Directed by:
Fernando MeirellesScreenplay:
Anthony McCartenCinematography:
César CharloneComposer:
Bryce DessnerCast:
Anthony Hopkins, Jonathan Pryce, Juan Minujín, Luis Gnecco, Cristina Banegas, María Ucedo, Renato Scarpa, Sidney Cole, Achille Brugnini, Federico Torre (more)VOD (1)
Plots(1)
The year is 2013. Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Jonathan Pryce) could not be a less conventional candidate for the papacy. Dodging pomp at every turn, he prefers walking or biking to limousines. He likes to tango and watch soccer with ordinary people. In an amusing early scene, we hear him whistling "Dancing Queen" in the Vatican men's room. Most importantly, he believes it is the Church's obligation to respond to the shifting needs of its followers — which makes him the opposite of Pope Benedict (Anthony Hopkins), who regards any change as a perilous compromise to the Church's integrity. Nevertheless, Benedict realizes that momentum is building for Bergoglio to succeed him, so the two men meet, break bread, and engage in a debate that reveals much about their respective pasts and divergent visions for the future. (Toronto International Film Festival)
(more)Videos (3)
Reviews (8)
The advantage of this film is that even if no one is particularly interested in the subject, there is a pretty good chance that everyone will enjoy it. Why? Because Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce could very well be explaining how to peel potatoes and their rendition would still make it an acting tour de force. Their Oscar nominations rank among the most well-deserved ones. The sentence that comes to mind, "it didn’t happen but could have," rings true in every scene. This film almost felt too short, which has not happened to me in quite some time and I consider it to be the biggest surprise of 2019.
()
In this pleasant conversational film, you will see the pope watching Inspector Rex and enjoying a slice of pizza. Meirelles wins viewers over with his depiction of the pope as a man who also needs to confess and who may also have doubts about his mission. The friendship that is gradually established between these two priests, who are incompatible from the start, becomes the film’s main storyline. Both of the lead roles are very well cast. Hopkins portrays the German radical with his typical gusto and Jonathan Pryce’s naturalness is absolutely sufficient for playing his gentler opposite.
()
I really liked the work of the cameraman and the performances of the two leads, but I find it hard to evaluate the film as a whole. I don’t have a very good opinion of the Catholic Church, and because I am democratic in this regard, I lump all the religious flocks together into one big, stinking pile. The popes did some serious soul-searching in the film, but I consider all totalitarian regimes essentially the same. If the Catholic Church ever came to power in Europe, it would not surpass the Nazi or Communist regime in terms of casualties simply because it would not have the technical means to do so. I’m convinced of that. All of these regimes burned inappropriate literature, got rid of people who had their own (meaning different) opinion, and built their network of informants. The film’s theme deserves a Boo! rating from me, its saving grace is the cinematography and the two gentlemen.
()
An outstanding conversational drama with a fantastic cast. Light on its feet, funny and touching. The popes are both nice people and, thanks to the excellently written dialogue, you get an exact idea of both of their viewpoints. The scenes with Anthony Hopkins having a Fanta and a pizza inside the Sistine Chapel and he and Pryce watching football and drinking beer are priceless. An unbelievably humane and positive movie.
()
A film as divisive as the opinions of its two main characters. I have no interest in getting into the issue of religion, but the theme “should and how could the Church humanize its practices in order to adapt to the current freedom of thought” is universal and simple enough, and the exchange of opinions between these two distinguished figures was fun and interesting overall. Or, more precisely, I was interested in the liberal views of Francis, whom the first half of the film profiles as a herald of good and progressive will being cut off by a grumpy Benedict that avoids getting caught up in a conversation. The relationship between these two strong and intelligent men is portrayed hastily and in the second half the narration shifts to unnecessarily long to flashbacks that have very little effect on the storyline, they are there probably to give the film a better drive so it wouldn’t be only a “boring” conversation – which would certainly not have happened if Meirelles had dived deeper into the conflict and friendship of the two popes and had let those two fantastic actors play even more. In this way, The Two Popes is at a crossroads between an important conversational drama with great historical insight and a stylishly edited pop-culture clip with an undoubtedly talented filmmaker with a feeling for timing performing an unnecessary formal exhibtion – in his hands this could have been major film and it’s a shame that it didn’t turn out like that. 70%
()
Ads