I went to Stage Beauty with my boyfriend on Sunday afternoon and we both loved it. Stage Beauty is just about the best movie I've seen in the last year or so. Billy Crudup produces an exemplary performance and if there is a god he should be getting nominated for an Academy Award for best actor. He was very good in "Jesus' Son", but in this film Billy proves that he can do anything convincingly.

The film is also unique in the way the main character deals with his self-awareness of sexuality and gender identity. I am not aware of another film that gives so much informed food for thought in this area.

There's a strong supporting cast - especially Rupert Everett (who deserves a Supporting Actor nomination) - plus plenty of laughs, stunning visuals and a script to die for. The romance is also tantalisingly developed - a rare element these days.


You just do not see good films like this being advertised anymore! This movie totally exceeded my expectations. I loved everything about it.

First of all the story was a new twist on an old subject. Granted, I know there has been movies about men posing as women in the arts previous, but none told like this one. There is no right or wrong answer to any of the questions this movie poses. The idea of sexuality, masculine and feminine is so complex. The writers know this and do not try to explain it or give their view about it in one hour and forty-nine minutes. Rather they just indulge you in a time and place where plays were just that, acting. No glamour, no starlets, no paparazzi, just acting.

I applaud everyone who participated in making this film. I had to roll the credits back at the start of the film in order to re-read that Robert De Niro was one of the producers of this film.

I enjoyed this movie tremendously and a bit dishearten that I did not take the time to see it in the theater. I will not make the same mistake twice and now I will have to buy it for my collection!


What a surprising gem! This movie could have been a mainstream hit, but the 'historical theatrical' flavour probably made it difficult to sell to the mass market. Shame, because it's just great!!

It's a very unique production, and entertaining on so many levels: The storyline is quirky and edifying, the characters are rich and humorous, the cinematography/set/costuming have life and colour, and both Billy Crudup and Claire Danes put in high quality performances.

Crudup, in particular, has an extremely challenging role - two characters in one - and handles it most impressively. I was also struck by how Danes is developing into a fine young actress; she sweeps the audience right into her emotional world. And those scenes between the two of them...well!!..(jealous anyone?)...is it any wonder that they ended up together in real life after rehearsals and several takes of that?! (Watch it and you'll see what I mean!)

All of the above, of course, is also a strong reflection of the obviously considerable skills of the director.

In my video store this movie is listed under 'chick flicks'! Yes, the romance is firey and Crudup is primally appealing as the handsome feminine-masculine lead, but it's so much more. The climactic ending left me very energised and uplifted ... so I did what many seem to have done - played it again!


Brilliant and beautiful and breathtaking.

The flip side of Shakespeare in Love - flipped several times over, but every bit as magical, passionate and fun. What takes this a notch higher than SIL, is the full out portrayal of all sides of human sexuality with absolutely no excuses or pretense.

The best thing is that what we do *not* see at the end.

Amazing spot-on supporting performances by Rupert Everett, Ben Chapman, Tom Wilkinson, Zoe Tapper, Stockard Channing and so many others.

The frightening bizarre hair, makeup and costumes are used so wonderfully in this film to remind us of our of our frailty, vanity, but mostly of our beautiful humanity. No hiding here - from anything. No excuses!

The humor is there... the life is there...the cruelty, the spirit, the hypocrisy. All of it.

I could see this movie a hundred times and not be bored.

Enjoy!


This is the sort of movie that has probably done well on word-of-mouth alone. I liked it enough to recommend it to at least 2 different friends. Like Shakespeare in Love before it, this movie is definitely not historically accurate. If you can look past some of the more glaring inaccuracies (if you've ever taken a history of theater class you'll know instantly what I mean), you will be rewarded with a pretty gripping story. If you like Shakepearen-era theater and like stories that are well-written, you'll like this one. While I had certainly known there was a time in theater when men played women's parts, I had never before thought about what might have happened to them when women were finally allowed on the stage. This is an interesting and thought-provoking movie and probably best for adults and mature teens.


I have mixed reactions to this movie. My initial reaction was that my preconceived notion about movies -- that the actors' performances can make a bad movie good and vice versa -- were wrong. The performances in this movie were, in my mind, very good. However the movie remained, in my mind, not so good. I had high hopes for the movie for about the first 10 minutes -- I really thought I was going to like it a lot. Then, the story went asunder.

The biggest problem with this movie is the storyline. The conflict is not very well defined -- I'm still not quite sure what exactly the conflict was and why it arose. The relationship between Billy Crudup and Claire Danes' characters was not developed at all. You know right off the bat that she fancies him, yet they are to some degree enemies throughout the middle, then she suddenly cares about him again and helps him, and then they are passionately in love by the end. There were also a couple of consistency problems. For instance, the writer and director were on one hand clearly making a mockery out of some things (i.e, King Charles), yet on the other hand they seemed to shed a more serious light on other things (i.e., the importance of the role of the actor and the acting process). So for example in the movie there's a scene where King Charles is dressed in drag and it is clear that the audience is supposed to not be taking him seriously. Yet then Billy Crudup's character comes in to talk to him all distraught about his inability to act as a man. The dynamic in this scene was awkward. Another consistency problem was that for the first quarter or so of the movie, the characters were saying and doing somewhat crass things. I actually laughed at a couple of these instances and thought it would be comic relief for the movie, but then these laughable instances suddenly stopped and again it seemed like the writer/director were taking a more serious turn with the movie.

Depending on what your definition of a "good" movie is, you may like this movie and you may not. Personally I frequently found myself wondering why in the world things were happening and how the actions of the characters fell into any kind of sequential scheme. However, the acting itself was very good, the costumes, makeup, and sets were pretty good, and the cinematography was nice as well.


I have to tell you I was completely blown away by Jeffrey Hatcher's film adaption of his own play Stage Beauty. It's a wonderful recreation of Restoration Stuart Great Britain and it deals with an innovation for the English speaking world.

Picture Charles Stuart coming back to the United Kingdom to claim his rightful throne. Historians by the way have been fascinated with how he was able to do it so easily with minimal bloodshed. Even more fascinated how Oliver Cromwell's Lord Protectorate just collapsed within two years of his death.

Up until the reign of Charles I, women were not on stage all parts were played by men in drag. After the Puritans took over the country, the theater itself was banned. Among other things that Charles II did when he came to the throne was restore the theater.

Stage Beauty is Jeffrey Hatcher's account of how Charles II opened the profession for women as well. Rupert Everett is a marvelous Charles II who among other things did enjoy the theater.

Mr. Hatcher was very good in showing for today's audience the relationship of Charles II with the Duke of Clarendon played here by James Fox. The banquet scene is brilliantly done. Clarendon was a faithful and loyal supporter of the Stuart house and went into exile because of his loyalty. Charles did feel he owed him and he was the first chief minister that he had. But Clarendon was an old fashioned guy and was quite ready to clap Claire Danes in jail for presuming to enter a forbidden profession. But Charles overruled Clarendon as he did many times and opened the theater to women. As you can gather, he and Clarendon came to a parting of the ways, but that's a subject for another film.

Stage Beauty concerns not only Charles II's decision but it's impact on two people. Claire Danes is the stage dresser to Billy Crudup, a gay man who specialized in female roles, his favorite being Desdemona in Othello. Claire does open the profession for women, but it costs Billy Crudup his job and he's reduced to playing in bawdier unlicensed sort of entertainment, the kind Claire had been doing previously.

Danes and Crudup played against each other beautifully on the screen and in real life since they teamed up in real life after this film was finished. Also look for a nice performance by Tom Wilkinson as the actor who plays Othello to Crudup's Desdemona.

Opening the stage to women was as groundbreaking an event in its time as Rosie the Riveteer in the 20th century. Stage Beauty beautifully captures the moment.


The performances by Billy Crudup and Claire Danes are nothing short of brilliant in 'Stage Beauty'. Why this film or their acting was ignored when this film came out is baffling. This is a better film than 'Shakespeare in Love', although not as clever; and it's astonishing to me why films so close in quality and subject matter were treated so differently by the public.

All the performances in this movie are top notch really; with special mention being worthy for Rupert Everett - who steals every scene he is in. But the overall focus of this film is Billy Crudup, who never strikes a false note in a role which appears exhausting even to describe. His every nuance, every gesture, and every line is expertly delivered in this film; and he is adequately complemented by a wonderful supporting cast.


i absolutely loved this movie. i especially loved the scenes when they were trying to work a scene. i've been in many plays and watching those scenes was like deja vu. if you haven't seen this movie, you must. it is a movie for the actor. if you've never acted in a play or anything at all, you probably won't appreciate it as much.however, if you have, it's an absolutely orgasmic experience. this is what i would consider a diamond in the rough movie. you won't hear about it unless you search for it. towards the end of the movie, it does tend to skew from the facts. it starts to show more contemporary acting, instead of using the acting style of the time period. honestly, if this does not bother you, watch this movie.


This is a story of conflict. And to handle conflict it seems the more objective we are the better we are able to handle conflict and take decisive action.

In viewing this film, start looking for the conflict in the very first scenes. You will see the re-action of one actor who doesn't like the final scene of the play within the film that forms this story. Then note the conflict between the dresser (Claire Danes/Maria) and the young women who go back stage to flirt with the lead actor (Billy Crudup/Ned Kynaston) and see how this conflict builds to the full conflict between Maria and Ned.

And where else do we find better conflict between a male and a female. This story proves even more compelling because it is between a female and a male who impersonates a female on stage. Maria's challenge seems to be to change the societal norms of not allowing female actors on stage. But this is just the face value. For she comes to see her real challenge is that she cannot relate to Ned even though she loves him very much.

For Ned, his challenge is that he thinks he knows the female better than most males. What a farce that turns out to be. As Ned's self image crumbles, he does eventually realize that it is he who must change. He finds his redemption by working with Maria and takes action that changes both of them.

Don't miss the fine performance of the King's mistress (Alice Eve/Miss Frayne) who knows exactly why and how she got to where she now happens to be in the King's court. But she doesn't let that deter her from seeing what needs to be changed. As a minor character, she is very funny, and by being detached and objective, she plays a significant role in the unfolding of the plot for this drama.


Stage Beauty is a truly beautifully- crafted movie which recreates the spirit of Restoration England wonderfully. From the characters who inhabit the theatre world of the day to the laissez faire attitude of the court of Charles II, we gain a privileged view into an age of bawdy good humour.

The lead parts are played in great style by the enormously accomplished Billy Crudup and Claire Danes who create a sense of true chemistry between them. Crudup's acting is deserving of an Oscar, although sadly it seems unlikely that the Academy will take too much notice of a relatively small budget film and will, as usual, hand out awards for Hollywood blockbusters. The supporting cast are also excellent with Rupert Everett being born to play the tolerant, witty and womanising King.

The tight direction of the film is a credit to Richard Eyres and the pace never flags for a moment. There has obviously been much historical research gone into the background of the story which has paid off handsomely. The score keeps pace with the action and the story gallops along to its breathtaking conclusion.

We should urge everyone we know to go to see Stage Beauty at least twice and to harangue the Academy into awarding this gem of a movie a clutch of Oscars!


The film reviewed here by the other reviewer is actually "Orgasmo", which was released in the US in 1969 as "Paranoia". This particular "Paranoia", the one reviewed here, was actually released here in the US as "A Quiet Place to Kill". Both films 1) star Carroll Baker, 2) were directed by Umberto Lenzi, 3) were shot in and around 1969, 4) contain some of the same music on the soundtrack, and 5) share the same title "Paranoia" except on opposite sides of the world. So, I guess it is easy for some people to confuse the two films.

The two films, however, are quite different, considering all of their similarities. This "Paranoia" finds Ms. Baker playing a down-on-her-luck race car driver, of all things, who accepts an invitation to her ex-husband's fancy villa courtesy of the ex-husband's new wife. As both women share a love-hate relationship with this man, it is not long before the current wife is pulling the ex-wife into a plot to murder the man. However, they are not the only ones with murder on their minds.

"A Quiet Place to Kill" succeeds mostly due to the good work of Carroll Baker and Anna Proclemmer as the ex-wife. The impossibly good-looking Jean Sorel is on hand as the husband/ex-husband, and Sorel can be good when he wants to be, but here he seems cheesed off in just about every scene, resulting in a totally one-note performance (perhaps the many bathing suits he was forced to wear were too tight). Lenzi adds some odd camera angles and some sense of style in the mix, probably to give this film a different look and feel than "Orgasmo", and he succeeds to a degree. So don't expect anything new, just a sun-splashed, deceit-ridden thriller with familiar faces and a familiar plot, which is nevertheless fun to sit through.

Oh, and don't confuse "A Quiet Place to Kill" with Lenzi's later film "An Ideal Place to Kill" which stars Ornella Muti, Ray Lovelock, and Irene Pappas in a role Lenzi later stated he wished Carroll Baker had played. Besides "Orgasmo" and "Paranoia", Baker also made "So Sweet, So Perverse" and "Knife of Ice" with Lenzi, with "So Sweet" and "Orgasmo" being superior to the other two.


Welcome to Umberto Lenzi's early 70's giallo/crime thriller "Paranoia" starring the unearthly beautiful Carroll Baker Hey, wait a minute, haven't I watched and reviewed this movie a couple of days ago already? Oh right, that was the OTHER Umberto Lenzi early 70's giallo/crime thriller "Paranoia" starring the unearthly beautiful Carroll Baker, more commonly known as "Orgasmo". Confusing? Well, maybe a little, but rest assured these are two entirely different movies of which the stories & characters aren't linked to each other at all. The other "Paranoia" is also far superior to this one. That particular movie had tons of suspense, likable characters and convoluted plot-twists whereas this one is painfully boring. This film features TWO worthwhile scenes, both involving wild car accidents, one at the beginning and one at the end and everything in between is one gigantically uninteresting, predictable and overlong love-triangle between three characters. It all starts with Mrs. Baker stars as a rather free-spirited race car pilot who crash-parks her car on the circuit and ends up slightly wounded in a hospital. During her period of recovery, she accepts to stay at her ex-husband and his new wife's mansion. Two attractive women and one incomprehensibly handsome guy (really, Jean Sorel is way too good-looking!) in one house can only result in extended sequences of sexual intrigue, double-crossing and conspiracies to murder. It's all a lot less exciting than it sounds and only the good acting performances keep it endurable. The filming locations and music are stylish, but that's not enough in this case. Easily the most disappointing Lenzi-film I've seen thus far.


A Quiet Place to Kill is not be confused with the earlier Orgasmo, though unfortunately confusing the pair is very easy as they're from the same director, both feature American actress Carroll Baker and they were both released under the title 'Paranoia'! Quite what the reason for both films featuring the same title is anyone's guess: I know that Italian filmmakers were more interested in making money than anything else, but surely releasing two films under the same title would do more harm than good when it came to the box office...but oh well. It's usually Orgasmo that gets most of the fans; but if you ask me, this second version of Paranoia is the better of the two. Like Lenzi's earlier 'So Sweet, So Perverse', it would appear that the plot has been lifted from the French classic 'Les Diaboliques', and focuses on a love triangle. Playboy Maurice is married to Constance, a woman who decides to invite Maurice's ex-wife Helen to stay with them. Helen doesn't question it too much and accepts the invitation, and soon learns that the reason she's there is to help Constance kill Maurice.

The first half of the film is much better than the second, as A Quiet Place to Kill unfortunately looses a bit of steam once it gets the first part of the plot out of the way. In spite of that, however, the film is certainly a very interesting Giallo and definitely delivered many of the things I love about this type of film. Umberto Lenzi manages to ensure that all of the major players are interesting, and Lenzi also ensures that all are guilty in one way or another, which ensures that everyone deserves what they get by the time it finishes. Carroll Baker is not my favourite Giallo heroine, but I liked her in this one. She seems to enjoy acting alongside Jean Sorel, who is as charming as ever. Unknown actresses Anna Proclemer and Marina Coffa round off the cast, along with the experienced Alberto Dalbés - all of which fit into their roles well. The upper class setting does the film a lot of favours, and the locations and fashions are all nice to look at. The plot mostly flows well and while it's usually fairly clear where it's going, A Quiet Place to Kill still manages to be interesting. This is not the best Giallo that Lenzi made (that would be Seven Blood-Stained Orchids), but it's certainly a good one and I recommend it.


This film reaffirms why documentary film making is so important. Documentaries don't simply tell a story; they tell a real story, a human story. Documentaries help to shed light on human triumphs and human tragedies, both of which are evident in this gripping film directed by Peter Raymont.

The tragedy, of course, was that nearly 1 million Rwandans were killed and slaughtered in a senseless act of genocide. What adds to the tragedy is that the "civilized" world could have easily stopped this from happening, if they only cared. The film displays how the U.N. and individual countries alike not only failed to help the innocent Rwandan people, but in many ways they contributed to the genocide that happened by creating some of the ethnic stigmas that existed in the country.

Yet amongst all of this carnage and horror there did remain some good people who tried to help the Rwandan's. General Romeo Dallaire, commander of the UN forces in Rwanda, was one of these people. Perhaps no one else in Rwanda did as much to save people as did Mr. Dallaire. Even though he was betrayed by the UN and ignored by the rest of the world, he emerged from this terrible situation as a hero.

I believe the ultimate message of this film is that the leading countries of the world and their citizens must learn from human tragedies like Rwanda so that we can take action to prevent such atrocities from happening again. Unfourtunately, with situations such as the one in Darfur, it seems like this message is not being heard. An important film that must be seen by all and a shining example of documentary film making. 10/10.


I have seen a few movies re: Dallaire, read his book and have seen him speak. I think what puts this film above all of the other background information that I have is the editing. Yes, some of the footage is stock (stock as in seen in other documentaries re: Rwanda) IT IS ALL REAL. THIS IS A VERY GRAPHIC FILM. The editing is amazing. The photography gives the beauty of the landscape and the stock footage is placed in very well. Overall, it is an amazing movie. I give most of that credit to the editor. It is important to put this film in context. I don't expect most people to understand this context, but if you are interested (which I hope you are) there are many wonderful books that can get you started. Not only is this an important film in the documenting of Dallaire and Rwanda, but it is a VERY honest look at the affects of war. If you watch him as he speaks (on film and in person) this is a man whose very core has been horribly affected. Can he ever overcome those scares? I don't think so. Should he? No. He should do what he is doing now...show them to the world. The sad part is that some parts of the world will never listen to him, but that can not distract him. He has to keep going....I hope this makes some amount of sense. Please, see the film. Understand the history. Teach your children so this isn't again our future.


I just returned from the Sundance film Festival where I saw Shake Hands with the Devil. This documentary must be seen for many reasons. It is a history lesson for those who missed the tragedy of the Rowandan genocide. It asks the question: why do we value one human life above another? It tells the story of the courage and conviction of Romeo Dallaire; qualities he possesses to an extent that surpasses what most of us can only imagine. After the screening I attended, the audience was left speechless and was slow to applaud. We all sat in our seats numbed by what we just seen - that human life can have no value on a world wide basis. Please see this outstanding documentary.


It's not often that I get to review documentaries (and I'm not sure that Michael Moore counts) but I was fortunate enough to see the excellent film 'Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Roméo Dallaire' this afternoon. Daillaire was picked from the Canadian Army to lead the UN Peacekeeping mission in Rwanda as the genocide of Tutsis (by another tribe the Hutu) was about to begin. The film goes into the history of how the hatreds began, and how there was a real failure from the world to intervene in time. At every turn Daillaire was thwarted by his so-called superiors to do anything. For the most part his men were left to watch as the country destroyed itself. As this was all happening in the spring of 1994, the world was obsessed with one OJ Simpson and his bloody glove. Watching the film I was sickened by the first world's apathy toward Africa. Bono once said that this generation will be remembered for standing by with water while Africa burned. This film only reinforced the statement. Afterwards the director, Peter Raymont, had a Q&A with the audience (there was also Dallaire's assistant from that period in Rwanda - his name escapes me), and he said that in Canada it will be playing on the CBC in the new year. I saw it as part of the Vancouver International Film Fest, and it's played at Toronto already, and will be at Berlin and Sundance next year. Please check this film out! It deserves to be seen by one and all.


This incredible documentary must be seen. The irony that Romeo Dallaire, the only man who actually stayed in Rwanda during the genocide, would feel the most guilt over the mass slaughter is incredible. This film needs to be seen in the context of current African tragedies. Not simply Sudan, but the LRA's child soldiers of Uganda, the gruesome and pervasive civil wars in Burundi, DRC, and the Cote d'Ivoire. These conflicts are complex and ignored by the world. See this film and become more informed on African politics which are destroying the lives of tens of thousands of human beings. There are possibilities to help, seek out large NGOs such as Oxfam, Medecins Sans Frontieres, and the Heifer Organization; or smaller, more specialized NGOs such as Care For Life. This film helps us all to realize we cannot ignore the realities of developing nations' violence and poverty. In another fantastic documentary, "Born into Brothels," one of the children says something to the effect of "I like this picture, though it is sad, we have to look at it because that is the way she lives and it is truth." If an impoverished 10-year-old can come to that realization, so must the rest of the world.


I saw Shake Hands with the Devil not long ago, on Radio-Canada, and it was a very strong counter to Hotel Rwanda, which I had seen just days earlier. It amazes how countries that stand up and decry the Holocaust, that call Iraq and Afghanistan centers of evil that must be invaded and liberated, seem to sit quietly and allow genocide to occur repeatedly throughout Africa. Whatever the reason may be - no resources or interests, an attempt to pacify mutual allies, or simple apathy because it's 'not a Western problem', it fills me with anguish to see the results. And to see CNN and the media giving Iraq and the Asian tsunami 24/7 coverage while making Rwanda and Darfur a footnote on the back pages is nothing short of horrendous.

One scene in particular really stuck with me - it's the scene during the Rwandan inquest, where a Belgian senator starts to harangue Dallaire over the deaths of a couple of Belgian peacekeepers, who he claimed could have been saved. It absolutely astounded me to see this self-righteous and self-centered man thinking about the loss of two men while nearly a million were butchered. And to blame Dallaire, who was handicapped by the UN who refused to give him support or a mandate...it boggles the mind. I didn't see the Belgian government pleading for the UN to intervene...

In Darfur it's the same situation - the UN doesn't want to intervene, so they swamp their investigation and reports in red tape, mainly because China has oil contracts with the Sudanese government and Russia has sold arms to them. It looks like the only lesson that the previous genocides of the last century has taught us, is that if there's going to be genocide, get on the side that is committing it and make sure that your interests are secured...

Bravo to Dallaire for having the courage and cojones to return to Rwanda and to give us his outstanding and this astonishing and important documentary. 9/10.


There is so much tragedy that takes place in the world involving the military and others involved in physical conflict, yet it is rare that a soldier comes forward to tell the truth. In Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Roméo Dallaire, we are lucky to have not just a soldier, but a leader who took so much responsibility for the Rwandan genocide onto himself explaining through word and deed what happened there, and its meaning. This is a wonderful documentary, and a moving story about an honest man's quest to understand the difficulty and horror he experienced. It is impossible not to be emotionally moved by Dallaire's story, and the well-crafted way in which it is told.


*spoilers in here* "Shake Hands With The Devil" reviews the experiences of Canadian Gen. Romeo Dallaire, who was head of the UN troops in Rwanda in 1994, while filming his return to Rwanda for the 10th anniversary of the genocide in 2004. Dallaire's small UN peacekeeping force was sent in to help protect the fragile truce in Rwanda's civil war, and as such was unable to interfere in any way. In April of 1994, all hell broke loose as extremists assassinated Rwanda's president and staged a coup, pretending a "third force" was at fault. High-level military commanders joined forces with the "Hutu power" extremists and quickly killed all the moderate leaders in the first few hours after the assassination, so there was no one left to oppose them as they set in motion a carefully planned genocide. Foreign nationals fled the country and the UN pulled out everyone except a minimal force. Only 270 soldiers were allowed to remain, paralyzed by the restraints of their mission's parameters. They could shelter as many Tutsis as possible in a handful of UN-protected sites, but apart from that, they were made to be bystanders.

The UN's ambivalence hamstrung every operational aspect of the mission. Dallaire had to beg for even the most basic supplies -- I'm talking about paper and pencils here, not guns or jeeps. He spent most of his time during the genocide jumping through the most insane administrative hoops, filing reports, writing assessments, trying everything to convince his bosses at the UN. It was plain that the higher-up hoped if they stalled long enough, it would all just go away.

Finally after 3 months of unrestrained killing, the rebel troops were able to move in and halt the genocide. By then 800,000 people were dead.

As you can imagine, Dallaire was devastated by this experience. In the years afterwards, he had an emotional breakdown and attempted suicide twice. He was haunted with guilt and remorse, certain the a minimal force of 5,000 could have stopped or even prevented the genocide. He sees this as his own personal failure, as it was his inability to convince his higher-ups to intervene which cost so many lives.

But instead of succumbing to despair, with the help of his family and loved ones, he eventually pulled himself together. He laid some of the worst demons to rest by writing a book about his experience. The movie takes its title from the name of his book.

Dallaire has returned to Africa to testify in the war crimes trials, but until the 10th anniversary, he had not gone back to Rwanda. As he revisited the scenes of his experiences in 1994, the filmmakers came with him, sometimes jumping back to archive footage of the genocide, so that we could see what Dallaire saw in his mind's eye as he contrasted past to present.

There in the midst of those tormented memories, Dallaire's compassion for the survivors he meets overpowers his sadness and remorse. Each individual matters to him. And some places bring a wistful smile to his face. He is reunited with several people he worked with in 1994, and they greet one another with great affection. The film intersperses interviews with of some of those people, who fill in other details in the story.

Dallaire reminds me of the heroes of classic mythology, like one of Joseph Campbell's stories, built from deep archetypes. He shook hands with evil incarnate, he was transformed by his horrific experience, he endured, he survived, and has passed back into the land of the living, wearing the scars of his ordeal like a scarlet letter or a mark of Cain. He is a modern day Cassandra, condemned to tell the truth no one wants to hear. Not surprisingly, Dallaire has been pressured to quit pointing fingers and keep his mouth shut. He refuses. Like the ancient mariner, he tells his tale because he must. He bears witness to that Hell on Earth. We need to listen to him, and this movie helps bring us his message.

I would also like to respond to the review of May 16, 2005. This viewer was unhappy that the film was critical of the US, but I think he misunderstood. Although Dallaire has plenty of gripes with the US, the movie's main target for criticism is the UN. Yes, the US naturally comes under heavier scrutiny than other member nations because we have so much more to offer and have so much more influence. But the UN is the one who blew it in a big way here. The UN's scope reaches far beyond that of individual member nations. The Rwandan cease fire in early 1994 was exactly the type of situation the UN was meant to help with. In this case, the only thing the UN and the US succeeded in was in looking like racist hypocrites.

This reviewer contends that none of us would be willing to sacrifice an American life to save a Rwandan, but I don't agree. I think American soldiers have a sense of honor, and would not want to stand by and watch a child hacked to death in front of the parents. Being a world leader is more than just getting to be first in line at the feed trough. Our great wealth, our powerful military, and our extraordinarily rich resources enable us to lend a hand to others who need help. International law was broken. We (the US AND the UN) promised to uphold that law and we (the US AND the UN) had a duty to stand by our word.


A great documentary which tells the story of Dallaire in Rwanda during the genocide. It's amazing to see how no one responded to this crisis and yet quickly responded to what was happening in Yugoslavia. My one problem? Dallaire's roman-catholic spiritualism whereby he says he could feel "the coldness" of the "evil" men who orchestrated the genocide. There are no evil men and good men. Just men. What these men did, they did because they were human, not because the devil tapped them on the shoulder.

I'd heard about Dallaire's return to Canada and what happened when he came back. He was suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome and was severely depressed. At one point he wandered drunkenly through the streets of Ottawa while he contemplated suicide. He was eventually picked up on a park bench in Hull and was hospitalized. I would have been more interested in hearing about Dallaire's psyche when he returned home. This documentary is after all less about the genocide and more about Dallaire and his confrontation with what he calls "evil".


I missed the opening as I found this documentary while zapping. The documentary channel is new to me and I'm loving it quite a bit.

Shake hands with the devil had special meaning to me as it gave me a glimpse back into the heartfelt emotions that so many of my old compatriots have deeply rooted in their hearts and souls. I am certainly no militarist lover. I've watched many a documentary by ex-politicians/military personnel trying to say "I'm sorry" about various wars. I've watched both previous movies on the Rwandan genocide, but this documentary hit home the hardest because, instead of showing the gut-wrenching and sensational time of killings, it brings to light the inaction of the rest of the world and the reasoning behind it. (well it's not completely void of gore, as there's actual footage of murdering, but always a far distance in the background.) I think it takes great courage to go public with one's sense of culpability and insufficiency, ones depression and sense of hopelessness. This is a depiction of human sorrow in nearly it's purest form, both at the deeply personal level and also on the international scale. As the closing remarks state so well, we have learned nothing, it could all happen again tomorrow, how can we live with such sorrow as that truth.


I saw this film on DOC TV on the Dish Network last night and could not take a break. I was furious that this was taking place while OJ was on trial and it was the stupid OJ trial we were being bombarded with day in and day out while genocide was taking place. Those that now rent the public airwaves should be jailed for not abiding by the laws they are to adhere to when they use the public airwaves.

From beginning to the end I was glued to my seat. Dallaire is a hero in my book, and should be to all humanity-loving people. This is a must see documentary. However, it would've helped more if we had seen what was going on WHILE it was happening!


This superb and movie will be doomed for failure in the USA, no it does not have a superhero that will stop WWIII, it does not have a deluge of special effect. It is just the story of a very brave man who listen to his hearth and tried to save as many lives as he could and refused to listen to orders, politicians and false promises made by the United Nations.

Graphic it is, humane it is too. Americans will hate it as it is very Canadian in its approach.

On TV former President Bill Clinton said the Rwanda tragedy was the worst failure of his career. It was that of the Canadian Government too as well as that of the United Nation. Amidst all that horror a man refuse to give up. A must see movie that Canadians will love and Americans will hate for the hero is not an American this time.


I am a hard core liberal, but I could not stand Shake Hands With The Devil, a well-meaning but ultimately stupid documentary about the Rwandan genocide of 1994. The film is chock full of limousine liberal guilt and tries to make the United States the fall guy in this horrible world tragedy. I say the film is stupid because it reduces a very complex situation down to ridiculous platitudes. I fear people will think it's true just because it's a documentary.

The history of how Rwanda, a small Central African country literally turned in on itself with one group, the majority Hutu nationalists literally hunting down minority Tutsis in the street and chopping them to death with machetes is a complicated story. It starts with Rwanda being put under Belgian control as part of World War One war reparations and eventually leads to the bloody independence of the country in 1962.

But the racial and political divides thrust upon the population from their inept and brutal colonial masters made for a very unstable situation. In fact, Rwanda has seen bursts of violence with mass killings and forced exiles twice before in 1964 and 1974. Was it really such a surprise that this happened again in 1994?

The film Shake Hands With The Devil is based on the book by Canadian General Romeo Dallaire who was head of the United Nations peacekeeping forces in Rwanda at the time of the genocide. When the violence began, the good General tried to get the United Nations to intervene, yet the United Nations felt strangely helpless and for a variety of complicated reasons, did nothing. This was particularly devastating to General Dallaire and he details his frustration, guilt and subsequent depression in a very moving way in his excellent book.

If the film had just told the story of General Dallaire and his failed peacekeeping mission and then focused on how Rwanda has changed in the decade since the horrific genocide, it would have been a very good documentary. But the filmmakers have decided to point a blaming finger at the "West" particularly the United States for ignoring the plight of the Rwandans and allowing the genocide to happen.

The film smugly claims there is an inherent shallowness in the American public because at the time of the Rwandan killings we were more interested in the O. J. trial to pay attention to anything else. It never occurs to the filmmakers that the O.J. trial was not a celebrity freak show like the current Michael Jackson trial. With O.J., American jurisprudence itself was on trial. Of course we were interested.

Also, despite what the documentary claims, I remember distinctly hearing radio reports and reading newspaper accounts about the descent into madness Rwanda fell into from April to July of 1994. Yes, the O. J. trial was mostly on page one, but Rwanda was always on page two at least. The information was out there; it was reported.

However, awareness about something horrible happening and knowing what to do to stop it are two different things. The majority Hutus and the minority Tutsis in the country had a peace agreement of sorts, but the Interahamwe (Hutu Militias, well regulated, no doubt) didn't want peace and evidence shows they had planned in advance for genocide.

General Dallaire alerted the United Nations about the deteriorating situation and tried to stop it, but did not have anywhere near the force of troops needed. But I don't think it would have mattered. The Hutu fundamentalists didn't want peace or a political settlement; they only wanted to see Tutsis dead. That's it. All the troops in the world would only have stopped the slaughter temporarily.

Now let's be very blunt, look around you; how many young Americans would you send into harms way to only temporarily halt, not stop the eventual killings? How many would you be willing to sacrifice for a country of little strategic value, no natural wealth and no great political objectives to speak of? I am aware of the "doing it for humanity" argument, but is it possible to stop every insane group determined to kill off parts of their own population? Are the superpowers supposed to be the world's police? Can they be everywhere all the time?

This is what annoyed me about Shake Hands With The Devil. The film ignored every important question to focus on making western audiences feel guilty. The movie even claims the Catholic Church could have stopped the bloodshed if only the churches had just preached, "thou shalt not kill" with more vigor. My intelligence was personally insulted by that foolish statement.

Rwanda suffered a terrible genocide, but was it preventable? History has shown that stopping genocide once it starts is as impossible as stopping an avalanche. It seems that all you can do is try to contain it and then pick up the pieces once it's over. Is the USA to blame for not invading the country and stopping it? Would we have had any right to go in there?

Shake Hands With The Devil offers trite and ridiculous answers to all the wrong questions about Rwanda. If sensible liberals acquiesce, the suffering of the innocent victims of this genocide will be appropriated by flaky limousine liberals just so they can show off their humanity by wallowing in guilt at cocktail parties. And as much as I like to see annoying liberals suffer, the Rwandan dead deserve better.


At last: an achievement contemporary Italian cinema can be proud of! Not that the odd decent flick doesn't grace our screens these days; however, when compared to Cinecitta's hey-day between the late 40s and 70s, today's production is scant. The problem essentially is the dire lack of funding and scarce distribution. Most Italian films are either shown in hardly any movie theatres - if any at all - while American blockbusters clog the screens of Italian cinemas up and down the peninsula for months (cliched 1960s terminology such as "cultural imperialism" springs to mind!). It's a familiar story... Then a couple of years ago, Gabriele Muccino's meaningless movies started being hailed as the harbingers of a renaissance. That's when I started to despair for this country's ailing contemporary cultural heritage! Muccino's "L'ultimo bacio" (to be avoided like the plague!) and his latest, "Ricordati di me", are prime examples of Berlusconi-era cinema: pretty-to-look-at but pointless, riddled with stoopid cliches, pre-packed, pre-digested conclusions, conservative, moralistic and misogynistic undertones that pass for brave portrayals of modern Italy (yeah right), hollow cynicism and shallow "portraits" of middle-class malaise that are merely a smug, self-referential celebration of this milieu (Muccino's own). Fortunately, despite his popularity in recent years, an increasing number of intelligent Italians share my views. And by the look of the Roman movie theatres heaving with people when I went to see La meglio gioventu' last week, they also agree that Marco Tullio Giordana's last effort is worth the effort of sitting in a cinema for almost 6 hours! The movie is a mini-series (it will be shown by RAI television in autumn 2003). It was shown at this year's Cannes in the Un Certain Regard section. Now it's shown in two separate, 3-hour screenings in selected movie-theatres around Italy. This may sound like too much to bear even for the most passionate of cinema-goers. But I cannot stress enough how successful the experiment is and how effortless (and pleasant!) the experience. There are almost as many opportunites to develop plot and characters as in a novel, and one leaves the cinema with a feeling of having gotten to know and grown to love the characters over a period of time. The story begins in Rome in 1966 and ends in the present day. Watching it is a wonderful way of getting a feel for Italian history in the last 40 years, though without ever feeling like you're watching a dense, academic "historic" film. Though it encompasses many historic events and nods towards innumerable themes, it is first and foremost about people. An Italian family in Rome - the Carati family - a Roman father, Milanese mother, two brothers and two sisters - are the hub around which other characters rotate. The two Carati brothers, Nicola (played sympathetically by Luigi Lo Cascio, also seen in Giordana's previous film, "I cento passi") and Matteo (the dishy Alessio Boni), are in some ways the main characters. But the spotlight often shines for long spells onto other characters - namely the lovely "psychopath" Giorgia, Red Brigade terrorist Giulia, as well as Mirella, the feisty and beautiful Sicilian photographer (Matteo's almost-love interest!). Then there are innumerable other memorable portraits, all introducing a social theme (such as Nicola's factory-worker friend, made redundant during Fiat's crisis at the start of the 80s, or Matteo's colleague, the working-class policeman, who ends up on a wheelchair after a beating at a political demonstration in the 70s). However, this is never done heavy-handedly and all characters are first and foremost human beings who can be appreciated as individuals transcending their backgrounds or political leanings. What I appreciated most in this movie was the lack of stereotyping. In heavily-politicised Italy, this comes as a breath of fresh air. Thus before being a policeman, Matteo is convincingly portrayed as a cultured and fiercely intelligent man whose emotional repression and desperate need for rules are a tragic consequence of an ancient wound. And the Teutonic-looking Giulia, the terrorist, is multi-faceted and has a believable psychological background which explains (but neither justifies or condemns) her choices. This woman, who abandons her young daughter and loving partner to embrace a life of political extremism, is never portrayed as a villain (this is innovative, considering how harshly "bad" mothers and wives are normally represented in movies!). All actors, with the exception of the wooden and heavy-featured Valentina Carnelutti (she plays the Carati's youngest daughter, Francesca), are excellent. Humorous and deeply touching moments perfectly counterbalance one another in a setting that flits from Rome to Norway to Florence (during the 1966 flood) to Turin (during the student demonstrations of the late 60s and 70s), then to Milan, Sicily and the Tuscan countryside in the present day. Then Norway again, in a beautiful and poetic closing of the circle. Early on in the film, young mental patient Giorgia, whom Matteo is charged with taking for walks while he's still a student, introduces the theme of psychiatry and its evolution from the 60s to the present day. Franco Basaglia, the revolutionary psychiatrist whose humane and futuristic ideas ultimately shut down Italian asylums in 1979, is mentioned later on as Nicola's role-model but the movie is never preachy or self-righteous about this. Again, this complex theme is not imposed upon the viewer in a dry and academic manner, but is interwoven into a compelling and moving subplot which involves both brothers and brings about decisive changes in both their lives. Similarly, the traumatic Mafia killing of the Sicilian judge Giovanni Falcone (early 90s) is evoked as it deserves, but again, never crowds the plot. There is far more that could be said about La meglio gioventu'! But I will give no more away, just a warm recommendation to go and see this accomplished piece of movie-making. The fact it won a Cannes prize makes me more hopeful of its release abroad, especially in the UK, where Italian cinema is direly underrepresented (with the exception of movies that show Italy in a quaint or picturesque light).


Can art transform life? If so, I would elect "The Best of Youth" as a primary candidate for that possibility.

Almost never in my over 60 years of film viewing have I been as deeply affected, haunted by characterizations, poetic dialog and brilliantly unexpected turns...and breadth of scope. The nuances of relationship between people...in this case the Italian family Carati, their lovers, friends, wards...are so moving, so deeply portrayed and inhabited by the actors that I was not only moved to tears, but inspired. Here is a view of how human beings can live the humanity so desperately needed in this crazed and warring world...also presented as an integral part of plot and interaction...and this done without any sort of didactic or polemic foisting...All achieved through the intimate and profound struggles of the film's characters.

Imagination and the incredible sensibility of director (Marco Tullio Giordana),writers (Petraglia and Rulli) and actors (most outstanding: Luigi LoCacio, Alessio Boni, Adriana Asti and Jasmine Trinca) combine to offer a film that carried this participant (for that's what I felt) into a realm only experienced by exceptional literature.

As is obvious...I highly recommend seeing this movie.


Having just returned at 2 am from a festival showing of the movie that started at 5:30, I still can think of nothing but looking for anything and everything about this exceptional film that I came across more or less by accident. I can only sum up two points: it is an excellent yet easy-going overview of recent Italian history, and a truly moving, in an unbanal and unstereotypical, unpopcorny way, movie about the value of friendship, closeness, family. This film makes you want to live, to cherish the people you love and to be aware of the consequences of your acts. City living makes sour cynics out of teenage optimists (I'd count myself in until now), and this one is a lesson of keeping the best of yourself throughout life. A true inspiration! Bravo.


It's hard not to feel like an "easy" grader to give this film a 10, given that it is the very simple story of a family over 4 decades, no quirky writing or the eccentricities of "indie" films - just beautiful scenery, characters that move us and that we care about, and a sweet and believable story. The acting is excellent.

To say this is a miniseries is misleading and adds the impression of a "cheese" factor that is not present. There is a reason that this film has been taken from the small screen and released in theaters - I didn't even know it had been a miniseries until I read some of the comments here.

The story is simple but it is not trite; we may not have a huge number of surprises and no amazing plot twists and contortions but it is an emotional, moving, satisfying story.

The most moving part of the story is the love and connectedness between the characters, and how this is expressed - here in the U.S. physical display of platonic affection is virtually non-existent, unless you count athletes hitting each other on the rear. You can tell these characters really care for each other.

I sat for the second three hours today with people who sat through the first three hours with me yesterday. Some yesterday just got back in line for part 2. There was a line waiting to get in today - all people who had seen part 1 already.

Saying this movie is like Zelig as someone here did is false and insulting. We couldn't tell a story about a U.S. family that spans the 60's to the present without mentioning Viet Nam or Watergate or 9/11, so this story of course mentions events internal to Italy during that time. The historical events are a backdrop to the story, not the story itself.

The story is about this family, and we care about what happens to them. We become engaged, we sit and watch and laugh and cry with them. That's what movies are supposed to do.


I saw this movie a couple of weeks ago. Actually, you can't call it a movie because it's much more than that, it is a kind of mini-series. "La Meglio Gioventu" tells the story of two brothers: Matteo and Niccola. It starts when they are both about 18 years old; two young idealist who want to discover and change the world. What follows is partly Italian history, but mainly the personal history of the two brothers, growing up and finding their way through life.

This is one of the most beautiful, touching and human stories of the latest years. I enjoyed seeing this very much. Six hours may seem a long time but it isn't to tell a story of 50 years. It is wonderful to see both brothers growing up and changing.

The acting is excellent and the story is touching; the director has eye for detail and he manages the capture life in a very unique way. I can only advise everyone to see this. Outstanding! 9/10


I've just finished watching this gripping film. I was on the Gothenbeug Film festival, but I did not see it. The 6,5 hours were a daunting prospect. On Swedish telly the divided in into 4 parts which were shown 4 days in a row. It is one of those series where one is longing for the next episode, I found myself pondering about the film, the characters all day. So many things has been said already in other reviews which I don't have to repeat I just say watch this lowly very slowly unfolding slice of life and Italian history. If it doesn't move you you will have to have a heart of stone. Excellent acting, wonderful photos, lots of atmosphere.....


"Best of Youth (La Meglio gioventù)" proves that Italians have learned the art of the long-form television mini-series that the British have long mastered.

Covering a somewhat same period of the baby boom generation as "In A Land of Plenty," it has more of the generational feel of individuals caught up in history as we have usually seen in British mini-series about end-of-the-eras or World War I, such as "Brideshead Revisited" and "Jewel in the Crown." U.S. mini-series were more successful as sweeping historical epics, even when they were also family sagas like "Roots" and "Centennial;" when the networks tried to interpret more recent history, as in "The Sixties," the set characters sped through "Zelig" and "Forest Gump"-like in happening to be at the right place at the right time; perhaps the several seasons combined of the NBC series "American Dreams" could be considered comparable in showing how the times that are a-changing affect a family.

"Best of Youth" is being released in the U.S. in movie theaters, though I'm not sure even shown in two parts of three hours each how edited it is from the original format, as other grand European mini-series like "Berlin Alexanderplatz," "Das Boot" and "Fanny and Alexander" were originally only shown in the U.S. in truncated theatrical versions as even PBS seems averse to television with subtitles so we rarely get to see the best of world television. Comparison to the Italian film "The Leopard" is unfair as that was not created in the same format and covers a shorter period of historical time.

"Best of Youth" combines charismatic acting, leisurely directing amidst beautiful scenery in several parts of Italy with writing that takes the trajectories of complex yet consistent characters' lives believably and searingly affected by uniquely Italian experiences of the baby boomers' young adult years through middle age, without the American tendency to reject or regret youthful ambitions, through the lens of local natural disasters, violent political activities, judicial battles against the Cosa Nostra, European economic changes, with regional variations, that Americans rarely see in movies.

The focus is primarily on two brothers from the 1960's almost to the present, played by two actors who must be the equivalent of George Clooney and Richard Chamberlain in Italian television. Alessio Boni in particular as Matteo captures the screen with such tortured macho dynamism that it's no wonder he's gone on to play Heathcliff and Dracula in other mini-series. His Paul Newman-like startling blue eyes become a talking point of the series and a continuing visual leitmotif. Similarly, the physical differences between the two actors help to point up the different paths the brothers take through life, even as the casting of other family members to look like them is eerily effective.

The series is particularly good at capturing the camaraderie amongst old male friends over the years and the intimate interactions of members of a family, particularly with children, with a strong theme of the importance of both as an anchor.

Unlike in American TV where women are adjuncts as the girlfriend/wife/mother, the key women here are crucial fulcrums in the brothers' lives and have separate intellectual, psychological and emotional demands.

The emotions are important here -- grief is shown very movingly, with more pain and tears than American culture usually allows. In one extended scene, we see a grieving mother walk slowly up a long flight of stairs in numbed silence and gradually see her revive as she learns of surprise news about her son.

There are of course some coincidences of family members' and friends' paths crossing at key junctures, but the story overall grips us.

The pop music selections,American, European and Italian, are wonderfully evocative.


"La Meglio Gioventù" is an hymn to Italy and the Italian people! It is our history and belongs to our culture. The story takes place on a period of 37 years, from 1966 to 2003, highlighting some momentous events of our country, which moulded in a way our spirit: the flooding in Florence in 1966, the terrorist fight in the '70s, the World Championship of 1982 (which led to the victory of the Italian team), the killing of Judge Falcone in 1992, and so on.

The mixture of intelligent screenplay, wise direction and supreme performance of the whole cast of actors makes this work an authentic miracle of our cinema. Thanks to this masterpiece, Marco Tullio Giordana enters the Gotha of Masters of the "Made in Italy" production.

I greatly enjoyed each moment of the film, from the very beginning. It is such a pleasure to our spirit and heart: I am pleased to compare it to a chalice of ambrosia offered to the lips of gods! I think this metaphor can easily convey the effect the vision of the motion picture produced to me. But I do not want to mislead the other readers by giving the idea it is a comedy: the film is quite dramatic and sometimes you can perceive it as a documentary.

The combined effect of intelligence and sensitiveness to the story makes you feel good and proud to belong to the country able to offer such a pearl!


The gist of my too-long ramble below is there probably is, at least definitively within the film, no answer to the "Why?" of Matteo, and that Nicola as he ages increasingly embraces the status quo. Blame inevitable age, if you like, but it doesn't happen to their mother.

Way back, among some finished and unfinished novels that migrate to each computer I buy but that otherwise I no longer bring myself to look at, is one in which my Myshkin-like protagonist lies up a minor tragedy to cause his various acquaintances who have nothing to do with one another to show up at one place at the same time. The Russian Myshkin couldn't lie, of course, but mine did. Just to see, I guess: a sort of wish-fulfillment, curiosity that killed the cat or made the student's mind viable or kept the oldster's young and nimble. Lying is storytelling is lying. The act of writing allows, or allowed, me, playing god just like that character of mine, to introduce to one another versions of people I known but whose paths never crossed otherwise. A tragic, now late, slow guy from work somehow occupies my vacation-vacant condo and hits it off with my garrulous but uneducated father. That kind of thing. Or, as Myshkin, I grab one or another misplaced acquaintance, long gone well before my mountaineering days, and march her way above the timberline to some icy col only to play at not knowing the way back down while sweet panic and thunderheads well.

I don't want to get into most La Meglio gioventù's maybe merits, the pacing and rhythms gained by extraordinary length, the credible aging and acquisition of Time's wisdom, whether for growth or stagnation, in most the characters, the relatively quiet interpolation of passing history. But the sadly heavy-handed, grossly unnecessary insertion of Matteo's "ghost" into the closing scene between Nicola and Mirella made me realize what an orgy of wish-fulfillment the second half is. Suddenly, seemingly because Life or Time heals but maybe just so the filmmaker could resolve things for us, nearly everyone meets everyone. Even at six hours, a story's tick needs its tock. Whether or not director Giordana and his writers intended the nearly dead center division, Part One ticks, and then Part Two tocks.

If this is more than just a really, really good soap opera, then there have to be ambiguity, loose ends, disappointments that come more from life's constraints than from audiences' need for reassurance and resolution. Why, other than to create suspense, does Nicola deny Giorgia's need be involved in finding Mirella? He's suddenly so uncharacteristically lacking in empathy. If he's hurting over Matteo, then he's selfish. If he's just being professional, then we're denied his rationale. I can easily dream up justifications within Nicola's character, but, watching, I sensed a filmmaker struggling to twist an ending out of events that in reality must fractal along indefinitely. With possible exceptions of Nicola's mother and perhaps his too-young-yet, barely formed though marriageable, daughter, Mirella seems the sanest creature in the film, Fate's gift to this at least slightly askew family. Has Nicola even told her about Giorgia, and in what terms? Inevitably she will meet Giorgia (Tiny piece of a six-hour sequel?!), but the film denies us the experience.

Matteo's so ever-present, and all the more so as the film progresses, in no small part because of Giorgia's obsession, that that bit of magic realism offended me as a viewer. Don't plaster on the screen what's already there: don't double images. Besides, I'm not at all certain the living Matteo would have been so generous. The sequence suggests suicide's a path to peace of mind, a return to balance or to freedom from self (What?! Does Matteo reach Enlightenment? Aurrgh!), but no one can know this. Are the filmmakers saying that Matteo by self-abnegation, self-destruction, restored balance to his family? Probably not, but how cruel the suggestion! Even so Matteo's the glue here, the MacGuffin, a key of some sort. I've sat through enough director Q & As to suspect there may be no explanation. Ambiguity's a storyteller's tool. Ambiguity, red herrings, in stories not by genre mysteries cue ineptness from hacks, but deliberation from pros. Matteo's case abounds in red herrings. Despite the transvestite, I don't think he's gay (all I saw in the episode was self-loathing, and nowadays they would have simply told us so; the day he first flirts with Mirella, despite his holding back, he seems no less enthralled than Nicola will be later). Despite the cop stuff, the look, the gun, I don't think he's political (they could have involved him against Nicola's terrorist love but don't; Nicola though, by surviving so wholeheartedly within the status quo does come off political). Surely each of us, as I think the filmmakers intend, will find a different key to Matteo. Empson, writing about ambiguity, usually says not that one or another reading is "it," but that all are present and in play. Matteo's mystery allows the filmmakers' artifice to breathe. If I see any clue, it lies way back, the day or two with Giorgia, when she, if not he, knew him already a soul broken in some way that her experience had taught her to understand. Whatever was wrong with him likely was already wrong then. I don't know what it was, but banishing from the film's close the first and only character who "got it" seems to doom the whole family, if only in the sense of their not "getting it" about Matteo and Giorgia. It seriously undercuts that silly ghost-Matteo scene.

I know too little to speak but recall vaguely that there may be a genetic tendency to suicide: sort of a no-fault clause.

Luigi Lo Cascio as Nicola, incidentally, looks like both Jean-Pierre Léaud and Dustin Hoffman, but, even saying that, I can't see that those two ever behave quite alike.


I was reluctant to go to see this film, because of its length -6 hours! "Do I have to sacrifice a whole my day off for one film??" But I went anyway as I was so curious about the hypes from reviews around this unusual film.

And result is, there is nothing "Hype" about this, it live with its hype and more that the that. This film turned out to be a masterpiece, to be remembered forever in movie history and be ranked with films like "Godfather", "Seven Samurai" "What a wonderful life" Shawshank Redemption" etc.

What a magnificent film... where can I begin? The story? The story draw both destiny of troubled Italy and ordinary middle class Italian family, both Macro and micro story is combined seamless, you will experience and get thorough the turbulence time of Italy and the family from 1960s-2003.

All main actors are top class, acting so naturally from their early unresponsively 20s student times to bitter/sweet grey hair late mid age times without false note. Particualry Maya Sansa, I think the Star was born here (her another recent film, "Good morning, night" is another evidence). I haven't seen an actress with such a presence and ability in last few years. Needless to say about the lead roles, Luigi Lo Cascio and Alessio Boni, both shows such a true resonance of all the emotions. Also, its nice to know 70's Italian movie icon, Adriana Asti still keep that elegance.

The greatest thing is the directors sympathetic eye to all the characters. Most of characters are given real three dimension character in the course of 40 years time in this film, all of them have their own life and problems. each character come with such a detail & depth, you will feel like they are your real family at the end of the film.

The length of this films seems weakness of it, but actually strongest point lay in there. Because of the length, you are able to feel the passage of 30 years of time in the film, and you can feel characters so close, it grows in you during the film. Towards the end of the film, you may do not want to say good bye to them, don't want film to finish!

Like all the masterpiece I mentioned above, this film come with some memorable scene

(Warning - Spoiler)

Matteo jumps from window - its so abrupt but still make sense, its so realistic -his face are painful before and such a quiet pain he shows that night without any big speech. Nicola and Mirella walking in the forest and Matteo appears and touched them... I never cried that much in the cinema. Not like Hollywood film, this scene doesn't come with any sentimental big music or emotional speech (actually its speechless), its very subtle, still so strongly moving... Giulia met Sarah at church after she released, and Sarah asked Giulia to play church's organ...

(Spoiler end)

Actually, if you don't want show your friends/family your crying/sobbing face, you should avoid this film all the cost, its that moving, so powerful.

Conclusion - true gem, masterpiece. Best film I've even seen last 5 years. If you love movie, you can't miss this film. Your 6 hours will be more that rewarded. 12 out of 10.


Over the last two weeks I watched the six hours of the American release DVDs. Given some of the things that I had heard about this film, I was expecting much more. Alas, on key points I was less than overwhelmed. At least in the American six hour version there are several discontinuities and unexplained points that detract from the overall effect.

To cite one example: Initially both Giulia and Nicola support the student demonstrations. Yet as the story continues, Nicola focuses on his psychiatric career and their daughter, while Giulia abandons her music and turns away from them to go underground as a revolutionary. Why? Without offering an explanation, we are left wondering why her entire life took such a trajectory.

Is this an issue in the full length original or just in the six hour version?

Still, the movie was fairly nice. It was just not as powerful as I had hoped.


This movie is splendid. It tells the story of lives, basically. The ups and down of a family. It could be the story of my life, or it could be of yours.

The action takes place in Italy, and the movie goes side by side with its protagonists. In six hours, it tells the story of their lives. An involving, mesmerizing and "real" story. Not softened, it actually looks real.

The action is very well fitted into some of Italy most important events, and the characters have connection with it all, somehow. I admire the script, the labyrinthic action, which is not confusing at all, but is perfectly mixed together. The puzzle, once completed, is beautiful. Like someone said in the movie: "Everything is beautiful".

It has a great cinematography, but pretty discrete. Our eyes and attention are focused on the plot, and not on fantastic camera movements, or a "music video" type editing.

It's a sober, and excellent movie. One that sticked to my head, like no one did a "long" time ago.

And don't get fooled by it's length. You'll dive into the screen, and time just seems to fly. Really.

Don't miss it.


I watched this movie on television, totally unprepared and having heard nothing about it. It was 12 o'clock Wednesday night and I accidentally caught it in the first 5 minutes. It was one of those nights when I wanted to watch something light for half an hour and then go to bed. Before I knew it, it was 6 a.m. and I could not overcome what I had seen! I later searched for info and realized that the people involved in making the film are not your standard TV movie makers. The power of this film lies in its ability to touch important issues in a subtle way without didactic fireworks.The script is realistic yet with a poetic flair, the quality of photography is supreme and the actors ARE the Carati's. In spite of its long duration, I don't think the film should be categorized as an epic. An epic usually involves fanfares, passionate pretentious statements in the script and clear messages on right and wrong. This film is run by the quality of life itself, where people live their lives and make history by their own simple choices be they right or wrong. At times, the story seems a bit melodramatic but it is the quality of the script that allows you to accept it, as there are no intentional cheap tricks to move the viewer. A sense of humor is always there to balance things out and life goes on in its subtle power as people work, love and have children in the foreground of history.


Marco Tullio Giordana deserves praise for bringing this saga about two brothers in Italy that spans a few decades and paints a picture about the country. Mr. Giordana and the writers of this series made for television, Sandro Petraglia and Stefano Rulli, painted a rich canvas of modern Italy as events of the last forty years surface in this gripping tale of two brothers and the people whose lives they touched.

It's impossible to summarize the events we see in the film. After all, it's running time and all the things that happen are too numerous to mention. Suffice it to say, the story never loses the viewer's interest as proved when we recently watched the two part DVD. We had no idea what we were getting into, but almost by magic, Mr. Giordana and his collaborators took us to a wonderful trip.

Best of all are the great characterizations Mr. Giordana was able to get from the two leads: Luigi LoCoscio and Alessi Boni, who play Nicola and Matteo Carali. Some excellent ensemble playing was also achieved by the large cast in this series.

The inspired cinematography by Foberto Forza does wonders to enhance all we see. The score include music by Bach, Mozart and even Piazzolla. This is a triumph indeed for the director Mr. Giordana and all the people who contributed to make this a most unusual and poignant portrait of a people and a culture.


I just really love this movie. Someone once said, "After the first part, you're addicted. After the second, you feel like you know the characters as if they were your own friends. In the end it's like finishing the reading of your favorite book", and it's true. When I was watching the last part of it, I laughed when they laughed, I had tears in my eyes when they were crying. And for me, that means a lot. I know six hours is quite long, but this movie was worth every second of it.

At first, I didn't really think La Meglio Gioventù would be an interesting movie, but having nothing better to do, I watched it. After like, half an hour, I didn't want to stop watching any more, because the movie started turning out to be quite nice. I'd love to see it again. It is realistic, it looks like it could really have happened, and the characters somehow feel very familiar to me, like I really know them. And well, I wonder why nobody I know has seen it. They really should.


It's 1AM on a weekday, and more than a year after watching this movie for the third time, I'm still haunted by it, like an overwhelming memory that won't fade. I think I know what it is: it is all the profound humanity that this film projects, in its pure, real, obtainable form, through its different stories, its passions, its formidable characters - especially the one of Nicola, whom it is so easy to love and identify with.

Such a film is a bowl of fresh air, especially for all of us idealists who start to believe the world has turned into a giant cynical machine. The success of this movie is a proof that we haven't forgotten our emotions yet.

Out of all the films that I've watched (and I'm a big cinephile), this one stands out as the one that affected me the most, in terms of emotional value. Out of nowhere I'll just start thinking about it and start crying and laughing and celebrating human life. Sounds corny, I know... I'll probably never get over it, just as I'll never get over the Rach 3 or Neruda's poetry or a Patagonian morning.

It's 1.10AM on a weekday, I can't resist a 4th screening...


I waste a lot of time reviewing cute but rubbishy science fiction and horror films on this site. I'm a bit out of practice with watching, and critiquing, actual drama! But of course, I still realize that the key to great drama is the characters - and they make this epic Italian miniseries-turned-movie work, and work beautifully at that.

"The Best of Youth" focuses on various members of the Carati family and their friends, advancing from the 1960s to the near-present as it chronicles their lives in the context of social turmoil in Italy as a whole. For the most part, the story never drags, and every single character is compelling and sympathetic.

Many of the character have flaws, but they're not bad people - just complex. Many tragic things happen, but the film never wallows in misery, except on one wholly justified occasion. Moral conflicts are explored not in black-and-white, but in shades of grey. In other words, "The Best of Youth" is rich with the kind of warmth, complexity and subtle nuances that you tend to miss in most American dramas - even the ones that win Oscars.

I won't spoil the plot, really - I'll just say that both of the main characters, brothers Matteo and Nicola Carati, are charismatic and cool and well worth six hours of screen time. They're also very different, which keeps things interesting.

Are there any significant flaws here? Nah, not really. My interest waned a bit during some segments, particularly the historical ones that aren't explained that well. There's also a bit of cheesy makeup and blue screen, but that can be excused because this is really a TV production, as I understand it, not a big movie. Besides, I sort of love production flaws. They're fun, aren't they?

On a totally pointless note, I'd like to mention a strange plus of "The Best of Youth" - much of the cast is totally gorgeous. Guys and gals alike have reason to rejoice here...

One final random thought. While I'm glad that "The Best of Youth" was distributed and well-received in the U.S., I'm annoyed that it was publicized as being "like the Godfather" or "like the works of Scorcese." It's nothing like the Godfather, it's nothing like Scorcese. The marketers seemed to have believed, unfortunately, that U.S. audiences are only interested in Italian criminals, not normal Italian people. This sort of irritates me. (Note my surname and you'll figure out why!) But such concerns have nothing to do with the actual movie, which is pretty much flawless.


This film would have to rank as one of my top ten movies of all time along with Casablanca, Day For Night, O Brother, Where Art Thou? and the Godfather. True to life; unpredictable; filled with metaphor; acted beautifully; filmed with splendor; spellbinding; are just a few of its positives.

Six hours is a long time for any movie. Reluctant to go to such a huge commitment of time, a friend convinced me to sneak into the last hour of the second half. I was hooked. I attended the first three hours the next night and the final three hours the following evening. I then bought the DVD, which is something I rarely do.

The characters are real. They act the way we all do: with imperfection, hesitation, regret and courage. Kismet and chance are as important as direction and drive. Life is full of surprises but our path, our mistaken goals, and our view of life propel us like invisible currents in the sea of life. Power, attention, revenge and avoidance of failure, are addressed as a mosaic of human personality and potential. Success or failure is not presented as some "feel good" Hollywood formula, but as a confrontation with good and evil. Life is complicated. There are no easy answers; only painful journeys that once ventured can transcend the pain. But there are no guarantees.

Thank you Dan, for sneaking me into the Oak Street Cinema. It has enriched my life.


'This movie will take you more than six hours, but it's worth every second it costs you to watch. The director originally made if for Italian television, that's the main reason 'La meglio gioventu' has this length. But the story is breathtaking, you will understand very well why the Italian history after World War 2 is so fascinating, with aspect of the actions of the Red Brigade (Brigate Rosse), the fight for human justice (in asylums and hospitals for the mentally diseased). The performance of the actors, all Italians of course, show you how high the level on this front is. And of course, i'm a big fan of Italian cinema, but 'La meglio gioventu' is better than anything I saw before. It reminded me a lot of 'Heimat' (by Edgar Reitz) and 'Berlin Alexanderplatz'(Fassbinder). Thank You Italy. And one thing more: If you've seen it once, by the DVD, you'll look again and find new things worth remembering.


The Best of Youth is a wonderfully scripted, acted, and visually stunning film that will sweep you off your feet and into the lives of an Italian family as they go through the trials and tribulations of life. The film's main focus is on two brothers, Nicola and Matteo Catiti whose personalities are as different as night and day yet is also immediately apparent that these two love each other very much. Nicola is the younger, free spirited and philosophical brother while Matteo is more outspoken, with a hot temper and closed personality.

What I admired most throughout this film was the use and passage of time. Events in Italian history are not crammed into 120 minutes but is instead elongated, as Matteo and Nicola react in their own ways to the events that occur in their country. Time is such an important factor in this film, evidents not only by the six hour running time, but how those six hours are treated. Special occasions occur, yet none are given any special attention. The events that occur are important for that moment in time, yet one pass become mere memories such is the case of life.

With the passage of time, The Best Of Youth became such a moving experience for me. I felt as if I were a part of their family. I could not touch them, or talk to them, yet they seemed to welcome me with open arms as I silently watched their lives unfold before me. I could feel the love this family had for each other as I laughed and cried right beside them. Words just do not seem to be enough to describe the brilliance of this film. It is literally life transferred on screen.

The Best of Youth is remarkably acted and directed. At no time during this film was I bored, because such attention is made to character development, script, and cinematography. In the first part of the film, Nicola is exploring Norway, and sends a postcard to his brother back home telling him of his travels and experiences, and in three words, seems to sum up the film perfectly: "Life is beautiful." After viewing this film, you will share the same perspective.

HIGHLY Recommended


This is not only a story, this is a practically perfect mix of history and story, of private and public, of feelings,love,life. I believe in everybody who loves CINEMA there is a dream, to make a movie in which the story run like the life, in which we could feel like when, children in our bed, waiting to be catch by the sleep, we listen the tales from our parents and everything seems more real than reality. This movie is the evidence that sometimes the life could be translate in an universal language, where everybody could feel a part of himself on the screen. LA MEGLIO GIOVENTU' is the story of a family, four young brothers, along the last forty years in Italy (but it could be everywhere). There are a psychiatrist, a policeman, a lawyer and an housewife, but there are also their relatives, friends, in poor words there is the LIFE. I would suggest to see this long tale, you will feel better.


I am not of Italian descent however, I have lived and loved and experienced Italy with an Italian heart and soul. I besides having studies film, worked in film production for many years and have a masters in psychotherapy (MSW), I would say this film was brilliant. Sure, it has it's holes. However, Italy has not produced a better piece of film work since....the 1980's. it is very difficult to create a mini series which engages and tells the nuance of the big picture in such a poetic way. Yes, the family seemed to have been hit hard with all the drama of the times, but, there were things this family did NOT experience where others did and that was good. it showed the integrity of the filmmakers to maintain true character continuity and development was consistent.

The sequences of events made lots of sense and the Giorgia Character was perfect!! She was even some sort of catalyst for the brothers.

I think all the characters were important components in telling this very rich story.

I also appreciated how subtle things were told. with passion but not melodramatic. Important issues were brought up, but like life, not always spelled out so clearly. A lot is left to figure out..especially whether Matteo is a latent homosexual or simply repressed emotionally causing sexuality confusion. he could only express anger and this was the sign few could see could lead to his demise.

it was a great film.

Capo lavoro amici! grazie per sei ore bellissimi!


'La meglio gioventù' is a long movie written for TV, but also shown at the cinemas and which won the price at Cannes contest 'un certain regard'. It is about the life of the Carati family, of people gravitating around them and meanwhile the life of Italy from the 1960s to the 2000s.

I think 'la meglio gioventù' is a very moving movie: Marco Tullio Giordana succeeds in describing minds and psychology not only of the two main characters, Nicola and Matteo Carati, but also of other people living their life around them: Giulia, Nicola's wife who takes part in Brigate Rosse actions, Adriana, Matteo and Nicola's mother, their father... Every one has his complexity, his human motivations and attitudes, his personal story which is always also involved with the general environment.

The issue is, from my point of view, a very poetical picture, something that you feel being yours as well.


I've had the biggest trouble rating this movie,

First of all the characters depicted in this movie are superb, complex, deep, sad, brilliantly acted, etc. I've never seen a movie that has so many complex characters. Lots of praise.

Second, the pictures are most of the time very, very beautiful, everything has been thought of, in the smallest detail. Lots of praise for this as well.

You'd say, why don't you give this movie 10 out of 10 then? because of the plot. The plot is good, though, I believe they could've done a better job, some plot points aren't as good as they could be, and some parts of the plot have been overreacted, especially the sad parts, some other (better parts) of the plot flash by, which is a pity.

This is the reason I had such a hard time voting, plot is way worse than the acting, the characters, the pictures, the soundtrack, etc. characters: 10/10 acting: 10/10 plot: 7/10 result: 8/10

I would recommend this movie to anyone, and in particular people who love drama, just a story of a person. Or to people that like great soundtracks, or to people that like beautiful pictures in movies, etc. etc.

Funny part: At the end of the movie, the mother (Giuglia) looks younger than the daughter, well, she has got gray hair, but that's about it, no wrinkles, nothing. It's hard to make people age 40 years in one movie, I know, so, director, you have my respect for Adriana, because she really ages perfectly, although when you look carefully, you do see she's only in her 30s instead of her 70s... :)


This work is epic, but I wouldn't call it sweeping. It's very ethnocentric to Italy, and it's a tragically presented and works very much as a type of document of life. It follows two brothers, who both take different paths, following the progression of Italy through the later half of the 20th centuary. You feel the passage of time as well as a type of detached character development, but I wouldn't say that we really get inside the character's heads. We meet a lot of great supporting characters, but the film is mainly jumping around from key points in people's lives. It's all very good stuff.

But the biggest complaints to voice would be the lack of general thematic focus, and the fact that the majority of the better material in the story is told in the first half and the second, while still good, really doesn't work as compelling stuff. It's still good, but you feel like the better years have passed.

This isn't the grand story of life, but it is the story of some people in Italy, and it's not the definitive story but it's definitely worth your time, if you be interested in the subject matter.


This movie really touched me. I can even say that it is the best movie I have ever seen. On the beginning you have a man with great enthusiasm, then he gets more serious because of his job and his middle ages, an then later... There are many unforgettable scenes. There is history, love, romance, adventure, psychology, drama, fun and everything. The scenario and the acting is perfect, especially Giulia (Sonia Bergamasco) and Nicola (Luigi Lo Cascio). I was sad when the movie ended, I could watch 6 more hours. Maybe this is a personal effect because of the wonderful scenario. Anyway you can witness a complete life story from the beginning till the end. The director was very careful and attentive, I haven't seen anything wrong. Thanks to everybody worked on that movie.


Although it originally premiered as a miniseries on Italian television, "The Best of Youth" arrived in America in the form of a not particularly viewer-friendly, six-hour-plus, all-at-one-sitting theatrical release. As one who loves movies but who can still acknowledge his limitations when it comes to sitting still for ungodly lengths of times, I really must take my hat off to all those hardy souls who rose to the challenge and went to see this film at their local bijous. I'm not sure which I admire more: their physical and mental stamina or their phenomenal bladder control. (For a bit of perspective, the film runs almost twice as long as "Doctor Zhivago" and a good two hours longer than "Cleopatra," the lengthiest American film of all time). Luckily, for the cinematic wimps among us, "The Best of Youth" has arrived in a format - namely, a two-disc DVD set - that is far more reasonable and sensible given the episodic nature of the material and our own limited attention spans.

Reaching across no fewer than five turbulent decades - from the mid-1960's to the present day - the film focuses on two Italian brothers who are very different by nature but whose paths continually cross and overlap throughout the years. The younger and less "promising" of the two, Nicola starts off as something of a dewy-eyed idealist, determined to right the social wrongs he sees in the society around him. To this end, he becomes a doctor dedicated to reforming the abusive mental health system in Italy at that time. However, as he ages, he begins to see the dangers of unbridled radicalism and becomes gradually more pragmatic and accepting in his outlook on life. His older brother, Matteo, despite his tremendous early promise in medical school, is a fiery-tempered loner who turns to police work as a profession, a move Nicola looks upon with bewilderment and disdain, seeing it as a betrayal of the free-spirited idealism Matteo espoused as a youth. One of the better choices on the part of the writers, Sandro Petraglia and Stefano Rulli, is keeping Matteo a largely enigmatic figure throughout the course of the story. They never spell out exactly why Matteo is the way he is or what it is in his background that has led him to the choices he makes. The reason why this is so effective is because we are as perplexed by his seemingly irrational behavior as are the loved ones who so often become the unwitting victims of it. In addition to the two brothers, the authors and the director Marco Tullio Giordana fill their canvas with any number of rich and fascinating secondary characters, some of whom play major roles in the lives of Matteo and Nicola and some of whom play only minor ones. Yet all are finely drawn and expertly enacted by a flawless cast.

Although it doesn't quite achieve the emotional resonance, thematic depth, and ingenious creativity of a true miniseries masterpiece like "Six Feet Under" (though, at times, it comes close), "The Best of Youth" still offers much to hold the viewer's attention throughout its exhaustive (though never exhausting) length. The film moves quickly, and it rarely goes for the obvious in its storytelling. Indeed, it offers many unexpected plot turns and narrative surprises that keep the film from falling into a formulaic trap and that keep us wondering where it is all ultimately heading to. In fact, the filmmakers often seem to be leading us in a particular direction with a particular character, only to throw up a detour and have us go in an entirely different direction entirely. One of the few weaknesses of the film is that, while it touches on such subjects as civil unrest, governmental and corporate corruption, and underground terrorism, the script doesn't provide enough of an historical context (i.e. specific names and movements) to make it very informative for those of us who might like to know a few more of the details of recent Italian history. But where it really counts - as a human drama filled with complex and fully realized individuals who make a mark on our hearts - the film delivers the goods and then some.

Of course, one of the advantages that a work of this length has over the usual two or two-and-a-half-hour drama is that it can far more effectively convey the passing of time and the handing of the torch from one generation to another. It also allows us to grow and change right along with the characters. The final scenes of "The Best of Youth" are tremendously moving and exhilarating simply because we feel as if we have truly come to know these people as individuals and will miss them when they're gone. The penultimate scene showing the need for the living to move on with their lives hearkens back to that lovely and unforgettable final moment in "Places in the Heart." Naturally, special note must be taken of Luigi Lo Cascio and Alessio Boni who, as Nicola and Matteo, beautifully convey the subtle changes their characters go through as the years pass by.

And, of course, all of this plays out against the backdrop of the rich Italian landscape, filled with ancient Roman ruins, Medieval art and architecture, and glorious vistas of the sparkling Mediterranean Sea. As a travelogue alone, the film is worth seeing.

Yes, "The Best of Youth" is long and time-consuming, but, as a viewer-friendly DVD, the length should no longer be an obstacle to one's enjoyment of the film. Check it out and immerse yourself in the very special pleasures it has to offer. You won't soon forget it.


By far, the best movie I have seen ever! Epic, original, spell-binding, deep, emotionally-nuanced, artsy, and simply human. The main characters evoke empathy from the very start. I guarantee there will be at least a single character you will be able to deeply relate to. If you are wondering whether to see this movie, don't! Go and see it now, you won't regret it. It is well worth the 6 hours you will spend watching!!!

Beautiful footage shot in different parts of Europe superbly compements the time period over which the story takes place (40 years). It's great to see Italian movies finally make a come back in this big way.


I have seen many movies last year and this is the one that is close to my heart. I found the characters to be realistic. This is not a Hollywood high octane movie, rather a wonderful story composed of characters you can relate. In addition to a poignant a well-written script, the scenery is simply beautiful and breath-taking. The actors are magnificent and you immediately get drawn to the story. Each chapter of the Carati family is interesting, without being overwhelming. The pace of the movie allows the viewer to take in every aspect of what each and everyone of them is going through. Personally, I find this to be a must-see movie. It is refreshing to see an Italian movie that is not centered around the mob. The only drawback is that certain scenes were predictable. Aside from that, it is a genuine portrait of human life that can appeal to non-Italians, such as me.


I've always been in love with Italy. In my opinion it may be the prettiest European country I know (I'm European myself and I've seen most of the other countries, so I know what I'm talking about). I like its buildings, its landscapes, its history, its people and its culture. So when being able to see an Italian movie, or should I call it a mini-series, that deals with all these aspects of Italian life, I knew I had to watch it.

I could keep this review very short really, because all I want to say is: watch it for yourself! I'll do my best to describe it, but in my opinion there isn't a better way to understand how good this actually is, as by sitting through the more than 6 hours and enjoying every minute of it. From the fifties on until today, we follow everything that happens in Italy: communism, anarchy, the Maffia, natural disasters, an economic boom, but also banal things like for instance soccer (in fact everything that has any importance in the history of Italy and the minds of the Italians) is shown in this movie. You'll see everything evolve through the decades and follow it all through the eyes of the Carati's, a family that isn't spared of any fortune or bad luck...

This movie may seem incredibly long to most of you and I'm sure that many people will never watch it, just because of the length. But those people are really wrong. If you take the time to watch it, than you'll not only get to see something of Italy's history, but you'll also get to know the cities, the landscapes, the people. Everything that makes Italy what it is today.

Perhaps it is because I'm so interested in Italy and everything that ever happened there, perhaps it is because I'm a great admirer of the European cinema. I don't know, but what I do know is that I loved this movie and that I recommend it to everybody who wants to hear it. I give it a 9/10. This is an excellent drama that shouldn't be missed by any.


This movie is horrible, awful, ridiculous, and stupid. I advise everyone to watch it immediately. It has anti-climactic kung-fu slow motion sequences, outraged Jewish circus performers, and evil monkey/human nazi experiments. Watch this and I promise you will be dumber after having seen it. You will probably drop out of college or high school once you behold the magic that is Angel Of Death (aka Commando Mengele). Oh yeah, it was written by Jess Franco and directed by Andre Bianci (Burial Ground: Nights Of Terror).