Fluentiama
Perfect cast and a good story
Kailansorac
Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.
Allison Davies
The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
John Corda
Morris West's novel carries an element of prophecy but the film is far too heavy in every department to, ultimately, be taken seriously and yet you do. I did. Anthony Quinn is a credible Kiril, the priest who survived years in a Siberian prison to become Pope. There is enough humanity in Quinn to make that leap in our hearts and minds - that is a massive plus in favor of this huge super production - Laurence Olivier tries a new accent as the Russian premiere and okay but when the Chinese Chairman is played by Burt Kwouk - you know Kato in the Pink Panther movies - I had to readjust myself and start from scratch. Oskar Werner belongs to another movie altogether but he's wonderful as the priest questioning his faith. Vittorio de Sica and Leo McKern play two Cardinal/Politicians with saintly ambivalence but it is the soap opera outside the Vatican that drags the movie out of everywhere. David Janssen, famous then because TV's "The Fugitive" looks really uncomfortable. Alex North provides a respectful and resounding score. The long sequences about Vatican procedure are priceless and I will recommend it because here I am, weeks after I've seen it, thinking about it which means I've enjoyed it more than I should have. What a ridiculous thing to say, right? Right.
Filipe Neto
Kiril Lakota is a Soviet Catholic Archbishop which is elevated to cardinal after years in a Siberian penal colony, managing to be elected pope shortly after. Consumed by his own insecurity, he will have to deal with a divided church and a changing world. Directed by Michael Anderson, this epic film has a screenplay by John Patrick and James Kennaway. The cast is headed by Anthony Quinn, Vittorio De Sica and Laurence Olivier.For the most inattentive viewer, this film will seem just a tour through the ancient Catholic liturgy, prior to the Second Vatican Council. Masses in Latin, priests back to the community, a huge imperial solemnity and majestic surrounding the Pope... But this film can be much more than that. Its a journey across the soul of a man who chose to be true to his faith and his ideas, supporting the price of that and not letting down by loneliness, hunger or the whip.The script is excellent and it was done carefully, as well as the dialogues, which have something philosophical and profound. However, the film elongates too much in Catholic liturgical ceremonies, making it too overwhelmed, as if the audience had gone to attend a Mass and not a movie. I think this part of the film is important and needs to be displayed and explained, but could have been shortened, even though that time was then wisely spent in an attempt to deepen the plot around the Chinese crisis or the sub-plot surrounding George Faber's marital life. This plot was so sadly inserted that ends up clashing the movie, as if it had been fitted to the hammer. The editing of the film could also have been better, seeming illogical and disorderly at several times.The actors met very well with their roles, but there are two that deserve all the highlight: Oskar Werner shone in the role of Father Telemond, a philosopher priest, freethinker, contrarian and almost subversive, portraying very well the divisions within the Church that had led to the Second Vatican Council (closed a few years before this film was shot); and of course, Anthony Quinn, an actor who achieved in this film, perhaps, one of the most remembered works of his career.The soundtrack, by Alex North, was excellent and is worthy of being remembered. The costumes fulfilled their role correctly and without errors.A very curious fact: this film was inspired by Morris West's novel, with the same name, written in 1963. As this film, the novel spoke about the election of a Soviet pope. Coincidence or not, in 1978, was elected John Paul II, Cardinal Archbishop of Krakow, a Polish city integrated in the Soviet Union at that time.
dleifker
The visual richness of this movie is simply breathtaking. I was swept along by the vividness of the images and almost found myself ignoring the plot. After it was over, I was shocked to learn that it was 162 minutes long because it seemed much shorter. My only gripe is that the plot feels thin, and too much time is spent on the crumbling marriage of the TV reporter and his wife. They could have left that out and expanded the main plot, which literally concerned the fate of the planet. Nevertheless, there are many enjoyable parts of this film, especially if you're curious about the inner workings (and pomp) of the Vatican.
kmullen-4
I think I would have titled this: "In the Shoes of the Fisherman." I was struck by the several subplots showing love from different points of view. The 'romantic' subplot seemed to be one of three kinds of love and their trials that intersect in this story. The romantic plot intersects with the Pope, when Dr. Ruth Faber confides in him about her marriage, and he suggests that she look for the love that she has lost. She then rejuvenates, but her husband, even after leaving the other woman, seems unrepentant and unsympathetic to his wife's pain and jealousy, unaware of her sign of forgiveness. Another one was the love between the spiritual brothers, the brotherhood relationship of the Pope, Father Telemond, and the older Cardinal, which is directly addressed in the last part of the film, when the Cardinal confesses his jealousy for not having the attention and affection after years of long service, and the Pope confessing his preference for the struggling priest. These relationships reconcile with love and understanding. The third love is the love of the individual for the Church, as expressed dramatically by Father Telemond who grapples with articulating his faith in more modern terms vs the traditional doctrines of the Church. As he says, "I hate her, but cannot leave her (her referring to the Church)." Though silenced for his views, it is done with compassion by the Pope. One might also consider the relationship of Kiril to Olivier's character as a fourth angle - when he describes their intimate relationship based on torture the many years before, and now depends on him to help him in the saving of his nation going to war. The dependence and trust is based on that oddly formed intimacy. And that trust is upheld by the now Pope Kiril, which ultimately translates to an expression of greater love, forgiveness and sacrifice when he announces to the crowd that he will donate the Church's wealth for the cause of the starving.
