Not sure why is it supposed to be a comedy. That certainly threw me off. Because as a comedy it was terrible. Even embarrassing.
As a drama, it is decent. It explores the feeling of the newly elected pope. The actors do a pretty good performance.
However, but maybe it is just me, when you can tweet the whole plot and still have space left in the tweet, something is quite wrong with the movie....and this is one of these cases.
It didn't try to be a comedy - and I agree it wouldn't have been a decent one at that. It tried to show the humorus side of everyday people in many ways while balancing it on the brink of drama. At that it suceeded. I guess that many people found amusing, that even a pope to be can be a victim of *beep* bricks as well as a bunch of cardnials can actually like cream pastries and other worldly pleasures.
I guess this wasn't supposed to be a very deep and profound picture, many people have wished it to be, but a movie that shows that fear can strike all of us. And even if you get to "the top of the world", it may have been by accident.
The subject of this thread reflects exactly my opinion about the movie.
The director was able to create great situations that could be developed or explored in ways much better than that. I'm talking about the two key situations depicted in the film:
1 - A "stray pope" wandering about the city absolutely anonymous.
It could be a source of great comic and/or mind teasing situations. The director wasted a huge opportunity of creating delightful double-meaning dialogs, considering the actual status of the main character and his anonymity.
Besides, the totally anti-climatic ending could be lifted up (independently of the pope's decision to resign) if the director showed (even during the credits) how all the people the pope interacted with during his walks, reacted whe they realized they had been chatting, dining and riding a bus with the elected pope himself.
2 - An atheist psichologyst locked-up with the world top cardinals, with nothing else to do but waste time.
With so many changes in society clashing the catholic church position, there are thousands of possible situations, discussions and dialogs that could have occurred in that place, but the director chose a lame (and boring to watch) volleyball tournament.
Sad to see such great opportunities wasted.
Sad to see such great opportunities wasted.
the bad Nikita copy-cat badass skinny actress kicking everybody's butt movies.
I think the biggest problem with this movie is that there is no character development. The pope spent the whole movie wandering around Rome looking more like an alzheimer patient than a man who is facing a great dilemma. We don't really get to know what's going on inside his head or what's the source of his troubles and his encounters with people were, like one of the posters above me already pointed out, severly underwritten. The film also went rapidly downhill after that endless and terribly unfunny volleyball scene.
shareAs far as movie endings go... this one had the lamest for sure. Great idea... terrible execution. Totally agree with the last poster about lost opportunities.
shareAlthough I come from a catholic family, I feel myself quite atheist and reluctant to believe or follow anything that happens in the Vatican. I am also quite cynic regarding the catholic Church.
However there was a moment in the movie where I felt it was actually getting a message trough. The cardinals were portrayed in such a manner there were some sort of peace of mind being transmitted to the viewer. The volleyball tournament was so entertaining and watching the pope trying and longing to become an actor touches your feelings want it or not. It is that kind of movies that makes you feel right and comfortable while you watch. I wanted it to keep going for hours.
The pace of the movie may seem slow for some people but it was very apt from my standpoint. After all I am a bit tired of the romantic comedies, the bad Matrix copy-cat kungfu flying nonsense movies, the bad Nikita copy-cat badass skinny actress kicking everybody's butt movies. the endless eye candy CGI movies they keep coming up with or the infinite parade of reboots and remakes of movies I already have seen; at least this was something different, maybe best to watch some Sunday afternoon with a nice drink.
I'm afraid this is a masterpiece of satire. You just did not get it. And actually, looking at what happened right after, with Ratzinger, in real life, life imitated art, so the film was even more poignant and with perfect timing.
shareIt's a bitter sweet comedy, if you want. I liked it. I love Moretti's humour; there is a sort of tenderness in his movies that never makes you laugh out loud but it's still amusing and uplifting.
Moreover I remember an interview after the release of this movie where he said he's an atheist and he'sorry ("non credo e mi dispiace" - am I right?); in a way this movie encapsulate this phrase and probably it wasn't his intention to make us laugh hard.
In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.
It was lame it was eating a dinner you think will be great but you feel like something is missing. I liked the scenes with the cardinals. I wish the pope would have done something more. May be in the play and argue with the other actor about who got the part.
shareHave you seen it in Italian?
I know I have, and I found some of the scenes really hilarious. It's a great film, because it is deep and moving, but it's also funny.
I think Nanni Moretti's dialogues with the cardinal were wonderful. His delivery in particular is just perfect, great comic timing.
I like that those scenes were kind of making fun of the cardinals, but at the same time, there was a lot of humanity, almost tenderness in them. It was obviously a satire, but not just another "hahaha look at how stupid religion is" kind of film.