Context: Cardinal Lawrence is tasked with one of the world’s most secretive and ancient events, which is participating in selecting a new pope. Surrounded by powerful religious leaders in the halls of the Vatican, he soon uncovers a trail of deep secrets that could shake the very foundation of the Roman Catholic Church.

Review: It doesn’t hide any mystery, telling us immediately when it takes us straight to the pope’s private chambers as he’s dying. The real mystery that it holds is its plot slowly filling the holes like puzzle pieces as “Cardinal Lawrence,” played by Ralph Fiennes, finds out through detective work and answers from both going to the other cardinals and the other cardinals coming to Lawrence about some dangerous candidates One cardinal is African but 30 years prior had a child with a 19-year-old while he was 30 and is forced to step out of the elections after being recommended by Lawrence. 

Another cardinal who is more liberal, whom he fears will bring the church back and ruin 60 years of progress (and maybe a little racist after giving a dirty look to the same black cardinal) and a cardinal who is homophobic. All of them end up backing out of the election closer to the film’s end. 

Cardinal Lawrence has no desire for the papacy and makes it clear that he plans to resign as dean after the elections and leave Rome sitting with “a lack of faith.” The man who ends up getting the papacy is a Mexican cardinal who was unknown as he had been secretly made a cardinal by the pope a year before his death.

Previously, it was put out there that this Mexican cardinal had been in Switzerland at the Geneva hospital and in Baghdad that the year is currently 2025 and that during the film, there are two terrorist attacks. 

1. Watching the film, I couldn’t remember Ralph Fiennes being so deep in the characters that he’s playing. It’s at least expected from an actor of his magnitude (not to say that the other actors weren’t fantastic in their own right, but Ralph simply surpassed them, although I do wish to see them in more pictures as I continue to watch and review more films).
2. Watching more recent films, I’ve noticed that a lot of the camera work and movements of the 70s seemed to come back into fashion within the last 5 years, but not with all films. (mostly animated films and Michael Bay films) The camera work of Conclave is different, though as someone who has studied other films, I hope to believe that the atmosphere around the camera is always dark in this unsettling situation up until the end when these children wearing bright clothes leave one of the Vatican buildings poetic… Poetic indeed.

Now, what was wrong with the film? Honestly, there is nothing that I can see, and I’m not trying to say that it is a perfect film because nothing is perfect. Still, this film is one of these cases when it just seems too perfect. I would be interested in seeing a director’s cut of the film if and when it comes to Blu-ray, though witnessing the outsider’s perspective watching the pipe to see if a new pope had been “selected” or not would have been interesting, I digress.

10/10.