Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Il Divo (2008)
7/10
A good starting point to understand Italian politics
7 June 2008
"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...
21 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Alas, another sad sequel!
17 January 2008
Sequel of the much better 80's movie "L'allenatore nel pallone". It should worth a 4 (for technical and stylistic reasons), but deserves a +1 bonus for the courage of trying to revive the old - the real one - Italian comedy. Banfi acted too many times as "Nonno Libero" to be able to act again as "Oronzo Canà". Tired and with no energy. Too many moments look like commercial spots, they neither try to disguise it. Too many unuseful out-of-plot scenes just to show some more soccer player (but maybe they are what average spectators really want to view). The supporting cast looks almost like a damage. Some laughs here and there. Elsewhere, much disappointment.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A potential great movie
15 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Quite difficult a movie to rate. So i read the comments before voting. First, I don't agree with many of the comments. I read they define the movie as a mafia one and compare it with others like "The godfather". But this isn't a mafia movie. Mafia is an organization raised in southern Italy with deep historical roots, and therefore it has strict behavior codes and organization. This is a movie about a REAL band - the "banda della Magliana", a group of street-raised rogues with no common moral code that terrified Rome (and the whole Italy) in its already difficult '70. So i think the movie could be better compared with a "Scarface".

THE PROS Excellent acting, even single-void-expression Kim Rossi Stuart surprised me; I have to reconsider him. Excellent character developing: aspiring dictator Libanese, aspiring drug/ sex/business lord Dandi and aspiring normal life boy Freddo are the three "heads" of the band and perfectly represent their not having a unique aim for the band. The "no-way-out" atmosphere of the whole movie: you can perfectly feel that the characters act because they can't do in another way; call it fate, social/educational bounds, political pressure, they can't but do the things (and consequently the mistakes) you expect for them to do. Whatever they try to reach their "happyness" you know they are going to fail in the end.

THE CONS Dialogues: the characters talk with heavy use of dialect of Rome (I suppose this is done for a matter of realism) and with no noise-filtering, so i missed some part of the speeches. Historical background: as i already said this movie is about a band of rogues that acted in the '70s. I think a director is not forced to explore the historical background in its movie, but if so he should avoid historical referrings. This is the major fault of the movie: there are plenty of referrings to the happenings of those years (the bomb-explosion in Bologna train station, the Aldo Moro kidnapping) but there is no feeling with those year's atmosphere. Those were years imbued with fear and uncertainty and there is no trace of this feeling. This lack makes it an incomplete movie, just a "band of rogues" movie, while it could be an excellent portrait of both men and background. What a pity.

All these things, IMHO, make a 8/9 worth movie, get down to a 7 worth movie.
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed