nicola-orofino

I understand that the original title is from a book on which the film is based, but it is one thing to read a book called "12 years a slave", another to watch a movie: you do not enjoy, nor the beginning, because you already know that will be captured, nor the middle, because you already know that will be released, nor the end, because you would expect from the entire movie. In practice, two and half hours of film ruined by a very wrong way. Then it is no true that the film has made me so enthusiastic. It seems built for very captatio benevolentiae, without much skill on the part of the director and screenwriter. The audience becomes attached to the protagonist, but can not forget the thousands of other slaves who were not already "free men" and therefore will never come to be. It has been chosen to tell the story from a heartbreaking point of view, too much personal; if that's okay for an autobiographical book, not the same can be said for a film nominated for an Oscar. The only ten minutes by Oscar are those in which he starred Brad Pitt; I also believe are the ten minutes the most interesting of the whole movie. For the rest, a recommended viewing, sure, but not a masterpiece.

Aurelio Grimaldi is famous for his very personal questionable visions that often end up talking about discomfort. In these films, the discomfort is often depicted in homosexuality. I would say that his vision, shared or not, it is always the result of interest and debate, and the same happens in this film, "inspired by" Pasolini, where the name of the great Bolognese artist is never pronounced. Of course, the references are explicit and obvious, but as the same Grimaldi said, the film can refer to any artist, and the vision that comes out of the poet is which that the director guesses about him; how to say, being the Grimaldi's Pasolini, the poet could not be described except in accordance with what Grimaldi thinks of him, as he imagines, and therefore does not necessarily reflecting some historical truth. On the other hand, the tragedy is still unresolved and not clear. This part, in fact, I would rather it had not been included in the film, because I found it really too personal. Everything else, however, I liked it. I do not think it comes out a distorted picture of the great artist, even the dialogs seem very "Pasolinian". Even Cavicchioli is awfully similar to Pa', and all this creates a really good atmosphere in the viewer. A title that would certainly recommend, even if only for the beautiful words of the "poet" of the film.

One of the saddest movies of the whole Toto's production. You understand since the outset that the great Neapolitan comic has an unusual role: in deed, he usually plays the penniless, the marginalized, and yet in this film he is a man of class, with a lot of money. A scene of a quarter of an hour without Toto allows the viewer to understand unequivocally that it is a very dramatic movie. Good times made ​​by the director Aldo Fabrizi, who is able to characterizes each character perfectly. There are few scenes of comedy, that are very refined and adapted to the drama of the plot. I remember Toto's titles for the beats of genius, usually. This is definitely a movie that you will remember for the plot and for the wonderful dramatic interpretation of one of the greatest comedians of all time. Surely it is the film that I would recommend to those who doesn't know Toto so much or consider him only an "actor who makes you laugh."