Masayuki Suo, who directed this fine film, is on a role. After the decent "Fancy Dance" and the classic (in Japan, anyway) college-sumo comedy "Shiko Funjatta", Suo has followed his own huge footsteps with a smashing success.
The story is engaging. We both laugh often (Naoto Takenaka is hilarious, as he is in Suo's two previous films) and really root for the characters. But to me the big bonus is the look this movie gives the viewer into Japanese society - real life in Japan. Suo has a knack for showing real-life activities with entertaining flair. The result is a movie that will pull you in, make you laugh, make you think, and both entertain you and give you insight into today's Japan.
Also look for the the main 8 actors from Shiko Funjatta, as they all appear again in various roles, from supporting characters (Takenaka) to short cameos (many).

Pier Paolo Pasolini, or Pee-pee-pee as I prefer to call him (due to his love of showing male genitals), is perhaps THE most overrated European Marxist director - and they are thick on the ground. How anyone can see "art" in this messy, cheap sex-romp concoction is beyond me. Some of the "stories" here could have come straight out of a soft-core porn film, and I am not even so much referring to the nudity but the simplistic and banal, often pointless stories. Anyone who enjoyed this relatively watchable but dumb oddity should really sink his teeth into the "Der Schulmaedchenreport" soft-porn German 70s movie series, because that's what "Decameron" looks like to me.
Besides, the movie is sloppy on nearly all levels, from start to finish:
1. Editing. An example: at 1 hour:15 minutes:45 seconds there is a chasing scene that is put quite clearly in the wrong place. It was supposed to be placed about a minute later, but I guess that Pasolini must have hired boozed-up editors who have little time for the "fine details" of movie-making. Pee-pee-pee's fans would probably counter this by saying that it was placed there intentionally - which I very much doubt. Besides, even if that were true, that would be even worse, because that story gains absolutely nothing by making it harder to follow. (This isn't exactly "Eraserhead" or one of Tarantino's broken-form films...)
2. Acting. Vey sloppy. Triple Pee's fans (all 8 of them) proudly declare how 3P-O uses "real people instead of actors". (Aren't actors people? Or are they Martians? Sure, many actors have sub-par IQs but does that mean we should treat them with contempt...?) Other directors have used amateurs and succeeded (such as Alan Parker or De Niro), so why are PPP's amateurs so utterly awful in his movies? The answer is once again appalling sloppiness. Pasolini is sloppy in everything, and that includes trying to get as much out of his toothless amateurs as he can. He is a lazy director, an IMperfectionist if you like. The anti-Kubrick, I suppose... Pee-pee-pee's principal goal when casting must have been to find as many toothless old people as possible (and young men that are to his liking). In Pasolini's world there is a simple formula: lack of teeth + strange face = realism. It's all well and fine to have them toothless, but at least try to eke out some at least semi-decent performances out of these inexperienced neo-thespians, otherwise you're an amateur yourself - an amateur director, in Pasolini's case. Whether 3P-0 wasn't capable of this feat or simply didn't care doesn't change anything. (Who knows... maybe he didn't even notice the awful acting?)
3. Audio. The synchronization. If 3P-0 felt that microphones are too much of a hassle when filming a movie, then he ought to have at least made a concerted effort in post-production, i.e. getting all these bum actors to say their lines on cue in the studio, so that we the viewers wouldn't have to watch mouths move while the elusive dialogue floats elsewhere in the movie.
4. Lack of concept. We have close to a dozen stories which aren't connected in any meaningful way. Some are anti-Church (more on that later), while some are merely sex yarns i.e. cheap male (sometimes gay) fantasies designed to titillate and nothing else. The stories and characters are not amusing (if at all) on an intelligent level, but on the basest level. 10 year-old kids can laugh here... And there is nothing wrong with that, but then don't call it exalted, intellectual art!
5. As a result of point 4, there is also a lack of logic in the order of the stories. That goes without saying. Pee-pee-pee could have arranged the order in any other way, and we would have had the exact same movie. This also means that you can feel free to start from the middle then go back to the beginning, etc. "Decameron" is like a bowl of spaghetti that way: when you start eating it you can begin with any thread you want, it makes no difference at all.
6. The pointlessness of the stories' resolutions. Most stories end with a cheap gag/joke, i.e. some damn dumb punchline straight out of a porn comic-book, whereas some stories don't even have a conclusion: they merely end. Finito. At best, the stories are watchable semi-anecdotes, barely any deeper meaning there - unless you find "deep" meanings in a porno. There is, of course, nothing easier than looking for and finding "meaning" where there is an absence of it. Hence even any hardcore porn film can be philosophized/mused over endlessly. It's easy and fun. Try it, oh ye 8 PPP fans!
As for the Church-bashing... Some viewers get all excited about his attack on Catholicism and what-not. In principal, that's all well and fine - after all, I'm an atheist myself - but what those people ignore is the simple but essential fact that Pasolini was a Marxist. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. A Marxist criticizing the Church for hypocrisy and stupidity? Where does he get the nerve? Besides, Pasolini wasn't an atheist, hence his high-and-mighty and self-righteous stance isn't justified. After all, Marxists are believers: they merely substituted the accepted god with the idea of a Utopia, which is merely another supernatural wishful-thinking fantasy. Hence I cannot get excited about PPP's anti-religion antics.
This sophomoric humpdorama anthology ends with Pasolini saying rather pretentiously: "I wonder... Why produce a work of art when it's nice just to dream about it?" He wasn't actually referring to this silly little movie as art, was he...? In case he was - the poor deluded man - then I have to wonder why he didn't just leave it at dreaming, and NOT make all those bad movies...
Wanna read my altered subtitles of Bergman movies? E-mail me.