Kirpianuscus to critic this biopic is the first temptation for a not Romano-Catholic believer. but, maybe, the rain of stones to the director and actors is not exactly the wise choice. because it is not easy to imagine other solution to tell about a saint. the film is too sentimental and too sweet. a pious homage to a Pope suffocated by clichés and the status of impressive human institution. and to compare with the first part does more damages to this film. but... . it is a remember of well known events. it is a Catholic expression of respect and love for the most important European figure from the Church, in the second part of XX century. and, sure, it is a religious film. more than a biographic one. respecting the rules of the genre. so, it is so easy to critic it. but, in same measure, more important remains to respect a subjective adaptation of one of the most significant reign in Catholic Church from the last century.

buiger I very much agree with the comments made by Piotr and dennis888 above. Not nearly as detailed or introspective as the first part, and far too obsequious.It's funny, the same director made the first part of Pope John Paul II's biography and it was very good. Now this second part seems as if it was made only to get over with it once and for all. There is no emotion in the film-making (which was evident in the first part) no humanity in the characterization of Karol Woytila, he seems like a sanctified caricature of himself, there are no doubts, no dwelling, no uncertainties. Also the world events which he helped to shape are treated very superficially, almost as if they reluctantly had to be somehow included. A shame really, I was expecting something much better.

andre-lempicki I am Jewish but when I saw "Karol, the Pope" and especially the performance of Piotr Adamczyk, I thought this was Oscar performance. I lived in Los Angeles for many years and I think that this performance could NEVER get any nod from the 5,000 members of the Academy. Wrong topic, wrong religion, wrong nationality of the actor (Polish), etc. I am not politically correct right now, but that's what I think. His interpretation of the life of the Polish pope was exquisite, very emotional and just perfect. To show the Pope throughout the years, from the young man to the dying man, with all its humor, humaneness and big heart, was just unbelievable. I cried throughout the movie, which does not happen very often, because being a filmmaker I am very cynical. Have a nice day, Andre

jcastano-2 it is a very good movie and a moving one, but I think it is a very small movie for such a big pope. It would be interesting if in the DVD features, we could find some statistics about the quantity of travels, the quantity of people he met, the amount of speeches he gave, the influence he had on different churches, catholic and non catholic, etc.The movie stays short in the trips he made to America, Mexico, Chile and many other countries for specific reasons and church problems that were taking place in the catholic church. Hoe he renovated the moral sense and thoughts of many priests, and theologians, how he insisted in the universal call to holiness, his love for the blessed sacrament, the renovation of the religious life, the problems with the Society of Jesus, some bishops and catholic doctrine professors. The way he used to reunite philosophers, scientists, from around the whole world to discuss many items every year.I know it would be impossible to reunite 26 years in a 2 hour movie, but it is a very good try, to start with.