Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings505
balagesh's rating
Reviews25
balagesh's rating
I've always found conclaves fascinating. While secrecy is supposed to be mandatory, there are always some who don't take it quite so seriously, and partial results inevitably leak. It really shouldn't be treated like some ultra-secret conspiracy, but I can understand that the participants don't want to see themselves as players in a match, where every little move is analyzed from multiple camera angles - though, truth be told, I'd love that the most.
A Conclave is a hotbed of intrigue - or should we call it the gentler term, community dynamics? The film portrays this exceptionally well. There's scheming, even trap-setting. There's false humility, which occasionally gives way to naked ambition. There's manipulation, but also self-deception. Aldo's character is particularly intriguing, and the more human I can see him as the less it bothers me that at one moment he stands by his principles, the next he craves power and compromises if necessary, and at another, he simply shrugs it all off.
Ralph Fiennes is phenomenal. He masterfully showcases internal conflict, transitioning seamlessly from a doubtful expression and mentality to the firmness required to lead the whole process. And then there's the irresistible sense of justice that erupts from within and sweeps everything else aside. This is where I must highlight the exceptional cinematography. The cameraman could make an incredible portrait photographer. Some of the still frames are so stunning that I'd love to see them compiled into a book. True, there's perhaps a bit too much focus on Fiennes's forehead at times, but there are outright portrait-like shots and brilliantly captured crowd scenes of the cardinals - all superbly accompanied by the music. It's the best of the European cinematic tradition.
The screenplay, however, doesn't quite reach the same heights, which makes it incredibly fortunate for the production team and cast, as the spectacular visuals and outstanding performances manage to compensate for almost every shortcoming. To be fair, everything moves forward at an encouraging pace - but somehow it's heading towards nowhere.
At the heart of the film is Lawrence cardinal's personal spiritual journey, but I'm not satisfied with the depth of the story. Ralph Fiennes brings the missing layers to life, but he can't make up for the deficiencies at the level of plot and dialogue. This gives his interactions with the other cardinals more weight, making the secondary characters seem more important than they ought to be. This, in turn, creates a sense of imbalance, as if they stand out on their own rather than through their interactions with the cardinal, leaving me wishing for deeper context around them. This is most apparent with the in pectore cardinal, whose storyline is the most underdeveloped. The story either needed to be much more focused or should have given the central characters more room to breathe.
So I really enjoyed the movie - except for the last 10 minutes or so. Looking back, I feel a bit sorry that it didn't build up to something extraordinary, but I still see it as an exceptionally entertaining story.
A Conclave is a hotbed of intrigue - or should we call it the gentler term, community dynamics? The film portrays this exceptionally well. There's scheming, even trap-setting. There's false humility, which occasionally gives way to naked ambition. There's manipulation, but also self-deception. Aldo's character is particularly intriguing, and the more human I can see him as the less it bothers me that at one moment he stands by his principles, the next he craves power and compromises if necessary, and at another, he simply shrugs it all off.
Ralph Fiennes is phenomenal. He masterfully showcases internal conflict, transitioning seamlessly from a doubtful expression and mentality to the firmness required to lead the whole process. And then there's the irresistible sense of justice that erupts from within and sweeps everything else aside. This is where I must highlight the exceptional cinematography. The cameraman could make an incredible portrait photographer. Some of the still frames are so stunning that I'd love to see them compiled into a book. True, there's perhaps a bit too much focus on Fiennes's forehead at times, but there are outright portrait-like shots and brilliantly captured crowd scenes of the cardinals - all superbly accompanied by the music. It's the best of the European cinematic tradition.
The screenplay, however, doesn't quite reach the same heights, which makes it incredibly fortunate for the production team and cast, as the spectacular visuals and outstanding performances manage to compensate for almost every shortcoming. To be fair, everything moves forward at an encouraging pace - but somehow it's heading towards nowhere.
At the heart of the film is Lawrence cardinal's personal spiritual journey, but I'm not satisfied with the depth of the story. Ralph Fiennes brings the missing layers to life, but he can't make up for the deficiencies at the level of plot and dialogue. This gives his interactions with the other cardinals more weight, making the secondary characters seem more important than they ought to be. This, in turn, creates a sense of imbalance, as if they stand out on their own rather than through their interactions with the cardinal, leaving me wishing for deeper context around them. This is most apparent with the in pectore cardinal, whose storyline is the most underdeveloped. The story either needed to be much more focused or should have given the central characters more room to breathe.
So I really enjoyed the movie - except for the last 10 minutes or so. Looking back, I feel a bit sorry that it didn't build up to something extraordinary, but I still see it as an exceptionally entertaining story.
I tried to approach this film with a cool head, which I could do since I've watched it several times. The first time, I was shocked too-and that may well have been its intention. At that point, I couldn't have said anything. But can one even think or say anything after watching a film like this? Yes, it portrays an evil world. Deeply unfair and completely random. With various beliefs or stories like this one, we might convince ourselves that no, it's not random-there's a system to it. What's certain is that they put together a beautiful, rounded, and somehow comforting story for us.
Although the discussion tends to center on DiCaprio's performance, this is more a story of a family. The film both starts and ends with them, and it feels almost dismissive, in a "white-centric" way, not to acknowledge them. It's as though they're mere props: "They're African-just let them be themselves, huh, yah?" I think Djimon Hounsou's portrayal of the father's complex emotions and impulses-through serious acting-is too often dismissed as "just natural." If he were white or the setting and cast more diverse, there would likely be a flood of praise for his self-control, dynamism, body language, emotional expression, and range. But here, it's hardly noticed. And then there's his son! He conveys both the obedient, studious little boy and the mentally "switched-off" child soldier just as convincingly... Alright, I understand that this film is aimed at the white man's conscience. It needs standout white characters to create connection and encourage comfortable moviegoers to reflect on what they might do for Africa, for justice. But at the same time, Archer is a white African, his fate just as brutal as others on the continent. His tragedy is that he couldn't rise to the exploiters' higher caste. His cruelty and underlying goodness feel a bit questionable to me, and I found it hard to buy into his character's evolution and internal struggles. Fortunately, the storyline doesn't put him in situations where this would cause significant conflict.
And even after all these viewings, I still find the theme thought-provoking-although, rather than inspiring action, it increasingly just makes me feel lucky. And that's all.
Although the discussion tends to center on DiCaprio's performance, this is more a story of a family. The film both starts and ends with them, and it feels almost dismissive, in a "white-centric" way, not to acknowledge them. It's as though they're mere props: "They're African-just let them be themselves, huh, yah?" I think Djimon Hounsou's portrayal of the father's complex emotions and impulses-through serious acting-is too often dismissed as "just natural." If he were white or the setting and cast more diverse, there would likely be a flood of praise for his self-control, dynamism, body language, emotional expression, and range. But here, it's hardly noticed. And then there's his son! He conveys both the obedient, studious little boy and the mentally "switched-off" child soldier just as convincingly... Alright, I understand that this film is aimed at the white man's conscience. It needs standout white characters to create connection and encourage comfortable moviegoers to reflect on what they might do for Africa, for justice. But at the same time, Archer is a white African, his fate just as brutal as others on the continent. His tragedy is that he couldn't rise to the exploiters' higher caste. His cruelty and underlying goodness feel a bit questionable to me, and I found it hard to buy into his character's evolution and internal struggles. Fortunately, the storyline doesn't put him in situations where this would cause significant conflict.
And even after all these viewings, I still find the theme thought-provoking-although, rather than inspiring action, it increasingly just makes me feel lucky. And that's all.