Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by Javi on Dec 20, 2019 6:24:06 GMT
Great fun. (Now this is my kind of Marriage Story). In a year of great male acting duos (De Niro-Pacino, Dafoe-Pattinson) we can safely add Pryce-Hopkins to the list. You kinda wish there was a 4-hour version of this thing with them discussing 2000 years of Christian history, but I'll take what I can get. Cleverly conceived: Ratzinger, whose small world still abides by the laws of Hegel and Aristotle (a fixed eternal truth; an unmovable God) vs. Francis, a natural man, a Jesuit whose views on God border on the pagan. When Pryce says "Even God is changing" and the camera cuts to Hopkins's reaction it's not just a great comic moment but perfect characterization too. (Meirelles' camera is all for movement and change, too).
This to me is the heart of the film--not the political background but watching two great characters trying to come to grips with each other's way of feeling God, which is perhaps impossible: the Latin American Pope who sees God through action and the messiness of worldly life and the intellectual European philosopher-pope (a dying breed) tormented and brought down by God's Silence. There's great poignancy to Ratzinger's arc precisely because of how unintelligible his predicament is to a modern audience or even to a modern priest. But they can and do connect on a human level... that's sort of the movie's magic really.
A major flaw, and it brings the movie down in a big way: the flashbacks, rife with bad acting and poor writing, are a distressingly terrible idea. You just wanna go back to Hopkins and Pryce all the time. I will say this though: it does not shy away from Bergoglio's controversial involvement with Argentina's military junta in the 70s, his meetings with dictator Vidal, etc. But when the movie tries to get political it falters; it wants to be too many things at once.
One last thing: stunning recreation of the Sistine Chapel. Meirelles uses scenes from Michelangelo's Last Judgement throughout the film... and each image he chooses has a specific meaning and purpose. Terrific use of location in general.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 20, 2019 15:02:06 GMT
In a year of great male acting duos (De Niro-Pacino, Dafoe-Pattinson) Also Bale-Damon. The flashbacks were the only severe flaw of the movie. Didn't like that they tried to investigate Pryce's past. Show us both their pasts (allegations against Hopkins' pope were also true and a very important deal in the catholic church) or show us nothing. The heart of the film was these two men discussing faith and God. If the background of both was shown on screen, then the film would have lost its purpose. But you can't have only one background story and simply just "forget" that the other pope was accused of letting child abuse happen by his priests... How did you like the performances? I wouldn't be surprised if these guys were nominated...
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 1,271
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Dec 21, 2019 0:05:01 GMT
Within the Anthony McCarten universe, I like this one the best, but in the end I think it works betters because of Meirelles and the very entertaining Pryce/Hopkins duo, both very good, especially Hopkins, at times you can’t tell if he’s being honest or there’s something more but the screenplay at times felt like was trying to make a case for him ! Gave me apology vibes in the end.
I’m sure it’s going to be a hit this holidays but I can’t imagine watching this with my family before a heated debate takes place... pass...
PS i think there’s no category fraud here, Hopkins doesn’t have the development than Francis has.
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by Javi on Dec 21, 2019 0:23:21 GMT
In a year of great male acting duos (De Niro-Pacino, Dafoe-Pattinson) Also Bale-Damon. The flashbacks were the only severe flaw of the movie. Didn't like that they tried to investigate Pryce's past. Show us both their pasts (allegations against Hopkins' pope were also true and a very important deal in the catholic church) or show us nothing. The heart of the film was these two men discussing faith and God. If the background of both was shown on screen, then the film would have lost its purpose. But you can't have only one background story and simply just "forget" that the other pope was accused of letting child abuse happen by his priests... How did you like the performances? I wouldn't be surprised if these guys were nominated... Wrote a bit on the performances in the other thread. Loved them both. I no longer think they're getting nominated... but there's a chance still. Agreed on the flashbacks. If you're going to give a backstory to Francis, give one to Benedict. But I would've preferred no flashbacks at all... the movie really doesn't do anything or go anywhere with this particular material.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 21, 2019 0:37:12 GMT
i think there’s no category fraud here, Hopkins doesn’t have the development than Francis has. Yeah, no category fraud here.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Dec 21, 2019 1:20:13 GMT
Really great stuff, obviously carried by Pryce and Hopkins. But I enjoyed the direction, cinematography, and production design as well. I’m still not predicting Pryce to crack Best Actor but he’s very deserving and I’d be quite pleased if he did.
|
|
|
Post by getclutch on Dec 21, 2019 1:44:21 GMT
Never thought I would enjoy this film as much as I originally intended. The writing, the photography & the location shooting along with the acting, just top notch. My mother’s birthday is on October 16th which is the same day that John Paul II was elected Pope. Nevertheless, she enjoyed the film as much as I did. Also, she is Polish so it meant so much to her to see it. Overall, this film was carried by Pryce/Hopkins therefore I got a gut feeling it will get better on a re-watch.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Dec 21, 2019 5:37:03 GMT
Pryce was pretty amazing, but I found myself bored whenever he wasn't on screen. I almost wanted to skip the flashbacks.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 21, 2019 8:57:31 GMT
7.5+ but less than 8 -
I also saw this as being "better than Marriage Story" in some ways as Javi mentioned in his OP - the acting is at least as good here and in service of a more honest film in its way about a kind of love too. More importantly it's a far more visually interesting and broader one than than the insular Marriage Story too - I like how the movie uses nature to represent the Church and Faith - in an early scene the two men are separated by a tree in Hopkins garden and it's a striking image. Similar things (rocks, water, architecture, paintings) represent not just the Church but Christ constantly at key points and it doesn't feel redundant. On the downside the film feels like it verbally plays too long and is a bit too comfy in how it resolves. Not a great movie, but a quite good and serious one about issues of faith (and life)....which is pretty rare.
|
|
jakob
Full Member
Posts: 827
Likes: 698
|
Post by jakob on Dec 22, 2019 2:18:14 GMT
Watching it now and I’m curious: is Pryce’s Spanish dubbed or is it just me? It’s just that when he starts speaking Spanish, it’s as though his voice literally changes.
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by Javi on Dec 22, 2019 2:24:42 GMT
Watching it now and I’m curious: is Pryce’s Spanish dubbed or is it just me? It’s just that when he starts speaking Spanish, it’s as though his voice literally sounds like it changes. It is yeah and it's pretty noticeable sadly.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 22, 2019 4:43:00 GMT
I liked this a lot. Not anything super original, but a well acted drama that deals with big ideas. Wish there were more movies along those lines these days. Both performances deserve nods. 8/10 from me. Might be my second or third favorite of the year of what I've seen. Great fun. (Now this is my kind of Marriage Story) Not exactly the first comparison I would think to make but it is considerably better.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 22, 2019 9:24:24 GMT
Watching it now and I’m curious: is Pryce’s Spanish dubbed or is it just me? It’s just that when he starts speaking Spanish, it’s as though his voice literally changes. I kind of noticed it also but I wasn't sure...
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Dec 22, 2019 18:03:54 GMT
7/10. Oddly hyper and maybe overdone in style and structure, at times interesting like how they blend Pryce and Hopkins with the archive footage, but at times jarring too - some great scenes aren’t trusted to play out without interruption, some of the visuals look overexposed as if they’re in a clinic. But... Pryce/Hopkins carry this thru some tricky tones. The piano scene is one of my fav scenes of the year. Building up, without you realizing, to that sort of gutting Hopkins moment - “I know He’s here... but He doesn’t laugh. At least I don’t hear Him laughing.” Hopkins is very good in the other big stand out scene in the Sistine Chapel. Pryce maybe most impressed me, he's so wonderful and thoughtful here. He’s having a terrific year, two very different perfs I’d put in his Top 5 (Brazil, Carrington, Glengarry, Dox Quixote, Two Popes).
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by Javi on Dec 23, 2019 11:32:46 GMT
7/10. Oddly hyper and maybe overdone in style and structure, at times interesting like how they blend Pryce and Hopkins with the archive footage, but at times jarring too - some great scenes aren’t trusted to play out without interruption, some of the visuals look overexposed as if they’re in a clinic. But... Pryce/Hopkins carry this thru some tricky tones. The piano scene is one of my fav scenes of the year. Building up, without you realizing, to that sort of gutting Hopkins moment - “I know He’s here... but He doesn’t laugh. At least I don’t hear Him laughing.” Hopkins is very good in the other big stand out scene in the Sistine Chapel. Pryce maybe most impressed me, he's so wonderful and thoughtful here. He’s having a terrific year, two very different perfs I’d put in his Top 5 (Brazil, Carrington, Glengarry, Dox Quixote, Two Popes). Pryce is one of those actors who becomes more and more interesting with age. Would you recommend the Don Quixote pic?
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Dec 23, 2019 14:26:39 GMT
Gonna copy/paste what I wrote about it in the other thread.
It's okay.
I can't quite agree with the raves because the film falls into many of the traps I feared it would going into it: it never really holds any of its characters accountable for anything, never challenges the audience into questioning their allegiance to these people and the institution they belong to, and never takes a particularly deep look into the crimes of the Church and its leaders. It's very present-day Disney in the way it approaches all of its thorniest themes from a carefully calculated distance, so as not to offend anybody or rock the boat too much. It argues that it's not the system itself that's rotten, just a few bad apples, and that there's nothing to be questioned here because the times they are a-changin' and we have a cool pope now who's very woke and very 21st century. Which, I mean, fuck you.
With that said, it's surprisingly watchable as far as safe awards bait goes, and funnier than I expected. A lesser director might've made this a slog to get through, but Meirelles' very dynamic work keeps things moving at a pretty quick pace, with editing and cinematography that's often reminiscent of Paul Greengrass's docu style (albeit a much cleaner, less disorienting version of that).
And then there's Pryce and Hopkins, who are a delight to watch even if a lot of the material they have to work with is essentially summed up as "two popes chilling in the Vatican five feet apart cause they're not gay". Both turn in finely calibrated and committed work, and the film really comes alive when it's just the two of them firing dialogue that may or may not be McCarten's at each other for minutes on end.
So yeah. It's diplomatic to a fault, does nothing we haven't seen many many times before, and Meirelles' sledgehammer plea for unity and compassion within the safe confines of the status quo probably won't resonate as strongly with this board as it will with the general audiences who'll no doubt continue to eat this right up once it hits Netflix, but it's nonetheless elevated and made reasonably compelling by mostly sharp directing and two very good lead performances. It's fine.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Dec 23, 2019 14:57:26 GMT
Pryce was pretty amazing, but I found myself bored whenever he wasn't on screen. I almost wanted to skip the flashbacks. Agreed, the flashbacks bring the entire film down a notch and stop it dead in its tracks. The second half drags a lot more than it should thanks to all the time spent cutting away from Pryce and Hopkins.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Dec 23, 2019 23:09:26 GMT
7/10. Oddly hyper and maybe overdone in style and structure, at times interesting like how they blend Pryce and Hopkins with the archive footage, but at times jarring too - some great scenes aren’t trusted to play out without interruption, some of the visuals look overexposed as if they’re in a clinic. But... Pryce/Hopkins carry this thru some tricky tones. The piano scene is one of my fav scenes of the year. Building up, without you realizing, to that sort of gutting Hopkins moment - “I know He’s here... but He doesn’t laugh. At least I don’t hear Him laughing.” Hopkins is very good in the other big stand out scene in the Sistine Chapel. Pryce maybe most impressed me, he's so wonderful and thoughtful here. He’s having a terrific year, two very different perfs I’d put in his Top 5 (Brazil, Carrington, Glengarry, Dox Quixote, Two Popes). Pryce is one of those actors who becomes more and more interesting with age. Would you recommend the Don Quixote pic? He certainly has. And surprisingly comedic - as in Quixote where he's the stand out, just a really funny performance but layers in a drained lofty sadness. The pic itself is okay, it feels overlong but there are some special moments.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Dec 24, 2019 11:49:59 GMT
Very arresting when Pryce and Hopkins were on screen. It was fun to watch them battling with their conservative and liberal ideologies but the film was boring when they're not present. It shouldn't coz those flashback scenes are pivotal to Pryce's character's beliefs and moral dilemma but its where the movie falls down. Also kudos to the makers they actually built the Sistine Chapel for this- 7/10
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Dec 24, 2019 23:56:36 GMT
Despite the hectiс editing (which was a clear attempt to inject energy into something most viewers would probably perceive as dull) and crummy camcorder-looking visuals I felt that the first hour of the film was going on pretty strong, so much so that I started to feel some respect for McCarten who finally gave me some dialogue worth listening to. The conversations, be it combative or casual, between Pryce and Hopkins were quite engaging and I got into their flow quite easily. What a shame then that the 25-minute segment involving Pryce's backstory stopped the momentum dead in its tracks and that the movie never really quite recovered after that. Just as "The Aeronauts" should've stayed inside the balloon throughout, this should've just focused on the ongoing dialogue between the characters and it would've been truly fine. Instead it delivers a whole chunk of boredom just as things get interesting. I'm even willing to kinda sorta forgive the movie for its unwillingness to get into uncomfortable subjects (although the one unforgivable moment is when Hopkins finally starts to go into detail about the child molestation and as he does, the sound literally drowns out his words so as not to make the viewers too uncomfortable - what a copout), but movie-stopping boredom is a sin that no confession will absolve. And the 'cute' scenes were a bit phony too.
Pryce is quite good but Hopkins is the real deal for me here if we talk performances. I just wish they gave their services to a better film.
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Dec 28, 2019 12:24:45 GMT
It is a decent film and biopic about the last two popes with some really good acting. The story itself was interesting but the film often had some slower moments because a lot of the conversations were not too interesting or leading to anything. There were some really good moments though and I liked that director Fernando Meirelles showed the human sides of the two holy men. Jonathan Pryce absolutely nailed the role and also Anthony Hopkins delivers one of his best performances in years. It is truly great to see the two actors having an acting showdown on screen. The film is also an interesting lesson in history because we get a deep insight into the pasts of the two popes. Definitely a solid film, nothing too special and I did not like the fast cuts/editing throughout the film but worth to see for Hopkins and Pryce who both wonderfully dominated the screen.
Current Nominations for:
Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Anthony Hopkins
Rating: 7/10
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 31, 2019 14:05:22 GMT
Happy birthday to the LEGEND that is Anthony Hopkins!!!
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 31, 2019 14:45:28 GMT
Happy birthday to the LEGEND that is Anthony Hopkins!!! Happy Birthday!! - An all-time actor and who could legitimately - across all 3 mediums - TV/Stage/Film - be convincingly argued as the single greatest UK actor since Olivier.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 31, 2019 20:35:28 GMT
Aw heck, I think I really liked this one. The McCarten-ism of it all still clings to it like Pigpen's dirt cloud, but Meirelles isn't nearly as heavy-handed as Tom Hooper or Joe Wright or Bryan Singer Dexter Fletcher, and he just lets Pryce and Hopkins do their thing and they are just so good at it and have a very fine rapport. Hopkins in particular is fiercely compelling; I kinda wish the film had been more about him, as I feel that Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is just a more fascinating figure, especially with his controversies. Yeah, give me a Dafoe/Song/Pacino/Pesci/Hopkins lineup and I'd call it an all-timer.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Jan 21, 2020 0:24:28 GMT
Pryce and Hopkins are good together (though neither were anywhere near nom-worthy imo), but this is probably the preeminent snoozefest of 2019. I don't think I was engrossed in what was going on one bit until the last 20 minutes or so. Those last 20 minutes would have hit pretty hard if the first hour and a half wasn't so severely bogged down by the uninvolving flashback scenes and static conversation scenes.
I'd like to see Pryce and Hopkins as rival British crime bosses trying to broker a peace deal or something instead of going through the motions in a bore like this.
5.5/10
|
|