme responsibility and fails to bulk himselfup to soldier on his first public appearance for his election, thefarce has grown out of control, exaggerated by the stunt of the elopedPope roaming around Rome all by himself (unrecognized by the mass as noone is informed the name of the new Pope out of the Vatican), also theescaping procedure is too unpractical to exert for an octogenarianMichel Piccoli. The laughters are perpetual during the screen time, but Nanni Moretti'ssarcastic lightheartedness has gradually outrun his incisive judgement,the whole buffoonery of the cardinals and regularly repeated gags arerunning out of vitality, culminating a quirky self- consciousnessduring the slow-motions of each cardinals who are competing strenuouslyfor the international-tour of the volleyball competition set in theyard just beneath the Pope's chamber (each team is divided by regionsand the intelligence quotient of all these wise men are skepticallychallenged by the wide-eyed conversions. On the other hand, the Pope'sroute on the run also falls restrained (Mr. Piccolo's approachableperformance is a pro against the odds of the priority of a ridiculekeynote).The film could have got Michel Piccoli's surefire paramountaccomplishment during his over 65 years acting career span, which isremorsefully undermined by the willful levity of the film and thedenouement is too unorthodox to endorse even from an agnosticpoint-of-view.