Readers may or may not enjoy my brief reaction to “We Have a Pope.”
I am not satisfied with the articulation of what I wanted to say, but had procrastinated too long for that very reason. So, if what I have written sparks conversation, I am satisfied.
http://kellyjwilson.blogspot.com/2012/09/we-have-pope-2011.html
Your review is well-written, and I agree with much if not all of it. How this film could ever have been described as a comedy--that's just beyond me.
However, I *do* agree with the review you cited in which the film (and script) is described as not deep at all. While Habemus Papum does end up looking very deeply indeed into the complexities of this "strange story" (how many people, or males, ever find themselves in the situation?), it does so indirectly and maybe even despite itself. The screenplay is very uneven, and the role of the cardinals and conclave almost pointless. As written, the cardinals and conclave exist simply to give an excuse to a pope missing-in-action.
If there had been some--some--theological discussions among the "also-rans" and the nearly electeds...well, it would have been like Job's Comforters: a group of men sitting around discussing exactly what's wrong with Cardinal Melville. Of course the point is that nothing at all is wrong with Cardinal Melville, except perhaps incipient senility (*perhaps*).
Finally, the coincidence of The Seagull was just over-the-top. Whenever a film fluctuates between genres as awkwardly as this film does, it can't really be a success. The ironic thing, really ironic, is that the unevenness finally seems more true to life (as you point out) than purple-prose Catholic drama.