Tacticalin An absolute waste of money

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Winifred The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

GusF Based on the 1963 novel of the same name by Morris West, it tells the story of a Ukrainian archbishop named Kiril Lakota who, after being released from 20 years imprisonment in a Siberian labour camp, is elevated to the Cardinalate. He does not want the position, begging Pope Pius XIII for "a simple mission with simple people," but it is essentially forced upon him. When the Pope dies, Cardinal Lakota is elected to succeed him and even more reluctantly accepts that position, taking the papal name Kiril I. In the meantime, the world is on the brink of full scale nuclear war due to a breakdown in Sino-Soviet relations exacerbated by widespread famine and starvation in China.Anthony Quinn is simply marvellous as the brilliantly characterised Pope Kiril, a man of great intelligence, wisdom, compassion and dignity. In a wonderfully understated performance, he plays the new Pope as a quiet, contemplative man who cares deeply about the world and its people, Catholic and otherwise. He finds being called to fill the shoes of the fisherman not only a daunting task but a lonely one too. Feeling cut off in the Vatican, he has his personal aide find him the black cassock of an ordinary priest so that he might walk through the streets of Rome in disguise, something which may have been inspired by "Henry V". Tending to a Jewish man on his deathbed, he recites the Kaddish which he learned from a rabbi in the prison camp. He is a true man of the people.Laurence Olivier is typically excellent as Kiril's former jailer Piotr Kamenev, who has likewise moved up in the world as he has become the Soviet premier. Another very strong character, he was presumably named after the early Soviet politician Lev Kamenev. By no means another Stalin, he is an intelligent and pragmatic, though conservative, Communist. He has no more desire for nuclear war than anyone else. As he realises that the Pope can influence millions of voters in the Western democracies, he seeks his assistance in mediating talks with China's leader Chairman Peng. Olivier has relatively little screen time but commands the screen whenever he appears on it and he has great chemistry with Quinn.It has an excellent cast overall: Oskar Werner as Father David Telemond, who becomes Kiril's closest friend but is silenced by the Vatican for his heretical views; Leo McKern as Cardinal Leone, who often disagrees with the Pope's decisions; Vittorio De Sica as Cardinal Rinaldi, who proposes Kiril's election to the papacy and who sadly disappears from the film after its first half; David Janssen as George Faber, the Rome correspondent for an American TV network who doesn't take "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" too seriously; Barbara Jefford as his long-suffering wife Dr. Ruth Faber; Burt Kwouk as Chairman Peng, one of his most serious roles; and, in a fantastic cameo, the great John Gielgud as Pope Pius XIII. It has also nice appearances from Clive Revill, Niall MacGinnis and Marne Maitland in small roles, though Frank Finlay is atypically bad in his one scene role as Igor Bounin.The film benefits hugely from its top-notch script. It is filled with great characterisation and the dialogue is beautifully written. It is an extremely intelligent film which does not condescend to its audience. Much of the film concerns the internal politics of the Vatican, very much a world onto itself, as well as the Vatican's role in the politics of the outside world. It also features a fascinating examination of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular through Father Telemond's unorthodox beliefs. Kiril's relationship with him is the most interesting part of the film. The Sino-Soviet subplot is extremely effective. On the other hand, the (unresolved) one concerning the Fabers' failing marriage is the least interesting part of the film but it's still well done. It is very, very well directed by Michael Anderson, who gives the material a suitably epic feel. Shot entirely in Rome, the film made excellent use of the beautiful scenery of the Eternal City but, at the same time, it was not afraid to show its underbelly in the scenes where Kiril visits one of the poorest parts of Rome while disguised as a priest. They don't make them like this anymore, I'm afraid.

dleifker The visual richness of this movie is simply breathtaking. I was swept along by the vividness of the images and almost found myself ignoring the plot. After it was over, I was shocked to learn that it was 162 minutes long because it seemed much shorter. My only gripe is that the plot feels thin, and too much time is spent on the crumbling marriage of the TV reporter and his wife. They could have left that out and expanded the main plot, which literally concerned the fate of the planet. Nevertheless, there are many enjoyable parts of this film, especially if you're curious about the inner workings (and pomp) of the Vatican.

RResende One has to admire how cleverly this story anticipates reality. The understanding that the "insider" from behind the curtain, placed in the right position, with the right power, could make a difference in the outcome of the cold war.Well, most of what we see in this film is romantic brain washing. The cliché of the good, well-intentioned, humble man who, despite being at the top of the world and political guidance, still holds as a patron for love and for the lives of the disadvantaged. That's why we have the bits of the pope living an ordinary life, in the "real" city and mostly, that's the meaning of the final scene, which follows 'The Great Dictator'. But in Chaplin, we Really had a committed artist, someone who, in that moment, cared so much for what he stood for, that he risked what he was as a celebrity and even as an artist just to pass the message, of true humanity. Here, we have perverse engineering of the story (i haven't read the book, this refers to the film only). So, that final speech should, and eventually does sound like the rebellion scream of a man who tries and breaks the chains of higher interests, in favor of the disfavored. But it is itself part of the scheme that allows for the brainwashing of those disfavoured, and the replacement of the Church as the spiritual, superior leader. Well, the interests of the church in matters of Cold War and after that were political, were mundane, were not selfless. Not in this situation nor in any other in 2000 years history.But it is remarkable (and i suppose this goes for the writer) how accurate was his prediction. How did he assume that a pope would come from the chains of suffering of the soviet union? Did he know something? How did he create the biography of a man that might really resemble John Paul II? That really is remarkable.The cinematic options are good. The film is highly textured, it shoots many things on location, and it really plays with the colors, and the textures of the inner spaces of the Vatican, it amazed me the visual concerns on those matters. Also i was moved by the use of real footage repeatedly, whenever (i suppose) was the need to show "real" people in S.Peter's square. Whether it was a budget necessity, or a real option, i don't know, but the fact is those moments with real footage made the whole construction slide into a delicious sensation of documentary which, if you over layer the last 30 years of history, will make this a much stronger work. To enhance this, we have a designated storyteller, a reporter who literally tells us the facts, from the public point of view. That reporter has a personal story, which we follow, and which mixes the story of the pope at a certain point. That's not innocent.Well, you can choose to enhance how effectively the cinematic construction works, and how it is probably more powerful today than it was in its day, because of the facts that we know today. Or you can simply stick to the fact that films like this are veiled propaganda, that they intend to bend the opinions of the people without assuming themselves as propaganda. I took that note, but i enjoyed the experience.My opinion: 3/5 http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com

Sergio Ferreira The movie has out to the Cinema about 10 years before the world knows the biggest Pope of all mankind, and there is too many common points between Krill and John Paul II, until the "official biography" out in DVD i thought that The Shoes Of Fisherman was the biography of John Paul II until see the date of the movie, but who knows that the movie was a message from heavens. Well we can think that The Fihserman Shoes is a kind of biography before the world knows the man that change the way that the world see your self. Is one of the best movies of ever and could be used like a research tool to a work about the great one John Paul II