stefano1488 Reviews

Imago urbis (1987)

Pure marvel

[9/10 · 3 July 2023]

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.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

What's the point of this film anyway?

[2/10 · 5 August 2020]

I was curious to watch this film, remembering the rave reviews. After a few minutes, I was already doing something else, waiting for the film to end. I have never quite understood why the Coen brothers are held in such high esteem by cinema critics; after watching at least six of their films, I can say that only two of them deserved some appreciation ("No Country for Old Men" and "Burn after Reading"), the two of them in which their sarcasm is not an end in itself. But what about the rest? You find yourself constantly awaiting a funny sarcasm that never comes. I don't find them amusing, their films are damp squibs, but a certain type of intellectuals like them because they look so cynical and blasé, which makes them look cool (same reason why Tarantino is so acclaimed, in my opinion). But when I think about corrosive satire it's Monty Python that comes to my mind, not the Coen brothers.

Nestore l'ultima corsa (1994)

Better in retrospective

[6/10 · 20 June 2020]

Always detested Alberto Sordi; especially his last films were terrible. This is one of his last ones and at the time reviews were poor: bad acting, bad direction, overly sentimental. In retrospect, though it does have all these faults, I think it deserves to be reevaluated (and revalued). Certainly not original, definitely naive, not a masterpiece at all. But there is a genuine touch of sadness in this story of an old cabman who earns a living driving tourists on horse-drawn carriage rides in Rome and desperately tries to save the horse (which he doesn't own) from being slaughtered.

Agnelli (2017)

Pure propaganda

[2/10 · 7 September 2019]

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

Una donna da scoprire (1987)

A showcase of 80's silliness

[3/10 · 17 August 2019]

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

Snowpiercer (2013)

One of the worst film I've ever seen

[1/10 · 8 March 2014]

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.

Lemon Tree (2008)

Nothing to write home about

[5/10 · 13 December 2010]

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.

The Passion (2010)

Mazzacurati doesn't disappoint, once again

[8/10 · 28 September 2010]

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.

Once (I) (2007)

What a stunning surprise!

[9/10 · 15 June 2008]

I saw this film tonight in a cinema near home, expecting to see the umpteen interesting independent film.

It's just amazing. Not one of those unbelievable love stories that are the stuff blockbusters are made of, but something real. Nobody meets nobody in the street. Are you "nobody", too? Then, there are two of us! He works at a hoover repair shop in Dublin, Ireland, and is a busker in the spare time, playing "the songs people know" by day in order to make some money and the songs he himself writes by night. She's an immigrant from the Czech Republic, a single mother living with her own mother, the daughter of a suicidal violinist, trying to make ends meet by peddling flowers in the streets and working as a housemaid. They meet each other, they start talking; or rather, they start playing and singing in this strange, original musical. In the end, they go their separate ways (or do they?) without having even kissed, let alone having had sex, and yet having been aware of the feelings for one another that have grown in them. Actually I think the woman does tell the guy "I love you", but in Czech: he doesn't understand, and she probably doesn't want him to understand her. "Alone, and yet together like two passing ships", as a song by Canadian rock band Rush has it.

A moving, extremely romantic, yet deeply realistic film; and not rhetorical at all. How many times so many of us have felt so close with someone else, sometimes someone we have met by chance, someone we never expected we would meet, and yet nothing happens? But, deep inside, we know it has. And yet, rather sadly, it hasn't.

The director must be a great music lover: it shows. Music is the fabric that weaves the whole film together.

My favourite scene is the one where they both go to a bank in order to get a loan. As a bank employee specialised in loans (but I'm no manager) I can relate to that. There's genius in that scene.

But what stuns me the most, was to find out that this is not a new release: it is as many as two years old, and yet it shows in cinemas here in Italy only now, thanks to well-known director's Nanni Moretti distribution firm Sacher.

This film is a jewel, a rare pearl.

Do not miss it if you can: take it from me, you will not regret it.

Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan (2007)

"The Lord of the Mongol Gladiators"

[4/10 · 8 June 2008]

I went to see the film yesterday, eagerly expecting to learn something more about the man who probably was the greatest military and political leader of all times, and who is relatively little known in Western Europe, and even more so in such a provincial country as Italy. I am aware that one shouldn't expect films to be history essays; but then a great film about historical figures should be able to deliver an insight about their motives, their ways, their personalities, their achievements. Given that we are flooded with unnecessary rubbish coming chiefly from the United States (sorry, Americans), both on the big and on the small screen (I'm talking about the various "History" and "Discovery" channels which are often filled with gross inaccuracies, magnified by their horrible and hasty translations from English) I was also intrigued by the fact that this was a Russian and German production. Unusual: maybe better?

Definitely not.

I don't know much about the story of the Far East and about Genghis Khan in particular, but the film does not fit much, to use a euphemism, with that little I know; and comments by other readers who know definitely more than me (Rom Port from Israel, for example) bear out my suspicions. Now I know why I had never heard before about a Tangut kingdom (watching the film I thought it had to be some Chinese state): because apparently one such kingdom has never existed on the face of the earth. As far as I know, as a kid Temujin was far from the harmless and somewhat pretentious "cub" depicted in the film: he himself killed one of his brothers because the latter had hidden food in order not to share it with the rest of his hungry and beleaguered family. Some of his generals were boiled alive by Jamuka during the internecine wars among the Mongols.

What do we see instead? Genghis Khan is some sort of saint, as if he, like other great "statesmen" before and after him, had not built his power on cruelty and blood (sure they were more than just that, but that's the stuff REAL history is made of, whether we talk about Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or Napoleon), out of ambition and thirst for power, justified or not; and, of course, a loving husband, a tender father, a generous leader, and, in a way, even a devout one: all in all, some sort of a funny maverick. If he was driven by revenge, as the saying in the opening titles seems to suggest, he must have shrugged it off pretty soon, or hidden it very, very well. Jamuka? A vulgar drunk, perhaps superficial but definitely not so infamously cruel. Tangutai (hope to remember his name well)? A vile coward. Borte? A steel-willed (and "skilful", if need be) wife. Is that what it takes to become a leader? Hard to believe if you've come of age, as much as it is hard to believe that a handful of knights can wreak havoc in a an army several times bigger by just using two swords instead of one: if that's "strategy", then we're talking about "Centurion" or "Risiko", but probably not at all about history. Some characters appear and disappear inexplicably, first of all Genghis Khan's mother; and his father's death looks really stupid. True? Maybe. Plausible? Hardly, overall.

The film is epic and often fascinating. But the authors take so much arbitrary liberty with fact and history that the film reminds me more of a mixture between "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Gladiator" with Genghis Khan as a pretext than of a film based on a real, historical figure. Fun to watch, but perhaps not so worth spending so much money and time, both making it and watching it.

I will give Sergei Bodrov a second chance, when the time arrives.

But, on these premises, not a third one.

Shortbus (2006)

Transgressive isn't synonym with deep

[3/10 · 3 December 2006]

I expected to watch something unusual and even transgressive, but I didn't expect to have to go through so many and so explicit sex scenes.

Apart from that, I do like American independent films, but when they're bad (and sometimes they are) they seem like a French film gone crazy. You can analyse feelings, show the complexity and the contradictions of what many of us feel, depict a process of discovery of the self, and do that even with the help of very graphic sex scenes. But just "talking" or "describing" doesn't mean you're analysing, and being unconventional doesn't mean you're being innovative. This film is incredibly shallow. It's American psycho-sex-babble at its worst.

I left the cinema during the scene when the band entered the sex club. The whole scene, with everyone smiling at each other, all those looks full of "meaning", all those people suddenly finding that their "significant other" was just sitting right beside them made me feel as if someone were pouring a ton of sugar on me, and reminded me of a very funny such scene in "Airplane" (when the nun is playing the guitar).

There were some humorous moments though, and I liked the soundtrack as well.

Revenge of the Dead (1983)

Scarily interesting

[8/10 · 15 August 2006]

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).

The Caiman (2006)

A sharp, tough look at today's Italy

[8/10 · 2 April 2006]

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.

Good Bye Lenin! (2003)

What a film!

[9/10 · 2 December 2003]

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

Love Actually (2003)

Lost chance

[5/10 · 28 November 2003]

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

Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

So what?

[5/10 · 13 November 2003]

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.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

The problem with Tarantino

[1/10 · 8 November 2003]

*SPOILERS*

First of all, let me warn you. I've always detested Tarantino, so I didnt'go see this film free of prejudice.

That said, I can't think of a worse film I've seen lately, except "The Matrix Reloaded". The reason is that Tarantino shows too much violence, and that he doesn't show anything else. "But that's the point!" some will say. The point of what? Ok, lets' make a film and let's show a rape and say that that's the point. Does that mean that the film is good?

Tarantino has always been overrated (I disliked "Pulp Fiction" as well). The reason is that he manages to feel unconventional and artsy, so many will feel smart by saying that he's a genius, that his films are masterpieces and all that crap. The plain truth is that he's either a sadistic voyeur or a cunning man who's found a way to make pots of money by exploiting people's naivety. Or both.

Although I don't like gore or black humour, I sometimes appreciate it (eg some films with Vincent Price). The point is trivial, but worth making: black humour has to be, well, humorous. The problem with Tarantino is that he's nothing. A vacuum.

Some reviewers have said that if you don't understand what this film is about, you just won't get it; that it's a mockery and so on. The problem is that if one treats himself to shallow, uninspired, unoriginal, uninventive films, who are shot chiefly for the purpose of using some glitzy special effects and for solvin someone's money problems for the rest of his life, you may find such a film creative or inspired, instead of just the trick it is.

Tarantino is in quotations. He quotes all the time. But a film full of quotations and references is a trick that is worth doing once or twice. After that, it can't hide any more the outright lack of creativity that hides behind the references.

If you watch a gory b-movie (or any b-movie, for that matter), you may like it, even love it, but you'd never go so far as to claim it's a work of "art". Tarantino is "hip" (for the time being), so it's fashionable to call this lame director a genius.

But time will tell.

Remember David Lynch.

The Sunday Woman (1975)

A little masterpiece

[8/10 · 14 October 2003]

"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.

General Della Rovere (1959)

Life during wartime

[8/10 · 1 June 2003]

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.

25th Hour (2002)

Overrated

[6/10 · 25 May 2003]

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

Facing Windows (2003)

What a surprise!

[8/10 · 11 May 2003]

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.

Casomai (2002)

So what?

[4/10 · 3 March 2003]

(Spoilers)

I was very curious to see this film, after having heard that it was clever and witty. I had to stop halfway because of the unbearable boredom I felt.

The idea behind the film would have been acceptable: depicting the way the relationship between a man and a woman evolves, through all the problems and difficulties that two people living in a big city can experience. What made me dislike the whole film were two things.

First of all, the film was so down-to-earth that it looked as if, by describing the problems that a couple must solve on a day-to-day basis, it became itself ordinary and dull.

Secondly, the overall sloppiness of the production, with dialogues that were barely understandable.

Too bad.

Fight Club (1999)

David Fincher has done it again (badly)

[4/10 · 10 January 2003]

I can't say if the ending of this film is good or bad, because I've got fed up with it well before the end.

David Fincher seems to have a taste for grotesque excess. This can be seen in the Madonna videos he directed; it was plain for all to see in "Se7en" (a horrible film) and it is evident again in this film as well.

This film is disturbing to watch, but, unlike "Se7en", at least it's not revolting. It will be liked by all those who think that, in order to criticise the distorted way in which we live, it's essential that an amount of violence as high as possible be shown and represented graphically, even though it doesn't really add to the story. It's not just the violence: it's the whole film that is unpleasant to watch, for no plausible reason.

This is not being original, or visionary, or artistic, or intelligent, thought-provoking, innovative. If you met someone on the street and he punched in the stomach for no apparent reason, how many of you would you say that his action is "thought-provoking"? Not many, I suppose. This film is the cinematic equivalent of a punch in the stomach by a stranger, but it's a little less subtle.

Moreover, this film is also boring, very boring.

I'm rather tired of directors that seem to indulge in shocking the public with unrealistic plots and hyperrealistic violence. Clearly, some of those directors have realised that they can play that game and get away with it (plus a lot of critical acclaim and, probably, a good deal of money). Personally, I think that this film is basically nonsensical. I suspect that, as with "Se7en", it succeeds in making some people feel trendy because they can stand industrial amounts of imaginative violence. Transgression is the word.

Sometimes it's even ludicrous. In the sequence in which Brad Pitt gets beaten by the landlord, after the second punch his face bleeds, but after the third one the blood has disappeared. Miraculous, indeed.

Fanny and Alexander (1982)

Boring

[5/10 · 3 November 2002]

SPOILERS

I have seen quite a few Bergman's films; some of them are very bad, while others are masterpieces. I must say I've been very disappointed by this one. It's extremely boring, and it fell way below my expectations. The several pieces don't seem to fit well together, many characters aren't explored at all; most of them make a brief appearance before vanishing altogether, while others are just sketchy. I suspect that the 6-hour television version is better.

All in all, the film is just patchy.

5/10

Minority Report (2002)

Just another action movie

[6/10 · 28 September 2002]

Entertaining and full of fascinating special effects, but what does it leave you with in the end? Not much. It goes down like a glass of water.

I've read a couple of Dick's novels, and I couldn't say they were thrillers. Science-fiction novels with thought-provoking implications, which made them interesting. In this film, this side is completely neglected, drowned in an orgy of special effects.

Ridley Scott took one of Dick's novels and created a masterpiece: tense, visionary, fascinating, full of interesting, multi-faceted characters. Spielberg's is just a classic Hollywood movie: lots of effects, lots of adrenaline, lots of action, but characters are extremely dull, and almost every turn of the plot can be easily anticipated.

Spielberg isn't very good at exploring characters and implications of a story, and Cruise is the right actor for a movie like this: a good professional, but also good for shallow characters only. Like other Spielberg's film, this one is also, sometimes, intolerably moralistic.

Definitely no masterpiece; 6/10.