Change Your Image
simoviee
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Per un pugno di dollari (1964)
The Italian who revolutionised westerns
First film of the dollar trilogy by the great Sergio Leone, a director who died too soon and was unfortunately forgotten by many. The film is set in a small town on the border with Mexico, San Miguel, dominated by two rival families (the Baxters and the Rojos), where an American gunslinger called Joe, played by Clint Eastwood, arrives. His only interest is to earn a few dollars; in order to get them, he is willing to help both families of criminals, but is involuntarily involved in a conflict between the two sides. Eastwood's choice was one of Leone's most apt choices. In an interview, he said he chose him because he saw him on an American show and noticed that he was slow, silent and always had a rather apathetic face. So Leone took his cue to create a character destined to become one of the most iconic in film history. Mention must be made of Gian Maria Volontè's great performance as Ramòn Rojo, who, in the finale, gives us one of the most beautiful scenes of the trilogy. It is impossible not to mention the late Ennio Morricone, author of wonderful soundtracks, who was no less impressive in this film. To understand the greatness of the film, it is enough to know that it was made with 90 million Italian lire, corresponding to about 52,000 dollars, which was already very little at the time, let alone today. Certainly this had a negative effect on the film, especially on the set design, which was a little sparse, but one has only to bow before a man who with such a small budget managed to pull off a great film that was destined to revolutionise the western genre. Suffice it to say that after the film's success, Americans abandoned Arizona, Texas and Colorado, where American westerns were set, to go and film in Spain, where Leone had shot his first western. It is not the best of the trilogy, but perhaps of the three it is the one that has had the greatest impact on film history.
8.5.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
More than a comedy
A great film by a great director. The film presents itself as a comedy and the hilarious trait is evident in the script, however beyond the comedy there is much more. Kubrick makes fun of the political system and tells a story full of absurdities. A mad commander who orders the bombing of the USSR, a nationalist general who gets excited at the thought of a nuclear war, a president who does not know the laws he has enacted, and then the great Dr. Strangelove, a former Nazi who finds a plan, also absurd, to save humanity. Certainly it is all aimed at generating a smile in the viewer, but it is also a critique of war by an anti-militarist Kubrick that could already be appreciated in 'Paths of Glory'. All those differences between communists and Americans seem to fall away in this film. For instance, the American president, as well as the Soviet president, are incapable of handling the defence and/or attack systems they created. Even more significant is the scene in which American soldiers are mistaken as Soviet enemies, so Kubrick seems to suggest that that big difference is not really there and therefore that a war would be a dastardly act. "The End of the World Device" embodies the fears of the world at the time, as there was a real fear that an atomic war might break out in which neither side would prevail. Fortunately it never happened, but Kubrick emphasises that the fate of the world is in the hands of men who as such are fallible. However, what was feared would happen in reality happens in the film and the only solution found is that of Doctor Strangelove. This too is absurd: the Soviets and Americans were united by hatred for the Nazis, yet they accept a Nazi's crazy plan to save humanity. In this way Strangelove, perhaps the craziest of characters, appears as the most rational in a room of even crazier politicians and generals.
La dolce vita (1960)
A unique atmosphere
"La dolce vita" is a film that is difficult to forget once seen. There is no actual plot, but there are several episodes, sometimes disconnected from each other, which feature Marcello, played by Marcello Mastroianni, as the protagonist. He would like to have a better relationship with his father, he would like to become a writer and have women as his own, but he fails in almost everything. Marcello is a man who is unable to choose and this is already clear from his relationship with women. In fact, he falls in love with several women in the film, but he is never able to separate himself from his girlfriend Emma, even though their relationship is very conflictual. He tries to take the good out of life, devoting himself to worldly pleasures even though he is aware that that kind of life can only fail. His character, so anarchic, could be compared, by contrast, with Steiner's who, on the other hand, is married, has two children and lives a serene life. Yet it is precisely peace that torments him, in fact in a dialogue with Marcello he says that "peace borders on hell". Therefore both lifestyles prove unsuccessful. The film is the mirror of Italian society of the fifties, and can only be a criticism of it. It was a society that, less than a decade after the end of the Second World War, was already in decline. There is talk of moral decadence, of a fanatical religion, of men who only want sex, of paparazzi who, in order to get the front page shot, do not respect people's feelings (as in the scene in which the commissioner and Marcello were supposed to reveal to the Steiner's wife what her husband did). In short, a precise criticism of the vacuous society that has lost all moral value. What, in my opinion, makes the film wonderful is the atmosphere that I would describe as almost metaphysical. I say this because metaphysics was also an Italian art movement in the early 1900s, and it seems that Fellini picks up on the disorienting setting of those paintings. For those not familiar with the movement, I recommend seeing some paintings by Giorgio De Chirico, the greatest exponent of Italian metaphysics. I see this type of art in the setting and in the shots, particularly one in which Marcello is seen sitting reading a newspaper under a portico made of enormous columns, or also in the following shot where he sees his friend Steiner entering a church in a deserted square (quite unusual for a city like Rome). Further applause goes to Nino Rota's music which accompanies, or almost lulls, the viewer in this fantastic film.