Carlo Giuliani, ragazzo

A much needed word of warning about some of the other comments here. There are many fascists in Northern Italy and elsewhere who always take the side of the police-state against the urban warriors who stand with courage against global injustice.

Inside the prison cells where protesters were kept the police sang fascist songs and even chants praising Chile's former fascist dictator General Pinochet.

Politicans from a fascist Italian party set themselves up inside police headquarters and took political control of the police operation.

Subsequent trials in Italy revealed in no uncertain terms that the police planted weapons to frame protesters, that they had agent provocateurs dressed like protesters to instigate trouble and that the police as was evident at the time launched a campaign of mass brutal violence in which hundreds of people picked at random were beaten bloody.

The city of Genova collaborated with the global gangsters of the GB and built a zone with a wall and fence that said from the get-go that the people are the enemy and the gangster rulers of the world must not be bothered by the sight of the people.

This is a documentary in which the spoken parts continuously clash with images. On one hand we have Giuliani's mother and friends talking about how quiet, good and sensitive Carlo was and how he was almost by chance involved in Genoa's disorders. On the other hand we see images of Carlo dressed up in a balaclava building barricades with other "comrades" and trying to hit a policeman with a fire extinguisher.

Now, I don't know who is Comencini trying fool!

While reconstructing the facts, Giuliani's mother describes herself as a "pacifist", but a pacifist is supposed to blame violence in any of its forms whereas she only deplores policemen's violence while legitimizing rioters' and her son's.

Don't get me wrong: I do not think Carlo deserved to die, what I'm saying is that Comencini can't expect me to think of Giuliani as a sensitive innocent victim just because she shows me some of his (naive) poems or his mother mourning his demise.

My overall impression is that this documentary is an unsuccessful attempt to pass a violent man off as a harmless lamb... If you enjoy being bamboozled by factious movies, don't miss this one.

This movie, a documentary about the terrible days of G8 in Genova (Italy) and the assasination of Carlo Giuliani, is a beautiful portray of mother's love.

Heidi, Carlo's mother, tell what she know about the last hour of life of his son. A story composed by pictures, movies, witnesses, friends, his girl-friend, comrades.

How is fragile the limit between honest and illegality? How is possibile to defend an peaceful idea if the only way is the violence? How is terrific a world where man kill man without to see in the eyes?

Beautiful. Beautiful poems written by Carlo is the astounding soundtrack. Terrific in his reality. Sweet and hard. Near a mother. Near Carlo. Thank Francesca. 9 of 10

A tragic event turned into a farce by a biased film director: this could properly be a short summary of this lame movie. The first thing I have to say is that the protest wasn't peaceful at all. It is true that many of the people taking part had no violent intentions. Anyway it is also true that a large part had declared explicitly and in advance their intentions not to respect the approved route and to penetrate the "red zone", guarder by the police, where the G8 meeting was. These "peaceful" protesters destroyed and burned 83 cars, 41 shops, 9 postal offices, 16 gas stations, 4 private homes, filling the streets of Genoa with 200 tons of rubble (source: Corriere della Sera). The cluster of people in Alimonda square, where Carlo was shot, were providing an incessant throwing of stones, while some of them attached a military police vehicle with iron bars, poles and various kinds of offensive weapons. Carlo was shot while attaching the vehicle which was stuck in a corner, holding a fire extinguisher high in his hands, his face covered with a balaclava. This dramatic situation is told in the movie by the mother of the boy with such absurd tones that make the movie sound as a piece of fiction: "the boys had no intentions of violence: they just reacted to the mean attitude of the police", "yes, they were equipped with helmets and funny (sic) body shields, but they just supposed "normal" (sic) club hits", "they resisted like the Italians resisted to the Nazism and Fascism during the end of the second World War", and so forth. We all understand that a mother can't be objective when remembering her own lost son. However I don't understand the reason to report such a one way view of the fact in a movie declared as a "documentary". The exact scene of the shooting isn't completely clear yet: whether the shot was diverted by a flying rock (as suggested by some pictures) or not is to be made clear by the commission of inquiry. What stays for sure is that a violent attack against the police was taking place. The death of a 23 years old guy is objectively a dramatic fact and a source of sorrow for everybody, no matter who was the boy or what were his intentions. Distorting the facts as it's done in this movie is in my opinion an offence to an unlucky guy and to any fair young man.

While watching this movie I was embarrassed for the mother and the filmmaker. The mother's commentary was stirring and emotional but the images totally invalidated her perspective. She would describe the police as "charging" or "attacking" or "rushing" the protesters and then the film would show police slowly walking forward. Then the mother would describe the protesters as "peaceful" or "retreating" and then we would see protesters throwing rocks, charging the police wielding weapons amid burning vehicles and destroyed property. All I learned after watching this film was how a mother's love is truly blinding and how this woman really didn't know her son. Actually, I already knew this, pretty much true for all mothers. Total propaganda.