Reviews

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."

Really, watching the trailer, I will not go to watch this title never. It was centered around the appearance of the strip-tease, what I would call very marginal, making it looks a movie for horny people. From the movie, it shines values ​​very important, like to believe always in their own dreams, the contrast to the use of drugs and alcohol to minors (and abuse in general), friendship, family affection, the eternal choice between love and career... Soderbergh maybe does not filming masterpieces but behind his films, even "light", there is always a message, a constructive criticism about customs of the more reprehensible society. Perfect interpretation of the cast, including Alex Pettyfer, every time more convincing.

A real disappointment. The first flaw of this film is the acting. Even after ten minutes I realized it was a cast of amateurs, but really these. An interpretation that it seems that all the actors are reading, with a diction so exaggerated to make even the unnaturally simple dialogues, complete lack of spontaneity. The setting, then, is ridiculous. The directors tries to stage it in the USA but there are Italian writing, Italian landscapes, even the phone booth, in which the actors make up 911 for four times! The only thing "American" is the car plate. It was enough to dial 112 instead of 911, that was the problem? Absolutely a title that I don't recommend: it's a real waste of time.

A masterpiece of Ferzan Ozpetek that finally, after years, departs from his usual production. The plot is developed in a fun and fluid matter, and it is impossible to be bored or get lost along the way. Also perfect character development, very credible thanks to the extraordinary performances, one of all those of Elio Germano; his close-up in the final scene is an apotheosis. Great mastery of the musicians in recreating a magnificent soundtrack of the years Thirty that it falls within the context perfectly. There is not a flaw in the entire movie except, perhaps, that the ending is almost trivial and I would rather different. All in all a great movie to recommend highly!

This movie was very promising in the beginning, but after an half hour the final was too obvious. An horror title which you can understand the final after such a short time and completely without any surprise (less or more), it hardly be called exciting, although there were a lot of potential. Nevertheless, the actors have played very well, especially Caroline Kessler, and I believe the soundtrack is matching: the only flaw was precisely the sequence of events. Too bad not being able to develop a storyline so interesting ... For this reason, I would not recommend watching this title, despite my vote is still positive for the idea and the performance of the cast.

Certainly the movie is well done, it fits perfectly all parts of the first "Planet of the Apes" (1968) to be truly "rise" but I think this is fair to expect ... In general it is well shot, the actors are up to the task even if the monkeys resemble less and less of the Apes (the set, in general, could do better). It tells a story that was possible to develop and exhaust in ten minutes and came out a movie rather than bored: it runs fast and creates a certain suspense. With a few forgivable wrong detail that with a little of attention would have been avoided, mine is still a positive rating! I suggest this title even though you never followed the saga since you can look beyond the vision of this film.

An allegorical movie where the viewer must identify himself to be emotionally involved or it seems almost absurd, and yet one can not remain indifferent to certain aspects of the film: the guys who do not have to "give", nor choose to do so, just it's so, there is no other possibility but not because you have to be spare, but because it is normal, of course. I was very impressed with the history of references to love, it seems obvious that it can not be so trivial function of the "Gallery", and yet gives rise to the response of Madame: "Your drawings were used to show that YOU have a soul". As if to say that those who commissioned the spare parts want that they come from a reliable source of excellent choice, and then from people who live and have a soul, not mere robots ready to use, a kind of first quality, in fact. And what about the absurdity of making "assistance" in its operations that one day will kill you? The unbridled pursuit of allegory, in misunderstanding that leads almost (and it becomes no doubt for those who are not accustomed to follow the works of Garland) makes this title a must-see, and think long ...

A very original documentary in alternating flashbacks with evidence both direct and indirect, I liked the way of presenting the facts from the point of view of their heroes (or their direct descendants, unfortunately). At times too long, so slow, sometimes moving, is the background of a beautiful melody Francesco De Gregori well orchestrated which makes the climax. Perhaps the only flaw is that some witnesses have more space than others, and perhaps this is not dictated by the media or the amount of information to be given to the spectator, and this is the reason for this not excellent vote... Anyway I recommend watching this title!

An incredible psychological movie where you don't understand the message of the director until the end; really, the watcher is transported in a pained atmosphere, and everything is presented like a dismal nightmare for principal character, who desperately fights for his life. I can't explain more cause I don't want to spoil, but I want to add that it's possible you can judge the first part of this title boring, and maybe you don't wrong, but I assure it's worthwhile to arrive until the end. This is the second Zampaglione's movie and it's the second "8" I give him for his skill to involve the watcher and take him something for reflecting about. Don't miss it!

It was a very interesting title about a teen's life instead of the history of a sensational creation which really will upset the world. Director David Fincher shows all principal character feelings, and his matter to consider each situation by the point of view not only a young boy but also of a genius. Neither a minute of boring in this fluent movie that consecrates Jesse Eisenberg as a striking actor (how he yet had demonstrated in "The village" and Fincher as one of the most capable contemporary directors, who was my favourite but after his two last movies I had found him in trouble: for me, this title is his redemption! Absolutely to see!

This documentary is certainly a political title, and shows all the cares of a prime minister to take advantage of any contingency to reconquest consents. The director describes us the abuses committed by Civil Protection to keep up appearances that everyone is helped, showing as Police keeps away people who don't applaud the provisions. Access to the destroyed city are forbidden but no one can explain why or from which Autority and which law, and each order is settled justifying it by State of Emergency. It's very involved to look on pain of earthquake victims and on the other side to look on predisposition of planes to achieve popularity and gratefulness. I really think it could not exist movies like this...

Melchionna was really able to deal with this argument never saw in this manner so exhaustive in cinema! You are watching a movie about suicide, and you realize you're laughing, so you reflect about the meaning of what is occurring and you look for an explanation for your cheerfulness while a man is suffering and is going to die... The contrast between mirth and sadness is so obvious that you must ask yourself how is possible for a man to prefer suicide to the desire to carry on... Director shows a lot of little reasons to arrive to this choose, directly or indirectly, like failure in work, disappointment in his own dream, the oppression of a family who doesn't understand you, superficial friends... Finally, you are building your idea of the reasons which make you decide that's over, and you're asking yourself: is it really so simple to judge someone who refuses to live of hope? You don't mind if at the end that man will die or will change his mind: what's important is the reactions of people that enclose him, both acquaintance and foreign. This is what make this title a masterpiece!

I love very much von Trier's movies: I rated 10 "Dancer in the dark", "Dogville", "Manderlay" and "Direktoren for det hele", but this time I think von Trier's going too far to evidence he's the anti-Hollywood director. Perhaps he wanted to make a psychological movie, and he used a lot of references; maybe he doesn't like movies like "Omen" and he tried to propose another way to deal the biblical argument of Hell, but the title is turned out to be only a "porno-horror", too similar to splatters than introspective movies. Too much scenes of blood and sex aren't necessary for the meaning of the plot, which is really simple: a bad remembrance gets a woman crazy and her husband tries to help who he loves. I consider aimless and comic the scenes with the fox, and absolutely expressionless those with all the acorns of the entire world that fall down in the roof to construct a climax of pressure. The only think I like of this title was the photograph; it was thoroughly a real disappointment: a not reacted provocation which can't get across to the audience.

A dull first time, poor dialogues, ordinary plot and mediocre casting make this movie a second-rate title; by the way I appreciated it for a skill: director Marco Bechis is good not to take sides in the argument setting against two positions and showing all the troubles and the motivations which each delegate of the two sects argues. Unfortunately all this is not enough to make a title interesting. I think if you have not read something about the plot before watching maybe you can't understand what the title is dealing with, to the contrary understanding it at the last ten minutes doesn't permit to consider it a movie to see. Finally a consideration about Indians: this is not a movie in which they kill, massacre, slaughter everybody: they are represented like a civil folk, with their difficulties and their daily feelings: it's out of customary cliché of wild Indians!

Do you want to see an agreeable easy movie, without scenes able to sadden you and make you trouble? Well, you wrong title. One of the most controversial movie of all times, setting aside certain remarks that advocate it's too far from the novel or it's better or worse than it: I affirm the title gets over the novel; to the contrary, we could have a narrow outlook on things. Ozpetek proposes you a plot of lives in which each character has a fundamental part for a correct understanding: by the way the movie tells about only a history: that of Emma, who lives an unquiet life but something is going to change: she is going to spend "a perfect day", although several problems lied to work, to her love-story and her children. But she's going to realize that destiny claim a considerable wage in exchange for a "fee Saturday"... Let me say it: it's a perfect plot: to the end everything will be clean; you only must pay attention to the order of events, and forget to see a comedy, that's obvious!

I don't say it's a masterpiece, but I guess you don't disagree if I affirm it's a movie presented to disturb, to throw into confusion stereotypes and clichés: it declare that someone who has passion and aptitude must be encouraged and help to cultivate his own skills; it also shows an important thing, too often forgotten: as a paradox, you can be obstruct by someone (here her father) who wants to all costs you will be a successful artist. In Monica's mind are produced several lacks of balance: at the age of twelve, she decides to not continue playing the piano, her relationship with her father is cracked, and through some happenings she is imprisoned (unfairly?) in a female prison, where a talented lady gives piano lessons to the prisoners. The two woman will share a piece of their lives, until discovering they are not so different... I've found a bit simple dialogues, perhaps too artful but it is a well-made story which let a bitter taste in one's mouth. Inuseful any comment about musics: Beethoven, Bach don't need introduction, but bad recorded unfortunately.

What have I liked in this movie? First, the beginning: three friends who play in the streets, as you can see in several American movies: different boys, in more than one aspect; only one is poor, his family is needy, and this will cost him dear! After a quarter, teen age it's yet over: the three boys are adult, each one has followed his destiny; but everybody remember the last time they had played together, a day which has marked their lives forever. Second: the perfect development of investigations you can feel involved in which, thanks above all to actors' skills, very exciting in each situation, wisely interlaced without carelessness. Third, the touching distressing unforeseeable ending, making of this movie a masterpiece which can't miss in a cinematography culture! I also liked musics: right in each moment, good to transmit the same emotions that characters are feeling. I thing "Mystic river" it's a movie that can changes your life, appertaining you forever.

Very touched story of a man who has dreamed to become a marine who must become aware how roughly you are treated for understanding the mean of the war. The first time shows the drilling; Kubrik doesn't try to soften anything and he's skillful in the descriptions about life in barracks: an anticipation of life in war.

In the second time are described the effects of the Vietnam war that must you be ready to everything to keep your life remembering everything of the drilling. I think that with these pictures and descriptions, with this manner to relate and report, any comment is ineffable.

When I was a child I watched this movie every week; I don't know why, it was forgotten in my mind until I heard to speak about it, so suddenly I remembered how much I liked it, and I watched it again, understanding what my young eyes saw in this movie: a perfect combination between action, adventure and at the same time the narration of the ups and downs to keep the true love in a manner anything but banal! If you watch, you will become aware you don't stand up until the end! A brilliant funny touching plot, based on the vicissitudes of a groom who must save his beauty facing intelligence, strength and courage tests, interlacing his story with that of other two men, one of which is looking for the man who has killed his father, waiting for a revenge. A movie to must see, suited to the whole family.

Suppose you are young boys, a male and a female; then, your families are divided and you don't meet for several years... Each one has his own life: girl is coming to become the bride of the Austrian Crown Prince, boy is a successful illusionist. So, it happens that the two meet them to the show, on the stage, and they immediately understand that nothing is changed since they were young... How could you do for your true love? Both them will try to answer to this question, and with shrewdness and without fear, they secretly start to meet them. But soon they will realize that it's not so easy to hide their meetings to the Crown Prince, and something will occur... A very intelligent movie, from the begin to the end; different, from my point of view, from "The prestige", which tells about power and corruption and perversion of who this power has got: in "The illusionist", magic is not used like a cunning to become rich or powerful, to have success or glory: it's only an outline to resist to the life adversities. As Northon says, "I pray you to not forget it's only an illusion": he only wants to not fear love, for not fearing life!