Can't believe this is a four-star film

All thoughts are of course subjective. I personally felt emotionally moved by such courage and fervor, as well as the realistic cinematic portrayels contrasting both character and camera. The subtitles may have been a tad brief but they were still effective in carrying the story. Rossellini remains an Italian Film revolutionary in my books.

I can understand the relevance of this movie in the historical context in which it was made.

I can understand that is one of the very first manifestos of the Italian Neo-Realism.

But as the OP said it, I don't think this movie have aged well. IMO have lost much of its original impact.
Don't get me wrong, I like neo-realist movies. I think Umberto D. is a wonderful movie as some other neo-realist films are. But IMO "Roma, città aperta", haven't passed the test of time.

However it remains as an interesting movie from a film history point of view.

For sure you have to give a few extra points to the oldies whenever they made it thru so many decades. I'ts quite silly to put them up against what's called masterpieces of our times. Yet, being Rosellini a very reputed director, I have a complain from the very beginning when the counter intelligence chief while around his desk he sort of seats on it assuming a very awkward posture which, on top of everything else, gives him such a gayish looks you can seldom find in a german or whatever soldier, if ever.
A minor sh$t but....
On the whole it's hard not to see here the same comon places found in so many films about the japs atrocities.
And a bit schematic at that, too

If pigs had wings the sh*t of this world would be perfectly shared

Did Rome, Open City kill your father and rape your mother?

[deleted]

How can you even take a "star" rating seriously? Same goes for the IMDB rating. There are too many factors involved in making a film "good" or "not": historical relevancy, originality, complexity both technically and thematically, universality and yet, regardless of all these things, no matter how profoundly you look at it, in the end, it all comes down to subjective feelings about a film.

YOU believe the film doesn't hold up after all these years, but seem to forget about it's historical setting and ground breaking technique for the time. Does this mean the film was a "five star" film at the time and simply a "three star" film today because it can't be watched in 3D!?

I absolutely despise such ratings, any rating in fact that uses some sort of numerical or iconic system is ridiculous, how can you put a number on a work of art? There are no specific criteria that can be precisely tallied. It either is, or isn't. Is the dialog shallow and meant for a cheap laugh or does it hide a deeper meaning, is the camera work flashy and frantic or complex and relevant to the film's themes? Is the director trying to make you forget about your problems for two hours or is he trying to make you think about something else, ponder, analyze?

Anyway, what I'm trying to say with all this is, don't put all your faith in numbers or cherries or squirrels and tomatoes, or whatever funky idea some critics and non-critics use... in the end it'll all come down to what YOU think about the film and how you are able to see it from a distance, objectively. You can take it all at face value, or you can try and delve deeper in the films you watch... Those were my two cents...

[deleted]

Agreed. This didn't age so well.