2w ago

Conclave was almost a great movie, but failed to stick the landing

Like many people, the death of the pope led me to decide now was the time to watch Conclave.

I really enjoyed it. It had such excellent atmosphere, brilliant aesthetics, excellent acting, and music that fit the mood perfectly. The political intrigue was compelling, if a little shallow.

And then we get to the end. I was not surprised at who ended up on the throne. Basic media familiarity had me guessing correctly who it would be from early in the first act. And watching how his votes changed over the various ballots was all the more satisfying because of that.

And then at the very end, it completely dropped the ball. Instead of a gradual build up of his votes leading to his win, he just suddenly wins by accident. The accident itself was set up well enough, but the extent of its influence on the outcome of the next ballot was overblown, in my opinion.

And after that came the final twist. An interesting one. And one a better movie might have wrestled with a bit. Instead, no character at any point made any decisions based on learning it, because instead of influencing the denouement, that twist itself was the denouement, and then we cut to credits. No buildup, no payoff, just twist and done.

I enjoyed it up until then, but was left feeling hollow by the lacklustre ending.

11 comments

Iirc this is pretty realistic. After a certain number of voting rounds cardinals often agree to switch to a different candidate, with such candidate who suddenly comes up as a new option taking a huge jump in votes for him.
- Re the context of when the book was written...I didn't actually know it was based on a book, as I watched it. I did already know that as I wrote this review, but that was too late to shape my original interpretation of the film as I watched it.
  Plus, I don't really love it as an excuse. There are two possibilities as I see it. Either it worked in the book but didn't translate well to screen, in which case they should have made the necessary changes to come up with something that did work. Or it didn't work in the book and they should have taken the opportunity of the adaptation to improve upon it. It wouldn't be the first time an adaptation significantly changed the source material.
  
  I'd agree that it seems unnecessarily overdramatic in the movie plus due to the fact that we are closed in with the cardinals, we don't see how this attack was possible nor the police investigations that follow it. So we are left with an incomplete picture and the cardinals' reactions to that.

I agree with you and I think quite a few other people have shared similar sentiments here too. There is nothing wrong with any of the narrative components that comprise the ending, but they aren't given enough time throughout the film to match everything that has come before. All the political thriller tension type stuff leading up to the finale is consistently excellent and there is a lot of time spent on this sort of personal crisis the lead is going through, with quite a bit of foreshadowing that he is going to be corrupted by a lust for power. Yet that never actually comes, and instead we get a different ending which is fine but hasn't received anywhere near as much attention. It's like a 9/10 film for 85% that drops to a 6/10 right at the end. I left the cinema feeling somewhat disappointed but if I reflect honestly on the entire film it was still great and absolutely worth the watch.
- with quite a bit of foreshadowing that he is going to be corrupted by a lust for power
  Yeah I definitely saw this and was a little disappointed it didn't amount to anything. I left it out because I wasn't actually sure it was really there, or if I just read it into the film without serious evidence.
  It’s like a 9/10 film for 85% that drops to a 6/10 right at the end
  Those are almost the exact numbers I was gonna give it. I'd have said 8/10 down to 6/10.
  
  Yeah I definitely saw this and was a little disappointed it didn’t amount to anything. I left it out because I wasn’t actually sure it was really there, or if I just read it into the film without serious evidence.
  I had the exact same experience. I went with some family, so we were talking about it afterwards and I mentioned that I was kind of disappointed that this seduction of power element didn't go anywhere and no one else even knew what I was talking about. But I think we're right, it was definitely in there...we're not crazy!
  
  I actually rewatched it tonight and I've changed my mind that the "power corrupts" theme doesn't go anywhere. On a second viewing (where I could concentrate 100% without someone eating popcorn loudly in my ear) I thought there was actually quite a well rounded arc built around that theme, ::: spoiler spoiler with the conclusion coming when Lawrence admits to Bellini he has considered his own papacy and finally succumbs by voting for himself. The suicide bombing occurs right as he casts his vote, and acts as a symbolic intervention from God in response to his sin.
  Aside from distraction in the cinema and the benefits of a second viewing, I think the reason I overlooked this the first time around is because it is immediately followed and perhaps overshadowed by the multiple plot twists involving Benitez, who until then hasn't featured much in the film. Originally I thought his story didn't really tie in with that of Lawrence, and I still think it is underdeveloped considering the ending of the film, but now I can see that if Benitez represents innocence then the ending of the film is really about Lawrence coming through a trial of his faith and the temptation of sin to rediscover this. :::

11 comments