It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

When asked. if he accepts election, kiril shakes hi head NO, but THEN says he accepts election!

I have to give this movie an 8 out of 10, which isn't too bad.First off, I remember seeing this movie on cable, in the VERY EARLY days of cable, and I had to have been maybe nine or ten at the time.It wasn't until about a year ago, that I saw it for the first time when I really understood what was going on with the characters.Anthony Quinn, usually a ham and a half, turned in a very restrained, yet passionate performance as a man who was bulldozed into being a pope. He wasn't expecting to even be named as a Cardinal after his release, much less get elected to the Papal Throne! Poor thing looked like he'd been smacked with a board when they all stood up and started nominating him, in spite of VERY vociferous protests.Oskar Werner, who is rapidly becoming one of my favorite actors, was just as passionate as Father Telemond, the troubled young priest (really? Wasn't he in his forties at the time? But that's a teeny quibble.) I watched as he was taken to pieces by the first commission, and yet throughout it all, he didn't really lose his temper. He knew what the outcome would be, no matter what he said, so he told the absolute truth. The Church needed a good kick up the bum and he was the one attempting to do so. Too bad it was pretty much inured to being kicked.There are ways around being silenced and forbidden to publish that he could have taken and didn't.A. Leave the Church (which he admitted that he couldn't do), and publish anyway.B. If he had any REALLY good friends on the outside that were in a position to do so, he could have sold them the publishing rites for a dollar, and publish that way. They weren't bright enough to think of that option or forbid it to him, so technically, he wouldn't have been disobeying them.Unfortunately, he was much too honest of a man and priest to do that, so he accepted their decision.The subplot with David Janssen, his unhappy wife and cutesy putesy chickeeboo could have been eliminated completely, and made for a much tighter film.The subplot with the Chinese nation being on the verge of starvation and NO ONE HELPING!!! was a little bit hard to believe. You can't tell ME that the Red Cross, and other relief organizations wouldn't have come a knocking on China's doors to help out, no matter what the U.S. etc. said. Their purpose is to help those in need, PERIOD END OF STORY!!! I was saddened at the death of Fr. Telemond, but really, since they spent a lot of time talking about it, it was pretty much expected.The scene between Anthony Quinn and Leo McKern was touching. I knew that Cardinal Leone was jealous of the relationship between the Pope and Fr. Telemond, but it was nice to see him finally acknowledging it.The ending was a bit, I dunno, cheesy isn't the word to use, but it didn't seem all that genuine to me.Sure, the speech was nice enough, but it just didn't really have any 'oomph' to it, I suppose.Still and all, excellent movie, but a smidge dull.

after so many years, it is first image from this special movie. his great performance. his art to define a memorable character. and, courage to build axis of a time. or only, image of a prophecy. because if the novel is real good, the movie gives force to its lines. and the election of John Paul II, the figures of so many Orthodox or Romano/ Greek - Catholic monks, bishops or layers, the cruelty of a regime and expectation of public for real action front to Communist, the memory of Pope John XXIII for save situation in the Cuba crisis, the intolerance against new thesis of God servants, the present fear about crisis with its so many faces are pieces for impose this movie fresh for each period. because reality , strange/ confuse reality makes it more than slice of fiction. and the acting does it touching, profound instrument of an extraordinary message about basic values.

One has to admire how cleverly this story anticipates reality. The understanding that the "insider" from behind the curtain, placed in the right position, with the right power, could make a difference in the outcome of the cold war.Well, most of what we see in this film is romantic brain washing. The cliché of the good, well-intentioned, humble man who, despite being at the top of the world and political guidance, still holds as a patron for love and for the lives of the disadvantaged. That's why we have the bits of the pope living an ordinary life, in the "real" city and mostly, that's the meaning of the final scene, which follows 'The Great Dictator'. But in Chaplin, we Really had a committed artist, someone who, in that moment, cared so much for what he stood for, that he risked what he was as a celebrity and even as an artist just to pass the message, of true humanity. Here, we have perverse engineering of the story (i haven't read the book, this refers to the film only). So, that final speech should, and eventually does sound like the rebellion scream of a man who tries and breaks the chains of higher interests, in favor of the disfavored. But it is itself part of the scheme that allows for the brainwashing of those disfavoured, and the replacement of the Church as the spiritual, superior leader. Well, the interests of the church in matters of Cold War and after that were political, were mundane, were not selfless. Not in this situation nor in any other in 2000 years history.But it is remarkable (and i suppose this goes for the writer) how accurate was his prediction. How did he assume that a pope would come from the chains of suffering of the soviet union? Did he know something? How did he create the biography of a man that might really resemble John Paul II? That really is remarkable.The cinematic options are good. The film is highly textured, it shoots many things on location, and it really plays with the colors, and the textures of the inner spaces of the Vatican, it amazed me the visual concerns on those matters. Also i was moved by the use of real footage repeatedly, whenever (i suppose) was the need to show "real" people in S.Peter's square. Whether it was a budget necessity, or a real option, i don't know, but the fact is those moments with real footage made the whole construction slide into a delicious sensation of documentary which, if you over layer the last 30 years of history, will make this a much stronger work. To enhance this, we have a designated storyteller, a reporter who literally tells us the facts, from the public point of view. That reporter has a personal story, which we follow, and which mixes the story of the pope at a certain point. That's not innocent.Well, you can choose to enhance how effectively the cinematic construction works, and how it is probably more powerful today than it was in its day, because of the facts that we know today. Or you can simply stick to the fact that films like this are veiled propaganda, that they intend to bend the opinions of the people without assuming themselves as propaganda. I took that note, but i enjoyed the experience.My opinion: 3/5 http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com