Reviews

La notte is usually said to be the second of the so-called "existential tetralogy" together with L'Avventura, L'eclisse and The Red Desert.

Like L'Avventura, La Notte as well has a central theme a love story, but a story of a couple (wonderfully played by Mastroianni and Jeanne Moreau) going through a deep crisis, that has almost come to an end. From the emptiness of their house, we move to a likewise empty party. The night setting is what allows the characters in the film to move away from the borders of their personality and degenerate, do things that the night itself can hide and that keeps for itself.

In fact, when the sun rises, everything is much calmer and the light shows things in a different way, even the couple's relationship. Like Antonioni once said during an interview: "you don't need much to collapse, to surrender"… it's easy to forget about the things that surround us.

Antonioni always reminds us that talking isn't necessary, that silence is a big lesson we can learn from.

I honestly found this movie very touching and delicate. It is delicate in the way it treats difficult subjects as sexuality and the discovery of one's identity in an hostile period. The fact that it is a true story makes the whole movie even more involving.

I don't think the film is perfect - but the acting, cinematography, the screenplay are absolutely amazing. I especially loved the middle part - where all the characters try to find a way out of the problem and when for the first time they seem to be facing a fracture between them.

I thought it had a great power on people even though it doesn't seem to have had the effect I was expecting (at least during the premiere in Venice).

Eddie Redmayne hasn't had enough of his Oscar and I wish him all the best for 2016!

Once again, Paolo Sorrentino proves to be a master of cinema and doesn't disappoint. The story is set in an apparently isolated place: a luxury hotel in the mountains of Switzerland inhabited mainly by artists and people from the show business (curious the reference to Maradona, thanked by Sorrentino during his Oscar acceptance speech).

Youth is a tender film in both the characters and the themes: growing old and the fears related to it are common to all men. Fred (Michael Caine) is an old man who still has a lot going on in his life: he has to deal with friendship, love, family and his career. The only thing that makes him different from the younger people surrounding him is that he is aware of memory. It is through memory that he has lost and that he tries to regain his identity. Everyone in the film is in search for identity: the contrast between how people see them and what they want to be seen as.

The screenplay is complex and intense and for this reason sometimes hard to follow. I loved the irony Sorrentino always puts in his movies: through surrealism he is capable of expressing humanity in a simple but yet beautiful way. All the cast delivers great performances and cinematography is absorbing as always. Sorrentino is a director of places: no matter if it is the Eternal City of Rome or an hotel immersed in nature - he is able to capture all the beauty of it.

What the film teaches us, in the end, is that we are what we do - so, I'd add, it's better if we do what we are - but we are nothing without love, which is the driving force of humanity.

I was so impressed with this movie: it just has it all. The story is about a man, Kolya, who risks to loose his property because of the arrogance of the corrupted major, the leviathan. The film opens with a beautiful sequence of landscape - cinematography is remarkable and shows the wide, desolate environment that reflects the isolation of the characters themselves. The screenplay is intriguing and well written - nothing's taken for granted and both the story and the dialogs are deeply constructed.

Kolya's character, sustained with a sincere performance, needs to be saved even though his freedom might have dangerous consequences. He refuses his friend's, Dimitry, advice to move on and build a new life somewhere else and chooses to fight for his house. The role of the woman is that of a submitted wife always watching and never taking part of any conversation or decision. She is weak and we notice it also from the relationship she has with Kolya's son. Dimitry, instead, is seen as a hero: he is admired by Kolya and fascinates Lilya (Kolya's wife). The character's unsolved dilemmas are the real trap that drags them to despair - the leviathan is inside themselves in the first place. It's a movie that is worth seeing because of his richness in humanity. It reminds us that we are all waiting for someone who can save us, maybe putting our needs in front of everyone without realizing that our decision might harm people near us.

The theory of everything is probably one of the best movies I've seen so far this year. Everything about and around it has its own right space. The story is more about Jane (Felicity Jones) rather than professor Hawking - in fact it's an adaptation of the book "Traveling to Infinity: my life with Stephen" by Jane Hawking. It's her fight for her love for Stephen first, and then against his disease. She is the strongest character, even though the public easily sympathizes with everyone. They are people who have encountered difficulties in their lives and they feel extremely pure. The script is well written: the fact that it is focused more on the personal life of Stephen Hawking makes it easier to follow, although dealing a little more with his professional research would have made it deeper and maybe more philosophical. The cast simply does a great job and Eddie Redmayne's performance is superb and outstanding - hopefully it will bring him a Best Leading Actor Oscar.

I was very curious to see Christopher Nolan's latest movie Interstellar even though I'm not a sci-fi fan - but I'm a fan of Mr. Nolan-, plus both public and critiques made very positive comments about it. The story is set in a world devastated by drought and famine that will lead humanity to extinction unless a group of NASA scientists and explorers find another planet where life is possible. Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) is chosen to be the pilot of the Endurance that will leave for a journey through space. Cooper is put in front of a choice: staying with his children on Earth or following Amelia Brand (Anne Hathaway) and her crew to possibly save the world. The movie is beautifully conducted by director Nolan. Cinematography and sound work perfectly together and give a sense of total immersion in this breathtaking travel. The alternation of moments of music composed by Hans Zimmer, sounds and complete silence accompany the events and the steps of the journey and, at the same time, contribute to create feelings of anxiety, astonishment and isolation. Isolation is always present in the movie: the explorers are alone in space, they are small compared to the immensity of the universe while people on Earth are condemned to death - they feel like they have been left alone. Cooper's house itself is isolated: we don't feel presence of others except for the main characters - humanity that needs to be saved is an entity whose pain and curse we don't perceive. The film is focused on individual stories: a father who decides to leave his children to follow the aspiration that was denied to him in the past, even though the goal is universal: saving human race. Time is the undeniable protagonist and villain: Cooper, Murphy and Amelia have to find a solution before it is too late. Shifting of time The cast does a wonderful job - especially Academy Award winner Matthew Mccauneghy, although of course it can't be compared to the performance that got him the Academy Award. Overall I liked this film even though I'm afraid that in the end, screenwriters Nolan pushed their creativity way too far and weren't able to find (in 169 minutes) a better solution that would more realistically lead the film to an happy end. It is so strained that makes the film lose all its atmosphere. The problem with this kind of movies - Gravity does the same mistake, in my opinion - is that it is hard to conciliate powerful visuals with a beautiful story. I admit that it does get emotional at times and it is not always predictable but It seems like the storyline is sacrificed into clichés in order for technical aspects to be at their best. Visual should support the story and not vice versa. It is a stunning movie, but yet not the best from Nolan, who is now considered a legend for his capability of creating other dimensions and for this reason it is easy to have too high expectations for his works that not always will be satisfied.

Great opening at the Venice Film Festival with this must-see movie. The story of an actor persecuted by the role that made him popular, "Birdman", and pressured by the willing of proving himself on stage with his new play.

The characters in the story are all struggling with something: Sam (Emma Stone) with her drug addiction, Mike (Edward Norton) with his sexual problems, Lesley (Naomi Watts) with her self- realization and Michael Keaton with love. What kind of love is he lacking? Is it admiration for his work? The same admiration that chained him to Bridman, who is probably the only one capable of saving him.

The cinematography reminds of that used in Hitchcock's "Rope": it seems to be filmed consequently. The originality of the cinematography, though, may have sacrificed the storyline.

"Birdman" certainly needs to be seen more than one, but likewise certainly it's going to be one of the greatest movies of the year

The movie is set in an empty theater during a night storm. Vanda wants to audition for the female role in the play "La Vénus à la fourrure". Thomas, author and director, reluctant at first, end up being dragged by the ambiguous personality of the woman. She seems out of place: dressed inappropriately and easy-minded but she is just perfect for the role. Vanda and Thomas start rehearsing and they interrupt each other to discuss the characters and the storyline. Vanda repeatedly accuses Thomas to have chosen a sexist subject. The setting estranges both the two characters and the public, also with the help of the screenplay's rhythm, which alternates reality and the actual play.

It's a movie that opens up a great number of themes regarding the relationship between man and woman.

This Fellini's movie opens in a white, half-empty room. A kind, old man guides us through the history and the current purpose of the oratory until the musicians arrive. He's nostalgic of the old days of which he often speaks, comparing them to the present decay.

The relationship between present and past in music is also evoked by the orchestra leader. The past is always represented as the ideal period opposed to the time infected by media. The television is there to film the orchestra rehearsals: musicians are asked to talk about themselves: it's beautiful how each one of them remembers their encounter with music and the instrument they're playing.

The characters are all unique: they have different stories to tell but they share the same passion. Everyone wants to impose the importance of its own instrument without realizing that magic is accomplished with the presence of every single one together. The orchestra leader complains about the public who, in his opinion, is unable to understand music, or art in general. Like T.S. Eliot's line "the women come and go talking of Michelangelo", the orchestra leader expresses his dissatisfaction with the public.

The second half of the movie is an act of rebellion where the musicians refuse the orchestra leader's role. The seizure of power doesn't last very long: they end up destroying and ruining the oratory. The orchestra leader takes control of the situation and when everything seems to be back to its own harmony, the sound of disappointment echoes in the dust of the room.

The music of the movie is sublime, composed by the incomparable Nino Rota. The acting is simple but pure and it perfectly reaches Fellini's intent.

Two Navy officers (Jack Nicholson and Otis Young) are appointed to escort a young sailor (Randy Quaid) to prison after he had stolen 40 dollars from a charity collection box. The boy appears as defenseless, since he is a victim of an unjust sentence and the two officers, moved by his weak personality, decide to take some time to let him discover and appreciate things in life that he would not be able to enjoy during his years in prison.

Nor Nicholson nor Young are heroes in this film: they instead are failed officers who want to redeem their personal satisfaction on showing and teaching Quaid the pleasures of life. That's all they know. By trying to help the young man growing, they end up ruining his future. He contemplates escape only because he's aware that what's expecting him will destroy his pureness.

This film is liberating, because we experience with Quaid the emotions he faces for the first time, and ambiguous, because the efforts of the two officers in leaving in the boy good memories pushes them to question their role and assignment.