Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

denis888 I know, I know, many Poles and many Catholics will tear me to shreds, but come on, this sequel suffers almost all the bad moments you can ever imagine. It is too slow, too long, too sweet and almost saccharine in its delivery. The events at the same time are very jumbled and often seem to be utterly out of connection. What is worse, is the xtremely poor acting - the roles played by several people are too exaggerated, too naive and too much all over the place. Parts for Mother Teresa and some Communist workers are among the most unbearably bad examples of that The film suffers of too much worship ans veneration, too much of solemnity and too much seriousness. The Pope seems to be a frozen marble statue and not a vivid Karol of the first movie. The whole work is very sweet and too much pizzas and sugar - not realistic and far too overplayed. This is a fair try but it failed

Armand a brave act to continue history of a man of century with same actor, in same manner. but the courage is not imprudence but wise exercise to do a large fresco. with little pieces, without hurry or great ambitions. only a drawing in which every line is a way to public soul. a huge carpet - key of a world or only portrait of a fisherman in search of better society. secret - John Paul II is not perfect. it remains same man from Krakow, same intelligent builder of transformation beyond the Iron Curtain. this is sense of this work. and source of its touching beauty.in rest, inspired music, best acting, right atmosphere. and emotion as step for each level of story.because Karol, un Papa rimasto uomo is not propaganda or manifesto. only a map.new part of ...un uomo diventato papa but in different nuances. tale about use of authority, it is only short flash from a never ending beginning.

andre-lempicki I am Jewish but when I saw "Karol, the Pope" and especially the performance of Piotr Adamczyk, I thought this was Oscar performance. I lived in Los Angeles for many years and I think that this performance could NEVER get any nod from the 5,000 members of the Academy. Wrong topic, wrong religion, wrong nationality of the actor (Polish), etc. I am not politically correct right now, but that's what I think. His interpretation of the life of the Polish pope was exquisite, very emotional and just perfect. To show the Pope throughout the years, from the young man to the dying man, with all its humor, humaneness and big heart, was just unbelievable. I cried throughout the movie, which does not happen very often, because being a filmmaker I am very cynical. Have a nice day, Andre

jcastano-2 it is a very good movie and a moving one, but I think it is a very small movie for such a big pope. It would be interesting if in the DVD features, we could find some statistics about the quantity of travels, the quantity of people he met, the amount of speeches he gave, the influence he had on different churches, catholic and non catholic, etc.The movie stays short in the trips he made to America, Mexico, Chile and many other countries for specific reasons and church problems that were taking place in the catholic church. Hoe he renovated the moral sense and thoughts of many priests, and theologians, how he insisted in the universal call to holiness, his love for the blessed sacrament, the renovation of the religious life, the problems with the Society of Jesus, some bishops and catholic doctrine professors. The way he used to reunite philosophers, scientists, from around the whole world to discuss many items every year.I know it would be impossible to reunite 26 years in a 2 hour movie, but it is a very good try, to start with.