The Shoes of the Fisherman (1968)

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

I have a feeling that in 1968, this movie was a major deal. The Shoes of the Fisherman showed the intimate, intricate process of selecting a new pope after the current one's death, and it included real footage of the coronation ceremony while splicing in footage of a properly bedecked Anthony Quinn. Devout Catholics who have an interest in the process and ceremony will probably be very interested in this movie. Modern audiences who maybe aren't as serious about the religion will find it, as I did, incredibly boring.The plot synopsis reveals Anthony Quinn has been released after spending decades in a POW camp, but he doesn't act like he's been through anything more difficult than remembering his lines. Normally, I think he's a brilliant actor, but he must have been angry at the director because he wasn't nearly as good as he could have been. You would think, playing a character who's endured years of imprisonment, he'd have an underlying pain behind his eyes. You would think, playing a character who's up for consideration to become the new pope, would have a multitude of expressions at his disposal, rather than just one that says, "I'm cold and I'm sad about it." Whatever Tony was trying to do didn't come across.John Gielgud plays the pope, of course, but as he often did during his later years, he acts like he's enormously bored and would rather be somewhere else. Laurence Olivier plays a Russian bigwig, but even his biggest fans will admit he isn't always the best at accents. Speaking of accents, for the first half of the film, I didn't know what kind of accent Anthony Quinn was putting on. At first I thought he was Italian, then Russian, then Spanish, then Transylvanian. By the time I was convinced he came from the land of Count Dracula, another character in the movie informed the audience he was supposed to be Ukrainian.David Janssen takes up a good third of the movie, and this third could have easily been cut. He plays an adulterer and a reporter. His scenes are pointless, irritating, and boring. Oskar Werner plays a priest with religious doubts, but the scenes they gave him to express his opinions and spark an interesting debate were both watered down and intentionally confusing, maybe so the audience would tune out and not pay attention to this part of the story.As you can tell, I didn't like this movie. I appreciated the detail included with regards to the election process, but as far as the dialogue and acting, I wasn't impressed. Catholic moviegoers might want to check out The Thorn Birds instead.

it is a great adaptation. with its good points and sins. he is the film of a precise political, religious and cultural context. but, against inaccuracy, against the idealism of Morris West, against, maybe, the great cast and the status of prediction for John Paul II,against the noble and idealistic solution for solve a delicate crisis, it is a film who remains actual. like the book. because it explores profound themes. and desires of everyone. because it is a support for remember, poetry with taste with fairy tale and reflection of contemporary world. sure, at the status of sketch. but enough to see again. so, touching. in a real special way.

I am a man of faith but not Catholic. I appreciated the taste with with faith and Catholicism were portrayed in the movie. Not a perfect movie and it can appear dated at times. However it does have some plot twists, makes you think and reminds you of the hope and humanity of the human race.Quinn does an excellent job portraying the conflict he faces. The supporting cast plays their wells true. Some of the premises and solutions might be far fetched but the plot does a great job of portraying the agony and subsequent growth one goes through as he or she is faced with difficult life changing decisions.

Well, for me, "Shoes of the Fisherman" is a science fiction movie about the future of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe the big question posed by the movie is this "What if a Marxist left wing socialist is elected Pope of the Roman Catholic Church? How would that church react to a pope with a agenda like that? How would the world react?" Despite the fact that the future pope, archbishop Lakota (Anthony Quinn) is locked away and tortured in a Soviet Prison Camp for 20 years, His actions and statements shows his preference for Socialism. For instance, at one point, he mentions his violent advocacy of a Socialist sounding "Authentic Christian Revolution with work for all, bread for all, dignity for all men". At the beginning of the film, Kiril rejects the medieval structure of the Roman Catholic Church, where he rejects being a "Prince" of the church because he wants a mission to be with "simple men". At another point of the film, Lakota goes "AWOL" and decides to be a regular "working man's" priest, ditches his "Pope" stuff and hangs out with the "people". At another point in the film, Lakota confesses to Father Telemond (another fellow Radical) about his guilt in being a "Prince" while regular people starve. And at the end, our "Socialist" Pope gives away all the wealth of the church to help the suffering.