Roma (1972)
She's Roman cause she's got the laurels, duh.Genre: Comedy Drama Documentary (Italy, France)
Starring: Peter Gonzales Falcon, Fiona Florence
Directed By: Federico Fellini (Fellini - Satyricon; 8 1/2)
Overview:
Acting: Fellini has a way of making his characters all seem very independent in their roles. Everything unfolds as the scene does. Little stories take place while others are observed. Tiny slices of life are focused upon for minutes, or mere seconds. The acting in this is very good, the touch of over-the-top that we experience from time to time doesn't detract from the lives we watch unfold.
Rating: 8
Cinematography: The images are of Rome, inside, outside, daytime, nighttime, in the sky and underground, in the past and in the present. This is why people see this movie. It's interesting to look at, but given that this was shot in 1972, it seems that the camera work was a little shaky in several of the driving shots. It was unfortunate to be distracted by that.
Rating: 7
Script: The tales told in the scenes are interesting. We get more a glimpse of an era and a commentary of Romans than a flow of ideas or a story. Last time I saw it, I remember much less dialogue. That's really because this film doesn't need that much script to get it's point across. The words just add to the characters on display.
Rating: 7
Plot: The movie is plotless really. It's more of a showcase of a city through a couple of generations, including WWII and the modern era (early 70s). There is no great story save that of, "This city has survived and been reborn time and again, and it shall continue to do so". This film is more art house than mainsteam, like Baraka, but I enjoyed it still.
Rating: 6
Mood: The mood of Rome seems very well captured, from brothels to boxing rings, from dining on La Piazza to digging underground subways. It's really a good look at a city's life. Each scene is stand alone, and the driving scenes, though shaky really worked well, because of the little dialogue.
Rating: 8
Overview:
Acting: Fellini has a way of making his characters all seem very independent in their roles. Everything unfolds as the scene does. Little stories take place while others are observed. Tiny slices of life are focused upon for minutes, or mere seconds. The acting in this is very good, the touch of over-the-top that we experience from time to time doesn't detract from the lives we watch unfold.
Rating: 8
Cinematography: The images are of Rome, inside, outside, daytime, nighttime, in the sky and underground, in the past and in the present. This is why people see this movie. It's interesting to look at, but given that this was shot in 1972, it seems that the camera work was a little shaky in several of the driving shots. It was unfortunate to be distracted by that.
Rating: 7
Script: The tales told in the scenes are interesting. We get more a glimpse of an era and a commentary of Romans than a flow of ideas or a story. Last time I saw it, I remember much less dialogue. That's really because this film doesn't need that much script to get it's point across. The words just add to the characters on display.
Rating: 7
Plot: The movie is plotless really. It's more of a showcase of a city through a couple of generations, including WWII and the modern era (early 70s). There is no great story save that of, "This city has survived and been reborn time and again, and it shall continue to do so". This film is more art house than mainsteam, like Baraka, but I enjoyed it still.
Rating: 6
Mood: The mood of Rome seems very well captured, from brothels to boxing rings, from dining on La Piazza to digging underground subways. It's really a good look at a city's life. Each scene is stand alone, and the driving scenes, though shaky really worked well, because of the little dialogue.
Rating: 8
Oh yeah, Pope Parade!Overall Rating: 72% (Benne!)
Aftertaste: The first time I saw this, I remember really liking it. So much so that years later I bought it. I don't know what happened to my memory, but I do recall a much better movie. Perhaps the fact that the first time I saw this I was nowhere near the film aficionado and critic I was then. The montage in my mind recalls a greater flow and vast panoramic scenes, like in Satiricon. Sadly I was a little disappointed the second time round, but it's interesting to see how tastes change.
posted by Squish at 11:44 AM
<< Home