"Conclave"

  ☆☆☆☆½ 

The movies used to be filled with gems like Conclave, a terrific thriller with what they used to tout as an "all-star cast." It's a movie that assumes the audience possesses a certain level of intelligence, and while I'm tempted to say Conclave is "sophisticated," that might make it sound like something it's not — this isn't a dull, ponderous examination of politics in the church, it's a corker of a movie, a fun an unpredictable bit of entertainment.

Let's get something out of the way first: Conclave is about the process of picking a pope. I know, that doesn't sound too promising, at least as far as thrillers go, and because I went into the movie armed with absolutely no foreknowledge, I made a strange assumption it was going to be one of those overwrought Catholic horror movies. It's not, thank God.

Ralph Fiennes stars as Cardinal Lawrence, whose unenviable task is to manage the process of picking a pope when the current head of the Catholic church dies. A couple of hundred cardinals are flown in from around the world, ready to be sequestered for as long as it takes. They include ambitious American clerics played by John Lithgow and Stanley Tucci, an equally ambitious Nigerian cardinal played by Lucian Msmati, a deeply conservative Italian (Sergio Castellito), and a surprise last-minute addition: a previously unknown cardinal secretly appointed by the late pope, played by newcomer Carlos Diehz. He's been serving in Kabul, and his liberal views align with the cardinal played by Tucci, threatening to upend the process.

Or, at the very least, to make an already difficult process even more difficult, because Conclave is eager to show that this is a process filled with politicking, backbiting, campaigning and name-calling. You know, all the good stuff.

A group of nuns supports the priests. They're led by Isabella Rossellini, and if she seems to be awfully quiet in the background, rest assured movie producers don't hire Isabella Rossellini for nothing.

She's very good, in one key moment earning an appreciative cheer without saying a word. All the performers in Conclave are uniformly strong, and while it's easy to single out Fiennes for a fine, serious and often deep performance, no member of the cast makes a wrong move.

That's critical in a movie like this, which starts out as an earnest drama before making moves, small at first, into thriller territory. By the end, it does thrill indeed, particularly as the outside world — unknown to the sequestered cardinals — boils over as vote after vote fails to yield results. It's all compulsively watchable, even in the moment or two it veers a little too closely to silliness, though the deft work of a cast like this and of director Edward Berger, working with screenwriter Peter Straughan to adapt the novel by Robert Harris.

Big credit goes to Focus Features for bringing Conclave to the big screen rather than releasing it straight to streaming, as happened with Berger's last film, All Quiet on the Western Front. It's thoughtful, compelling, exciting and best enjoyed in the dark, with some popcorn and an appreciative audience that laughs and gasps and even cheers at all the right moments — the gasps are the best part, and there are a lot of them.

Viewed October 27, 2024 — AMC Topanga 12

1330

"Megalopolis"

  ☆☆½ 

After seeing Megalopolis, the film director Francis Ford Coppola has been dreaming about for 45 years, I searched the Internet for articles about the plot of the movie I had just watched. I wanted to be sure of what I had seen. After reading many of these articles, the only thing I am sure of is that nobody is sure of exactly what they saw happen in Megalopolis.

I had read that there were characters, ideas and entire plot points that somehow go missing in Megalopolis, but I was loathe to believe it because Francis Ford Coppola may have a history as a maverick filmmaker but he is a good filmmaker. He is always interesting. Some of his movies are among the most literate pieces of cinema you'll ever want to see.

But, in fact, Megalopolis has characters, ideas and entire plot points that somehow go missing. The whole movie is a weird, put-it-all-in-a-blender kind of affair — you can make out specific ingredients, but only for a moment, as they swirl together into something else, something that, it must be said, is disappointingly bland and probably not very nutritious.

But there are visions! Oh, there are visions. And there are ideas! Oh, there are ideas. A lot of them, it appears, have to do with ancient Roman history, and forgive me for being an ignorant American but I am not as well versed in the nuances of intrigue in Rome nearly 2,000 years ago. That's on me. I've got to go with what I see in front of me, and what I might gather it means from the character names, the ways of dress, and the fact that New York is referred to here as New Rome. To quote Close Encounters of the Third Kind: "This means something."

Just what it means isn't readily clear. Better to just watch. The images are strong, powerful, sometimes surprising and often beautiful (though, it must be said, once in a while cheap-looking). They are all in service of a story that follows a visionary architect and, apparently, chemist who has won the Nobel Prize for creating a revolutionary new building material. He wants to use it to remove urban blight (never mind that people live in what he considers the blight) in New Rome, but the corrupt mayor isn't having it. His wild-child daughter decides he likes the architect, who can stop time—literally, except not literally, well, sort of. There are some other characters. A lot of them. Like the crazy banker who runs New Rome and gets married to a media personality name Wow Platinum. 

Yes, there is a character named Wow Platinum.

Adam Driver is the architect, Giancarlo Esposito is the mayor, Nathalie Emmanuel is the daughter, Aubrey Plaza is Wow Platinum. Aubrey Plaza is a performer with near-perfect taste. She is good in almost everything. Note that I said "near-perfect" and "almost." Francis Ford Coppola must have made her a deal she couldn't resist for this one. The movie also features Laurence Fishburn in a minor role and also as the narrator, who reads words that appear on screen, rather unhelpfully. Dustin Hoffman pops up for a couple of scenes of attempted flamboyance, and Shia LaBeouf rather quizzically spends most of his time in drag. Nothing is explained. Nothing at all.

Let me say that again: Nothing in Megalopolis is explained. Maybe Coppola felt explanations are for dumb people. That may well be. I felt pretty dumb watching a lot of Megalopolis. I didn't understand what I was looking at, but it was mostly pretty and almost never boring, and when I went to bed afterward I was discomfited to find that in my dreams were some of the buildings and characters and cityscapes I had just watched. It worked its way into my brain, and on that level, I guess Coppola has done something few filmmakers get a chance to do. It also appears he made exactly the movie he wanted. I hope he did. I hope he feels satisfied in a way most audiences will likely not.

Viewed October 27, 2024 — AMC Burbank 8

2030