I think the substance is one of the only recent movies that is not subtle at all in its messaging or themes but absolutely fires on all cylinders for me
@@Tyler_W which I'm sure there isn't. It's preaching to the choir, basically. Not how the movie 'Jane" was a complete disaster at the box office. Even pro-abortion peole did not consider as "entertainment."
I usually don't comment on videos but I really enjoyed this film and I would like to offer an alternate interpretation which may address some of your concerns. I hear your objections about this film seeming very superficial and the characters seeming very rigid and one-dimensional. And I get the feeling that you were a bit frustrated at the lack of exploration of moral and religious ideas. However I would argue that this all makes sense if you interpret this film as a political drama instead of a spiritual drama. In fact the movie can be seen as the former pope pulling strings from beyond the grave. The only candidate who had a big lead at any point in the ballots was Adeyemi, but he immediately got ruined by a scandal (funnily enough he was more conservative than Tedesco but the liberal faction never considered him an adversary for some reason). The woman who showed up was invited by the pope who directed Trembaly to send her over. As for Tremblay, the pope needed to leave behind evidence in a subtle way and for someone to "accidentally" stumble upon it, which leads to his insistence that Lawrence stay on as Dean. This is because he knew that Lawrence would get suspicious enough to investigate these loose ends. This is what the "doubt" speech near the beginning was really about: it's not an examination of faith or spirituality, but a foreshadowing of his later sleuthing in the dead pope's room. Notice that at this point even after both Adeyemi and Tremblay were out, the liberal faction still never took the lead (isn't this weird given that the former pope was one of the "liberals"? Shouldn't he have given them more support?). And the boogeyman Tedesco never took the lead either until the two frontrunners were knocked out. In the end, the winner was someone the pope had secretly appointed (because he wanted him to win more than the other old geezers that he'd been working with for decades). This explains why the characters seemed to be so mechanical and one-dimensional, they were simply wound-up tin soldiers acting out the pope's precalculated plan. Therefore the film was never about the "conservative" faction vs. the "liberal" faction (because neither were serious candidates), nor was it about spirituality (because like you said it didn't examine this theme in depth at all). It was all a big political maneuvre by the former pope to appoint the successor he wanted (and therefore not really about elections either because the whole plot resolves around the pope "playing against" the whole procedure). Now why does the pope go to such lengths to achieve this? I think there are 3 reasons: 1. The movie might be trying to say is that no matter how holy you are, the conclave is a political game and all the pious cardinals want to win more than anything (even Lawrence himself, who supposedly never fantasized about his pontifical name), therefore manipulations and political assassinations are absolutely fair game. 2. While people like to preach morality and spirituality, the church is bogged down in secrecy and bureaucracy, and that Benitez, who came from humble beginnings and worked all around the world helping people in the most dangerous places, was a better leader for the church than all the paperpushers who spend more time signing documents than helping sexual assault survivors. 3. Despite all the work the nuns do for the church (organizing the logistics of the conclave for example), they don't have the power to vote for the pope or get to enjoy any high ranking positions. The appointment of an intersex pope symbolizes the long overdue entrance of the female sex into the top ranks of the church, because after all the church should represent all of humanity, and that certainly includes both sexes. This is reinforced by the last shot of the nuns walking happily into the courtyard. Note that this has nothing to do with the liberal faction, because they would never in a million years entertain the idea of women rising up in the church. So I can see that if someone saw Lawrence as the main character, they would be disappointed in how flat his character was. But he was merely a pawn (the main character in my opinion was the dead pope). And if the characters' words feel empty then I think the movie was made its point -- actions speak louder than words.
So, basically, "Conclave" is to Vatican policy what "Syriana" is to CIA/Pentagon/Washington policy: Showing the mechanics of "the power game" by fictionalized example and through a mystery plot?
I agree that when I looked back at the movie, the former pope appeared as the mastermind behind the machinations of the conclave: the mutual cancellations of Adeyemi and Turmbley(?), the elevation of Benitez. But there it is also where resemblance with reality ended: conservative Tedesco wouldn't make such emotional appeal to war, and the cardinals wouldn't elect someone based on his one minute speech without knowing more about his accomplishments and failures as bishop.
Agree with most of what you said. It felt very authentic in its portrayal of the state of the RCC. The reason adeyemi was never a threat, and was told he will never be pope, was a play on the relationship between African cardinals and the Vatican, as weve seen pope Francis being cold in his greetings towards them specifically. The churches separation from the body, which ended in great schism of 1054, is the reason why it has gone into error. Various powers are in control of the papacy. To add a woman into the top ranks of the church would signify further descent, against apostolic understanding of ecclesiology: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man”. So when Conclave concludes with a trans person, not only did it seem appropriate but, possible predictive programming
Aside from lacking subtlety in its messaging, where conclave really falls apart is in the complexity (or lack thereof) of the characters. All of the pope hopefuls outside of the two leads were just generic bad guys with no redeeming qualities to make them interesting
This video needs to be kept as a brilliant way to write a bad review. It is easy to dismiss a film by personalizing it entirely, eg, i hated it, it was boring (to me), etc. Maggie incorporates her subjectivity honestly, but directs her view - and her re-view to what is in the film and what it lacks, and how this works or does not. No ad hominem attacks or show-offy snarky cleverness. Please keep up the great work!
Yes, she often says, "film resonated with me because . . . " or: "I loathed this becasue it reminded me of . . . ." But in her defense, she is NOT writing for publication.
Absolutely spot on summation of this film. It felt too much like a present day Western progressivist macro allegory than a quasi timeless genuine delving into church intrigue irrespective of present day culture wars. But the casting and cinematography were incredible. The plot twist at the tail end felt more like a contrived last minute insert solely for dramatic effect than an organic, logical conclusion stemming from the already overstretched narrative.
I respect your opinion, but I think you completely missed the mark with this one. The ending is a little out there for sure, but the build up drama and score were just next level. We need movies like these that bring something different to the table.
@@dlc2479 Explain to me why a reviewer who finds this movie uninteresting must secretly be conservative or Christian. She loves and constantly references transgressive films that such people are horrified by. Her favorite director is Lynch, ffs. I guarantee you that she isn't affronted by the idea of an intersex pope.
Not sold on the premise but Berger’s previous film (All Quiet on the Western Front) was astonishing and Fiennes is always worth seeing no matter the role.
I totally agree. I found the script so weak and surface-level that I could not take the story or gravity of its implications seriously. I found Fiennes to be quite good wrestling with his crisis of conscience but again that is only dipped into slightly. Everything was on the nose and there was absolutely no nuance. If I had thought of the film as a pure melodrama or camp at the time I was watching it, I would have enjoyed it more.
Just finished the book and I'm curious to see how it transfers onto the screen. The book was more of a mystery thriller and very enjoyable right up until the end. The ending, at least for me, was a disappointment.
Please review some Edgar Wright films. I've only heard you briefly speak on Scott Pilgrim in a topic video, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on films like Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead for example.
I saw it yesterday, and I get what you're saying. The film is so obvious that it could be democrats and republicans arguing, but I think they do this on purpose to make a point. In that sense, it reminds me much more of "Advise and Consent" than "12 Angry Men",, another classic with Henry Fonda. Ideals go down the toilet when men (not people, but men) fight for power, no matter where or when. And I quite liked the final twist.
Spot-on review. Conclave is a silly film. It reminded me of The Real Housewives of Orange County, but a cardinal version. It’s rather a disappointing film, yet it will likely get a Best Picture nomination. I guess it’s a new low in current cinema
I heard one reviewer equate this movie to a novel you’d find at the airport. I think that analogy fits quite well. With that being said I saw this film and it was enjoyable enough. I would say it’s trash with the veneer of highbrow.
I thought the movie had its moments but holy shit was this movie a snooze fest at times and the message is so in your face at times but the twist is genuinely funny to me lol
I just got out of the theater for this one so maybe my opinion will change but I feel like maybe you wanted a different film than you got. The film was not about spiritually or faith, its about taking control and taking action. Lawrence is so doubtful of his own self that he doesn’t want to be pope, but he also believes no one else is fit, so at first he is simply going along with the process, but as he grows as a character he starts to take action and do what he wants to try to be just and right. Its not about liberal vs conservative its about this character standing up for himself and what he believes which is why the ending feels so positive, its not because the outcome is good or bad but because Lawrence managed to actually make a change and do something that he thought was the right thing, and the change may be good or bad that remains to be seen because thats how it is when you make change, its scary and unsure but its what is healthy for lawrence and I think does speak to our political system and how complacent we are That was why the film worked for me on first watch, simple yes but simple does not equal bad
Haven't seen it but can imagine your script concerns are valid, having seen so much writing that fits your description, such as anything by the much lauded Sorkin. I can, however, imagine, knowing a little about the topic of the film, that that might help one to understand why the baddies are so un-dimensional because they are the creepiest creeps of that creep-convention, which is saying an awful lot.
This is why I appreciate your reviews/perspective. When movie's like this come out I always notice certain critics coming out of the woodwork, falling over themselves to praise the G R A V I T A S of a film like this to prove they don't JUST enjoy Diseny Marvel slop
Oof. I rarely disagree with your reviews, but with this one I did. As always, I definitely see where you are coming from and respect that. However, I think there are plenty of recently released films that can be critiqued for their "not subtle" nature.
I thought this movie was hilarious. I was laughing the whole time. I agree it didn't really discuss faith in a meaningful way, but I thought that was coming from it being more of an absurdist comedy rather than driving on perspective over another.
This move is not "self-serious"; this movie is high camp. It is utterly self-mocking. I liked "Conclave."Beautiful, committed, simultaneously earnest and sarcastic.
I agree with you 💯. I went in blind and expected more. E. Rosalini was so underused. It felt subtle and subvert expectations from modernist progressive view. Beautifully shot but I felt like it was short moments to string together just to end with a twist that felt dumb.
Glad I saw it- enjoyed it overall, and I'm still thinking about Isabella Rossellini's work, as (for me) with her pensive, alert demeanor she did suggest complexities during her brief time onscreen that were not apparent in the script. I wanted to see a lot more of her character, as I found Rossellini's delineation of Sister Agnes fascinating.
I really enjoyed this film, beautifully shot. Great composition. Unfortunately, I agree with everything you said and now feel a little dumb. Like I’ve been taken. it’s okay. You’re just doing your job.
Have you ever met a Cardinal? They define "drab" 😂 Great review, your reasoning and explanatiin and understanding of cinema is fantastic. I'm seeing an advance screening of Conclave this afternoon, and will also be reviewing it in the next 24 hours at my film review channel.
Thanks for the review. I disagree, but it's always interesting to hear your perspective. You are in a distinct minority on this film, which has been highly praised by both critics and moviegoers. I thought it was the best film I've seen this year. I would not be a bit surprised if Ralph Fiennes takes him the Oscar. His was not the only outstanding performance. But few if any movies are for everyone. You mentioned The Menu. I was not a big fan of that. Another outlier for me was Challengers, which drew enormous praise earlier this year. While I admired many aspects of the filmmaking (and thought Zendaya's performance was terrific), I found myself unable to identify with any of the main characters and there were times the drumbeat score was so intrusive I could barely make out what the characters were saying. Yet it was a critical hit. But that's one of the great things about film. It's always subjective.
Just finished watching the movie. Didn't feel anything being shoved down my throat. These days, a movie that shows a little bit more of effort must be cherished, because it's a very rare thing. This is a variation or even modernization of The Shoes of the Fisherman». This time it's not a russian the elected, it's something else. The reviews I've seen were so unfavaroble, that I came out pleasently surprised. Yes, it could have been this and that... but in the end, it's a very competent movie. Maybe a bit rushed. Another 10 minutes to breath better... 12 Angry Men? Really?
Agreed! I went into this blind, thinking it was a mystery/thriller. Don't make the same mistake I did; it is not that at all. It is a very straightforward movie about who should be the next pope. The entire movie is in the Vatican with sequestered cardinals and some nuns. There isn't a lot of nuance, and it's slow/too long. Think lots of long and lingering shots. The ending took a risk, but it's so abrupt. End credits.
I disagree on "not recommended" review, I found the movie entertaining. I think this movie works the best at the cinema where you actually concentrate to all the details. I didn't mind to use 2 hours at the cinema + snacks. I can imagine that I wouldn't use my time to watch this at home. I agree that the script was extremely shallow. No depth what so ever in any of the characters or the world around them. But I actually found it interesting to follow.
Movie felt too short so it came to its conclusions to quickly and bluntly. I expected more from isabella rosalini, she felt underused. Some movies need to be 2.5 hours long, and this one definitely did. It needed more time to get to know the characters. 6/10 for me.
Ouch! I didn’t think it was bad. I’m actually shocked you don’t take Ralph Fiennes seriously as a dramatic actor. Schindlers List? Constant Gardener? Voldemort? 😂 Spoiler: The only plot issue I had was how easily Benitez won everyone over with his single speech. I feel like they could’ve have given him a few more moments to really earn the votes. However, I really liked his speech. That one line where he said something like the church isn’t the past, but “what it does next”. Very progressive. Love it. I know it’ll piss off a lot Catholics though 😂
Havent seen the film yet. But I found your review to be a reflection of what the Catholic Church is now - struggling to be relevant. When it knows it stands on very shaky grounds now, it struggles in its self-importance. With conservatives trying not to budge fearing its foundation might crumble. And progressives insisting its foundation is a stepping stone.
Great review, and totally agree in your assessment. This movie could have been great, but it ended up being just barely "ok". The musical score was horrendous. The ending was so outrageously ridiculous that it undid all the good things in it. Oh well... Yep, i don't recommend it either.
OK - Will pass on this one. Your reviews - always insightful and time-savers (in the way that I don't even have to invest 5 minutes before abandoning ship).
I’d want them to go down the fantastical route, they kinda done it with Davinchi code.. but, I wanna know about the libraries.. what and why are they hiding this.
I agree that the formality and pacing is ponderous and the political shenanigans (as you say) become farcical to the point that we know we are watching a totally fictional depiction of the Vatican for mass entertainment purposes. Even the ending cannot erase the superficial ride we take despite the ritual and formality. We have to wait for 37 minutes for anything meaningful to happen. I suppose it's well crafted but not very susbstantial.
I fell Conclave has the same short comings as Portrait of a Lady on Fire. Both are well well-done, but certain elements of the plot needlessly cater to a modernist palette. Though i feel POALOF has a much more elegant approach as compared to Conclave.
I referred to the nature of the Creator, and the malum en se Laws. I did not refer to our ongoing understanding of physical nature. The principles at issue in selecting a Pope are the former, not the latter. And that's the topic of this movie. I observe this simple fact about the movie and the review, but I am not a catholic.
I enjoyed the movie as it started, but totally disgusted when it ended. This movie went too far in pushing its social agenda, and intentionally insulted catholic values and traditions. Even as an atheist, I found the movie unbearably offensive.
Could you tell me which Catholic traditions and values you saw insulted? No, I don't think the movie was realistic, the pope's chamber would NOT be opened, a cardinal whose work is unknown by the others would NOT be elected, but I enjoyed the movie as drama of ambitions and didn't feel insulted as Catholic.
Believe me, I know what this film is about. If I want to watch a movie about JESUS, I will watch JESUS OF NAZARETH (1977) ✝. If I want to see a political and religious struggle, I will watch THE CONFLICT (1973) ✝.I have no need to waste my time with this 2024 WOKE film. Thanks Ben Shapiro for your warning.
Excellent review, you nailed it in so many ways (as reviews go, haven't seen film), especially about how beautiful cinematography on its own can not carry a movie. Etc.
You and i are both commissioned portrait artists and we both disliked this film. The main difference is i also disliked the cinematography. That blue filter and the blak/white/red color palette in EVERY FUCKING SCENE, absolutely wore me out.
I find myself rarely disagreeing with you, but this time I diametrically disagree. The movie plays like a spy thriller, and does so with aplomb. It was never meant to aim at a deep, Bergmanian rumination on faith and church, or any kind of philosophical debate, but is about people vying for a powerful position within an institution where many think power is too animalistic a concern to even be entertained, with the way it’s executed driving everything up to 11. In fact, Fiennes monologue does bring to the table an interesting idea, but the fact that we are prevented from riding and exploring that idea due to the hunger for power makes it even more potent. Fiennes, particularly, is not only a pleasure to watch but also a reminder of that rarified high level of skill that makes someone a dramatic performer, especially in this day and age where anyone who can say lines on camera is automatically celebrated as an actor. The score is extremely narrow, but that in no way detracts from the dramatization - quite the contrary (much like the narrow and repetitive score in Succession doesn’t hurt it either). I haven’t read the book, but the script is deceptively good; tight and melody dialogue and engaging scenes one after the other. In the hands of a lesser director, the constrained space could easily end up making the film feel like a stage play, but Berger elevated it into the stratosphere. The cinematography is also, as you noted, top notch and pushes some moments into near cinematic brilliance. It is Oscar friendly, yes - but so was, for example, Saving Private Ryan, and that is a classic regardless of how many statues it won. To anyone looking for an extremely solid thriller that, despite its setting, keeps sensationalism to the bare minimum, I strongly recommend this film.
This film was released in theaters only.... how full was that theater you were in? I can't imagine more than a few hundred people will watch this in its theatrical release.😐
If it seemed too preachy to the person who liked Poor Things and Barbie, two of the most unbearably preachy movies I've ever seen, then it must be unwatchable.
3:16 -Hmmmm....I watched it last night....I think we watched different films...and I am 44 year old Catholic man of African descent & British Born and living back in England.....SO I'm diverse as they come....God Bless but COMPLETELY disagree with you!
I think the substance is one of the only
recent movies that is not subtle at all in its messaging or themes but absolutely fires on all cylinders for me
Couldn't agree more!
Neither is this. As she says, he hates when they try to shove messaging down your throat.
Agreed
Lack of subtlety is a dangerous card to play because it only works when there's sufficient nuance.
@@Tyler_W which I'm sure there isn't. It's preaching to the choir, basically. Not how the movie 'Jane" was a complete disaster at the box office. Even pro-abortion peole did not consider as "entertainment."
I usually don't comment on videos but I really enjoyed this film and I would like to offer an alternate interpretation which may address some of your concerns. I hear your objections about this film seeming very superficial and the characters seeming very rigid and one-dimensional. And I get the feeling that you were a bit frustrated at the lack of exploration of moral and religious ideas. However I would argue that this all makes sense if you interpret this film as a political drama instead of a spiritual drama. In fact the movie can be seen as the former pope pulling strings from beyond the grave. The only candidate who had a big lead at any point in the ballots was Adeyemi, but he immediately got ruined by a scandal (funnily enough he was more conservative than Tedesco but the liberal faction never considered him an adversary for some reason). The woman who showed up was invited by the pope who directed Trembaly to send her over. As for Tremblay, the pope needed to leave behind evidence in a subtle way and for someone to "accidentally" stumble upon it, which leads to his insistence that Lawrence stay on as Dean. This is because he knew that Lawrence would get suspicious enough to investigate these loose ends. This is what the "doubt" speech near the beginning was really about: it's not an examination of faith or spirituality, but a foreshadowing of his later sleuthing in the dead pope's room. Notice that at this point even after both Adeyemi and Tremblay were out, the liberal faction still never took the lead (isn't this weird given that the former pope was one of the "liberals"? Shouldn't he have given them more support?). And the boogeyman Tedesco never took the lead either until the two frontrunners were knocked out. In the end, the winner was someone the pope had secretly appointed (because he wanted him to win more than the other old geezers that he'd been working with for decades). This explains why the characters seemed to be so mechanical and one-dimensional, they were simply wound-up tin soldiers acting out the pope's precalculated plan.
Therefore the film was never about the "conservative" faction vs. the "liberal" faction (because neither were serious candidates), nor was it about spirituality (because like you said it didn't examine this theme in depth at all). It was all a big political maneuvre by the former pope to appoint the successor he wanted (and therefore not really about elections either because the whole plot resolves around the pope "playing against" the whole procedure). Now why does the pope go to such lengths to achieve this? I think there are 3 reasons:
1. The movie might be trying to say is that no matter how holy you are, the conclave is a political game and all the pious cardinals want to win more than anything (even Lawrence himself, who supposedly never fantasized about his pontifical name), therefore manipulations and political assassinations are absolutely fair game.
2. While people like to preach morality and spirituality, the church is bogged down in secrecy and bureaucracy, and that Benitez, who came from humble beginnings and worked all around the world helping people in the most dangerous places, was a better leader for the church than all the paperpushers who spend more time signing documents than helping sexual assault survivors.
3. Despite all the work the nuns do for the church (organizing the logistics of the conclave for example), they don't have the power to vote for the pope or get to enjoy any high ranking positions. The appointment of an intersex pope symbolizes the long overdue entrance of the female sex into the top ranks of the church, because after all the church should represent all of humanity, and that certainly includes both sexes. This is reinforced by the last shot of the nuns walking happily into the courtyard. Note that this has nothing to do with the liberal faction, because they would never in a million years entertain the idea of women rising up in the church.
So I can see that if someone saw Lawrence as the main character, they would be disappointed in how flat his character was. But he was merely a pawn (the main character in my opinion was the dead pope). And if the characters' words feel empty then I think the movie was made its point -- actions speak louder than words.
So, basically, "Conclave" is to Vatican policy what "Syriana" is to CIA/Pentagon/Washington policy: Showing the mechanics of "the power game" by fictionalized example and through a mystery plot?
Have to disagree Deep Focus comparing it to 12 Angry Men shows her Cinema knowledge and honestly think her a GREAT reviewer!!!
I agree that when I looked back at the movie, the former pope appeared as the mastermind behind the machinations of the conclave: the mutual cancellations of Adeyemi and Turmbley(?), the elevation of Benitez. But there it is also where resemblance with reality ended: conservative Tedesco wouldn't make such emotional appeal to war, and the cardinals wouldn't elect someone based on his one minute speech without knowing more about his accomplishments and failures as bishop.
Agree with most of what you said. It felt very authentic in its portrayal of the state of the RCC. The reason adeyemi was never a threat, and was told he will never be pope, was a play on the relationship between African cardinals and the Vatican, as weve seen pope Francis being cold in his greetings towards them specifically.
The churches separation from the body, which ended in great schism of 1054, is the reason why it has gone into error. Various powers are in control of the papacy. To add a woman into the top ranks of the church would signify further descent, against apostolic understanding of ecclesiology: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man”. So when Conclave concludes with a trans person, not only did it seem appropriate but, possible predictive programming
@@jonmack2437 - Benitez in movie was intersex, not trans.
Aside from lacking subtlety in its messaging, where conclave really falls apart is in the complexity (or lack thereof) of the characters. All of the pope hopefuls outside of the two leads were just generic bad guys with no redeeming qualities to make them interesting
This video needs to be kept as a brilliant way to write a bad review. It is easy to dismiss a film by personalizing it entirely, eg, i hated it, it was boring (to me), etc. Maggie incorporates her subjectivity honestly, but directs her view - and her re-view to what is in the film and what it lacks, and how this works or does not. No ad hominem attacks or show-offy snarky cleverness. Please keep up the great work!
Yes, she often says, "film resonated with me because . . . " or: "I loathed this becasue it reminded me of . . . ." But in her defense, she is NOT writing for publication.
Absolutely spot on summation of this film. It felt too much like a present day Western progressivist macro allegory than a quasi timeless genuine delving into church intrigue irrespective of present day culture wars. But the casting and cinematography were incredible. The plot twist at the tail end felt more like a contrived last minute insert solely for dramatic effect than an organic, logical conclusion stemming from the already overstretched narrative.
In other words, wokeism dressed elegantly.
I can't agree more, you put the right words on everything that bothers me with this movie. Keep you great work !
I respect your opinion, but I think you completely missed the mark with this one. The ending is a little out there for sure, but the build up drama and score were just next level. We need movies like these that bring something different to the table.
completely agree
I'm guessing she's either conservative or christian and therefore feels affronted.
@@dlc2479 She's neither. She simply has good taste in films and isn't into mainstream crap.
@joejohnson6327 define good?
@@dlc2479 Explain to me why a reviewer who finds this movie uninteresting must secretly be conservative or Christian. She loves and constantly references transgressive films that such people are horrified by. Her favorite director is Lynch, ffs. I guarantee you that she isn't affronted by the idea of an intersex pope.
I also found it disappointing compared to the general enthusiasm for the film, with a talented cast let down by underwhelming writing.
Not sold on the premise but Berger’s previous film (All Quiet on the Western Front) was astonishing and Fiennes is always worth seeing no matter the role.
I totally agree. I found the script so weak and surface-level that I could not take the story or gravity of its implications seriously. I found Fiennes to be quite good wrestling with his crisis of conscience but again that is only dipped into slightly. Everything was on the nose and there was absolutely no nuance. If I had thought of the film as a pure melodrama or camp at the time I was watching it, I would have enjoyed it more.
Fiennes used to play drama really well. He was incredible back in the 90s in both Schindler's List and Quiz Show.
I agree, the English Patient, Constant Gardner, both are great.
He was great in last years "The Menu" too which i found a kuch better movie than Conclave
I am very fond of watching your reviews. Your reviews are articulate, insightful and detailed. Keep up the great work.
Just finished the book and I'm curious to see how it transfers onto the screen. The book was more of a mystery thriller and very enjoyable right up until the end. The ending, at least for me, was a disappointment.
i always trust your reviews and you deepen that with every vid. kudos.
Please review some Edgar Wright films. I've only heard you briefly speak on Scott Pilgrim in a topic video, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on films like Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead for example.
Why waste her time?
@@N_Loco_Parenthesis Scott Pilgrim was the best comedy of the decade and possibly a top 10 best movie of the decade.
I saw it yesterday, and I get what you're saying. The film is so obvious that it could be democrats and republicans arguing, but I think they do this on purpose to make a point. In that sense, it reminds me much more of "Advise and Consent" than "12 Angry Men",, another classic with Henry Fonda. Ideals go down the toilet when men (not people, but men) fight for power, no matter where or when. And I quite liked the final twist.
Saw it today. Agree wholeheartedly. Cinematography is beautiful. Enjoyed Isabella Rosellini as Sister Agnes.
Spot-on review. Conclave is a silly film. It reminded me of The Real Housewives of Orange County, but a cardinal version. It’s rather a disappointing film, yet it will likely get a Best Picture nomination. I guess it’s a new low in current cinema
Saw Oppenheimer on a Best Picture re-release last year was shocked how mediocre it was?!!
I heard one reviewer equate this movie to a novel you’d find at the airport. I think that analogy fits quite well. With that being said I saw this film and it was enjoyable enough. I would say it’s trash with the veneer of highbrow.
Been debating whether or not to go see this. Thanks for helping me decide.
I thought the movie had its moments but holy shit was this movie a snooze fest at times and the message is so in your face at times but the twist is genuinely funny to me lol
I was super disappointed in this one as well and don't really see the hype around Fiennes in particular. It all just feels so one note.
I just got out of the theater for this one so maybe my opinion will change but I feel like maybe you wanted a different film than you got.
The film was not about spiritually or faith, its about taking control and taking action. Lawrence is so doubtful of his own self that he doesn’t want to be pope, but he also believes no one else is fit, so at first he is simply going along with the process, but as he grows as a character he starts to take action and do what he wants to try to be just and right. Its not about liberal vs conservative its about this character standing up for himself and what he believes which is why the ending feels so positive, its not because the outcome is good or bad but because Lawrence managed to actually make a change and do something that he thought was the right thing, and the change may be good or bad that remains to be seen because thats how it is when you make change, its scary and unsure but its what is healthy for lawrence and I think does speak to our political system and how complacent we are
That was why the film worked for me on first watch, simple yes but simple does not equal bad
I love your outfit, it's a nice change from the usual. This length of the sleeves goes very well with the length of your hair ❤
Haven't seen it but can imagine your script concerns are valid, having seen so much writing that fits your description, such as anything by the much lauded Sorkin. I can, however, imagine, knowing a little about the topic of the film, that that might help one to understand why the baddies are so un-dimensional because they are the creepiest creeps of that creep-convention, which is saying an awful lot.
This is why I appreciate your reviews/perspective. When movie's like this come out I always notice certain critics coming out of the woodwork, falling over themselves to praise the G R A V I T A S of a film like this to prove they don't JUST enjoy Diseny Marvel slop
Or perhaps people just have a different opinion. I like all types of movies and I thought this was entertaining
Oof. I rarely disagree with your reviews, but with this one I did. As always, I definitely see where you are coming from and respect that.
However, I think there are plenty of recently released films that can be critiqued for their "not subtle" nature.
I thought this movie was hilarious. I was laughing the whole time. I agree it didn't really discuss faith in a meaningful way, but I thought that was coming from it being more of an absurdist comedy rather than driving on perspective over another.
This move is not "self-serious"; this movie is high camp. It is utterly self-mocking. I liked "Conclave."Beautiful, committed, simultaneously earnest and sarcastic.
I agree with you 💯. I went in blind and expected more. E. Rosalini was so underused. It felt subtle and subvert expectations from modernist progressive view. Beautifully shot but I felt like it was short moments to string together just to end with a twist that felt dumb.
Glad I saw it- enjoyed it overall, and I'm still thinking about Isabella Rossellini's work, as (for me) with her pensive, alert demeanor she did suggest complexities during her brief time onscreen that were not apparent in the script. I wanted to see a lot more of her character, as I found Rossellini's delineation of Sister Agnes fascinating.
One of the best reviews I've ever seen, Great job!
I'll check out your other videos.
Great review . I appreciate your insight. Keep up the great work
I really enjoyed this film, beautifully shot. Great composition. Unfortunately, I agree with everything you said and now feel a little dumb. Like I’ve been taken. it’s okay. You’re just doing your job.
Good acting, cinematography, costumes and locations are spoiled by a preposterous script.
Wow. I had such a different view. The ending was a downgrade. But everything else was top drawer.
Have you ever met a Cardinal? They define "drab" 😂
Great review, your reasoning and explanatiin and understanding of cinema is fantastic.
I'm seeing an advance screening of Conclave this afternoon, and will also be reviewing it in the next 24 hours at my film review channel.
I was absolutely baffled when the freshly baked Pope turned out to be intersex. Movie at least had me immersed until that moment
Yes, that ending pretty much undid all the good that was there in the movie. It was a ridiculous ending 😂😂
Is the reviewer a Catholic I wonder? I think Fiennes’ performance had more subtle comedy than she realised.
I had to look up ' Banality '. 😅 But lovely review as always.
Ok, so let me get this straight...
According to you:
Megan = Best movie of 2022
Conclave = Boring, melodramatic.
Got it.
I am so glad someone else felt this way because I could not believe the overwhelming praise this movie got; felt like I was taking crazy pills
felt the same way about Nostsrafadu?!!
Thanks for the review. I disagree, but it's always interesting to hear your perspective. You are in a distinct minority on this film, which has been highly praised by both critics and moviegoers. I thought it was the best film I've seen this year. I would not be a bit surprised if Ralph Fiennes takes him the Oscar. His was not the only outstanding performance. But few if any movies are for everyone. You mentioned The Menu. I was not a big fan of that. Another outlier for me was Challengers, which drew enormous praise earlier this year. While I admired many aspects of the filmmaking (and thought Zendaya's performance was terrific), I found myself unable to identify with any of the main characters and there were times the drumbeat score was so intrusive I could barely make out what the characters were saying. Yet it was a critical hit. But that's one of the great things about film. It's always subjective.
I personally adored this film.
Appreciate the fact that you review everything objectively without bias or agenda.
Except not really in this case.
Just finished watching the movie. Didn't feel anything being shoved down my throat. These days, a movie that shows a little bit more of effort must be cherished, because it's a very rare thing. This is a variation or even modernization of The Shoes of the Fisherman». This time it's not a russian the elected, it's something else. The reviews I've seen were so unfavaroble, that I came out pleasently surprised. Yes, it could have been this and that... but in the end, it's a very competent movie. Maybe a bit rushed. Another 10 minutes to breath better... 12 Angry Men? Really?
Agreed! I went into this blind, thinking it was a mystery/thriller. Don't make the same mistake I did; it is not that at all. It is a very straightforward movie about who should be the next pope. The entire movie is in the Vatican with sequestered cardinals and some nuns. There isn't a lot of nuance, and it's slow/too long. Think lots of long and lingering shots. The ending took a risk, but it's so abrupt. End credits.
I disagree on "not recommended" review, I found the movie entertaining. I think this movie works the best at the cinema where you actually concentrate to all the details. I didn't mind to use 2 hours at the cinema + snacks. I can imagine that I wouldn't use my time to watch this at home. I agree that the script was extremely shallow. No depth what so ever in any of the characters or the world around them. But I actually found it interesting to follow.
I understand, you are absolutely right in saying that it lacks depth, Still I think it has something to offer, I think its a good watch.
My favorite Catholic movie is "Sister Emanuelle" starring Laura Gemser. Joking aside, I kinda like "The Shoes of the Fisherman"; at least the ending.
Movie felt too short so it came to its conclusions to quickly and bluntly. I expected more from isabella rosalini, she felt underused. Some movies need to be 2.5 hours long, and this one definitely did. It needed more time to get to know the characters. 6/10 for me.
It was BORING , most boring since Ill Conformista.
Again, you are right on. I really respect your reviews.
💯 Conclave is "12 angry men" if it was written by R.L. Stine
A top film. Quality direction, acting, screenplay, music and sound. Don’t let this review put you off seeing it.
one of those rare times i agree with u completely.
Ouch! I didn’t think it was bad. I’m actually shocked you don’t take Ralph Fiennes seriously as a dramatic actor. Schindlers List? Constant Gardener? Voldemort? 😂
Spoiler:
The only plot issue I had was how easily Benitez won everyone over with his single speech. I feel like they could’ve have given him a few more moments to really earn the votes. However, I really liked his speech. That one line where he said something like the church isn’t the past, but “what it does next”. Very progressive. Love it. I know it’ll piss off a lot Catholics though 😂
I think pissing off Catholics was the central point of the book and film. It’s as delicate and nuanced as a Green Day album.
add Spider to that list
@@dandwyer5491oh wait really?
"I know it’ll piss off a lot Catholics though" - not really, we don't care
@@fernandofaria2872 did u see it?
It felt more like the first few episodes of The Borgias with Jeremy Irons.
"..so wrapped up in the smoke and mirrors..."
The black smoke and mirrors, if you will.
so surprised you didn't like this!! it worked so well for me. maybe my Catholic upbringing haha
Havent seen the film yet. But I found your review to be a reflection of what the Catholic Church is now - struggling to be relevant. When it knows it stands on very shaky grounds now, it struggles in its self-importance. With conservatives trying not to budge fearing its foundation might crumble. And progressives insisting its foundation is a stepping stone.
agree so much!!! oscar bait 101
Great review, and totally agree in your assessment. This movie could have been great, but it ended up being just barely "ok". The musical score was horrendous. The ending was so outrageously ridiculous that it undid all the good things in it. Oh well... Yep, i don't recommend it either.
I saw this film on Friday. Thought it was great. Very well executed
OK - Will pass on this one. Your reviews - always insightful and time-savers (in the way that I don't even have to invest 5 minutes before abandoning ship).
I’d want them to go down the fantastical route, they kinda done it with Davinchi code.. but, I wanna know about the libraries.. what and why are they hiding this.
I agree that the formality and pacing is ponderous and the political shenanigans (as you say) become farcical to the point that we know we are watching a totally fictional depiction of the Vatican for mass entertainment purposes. Even the ending cannot erase the superficial ride we take despite the ritual and formality. We have to wait for 37 minutes for anything meaningful to happen. I suppose it's well crafted but not very susbstantial.
Think she might need to rewatch this one. This movie is not supposed to be an exploration of faith. It’s about politics.
I fell Conclave has the same short comings as Portrait of a Lady on Fire. Both are well well-done, but certain elements of the plot needlessly cater to a modernist palette.
Though i feel POALOF has a much more elegant approach as compared to Conclave.
Spot on!
One of the best films of this year..I'll more than likely see Conclave multiple times
The Mexican gut got to be Pope in the same way The King's Speech won Best Picture. He didn't offend anybody. Ah but that final twist.
The Anthony Quinn movie "The Shoes of the Fisherman" would be a great watch before Conclave, as it basically portrays the same subject matter.
Brilliant review!
If you haven't seen it already, The Two Popes sounds like it hits all the themes this movie was trying for and is pretty good.
I sat my ass through The Shoes of the Fisherman and this thing HAS to be better than that. Therefore, I'm going.
The final reveal ruined the entire movie for me.
Love your reviews, Maggie. ❤ And you look super lovely as well. ❤
Would love to hear your thoughts on Apartment 7A!
"Progressivism" doesn't really apply to a faith in the Creator who is the same always.
It does as scientific understanding of the universe advances and makes popular beliefs about God untenable.
I referred to the nature of the Creator, and the malum en se Laws. I did not refer to our ongoing understanding of physical nature.
The principles at issue in selecting a Pope are the former, not the latter. And that's the topic of this movie. I observe this simple fact about the movie and the review, but I am not a catholic.
Why do none of these negative reviews go into WHY it rubbed them the wrong way? What was the pandering message? What was it?
I enjoyed the movie as it started, but totally disgusted when it ended. This movie went too far in pushing its social agenda, and intentionally insulted catholic values and traditions. Even as an atheist, I found the movie unbearably offensive.
Could you tell me which Catholic traditions and values you saw insulted? No, I don't think the movie was realistic, the pope's chamber would NOT be opened, a cardinal whose work is unknown by the others would NOT be elected, but I enjoyed the movie as drama of ambitions and didn't feel insulted as Catholic.
Ticket,UNSOLD!Money,SAVED! THANK YOU!
Believe me, I know what this film is about. If I want to watch a movie about JESUS, I will watch JESUS OF NAZARETH (1977) ✝. If I want to see a political and religious struggle, I will watch THE CONFLICT (1973) ✝.I have no need to waste my time with this 2024 WOKE film. Thanks Ben Shapiro for your warning.
Ben Shapiro? That whiny, repressed manbaby? 🤣
THANK YOU. Finally someone voiced my thoughts on this film. A pretentious waste of immense talent. Brava!
Was it good? In some ways, yes, in others, no. Did I like it? Yes. It's Catholic Mean Girls
preach, def weak especially if calling itself a thriller, also I’ll probably wait at least a decade before watching any new movies about Catholicism
Excellent review, you nailed it in so many ways (as reviews go, haven't seen film), especially about how beautiful cinematography on its own can not carry a movie. Etc.
It was really good until the third act.
You and i are both commissioned portrait artists and we both disliked this film. The main difference is i also disliked the cinematography. That blue filter and the blak/white/red color palette in EVERY FUCKING SCENE, absolutely wore me out.
I find myself rarely disagreeing with you, but this time I diametrically disagree. The movie plays like a spy thriller, and does so with aplomb. It was never meant to aim at a deep, Bergmanian rumination on faith and church, or any kind of philosophical debate, but is about people vying for a powerful position within an institution where many think power is too animalistic a concern to even be entertained, with the way it’s executed driving everything up to 11. In fact, Fiennes monologue does bring to the table an interesting idea, but the fact that we are prevented from riding and exploring that idea due to the hunger for power makes it even more potent. Fiennes, particularly, is not only a pleasure to watch but also a reminder of that rarified high level of skill that makes someone a dramatic performer, especially in this day and age where anyone who can say lines on camera is automatically celebrated as an actor. The score is extremely narrow, but that in no way detracts from the dramatization - quite the contrary (much like the narrow and repetitive score in Succession doesn’t hurt it either). I haven’t read the book, but the script is deceptively good; tight and melody dialogue and engaging scenes one after the other. In the hands of a lesser director, the constrained space could easily end up making the film feel like a stage play, but Berger elevated it into the stratosphere. The cinematography is also, as you noted, top notch and pushes some moments into near cinematic brilliance. It is Oscar friendly, yes - but so was, for example, Saving Private Ryan, and that is a classic regardless of how many statues it won. To anyone looking for an extremely solid thriller that, despite its setting, keeps sensationalism to the bare minimum, I strongly recommend this film.
I stopped reading after "Bergmanian" 😒
@@fernandofaria2872Porque desconheces o conceito? Google is your friend.
I hope you've got your niceties on to watch this LOL
No ma’am.
Well crafted film good actors, terrible script. Catholicism as atheist liberals imagine it.
Are you going to do Heretic?
Shame because the trailer and cinematography looked good. Great cast too.
This film was released in theaters only.... how full was that theater you were in? I can't imagine more than a few hundred people will watch this in its theatrical release.😐
I went today, and the theater was packed. (Streaming has already started I've read.)
It’s on streaming on peacock
Should be nominated for Snooze of the Year! zzzzzzz!
If it seemed too preachy to the person who liked Poor Things and Barbie, two of the most unbearably preachy movies I've ever seen, then it must be unwatchable.
3:16 -Hmmmm....I watched it last night....I think we watched different films...and I am 44 year old Catholic man of African descent & British Born and living back in England.....SO I'm diverse as they come....God Bless but COMPLETELY disagree with you!
Maybe cause you identified with a character?
@fun-with-purpose1436 Not necessarily....but I can't imagine any good story whereby you don't identify with a particular Character?,🤔Merry Christmas