If you grant (a lot of) indulgence to the controversial protagonist, you'll enjoy this nostalgic movie (Amelio is the right director), taste some subtleties, and praise the great performance of the lead actor - "adesso li fa tutti Favino", and for a very good reason - and the whole cast.
On the other side, even forgetting about history, you'll also notice the flaws: the most important political facts are just fainted, the identities are hidden (even ridiculously, as for Craxi's sons), there's no real plot (the Vincenzo's son escamotage does not work) which contribuites to the image of a insufferable crumbling king
14 Reviews
slow but great actor
fiorentino-679-28860029 November 2020
Great acting, but that's about it
bohdanascheinostova24 May 2023
If you don't know much about Bettino Craxi's life and political actions, it can be quite difficult to keep up with the story of this film. The story concentrates only on the character of Craxi and his point of view on the scandal that he was part of. Gianni Amelio tried to compose this film basically only from the thoughts and philosophical monologues of Craxi without any real plot or twist, which I must say became pretty tiresome after 60 minutes. It is obvious the whole film heavily relies on Pierfrancesco Favino as Craxi (who was simply masterful), but I wish it had more to it than just a great acting performance. I was also questioned by the mysterious character of the son of one of Craxi's former friends, who seeks truth about Craxi and also his own father. Perhaps this character should represent viewers or people affected by his actions also looking for the truth, but it felt like this character didn't really fit the whole atmosphere of this picture. If it had been at least 15 minutes shorter I would have mabe recommended it, but in spite of Favino's great performance this film feels quite forgettable.
Just a great acting
studioginger24 January 2021
Francesco Favino has definitely delivered a great acting, but regarding the script and the whole story, a continuous lack of history documentation and a very poorly report on what was going on during those years. Also an overrated point of view of a man that didn't escape from justice only but from the fear of what he did more than anything.
A bad attempt to change the image of a theft
massimoxyz18 January 2020
This movie is the attempt to provide a human image to a corrupted politician that was a theft in Italy and finished humiliated escaping from italian justice.
This movie tries to improve his image as an important politician: a pure propaganda attempt to increase the public image.
Italian television financed the movie and this is another incredible bad usage of italian taxes. The movie is also financed by Agostino Saccà very close to Berlusconi, a man that built his fortunes with Craxi.
Where is the plot?
alecamuti17 April 2020
The movie doesn't talk about politics, doesn't talk about the rise and the fall of the Socialist party, doesn't even talk about the interesting part of Craxi's life. Technically speaking it's really well-made, but where is the plot?
Excellent Favino
businessradiologyadm1 May 2020
Who controls the present controls the past, Orwell wrote in 1984.This movie is a courageous attempt to restore Bettino Craxi as a human being, after having been politically destroyed by left-wing judges in the only judiciary-driven coup of Italian history. In itself is not much more than a documentary but Favino puts such heart and soul into his character that makes the movie enjoyable and didactic.
A spectre haunting italian cinema
cloudxcasey15 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Technically interesting, close to perfection. And yet this movie tells nothing. Actual names are hidden or changed, actual facts are missing, there is no story: just an apologetic look at an old man suffering from a life lead in the name of vice.
The main role is some poor mimicking that fails in raising both compassion and laughter. If you know Craxi, you won't learn anything new about him; if you don't know him, you will understand nothing at all.
A spectre is haunting this movie, and it is neither the same spectre who haunted italian tribunals. Once we get rid of "him", what is left is a huge debt.
Yet another case of the missing plot
dierregi29 June 2022
Most contemporary Italian movies suffer from lack of a tight script or at the very least a story with a start, middle and ending. Way too often they are assembled as a series of loosely knit sketches or rambling, confused tales. This one belongs to the second category.
After a promising start, where the Italian Socialist leader Craxi is shown at the height of his power, the scene changes abruptly to Hammamet several years later, with the politician as a broken, disgraced, sick man living in a large villa with tight security. I had to read the synopsis to learn that none of the "real" people involved in the story are called with their real names (?) for unspecified reasons and it is only because I have a vague knowledge of the facts that I know how Craxi ended up in Tunisia.
However, the narrative fails miserably in the "show, don't tell" department, with relevant episodes of the past narrated by Craxi to the fictional character of a half crazy son of an ex-party member. This part of the plot, with the crazy guy filming Craxi's narration of his memory is irritating because one doesn't get a coherent story.
One must be an expert of Italian history in the late 80s/early 90s to understand what happened, otherwise it's next to impossible to follow (even for me, and I am Italian).
Even more irritating are the vapid dialogues of Craxi and the annoying grandchild, the dragged scenes on the beach and around Hammamet, all skimming the surface and never getting to the point - but what was supposed to be the point? The only positive note is main character, the unnamed President (aka Craxi) played with astonishing resemblance to the real person by a very chameleonic actor who disappears in the part. The rest is diluted fluff.
After a promising start, where the Italian Socialist leader Craxi is shown at the height of his power, the scene changes abruptly to Hammamet several years later, with the politician as a broken, disgraced, sick man living in a large villa with tight security. I had to read the synopsis to learn that none of the "real" people involved in the story are called with their real names (?) for unspecified reasons and it is only because I have a vague knowledge of the facts that I know how Craxi ended up in Tunisia.
However, the narrative fails miserably in the "show, don't tell" department, with relevant episodes of the past narrated by Craxi to the fictional character of a half crazy son of an ex-party member. This part of the plot, with the crazy guy filming Craxi's narration of his memory is irritating because one doesn't get a coherent story.
One must be an expert of Italian history in the late 80s/early 90s to understand what happened, otherwise it's next to impossible to follow (even for me, and I am Italian).
Even more irritating are the vapid dialogues of Craxi and the annoying grandchild, the dragged scenes on the beach and around Hammamet, all skimming the surface and never getting to the point - but what was supposed to be the point? The only positive note is main character, the unnamed President (aka Craxi) played with astonishing resemblance to the real person by a very chameleonic actor who disappears in the part. The rest is diluted fluff.
not biography, hagiography
alex-jc-7228 September 2023
Only human drama, when you talk about a polician you must talk about his political acts.
This film it's a not-storical narration based just on the ideas of the daughther, a woman that is never been objective. And we can understand her, but not who exploit her.
The damage that italian politic called Craxi (not nominated in the film but too easy to recognize) come out in the scandal know as "tangentopoli" is really very hard to forget and it's incredible like a movie can ignore what's happened in the latest 80's end early 90's.
Craxi wasn't the only guilty, that's sure. But this is never been a reason for absolution.
Favino it's a great actor, and all the cast is very good but in this kind of movie we can't close up on the artist,
This film it's a not-storical narration based just on the ideas of the daughther, a woman that is never been objective. And we can understand her, but not who exploit her.
The damage that italian politic called Craxi (not nominated in the film but too easy to recognize) come out in the scandal know as "tangentopoli" is really very hard to forget and it's incredible like a movie can ignore what's happened in the latest 80's end early 90's.
Craxi wasn't the only guilty, that's sure. But this is never been a reason for absolution.
Favino it's a great actor, and all the cast is very good but in this kind of movie we can't close up on the artist,
Bad fantasy
victorsal27 October 2021
The depiction of craxi is nothing like the person he really was, makes him look like some sadistic house of cards politician, and still even who hated him is giving the movie bad reviews. Bot sure fpr whom this movie is.
Favino immenso
lallo-29 January 2020
Uscito oggi. Visto al cinema.
Il film è fatto bene e le due ore scorrono veloci senza sosta. Tratta una parte della vita di Craxi che vi lascio scoprire quando andrete al cinema.
Favino è un attore dalle capacità ormai eccelse ed è un peccato che sia italiano, essendo il cinema italiano poco quotato all'estero: se fosse americano o francese avrebbe già vinto un Oscar o premi di rilevanza simile.
Gli altri attori ruotano tutti attorno a Craxi e quindi sembrano tutti secondari.
Il film è ben diretto, senza pause, ottima fotografia, ottime musiche.
Speriamo vinca molti premi.
Il film è fatto bene e le due ore scorrono veloci senza sosta. Tratta una parte della vita di Craxi che vi lascio scoprire quando andrete al cinema.
Favino è un attore dalle capacità ormai eccelse ed è un peccato che sia italiano, essendo il cinema italiano poco quotato all'estero: se fosse americano o francese avrebbe già vinto un Oscar o premi di rilevanza simile.
Gli altri attori ruotano tutti attorno a Craxi e quindi sembrano tutti secondari.
Il film è ben diretto, senza pause, ottima fotografia, ottime musiche.
Speriamo vinca molti premi.
Full of potential but pointless
slzoras16 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Favino acts pretty well, even though the makeup and prosthetics are kind of distracting. The story is interesting in name only, because there's a fascinating concept in the idea of a politician upheld to a standard of purity that no other politician follows, but the movie doesn't go forward with that, it just presents it. The actual history is not described, only referenced, because the movie was about the former protagonist of this history after the history already happened. It wants to be an introspective character study and also a historical period piece on Tangentopoli, but it pretty much fails as both. The dialogue is not very natural, it feels like we're witnessing the main character delivering aphorisms on the unfairness of politics and life for 2 hours. It's not an entertaining movie, it's a pedantic movie that presents something and doesn't really question it, doesn't go anywhere. The acting was fine (although the young guy was pretty bad at times). The pacing is atrocious, my attention slipped away multiple times and I feel like I lost nothing. The "dream sequence" at the end was cheesy as hell, completely out of place, tries to establish a simplistic character narrative for a character that, in the actual history of it all, was just a component of a larger system. This is one of those biopics that settles on mentioning topics and relies on the fact that those topics are interesting instead. It's a movie that was probably made thanks to the star power of the main actor, the director and the historical interest, but it's utterly unwilling to engage the viewer in any meaningful way, other than "hey, remember that complex historical event? Wow, right?". The Wikipedia page for the history of Mani Pulite was more entertaining than this movie, enough said.
Exactly what a Fellini reboot of Citizen Kane would look like
muratmihcioglu22 October 2021
If nothing else, this is one movie with "character".
Before sitting down to watch its first airing on Rai3, I peeked at the IMDb comments and the score, only to get confused. The awards and the praise just did not match with the overall score which was close to a 5. And the reviews suggested that one would not get much taste out of "Hammamet" unless one was particularly interested and invested in the history of the Italian left.
Well, I disagree.
I barely remembered the name Craxi and had no idea he had spent his last days in Tunisia. A quick search provided me with enough knowledge and trivia to place the narrative where it was intended to be.
I, too, am one who would enjoy to find the crucial foundations of a story (or a portrait) right within the movie itself, but let's face it: Times have changed. The way we access and enjoy movies has changed. The viewer may at times be expected to interact with the film in ways that are not limited to looking at a screen.
With a bit of leg work, one can get into Hammamet, which is quite rewarding given that the director has really given thought on how to construct solid scenes focusing all the time on the contrast between how the world sees a man and how the man interprets his very own self.
The director has made the touches to convert Craxi into a cinematical creature, a man of hopeless yet endless power plays, not as unlikable as actual moguls like Harvey Weinstein but somewhat more crude-yet-real than Citizen Kane.
A bit of abstraction, some escapism and lots of ego - be they capitalist or socialist, this is how almost any notable man can be portrayed.
The fact that this movie was shot only 20 years after Craxi's death makes it more interesting. It is a "period piece" in a way, but not so much as the gap between the actual thing and its cinematic interpretation ain't huge.
I particularly enjoyed the choices of songs used in the movie. The scene where his son played the guitar and song "Piazza Grande" was a delight. Delicate choice of Italian culture from not so long ago, including even tidbits from dubbed Hollywood movies he watches on Italian channels via satellite.
Reckless bravery... This is what I would call the director's choice on certain things, and also what I would call Craxi's involvement with money and politics.
The revenge-seeking son of his late friend disappears in the desert, just like that, defeating the very basic concepts of time and space? Really? That was a dare.
Reducing crimes of fraud into mere "naughtiness" by starting and ending the film with images of a child Craxi? Wow! Name a politician of my own times, and I'd get furious with such whitewashing! Yet, as a simple and functioning explanation to whatever complicated stuff went on in real life, yes, I will take it within the context of this film!
The Fellini-esque scarf worn by the protagonist as he walks barefoot on top of the Duomo in his dream, the way his daughter takes him to his lover... My, those were pretty notable scenes in very different ways.
As the doctor says regarding another character: "I malati di mente non guariscono perché non sono malati." (Mental illnesses don't get cured because they are not illnesses.)
This was a strange, powerful and kind of arrogant film. I'm glad I saw it.
Before sitting down to watch its first airing on Rai3, I peeked at the IMDb comments and the score, only to get confused. The awards and the praise just did not match with the overall score which was close to a 5. And the reviews suggested that one would not get much taste out of "Hammamet" unless one was particularly interested and invested in the history of the Italian left.
Well, I disagree.
I barely remembered the name Craxi and had no idea he had spent his last days in Tunisia. A quick search provided me with enough knowledge and trivia to place the narrative where it was intended to be.
I, too, am one who would enjoy to find the crucial foundations of a story (or a portrait) right within the movie itself, but let's face it: Times have changed. The way we access and enjoy movies has changed. The viewer may at times be expected to interact with the film in ways that are not limited to looking at a screen.
With a bit of leg work, one can get into Hammamet, which is quite rewarding given that the director has really given thought on how to construct solid scenes focusing all the time on the contrast between how the world sees a man and how the man interprets his very own self.
The director has made the touches to convert Craxi into a cinematical creature, a man of hopeless yet endless power plays, not as unlikable as actual moguls like Harvey Weinstein but somewhat more crude-yet-real than Citizen Kane.
A bit of abstraction, some escapism and lots of ego - be they capitalist or socialist, this is how almost any notable man can be portrayed.
The fact that this movie was shot only 20 years after Craxi's death makes it more interesting. It is a "period piece" in a way, but not so much as the gap between the actual thing and its cinematic interpretation ain't huge.
I particularly enjoyed the choices of songs used in the movie. The scene where his son played the guitar and song "Piazza Grande" was a delight. Delicate choice of Italian culture from not so long ago, including even tidbits from dubbed Hollywood movies he watches on Italian channels via satellite.
Reckless bravery... This is what I would call the director's choice on certain things, and also what I would call Craxi's involvement with money and politics.
The revenge-seeking son of his late friend disappears in the desert, just like that, defeating the very basic concepts of time and space? Really? That was a dare.
Reducing crimes of fraud into mere "naughtiness" by starting and ending the film with images of a child Craxi? Wow! Name a politician of my own times, and I'd get furious with such whitewashing! Yet, as a simple and functioning explanation to whatever complicated stuff went on in real life, yes, I will take it within the context of this film!
The Fellini-esque scarf worn by the protagonist as he walks barefoot on top of the Duomo in his dream, the way his daughter takes him to his lover... My, those were pretty notable scenes in very different ways.
As the doctor says regarding another character: "I malati di mente non guariscono perché non sono malati." (Mental illnesses don't get cured because they are not illnesses.)
This was a strange, powerful and kind of arrogant film. I'm glad I saw it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
