We Have a Pope (2011)

From my favorite movies..

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

I loved Habemus Papam. It has a highly original plot and it takes place in a highly unusual environment. Papal elections does not sound as an intriguing movie setting, but the film is captivating. Who could have thought that 200 elderly men all dressed in the same way could be so entertaining?! But they are! The casting is excellent; everyone has a face and an individuality. I am especially thankful for the casting choice for the lead character, played by the great Michel Piccoli, and "il portavoce", played by my favorite Polish actor Jerzy Sztur (I was so happy to see him inhabit an Italian movie screen so comfortably). Michel Piccoli's presence expresses perfectly the humanity and the philosophical aspect of his character. And Jerzy Sztur lights up the scene as a perfect comical actor.And yet despite its unusual setting, the film deals with the classical plot of a person out of his own element. And as in every mistaken identity story, the journey into the unknown turns out to be a journey to oneself. You leave behind the familiar and you find the indispensable. Here, the Pope incognito roams the streets of Rome and gradually learns something important about himself.At the same time, as Pope enters Rome, Rome enters Vatican. This happens through introduction of laypersons into the sanctum sactorum of Vatican, such as the psychologist (who brings with him not only atheism, but also the ball game) and the Swiss guard officer (who introduces the cardinals to the popular music).I liked the nice small touches throughout the movie, like the fact that the Pope had a dream of becoming an actor in his youth (just like John Paul II), or the Chekhov's play Seagull serving as a pivotal reference on realization that you might have wasted your life, or the imperturbable portavoce losing his face and cursing in Polish… In general, it's an elegant comedy that combines philosophy with laughter and offers life's wisdom that not only Popes will find useful.P.S. And speaking of Popes, Benedict XVI resigned a year after this movie was released, so

I would rate this film a four. But I would give a zero to the people who caused it to be labeled a comedy. Yes, the premise could have been comedic. A pope in need of therapy? One thinks of movies like Analyze This with Robert De Niro and Billy Crystal. But there is little comic about the way the pope's need for therapy is handled here. A pope trying to flee his responsibilities by pretending to be someone else? Perhaps you might expect an Italian farce, a la Roberto Benigni. Again, you will be disappointed.This movie is definitely not "A story centered on the relationship between the newly elected Pope and his therapist." The Pope spends very little time with his therapist and there is no "relationship."This is a bittersweet meditation about what happens when a confused, inarticulate man, suffering from (perhaps justified) feelings of inadequacy, is given a huge responsibility. There are no laughs, and there are only a few potentially comic situations that could have been much funnier than they were. At most, you could call a three or four sentences of the dialogue "wry." The plot isn't much to speak of either. The church is treated with too much reverence, as though any sort of satire is too risky. Even devout Catholics will wonder about the missed opportunities. (A random episode of Father Brown takes more good-natured satiric risks than this whole film, and it's a detective series.)If you go in expecting a melodrama, a character study, a premise for a story without much of a story, you may enjoy the fine acting, the scenery, and the elegiac mood. If you are expecting humor, fun, satire, and the satisfaction of a story well told, you are going to be puzzled.

The description of the movie is wrongly understood. This movie is definitely NOT about the relationship of Pope and his therapist. The failed therapist has and episodic side-role. The movie is about a Bishop who cannot take the burden of responsibility and attention that falls upon him. How he struggles and how he finds courage to solve the situation. There is no relationship between a Pope and therapist who have a 10 sentence conversation. Even the other therapist - therapists wife does not have any major impact or role in the movie whatsoever. Okay she kind of connects with the Pope but has more of a satirical role considering the outcome and storyline. Misleading is this introduction. Please change it.

Saw the film in yesterday's Febiofest opening ceremony, with Nanni Moretti and Sandrine Bonnaire's presence to receive special achievement awards for their dedication of cinema. As a Cannes' underachiever last year, the film sports a vigorous comedic sugar-coat from the very beginning, after a majestically spectacular funeral of the deceased Pope and ignites by a cardinal's pratfall in the dark, then the new-elected Pope, a dark horse as none of the potential candidates are willing to take on the burden title (an unconvincing but laughable situation inside the chamber election) is not prepared for the supreme responsibility and fails to bulk himself up to soldier on his first public appearance for his election, the farce has grown out of control, exaggerated by the stunt of the eloped Pope roaming around Rome all by himself (unrecognized by the mass as no one is informed the name of the new Pope out of the Vatican), also the escaping procedure is too unpractical to exert for an octogenarian Michel Piccoli. The laughters are perpetual during the screen time, but Nanni Moretti's sarcastic lightheartedness has gradually outrun his incisive judgement, the whole buffoonery of the cardinals and regularly repeated gags are running out of vitality, culminating a quirky self- consciousness during the slow-motions of each cardinals who are competing strenuously for the international-tour of the volleyball competition set in the yard just beneath the Pope's chamber (each team is divided by regions and the intelligence quotient of all these wise men are skeptically challenged by the wide-eyed conversions. On the other hand, the Pope's route on the run also falls restrained (Mr. Piccolo's approachable performance is a pro against the odds of the priority of a ridicule keynote).The film could have got Michel Piccoli's surefire paramount accomplishment during his over 65 years acting career span, which is remorsefully undermined by the willful levity of the film and the denouement is too unorthodox to endorse even from an agnostic point-of-view.