MovieChat Forums > Io non ho paura (2004) Discussion > Am I the only on who thought this movie ...

Am I the only on who thought this movie was terrible?

posted 11 years ago by anthonyisaninja
13 replies | jump to latest

Seeing all the reviews on here makes me think I didn't see the same movie as the rest of you. The movie was scary? No. No it was not. It was downright stupid. The start of the movie had a great build up and the first shot of the hole was creepy. The lead character was believable, being scared the first time and running away. But when he went back that all changed. Michele seemed like a dumb ass after that. Really? Your first thought is to ask him a bunch of stupid questions instead of asking the important ones? Like, what's your name, how did you end up down there, and are you okay? The next thing a normal person would do would be to either try to help him out of the hole and if that didn't work, go and TELL someone. Granted he really couldn't as it turned out, but he didn't know the whole story until much later. Any normal kid would have attempted to tell his parents about it and if they felt they couldn't for whatever reason, would have told their friends at least. But no. This kid had absolutely no sense. I guess I shouldn't have believed he would since most of the movie he is running around in his underwear like a moron.

Then the rest of the movie just gets dumber and dumber. He frees the kid but then puts him back. He sneaks him food instead of trying to get help. He makes up dumb stories as to why this kid is in the hole instead of doing anything worthwhile. I think the movie would have had a better flow if he found out his parents were involved sooner. It would have made more sense for him to keep quiet about it and plan out some way of saving him. But no. He doesn't find out about it until almost the end of the film. I don't know how I was able to continue watching the film but I felt I had to finish it since I started it. The movie certainly had potential to be a decent movie, but was ruined by the stupidity of the lead character. A scary movie, a thriller? It was none of these things. It was boring, and I ended up laughing at the majority of the film. I actually laughed when Michelle got shot. I wanted to strangle the kid by the end of the film for being so daft. I wasted an hour and a half of my life on this film (and a good 3 minutes typing this out goddammit!) Luckily I only watched it on netflix and didn't spend any money on it. Thank god.

To any of you that actually read the whole thing; what did you really think about this film? And if you really did like it, can you explain why? I just don't understand. But please don't try and tell me that I didn't "GET" this film. There wasn't anything to "get" it just sucked.

[–] Daphoenyx 11 years ago

Then if "it just sucked" why do you have to come to the message boards and write such a long rant about it? I was willing to express my point of view after your post but changed my mind after your last sentence.

[–] hgs1969 11 years ago

I'd have to disagree with you as I thought it was an excellent little film. It really annoys me when people use the whole 'Didn't get it' excuse. I thought The Tree Of Life a boring pretentious piece of crap but apparently that's because 'I didn't get it' according to someone who loved it. The fact is we all have different tastes and every film ever made will divide opinion.

******SPOILERS*******
I do think you're being a little harsh on Michele. When he first finds him he's scared and shocked and it's not too surprising that he kept it to himself. Perhaps he didn't quite believe what he'd first seen and probably didn't think adults would have believed him anyway. When he does go back and starts looking around for something to pass the water down to him in he see's the pot which he recognises as the same that his family own (as is seen when he checks for a missing pot in the cupboard when he returns home). So whilst he doesn't overhear the talk of the missing boy until later, he clearly has his suspicions early on so it's understandable he keeps it to himself.

They lived in a fairly remote place and back then would have had little or no access to the outside world (no internet or phone and only so far you can cycle on a crappy old bike!). Who could he turn to as it appeared all of the small community were involved. He tried his best to help by feeding him but given the resources available I'm not sure what else he could have done.

8/10

[–] benman46 11 years ago

Probably.

[–] psdhart 11 years ago

I liked it, 2nd time I have seen it

did ytou also watch it on film4?

[–] benman46 11 years ago

I saw it for the first time on Film 4.

[–] Clemencedane 11 years ago

Kids act differently in different cultures and situations. I'm not at all surprised Michele responded the way he did given the relationship between children and adults in this culture, his isolation and relative naivete. He's not a wiseass, cynical, wired up American schoolkid from the suburbs who has been through multiple rounds of 'stranger danger' training.

[–] ludwigsgirl 11 years ago

Amen. Exactly. The person who started this thread has forgotten what it was like to be a kid, no 1, no 2 it was a different time. Michele was 10 with a vivid imagination. He made up stories about monsters, the boy in the hole was something otherwordly to him. Michele imagined himself a hero and so became one.

[–] bluewren 8 years ago

He's not a wiseass, cynical, wired up American schoolkid from the suburbs who has been through multiple rounds of 'stranger danger' training.

This last part doesn't even make sense lol. You don't have to be "trained" to tell someone about a chained up sickly boy trapped in a hole.

[–] flemos-adriana 10 years ago

I totally agree with you, it was the same I thought. How come a kid aged 10 doesn't say anything to his parents (who which he had a good and caring / normal relationship) or the police? I know why: because if he did so, the plot would fail. I thought that he could have said his mother, and then she could have said that she would take care of the situation. Then Michele would know later that she didn't, and then he would help the boy escape - that would keep the plot alive and it would be credible. The whole story is just too poetic - as the whole movie - to be realistic, and it would be better if things were different - or at least magical - to be interpreted like that (like that old wonderful movie Radio Flyer).

The part that he helps the boy escape and brings him back is horrid, I had to fast forward the movie because I disgusted.

[–] DeputyDippity 10 years ago

Yeah, this movie was pretty bad. But there's a bunch of pretentious douchebags on IMDb who swear to God that they love any foreign movie, so that strangers on the internet will mistake them for smart.

I`m sorry for my lack of manners, but I`m not used to escorting men.

[–] keirst 9 years ago

This movie is based on a true story, a kidnapping in the 1970s in southern Italy. I thought it was a terrific treatment of a kidnapping, and the point of view of the naive boy Michele, rather than the typical police procedural approach to the crime was fascinating. Sure he's not the smartest or wisest kid, but he probably and a mediocre education, and all the adults in his life are keeping him in the dark, particularly his criminal father. I found the movie fraught with tension, because it doesn't take the audience long to realize what's going on, but the poor kid doesn't know what's really happening until the end when the Carabinieri show up to arrest the gang members.

[–] IEatWords 9 years ago

Nah, it's a typical modern foreign film - full of fluff and self importance, with a lacking script played out by poor actors.

