stefano1488's reviews

Oliver Stone has always had a taste for flattering the public with easy, one-sided versions of whatever story he wanted to tell. Since Stone is not ageing well, now that he is getting older this tendency takes a sinister turn.

Two words suffice to define this pretence of a documentary: unashamedly biased. It is so unilateral in presenting nuclear energy as something wonderful, without risks, intrinsically peaceful that it decays into ridicule.

It could have been made in the 1950's.

Another way of describing it? A modern, but more disquieting, version of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice".

Mr Stone, it is time to retire. Too late to do it gracefully; which makes it even more pressing.

This film tells the story of the kidnapping and murder of Giacomo Matteotti, a Reformist Socialist member of the Italian parliament who was a thorn in the side of the nascent Fascist regime's side as he relentlessly exposed and denounced its crimes and the violence it used to stifle the opposition.

The film has only a minor fault: it is slightly pedantic; or rather, it can appear so. In this respect it probably shows that it was made in the 1970's, a period much of the westworld leaned to the left. In Italy the left has probably never been as strong as in those years, either before or after.

The fact that it was made in the 1970's, a period in which most of the westworld leaned to the left a lot, is probably onme for the reasons.

However, this can not erase its many merits. First of all, a stellar cast, composed of a great many of the best Italian actors of that time, beginning with Franco Nero as Giacomo Matteotti, especially in the long scene of his last speech in Parliament (one of the many high points in the film), and with Mario Adorf as Mussolini.

Its rendering of the events narrated is poignant. It rates high on historical accuracy (once again, in this respect the initial scene is excellent, in that it not only faithful to what happened, but it also recreates the venomous political atmosphere of the time).

The film ends up with being kind of a mixture between a crime story and a political thriller. Viewers feel involved because they realise that the things that were at stake at the time were liberty and civilisation, things that have an impact on all of us.

Excellent series of documentaries shot, if I am not mistaken, between the late 1980's and the mid 1990's. In Italy it is sometimes broadcast by RAI Storia, the Italian public television channel specialising in history, and it is there that I saw it for the first time on one of my many sleepless nights. In fifteen episodes it deals with various aspects of the ancient Roman civilisation.

It combines three extraordinary features.

First of all, it provides an accessible introduction to the world of ancient Rome without yielding in intellectual, even academic, rigour - small wonder, given that its list of consultants features some of the best Italian experts of the classical worldI (archaelogists, art historians and the like). T is not only visually stunning - photography is by Vittorio Storaro, no need to add anything; the text is also noteworthy, as it is also a crash course on various aspects of ancient Roman culture, accessible yet academically rigorous.

Secondly, visually it is simply stunning, which is not surprising, given that the director of photography is Vittorio Storaro.

Third, the mix of images, music (the score is by Ennio Morricone) and the narrative style makes for a fascinating, even mysterious, narrative. We are plunged into the world of the ancient Rome, a world very different from ours, and yet we perceive the distance in time and in views from a magnificent civilisation.

All this renders this documentary strongly recommended not only for history buffs, but also for people interested in watching something remarkable from a purely visual aspect.

PS If you understand Italian well enough, I strongly advise to watch it in Italian. In the original Italian version the narrative is told by Pino Colizzi, one of Italy's most renowned voice-over artists, whose voice adds is definitely the icing on the cake of this captivating series of documentaries.

Oh he was so charming, so smart, so likeable... That is what you expect to see when you watch a propaganda movie.

Ridiculous screenplay, terrible cast (especially the main actress); brings back memories of Italy in the 1980's, in every respect.

There is practically nothing valuable about this film.

The plot is not original. The characters are dull, with some laughable attempts to add depth to them. The violence is as graphic as it is pointless.

It is an action movie disguised as dystopian fiction, and it fails miserably on both levels.

The only thing that I have found good about the film is Tilda Swinton's performance; although far from stunning, given the ridiculous one-sidedness of her character, it is at least passable. Definitely not enough to save the film.

I watched this film a few days ago on ARTE, a French-German television. I was glad I had that opportunity, given the enthusiastic reviews I had read on the press. I was greatly disappointed. The film is really nothing to write home about. The plot is so one-sided, and the characters are so grossly divided into good ones and bad ones, that I'm very surprised reviews could be so positive. The point is not that it's pro-Palestinian: I, for one, have over time become a staunch critic of Israel and its policies, especially those of its present government. My point is that I expect films to be somewhat different from fairy tales. Of course, films can't be a history essay; but I get the disquieting impression that this film, with its mixture of an innocent victim, a cynical politician and his sensitive wife, is a cunning exercise in overt exploitation of the public's goodwill.

One of the most unusual films in recent times that you may happen to see. But then, in my opinion Mazzacurati has always been unusual among Italian directors, due to his sensitivity and his (very un-Italian) understatement. "The passion" tells the story of a group of assorted people, bound together by the most unlikely (and, in some cases, unfortunate) circumstances, who find themselves busy staging the tale of the passion of Christ on a Good Friday in a Tuscan village, an old tradition that is still alive all over Italy. Among the characters, sometimes bizarre but seldom really improbable, two in particular stand out: an obscure, alternative film director that finds himself in a phase of creative stalemate and an ex thief turned actor (and a very bad one at that; or rather not?).

As in other films by Mazzacurati, losers are bound to stay that way, not to turn into winners; you're not in for cheesy Hollywood crap. And yet, those characters are not desperate: without even realising it, they are heroes of sorts in that they manage not to fall into despair despite the hardships of life. That happens, rather than by a deliberate choice, by clinging to sort of a little voice inside that tells them not to betray what they feel they believe in. They sometimes seem not just to suffer, but even to pursue humiliation and defeat; but, in spite of that, they retain, almost by accident, a deep-rooted naiveté and sense of humanity that makes them, in their own way, heroic and easy to sympathise with.

That happens in the lives of most of us; that is why the film is deeply moving and, sometimes very funny. It helps that the cast features several comedians, more (Corrado Guzzanti, who plays the vain Manlio Abbruscati) or less (Marco Messeri, by now a familiar presence in Mazzacurati's films, or Fabrizio Battiston) known by the Italian general public, with a penchant either for the bittersweet or for the downright sardonic.

Never understate losers; there's more to them than meets the eye.

I watched this film yesterday on old-fashioned VCR, after i ta had been broadcast by Italian television very late the night before.

From a technical point of view, I must say that this film leaves a lot to be desired. Like in many of Argento's films, I can't understand why someone would take unnecessary risks getting tangled in extremely dangerous situations (but that happens in ALL horror films; I always find them very illogical). Many aspects in the plot just don't add up, and many threads are left unresolved as was said by other commentators. But, overall, I've found it interesting (and, yes, scary), with lots of good ideas whose potential was perhaps not fully exploited, but good nonetheless. Avati isn't normally a director of mystery films, but in his career he did two or three of them ("The House with the Windows that laugh" and another one, pretty grotesque), always set in the same area (the Emilia region, near Bologna).

I think that many Americans who saw this film were disappointed, but it's their premise that is mistaken: they criticise this film chiefly because it's not what they expected, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't have its merits (to me, it sure does).

Those familiar with Nanni Moretti know that, even when Moretti tackles political issues, he does so in such a personal, unusual way. This film is a vehement pamphlet against Berlusconi. Without going at lengths to describe the various reasons why Berlusconi is, to put it in the words of "The Economist", "unfit to lead Italy", Moretti shows the peculiar mixture of demagoguery and cynical opportunism that in his opinion are Berlusconi's hallmarks as both a businessman (before he entered politics) and a politician. Moretti seems to interpret Berlusconi as a symptom of the undoing of Italian society, its values, its way of life, an involution that he traces back to the way television (and in particular the kind of TV programmes that have been the staple of Berlusconi's televisions) has moulded Italian society and the set of tastes and values that in his opinion now prevail in among Italians. The director seems to believe that, for the moment, only a sort of personal resistance is possibile against such a disruption; the court magistrate, to some extent the main character and especially the young, inexperienced and yet talented and quietly tenacious young director, with her trust in the quality and importance of her ideas, are symbols of this resistance. A tough, difficult, dry, and yet thought-provoking film that deserves to be seen by both Italians and foreigners wanting to understand today's Italy better.

I went to see "Good Bye, Lenin!" expecting to see a good film.

Was I wrong!

This film isn't just good: it's a masterpiece! It's full of ideas, starting from the quirky plot. It's funny, but it makes you laugh in unexpected ways. It's also a film full of nostalgia and sadness, but sadness and fun are so intertwined that one is left dazed. It manages to tell a deep story in a light, unassuming way.

This film is chiefly about how the great events of history have an impact on ordinary individuals. It's about the feeling that many must have experienced in the Soviet bloc when their repressive regimes crumbled, leaving everyone in need to think of their everyday lives in a way that was completely new and different.

But it's also a film about the way a repressive, authoritarian regimes can disrupt people's lives, forcing them to lead lives full of lies and deceptions.

Greatly recommended. One of the best films I've seen in years.

9/10

I went to see this movie thinking that I'd see something similar to "Four Weddings and a Funeral" and to "Bridget Jones". I was disappointed.

I like romantic comedies, especially when they're not too trite and with a good dose of humour - I'm not cynical about them; I also like British film, because I find them wonderfully witty. But, in this case, there was frankly too much rhetoric. Some of the stories were frankly so silly, like the one about the sandwich deliver boy. Some others were better: the one involving Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman was actually quite moving, like the one involving the girl with a mentally ill brother; and the one involving Colin Firth was really funny. Also, the story about the character who falls in love with his best friend's wife and tries desperately to hide his feelings was touching.

But the others were frankly ridiculous, in particular the one about Hugh Grant. Not even Frank Capra would have depicted a prime minister in such a silly way.

Some scenes stand out: Hugh Grant dancing, or the cameo role played by Rowan Atkinson. But the rest is forgettable, and far too long (I walked out when the characters started going to the airport, because I was so BORED).

5/10

For all the hype about the Coen brothers, this film is clearly a miss.

What's the point of watching a comedy, if it's dull? None. And this one is really boooooooring. It has no rhythm and it never takes off.

Clooney delivers a good performance and some of the secondary characters are also good, but, all in all, the film's been a disappointment. It promises much more than it delivers. Not surprising, given that it delivers almost nothing.

A waste of time and money. Since it's only the second time I watch a film by the Coens (after "The Big Lebowsky") and it's the second time I go see it expecting to laugh and being disappointed, I'm not sure I will give the Coens another chance.

"La donna della domenica" is an outstanding film, but one that is unlikely to be fully appreciated by non-Italians, most of whom might see it as a whodunnit of sorts. Its strength lies, instead, not just with its excellent cast, but also with the caustic way in which it describes Turin's high society: full of characters that, behind their apparent stylishness and elegance, betray a penchant for hypocrisy and an inability to look further than the conventional way in which they live.

It looks more like a comedy, and a well-written, witty one at that.

I have little to add to what the first two commentators have written.

Rossellini has a penchant for melodrama and rhetoric, but, fortunately, he keeps this tendency for the most part in check in this case. This film is dry and sober, and yet touching in the way it describes the transformation of a petty swindler, who manages to survive by cheating those who are unlucky enough to have their loved ones arrested by the Nazis and try everything they can in order to save them from execution or deportation to Germany, into a man who realises that, when faced with the choice between right and wrong, he ultimately has to take sides. And, when the time comes, he will do what his conscience will tell him to do, even though this will mean his own death.

Vittorio De Sica is great, as usual, in this dramatic role as well as in his comic ones. Non-Italians may find interesting the fact that Vittorio De Sica was himself an unrepentant gambler in real life as well, to the point that, if I'm not mistaken, his dead left his family saddled with debts. The film also gives a good idea of what life was like for ordinary Italians under the German occupation between 1943 and 1945. Many had to make difficult choices in a confused situation, and they reacted differently. Some took sides and risks, on both sides; others tried to survive. Some came to accept humiliating compromises in order to save their loved ones from death (consider the character of Borghesio, the old, retired lawyer who mortgages his house in order to gather the money that is needed in order to buy the German officer responsible for choosing the prisoners who are bound to be sent to Germany as forced labourers, which often meant death, or of Ms Fassio, the wife who ends up humiliating herself in a desperate and vain attempt to rescue his husband and is torn between her inner contempt for the Nazis and the urge to do everything possible to save his husband). Some others tried to profit from the situation. Some others made different choices in different moments, sometimes cynical parasites, sometimes heroes. However, everyone faced dilemmas, often about their very survival.

Norton's excellent (as usual) and Hoffmann's character is moving and well-acted. The best part is the description of a disenchanted New York, under the spell of September 11, populated by people who seem, more than everything, lost and confused.

Despite that, overall it's a shallow film. What do we learn about its characters, their motivations, their aspirations? Not much. The final part with Brian Cox imagining how Ed Norton's life would be if he tried to escape is, in my opinion, very trite and rhetorical.

6/10

I very much appreciated Ozpetek's previous film, "Le fate ignoranti", which has earned him a lot of respect on the part of both audiences and critics, in Italy and beyond. I was reluctant to go see this film because of the casting of Raoul Bova (a second-rate actor who doesn't have much substance behind his good looks and began his career as a teenage heartthrob - what a pity it didn't end there) and because of the reference to the Nazi deportation of Roman Jews, which took place on October 16th, 1943 - I just felt that to use this as a pretext for a gay love story was kind of cheap. But nearly everyone I knew who had gone see the film kept me telling that it was good, so I became so curious that I decided to go. Well, my friends were absolutely right.

Ozpetek's strength is his ability to portray characters that are realistic without being obvious, so everyone can relate to them without identifying with them. He showed that already good ability in "Le fate ignoranti" as well, but this time he seems to have developed it even further. His approach is always personal, and this enables him to make films that are deeply introspective. It is the kind of films that the French are usually good at making, but Ozpetek in not an imitator. What makes his films so DIFFERENT is that there seems an emotional involvement that is very difficult to find elsewhere; at the same time, this never translates into trite sentimentalism or dull rhetoric.

This is an outstanding film, and this is so also thanks to the performances given by most of the actors. Massimo Girotti, in his last appearance before his death, shows that, at about 80 years of age, he was still able to be a first-class actor (and this explains why he featured in so many films by Visconti); after this film, which is dedicated to him, we will all miss him even more than we already did. Giovanna Mezzogiorno, the daughter of a late actor herself, also gives an outstanding performance as the woman who finds herself at the crossroads and is torn between passion and the responsibilities of everyday life, between reality and desire, just like so many of us often are. Filippo Nigro, who also featured in a minor role in "Le fate ignoranti", is given a more important role in this film, and deservedly so. The only exception is Raoul Bova, and I wonder why Ozpetek seems to have a compelling need to cast "actors" who are more sort of toy boys, mostly in secondary roles (Bova in this case, Gabriel Garko in "Le fate ignoranti"), who usually have very limited acting abilities and who almost inevitably end up faring very poorly and suffering from the comparison that is inevitably drawn between their performances and those of the other actors who feature in the films; which is even more striking if we take into account the fact that Ozpetek seems to have the ability to rejuvenate actors and to make them play characters that are very different from their clichés (as an example, consider not only Massimo Girotti in this case, but also Margherita Buy in "le fate ignoranti").

Just one word for the soundtrack, which made the film even more touching and has spawned a major Italian chart hit.

The only criticism that can be made? How come that Italian directors seem to have lost the ability to say something about the society in which they live? In the past, they were able to be sardonic about it, and to intertwine the two levels, social and personal. Now the only films they seem able to make are personal-only stories, and that's a pity.

Altogether, a deeply recommended film.