The Stone Merchant -A romance thriller with political implications.Ambitous Italian film that wants to show the menace of the religious extremists -but ends up being a lame romance between Jane March and Harvey Keitel.Keitel seduces March I guess to utilize her vehicle as a car bomb- I am still not certain why she was needed to execute their plot-except to have topless footage of her or something.F.Murray Abraham plays an extremist who seems to be running a terrorist cell in Europe.Jori Molla is March's cuckold hubby who is a qaudraplegic cuz of a terrorist attack.Molla is obsessed with the terrorists and at one point shows footage of stoning and a hand being cut off.The movie wants to be an important statement about the problems of religious extremism-but is ruined by a lame romance and plot holes. C-
28 Reviews
Pretty bad
martinmaguire2 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I'd love to agree with those who liked this film, cos I've a soft spot for the director's previous films, which, taking their inspiration from controversial realities, spun plausible conspiracy-theory thrillers (Piazza delle 5 Lune) or fairly accurate reconstructions (Vajont), but Il Mercante delle Pietre, despite a decent cast and the director's always enjoyable zooming and whooshing camera-work and clever use of sound, is a big let-down. The plot has got holes you could drive a bus through, the Islam-bashing, which may or may not be justified (see other people's comments re this), is reheated and tiresome Fallaci-lite, and the unfolding drama clunks and creaks when it needs to whisk the viewer along smoothly. Add to all this the worst CGI this side of Titanic and there's plenty of reasons not to bother with this, which really is a pity cos once or twice it all comes together in the film, but just when you think it's going to really take off, it all falls to bits again.
Pretty Dumb
wolfgang_g1 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The story in the movie is kind of lame, and despite having two good actors, one of which who won best supporting actor for Amadeus, the movie is poorly acted to the point of having stilted dialog and a soap-opera feel to it. Scenes with dubbing are also terrible, why not just have those scenes either in the film's native Italian or just leave the Italian accented English voice track alone. This movie does kind of go overboard hinting that all Islam breeds terrorism when, in fact, the vast majority of terrorists are of the Wahabist sect (a misinterpretation of Islam based upon the Haditha). And who ever heard of not being able to photograph Muslims or Dervishes...that's ridiculous. Watch this movie if you absolutely must, but I had to stop it after 40 mins cause it was so bad. The transfer is grainy and blurry and some of the camera work is suspect.
keep away
bebho11 October 2006
One of awful film I've ever seen ! The plot miss for any logic, the scenes that insist so much on the protagonist's mutilation are disturbing because it is done only to move mercy and compassion to the spectator. The dialogs are so obvious to become disturbing. The theory behind the film is debatable and a bit racist. Moreover the scene where 2 terrorists chase the protagonist running with the hands is involuntarily funny. I was tempted to leave the cinema before it ends. I can save just Harvey Keithel (I don't understand how such a good actor is in this kind of film ! ) and some soundtrack. So just a warm suggestion: please keep away from this film !
Big budget, horrible film
pacolgan27 October 2006
Many complain that Italian cinema isn't doing well because it lacks the budget, this is an example of a mess of a movie done with a lot of money. Renzo Martinelli has shot decent films in the past, but this is a big letdown, except for a few high points. The beginning, for instance is very powerful and Harvey Keitel is always quite effective.
The movie has been harshly debated for its controversial, conservative point of view on terrorism. But the screenplay is so bad that its stances cannot really be taken seriously. To make a political statement there are more subtle ways than make a character hold a university lesson (in front of very few students. a metaphor?). Also director Renzo Martinelli here shows he hasn't got (yet?) the hand for action scenes. Few and quite bad, here.
The movie has been harshly debated for its controversial, conservative point of view on terrorism. But the screenplay is so bad that its stances cannot really be taken seriously. To make a political statement there are more subtle ways than make a character hold a university lesson (in front of very few students. a metaphor?). Also director Renzo Martinelli here shows he hasn't got (yet?) the hand for action scenes. Few and quite bad, here.
I could not abide this poor effort at film making.
bill-169423 February 2008
This one lost me early on at the airport. The editing misplaced the sequence. The security forces had the drop on the bad guys when all of a sudden these two not only get their guns out but manage to shoot several good guys. Impossible to believe. Then again a shoddy sequence (does this group of hapless film makers not expect their audiences to notice what's on the screen?) The last bad guy is shot through the head. A bit of blood is seen on the shoulder of Lydia, that is until the next scene when she sports blood all over her head and blouse. Where'd it come from? Duh! I left the room as the director tried to make me think Lydia would give the stone merchant the time of day. Maybe opposites attract, but I couldn't buy into that idea in this movie.
A total waste of time unless a film student needs watch one about how not to do it.
A total waste of time unless a film student needs watch one about how not to do it.
Pathetic
oj_co25 January 2007
I'm a fairly passive critic of movies usually, but I would have guilt-ridden nights if I didn't do my part in exposing the crassness of this particular film.
The opening scene, though not particularly original, looks somewhat promising -but it all comes crashing down from there. The B (or C) rate acting is exposed from the first word uttered and the cinematography is rushed and confused. But that's a "relatively" minor fault. The plot is so savagely simplistic, churning out such skewed analyses as 'But not all Muslims are terrorists -Yes, but most terrorists are Muslims' to deliver it's never-trust-a-Muslim message, you wonder how it made it through even the most bigoted film censors. I am ashamed to say that I watched until the end, with the faint hope that maybe this was actually going to turn into one big joke aimed at exposing a narrow-minded western understanding of Islam. But alas, the film stays its course until its dismal, racist end.
Its one redeeming factor is that it is so plain bad, that it serves as an own-goal to those half-wit neo-cons.
Harvey! What were you thinking when you read the script?! What a hopeless waste of money.
The opening scene, though not particularly original, looks somewhat promising -but it all comes crashing down from there. The B (or C) rate acting is exposed from the first word uttered and the cinematography is rushed and confused. But that's a "relatively" minor fault. The plot is so savagely simplistic, churning out such skewed analyses as 'But not all Muslims are terrorists -Yes, but most terrorists are Muslims' to deliver it's never-trust-a-Muslim message, you wonder how it made it through even the most bigoted film censors. I am ashamed to say that I watched until the end, with the faint hope that maybe this was actually going to turn into one big joke aimed at exposing a narrow-minded western understanding of Islam. But alas, the film stays its course until its dismal, racist end.
Its one redeeming factor is that it is so plain bad, that it serves as an own-goal to those half-wit neo-cons.
Harvey! What were you thinking when you read the script?! What a hopeless waste of money.
A politically misguided file
paul-ogrady9 July 2007
I have never rated a movie before on a site like this, but was moved to do so because the film is so bad. You will see from the comments on here that some people rate this film highly (which is a surprise to me) while others rate it very low. In other words it is polarising. This is because of its political content about terrorism committed by Islamic fundamentalists. I am not someone who would minimise the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalists and a good film on the subject can be made. But this is not it. The dialogue is wooden and obvious. The acting from most actors, particularly the lead male is full of false-pathos and some of the scenes are at turn painfully obvious or laughably implausible - the worst by far is the scene with the maimed 'hero' trying to evade his hit-man killers with a rescue scene where he is saved approximately 2 minutes after making a call to his rescuer (was he waiting outside in the car?). However the two worst things about the film are the cinematography (the ferry scene is reminiscent of 'Thunderbirds') and inaccurate stereotypes about Islam. This is a scaremongering film of the worst ilk and worse still misunderstands its main subject matter. Best to avoid.
PC Leftists do NOT like the truth
euphrosyne-665-36743021 April 2013
This movie is obviously fiction. Unfortunately the background is not. A war has been waged against the west for nearly 1500 years and in this time 50% of the worlds Christians have been forcibly converted to Islam: the religion of "peace" which kills apostates, kills anyone who tells the truth about Islam and is the most violent, ideology of deceit, lust and greed eclipsing even Communism and National Socialism in its body count.
The comments made here by the leftists with their agenda, the ignorant and the simply biased are an index of the truth in the background of this movie as their writers can be likened to "flat earthers" who deny the blatant truth.
Islam has only been in decline since 1830 in reality when the Barbary Pirates were crushed and all of the Barbary states who like all Islamic states without oil, lived as parasites on the west, collapsed within 50 years with no more loot and slaves. The battle for Vienna marked the high tide mark for Islam. 1830 was its coup de grace.
Now with Saudi oil money and gutless western politicians it is back upon its aggressive march. This is the truth although the flat earthers will deny it. If you understand this, the movie is an above average thriller although the plot really is secondary to the background as the movie really is about the truth with regards to Islam and an attempt to wake up the morons of this world, who being flat Earthers will give it 1/10 as they dislike the truth. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the truth will mark it 5-7. Keitel is uncomfortable with his role but is a consummate professional and is backed well by the rest of the cast.
The comments made here by the leftists with their agenda, the ignorant and the simply biased are an index of the truth in the background of this movie as their writers can be likened to "flat earthers" who deny the blatant truth.
Islam has only been in decline since 1830 in reality when the Barbary Pirates were crushed and all of the Barbary states who like all Islamic states without oil, lived as parasites on the west, collapsed within 50 years with no more loot and slaves. The battle for Vienna marked the high tide mark for Islam. 1830 was its coup de grace.
Now with Saudi oil money and gutless western politicians it is back upon its aggressive march. This is the truth although the flat earthers will deny it. If you understand this, the movie is an above average thriller although the plot really is secondary to the background as the movie really is about the truth with regards to Islam and an attempt to wake up the morons of this world, who being flat Earthers will give it 1/10 as they dislike the truth. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the truth will mark it 5-7. Keitel is uncomfortable with his role but is a consummate professional and is backed well by the rest of the cast.
An awful movie in every sense
salicornia26 July 2007
Even amateurs produce better movies these days. The dubbing of the characters is so awful it reminds you of the sleazy Italian movies of the 70s and 80s where content had no place in the movie, and sex scenes were everything. This is repeated in this movie, and makes it devoid of any artistic merit. The characters' motives are masked at best, and there are too many uncomfortable 'coincidences'.
The acting is bad beyond belief. And the subject is not researched at all. A 13 year old history student can teach a lot more than our 'professor' in the movie. There is no knowledge of the way Islam spread. The professor equates Ottoman Empire with the Moors and the previous Caliphates, where in many cases these were antagonistic entities. And the professor forgets to mention that the wars between Muslims and Christians started with the crusades where the Vatican tried to 'repossess' the 'Holy land'; an extension of the wars fought by the Roman Empire. The movie also fails to state that the Inquisition and the church terrorized people for centuries, and it was only by repeated defeats of the Crusaders at the hands of Muslim army that the break in Vatican rule materialized, and the flow of scientific, philosophical and artistic material from Muslim countries into the Church dominated lands began leading to 'Renaissance' and the Age of Enlightenment.
F. Murray Abraham is over the top as usual anyway, but the only regret is having Harvey Keitel staining his image in this manner. My take on this movie: pure garbage.
The acting is bad beyond belief. And the subject is not researched at all. A 13 year old history student can teach a lot more than our 'professor' in the movie. There is no knowledge of the way Islam spread. The professor equates Ottoman Empire with the Moors and the previous Caliphates, where in many cases these were antagonistic entities. And the professor forgets to mention that the wars between Muslims and Christians started with the crusades where the Vatican tried to 'repossess' the 'Holy land'; an extension of the wars fought by the Roman Empire. The movie also fails to state that the Inquisition and the church terrorized people for centuries, and it was only by repeated defeats of the Crusaders at the hands of Muslim army that the break in Vatican rule materialized, and the flow of scientific, philosophical and artistic material from Muslim countries into the Church dominated lands began leading to 'Renaissance' and the Age of Enlightenment.
F. Murray Abraham is over the top as usual anyway, but the only regret is having Harvey Keitel staining his image in this manner. My take on this movie: pure garbage.
A solid thriller
sronan200226 June 2011
Don't let the politically-correct crybabies discourage you from watching, or buying this movie. It is a good contemporary thriller and deserves to been seen.
The acting level is generally high, but what would you expect from F. Murray Abraham and Harvey Keitel, who are convincing in their challenging roles. The drama, however, turns on the tour de force performance of Jane March. How many actresses can maintain audience empathy while stepping out on a crippled husband? And how many of those are breathtakingly beautiful?
This is an exotic thriller with strong performances. Give it a try.
To the DVD producers: Please add subtitles.
The acting level is generally high, but what would you expect from F. Murray Abraham and Harvey Keitel, who are convincing in their challenging roles. The drama, however, turns on the tour de force performance of Jane March. How many actresses can maintain audience empathy while stepping out on a crippled husband? And how many of those are breathtakingly beautiful?
This is an exotic thriller with strong performances. Give it a try.
To the DVD producers: Please add subtitles.
Utter garbage
rfrost-414 April 2007
Harvey Keitel once had standards of politics and cinematic quality, but no more. His acting here is the least clumsy among a troupe that'd ruin the reputation of b-grade itself.
And the screenplay? Did a Dick Cheney staffer write it? There's no story here, just a clumsy extreme-right fable intended to elicit fear and hatred.
A 1950s Cold War comic book must have been the model. Cartoon monsters.
Just plain stupid. All involved should be ashamed.
It is conceivable that a decent political thriller with this sort of subject matter, yet it would take far more intelligence than what's on offer here.
Maybe if someone with the slightest respect for women had written it the female lead would have been oxymoronically an executive with the inteillgence of an idiot and the emotional maturity of a 12-year-old.
So, the message here is hate, for Muslims, for women, and for those of us in the West unwilling to embark on another Crusade.
Again, shame on all involved.
And the screenplay? Did a Dick Cheney staffer write it? There's no story here, just a clumsy extreme-right fable intended to elicit fear and hatred.
A 1950s Cold War comic book must have been the model. Cartoon monsters.
Just plain stupid. All involved should be ashamed.
It is conceivable that a decent political thriller with this sort of subject matter, yet it would take far more intelligence than what's on offer here.
Maybe if someone with the slightest respect for women had written it the female lead would have been oxymoronically an executive with the inteillgence of an idiot and the emotional maturity of a 12-year-old.
So, the message here is hate, for Muslims, for women, and for those of us in the West unwilling to embark on another Crusade.
Again, shame on all involved.
Tedious
hayes-2914 January 2007
This is a forty minute TV plot (plus commercial breaks to fill the hour slot) spread out so thinly it's wearisome. No need for spoilers in any comment, anyone of us could have written this tripe in our sleep. The clichés, the stilted dialogue (sounds better in the dubbed Italian version perhaps but then Italian dubbing actors are good - one even made Larry Hagman sound convincing long ago!)and the Colosseum as a backdrop when we know where the action is taking place! Corny. Keitel of course rises above it and F. Murray Abrahams has his usual "stage presence" but the lines don't stand up. Mollà is sometimes out of sync. and I think he may have muffed the reading on set and had to dub it back in.
Dumb movie - I'm going to spoil the ending!!!
jayyarm28 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
OK, I've never done this before, but this movie is so bad, I must comment (and I wish there was a 0/10 choice). I didn't mind the acting so much as the writing and plot. First of all, the whole thing rests on a series of coincidences and acts of God (or Allah, if you prefer). Second, it requires more suspension of disbelief than I can muster to accept the instant, lustful attraction the lovely Jane March has for the almost 70 year old and fat Harvey Keitel. Third, the statement is made that while all Muslims are not terrorists, ALL terrorists are Muslims, and this is accepted despite it's obvious untruth (red brigade, IRA, Bader-Meinhoff to name a few), plus the fact that there are no Muslims in the movie who are not terrorists. Lastly, the ending makes no sense and undermines the entire premise of the plot - SPOILER, SPOILER, SPOILER - The whole purpose of the seduction and manipulation was to get Leda to drive the bomb carrying car (kind of small for the damage done, BTW) on-board the ferry so it could be set off - but there was F. Murray Abraham in front of her ON the boat committing suicide with the cell phone trigger, so why didn't he just drive or carry the bomb himself and save all the complications - it wasn't as though there was any security at all when boarding.
Too many flaws to count
emuir-14 July 2013
If this film had been made by a fundamentalist Christian group lead by the crackpot Koran burning Florida Pastor, I would have believed it. Except for the well known actors, the whole film seemed like one of those church funded efforts usually made with 'C' list players.
Let me list some of the flaws:
The color was awful ranging from almost normal to a washed out blue/green tint to almost no color at all.
Havey Keitel was miscast, and rather than a wealthy cosmopolitan gem dealer able to attract a beautiful young woman, he looked like a seedy old panhandler of the kind you cross the street to avoid. The bedroom scenes were just nauseating.
Did anyone ever shave? Some might find a few days beard growth attractive, I just find it scruffy.
The dubbing was poor. Jordi Molla went from a soft European accent to a sharp American accent in mid sentence several times.
The plot was ridiculous. Not only for the desk pounding propaganda, but the little things, such as why did F. Murry Abraham's character need to be on the ferry to activate the cell phone. He could have done it from the shore in Dover. In an early scene, two terrorists leave their bags under seats in the airport before the shootout with security. What happened to the bags. Were they disarmed before blowing up. Even a five year old could blow holes in this plot.
The lack of subtitles or captions made the dialogue hard to follow for the hearing impaired such as myself. Likewise, the lack of a 'making of' featurette.
Not really a flaw, as you can switch off at the end, but the very lengthy credits which mentioned everyone who had supplied anything and everything for the film in the way of props: e.g. coffee maker, dispenser, hotel furniture, curtains, table ware, and on and on. I am used to hairdressers, make up artists and musicians being credited, and also locations, but this list was ludicrous.
When the best thing you can say about a film is that the singer heard in the opening scene was good, and the scenes of Cappadocia were beautiful, it does not say much for the film overall.
Let me list some of the flaws:
The color was awful ranging from almost normal to a washed out blue/green tint to almost no color at all.
Havey Keitel was miscast, and rather than a wealthy cosmopolitan gem dealer able to attract a beautiful young woman, he looked like a seedy old panhandler of the kind you cross the street to avoid. The bedroom scenes were just nauseating.
Did anyone ever shave? Some might find a few days beard growth attractive, I just find it scruffy.
The dubbing was poor. Jordi Molla went from a soft European accent to a sharp American accent in mid sentence several times.
The plot was ridiculous. Not only for the desk pounding propaganda, but the little things, such as why did F. Murry Abraham's character need to be on the ferry to activate the cell phone. He could have done it from the shore in Dover. In an early scene, two terrorists leave their bags under seats in the airport before the shootout with security. What happened to the bags. Were they disarmed before blowing up. Even a five year old could blow holes in this plot.
The lack of subtitles or captions made the dialogue hard to follow for the hearing impaired such as myself. Likewise, the lack of a 'making of' featurette.
Not really a flaw, as you can switch off at the end, but the very lengthy credits which mentioned everyone who had supplied anything and everything for the film in the way of props: e.g. coffee maker, dispenser, hotel furniture, curtains, table ware, and on and on. I am used to hairdressers, make up artists and musicians being credited, and also locations, but this list was ludicrous.
When the best thing you can say about a film is that the singer heard in the opening scene was good, and the scenes of Cappadocia were beautiful, it does not say much for the film overall.
If anyone understands the plot please let me know.
dwilli102 September 2007
Could have been a good film about terrorism but somewhere along the way it got off track with a missing plot, poor editing, poor ADR work, and lots of "McGuffins" introduced but never used.
Too many queues and setups that didn't contribute to moving the story forward.
In addition to the issues with the story line, the sound was un-even and sometimes not understandable.
Too bad that a couple of superb actors got entangled in this project.
If anyone understands the story line please let us know. The story does seem to relate to a ferry bombing that actually happened, but that's just a vague recollection.
Exactly what is meant by "Red Mercury" as a radioactive element in the "dirty bomb"?
Too many queues and setups that didn't contribute to moving the story forward.
In addition to the issues with the story line, the sound was un-even and sometimes not understandable.
Too bad that a couple of superb actors got entangled in this project.
If anyone understands the story line please let us know. The story does seem to relate to a ferry bombing that actually happened, but that's just a vague recollection.
Exactly what is meant by "Red Mercury" as a radioactive element in the "dirty bomb"?
Just Plain Awful
mdeyoung-4863626 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I had high hopes for this film with some great cast members. The first few minutes of the film justified my expectations and then...straight down hill. Not gently but a sudden drop off into a really horrible and laughable film. If the director could have capitalized on the first couple of minutes and continued with the film in that vein, it would have been a great movie. It was like after the first two minutes the director just gave up. It tries to be a film warning of the extremists in Islam but the dialogue and poor script killed the film. Harvey Keitel could not save it and his lines were equally awful. The one saving grace? Jane March is beautiful and you get to see glimpses of her beautiful/naked body! Once you have seen the sex scene you may as well turn the movie off; the rest of it stinks.
bad, bad, oh so bad. And racist as well. (spoiler alert)
rraabfaber4 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Horrible. The worst possible script. Deplorable acting. A political agenda straight out of the Religious Right. Oh, and worst of all, a mostly naked (shivver!) Harvey Keitel. (That last comment was a spoiler, but it will have saved your eyeballs in case you thought of watching it.)
Keitel is supposedly an Italian who was raised in Afghanistan, which is where he converted to Islam. Yet, he speaks with a Chicago accent. F. Murray Abraham is an Islamic terrorist who we can't help feel is really a Jewish man playing his idea of a Muslim. The writer(s?) definitely had an political ax to grind. This is the sort of drivel that keeps us hating one another.
Did I mention this was bad? Or that it had no redeeming qualities whatsoever? Bad.
Keitel is supposedly an Italian who was raised in Afghanistan, which is where he converted to Islam. Yet, he speaks with a Chicago accent. F. Murray Abraham is an Islamic terrorist who we can't help feel is really a Jewish man playing his idea of a Muslim. The writer(s?) definitely had an political ax to grind. This is the sort of drivel that keeps us hating one another.
Did I mention this was bad? Or that it had no redeeming qualities whatsoever? Bad.
Horrible and so bad its just beyond BAD
mindcat13 September 2009
How many bad things can be said about this sad attempt at creating hysteria and anti-Islamic riots.
First the acting is bad beyond belief and the script funny when it attempts to be serious.
For example, the police who recently shot a terrorist at the Rome airport actually disbelieve the Good Professor Rodenni , when he attempts to show the stone merchant is a terrorist.
Second how could any women be as stupid as Lieda? Her IQ appears to be that of a house plant and one feels no sympathy for her as she is taken to the bottom of the sea.
In any event if you like very very bad movies, please go see this one. You will not be disappointed.
First the acting is bad beyond belief and the script funny when it attempts to be serious.
For example, the police who recently shot a terrorist at the Rome airport actually disbelieve the Good Professor Rodenni , when he attempts to show the stone merchant is a terrorist.
Second how could any women be as stupid as Lieda? Her IQ appears to be that of a house plant and one feels no sympathy for her as she is taken to the bottom of the sea.
In any event if you like very very bad movies, please go see this one. You will not be disappointed.
a great Italian movie!
nicola8918 September 2006
i couldn't believe it: this is really a great movie event though it's an Italian production. it was made with 8 million euro and this is a big budget for an Italian movie. the director (Renzo Martinelli) was able to create an intense story about terrorism with a lot of different characters. the camera movements are as incredible as the editing, then there's a brilliant soundtrack and a tough directing. the actors did a more than excellent job, especially Jordie Mollà. then, obviously, there's Harvey Keitel and i don't think i'm able to describe his wonderful performance. i repeat myself: this is really a great Italian movie, one of the best in the last years. the story is good, even though the director sometimes puts too much things in a few scenes. but in the and i can only do a very simple thing: clap!
pathetic wingnuttery
pacoyogi5 March 2011
This movie is so bad I don't know how it possibly could have been made except as a vanity project. The bad guys are so ludicrous, they should be twirling their moustaches a la Snively Whiplash. Except Snively Whiplash was a tour de force of character development compared to this pile of month-old, rained-on, maggot-teeming garbage. Apparently concerned that its "all muslims are terrorists" message was conveyed too subtly, it even features extended, Beck-like discourses by the protagonist and the voice-over narrator. As others have noted, what the hell is Harvey Keitel doing in this irredeemably moronic waste of electrons?
Do not miss this important film
royscribe-120 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Sadly, all too soon this film will be called "prophetic", once there is another major terrorist attack on European soil. Yes, it is not a perfect film, but it has been undeservedly trashed by the knee-jerk reaction of the frightened press in Europe. Because of its subject matter, Islamo-fascism, it is understandably unavoidable that this film be judged politically, not on its artistic merits. At times it is indeed a bit heavy-handed, but it starts off in a very intense manner, with amazing camera work, and succeeds in maintaining the tension and incredible angles throughout, right up to the last frame. The leading role is of a former journalist who lost his legs in a terrorist attack in Somalia.... the effects and staging - and performance - are so phenomenal that I was shocked to discover afterward that the actor does indeed have his legs intact! Harvey Keitel takes a role which could have been a simplistic stereotype and makes it incredibly convincing and multi-layered. Kudos for the tight direction, great locations, editing and sound track.... all right on the mark! No matter if you are left-wing or right-wing in your politics, this is a film that will make you think and discuss what is happening in Europe and the world at large. For those of us who live here in Italy, it is a much-needed wake-up call.... plus a much-needed Italian film of high artistic quality.
an excellent film
carlasw22 September 2006
Unfortunately the subject is all too real and very present in our daily life, but this film has a very intelligent approach to a difficult and disturbing reality. I has made me think for days after seeing it and even analysing each detail it all makes sense. The question is do you want to go to the cinema to see what is only too obvious on the news already? if you are looking for light entertainment this is not the film for you, but if you want to think and ponder of current issues, this is the one that is going to make you think. I loved this film and thought that it was brilliantly acted, directed even if I found it profoundly disturbing.
A Real Eye Opener
rheckard29 June 2007
This movie was a real eye opener and provided a inside look at a terrorist plot in the making. This movie is based in fact to a degree, and provides a look at the history of the Islamic movement is Europe today and in the past. Here is a general summary of the movie: An Italian convert to Islam for whom terrorism is a religious duty plots a terrorist attack on an epic scale but has second thoughts when he falls in love with the woman who is destined to carry out his plan. I would recommend this movie to anyone who is looking for a entertaining movie that will keep you on the edge of fear and concern for the what may come to a city near you.
Extremely provocative thought stimulating and entertaining film
rlange-319 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This movie has incredible scenery, excellent acting, and a plot that relentlessly converges toward a horror which is right off the front pages of today's newspapers. The human cost of current events is vividly translated into the tension in a marriage which is the casualty of the zeitgeist of denial and naiveté which pervades the West, pitted against the inexorable dedication demonstrated by radical Islam.
The cinematography is breathtaking, both in Europe and in Cappadocia, Turkey. The exotic surroundings of unique scenery including underground cities and fairy chimneys drives home the immense divide between the familiar West and the unfamiliar Islamic world. An absolutely breathtaking dance by the whirling dervishes, accompanied by an explanation of the meaning of the dance illustrates that this divide is far deeper than a geographic one. The reactions of the two westerners form the archetypes which drive the film. The husband is uncomfortable and suspicious, the wife both eager to embrace and credulous. Even the differences in perceived causality are delineated with skill -- was it a chance encounter from a broken fan belt or the will of Allah? The movie builds on this sharp divide, exploring its implications on both a personal level, and in the context of current and future events.
You should not miss seeing this film. Obviously it was not made in Hollywood, because it fails the current absolute mandate of political correctness imposed by the dinosaur culture there. It fails to meet the requirement that any evil be tied to America, and actually criticizes a branch of a religion other than Christianity. Keitel was truly courageous to have stuck his neck out to star in this film. From the shock and awe it has caused some of the apologists for radical Islam who are in a lather and giving this movie ones and twos, Keitel will doubtless be blacklisted in the American film industry for years to come.
That kind of courage demands that you see it and make up your own mind.
The cinematography is breathtaking, both in Europe and in Cappadocia, Turkey. The exotic surroundings of unique scenery including underground cities and fairy chimneys drives home the immense divide between the familiar West and the unfamiliar Islamic world. An absolutely breathtaking dance by the whirling dervishes, accompanied by an explanation of the meaning of the dance illustrates that this divide is far deeper than a geographic one. The reactions of the two westerners form the archetypes which drive the film. The husband is uncomfortable and suspicious, the wife both eager to embrace and credulous. Even the differences in perceived causality are delineated with skill -- was it a chance encounter from a broken fan belt or the will of Allah? The movie builds on this sharp divide, exploring its implications on both a personal level, and in the context of current and future events.
You should not miss seeing this film. Obviously it was not made in Hollywood, because it fails the current absolute mandate of political correctness imposed by the dinosaur culture there. It fails to meet the requirement that any evil be tied to America, and actually criticizes a branch of a religion other than Christianity. Keitel was truly courageous to have stuck his neck out to star in this film. From the shock and awe it has caused some of the apologists for radical Islam who are in a lather and giving this movie ones and twos, Keitel will doubtless be blacklisted in the American film industry for years to come.
That kind of courage demands that you see it and make up your own mind.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
