Search
Search results
The Marinated Meeple (1848 KP) created a poll about in Oscars Discussion
Jan 29, 2020
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 29, 2020
Well Acted
In 2012, the conservative Pope Benedict - citing failing health - made the rare move of stepping down from the Papacy. He was, ultimately, replaced by the more Liberal Pope Francis. THE TWO POPES is a fictional account of a conversation that these two men had prior to Benedict's stepping down.
If you are looking for a hard-hitting expose of the issues the Catholic Church was facing at the time with the conservative Benedict facing off against the Liberal Francis, then you will be disappointed. But...if you are looking for an interesting, gentle acting exercise where 2 strong actors take Center Stage to move from enemies to frenemies to friends, then you will enjoy THE TWO POPES.
The review of this film begins and ends with the performances of the 2 leads - Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis (Cardinal Bergoglio in the film) and Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict - and they are terrific. Pryce was nominated in the Best Actor Oscar category while Hopkins sits in the Best Supporting Actor category (deservedly so - Pryce has much more screen time and focus).
As Francis, Pryce is conflicted by both what is currently happening with the Church and his own demons. His Cardinal Bergoglio is alternately strong and weak - and Pryce plays this well. It is just about the best performance I have ever seen from Pryce on film. Unfortunately for him, he pales in comparison with the withering, wilted and strong portrayal of Pope Benedict that is put on by Hopkins. This is Sir Anthony's best work in years and shows that this ol' trouper "still has it." As I stated earlier, they are both nominated (deservedly) for Oscars, for it is an actor's movie, but only Hopkins would be a deserving winner (though neither of them will win).
THE TWO POPES is Directed by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles based on a screen play by Anthony McCarten (DARKEST HOUR). McCarten's script is stronger than Meirelles Direction. I felt like I was watching a filmed stage play with both Popes sitting and talking for long stretches of time. Do not be surprised to see a stage version of this film on Broadway sometime soon. It played more like an extended episode of Masterpiece Theater than a Theatrical Film.
At just over 2 hours, this film is just a bit too long, but (of course) both Popes have their "Oscar moment" in the tail end of the movie so that helps it to cross the finish line strong.
If you are looking for strong acting, look no further than THE TWO POPES, you will not be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If you are looking for a hard-hitting expose of the issues the Catholic Church was facing at the time with the conservative Benedict facing off against the Liberal Francis, then you will be disappointed. But...if you are looking for an interesting, gentle acting exercise where 2 strong actors take Center Stage to move from enemies to frenemies to friends, then you will enjoy THE TWO POPES.
The review of this film begins and ends with the performances of the 2 leads - Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis (Cardinal Bergoglio in the film) and Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict - and they are terrific. Pryce was nominated in the Best Actor Oscar category while Hopkins sits in the Best Supporting Actor category (deservedly so - Pryce has much more screen time and focus).
As Francis, Pryce is conflicted by both what is currently happening with the Church and his own demons. His Cardinal Bergoglio is alternately strong and weak - and Pryce plays this well. It is just about the best performance I have ever seen from Pryce on film. Unfortunately for him, he pales in comparison with the withering, wilted and strong portrayal of Pope Benedict that is put on by Hopkins. This is Sir Anthony's best work in years and shows that this ol' trouper "still has it." As I stated earlier, they are both nominated (deservedly) for Oscars, for it is an actor's movie, but only Hopkins would be a deserving winner (though neither of them will win).
THE TWO POPES is Directed by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles based on a screen play by Anthony McCarten (DARKEST HOUR). McCarten's script is stronger than Meirelles Direction. I felt like I was watching a filmed stage play with both Popes sitting and talking for long stretches of time. Do not be surprised to see a stage version of this film on Broadway sometime soon. It played more like an extended episode of Masterpiece Theater than a Theatrical Film.
At just over 2 hours, this film is just a bit too long, but (of course) both Popes have their "Oscar moment" in the tail end of the movie so that helps it to cross the finish line strong.
If you are looking for strong acting, look no further than THE TWO POPES, you will not be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Wife (2017) in Movies
Feb 11, 2019
Well acted by Close AND Pryce
The buzz is getting louder and louder for Glenn Close, her Oscar chances and her work in Bjorn Runge's adaption of Meg Wolitzer's novel, THE WIFE. So, as an Oscar completest, I knew I needed to catch this film, and I'm glad I did.
But not for the performance we've all heard about.
Close stars as Joan Castleman the wife of Best-Selling Author Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce) who, early in the film, is notified that he has won the Pulitzer Prize for Literature. The film spans the time that the Castleman's head to Stockholm for the Pulitzer celebration and long held secrets come out.
Glenn Close will win the Best Lead Actress Oscar for her work as Joan Castleman, and it is a wonderful performance, not so much for what she says and does, but more so for what she doesn't say and reacts to. There is a lot of emotion and power going on in her facial and physical performance and she is, rightfully, being hailed for this work as the culmination of her career. And, make no mistake about it, her Oscar win will be a "Lifetime Achievement Award" capping Oscar, but as far as these types of Oscar awards go, this performance is deserving enough of the recognition, that if her lifetime of work is what lifts Close to this Oscar, I am fine with that.
What I am not fine with is the omission of Jonathan Pryce's performance at Awards time for portraying the author, Joe Castleman. It takes two to tango and Pryce and Close tango very well together. They spend 85% of the film on screen together and, while I stated that Close's performance was mostly reaction and facial, she had to react to something - and that something is Pryce. His author is pretentious, loud, self-serving and egotistical and is played strongly and surely by Pryce - never overplaying his hand to make his character a caricature, but trods the fine line between these two things well and is just as strong as Close in what, could be argued, is the lead role in this film (though, I get it, the movie is called THE WIFE not THE AUTHOR).
Also showing up in this film is Christian Slater as a would-be Biographer for Castleman, who threatens to expose the secret that this couple is sharing. I know Slater has been doing television (most notably MR. ROBOT) but his was a welcome presence and I would love to see more of him on the big screen.
It is good that the acting performances are so good in this film, for there really is not that much more to it. It is a slow, plodding, serious tome of a film, one that takes itself VERY seriously, so prepare yourself for that. This film could easily be converted into a stage play - and I would bet that it will be at some point. Fortunately, the run time if thee film is fairly short, 1 hour 40 minutes - but the pacing and the lingering shots on Close's facial expressions will make it seem closer to 2 hours. I'll let you decide whether or not it's a good thing.
Come to THE WIFE to catch Glenn Close's Oscar winning performance, but stay for Jonathan Pryce's under-rated, just as good performance.
Letter Grade: B (A for the acting, C for the pacing)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But not for the performance we've all heard about.
Close stars as Joan Castleman the wife of Best-Selling Author Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce) who, early in the film, is notified that he has won the Pulitzer Prize for Literature. The film spans the time that the Castleman's head to Stockholm for the Pulitzer celebration and long held secrets come out.
Glenn Close will win the Best Lead Actress Oscar for her work as Joan Castleman, and it is a wonderful performance, not so much for what she says and does, but more so for what she doesn't say and reacts to. There is a lot of emotion and power going on in her facial and physical performance and she is, rightfully, being hailed for this work as the culmination of her career. And, make no mistake about it, her Oscar win will be a "Lifetime Achievement Award" capping Oscar, but as far as these types of Oscar awards go, this performance is deserving enough of the recognition, that if her lifetime of work is what lifts Close to this Oscar, I am fine with that.
What I am not fine with is the omission of Jonathan Pryce's performance at Awards time for portraying the author, Joe Castleman. It takes two to tango and Pryce and Close tango very well together. They spend 85% of the film on screen together and, while I stated that Close's performance was mostly reaction and facial, she had to react to something - and that something is Pryce. His author is pretentious, loud, self-serving and egotistical and is played strongly and surely by Pryce - never overplaying his hand to make his character a caricature, but trods the fine line between these two things well and is just as strong as Close in what, could be argued, is the lead role in this film (though, I get it, the movie is called THE WIFE not THE AUTHOR).
Also showing up in this film is Christian Slater as a would-be Biographer for Castleman, who threatens to expose the secret that this couple is sharing. I know Slater has been doing television (most notably MR. ROBOT) but his was a welcome presence and I would love to see more of him on the big screen.
It is good that the acting performances are so good in this film, for there really is not that much more to it. It is a slow, plodding, serious tome of a film, one that takes itself VERY seriously, so prepare yourself for that. This film could easily be converted into a stage play - and I would bet that it will be at some point. Fortunately, the run time if thee film is fairly short, 1 hour 40 minutes - but the pacing and the lingering shots on Close's facial expressions will make it seem closer to 2 hours. I'll let you decide whether or not it's a good thing.
Come to THE WIFE to catch Glenn Close's Oscar winning performance, but stay for Jonathan Pryce's under-rated, just as good performance.
Letter Grade: B (A for the acting, C for the pacing)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Dawn Marie (22 KP) rated Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983) in Movies
Jan 19, 2018
Disney in the 80's noticed the trend that horror movies were making quite a bit of money and they were a struggling company financially so they decided they were going to make some scary and sci do movies including watcher in the woods, The Black Hole and This movie Which is based On A ray Bradbury Book. I Must say first that I Have not read the book so my review Is based upon the movie alone! This is scary and definitely not recommended for young viewers that being said it is not a horror movie but is extremely dark with some frightening moments. Mr. Dark and his carnival come to town when things start to happen to the townspeople can two young boys stop mr. Dark from his sinister plans or will they be the next
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Stigmata (1999) in Movies
Nov 21, 2019
The Cross
So i watched this movie once, and i wasnt sure what to think about it, im not sure it was to be horrorfying or scary or terrorfying, cause it wasnt. Like i said in my "End of Days" review i fell bad for Gabriel Bryne, cause he is a great actor but he is so underrated.
The plot: A young woman with no strong religious beliefs, Frankie Paige (Patricia Arquette) begins having strange and violent experiences, showing signs of the wounds that Jesus received when crucified. When the Vatican gets word of Frankie's situation, a high-ranking cardinal (Jonathan Pryce) requests that the Rev. Andrew Kiernan (Gabriel Byrne) investigate her case. Soon Kiernan realizes that very sinister forces are at work, and tries to rescue Frankie from the entity that is plaguing her.
Its a okay movie, not the greatest.
The plot: A young woman with no strong religious beliefs, Frankie Paige (Patricia Arquette) begins having strange and violent experiences, showing signs of the wounds that Jesus received when crucified. When the Vatican gets word of Frankie's situation, a high-ranking cardinal (Jonathan Pryce) requests that the Rev. Andrew Kiernan (Gabriel Byrne) investigate her case. Soon Kiernan realizes that very sinister forces are at work, and tries to rescue Frankie from the entity that is plaguing her.
Its a okay movie, not the greatest.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Wife (2017) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021 (Updated Sep 28, 2021)
Glenn Close … #robbed.
I missed “The Wife” when it came out in September, but finally caught it a few weeks ago. (Been a busy time at work so have a bit of a backlog of reviews!).
The Plot.
Joan Castleman (Glenn Close) is the doting wife of internationally renowned writer Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce). As we start the film, Joe has just received a call from Stockholm. No, it’s not an “amusing story about a goat” (for any MM2 fans out there). It’s notification that he is to receive the Nobel prize for literature. As Joan listens to the news on the extension, there is something in her eyes that betrays mixed emotions.
They travel to Sweden (on Concorde, obviously) with their son Max (Max Irons) – a writer at the start of his career. Max and Joe have a strained relationship.
Also in Stockholm is Nathanial Bone (Christian Slater) – the bane of Joe’s life, since he seems insistent on writing the biography of the great man. As Nathanial picks through the history of the couple, things start to unravel in unexpected ways.
What a performance!
The heart of this film, and the main reason for watching what is really a bit of a pot-boiler, is the performance by Glenn Close. It’s a remarkable demonstration of the acting craft and 110% Oscar worthy.
Don’t get me wrong…. as I watched the Oscars live in the wee-hours of Monday morning I let out a WHOOP of joy when our own national treasure Olivia Colman picked up the award. But I have to say that I think Glenn Close was rather robbed. Close can act brilliantly without saying a single word. In fact most of her best scenes are reaction shots to what she is listening to.
In comparison I found Jonathan Pryce to be a soupçon over-the-top as the feted writer, and I didn’t find the portrayal of Bone by Slater to be terribly convincing. So it’s a very mixed acting bag in my view.
Utterly gorgeous in a way that only Swedish women can be is Karin Franz Körlof as the personal photographer Linnea. She can also act!
A perfectly pleasant movie
Directed by Swedish director Björn Runge and with a screenplay by Jane Anderson, it’s a perfectly pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. The story is intriguing enough to keep your interest, although it plays its hand so early that the simmering suspense element ebbs out of the film. A final “Sixth Sense” style of reveal might have been much more effective.
But this is above all a film to relish the performance of Close: the facial acting during the speech at the awards ceremony is something that should be studied at acting schools for years to come.
The Plot.
Joan Castleman (Glenn Close) is the doting wife of internationally renowned writer Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce). As we start the film, Joe has just received a call from Stockholm. No, it’s not an “amusing story about a goat” (for any MM2 fans out there). It’s notification that he is to receive the Nobel prize for literature. As Joan listens to the news on the extension, there is something in her eyes that betrays mixed emotions.
They travel to Sweden (on Concorde, obviously) with their son Max (Max Irons) – a writer at the start of his career. Max and Joe have a strained relationship.
Also in Stockholm is Nathanial Bone (Christian Slater) – the bane of Joe’s life, since he seems insistent on writing the biography of the great man. As Nathanial picks through the history of the couple, things start to unravel in unexpected ways.
What a performance!
The heart of this film, and the main reason for watching what is really a bit of a pot-boiler, is the performance by Glenn Close. It’s a remarkable demonstration of the acting craft and 110% Oscar worthy.
Don’t get me wrong…. as I watched the Oscars live in the wee-hours of Monday morning I let out a WHOOP of joy when our own national treasure Olivia Colman picked up the award. But I have to say that I think Glenn Close was rather robbed. Close can act brilliantly without saying a single word. In fact most of her best scenes are reaction shots to what she is listening to.
In comparison I found Jonathan Pryce to be a soupçon over-the-top as the feted writer, and I didn’t find the portrayal of Bone by Slater to be terribly convincing. So it’s a very mixed acting bag in my view.
Utterly gorgeous in a way that only Swedish women can be is Karin Franz Körlof as the personal photographer Linnea. She can also act!
A perfectly pleasant movie
Directed by Swedish director Björn Runge and with a screenplay by Jane Anderson, it’s a perfectly pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. The story is intriguing enough to keep your interest, although it plays its hand so early that the simmering suspense element ebbs out of the film. A final “Sixth Sense” style of reveal might have been much more effective.
But this is above all a film to relish the performance of Close: the facial acting during the speech at the awards ceremony is something that should be studied at acting schools for years to come.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Dec 20, 2019
Verdict: A Pryce & Hopkins Masterclass
Story: The Two Popes starts with the death of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican must elect a new Pope, bring the Cardinals from around the world together to go through the voting system, one the world is waiting to hear the news. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pryce) and Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger (Hopkins) are the favourites to wise to the spot, with Ratzinger becoming Pope Benedict.
Jump forward to 2012, Pope Benedict is involved in a scandal, which sees Jorge return to Rome hoping to be granted his retirement. Pope Benedict refuses his request, as the two clash on their beliefs, with Jorge wanting to see the church move to the future, while Pope Benedict believes the church should never change.
Thoughts on The Two Popes
Characters – Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is from Argentina, he has always bought the people together, he sees the church needing to not only let the future in, but embrace the changes they could never have considered because of their beliefs, he is one of the two challengers voted for to become the next Pope before stepping away from the votes. Years later, he wants to retire and isn’t getting answers, he confronts the pope, wanting to get answers, until he learns the true reason for their meeting. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was always meant to replace Pope John Paul II, he wins and becomes Pope Benedict. His reign will see him facing scandal before he decides to make a massive decision, one unheard of in the church. He has always believed in follow everything the church has before, which is why he gets challenged the most. We only meet a younger version of Jorge as we see his journey to rise to Cardinal in Argentina, while anybody else is usually just showing the two around.
Performances – Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins give two of the greatest performances of the year, the two legends of the industry shine carrying the film with their performances through the film.
Story – The story here follows the close election of a new Pope and how the Cardinal who stepped out of the race he never wanted to be in, is the one person that the new Pope can turn to in his time of need to save the church from a scandal which could destroy it. This is one of the most interesting and engrossing stories you will see, it shows a behind the curtain look at how the church operates, with minds that believe in a God, even if they do follow different beliefs with how they can connect to more people. We do get to learn how Jorge was given his chance in the first place, had experiences that Pope Benedict never went through to get to his position. The idea that this is a conversation between two religious men with differences, it shows how people can disagree without needing to turn into an ugly fight for no reason, they can respect their differences.
Biopic/Comedy – The biopic side of the film shows the private conversation between two religious figureheads that went through to make one of the biggest decisions in the church’s history, which is also done in a comedic way, where we get to see the two have a joke along the way.
Settings – The settings are beautiful from the country house to how the Vatican is recreated to make us believe we are right there with the Popes.
Scene of the Movie – The truth conversation.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not hearing the confession.
Final Thoughts – This is an acting masterclass from two of the greatest actors Hollywood has seen, it highlights the big change the church would take and how to have a conversation where both sides disagree, but accept the difference of opinions.
Overall: Acting Masterclass.
Story: The Two Popes starts with the death of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican must elect a new Pope, bring the Cardinals from around the world together to go through the voting system, one the world is waiting to hear the news. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pryce) and Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger (Hopkins) are the favourites to wise to the spot, with Ratzinger becoming Pope Benedict.
Jump forward to 2012, Pope Benedict is involved in a scandal, which sees Jorge return to Rome hoping to be granted his retirement. Pope Benedict refuses his request, as the two clash on their beliefs, with Jorge wanting to see the church move to the future, while Pope Benedict believes the church should never change.
Thoughts on The Two Popes
Characters – Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is from Argentina, he has always bought the people together, he sees the church needing to not only let the future in, but embrace the changes they could never have considered because of their beliefs, he is one of the two challengers voted for to become the next Pope before stepping away from the votes. Years later, he wants to retire and isn’t getting answers, he confronts the pope, wanting to get answers, until he learns the true reason for their meeting. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was always meant to replace Pope John Paul II, he wins and becomes Pope Benedict. His reign will see him facing scandal before he decides to make a massive decision, one unheard of in the church. He has always believed in follow everything the church has before, which is why he gets challenged the most. We only meet a younger version of Jorge as we see his journey to rise to Cardinal in Argentina, while anybody else is usually just showing the two around.
Performances – Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins give two of the greatest performances of the year, the two legends of the industry shine carrying the film with their performances through the film.
Story – The story here follows the close election of a new Pope and how the Cardinal who stepped out of the race he never wanted to be in, is the one person that the new Pope can turn to in his time of need to save the church from a scandal which could destroy it. This is one of the most interesting and engrossing stories you will see, it shows a behind the curtain look at how the church operates, with minds that believe in a God, even if they do follow different beliefs with how they can connect to more people. We do get to learn how Jorge was given his chance in the first place, had experiences that Pope Benedict never went through to get to his position. The idea that this is a conversation between two religious men with differences, it shows how people can disagree without needing to turn into an ugly fight for no reason, they can respect their differences.
Biopic/Comedy – The biopic side of the film shows the private conversation between two religious figureheads that went through to make one of the biggest decisions in the church’s history, which is also done in a comedic way, where we get to see the two have a joke along the way.
Settings – The settings are beautiful from the country house to how the Vatican is recreated to make us believe we are right there with the Popes.
Scene of the Movie – The truth conversation.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not hearing the confession.
Final Thoughts – This is an acting masterclass from two of the greatest actors Hollywood has seen, it highlights the big change the church would take and how to have a conversation where both sides disagree, but accept the difference of opinions.
Overall: Acting Masterclass.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020 (Updated Jan 26, 2020)
Fantastic performances from two old acting pros.
Being inaugurated as a new pope in the last century must have been a source of enormous pride. But there must also have been a nagging thought... at some point you are going to be paraded, stiff as a board, around your work courtyard before being taken back inside to your place of work and buried there!
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2018) in Movies
Aug 14, 2020
What did I just watch?
I love Terry Gilliam but I'm really not too sure what to make of this film and whether it was really worth the 25 year wait it's taken to get this to the big screen.
This has a great cast, notably Jonathan Pryce who is absolutely wonderful as Don Quixote. And surprisingly Adam Driver. I really don't like him as Kylo Ren but it appears it may be that particular character letting him down as I've loved him in everything else I've seen him in and especially this. He's a hoot. Sadly though I think the rest of the cast may be let down by the sheer wackiness and confusion of it all. And that's the main issue I had with this film, it's absolutely crazy and I didn't have a clue what on earth was going on for the most part. There are the odd funny quips and scenes (one with Oscar Jaenada dressed in a cupid outfit whilst brief gave me the biggest laugh of all), but for me these are few and far between and not enough. The ending is rather silly and fitting and the film overall looks good (even if some of it is in a cheap Monty Python-esque way), but I spent the rest of the film nearly pulling my hair out in frustration as to what the heck was going on and some of the dodgy weird camera angles didn't help. And that's not really something you want to feel while watching a film.
There's a scene towards the end of this film where someone says "try to keep up with the plot" and Adam Driver's character replies with "There's a plot?" - this exchange literally sums up the way I feel about this entire film.
This has a great cast, notably Jonathan Pryce who is absolutely wonderful as Don Quixote. And surprisingly Adam Driver. I really don't like him as Kylo Ren but it appears it may be that particular character letting him down as I've loved him in everything else I've seen him in and especially this. He's a hoot. Sadly though I think the rest of the cast may be let down by the sheer wackiness and confusion of it all. And that's the main issue I had with this film, it's absolutely crazy and I didn't have a clue what on earth was going on for the most part. There are the odd funny quips and scenes (one with Oscar Jaenada dressed in a cupid outfit whilst brief gave me the biggest laugh of all), but for me these are few and far between and not enough. The ending is rather silly and fitting and the film overall looks good (even if some of it is in a cheap Monty Python-esque way), but I spent the rest of the film nearly pulling my hair out in frustration as to what the heck was going on and some of the dodgy weird camera angles didn't help. And that's not really something you want to feel while watching a film.
There's a scene towards the end of this film where someone says "try to keep up with the plot" and Adam Driver's character replies with "There's a plot?" - this exchange literally sums up the way I feel about this entire film.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2018) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
25+ years in the making!
Up until its release, "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote" would have been at the top of any movie list featuring movies in development hell never to actually make it to the big screen. Those who are interested should read the lengthy details of the various derailed productions of the film including its original incarnation starring Johnny Depp and the late Jean Rochefort. The film chronicles can even be viewed on their own in the 2002 documentary film "Lost in La Mancha".
To say director Terry Gilliam has had a hard time getting some of his quirky films made, financed and released is an understatement for sure. Films like "Brazil", "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" or "Tideland" had their difficulties making it to the big screen. How about having the main star of your film die in the middle of production? He had that issue as well during filming of "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" when Heath Ledger passed away. Thanks to the help of Johnny Depp, Collin Farrell and Jude Law stepping in, the film was able to be released eventually.
Over the years I had kept up with Gilliam's repeated attempts to get the film financed and made including another time where he had cast fellow Python vet Michael Palin in the lead or even Robert Duvall was attached at one point.
The movie itself is a marvel of tenacity for Gilliam and I am very glad he was finally able to make it.
This final version of the film stars Adam Driver as troubled film director, Toby, and Jonathan Pryce as Don Quixote.
Toby is not thrilled about his current production and wanders back to the small Spanish town where he had met some of the locals and made a student film about Quixote 10 years earlier. He finds his "Quixote" living out a sideshow fantasy having lost his grip on reality thinking he is still Quixote today. Toby decides to launch an adventure with him through the Spanish countryside as his "Sancho Panza". Through their quests they encounter a multitude of interesting, wacky and outlandish characters who feed into the Quixote fantasy.
I have to say the film's look left me breathless. As with Gilliam's entire library of films, the production design, art direction and cinematography were astonishing really delving you into this larger than life world and helped move along some of the weaker elements.
Gilliam's goal with the screenplay was to adapt the classic Quixote story to be told under up to date circumstances and I'm not sure he completely succeeded. Some of the scenes and dialogue were boring and the movie's plot dragged at times. The mixing of world's was a little confusing and not sure the payoff entirely wrapped the story to conclusion.
Besides playing Kylo Wren, I am not sure Adam Driver will end up having a long career in film as I thought he was flat and not entertaining to watch as I am sure Depp would have been in the role. Jonathan Pryce was a joy to watch and every scene he was in he really stole the show.
It was fun to watch some elements from some of Gilliam's other work on display including the red knight from "The Fisher King", the sprawling landscapes from "Baron Munchausen" or "Time Bandits" and even the sideshow from "Parnassus".
Overall, I am glad I finally got to watch it as I am sure Gilliam was to finally film and release his long-awaited project. I guess I would say I was entertained, but felt like it fell short of being a true classic.
To say director Terry Gilliam has had a hard time getting some of his quirky films made, financed and released is an understatement for sure. Films like "Brazil", "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" or "Tideland" had their difficulties making it to the big screen. How about having the main star of your film die in the middle of production? He had that issue as well during filming of "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" when Heath Ledger passed away. Thanks to the help of Johnny Depp, Collin Farrell and Jude Law stepping in, the film was able to be released eventually.
Over the years I had kept up with Gilliam's repeated attempts to get the film financed and made including another time where he had cast fellow Python vet Michael Palin in the lead or even Robert Duvall was attached at one point.
The movie itself is a marvel of tenacity for Gilliam and I am very glad he was finally able to make it.
This final version of the film stars Adam Driver as troubled film director, Toby, and Jonathan Pryce as Don Quixote.
Toby is not thrilled about his current production and wanders back to the small Spanish town where he had met some of the locals and made a student film about Quixote 10 years earlier. He finds his "Quixote" living out a sideshow fantasy having lost his grip on reality thinking he is still Quixote today. Toby decides to launch an adventure with him through the Spanish countryside as his "Sancho Panza". Through their quests they encounter a multitude of interesting, wacky and outlandish characters who feed into the Quixote fantasy.
I have to say the film's look left me breathless. As with Gilliam's entire library of films, the production design, art direction and cinematography were astonishing really delving you into this larger than life world and helped move along some of the weaker elements.
Gilliam's goal with the screenplay was to adapt the classic Quixote story to be told under up to date circumstances and I'm not sure he completely succeeded. Some of the scenes and dialogue were boring and the movie's plot dragged at times. The mixing of world's was a little confusing and not sure the payoff entirely wrapped the story to conclusion.
Besides playing Kylo Wren, I am not sure Adam Driver will end up having a long career in film as I thought he was flat and not entertaining to watch as I am sure Depp would have been in the role. Jonathan Pryce was a joy to watch and every scene he was in he really stole the show.
It was fun to watch some elements from some of Gilliam's other work on display including the red knight from "The Fisher King", the sprawling landscapes from "Baron Munchausen" or "Time Bandits" and even the sideshow from "Parnassus".
Overall, I am glad I finally got to watch it as I am sure Gilliam was to finally film and release his long-awaited project. I guess I would say I was entertained, but felt like it fell short of being a true classic.
