The Two Popes reviews

Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10748
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Two Popes reviews

Post by Sabin »

Didn't really work for me but not without interest.

The most interesting thing to me about The Two Popes was how it got me to reexamine and re-appreciate what I'd just seen. The first third of The Two Popes is a pretty simplistic progressive vs. conservative stage play. Probably not terribly representative of the actual dialogue between them nor totally compelling but fine as far as it goes. I had no idea how much more strained it was about to get.Then Bergoglio starts to have flashbacks of his time as a young man called by God and man, I started to miss that first part! This film is not terribly adept at incorporating flashbacks organically. But the flashback wasn't terribly substantive, it was more like a black and white anecdote about one man finding God. I didn't like it but it wasn't unbearable. Then McCarten hits the midpoint of the film and we learn Benedict is going to step down and we plunge deeper into Bergoglio's past with fully colored flashbacks of the sins of his past and his road to redemption and the filmmaking (and screenwriting) just isn't visionary enough to meld the two together. It's not helped by the fact that this film is not well shot or edited. The film zooms in at random and cuts mid-sentence for strained effect. A shot of Anthony Hopkins eating pizza is shot with the anxiety of something out of The Hurt Locker. At every point, I felt as though this entire film was straining for feature-length and feature-resonance with every fiber of its being.

For me, Jonathan Pryce kept the film going with his characters kindness. He's a charming man and he makes you believe that he is simultaneously haunted by his past but also truly one with God. Hopkins is fun as well but in a more familiar way. Both are worthy enough of nominations. I don't get the sense that either will be nominated as it just doesn't seem like this film is in the conversation enough. I can see the film managing Cinematography and Film Editing nominations -- for the wrong reasons though.

I wonder what people of Catholic faith think of this film. As a Jew, I've admired Pope Francis from afar but I don't claim to know much about the inner workings of the Catholic Church. I've always wondered if he was essentially part of a rebranding exercise to assist a controversy-plagued institution, more of a move of pragmatism than a (pardon the phrase) "Come to Jesus Moment" for the Church, which seems a bit naive. Anyway, this is certainly an off-topic musing but I wonder if this film isn't offensively simplistic (or just offensive) to those of faith.
"How's the despair?"
danfrank
Assistant
Posts: 908
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Fair Play, CA

Re: The Two Popes reviews

Post by danfrank »

There could have been a good movie here if it had kept its focus on the philosophical/canonical differences between these two. Instead it was unfocused, at times very corny, and had a muddled message. The shakey camerawork and rapid-fire editing was all wrong for this kind of movie. Jonathan Pryce comes off best for me in his portrayal of a very compassionate man. I think Damien would have loathed Anthony Hopkins in this, as his performance was mannered as all get out. For example, did he have to place a long pause in the middle of every sentence? It became a distraction for me. I didn’t dislike this quite at the level of Precious, but found it pretty disappointing.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The Two Popes reviews

Post by Big Magilla »

I think the last Wim Wenders film I've seen was 2005's Don't Come Knocking. The last documentary was probably 1999's Buena Vista Social Club.

I have seen the trailer for Wenders' Pope Francis documentary which covers the pope while in office and features much of the material we've seen in the news in real time. McCarten's The Two Popes presents him behind the scenes as he moves reluctantly to that office. It's a completely different approach.
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: The Two Popes reviews

Post by Precious Doll »

Magilla,

Just curious if you have seen Wim Wender's Pope Francis as that is my only exposure to the 'real' Francis. I don't feel Pryce remotely captured him whilst Hopkins was in and out of accents, sort of a fumbling between Welsh and German but I know nothing of Benedict.

Ironically this was of all the Netflix films for 2019 (though I have yet to see Uncut Gems which drop outside of the U.S. in late January) the one that I was most looking forward to. Ah, well it goes as it goes. I didn't expect the film to really tackle any of the numerous delicate issues facing the Catholic Church and whilst there was passing mention of them it mattered not because the conversations overall were not engaging and offered no food for thought.

Had no idea Anthony McCarten wrote it and given his previous efforts that certainly explains a lot. But this is a big drop in quality for Meirelles from City of Gold and The Constant Gardner to this. I've not seen such a fall from grace since Gregg Araki went from Mysterious Skin to Smiley Face.

My partner loathed The Two Popes even more than I did though I didn't get the very harsh reaction from him that I did at the end of the Wender's documentary which we saw at the cinema which was "Why the fuck did you make me sit through that shit" which was a fair enough comment to which I shrugged "Well, its a Wim Wenders film - some of his documentaries have been outstanding."
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The Two Popes reviews

Post by Big Magilla »

Precious, your argument seems to be more with Anthony McCarten's screenplay than Meirelles' direction.

McCarten's screenplays, two of which have gotten him Oscar nominations, helped three actors thus far win Oscars for playing real life people, Stephen Hawking, Winston Churchill and Freddie Mercury in The Theory of Everything, Darkest Hour and Bohemian Rhapsody, respectively. He does write stuff about legendary figures that people find intriguing.

The conversations between the two popes are imagined so no, they don't seem real, but the characterizations are true to life. Pryce looks so much like the real pope that his own son called him up when Francis was elected to ask him if was it was he (Pryce) who had just become pope. It was perfect casting, as was Hopkins' uncanny portrayal of Benedict.

It may not be a Best Picture candidate, but those performances deserve recognition for sure.
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: The Two Popes reviews

Post by Precious Doll »

The biggest problem of the film was that none of the conversations between the two were not remotely believably. Just about every bit of diagloue felt phoney and and false. I never bought any of it for a minute. Admittedly I not familiar with the two men aside from the Wim Wenders documentary Pope Francis and I don't know who Jonathan Pryce thought he was portraying but it was not remotely like the man in the Wenders documentary. The Queen & A Special Relationship are great examples of films with private conversations between famous people that rang true - they were exactly how I would expect them to response to the situations at hand. The Two Popes is a sin against cinema.

And what a come down for the once promising Fernando Meirelles. He exploded onto the international cinema scene with City of God and delivered another powerful film with The Constant Gardner. Blindness was seen by many as a misstep (I'm in the minority that admired the film) and 360 is rightfully virtually forgotten. The Two Popes has all the trademarks of an aspiring filmmaker trying to breathe something from nothing with its ugly hand held camera work and pretentious flashbacks shot in various aspect ratios.

Worst film of the year.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The Two Popes reviews

Post by Big Magilla »

It's Pope Francis' story and Jonathan Pryce is wonderful in the part, but Anthony Hopkins is the revelation. He absolutely captures Pope Benedict who I got to see up close when I visited the Vatican in 2010. The walk, the droopy left eye (even then), the joy in greeting people which can't be faked no matter what his private demons may have been in private, are all there.

Right now, Pryce is my choice for Best Actor but Hopkins is gaining on me for Supporting Actor as well.

Interestingly, the flashbacks focus on Francis' failures as much as his successes, but Benedict's more troubling past is largely kept out of the narrative.

Favorite exchange:

Hopkins: "Why not two popes, there were three in 1978."
Pryce: awkward look
Hopkins: "It was a German joke, it's not supposed to be funny."
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: The Two Popes reviews

Post by Mister Tee »

Though I've been a recovering Catholic since the Nixon administration, I've retained enough interest in the religion and its hierarchy that the Benedict/Francis pas de deux gripped me in real time, and I find at least a good bit of The Two Popes engaging. The first hour of the film is the best, as we watch two principals engage in a philosophical struggle, one to which we (and one of those principals) know the outcome. The ultimate winner of the standoff remains in the dark throughout the colloquium, but we can easily see WHY he's the winner. Cut away the theological jargon, and these conversations subtextually amount to "They just like you, and they've never liked me" (you can imagine a similar exchange between Nixon and JFK). Vatican politics, like all politics, have a measure of popularity contest to them, and Bergoglio (Pope Francis) simply has the natural ability to connect with people that has made him such a popular Pope.

I think the film falters in the late going, in two ways. First, while the earlier scenes have been mercifully free of kitsch, scenes like the pizza-eating remind us that a pandering side of Anthony McCarten is always waiting to emerge (the scene isn't quite the cringing horror the underground sequence in Darkest Hour was, but it gets uncomfortably close). More damagingly, the film takes a sudden turn into a different movie, one that consists of a long flashback to Bergoglio's 1970s years dealing with a junta in Argentina. I'm sure the film feels it's being balanced by showing these very dubious actions in Bergolio's past, and they're not without interest on their own (plus they're crucial to understanding why Bergoglio became the sort of priest he did). But, structurally, it takes us out of the movie we thought we were watching (I hadn't realized how much I was enjoying the mano a mano until I was cut off from it), and I don't think the film ever completely regains its footing. (And the credits sequence is godawful -- first for the typical "look, the real people" shots, and then for another kitschy scene involving the World Cup.)

McCarten does prove once again his ability to create awards-contending roles for good actors. Jonathan Pryce emerges effortlessly as the film's hero, but he does it with restraint; it's Bergoglio's common sense and humility that endear him most to us, and Pryce knows just how to underplay it for maximum effect. Hopkins has the more difficult role, given that Benedict embodies all that is cranky and retro in contemporary Catholicism. So, it's to his credit that, without softening the man, Hopkins makes him a figure of sympathy and interest. I can't recall the last time I liked a Hopkins performance this much.

This is, at bottom, a very old-fashioned piece of work, and the Telluride responses were way over the top. But, given the genre limitations, I found it an enjoyable film, and the performances are very much worth seeing.
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: The Two Popes reviews

Post by FilmFan720 »

I have Robbie in, but for Bombshell.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The Two Popes reviews

Post by Big Magilla »

Yeah, they should have taken Robbie out by now.
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: The Two Popes reviews

Post by Reza »

Big Magilla wrote:They have Dern in the lead for Supporting Actress followed by Streep, Bening, Johanssen (for Jojo Rabbit) and Robbie with Kidman in sixth place.
Surely not Robbie for her Sharon Tate? She is charming, of course, but it's hardly a performance worth nominating. She merely postures throughout.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The Two Popes reviews

Post by Big Magilla »

It's also worth noting that three of the last four Best Actor winners (Redmayne, Oldman, Malek) won with McCarten scripts. Four out of five wouldn't be out of the question.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The Two Popes reviews

Post by Big Magilla »

Awards Circuit's new predictions (dated tomorrow) has Pryce in first place for Best Actor over Driver, DiCaprio, Banderas and Bale with Phoenix in sixth place.

They have Hopkins in fourth place for Supporting Actor behind Pitt, Pacino and Alda with Hanks in fifth place and Dafoe in sixth.

They have Johanssen over Zellweger, Erivo, Woodard and Ronan with Awkwfina in sixth place for Best Actress.

They have Dern in the lead for Supporting Actress followed by Streep, Bening, Johanssen (for Jojo Rabbit) and Robbie with Kidman in sixth place.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: The Two Popes reviews

Post by Mister Tee »

Variety, for some reason super-slow at posting this. But another enthusiastic response.

With McCarten, you always have to be wary, but, unlike with Darkest Hour -- where the year-ahead blogger push for Oldman seemed to color reactions -- there seems to be genuinely surprised affection for this film, especially the performances.

This is one of those things that can flit through a veteran Oscar-watcher's mind, and it may never come to pass, but...seeing all the films making their mark so far, I'm reminded of 70s Oscar races, where youngish New Hollywood actors competed with (and often lost to) sentimental favorites. Imagine a slate of Adam Driver, Joaquin Phoenix and Timothee Chalamet, with Jonathan Pryce swooping in to play Art Carney.

https://variety.com/2019/film/reviews/t ... 203321085/
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The Two Popes reviews

Post by Big Magilla »

I was stunned by the trailer which I watched for the first time yesterday.

Priceless non-religious dialogue:

Pryce (as the future Pope Francis) to Hopkins (as Pope Benedict): "Do you know the Beatles?" Hopkins: "Yes, I know the Beatles." Pryce: "Eleanor Rigby." Hopkins: "I don't know her."

Hopkins and Pryce both have meaty roles with the never nominated Pryce, who I remember more from Brazil and Carrington than I do Evita which I'd forgotten he was in, being the one who is overdue for major awards recognition. I can easily see both being nominated with Pryce winning.
Post Reply

Return to “2019”