Seneca

The basic motif for see it was the presence of John Malkovich , no doubts. The feeling seeing Seneca was about a most reasonable version of Caligula by Tinto Brass. Not for eccentricity or for kitsch, but for same fair reflection about power , apparences against deep reality, profound loneliness, fall of world and wisdome as imperfect tool, violence and death, about a Rome who escapes to a precise period for universal message, if it is not faithfull reflection of present .

The good point - the cast. And the admirable performance of John Malkovich. And the nice, sure, respecting a Hollywood recipe, portrait of Nero - the title the President reminds the novels of Garcia Marquez - .

A film who I like . For the irony who seems ignoring the limits, for one of last roles of Julian Sands, for Geraldine Chaplin as matrona refugied in artificial world, for young Louis Hofman and, not the last, I repeat, for Tom Xander as Nero.

Not deserves to be ignored Andrew Koji as Felix.

And for the try to remind essential values, so easy ignored by our time. Not last, for remind of more than significant name for European culture of Lucius Annaeus Seneca.

The film adaptation of Seneca's "On the Creation of Earthquakes" unfortunately misses the mark. While the philosophical ideas in the original work are fascinating, the film version fails to capture the essence of the text. Instead, the film creates a badly theatrical style that is always over-explaining jokes and making edgy commentary. This is a shame because the philosopher is portrayed extremely badly in the film, and his ideas are not given the attention they deserve.

I had the opportunity to watch this film during its premier week at the Berlinale festival, and unfortunately, many people left before the film ended due to how bad it was. While the idea of adapting Seneca's work for the big screen is admirable, this particular attempt falls short of expectations. The film fails to convey the beauty and depth of the original work, and instead opts for a style that tries too hard to be clever and edgy.

In conclusion, while the film adaptation of Seneca's "On the Creation of Earthquakes" has its merits, the overall execution leaves much to be desired. The badly theatrical style, combined with the over-explaining of jokes and edgy commentary, detract from the philosophical ideas that are at the core of the original work. It is unfortunate that the film did not do justice to the brilliance of Seneca's ideas.

Senator Seneca (John Malkovich) is a close advisor and supporter of Emperor Nero (Tom Xander). He has been Nero's teacher since childhood. He talks non-stop and constantly advises Nero to be an ethical ruler. As Nero becomes tyrannical, he is forced to bend his views into excusing Nero's excesses. After an attempt on Nero's life, an innocent Seneca is still accused. Nero gives him the gift of taking his own life.

This is a historical dramatization of the Stoic Seneca. It's a smallish production with a nice cast led by Malkovich. It reminds me of a play in the park except it's in beautiful Morocco locations. I find myself drawing parallel lines between this movie and the present day. Some connections are more clearer than others. It's funny that he asks why bad things happen to good people. That's probably my high point. All his excuses ring very real for today. I'm less interested in his decline and his declaration of the Roman decline. He is centuries too early for Rome and anyone comparing this with America is probably almost as early.

Seneca was a stoic philosopher and moralist known today for his letters, dialogs and plays, all of which are readily available and eminently readable. He survived the brutal reign of Caligula, was exiled under Claudius, and was a tutor and advisor to Nero. Like many close to this emperor (or Mr. President in the film), Seneca did not survive the experience, and committed suicide in 65 AD on orders of Nero.

Malkovich delivers a fine performance while quoting various Senecan type things. It's very close to a monologue. Being an art film, it has some very weird twists, most of which fall very flat indeed - from Nero's sunglasses to the bizarre paper-mache microphone and the bizarre staging of the play-within-a-play, Seneca's own Thyestes. That aside, it's an interesting meditation on death, and worth watching if you're a fan of the classics.

The modernization and attempted comparison to modern falls flat, and spoils what might have been a fascinating stoic 'letter' to the present.

"This is not for everyone"... if you've seen movies described in a similar vein and appreciated them, there's a solid chance you'll enjoy this one too. If not, well, you might just find out within the first few minutes, especially when Nero, in all his whimsical glory, whips off those purple sunglasses - it's just that movie that you either love, or hate.

Prepare for a handful of those "WTF" moments that, in my view, add a delightful quirkiness. The visuals are captivating, enriched by impeccable costumes, and there's this persistent feeling of strangeness, accentuated by the score (sometimes trendy, sometimes deeply atmospheric) and compelling yet unexpected sound/visual FX.

John Malkovich is unmistakably himself, radiating a jovial energy throughout the film. Expect a hefty dose of dialogue that oscillates between eloquent monologues and stark colloquialisms, often transitioning from archaic phrases to modern slang seamlessly (which is odd but fun), and, just to throw it in, a fair bit of that dialogue is inspired by Seneca's own words or at least resonates closely with his ethos (as far as I can tell, anyway - I'm no Seneca scholar).

Props to director Robert Schwentke for this unique spin on history. "Seneca" is quite a trip. Whether you're here for some cerebral stimulation or just seeking a detour from the norm, this film ticks some boxes (at least it did for me ;)

In short, if you're in the mood for something different with a hint of crazy, give "Seneca" a shot. But, you know, come in with zero expectations and just roll with it.