I don’t mind spoilers, I tend to look up things in advance because I don’t like excessive violence in films, I get a bit squeamish, so I like my trigger warnings for that stuff, but did you not think it was slightly lacking in imagination, or subtlety, to end it that way? Thinking neutrally, I mean? It’s like making an appeal to popular lefties talking points. I will see it at some point, I’m sure…
I don’t mind spoilers, I tend to look up things in advance because I don’t like excessive violence in films, I get a bit squeamish, so I like my trigger warnings for that stuff, but did you not think it was slightly lacking in imagination, or subtlety, to end it that way? Thinking neutrally, I mean? It’s like making an appeal to popular lefties talking points. I will see it at some point, I’m sure…
“Conclave” is what I consider a political drama, and sort of reminded me of the 1964 Henry Fonda film “The Best Man”, that film was set in a Republican Party National Convention. Like that film this film set up some compelling back stage political machinations.
Despite some good performances i was disappointed in Conclave’s ending. The film had expertly established the political intrigue involved among the Cardinals in selecting the next pope, with different warring factions lobbying for their candidates. Stanley Tucci as one of the contenders was a particular standout.
However,
We are supposed to buy that an unknown Cardinal who was secretly appointed , who none of the other Cardinals even knew existed, much less was friends with any of them would emerge as the final ballot chosen Pope.
That more than the 11th hour twist to his identity stretched all plausibility with me. Though even that disclosure should have given the Fiennes character pause, not necessarily on moral grounds but on the very realistic chance that the news could somehow be disclosed and have fallout consequences.
Because again, the film had already established that no skeletons or secrets can stay hidden.
For me, it failed the internal logic a movie should have. I imagine the book may have had more narrative exposition to make it make more sense.
These things made it more a far fetched fantasy for my taste.
I did not! As soon as I told you it was still playing around the corner, it wasn't, anymore. I watched it on TV, but made the mistake of having the dubbed version on. Only after did I realize there was an original version. I tried watching again, but couldn't get through it. I didn't love it, tbh. I had problem with the Godzilla origin story. Originally, he was a creature of the radiation fallout, which made for a nice symbolism. Maybe I'll try again in the original, though.
“Conclave” is what I consider a political drama, and sort of reminded me of the 1964 Henry Fonda film “The Best Man”, that film was set in a Republican Party National Convention. Like that film this film set up some compelling back stage political machinations.
Despite some good performances i was disappointed in Conclave’s ending. The film had expertly established the political intrigue involved among the Cardinals in selecting the next pope, with different warring factions lobbying for their candidates. Stanley Tucci as one of the contenders was a particular standout.
However,
We are supposed to buy that an unknown Cardinal who was secretly appointed , who none of the other Cardinals even knew existed, much less was friends with any of them would emerge as the final ballot chosen Pope.
That more than the 11th hour twist to his identity stretched all plausibility with me. Though even that disclosure should have given the Fiennes character pause, not necessarily on moral grounds but on the very realistic chance that the news could somehow be disclosed and have fallout consequences.
Because again, the film had already established that no skeletons or secrets can stay hidden.
For me, it failed the internal logic a movie should have. I imagine the book may have had more narrative exposition to make it make more sense.
These things made it more a far fetched fantasy for my taste.
I didn't mind all of that as much as you did. I thought the performances were across-the-board strong, and the machinations kept you guessing...as in, who's really a good guy? Who's really more ambitious than he seems? I thought the Mexican cardinal was a very interesting character, esp. in contrast to the one's more steeped in Vatican politics. There's a certain amount of questioning one's faith. To me, it was the cinema equivalent of a page-turner, and so lots of fun. And it is Amazing looking! We'll debate when more have seen it. I do think it's not worth spoiling, and appreciate your use of the "spoiler" function.
I did not! As soon as I told you it was still playing around the corner, it wasn't, anymore. I watched it on TV, but made the mistake of having the dubbed version on. Only after did I realize there was an original version. I tried watching again, but couldn't get through it. I didn't love it, tbh. I had problem with the Godzilla origin story. Originally, he was a creature of the radiation fallout, which made for a nice symbolism. Maybe I'll try again in the original, though.
I don’t think they addressed the origin story, which was fair enough in that the movie was more about the effects of war, and national shame and trauma etc, and they tried to capture that, but they did show Godzilla changed by radiation.
I can’t stand dubbing. I remember one time in Sardinia an episode of Lieutenant Columbo came on the TV. You can imagine what’s coming. Peter Falk’s beautiful rugged voice changed into a smooth Italian male soprano.
I just saw it. It's quite the film. I liked it a lot! Old-school epic, in it's sensibility and time-span, but intimate, too. It has a lot on its mind. Kind of "brutal," as it were. Shot in very old-fashioned VistaVision, it has an Overture, and an Intermission. The running time is 3 and a half hours, plus the half-hour? intermission. No surprise I'll say see it on the big screen, because it's great looking, and also because you'll focus better if you don't watch it at home on the small screen. It's not hard to watch...it trots right along. I'll leave it at that until someone else pipes up and says they've seen it, too, but I do recommend it.
PS: You'll never believe that they made it for under $10 Million US, and shot it in about 6 weeks. Proving you don't have to spend $50-$100 M even on an epic, if you have a good story, and are cleaver.
I just saw it. It's quite the film. I liked it a lot! Old-school epic, in it's sensibility and time-span, but intimate, too. It has a lot on its mind. Kind of "brutal," as it were. Shot in very old-fashioned VistaVision, it has an Overture, and an Intermission. The running time is 3 and a half hours, plus the half-hour? intermission. No surprise I'll say see it on the big screen, because it's great looking, and also because you'll focus better if you don't watch it at home on the small screen. It's not hard to watch...it trots right along. I'll leave it at that until someone else pipes up and says they've seen it, too, but I do recommend it.
PS: You'll never believe that they made it for under $10 Million US, and shot it in about 6 weeks. Proving you don't have to spend $50-$100 M even on an epic, if you have a good story, and are cleaver.
I can’t wait to see it, and it’s amazing that it was made so cheaply. Proof indeed, trust a great idea and the imagination to fulfil it are worth more than Hollywood big pockets…
This is interesting from 2 directions: firstly, it's taken from Quentin Tarantino's excellent debut book as a movie critic, Cinema Speculations. Secondly, it's narrated by Tarantino himself, with his evident love for the film, his critical honesty in dissecting it, and in challenging the director Martin Scorsese along the way for some decisions he made while making it, and some remarks he made about being shocked by the audience reaction to the violence at the end of the film.
Tarantino is a very sharp critic. He understands gutturally and aesthetically. He knows what films are about, and what they're really about.
I've watched a couple of these videos based on the book, which brings me back to the second point of interest, the narration. I never realised that it's not actually narrated by Tarantino at all, but an AI generation of his voice, that deceived me without breaking any artificial sweat.
This one has been coming for a long time. It almost seems like 28 years since the original. It's not too far off... 23 years since 28 Days Later launched the careers of Cillian Murphy, and Naomi Harris and featured some great cameos from Christopher Eccleston and Brendan Gleason in 2002.
Murphy is reunited with the original director (Danny Boyle) and writer (Alex Garland). The original (28 Days Later) was a classic IMO - the sequel (28 Months Later) with a different director and different cast wasn't bad... just not that good. Looking forward to this one.
