Il mercante di pietre

One of awful film I've ever seen ! The plot miss for any logic, the scenes that insist so much on the protagonist's mutilation are disturbing because it is done only to move mercy and compassion to the spectator. The dialogs are so obvious to become disturbing. The theory behind the film is debatable and a bit racist. Moreover the scene where 2 terrorists chase the protagonist running with the hands is involuntarily funny. I was tempted to leave the cinema before it ends. I can save just Harvey Keithel (I don't understand how such a good actor is in this kind of film ! ) and some soundtrack. So just a warm suggestion: please keep away from this film !

If this film had been made by a fundamentalist Christian group lead by the crackpot Koran burning Florida Pastor, I would have believed it. Except for the well known actors, the whole film seemed like one of those church funded efforts usually made with 'C' list players.

Let me list some of the flaws:

The color was awful ranging from almost normal to a washed out blue/green tint to almost no color at all.

Havey Keitel was miscast, and rather than a wealthy cosmopolitan gem dealer able to attract a beautiful young woman, he looked like a seedy old panhandler of the kind you cross the street to avoid. The bedroom scenes were just nauseating.

Did anyone ever shave? Some might find a few days beard growth attractive, I just find it scruffy.

The dubbing was poor. Jordi Molla went from a soft European accent to a sharp American accent in mid sentence several times.

The plot was ridiculous. Not only for the desk pounding propaganda, but the little things, such as why did F. Murry Abraham's character need to be on the ferry to activate the cell phone. He could have done it from the shore in Dover. In an early scene, two terrorists leave their bags under seats in the airport before the shootout with security. What happened to the bags. Were they disarmed before blowing up. Even a five year old could blow holes in this plot.

The lack of subtitles or captions made the dialogue hard to follow for the hearing impaired such as myself. Likewise, the lack of a 'making of' featurette.

Not really a flaw, as you can switch off at the end, but the very lengthy credits which mentioned everyone who had supplied anything and everything for the film in the way of props: e.g. coffee maker, dispenser, hotel furniture, curtains, table ware, and on and on. I am used to hairdressers, make up artists and musicians being credited, and also locations, but this list was ludicrous.

When the best thing you can say about a film is that the singer heard in the opening scene was good, and the scenes of Cappadocia were beautiful, it does not say much for the film overall.

Many complain that Italian cinema isn't doing well because it lacks the budget, this is an example of a mess of a movie done with a lot of money. Renzo Martinelli has shot decent films in the past, but this is a big letdown, except for a few high points. The beginning, for instance is very powerful and Harvey Keitel is always quite effective.

The movie has been harshly debated for its controversial, conservative point of view on terrorism. But the screenplay is so bad that its stances cannot really be taken seriously. To make a political statement there are more subtle ways than make a character hold a university lesson (in front of very few students. a metaphor?). Also director Renzo Martinelli here shows he hasn't got (yet?) the hand for action scenes. Few and quite bad, here.

For the reviewer here who wrote "the wars between Muslims and Christians started with the crusades " please get some basic knowledge in history before spouting such nonsense. The vast majorities of North Africa, Spain, the near East to include all areas of the Byzantine Empire, to include Anatolia, Palestine, Judea, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq were large majority Christian until wars by Islam forcibly converted or killed the Christians in those places. In fact the Crusades were set off by tenth and eleventh century Califs destroying churches by the hundreds

A handful of people seem upset that the complex issue of Islamic terrorism (by far the largest source of terrorism today) is laid where it is to blame, within the Islamacist movement. Sorry but this is a fact.

I'm a fairly passive critic of movies usually, but I would have guilt-ridden nights if I didn't do my part in exposing the crassness of this particular film.

The opening scene, though not particularly original, looks somewhat promising -but it all comes crashing down from there. The B (or C) rate acting is exposed from the first word uttered and the cinematography is rushed and confused. But that's a "relatively" minor fault. The plot is so savagely simplistic, churning out such skewed analyses as 'But not all Muslims are terrorists -Yes, but most terrorists are Muslims' to deliver it's never-trust-a-Muslim message, you wonder how it made it through even the most bigoted film censors. I am ashamed to say that I watched until the end, with the faint hope that maybe this was actually going to turn into one big joke aimed at exposing a narrow-minded western understanding of Islam. But alas, the film stays its course until its dismal, racist end.

Its one redeeming factor is that it is so plain bad, that it serves as an own-goal to those half-wit neo-cons.

Harvey! What were you thinking when you read the script?! What a hopeless waste of money.