ladiesbane

If you took away the setting and the glorious camera work, what would you have left?

Precious little.

I gladly bought a ticket to hear those wonderful voices, to see those bright observant eyes, but as a movie, it did little for me.

The actors did a beautiful job with what they had, but the script was not memorable. It was barely noticeable. The plot was skimpy and predictable.

If you want castle intrigue of the papal variety, "The New Pope" is great. "The Young Pope" is also great. Consider "The Conclave" from 2006, or "The Borgias" if you enjoy the lurid.

But my question for all the people who really rave about "Conclave": did it make you feel anything, and if so, what? Did you still find yourself reviewing it mentally the next day? Can you recall a single line or phrase from it? Can you describe a character in detail, or the transformation of that character that occurred over the course of the movie?

No Conclave fan I've met so far has been able to do this. They just talk about its visual splendor and arresting camera work.

There are some things to like about this movie, lots to dislike, and nothing to love.

The opening was heavy, clunky, too long, for too little. I was prepared to suspend all critical thinking and go along for a ride, but instead, I was doing homework as they tried to do too much at the start.

Plot was too complicated and demanding. This was sold as a frolic, and it needed editing. Not only was it way too long, but it was a very slow sit. It dragged a bit in the first third and then dragged harder and harder over time.

Characters were nice, but underdeveloped. I didn't want Shakespeare, but I was hoping for rich cartoon characters rather than clunky ones.

Heavy emotional themes and an enormous plot hold were more millstones around the neck of this movie. Way too heavy for what should have been a romp.

Good things:

A few funny D&D references, most of the better visuals being in the trailer.

Great casting and playing overall; sorry the script didn't come through for them.

Hugh Grant is coming into a great age for comedy and I'm delighted; he used to be wasted as the love interest, and now he gets to do fun character stuff. With one exception, all the secondary characters were gems; we should have spent more time with them and their stories (or pare down the bloated main thread to balance).

Chris Pine was a total turnoff. Broke my heart. I've loved him in other things, but he had no chemistry for this role. Instead of being a lovable smooth-talking rogue, he seemed bored and cynical, not as a character, but as an actor.

I am a pushover when it comes to fantasy. I will cheerfully re-watch almost anything with a sword, a dragon, a quest, or a lute. I don't care if it's highly produced or low budget, famous folks or nobodies, earnest fantasy or light comedy. But I will never watch this tiresome parody again.