Ebert's review


I was a little shocked when I read Roger Ebert's unsympathetic review. I know the movie's not perfect, but he had nothing good to say about it AT ALL. Not one thing. Maybe he was in a bad mood when he wrote this?

I don't get it. He reminds me of one of the bitter townspeople who hated Malena for her beauty and punished her for it. Read it for yourselves:


Malena

BY ROGER EBERT / December 22, 2000



Cast & Credits
Monica Bellucci Renato: Giuseppe Sulfaro
Renato's Father: Luciano Federico
Renato's Mother: Matilde Piana
Prof. Bonsignore: Pietro Notarianni

Miramax Films Presents A Film Written And Directed By Giuseppe Tornatore. Based On A Story By Luciano Vincenzoni. Running Time: 90 Minutes. Rated R (For Sexuality, Nudity, Language And Some Violence).


Giuseppe Tornatore's "Malena" tells the story of a woman whose life is destroyed because she has the misfortune to be beautiful and have a great butt. The film torturously tries to transform this theme in scenes of comedy, nostalgia and bittersweet regret, but somehow we doubt its sincerity, maybe because the camera lingers so lovingly on the callipygian charms of the actress Monica Bellucci. There is noting quite so awkward as a film that is one thing while it pretends to be another.

The setup scenes are like low-rent Fellini. In a Italian town in 1940, a group of adolescent boys waits for the beautiful Malena to pass by. She is all they can imagine a woman could be, arousing their imaginations, and more, with her languorous swaying passage. Malena, who is a schoolteacher and of at least average intelligence, must be aware of her effect on the collective local male libido, but seems blissfully oblivious; her role is not so much dramatic as pictorial (a word I am using in the Playboy sense).

The story is told by Renato (Giuseppe Sulfaro), who as the movie opens is admitted to the local fraternity of girl-watchers. They use Malena as subject matter for their autoerotic pastimes, but for Renato, she is more like a dream, like a heroine, like a woman he wants to protect from herself--with his bare hands, hopefully.

The story involves Malena's bad luck after her husband is called up by the army and her good name is sullied by local gossip. She must abandon her teaching job because of the unjustified scandal and eventually is reduced by wartime poverty to dating German soldiers. This descent in the world requires her to spend a great deal of time half-dressed before Tornatore's appreciative camera. She continues to shine brightly in Renato's eyes, however, even after his field of knowledge is broadened when his father takes him to a bordello for the old "I give you the boy--give me back the man" routine.

Fellini's films often involve adolescents inflamed by women who embody their carnal desires. (See "Amarcord" and "8 1/2." Please.) But Fellini sees the humor that underlies sexual obsession, except (usually but not always) in the eyes of the participants. "Malena" is a simpler story, in which a young man grows up transfixed by a woman and essentially marries himself to the idea of her. It doesn't help that the movie's action grows steadily gloomier, leading to a public humiliation that seems wildly out of scale with what has gone before and to an ending that is intended to move us much more deeply, alas, than it can.


...rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell...

reply

ROGER EBERT definitely missed this time! Trust me, he has sided w/ some real losers occasionally. I like the way this story was told...and look, it's 2009 & the film is still popular, lol

reply

@ Bunnymonster:

Not to worry, someday soon Mr. Ebert will probably write another review praising Marlena. This is Roger's custom, when he realizes that his opinion is crap, way off and contrary to the universal popularity of this great movie.

I began to suspect Roger's ability years ago and my suspicions were recently confirmed when I found out that he gave rave reviews to the terribly bad movies that he wrote and scripted (e.g. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls).

Roger has the habit of writing new, positive second reviews of popular movies that he bombed and ripped apart in his first review. He has done this to some of the finest, award winning movies ever made, e.g., The Shining, Dances With Wolves, Saving Private Ryan, Once Upon a Time in America, Titanic, etc., etc., Of course he did this only AFTER these movies became a massive international hits, universally praised by other critics, cinephiles, and the public. Now, whenever I read one of his reviews, I ask myself is this Roger's first, second or third review. Or, if in fact his opinion matters.




This message has not yet been deleted by an IMDb “administrator.”

reply

Malena has gotten some mild acclaim, some not so much, but overall after ten years doesn't seem to be considered a classic or remembered by anyone of note (and some people on Malena's IMDb board don't count as anyone of note). Ebert revisiting Malena? Why would it be worth anyone's time, let alone his? I'd honestly be surprised if he even remembers the damn movie, let alone acknowledges it highly enough to bother reevaluating it. While there are plenty of movies that are unfairly forgotten and obscure to this day, Malena was a fairly commercial enterprise (for an Italian production) with glossy camerawork and a generic, Fellini-lite coming-of-age tale with plenty of gratuitous Monica Bellucci nudity (but "artistically" and "tastefully" rendered of course) to keep asses in seats, only acknowledged for Miramax's hacking off much of its running time as supposedly another example of American puritanism gone haywire.

And he never bashed Saving Private Ryan, Titanic, or Dances with Wolves. His At the Movies review of it with Siskel will tell you as much. Where did you pull that from anyway? His bashing of Once Upon a Time in America was likely for the horribly butchered original cut of the movie, his reappraisal being for the restored 4-hour director's cut. I don't know about The Shining, but that was hardly Kubrick's most acclaimed work back in the day (even winning a few Razzies for god's sake!), only becoming appreciated for the classic it is over time. And as far as I'm aware, he has not revisited Clockwork Orange, which he gave two stars. Besides, can people not have a change of heart over something over a period of time? Are you telling me people's opinions on matters should remain static lest some no doubt clever fellow calls them out on, *gasp* looking at things differently later on in life?

Oh and Beyond the Valley of the Dolls was the only movie he scripted, and he never gave it a "proper" review either (if you'd bother to look: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19700101/REV IEWS/708110301/1023)

Roger isn't always on the money (I'll more than happily join the current fervor over Kick-Ass) but his review here is perfectly sound and a fair reflection of the movie's qualities, or lack thereof.

reply

'Ebert revisiting Malena? Why would it be worth anyone's time, let alone his? I'd honestly be surprised if he even remembers the damn movie, let alone acknowledges it highly enough to bother reevaluating it.'

I don't think he remembered the movie at the time he reviewed it, considering he claims "Malena has to abandon her teaching job after a scandal."

She never had a teaching job in the film, that was a single dream sequence the boy had about her (one of many).

If he'd been paying attention, he'd know that. Pretty glaringly obvious mistake for one of these oh so important, high class "professionals" that are paid to give us inferiors their opinions on movies that are so great they should be paid for them.

It's a farce of a profession, Ebert is just one of many examples of that.

They're a bunch of self-aggrandizing snobs that are undeservingly paid for opinions that are no better than those of any other cinema buff.

+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++


reply

He gave high praises for Dances With Wolves when it 1st came out, his review is up on YT actually. He was also one of the few that gave rave reviews of Scarface with Al Pacino.


OPEN YOUR EYES! dailymotion.com/video/xbi2hi_1993-chandler-molestation-extortion_news

reply

[deleted]

I like Ebert a lot & I find him refreshing to be more open & less cynical than other critics but he really missed it on this one. I'm actually a bit disappointed that he thought Malena was blissfully ignorant of how the town viewed & gossiped behind her back. You can see it on her face & her downcast eyes. Maybe he knows little of women or people in general? Personally, I've adopted the same strategy ever since I was young, I've learned not to look at people because I know without looking what they're looking at. I find it fine that Ebert has issues with the movie but the problem is when he misinterprets it when it is obviously blatant to begin with, ie. the case of Malena's blissful ignorance.


OPEN YOUR EYES! dailymotion.com/video/xbi2hi_1993-chandler-molestation-extortion_news

reply

Do you dress like Malena did? I.e. dress to the nines when leaving the house, but then say you do not like attention of others? I find that a bit mixed up. Either the movie was portraying a fantastical imagination, or Malena was enjoying the attention she received. I believe you are the one misinterpreting.

reply

Malena was a school teacher?? Uh, I think Mr. Ebert saw a different movie than I did. She was a seamstress in the movie I saw and she certainly wasn't "blissfully ignorant" of what the twonspeople thought of her.

reply

Ok so let's say for example this latest and expensive shoes is available and everybody wants to have one too, I really find the design cool and I know it will look good on me and make me feel better about myself, I walk out and everybody looks at me because I'm wearing the latest and expensive shoes, I might like the attention of the others but that doesn't mean I wanted it. What if the people who are looking are thugs and wants to snatch the shoes off my feet? I just want to walk around with the damn shoes the hell with the others.

reply

this review balanced the comments read so far. i approve :D

reply

It doesn't look like a film review, but a reader's reaction to the story. I guess the doesn't know much about movies. Or maybe he didn't see the movie.

reply