User reviews

LA DOLCE VITA presents a series of incidents in the life of Roman tabloid reporter Marcello Rubini (Marcello Mastroianni)--and although each incident is very different in content they create a portrait of an intelligent but superficial man who is gradually consumed by "the sweet life" of wealth, celebrity, and self-indulgence he reports on and which he has come to crave.

Although the film seems to be making a negative statement about self-indulgence that leads to self-loathing, Fellini also gives the viewer plenty of room to act as interpreter, and he cleverly plays one theme against its antithesis throughout the film. (The suffocation of monogamy vs. the meaninglessness of promiscuity and sincere religious belief vs. manipulative hypocrisy are but two of the most obvious juxtapositions.) But Fellini's most remarkable effect here is his ability to keep us interested in the largely unsympathetic characters LA DOLCE VITA presents: a few are naive to the point of stupidity; most are vapid; the majority (including the leads) are unspeakably shallow--and yet they still hold our interest over the course of this three hour film.

The cast is superior, with Marcello Mastroianni's personal charm particularly powerful. As usual with Fellini, there is a lot to look at on the screen: although he hasn't dropped into the wild surrealism for which he was sometimes known, there are quite a few surrealistic flourishes and visual ironies aplenty--the latter most often supplied by the hordes of photographers that scuttle after the leading characters much like cockroaches in search of crumbs. For many years available to the home market in pan-and-scan only, the film is now in a letterbox release that makes it all the more effective. Strongly recommended.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

I first saw this movie probably over 25 years ago when I was quite a bit younger. At that point I enjoyed it for its party scenes, sense of joy and life and vitality and....Marcello Mastroianni. Now that I'm older myself and have just recently seen the movie again, I find that I have a much deeper understanding of it. Maybe it takes some age to find some meaning. In a nutshell, Marcello is at a crossroads in his life, he's unable to settle down or move foreward into any direction - he's a diletante with aspirations but no real goals. He's wrapped up in himself and in projecting rather dreamy ideals onto other people. But as he keeps projecting on to others he comes to find in each situation that he doesn't really know the person and they are a mystery and probably a disappointment to him. certainly steiner is the biggest disappointment and disillusions him to a degree that he is apparently lost to a life of corruption and decadence as a result. but it's not that these people are difficult to understand to someone other than marcello - i think we can see that anita ekberg's character really is just a big good-natured blond and not the mysterious goddess marcello makes her out to be; his father is again - the typical traveling salesman and perhaps not the paternal figure that marcello would like him to be. his amour maddelena lives up to her name even as marcello starts believing himself in love with her - he's literally seduced by nothing more than an image he creates in his own mind. his friend steiner seems to have it all to marcello and to be the renaissance man that he would like to be - but, of course, he is dissatisfied and disturbed and we see what the end is. the only one whom marcello forms a somewhat realistic connection with is his girlfriend whom he treats badly and neglects despite her obvious love for him. he refuses to actually work on the one relationship that he could actually succeed at - he would rather dream about possibilities than actualize something.

marcello cannot communicate with others because he cannot see them as the people they really are - he just sees them as projections of his own needs, aspirations, desires and goals. when he finds out what they're really like, he either turns away or falls apart. this is an outstanding movie - 10 out of 10 and beautifully photographed. if you don't get it now, try again in 10 years - it will wait for you to catch up.

Once a year, get comfy in your favorite place to watch movies. Exclude yourself from the world for about 4 hours and watch La Dolce Vita. This is going to refresh your thoughts about the society and discover that since the 60' Fellini have already deconstructed millennia society so well that after watching the movie you need to give yourself one day to heal. Every year. Don't forget. And every year you'll discover more and more about ourselves as society. There's too much to be deciphered in this movie.

I've seen this film regularly since 1971. In theatres, on TV, on video, on DVD. It doesn't age. If anybody ever needed proof that Fellini was a genius, this is it. La dolce vita remains the most touching statement about the human condition I ever saw on film. Everybody remembers the magic-realistic image of Anita Ekberg in the Trevi fountain, and a truly amazing image it is. But the film is much more than a slightly surrealistic sketchbook of emotionally empty jet setters. It is more existentialist than any book by Sartre or Camus. The final sequence is simply devastating. We are all Marcello. Since over 30 years this is my number-one film.

A triumph of style over substance.

One can't overcome the feeling while watching "La Dolce Vita" that Federico Fellini thinks he's being terribly intellectual and profound, but there's precious little going on in this film's head. It's telling that on a second viewing, when I thought I would discover nuance and detail I missed the first time around, I was instead bored and found myself counting down the minutes until the film was over.

Fellini seems to be criticizing a decadent, empty modern society in which ideas have died. Fair enough. But if he's going to make that point -- and drag it out for over three hours, no less -- perhaps he would have been wise to choose someone other than the rich, privileged class to make the point with. The grand conclusion he comes to in his film is that money, wealth and status aren't enough to give a life meaning or purpose, and don't offer anything to offset the void of boredom that they create. This isn't news. Has there ever been a time in history when the privileged classes haven't been bored? I thought the strongest sequence in the film was that depicting the media frenzy that erupts when two children see the Madonna in an empty field. It reminded me of a news story that occurred just a few months ago here in Chicago when a similar frenzy erupted over a water stain in the shape of the Virgin Mary that formed on the wall of an Interstate overpass. Fellini beautifully caught the utter absurdity of people trying to convince themselves that what they want to believe is true, and the sadness that this need is necessary in the first place.

In the film's final sequence, Marcello Mastroianni's character tells the people he's partying with that they're the most boring people alive. I second that. Too bad that a movie about boring, vacuous people makes for a boring, vacuous movie.

Grade: C+

To appreciate this film you need to appreciate film. I'm saddened that so many have commented negatively on it and cast dispersions upon those who enjoyed it. It is not Titanic, or Armageddon. It is a long film that attempts to show more than a hackneyed plot about some simple people. It is a beautiful exploration about life that does not preach or try to tell you what to think. I understand why many are frustrated with it. It seems to go nowhere at times, but thats the point. And most importantly the scenery on this trip to nowhere is beautiful.

So, if you are the type that does not like to watch films that are art, do not watch this. Watch Coyote Ugly. It will entertain you. Other films to avoid: Last Year at Marienbad, The Seventh Seal, The 400 Blows, etc. Go see something with a gun on the cover instead.

For those who like a challenge rather than simple escapism, this is a film that engages you.

Different films for different people. People seem very threatened when they don't like a film that is widely regarded as a classic. The reason is simple, it's not your kind of film. But don't assume its a film for no one. Makes sense right?

Rome. Marcello, a persistent journalist, is always on the look out for a hot story. He finds his suicidal girlfriend poisoned by pills in his apartment and manages to save her from sure death by bringing her to the hospital. But he doesn't have time for mourning: he catches a plane the next day to talk to the famous star Sylvia, but her husband beats him up in the end. Marcello rushes to one place where a girl had a vision of the holly Mary, then is later on interrupted by a visit from his father. Marcello tries to write a book and end a relationship with Emma…

Federico Fellini is a tremendously talented director, but in my opinion more successful in his first film-making phase of realistic, simple films with heart ( shining „La Strada" and „La Notti Di Cabiria" ) than in his second from „Da Dolce Vita" ( 1960 ), in which he went on producing weird, surreal and heavily pretentious satires and farces. The only excellent film from his second phase is „Amarcord", which ironically reminds us of his first phase of realistic films. „La Dolce Vita" is a quality drama that criticizes an empty society that feeds on shallow, sensation oriented stories from the press and media ( the word „Paparazzi", used for the first time here, later on even became a part of the dictionary ). In that aspect, it doesn't attack the journalists as much as the society that fuels them. But although „Vita" won the Golden Palm in Cannes and was nominated for an Oscar for best director, set design and script, it feels rather shallow and empty itself.

------------------

Many sequences are great - for example, the opening shot in which a helicopter is shown carrying a statue of Jesus Christ, or the one where a man is „protecting" his face from the photographers by placing a newspaper in front of himself – as are some details – but Fellini decided to put too much of his ideas in the story, causing it to go out of control. After 165 minutes of screen time the movie loses it's energy and becomes a little bit of a bore. I guess the ending scene with that rotten fish sums it up for me: subversive and profound, but too pretentious for it's own good.

Grade: 6/10

Yes, I too found this movie very engaging, intriguing and technically beautiful to watch. But, but, but.... not one of the best movies in the world, not one to take on a desert island with me, not life changing or as brilliant as people here (and everywhere) seem to think. Perhaps because it is now so outdated, and so much from a spoilt man of the mid twentieth century's point of view. I appreciate it and respect it for what it is, and I'm sure I don't get half of its symbolism. I love its mode of narrative, the large ensemble scenes which I can see have influenced Robert Altman and many other great film makers.

But...methinks that those who rave so much about this film have been seduced as badly as Marcello. Who cares about the bloody lifestyles of the rich and famous? Is this really the place to find meaning? I would find a film about the life of the girl Paolo and her family much more meaningful and worthy of my attention. And like in "8 1/2" one has to wonder if Fellini himself would agree - what is the point of making such a film at all? I'm not against art about the aristocracy or the rich and their decline but would prefer something more complex - like "Brideshead Revisited" (the novel) for example. But ultimately it is hard to feel sorry for such people, especially Marcello. His utter contempt for himself at the end of the movie was well deserved and left me depressed and disgusted. I found his degenerate fall just too trite though, using the excuse of Steiner's murder/suicide as justification (a plot twist which while shocking, did not ring true for me). Maybe I'm just not an existentialist.

I might have found this movie more enlightening if I had seen it ten years ago when I was in my twenty's when I was living my own (much tamer!) version of the sweet life, who knows. Certainly we have all been there when we realise that parties, sex, alcohol, beautiful people and sophisticated talk is not all there is to life. Duh! No, for a true, kick in the guts, life changing movie about the inauthenticity of our socially constructed world, and the struggle of the individual to wake up and break free, you can't go past "American Beauty" or "The Truman Show", or many other wonderful movies out there that I feel are far more deserving of the label "classic" and of the adulation that this film seems to inspire.

This movie is about a Roman journalist at the crossroads of his life but unable to move forward in any meaningful direction. He is a man trapped in his life of superficiality.

Federico Fellini's La Dolce Vita is a very aesthetically beautiful film. The widescreen compositions are often outstanding. The crisp black and white photography is lit to perfection and a joy to behold. One of the factors that makes Italian cinema in general so appealing for me is the gorgeous natural light of that country, allied with the stylish decor and architecture; and in this film these elements are well in abundance. If nothing else, La Dolce Vita is a treat to the eyes. Style over substance is a term that could certainly also be applied to the denizens of LDV's Rome. We are introduced to an array of beautiful but shallow character's; from Marcello Mastroianni's gossip journalist, via Anita Ekberg's international film star or Nico's fashion model, everyone is beautiful on the surface but somewhat dead underneath. And perhaps this is a problem with the film in general; a three hour expose of shallow people is an exhausting experience.

The film is not plot-driven. It's episodic, divided into seven days in the life of a Roman gossip columnist. It's not always obvious what the point of certain events actually is. I found myself spending quite a lot of energy actually trying to actively understand the meaning of Marcello's experiences, and not always successfully I concede. But suffice to say that a very general reading of the film's message would be that it is about the superficiality of celebrity and the emptiness of much of modern urban life. And while a lot of it is still very relevant today – in particular the public's obsession with celebrity – it's not always clear what Fellini is trying to say. It's quite an obtuse film, with a fair amount of symbolic imagery and loaded dialogue. It's certainly serious cinema. Although I often found myself enjoying it most when it was less intellectual and more sensual, such as the wonderful iconic scene where Anita Ekberg takes a dip in the Fontana di Trevi. This justifiably famous sequence is the most purely cinematic moment in La Dolce Vita and, in my opinion, the film could have benefited from more scenes of such striking power punctuated through its three hour running time.

Overall, although I do admire this film, I find it too tiring and drawn out to love. It's very well acted and photographed, it's just a little unengaging and occasionally tedious. That said, it's one to seek out if you are at all interested in 60's New Wave cinema.

Long, episodic film by Federico Fellini about the conceits and facades of life: fame, intellect, sex, friendship, despair, innocence, etc.

Marcello Mastroianni is perfect as the shallow tabloid reporter who joyfully follows around Rome a blonde movie star from Sweden (Anita Ekberg) as she prowls around the city's bars and bistros. He is also having an affair with a woman (Anouk Aimee) while his girl friend (Yvonne Furnaux) seems to be going nuts.

But as Marcello moves through the city following the movie star, the miracle of the virgin, a few parties, etc. we see that his life is very empty because the things he reports on are meaningless drivel. We see that fame and fortune and the trappings of success are meaningless.

Marcello starts to realize that the movie star is a vapid airhead, the miracles are a sham, and his friend's (who seemed quite happily married) ghastly murder and suicide show the futility of life itself.

The Fellini themes are common to many of his films, but what makes La Dolce Vita so memorable are the cynical tone, the Nina Rota music, and the string of terrific visual images.

The opening scene is of a helicopter hauling a gilded plaster statue through the air across Rome. The flying saint is a bizarre image but serves to set up the movies which is all about images and events that are never what they seem to be.

Notable are the scenes of statuesque Ekberg in that terrific strapless black dress with the voluminous skirts as she swishes around dancing and eventually wading through a city fountain. The party scenes are also notable. The first because of the intolerable intellectuals who sits around and talk and talk but never do anything. The last party has the indelible image of Mastroianni "riding" a drunken blonde woman as though she were a horse. The final image of the giant dead fish is quite unsettling as it symbolizes their bloated lives.

Fellini is brilliant in filling scenes with odd people as extras, usually hideously dressed or wearing ugly glasses. The "gallery" of people who inhabit the city is one of grotesques, vapid fashion slaves, the rich, hangers on, etc.

A long film, but highly recommended and very memorable.

Fellini is often mentioned as one of the greatest directors of all time, and this film is a prime example of why that is true. This movie is a gorgeous love letter to Rome, rich with culture, music and art, but it's more than that, it's a scathing look at the lifestyles of the rich and famous, and how utterly unfulfilling having everything you want can be. For a long time, the movie seems to move aimlessly through the parties, much like Marcello himself. But then, thin threads from all the events that have happened start to come together to form a kind of tapestry. Characters harmonize with each other's actions, pledging their love while betraying each other simultaneously. It's beautifully poetic.

Returning to this film after many years, I was mesmerized for its entire three hours and could have stuck with it for even longer. More than just a parade of degenerate Sixties Eurotrash, all of human life is captured in these frames, from prostitutes living in flooded slum apartments to glittering nobility in their crumbling castles.

The common thread is the thoroughly captivating Marcello Mastroianni as the gossip columnist/aspiring novelist, later turned burned-out publicist. His relationship with the parade of females who inhabit his world, often fleetingly, is nuanced and authentic feeling, while the episode with his father, who shows up for an unexpected visit, is a delight that brought a wide smile to my face.

The unique, episodic structure of the film feels neither showy nor forced, and the film moves through its segments with the natural grace of a great symphony.

An added bonus for me was seeing a young Nico of Velvet Underground fame , looking relaxed and happy. Would that things always turned out that way for her.

In sum, a totally unique tour de force and, unquestionably, one of the greatest achievements in cinematic history.

Generally, I have become more and more certain that 90 minutes is the most reasonable length for any film. So, here we are contemplating watching the famous Fellini epic and so entranced have I been with recent Blu ray viewings of Il Bidoni and La Strada, I take my eye off the ball and forget this runs almost three hours. Of course, it turns out not to matter a joy for it is a joy to watch from start to finish. The camera work and direction are perfect and every scene looks wonderful. Some of the dialogue seems a little arch today, did people really talk like that? Perhaps yes, clearly there were a lot of intellectuals or at least pseudo intellectuals about. Everything unfolds seemingly without effort and in a seeming natural way. We swing from church to whores and literature to night club with the odd something to eat and rather a lot to drink thrown in. Strange times in Italy are being alluded to here and to what extent it was the freedom afforded by the end of the war and a certain flow of money or whatever it is certain that the scandal over the discovery of the body of young Wilma Montesi on the beach and talk of sex and drugs in high places fuelled this little fire. Whether Fellini's invention of the word, paparazzi originated from the Italian word for sparrow or mosquito, the intention is clear and remarkable but then almost everything in this film is. In conclusion I must mention Anita Ekberg and confirm that my screen really did sparkle and shine throughout the period she was there and such was her presence, thanks to lighting, framing and her own seeming 'love of life, that her afterglow prevented the film seeming in any way to lapse into ordinariness once she was gone. Fabulous film and true example of pure cinema. Indeed, I understand there was not even a script.

From so many perspectives, this film is a true artistic masterpiece, and happily, a commercial success. Those vehement in their dislike are simply wrong; their criticism does not hold up. Fellini and some few others, unlike most critics, completely understood that film derives NOT from the world of plays but from PAINTING. First time viewers - if the plot seems confusing, should just sit back and enjoy the staggering accomplishments of lighting, cinematography and staging. And that is leaving out of course, acting, writing directing!

Briefly, the film follows seven aimless days and nights in the life of Marcello Rubini, a world weary Roman "reporter" who writes for gossip magazines. Yes, it does document the slow self-destruction of an unfulfilled writer, it is really a dire warning that the banality and sheer boredom of the late 20th Century were (are) likely to bore us ALL to death ... and Fellini hit the mark with perfect precision, the world's best bullseye, if you will ...

The acting is first rate, Mastroianni is so masterful, that when he uses one or two of his cliches - they stick out like sore thumbs in a towering performance. (We forgive him for those tiny imperfections!) Likewise, all the players - from leads to bit roles are brilliant.

A film then, not in this world, or really even of it, but an oblique reflection of the coming decade (the movie was shot in 1959) the details of which, Fellini already seemed to know! Staggeringly hip and modern - well, a Masterpiece!

I don't know what it is about Fellini. I love watching movies and have seen many in time, and appreciate deep, thoughtful movies, be them foreign or independent releases. But with Fellini - I just can't see what all the fuss is about. This is the sixth Fellini film I have seen and each one has fallen short of the mark (two of them I switched off before the end). La Dolce Vita is no exception. I really tried to like this, and the first hour seemed fairly interesting but ultimately it went nowhere. Fellini could have told the same story in half the time instead of 3 hours.

I get the impression that Fellini is a very self-indulgent film maker, which I consider to be selfish. What about those that watch and pay to see your movies? Making movies for your own satisfaction is one thing, but this goes beyond self-indulgence. This is not as big a piece of crap as Satyricon - that one came out of my VCR after 30 minutes (and that was 30 minutes too long). I would avoid this. By the way I gave it a 6/10, because for 1960 it was ahead of its time.

It left me in silence for at least half of an hour after watching it. It's simply incredible. No other movie has kept so glued on the screen (consider that this one is 3 hours long!). It seems like you're watching the matter of your dreams, especially in the world wide famous scene at the Fontana di Trevi and in the amazing final scene (again, the best final ever). I don't know what else to say, for there's no word to describe this astonishing vision. I don't understand the people who don't like this.

8. La Dolce Vita- Italy 1960

This is the 8th movie on the list.

Maybe, I know I keep saying it, but maybe I am just that really Americanized boy who can't appreciate the beauty of this movie. And trust me, I do see beauty in the movie. First with the extremely unusual story. Well maybe not that "extreme" but the story. I just saw no plots. I see that there is something like 7 or 8 subplots and little stories that take place in the life of out main character Marcello, but I can't appreciate it. Nothing... interesting happens. This guy lives, I wanted to see this movie so badly because so many people were raving about the new foreign film "The Great Beauty" and how Italy was reaching back to it's older roots with this film. I didn't like "The Great Beauty" very much, I liked it, but not too much. And I can only say the same about La Dolce Vita. I wanted so badly to like this movie, knowing it is an all-time favorite of Steven Spielberg and that so many modern directors take influence from Fellini, but the story just didn't work for me. I don't understand how one would write a "Spoiler" Review for this movie because there is nothing to spoil other than that this movie just follows the life of an aging journalist. Hell, the synopsis on IMDb is an extreme spoiler. I can't name the scenes and what happens, but I will say that the ending scene and the scenes with the actresses Anita Ekberg and Anouk Aimee and the young girl who plays Paulo are interesting. But this film is just, plain. I appreciate that the movie is the story of the life of an Italian journalist, and maybe it is a metaphor stating that no matter how interesting your title is (like Marcello) you really are boring.

La Dolce Vita is a beautiful movie, the costumes are beautiful, well deserved Oscar there. And I can surely see the directing influence of Fellini in Spielberg. But other than the BEAUTIFUL Mercedes driven by Anouk Aimee and Marcello, I have nothing to say. It's good. I guess.

SilverRating: 6/10

With a strong but very subtle message, rich in details, varied soundtrack, excellent photography, beautiful scenery, a lot of style (clothes, haircut, props) and a lot of beautiful women, that's how I would sum up La Dolce Vita.

After finishing the movie, I was thinking a lot about how much the movie ended up not saying anything. But then hours later I'm thinking about what message the film's director will really try to convey with this work, I'll detail a little about it throughout this analysis.

We follow the story of Marcello an Italian journalist, quite famous and admired by his friends, he is a symbol of what many men want to be, in addition to the qualities mentioned, Marcello is rich, has a beautiful Triumph TR3A and is always accompanied by beautiful women, also present in high society parties. (Finally live the life of dreams).

As the story unfolds, Marcelo, who has a toxic relationship with his girlfriend Maddalena, always mistreats and disrespects and betrays her, who at a certain moment asks the other Maria (Mother of Jesus) to change him so that he can leave this life and start like her. However this seems to be really a miracle because Rubini always with beautiful women, from prostitutes to movie actresses. Always without any limit, not even when your close friend dies.

At a certain point, the father of the journalist appears who lives the same life as his son, from brothels to brothels, and at one point there is a scene in which he looks at his father, with a sad face, and gives us the dimension of what he will become in the future, someone who lives at parties but deep down is always sad, alone and forgotten.

This is the reflection that the film leaves for us, is it worth a life full of futility and trivial relationships? The director appeals to the exaggerated exaggeration of the scenes in which Marcello obviously lives "the life of dreams" precisely to show us a behavioral and thoughtful attitude what a determined person is and this can help to repeat casual films.

As it is portrayed in Italy (for me one of my favorite countries, I will still visit), the film shows a series of real places, style in clothes, glasses and hairstyles. As for the soundtrack, we have Jazz, Blues, Piano, oriental music. We also observe several paintings and sculptures of the plot, which enriches the experience even more.

The only negative point for me is that the character Marcello almost doesn't suffer for his actions and everything ends up working out in the end, this frustrates me a little, but obviously doesn't compromise the film.