amca1960

Who'd have thought that a deeply absorbing political thriller could be built around the election of a pope? But Edward Berger has done just that, starting with the novel of the same name.

The film is successful on many levels - the expert and nuanced cinematography, the very fine sets and settings, and above all the superb acting.

Ralph Fiennes, as Thomas Lawrence, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, is awe-inspiring in a complex role, where formally his emotions and personal feelings must be subsumed to the monumental task at hand, but who wrestles with fundamental issues of faith, propriety, and ambition. Other cast members are no less superb: Stanley Tucci and John Lithgow as cardinals Bellini and Tremblay (and both papal hopefuls), Isabella Rossellini as Sister Agnes, the papal housekeeper, who says little during the film, but what she does say is shattering. Lucian Msamati as Cardinal Adeyemi was unknown to me, but he was as good as any of the others - especially in a wrenching scene with Dean Lawrence. The one actor I found not quite believable was Sergio Castellitto as Cardinal Tedesco, who seemed too much of an unhinged firebrand. I also liked Carlos Diehz as Cardinal Benitez, around whom a lot of action revolves, and who has one magnificent speech.

A rich cast of minor characters rounds off the film, playing various other Church dignitaries and clergy, all whispering secrets to Lawrence. And the spirit of the dead pope - although not actually a cast member! - throws a long shadow over the entire conclave.

At times I thought the film dragged a bit, and there were many shots in shadows and ill-lit rooms - very necessary for the story, but also requiring a lot of concentration.

I was also confused at the beginning, as to who was who, and what was going on. What did it mean, for example, for Benitez to have been made a cardinal "in pectore"? (I've looked it up since.). Possibly the film could have been a bit easier on its viewers if there was more explanation and less verisimilitude. Or if English had been used instead of the formal Latin terms.

My partner, who is vision-impaired, "watched" the film (of which he could see little) with headphones and the audio description. This is not entirely successful for this film, there's too much going on, and complications with languages (English, Latin, Italian). For this reason he was unable to grasp the complexities of the plot, and ended up somewhat confused. A warning to anybody planning the same thing!

The penultimate shot has Dean Lawrence outside, having returned one of the pope's pet tortoises to its pond, looking up with a small smile as the sounds of a cheering populace applaud the election of a new pope. Given that a few shots of black smoke had been shown earlier, I would have liked a brief shot of the white smoke, but clearly the director felt that Lawrence's face was sufficient, and a shot of the actual chimney would have been superfluous. I still would have liked it though.

A very solid 8/10, edging towards 9/10, but held back by occasional slowness, and some confusion.

I stopped watching Downton Abbey (the series) before it finished, and I never saw the first film. But this new film is like catching up with old, amiable friends. Old squabbles, misunderstandings, seem to have been swept aside in a mood of sunny geniality.

Even a darker note - of a possibly serious illness - seems barely to scratch the surface. You know that it will all turn out for the best.

The film is thus a very pleasant entertainment, and the cast of course all rise magnificently to it. Maggie Smith as the Dowager Countess Violet has the best lines, as you'd expect. Her inheriting a villa in the south of France leads to all sorts of confusions, and occasions for witty come-backs. Jim Carter as Mr Carson is of course an unending delight; his travel with the family to the new villa (ostensibly to ensure that things are "done right") is played with grave importance, which is comically at odds with the general holiday feel of the trip. His insistent formality, no matter the occasion or situation, has never been better.

The idea of a story-within-a-story is a very old one, but it is done superbly here, with film-makers descending on Downton like a pack of wolves, to the horror of Lord Grantham, the excitement of all the "downstairs" folk, and the interest of Lady Mary. Violet comments about watching films: "I'd rather eat gravel". The filming also leads to a new interest for Lady Mary, showing the possibilities of further character growth.

What is particularly pleasant in this film is a slew of new relationships; Tom (widower of Lady Sibyl) is not only remarried, but seems to have a very comfortable relationship with Violet. Indeed, Violet's famous put-downs and imperious ordering-about seem to have lessened with age; she is a much gentler and more humane Violet than before - but no less witty for that. I also liked Thomas's opportunity for love - surely very rare at the time! - and also Mrs Hughes' gentle acknowledgement of his sexuality (which in fact we had seen in the original series, but it was nice to be reminded of Mrs Hughes' humanity).

Even a death-bed scene, which could be an occasion for maudlin sentiment, is here played with a tenderness which occasionally verges on humour. It has the slightly unreal air of grand opera.

This film is charming, utterly delightful, with plenty of human interest and an excellent storyline. What a tonic it is for troubled times!

Although this film isn't "uproariously funny" as the Netflix blurb suggests, it isn't in fact a bad film. It gets much of its momentum from the excellent swearing and fury from Bill Burr playing an annoyed 50-ish new father called Jack Kelly - and as an Australian, I recognize and applaud good swearing. Jack's four-lettered description of the oh-so woke kindergarten principal was utterly glorious (and, I think, quite true). Following on from that, there is a wonderful scene where Jack has to apologize to the grouped parents, each of which claimed to be offended or insulted by some aspect of his diatribe. However, his previous fury at the principal was superbly wide-ranging, and if you were the sort of person looking for an excuse to be insulted, you would have found it.

This is a film of extremes. Jack's world is comfortably binary (men/women, black/white, good/bad and so on), and everybody knows their place. Thus every facet of his new world, in which, as a new father, he is thrust, is awful to him. Everybody else is as easily shocked and offended as a Victorian maiden aunt; indeed it's a wonder that some of these people seem to live in the modern world at all. After all, you need a certain amount of thick skin to survive, and Jack's nemeses (parents at the kindergarten, for example; the new boss at his old workplace) seem to have skins made of tissue paper.

What gives the film an extra edge is that one of the paperskin parents is in the fact the wife of an old friend of Jack's, one Connor Brody, played with great élan by Bobby Carnavale. So Jack has to be furious with everyone and everything, at the same time trying to maintain a friendship. Throw in Bokeem Woodbine playing a new father-to-be Mike Richards ("But I've had a vasectomy! I always pull out!") and you have the ingredients for some luxurious clowning.

I could possibly tie myself into knots trying to find a "message" in this film, but it probably doesn't have one. It's simply a comedy, with fairly broad humour, unafraid to be crude and ribald, but indeed, why not? Just sit back and enjoy the swearing.