User Reviews

A stunning Italian film. And when was the last time I was able to say that? A masterful achievement without concessions to the larger public who doesn't know or care about Italian politics. The film has a life of its own. It's like a Shakespearean adaptation of a modern Mephistopheles. If you don't know who Giulio Andreotti is you will want to know because it feels and looks like a fictional character. How is it possible that someone so obviously guilty of undiluted evil could sit, still, in the senate and being treated like a celebrity worthy of absolute respect. Someone said, only in Italy, but I think that's far too simple. True, Italy seems to award some kind of venerable status to some big criminals that got away with it, one way or another. All of it is here, in "Il Divo" a riveting study, a wildly entertaining X ray of one of the most puzzling figures in modern political history.

Il Divo, which won the Jury Prize at Cannes last year and has recently been released in US movie houses, is a devastatingly ironic and highly stylized portrait of the strange, extraordinarily powerful and long-lived Italian politician Giulio Andreotti. He has been in Italian government in some office or other since the late 1940's. After slipping out of repeated convictions for Mafia ties in the past decade he remains "senator for life" at the age of 90, and he's been credited with helping bring down governments even quite recently.

The ultimate political survivor, Andreotti was seven times prime minister from 1972 to 1992. He's had a seat in the Italian parliament without interruption since 1946, and has also been Defense Minister, Foreign Minister, and President. In Andreotti's own view (though he walked out on the film) his wife of 60 years Livia (Anna Bonaiuto) and his long-serving secretary Vincenza Enea (Piera Degli Esposti), are both sympathetically portrayed in Il Divo. He really didn't like being shown kissing Mafia boss Toto Riina, which he has said never happened. In the film, Andreotti is most haunted by the Red Brigades' murder of the kidnapped of Aldo Moro, which he might have prevented.

Though Sorrentino's film is in some ways a detailed chronicle of Anreotti's 60-plus years of political power and dubious dealings, with a focus on the seventh government and its aftermath, the film seems more an exercise in style than an impassioned study of politics. The self-consciousness of its frequent uses of loud contrasting music, ceremonial, almost Kabuuki-like set pieces, and slow-motion to muffle scenes of violence are further underlined by the performance of Toni Servillo, who accurately, perhaps too accuately, mimics Andreotti's look, his hunched posture, even his oddly turned-down ears, and his puppet-like mannerisms. Staring forward, neck rigid, he keeps his arms close to his body and his hands turned inward and peers expressionlessly out of his big eyeglasses. He walks across the floor in quick tiny steps like some 18th-century Japanese court lady. There is no attempt by director or principal actor to charm or to involve. It seems Sorrentino, with Servillo's diligent collaboration, is laughing not only at Andreotti and at Italian politics, but at us.

Il Divo is soulless and cynical, but it is so stylish that it's bound to be remembered. It's some kind of ultimate statement of the essence of the slick, heavily-guarded world of Italian political corruption. In its own special, magisterially mean-spirited and pessimistic way it's an instant classic.

In this film, Andreotti, who has been referred to as "Il divo Giulio" ("The God Giulio," referencing the Roman Empire's deification of Julius Caesar), and by monikers like "Beelzebub," "The Fox," "The Black Pope," "The Prince of Darkness," and "The Hunchback," is a queer, nerdy, mummified-looking creature who hardly ever changes expression or cracks a smile. His rigid gestures and the odd commentary of his group of primary supporters, themselves all provided with gangster-style nicknames, lead to a series of scenes that suggest politics as caricatural facade, as almost pure ritual, with time out on occasion for jokes, self-pity, and cruelty to others. You won't hear constituents mentioned in this movie, though when somebody says another politician prays to God but he prays to the priest, Andreotti answers: "Priests vote. God doesn't." Politics is everything to him, and politics means the pursuit of power.

For a non-Italian the details of various moments from the Aldo Moro kidnapping and all the terrorism of the Brigate Rosse of the 1970's to the 1990 Mafia trials may be pretty confusing. It's not that the filmmakers don't care; they're primarily talking to an Italian audience. But even for such an audience, they're keeping an ironic distance.

The facade never cracks. In one scene, typically staring straight forward, Andreotti delivers an impassioned speech of self-defense, raising his voice almost to a shout at the end, but without moving a muscle of his face. Servillo is a noted man of the theater in Italy and his whole performance is a chilly tour de force that inspires awe without giving much pleasure. Andreotti in this soliloquy--which highlights the film's often solipsistic feel--argues that a leader must manipulate evil in order to maintain good. This may fit in with the evidence that he collaborated with the Mafia, and yet at times was severe in repressing it.

In life as in this film Andreotti has compensated for what may be the lack of visible humanity by being a wit, and Il Divo crams as many of the famous battute or one-lineers into scenes as it can. One was "the trouble with the Pope is that he doesn't know the Vatican." Another: "They blame me for everything, except the Punic wars." "Signor Andreotti, how do you keep your conscience clean?" he was once asked. "I never use it," he replied. Other bons mots among many: "The trouble with the Red Brigades is they're too serious," and "Power is fatiguing only to those who don't have it." The world of Italian politics is baffling to the outsider. Andreotti's cool detachment and wit and this film's stylized cynicism may be the best approach to its deviousness and complexity.

Last year Servillo also played one of the main characters in Matteo Garrone's Gomorrah, where he's an out-and-out Mafia functionary. Gomorrah won Cannes' number-two award (just below the Golden Palm) the Grand Prize, last year, which given Il Divo's Jury Prize prompted declarations of a rebirth of Italian cinema in the making. Non-Italians like Mafia movies; Italians are sick of them, and might have wished for patriotic reasons that their best filmmakers had won applause by turning to some other subject matter. Both these films are cold, detached, and analytical. Maybe they mean Italians are getting serious about their own film industry and want to look the country's ugliest aspects right in the eye. But don't look for hope here. A great cinema requires more humanity than this.

A film to admire but impossible to love. Not an ounce of humanity to cling on to. Splendidly put together but only with the intellect so, for non Italians a puzzle that seems like a figment of someone's imagination and to be taken as a sort of intellectual metaphor. How can a creature from hell in good terms with the Catholic Church can survive all this years and when I say survive I mean survive from every possible angle. Italians know that is not only true but normal. I'm half Italian so I know what I'm talking about. Andreotti is played by Paolo Servillo in a performance that is part caricature, part faithful portrait, a work of genius and I suspect that the slightly surreal, grotesque undertones, allowed the movie to be made and succeed in the way it did, at least in Italy. I saw it in New York where I was the only spectator in the theater. I can't wait to see where director Sorrentino will take us next.

Giulio Andreotti is the seven times Prime Minister of Italy leading the ruling Christian Democracy Party. In 1978, The Red Brigades kidnaps his rival former Prime Minister Aldo Moro. Andreotti refuses to negotiate and Moro is killed. Over the next 15 years, various people are mysteriously killed. In 1991, he's named Senator for Life. In 1992, he resigns as Prime Minister. His bid for the Presidency fails and he goes on trial for corruption with the Mafia.

I have one problem with this movie and it's a big one. I feel like I did a PhD on Italian politics watching this movie. The first half is nearly impossible to follow for someone like me who knows nothing about Italy during this time. It's a lot of style but I couldn't understand the substance. There are a lot of deaths but I don't know the significance of some of them. The second half is more compelling with the criminal trial. It becomes a character study and Andreotti is an intriguing character. I'm sure this movie is much more compelling for people with a background in Italian politics during this time. A lot of this is going over my head.

This movie puts on screen what all Italians know since decades: directly or indirectly Andreotti is behind all major events happened in Italy in the last 45 years. This is what we know, as we all knew that virtually all politicians at all level were (and are) robbing the public funds and make private deals with business men.

The movie shows exactly this: we know it but we do not have the evidences.

Sorrentino tries to bridge this gap by putting together a lot of informations that make a pretty clear scenario, but without evidences. The result is a portrait of a divinity: you know that is there, you know that everything happens because of his will, but on earth everything happens by chance so that the fact that Andreotti is the mastermind of everything becomes a matter of divine faith.

The strength of the movie rests on the capacity to describe a personality that is so powerful that does not need to speak, does not need to go on TV, he is able to make things happen in a way that only Andreotti knows. Andreotti is above the politics, above the Church, above finance, above mafia, he is depicted as a power that stands on its own, someone who uses all the different leverages to rule.

Andreotti got it away with his trials and only Andreotti knows how. For a man of his power, it was the least you could expect.

At the end, Italians have to acknowledge that in the 20th century Italy was ruled by the King (shortly), Mussolini and Andreotti. But if you remember the Glossary shown at the beginning of the movie, through the Loggia P2, Sorrentino suggests that Berlusconi could be the person in charge to continue the job. Whether this is the will of Andreotti or not is a matter of faith.

Biographical films tend to be respectful to the historical figures that they describe. Even when they describe complex and controversial characters they try to explain and to put in context the motivation of deeds which in the perspective of history seem evil. Paolo Sorrentino's 'Il Divo' is quite the contrary, it is a negative biography about a character who dominated the Italian politics for most of the second part of the 20th century, the leader of the Christian-Democratic Party and seven-times Prime Minister of Italy, Giulio Andreotti. The film does not lack complexity - quite the contrary - and the historical context of the 80s and 90s is described in detail, but the effect is willingly opposite than in usual biographies. Even political actions which would have seen candid or neutral seem to catch a strong significance and are seen through the perspective of the corruption and Mafia-relations which seem to have dominated Italian political life of the period.

My knowledge about the Italian politics is too superficial to make a definite judgment about the correctness of the facts presented on screen. What I can say after seeing the film is that it does not seem to pretend to be objective. Even if there is no explicit statement, there is neither any positive angle we brought into the film or positive dimension that is not questioned. Even the relationship with his wife ('I knew all these years what kind of man I married') or helping the poor (which looks more like a political exercise deprived of sincerity). There are however many other scenes (like the repeated walk on empty streets surrounded by cohorts of security people, the reception after his last nomination as Prime Minister) which describe not only the outer-worldness of the man, but also of the whole system.

Even more amazing is the fact that Andreotti was alive when this film was made (he actually died about a month ago) and has seen at least part of the film, allegedly walking out after a while. So this is not only a biography, but a pamphlet directed against a living politician. Andreotti, by the way, was no stranger to the Italian cinema industry, he played an important role in establishing the rules that protected the local industry against foreign (especially Hollywood) imports in the 50s, but also the establishment of a de-facto censorship over the content of the productions which was in place for many decades. Is this film also kind of a revenge of the now free industry over this character? Maybe.

To a very large extent 'Il DIvo' relies on the extraordinary acting performance of Toni Servillo. He makes one of these creations which in time tend to superpose and replace the visual representation we have about the real-life person. Great acting indeed, but do we end by understanding better Giulio Andreotti the man? I doubt it. Paolo Sorrentino certainly knows how to construct complex characters which do not show easily their intense internal beings. Looking now retrospectively he did the same thing in This Must Be the Place (which he made later, but I saw it before). He does not however serve the viewers with ready prepared answers about the motivation of his heroes. I knew very little about Andreotti before seeing this film, I know many more facts now, but the man remains a mystery.

I'm sure if I were raised in Italy and paid attention to Italian politics day in and day out all of what transpires in Il Divo would be no less than engrossing. The story of Androetti, the head of a government that went for seven administrations and then went on to run for President has some really fascinating things to it. One of those is seeing just how the parliament works in those scenes midway through the picture and how the country actually chooses its president, which is so far removed from the US democratic process it's hard to fathom. And I also admired how the actor playing Androetti so got into this kind of quietly conniving politician, a man who believed that politics was everything and yet would never get passionate enough to raise his voice above a whisper. Somewhere inside of him a Dick Cheney is rumbling, perhaps.

But the problem in watching the film if you don't pay attention to the Italian politics of the period, or just in general, is that the filmmakers lose you fairly quickly. I usually find myself a viewer who doesn't like to be spoon-fed information very simply, but this is on the opposite end of the cannon where only a few real details are clear enough and then the rest comes whizzing by at a quick clip (and quick indeed as the camera style is akin to the operatic nature of Scorsese, only not as talented or focused). Names of characters keep coming up as title cards, and except for a couple of names like "The Lemon" (Androetti's right-hand man), none of them really stick out, and the incidents keep piling up without any real connection. At some point the basic story does reveal itself and holds some interest, but there's a disconnect between many scenes too, and a sense of cross-cutting done a few times (i.e. the horse race scene crossed with a shooting) comes off as unimaginative.

It's not a waste of time though if you're totally ignorant about Italy's political structure and brash sense of the power dynamic. But it's not one that I particularly enjoyed, either, and its lack of a connection with the mounting details made it harder to appreciate.

This is a film of two parts - something which a previous comment didn't really make clear - we see the events of Italy during Andreotti's reign in the first half from Andreoti's point of view: then in the second half we see the same events again from (depending on your perspective) either a more dispassionate or a more disparaging observation.

As a bit of cinema it is brilliant (one or two IMO rather silly unslick bits of special FX, just ignore them!) but altogether not to be missed. I doubt that it will translate well, and even for a seasoned appassionato of Italian politics the introduction of characters using (clever) superimposed text was flawed by the overshort screen time which these important notes were allowed.

Giulio Andreotti can be seen as both the precursor to, and the antithesis of, Silvio Belusconi: an Italian politician with his fingers on every lever that led to power, accused of everything but convicted of nothing, and yet peculiarly devoid of conventional charisma. A sense of a particularity, of a man who had become nothing beyond a carefully constructed defence of his own behaviour, was nicely captured in Tim Parks' fictional work 'Destiny'; and we get the same feeling in 'Il Divo', a biopic with an extraordinary performance Toni Sevillo by in the lead role. What neither offer is definitive, or even speculative, resolution of the enigma and his actions; just a chilling yet plausible portrait of the man. Yet without providing clear answers, something else must provide the story. In Parks' book, Andreotti was a bit part; in the film, there's no other narrative, and sometimes the direction feels a little too heavy, overdone perhaps because there isn't a smooth tale holding things together. And the music on the soundtrack seems deliberately incongruous, thrown into the mix to provide some variation in tone that would otherwise have been lacking. But Servillo's performance more than compensates; it will lead you wanting the same answers, one suspects, that everyone has wanted from Andreotti for a long long time.

"Il divo" (i.e. "the divine") is a view of Italian politics in the 70ies, 80ies and 90ies, centered on its main character: the 5 times prime minister Giulio Andreotti. He is a tiny man, quite fragile looking (hunpback, dog-eared), but very witty, and with a huge aura of power around him (one of his famous aphorism is: power tires those who don't have it). He was a controversial character: first depicted quite as a saint, then as the great maneuverer, and at last as a politician able to welcome the evil to reach his aims. At first sight, this movie surprised me. First of all i was surprised by the ironical and grotesque cut that Sorrentino gave to his movie. Then i was surprised by the judgement suspension that this movie gives to the main character: yes, of course, there are tons of evidences that Andreotti had to do with evil persons to keep his power, but the movie director never says "he is the evil". At the second sight i found out there is more. At the second sight the main character faded into the whole background. This is a movie about Italian politics as a whole. This movies points out how italy has become the country that is nowadays. It shows the slow downhill starting from the first idealists of the republic (such as DeGasperi), down to politics such as Andreotti (for whom "a tree needs manure to grow up", a sort of Machiavelli's "a greater aim justifies any deed"), down until the politics that just want power for power's sake (for this reason the portrait of Cirino Pomicino - this name looks like a joke, but it isn't! - is wonderful). So no surprise when you read about an Italian politician that is judged for corruption or something even worse: it's the consequence of the downhill of the politics that common citizens cannot stop anymore, simply because citizens have no power anymore, it is all in politicians' hands and they share it from hand to hand. I can understand that foreign viewers can find this movie boring and difficult to understand. But forget for a moment it is a movie about Giulio Andreotti, and watch it as the history of 30 years of a real country's politics. Veeery frightening the scene in which Andreotti, caught by insomnia, walks in an empty street surrounded by a 20 men's heavy armed escort. In a "normal" country, straight people should be able to walk safely in any street with no need of any escort at all. That's all imho...

What does the title Il Divo mean? Well, it comes from "Divo Giulio", the Italian translation of "Divus Iulius", a Latin expression used to describe Julius Caesar. "Divo" translates as "divine", and the term was employed in regards to Caesar's outstanding power as well as his alleged otherworldly ancestry (the founder of his family, the Gens Iulia, was Aeneas, son of Venus). But of course, that has nothing to do with Paolo Sorrentino's masterpiece: the title refers to another Giulio, who has also been called "Divo" because of his considerable influence and longevity (he was 89 when the film was released). That man is Giulio Andreotti, largely considered the most important political figure in 20th century Italy.

Although the unabridged subtitle of the Italian version reads "The extraordinary life of Giulio Andreotti", it doesn't chronicle all of the famed politician's life. Instead, it focuses on the most important period concerning his career: from 1978 to the early '90s. 1978 is, of course, when Aldo Moro, a member of the right-wing party Democrazia Cristiana just like Andreotti (Toni Servillo), was kidnapped and later executed by the Red Brigades. Andreotti shows no sign of emotion when he learns of the event, as usual: he has always been a quiet, secretive man. All that matters to him is the significant amount of power he gains over the years. As he points out when asked why he doesn't talk to God when he goes to church, "priests vote, God doesn't". Nevertheless, he certainly enjoys a little help from above when he is accused of various illegal activities, working with the Mafia and ordering assassinations being the most serious ones (let's not forget some conspiracy theorists believe he contributed to Moro's death, a conjecture that is dealt with in the film).

Sorrentino obviously put a lot of research into his work, and the opening title cards, which explain the movie's context, are his way of making sure viewers don't find his effort too confusing. It clearly paid off, since the picture walked away with the Jury Prize at the 2008 Cannes Festival, silencing rumors about it being "too Italian". Predictably, the real Andreotti wasn't too impressed (word has it he even considered taking legal action against the filmmakers at one point). He obviously couldn't admit what happened on screen was true, so he made the following statement: "I don't agree with Sorrentino's portrayal of me, but I understand he had to make certain dramatic choices to make it interesting; my real life is actually quite boring". He has a point: there's a certain operatic grandeur to the scenes of the "Divo" walking around in government buildings and talking with his collaborators, a bit like in The Godfather. This gives the picture the greatness of a Greek tragedy, combined with the fiery spirit of politically charged movies like, say, Oliver Stone's body of work.

The Stone comparison isn't accidental, since he directed Nixon, which, much like Il Divo, depended hugely on its leading man. Stone had Anthony Hopkins, while Sorrentino has his Robert De Niro, namely the superb Servillo, whose transformation isn't a mere make-up job (to see what he really looks like, one ought to check out the equally magnificent Gomorra): the Neapolitan actor doesn't just play Andreotti, he becomes him. It's a performance that gets past mimicry or impersonation - it's Andreotti as a person, not a movie character.

So, the concerned party's opinion aside, everything speaks in favor of this ambitious, thought-provoking, stunning opus. In one word, to keep in with the complete title: extraordinary.

I heard this movie was great, exciting, and gripping...and therein I was set up for disappointment. It was beautiful, cinematic, great sound track--but simply exhausting trying to understand all the relationships. After 45 mins, I stopped trying so hard to remember names and connections, the gestalt took over. That helped, but nevertheless without any familiarity of Italian politics, one really had to remember closely the framework that was outlined in the first five minutes. And similarly, there is a scene when his secretary describes what his hand movements mean--if he is tapping his fingers together, you will be dismissed within 5 mins, if he is playing with his ring, it means he is interested, etc....And then throughout the movie it shows his hands--but I couldn't remember the different meanings. It wasn't important, but what I am saying is that it's hard to know the forest for the trees--what IS important to pay attention to, and what isn't really essential. We found it very long because the storyline was rather vague and very gradual. The last 15 mins were excellent. This is a film made at a very high caliber, I just think the writers could have structured it a little differently. But this is 10 stars compared to most of what comes out of Hollywood. It was challenging but special.

It is a testament to this film that it leaves enough of the voice and actions of its protagonist, that you can see another way of looking at the man, underneath this film's message. At the level of craft, this film is also quite strong with cinematography and especially, soundtrack which stand out, and could be used as an example in film class.

Ultimately however, this film fails in that it is a biopic, but one that places us almost in the shoes of its protagonist, without at all attempting to look at things through his own eyes.

As an example of this, when Andreotti walks about in the city normally even though there is security accompanying him, rather than riding in a motorcade, this is treated as if he is caged in misery, rather than Andreotti simply being used to the situation, and not paying much mind to the security, or for that matter, considering that perhaps he enjoys the power of an armed entourage.

Now here I want to be very careful, because it is perfectly possible that Andreotti did regard the security as a burden, but this very same approach is taken with every other distinctive characteristic of Andreotti's, including his own personality.

Andreotti was famously straight faced and calm in his demeanor, but famous for his clever and witty remarks. Instead of treating him as interacting with others as a "straight man" like Oliver Hardy or Bob Newhart, Andreotti is portrayed as being entirely expressionless, trapped inside a mask.

Indeed the actor playing Andreotti plays the man as being ENTIRELY expressionless, and adds to the artificial effect by hunching and walking in a spastic way. This effect is impressive in its consistency, but entirely fails to seem natural, even to the point of being the believable gait and demeanor of an injured or disabled person.

This same approach, where the emotions and priorities of a person decidedly not the protagonist are projected upon him, utterly shapes what is shown in political terms as well. Andreotti was a devoted retail politician, who loved to meet with constituents and solve their problems or provide help. The film is good enough to show us a trace of this, with Andreotti doing constituent service every weekend, but overall, the focus is on good or evil actions as an almost abstract exercise of power. Since the abstract use of power was not at all what Andreotti was focused on, or motivated by, the content doesn't connect.

Whether one knows Italian politics or not is not a key to deciphering the film; rather one needs to understand Italian politics ahead of time because what is being shown to us has very little cause and effect relationship.

Altogether, there is a great deal of talent on display, but the effort seems to be wasted. Many people saw Andreotti as a sort of enigma, and this film seems to have attempted to preserve that impression to leave a "realistic" image of Andreotti based on only superficial impersonation.

This ultra-slick, highly stylized account of Giulio Andreotti's Machiavellian schemes during his premiership(s) goes down like butter, but in the final analysis, the pic's a tad too flashy and trivial in its depictions of dirty politics. There's a certain lack of insight, professionally covered up by lots of technical shenanigans and eye-catching performances, above all Toni Servillo's chameleon-like turn in the title role.

It's still worthwhile Italian film-making with the right amount of humour, violence and tragedy to warrant two enjoyable hours.

7 out of 10 sardonic aphorisms

I've heard several American viewers complain that this film is all style over substance. I couldn't disagree more.

I think that if a viewer is familiar with Italian Political History then this film comes off as absolutely breathtaking, and not just for its amazing filmic style. For one, the performances and interpretations of these real characters are spot on and for another the intelligence and courage to which the script approaches the ethical implications of Il Divo's actions, the breadth of moral exploration, how he defends himself to himself, to others and, often, directly to the viewer, is a welcomed shock and dose of complexity to the often polemic and overly-reductive discourse in Italian politics (not much different than here in the States in that regard). Lastly, for Italians, these events resonate incredibly and speak very much to the current power base in Italy. I truly feel that a lot of Americans are watching this film with cultural blinders on.

I won't lie, it is definitely designed for people that already have a strong grasp of the history. It doesn't weigh itself down with long explanations and exposition (except in text at the beginning and end of the film) so if you're coming to this to learn every sordid detail about its subject, or for a plot, even, then you might not find much reward in it. But as an exercise in unpacking a very complicated subject with real style, it's amazing!

Il Divo is a tremendous piece of style. The camera soars through complex settings in which countless people are being highly expressive in some way or another. Every other shot is in slow motion. Cuts never hide but outright snap as quickly as possible from shot to shot to shot. The soundtrack is rich with dynamic modern pop music. Captions are everywhere; some of them move, some of them inflexibly wait till the camera reaches a certain point in order to be legible, some are upside down, et. al. Sometimes, the camera calms down to focus on an actor doing something very interesting and moving, but those are comparatively less conspicuous.

The film is a true story, and a widely known one in its home land, Italy, one about the corruption of power, the assault of religious guilt on an unrepentant conscience, the rise to excess and the beginning of an uncertain fall to the prospect of a soul's relieving punishment. It is a story that has been told for centuries, one that offers us no real surprises here, so instead it is awash in stylistic flourishes. That seems very vain and shallow, but such gesticulative hyperkinesis affords the film some very moving moments. Some are expository throwaways, which is just as well, but others are treated in that same manner, as mere fine points, when they betray epic stories all their own. There is also an effective amount of time devoted to the central character's fear of God's judgment, and whether or not he inflects it to take the place of life's chance occurrences or the existence of one's responsibility for his own choices.

Il Divo is so pumped with testosterone, never slows down, always has something eye-popping, indeed often just distracting, to throw at us, and like a lot of masculine flaunting, it seems to compensate for a lack of something else. But that's not quite the case here. Yes, the film is all style. But the story is not lathered on top of it. It is the cloth with which all that showing off is done. The dialogue in itself is both plentiful and fancy. The way the characters talk to each other has an aphoristic form and a philosophical undertone. For instance, "I know I am an average man but I look around and see no giant." There is a lot of info-dumping with book-ending title cards and myriad captions among other avenues of squeezing out all facts and fine points, but as complicated as the plot is, and as quickly as it is developed in scenes like the almost whirlwind-speed Mafia meeting, the actors are particularly strong and all have the power to wrestle their scenes away from the clockwork narrative and have them stand out as their own beasts, sometimes through blazing emotional deliveries of exchanges, monologues and even soliloquys, and sometimes through simple emoting that winds up pushing all the stylized clutter to the edges of frame to function at just the right pitch to complement such facial expressions and halfway teardrops. I struggle to recall any other film in recent memory in which such seemingly insignificant characters have unraveled so briefly and brought me to tears with such feeling command.

So obviously, the film is highly expressionistic, almost baroque. Toni Servillo's make-up job as Giulio Andreotti, the title figure, is very elaborate and the details of his ears, hair, glasses, facial lines and tightly wound upscale dress sense are screamingly defined and allow him to underplay the role to the point where he is almost an oil painting save for his sporadic jolts of tremendous emotional build-up. The food critic Anton Ego in Pixar's Ratatouille comes to mind. Not every actor here is endowed with this advantage, but they do all have emboldened distinguishing characteristics. Despite those few very touching moments and certain powerful images, often spectacle-driven but sometimes not, the brandishing nature of director Paolo Sorrentino's stylisic proficiency keeps us too distant from his real subjects and the heart of the matter. Regardless however, the actors and the prose they perform rebel against such oppression and do some intense brandishing of their own.

I want to see this again, to help me decide if it really was as good as I thought it was the first time round. Whod've thought that a film about a seemingly unprepossessing little Italian politician, Giulio Andreotti, could be so damn entertaining.

The movie revolves around how extraordinary this man was. However, the mystery - did he or didn't he arrange all those assassinations, was he or wasn't he involved with those nasty Mafia people - was the main driver for the story. A film's plot is always the main enjoyment for me - which is why I detest those smartass reviewers who think it's OK to give the game away - and this one got a big leg up from the true -life storyline. The answer to the mystery is probably given in one seconds-long soundbite somewhere near the end of the film. I say probably because Mr Andreotti spends a fair bit of time in solo self justification and I was never sure if any of his monologues had elements of truth in them.

As a piece of film making, this movie is dark, elegant and strange, as befits the subject matter. The acting performances are excellent, particularly Tony Servillo as the said Mr Andreotti. Overall, splendido.

This is a great movie about a controversial, damned and tragic figure of Italian political world of the last 50 years, touching some of his notorious, never fully clarified trials as landmarks of career. A comedy, realized half as a subjective view of the facts, half as a conventional comedy narrative incorporating other known characters of the period. The deeply narcissistic, subtle and ambiguous nature of Andreotti is outlined with sharpness and sarcasm. You can only speak his "humanity" like Sorvillo does here, if you'd know the subject for many years as Italians do. This wonderfully acted and written great movie speaks to people who lived or know those years close, who have an idea of the period called "first republic", the years of the Cold War and terrorism in Italy. Servillo's acting is worth the film alone, but all the great actors around him are perfect and clearly highly enjoying the project.

Curiosity: if you have seen The Godfather Pt.3; "Il Divo" Giulio Andreotti is the bad Italian guy close to Vatican, fighting old Corleone Al Pacino... too bad Andreotti would never had been killed or clearly seen taking a position so unconfortable no way. This film is high art compared to that movie, though; this must be said.

Pompous, pretentious, portentous, and unwatchable. The director assumes a great familiarity with Italy's fractious post-war politics but that's understandable: he's made his film for a domestic audience. But the inability to ever truly mount and sustain a narrative is unforgivable for any and all audiences.

Enamored of pretty cinematography (arguably ill-suited to the subject matter at hand) and fashionably business-suited (if generally unattractive) men marching to and fro in ornate governmental offices, the director tries for a Guy Ritchie flavor with freeze frames and silly captions. But Ritchie (like him or not) at least believes in action and story; this director makes even the famously discursive Fellini look like a slave to plot.

Woe to those who stayed with the movie longer than a polite half-hour to see if any modicum of story-telling sense would come to imbue it. A real embarrassment, especially in light of the Euro-praise and the ridiculous IMDb rating.

You've been warned.

il divo is the greatest Italian movie from so many years and better then the works by elio petri, that have made in the past movies with political characters like "todo modo" in this movie characters are not only hyper-described in a grotesque way but there's a great work of acting by the actors that made this movie not only a blasting pamphlet Giulio Andreotti is the main character (and i have no words to describe the greatness of our contemporary major actor, toni servillo) but is a ferocious tale about power not against one person. Truly Andreotti (described in the decline years) was the quintessential symbol of power in Italy, the way to made politics following the hypocrite way of evil to do the good. Now things are changed and not in best. The greatness of sorrentino is that he doesn't choose the realistic style of the denounce movie. All is grotesque, over-style, but is necessary to show the real face of my country. Be artificial to tell the essence of Truth. All the actors are in state of grace Servillo over all and Sorrentino direct the movie thinking over the poverty and the childish indulgence of our cinema. The country of disgusting Muccino and Moccia have a real talented genius finally!!!! welcome this healthy movie. I'm proud

Il Divo charts the vast and eventful reign that former Italian prime- minister Giulio Andreotti had over Italy. He served as prime minister a number of times between 1976 and 1992, and also held positions of Defence Minister and Foreign Minister. During this time he was widely believed to have strong links to the Mafia, and was placed on trial in the late 1990's for his involvement in the murder of a journalist who was suggested to have held documents that strongly implicated Andreotti in criminal activities. The film jumps back and forth in time, and shows Andreotti's enigmatic presence of almost divine levels, and his guilt over his refusal to negotiate in the kidnapping and eventual murder of fellow Christian Democrat Aldo Moro.

This is no ordinary biography. It is an unconventional, highly stylised comedy-drama that is infuriating, exciting, informative and exhausting. Director Paolo Sorrentino throws so many facts, figures and names at you in rapid fashion that it all becomes a blur, it is near impossible to keep up, especially if your knowledge of Italian politics around this time is slim (which was the case for me). But it eventually becomes clear that all this information is irrelevant. It's simply a way to show just how involved Andreotti was virtually everything that happened. He was so influential, so powerful that nothing escaped him. And nothing could touch him.

Toni Servillo's simply brilliant performance conveys everything you need to know about Andreotti. He is not physically intimidating, but instead he is hunched, softly-spoken and extremely strange-looking. But Andreotti does not need to move for anyone. His extreme intelligence and near-supernatural ability to get out of situations by doing next to nothing only increases his divine status. We see the best and worst of Andreotti, but Sorrentino is not trying to force an opinion of him out of us, but instead he has directed an outrageous film about an outrageous man. 'Il Divo', literally translated, means 'the star', but suggests 'the divine one', and was the nickname given to Julius Caesar.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com