sonoioio

A comedy that reflects in an ironic and melancholic way on male identity, love and the influence of cinema on the collective imagination. The film explores the contrast between fantasy and reality through the character of a neurotic and insecure film critic, who faces his sentimental failure by taking refuge in the romantic myth embodied by Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, which becomes a projection of the desire for virility and security that the protagonist feels he does not possess. The film thus stages cinema as a model of behaviour, capable of shaping emotional expectations and generating frustration when real life does not correspond to fiction.

Herbert Ross's direction (8.0) adopts a sober and functional direction, which leaves space for the centrality of the dialogues and pure acting; the screenplay (8.5), taken from a theatrical work by Allen, plays amiably between the differences in the protagonist's character and his cinematic projection; from a technical point of view (8.0) the linearity of Marion Rothman's editing favors the comic rhythm and narrative clarity, together with Owen Roizman's photography, neutral and didactic; the acting (8.5) is exceptional, every pause, stammer or glance by Woody Allen is an expression of his character's personality, the same goes for Diane Keaton and the rest of the cast.

Most significant scene: a woman with a gun threatening Bogart with his inevitable raincoat is certainly nothing new... but how can you react when your spiritual guide is missing? In my opinion (8.5) the film is unmissable, pure entertainment with a notable psychological depth, a comedy about sentimental education through cinema, capable of transforming the romantic myth into a tool for ironic and disenchanted self-analysis.

The film revolves around the double and voyeurism. The surgical separation between two sisters becomes a metaphor for a fractured psyche, in which desire, guilt and repression coexist in an unstable way. The horror does not arise from an external threat, but from within the subject, and is reflected in the gaze of the spectator, continually called upon to observe without being able to intervene. The character of the journalist embodies the rational illusion of being able to control reality through vision and investigation, but the film confirms its failure: seeing does not equate to understanding.

Brian De Palma's direction (6.5) constructs the film as a laboratory of the gaze. The innovative use of the split screen during the murder transforms the suspense into a forced voyeuristic experience, dividing the spectator's attention and rendering him powerless; the screenplay (6.5) always remains fluid and flowing, while maintaining the tense and disturbing atmosphere; from a technical point of view (6.0) Gregory Sandor's photography contributes to making the unstable border between normality and madness evanescent, as does Paul Hirsch's editing which plays on the contrast between apparent control and sudden chaos, while Bernard Herrmann's music makes the scene more nervous and disturbing, unfortunately the stage effects are not always credible; the acting (6.0) is satisfactory, especially Jennifer Salt's, while others are too caricatural, such as Margot Kidder and William Finley.

Most significant scene: how can a sane person prove that he is not schizophrenic? In my opinion (6.5) this first thriller by Brian de Palma is quite successful and represents a good tribute to the master of the genre Alfred Hitchcock.

A modern western, which reinterprets the myth of the frontier in light of the social and political tensions of contemporary America. The film revolves around the conflict between economic power and social justice. The protagonist is not an ideal hero: he chooses to act only when injustice becomes intolerable, embodying a pragmatic rather than ideological morality.

John Sturges' direction (6.0) adopts a solid style, whose strong point is the clear legibility of the space and the effective use of the open landscapes of New Mexico; Elmore Leonard's screenplay (6.0) fails to dare enough to valorise the cartel hero, putting the leader of the land claim in the background (the social aspect from which the film takes inspiration is that it traces a real mexican protest that took place in 1967 in Rio Arriba County); from a technical point of view (6.5), Ferris Webster's editing uses wide shots to underline the isolation of the characters and the arid nature of the conflict, while the action scenes are built with clear editing and a progressive rhythm, Bruce Surtees' photography enhances the contrasts between natural environments and spaces of power, such as the court or the prison, accentuating the social division, Lalo Schifrin's soundtrack accompanies the story with tense and modern themes, helping to give the western a contemporary tone; the cast's interpretation (7.0) is very good and Clint Eastwood, with his silences and glances, perfectly embodies the role of the anti-hero.

Most significant scene: an outlaw enters the saloon to look for the judge and finds a rifle drawn... he knows he can't make a wrong move, so he says goodbye and "goes away"... but the trick doesn't work! In my opinion (6.5) it's a good western, which perhaps could have been done better by daring more, but the big name is Eastwood and the story evolves around him.