Reviews written by registered user
|7 reviews in total|
"The Gladiator" is really a great film. You can see the fantastic way of filming of Ridley Scott, the sceneries are marvellous and also actors are really good. The plot is very simple, but effective. There are all the main elements to make this film a "Kolossal". It reminds me many films about the Ancient Rome, especially "Spartacus" by Stanley Kubrick. But the main difference between these two films is that "The Gladiator" is very approximate in its historical elements while "Spartacus" (as also other films about Rome and,generally, historical arguments)is very accurate. For this reason, I think that Gladiator is a good film, but not a good historical film. There are too many wrong elements. I can give some examples: in the initial battle we see many crossbows which did not exist yet at the time, or the (marvellous, anyway) scene of the Colosseo with all the flags at its top (it was more similar to Wembley Stadium rather than the real monument!!!) and other little things. Oh yeah....another important mistake: the film shows us Rome as a big city,with streets, with many people and around the central city......NOTHING, no streets, no little cities, only some isolated houses somewhere.....that's not true! Maybe, I'm a little bit meticolous, maybe because I love history....but I think it is to pointed out these little mistakes. Anyway, the film is really good and I gave it an 8!
I gave 1 to this film. I can't understand how Ettore Scola,one of the greater directors of Italian cinema, made a film like this, so stupid and ridiculous! All the stories of the people involved in the movie are unsubstantial,boring and not interesting. Too long,too boring. The only things I save in this movie are Giancarlo Giannini and Vittorio Gasmann. Hope that Scola will change radically themes and style in his next film.
I'm really surprised by this film by Wim Wenders, one of my favourite directors. I wonder why he decided to make a movie with such a poor and inconclusive screenplay! The way of filming is really great but,you know, it's the hand of Wim Wenders, that's obvious! Take a look at the first scene of the film: it's really impressive! But the film! Long, boring; I haven't understood what is its purpose: to show the way of living of people isolated from society? These characters are described such in a superficial way that I can't think that the purpose of Wenders was to show a particular social situation! Then we have the strange lovestory which is,in my opinion,ridiculous. The dialogues between the two lovers are really without any sense, and sometimes so stupid! I did not like this film at all. I think that every film, even if long, must follow a guiding thread: in this film it is impossible to understand which is the guiding thread. There are too many things put together without connection. I hope next Wenders film will be more impressive than "Million dollar hotel"
Probably I'll be the only person who comments this old film by Mario Bonnard, but this is the only italian film which tells something about the history of Italian people who lived in Istria before World war. Nobody told the truth about the ethnic cleansing made by the Yugoslavian Communists guided by Marshall Tito against innocent Italians; for this reason this film is a real historical document. It shows some real images of the big italian exodus from Pola and it tells the story of a married couple who decide to stay in Pola, even if it won't be no more Italian. The character of the priest, of Silvana and also of the yugoslavian girl are such real people; in some parts, the film seems taken from real life. This film should be showed in many Italian schools in order to remember the biggest tragedy Italy has ever lived. But here in my country this is an unpleasant truth.
I saw this film one month ago for the first time and I've been really impressed! After having seen the film, I decided to go to Croatia, because I wanted to see what Communism created in ex-Yugoslavia. This film made me curious about history and people of Ex-Yugoslavia. It has been really a lesson for me; everybody should see this movie.
I've always been fascinating by the Balkans history, maybe because I study in Trieste, a town at the border with Ex-Yugoslavia. I find really fantastic the way Kusturica describe the terrible madness that has crossed over the Balkans during the last years. Too many things are very difficult to understand for who doesn't live in those countries, but I think that Kusturica has made a very intelligent metaphor to explain the real illness that afflict the Balkans. I've read many comments that criticize the film length, over three hours; I think that three hours were necessary to close the circle opened at the beginning of the film with World war, nor the film would have been uncomplete. The final really impressed me, this idea of an island isolated from the rest of the world with its own history which is going to be repeated forever and ever. A very sad preview by Kusrurica; the people won't change his mind, for this reason his history won't never change.
This has been my first Malick's film and I've been really impressed by the philosophical meanings that every single word and dialogue of the film hide. I saw it two days ago but I can't stop thinking about; it's probably the best movie about war ever filmed. It is a very long film, but every single scene is necessary to the plot; the actors are great, especially Nick Nolte and Sean Penn; the way the movie is filmed is really fascinating, the nature is always present and it is very interesting to think about its central role in the film. A masterpiece in my opinion; I stop here my review because my bad english can't let me explain really what I' d like to say! The emotions this film gave me are too difficult to explain also in my own-language. In English it's really hard!