MovieChat Forums > Casanova (2006) Discussion > Why do so many of you hate this film?

Why do so many of you hate this film?


I mean, I've read most of these message boards, and a lot of reviews online. Most people are so disappointed with it, they regret wasting $8 on it, thought it was the worst film of the decade, et cetera. The thing that gets me is that most people who gave it a bad review say it's because of Heath Ledger- that he's such a horrible Casanova. I just find it amazing that his performance alone can ruin a movie for someone. There were so many other great characters in there- Jeremy Irons (Bishop Pucci), I thought, was particularly good; so was Oliver Platt. And the script was well written, if predictable. I didn't even think Ledger did such a bad job- his acting was smooth and solid, and he didn't smirk nearly as much as he does in some of his other films.

All in all, I laughed more in this movie than I had in any 2005 movie (Wedding Crashers and 40-Year-Old Virgin included). Was it just me?


--
"Does His Lordship require a snack?"
"See that case over there, shaped vaguely like a salami?"
"Yes."
"It's filled with salami..."

reply

Personally i thought jeremy irons overacted most of the time....

Ledger wasn't bad in this but it's not his best performance.

And yes it was just you to have laughed more in this than in any 2005 film.Wedding crashers was SO much funnier and didnt have a plot that made you want to kill someone by the end. I thought most of the jokes in Casanova wouldonly have been funy to 5 year olds but then maybe thats just ME!

reply

i laughed more here than at 40 year old.

reply

I saw it today and agree with the reviewer at the top of the page that it was such a gorgeous movie, it makes me angry that the script and story were crap.

It is an absolute love letter to Venice, but did a great disservice to Casanova who was so much more than this. Read his memoirs, he was a child prodigy and a great intellect who spoke six languages.

The movie was oddly asexual. There was one out a few years ago about a Venetian Courtesan in the 1500's called "Dangerous Beauty", which had much more of the heat that this film sadly lacked. The script was so bad that this great cast couldn't save it.

reply


I was expecting a better movie than what I saw but it still was nice. Beginning of the movie was a little boring to me and it got better with the arrival of Francesca's fiancee. I'm not saying anything bad about the lead actors but I didn't see any chemistry between them. Maybe that's why I'm a little disappointed.

reply

Well, I'm glad that some of you halfheartedly appreciate it, at least.

"Personally i thought jeremy irons overacted most of the time...."

"Wedding crashers was SO much funnier and didnt have a plot that made you want to kill someone by the end. I thought most of the jokes in Casanova would only have been funny to 5-year-olds but then maybe thats just ME!"


Well, when a movie is classified as a farce, the cast is generally supposed to overact. That's what makes it funny. Oh, and Wedding Crashers definitely made me want to kill Will Ferrell. He didn't ruin the movie, but he certainly took it down a few notches in my opinion.

I'd also like to hear some of the jokes that were only funny to five-year-olds. Quite possibly, you were the only one to have thought that.

Thanks to everyone who gave serious, non-inflamatory input.

--
"Oh yes, my dear. We can do anything. We are the Catholic Church."

reply

I agree with the top poster.

It certainly was one of the more enjoyable movies that I've seen in a long time. I thought it a good twist when his mom showed up with the fake cardinal - I didn't see that coming - I thought she was the mistress of the cardinal which is why she had to leave in the first place. The overacting is what made it enjoyable - because it was supposed to be funny in the first place. But, Jeremy Irons, is Jeremy Irons - one could say that he overacts in everything he has done, anyway.

reply

Lol, the bit with the fake cardinal was so contrived. I loved it!

reply

Too many people don't seem to just enjoy movies anymore...everyone's always complaining about some lack of character developement and a predictable plot...people come on. Movies are not supposed to be beacons of truth and reality. Movies are meant to be entertainment and sadly it seems more and more people aren't enjoying movies like they're supposed to be. And I'm beginning to believe that they go to movies with a preconceived notion of disappointment leaving them...well...disappointed. Just watch the movie. Stop critizing every movie for it's lack of this and lack of that. JEEZE! Why is it so hard! Just watch the movie and let yourself enjoy yourself.

That's just my opinion and I did enjoy Casanova.

My name is Bob Loblaw

reply

Exactly! I loved this film simply because it was entertaining- that is, I didn't have a rigid notion of what it was supposed to be. I've read Casanova's memoirs. I love history. But going by the trailers, it's clear that this was meant to be a lighthearted fiction- not a factual biography. It was really great, and you'll love it if you give it a chance.

reply

I haven't seen the movie, I will wait for the DVD so that I can rent it. I do want to thank you, because I use these posts as a fair guide to the movies I choose to view (however, I do make my own decisions). I agree completely with this post. I have also noticed that people today cannot seem to just enjoy a movie. Every movie that I have read posts for have people ranting about how much they hate this or that actor, or plot, or special effects - where applicable, etc. Yes, I want to read about your thoughts and insights, but not if the only thing that you are going to do is trash the film because that is what you enjoy. So again thanks for a useful review. The rest of you naysayers take note!

a movie fan

reply

Amen to that. I'm glad i'm not the only one who enjoyed this movie and thinks that Will Farrell was much more of a detriment to the Wedding Crashers than an asset.

~~

I wish I knew how to quit you.

reply

I completely agree with you...This was definitely a funny movie, and the farcical nature of the comedy was what made it so funny. If anybody doesn't appreciate this kind of comedy, then maybe this movie just isn't the one for them. I didn't notice that any of the actors gave a poor performance in the movie either.
Oh, and Will Ferrell came very very close to ruining Wedding Crashers for me.

reply

[deleted]

Those who suggest that Jeremy Irons overacted in this film ought to examine his performance in Dungeons and Dragons (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190374/). That is overacting. This is being passionate.

reply

See, am I the only one who thought the director managed the near-impossible and made Venice look like a soundstage? I was horribly disappointed with how the movie looked.

reply

Yes, Dangerous Beauty was a much much much better film than this one. This movie was cute at best. I wasn't dissappointed in Ledger's performance. Hasn't he played the same character in at least two other movies?

reply


Oh well I think only idiots could find a movie like Wedding Crashers hilarious.
It was terrible. The only two good things were Rachel McAdams and the credits.

It was predictable, overdone, slit wristing material and just the same as all the other movies like dodgeball etc...probably even worse.

How can you laugh the 50000 time you've seen something unless you find slapstick lame mainstream humor hilarious classic comedy?

Proud Member Of FLOMUK
A Lostralian
Je Vous Aime Johnny Depp

reply

a film doesnt have to be 'classic comedy' to be funny, the wedding crashers was fun and entertaining and thats what films are supposed to be. slapstick humour is funny sometimes (though i didnt think there was too much of it in the wedding crashers, as i hate that sort of humour most of the time) and what on earth is wrong with it being 'mainstream'? unless you're the sort of person who thinks that things are only good if only 5 people in the world have heard of them. you're not into black metal by any chance are you? :p

reply

izbella, I thought that 'Casanova' was a funny, cute little romp, and I really enjoyed it- the acting was great, the script had a few jerky lines but was gerneally well-written, the twist was amusing and completely disbelievable, and the use of music was absolutely fantastic. Quite possibly your opinion on the jokes is limited to yourself. (I also liked 'Wedding Crashers' a lot, about as much as 'Casanova', though in a slightly different way.)

As to the historic accuracy, it wasn't meant to be historically accurate. Go into a film with an open mind, and if you care so much about the historical accuracy, then get out a book from the local library, or look him up on the Internet.


Waiting for my Mr Colin Firth Darcy

reply

I'm thinking about not reading message boards about movies anymore. I get all worked up when people write that such and such was the worst movie of the year, and I really enjoyed the movie.
This was one of those movies. I really enjoyed it. I walked out saying this was a splendidly funny movie. I'm not a language snob, so I don't care what accent they had, as long as I could understand what they are saying. I didn't care about Heath being Cassanova....( I have no idea what Cassanova should look like) and who cares ! To me, it was just a story...it didn't have to be historically correct for me.
Oliver Platt was great, as was Cassanova's Butler...( I wish I had a butler )
There were so many clever joke lines throughout. The people that thought this movie wasn't funny, just couldn't keep up with the clever lines, apparently they didn't understand the jokes. Clever, subtle jokes, instead of the hit you over the head jokes.
I go to movies to escape, and to not have to overanylze.
So, Mrpumpkin, I thought all the actors did a great job, and I enjoyed this film "enormously".

reply

i liked the film it was funny and amuseing and the visuals wereamazing for being both studio, location and CGI only thing that bothered me was the fact that bishop pucci kept getting man handled through out the film but thats just me being very nip picky over the period of the film and what the inquisition stood for and how much power the church held at that time... so attacking or insulting or humiliateing a member of the church was a really really bad thing which had dire consiquences... yet it just got ridiculously lame the amount of time the church just got mauled for a laugh but otherwise it was a good film

reply

I'm astonished so many people didn't like this movie. This is the best one I've seen all year! (2005 included) It had a bit of everything: action/adventure, deception, comedy, romance, a plot that kept getting more and more intricate but ALL worked out in the end. Honestly, I wasn't bored for one second in this movie. Not to mention the sets and costumes were gorgeous.

AAaaaaagghhh!! It was so good!!

Right, so I'm going to go before I start breaking things....like Victoria. (Ohhhhh Victoria.)

...you shall give birth to a fully-grown midgit in pirate regalia...

myspace.com/krispytama

reply

I laughed out loud as well. It's not something I do unless it's funny.

Good movie!

reply

I can't believe people felt this movie wasn't funny. So what if it doesn't have sick bathroom humor and overt sexual visual gags? It's funny because it has the clever dialogues that actually require a bit of thought, as opposed to movies along the lines of 40 Year Old Virgin and Something About Mary. And as a poster mentioned earlier, it's supposed to be a comedy farce, not a historically accurate drama - the actors are allowed to ham it up a bit.

reply

I've read just a few of the comments regarding this film and what I'd like to say is how disappointed I become when I read 'tit for tat' arguments about the merits of a film. This is not what reviewing a movie is all about. What I'd like to see is a) more respect shown for other people's opinions and b) deeper thought and reflection, especially about what specifically someone liked in a movie. For me, the beauty of going to the movies is to be able to judge a film on the effect it had on me. If I love it and my friend hated it, then great! That gives us so much more to talk about. I certainly don't regard him or her as an idiot because they didn't see things my way, didn't appreciate what I appreciated and so on. The beauty of the human race is in the little differences between us all. So please, let's talk about content, respect other's opinions and enjoy bulletin boards for what they're intended - an exchange of opinion and a forum for discussion, not dislike and ridicule of other reviewers.

reply

This movie is indeed great, if you simply forget history. I can't remember ANY costume movie to be THIS funny.
I have read some reviews and comments, but nobody mentions the MUSIC. For classical music lovers it is a treat to go to this movie just for the music.
I stayed till the end of the credits (everybody else has already left the cinema) to see who the composers are, Vivaldi of course, but so many more, a long list. Fantastic. I am going another 5 times.

reply

Yes, this movie did have a great soundtrack. It set the tone beautifully; the movie wouldn't have been as funny without it.

reply

I didn't hate it, I was just disappointed. I didn't know it was a comedy/farce. I was expecting a serious drama about Casanova. Ledger of okay, at least I could understand him this time -most of the time. Does he really have such a deep voice?

reply

next time, watch a trailer or read a review before going to a movie so you know what it's about.

reply

Here, here! It's obvious what the film's about if you actually watch the trailer.

reply

I watched it. It was okay, but overall, sort of boring.

reply

*looks to the left and right*

I dont usually reply at all to any of the message boards here on IMDB... but i felt i had to put my 2 cents in.

Casanova was such a smart and clever funny film! I cant stand stupid humor... because they make me feel stupid. Casanova was a welcome change to that, and i laughed pretty much throughout the whole film. I thought that Ledger was a good Casanova, and for that matter all the other actors played their roles well too. It was fun to watch, especially when Ledger's character thought his fiance was under that table... but it was the pig! Oh that was torture to watch! LOL

And the lines! SO CLEVER! I would watch that movie again just to hear the dialouge... i love clever lines as much as i love a smart comedy... which, thankfully, cannot exist with out the other...

Now, i'm not going to say much of anything to the people who didnt enjoy the movie... but maybe this movie just wasnt your cup of tea ^_^. But my friend and I who went to see it werent expecting much, and left the theater satisfied that we chose to see it that night and had a whole bunch of new inside jokes to laugh about. It was a good movie, and when it comes out... i'll be happy to add it to my collection ^_^.

reply

I saw CASANOVA today and thoroughly enjoyed the ever unfolding story.
... changing identities. secret motives, manipulations.
What a great time.
So was the writer's previous movie STAGE BEAUTY.
Too bad for those who feel the need to dissect and over analyze
the crap out of film in general.
I try to read as little as possible about the movies before I see them.
Just enough to peek my interest.

reply

I went to it not expecting a great movie.
But it indeed was a great movie.

It was light hearted romance. Tristan and Isolde was good, but it was that "kind of shoved down ur through til you wanna vomit kind of romance." Casanova on the other hand was refreshing.

And I thought Heath was a pretty good Casanova. I wouldn't say Oscar-worthy performance, but he did Casanova brilliantly.

reply

just wanted to throw this out there--

casasnova was so *beep* good. i got dumped a few hours before i saw it and it STILL made me laugh. i want to kiss heath ledger. a lot.

reply

I thought this was a DELIGHTFUL little film, a well-written, classic farce. It reminded me a lot of "Shakespeare in Love."

I haven't read anything about the real Casanova, so I wasn't jarred by anything that didn't jibe with history.

Ledger was a charming and handsome Casanova, and had just the right lighthearted touch. Man, does he have range. From Ennis del Mar to Casanova???

Who'd a thunk it?

It was actually kind of funny, I saw it at a two-screen art house, and the other film was "Brokeback Mountain." We were calling it the Heath Ledger Theater.

"Jack, I swear..."

reply

Have to agree with the above comments, this movie was just a ton of fun. I saw it with my usual movie group, a bunch of folks who tend to like serious movies (Oscar Contenda's) and we all loved Casanova. As alluded to above, it was like a Shakespearean comedy in complexity and structure, light-hearted over-acting but weighty in resolution, said something about Love and was filled with beautiful people, interesting characters, and exciting action. Heath Ledger was terrific, another great role for him this year; Sienna Miller was delicious, Jeremy Irons was...Jeremy Irons. What more could you ask for a chilly January evening than an evening in Venice at Carnivale? I personally loved the balloon scene over night-time Venice. Who cares if this isn't the historic Casanova? It's not a biography, it's a romance, and the name Casanova certainly brings to mind the most famously romantic man in history.

"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."

reply

While I didn't expect a masterpiece (we have FELLINI's CASANOVA starring Donald Sutherland, after all), I certainly was disappointed.

It was enjoyable in parts, but too... run-of-the-mill for my taste...

Pity...


Night-shift Burger King employee

reply

not every movie is made with oscars in mind-- for once this season (save, perhaps, Pride and Prejudice), we have a delightful, lighthearted romantic comedy that was a joy to watch!

Among heavy, somber movies like Goodnight and Goodluck, Matchpoint, Memoirs, Munich, King Kong etc....Casanova was a refreshing change.

reply

You're not. I thought it was cute. It was made me laugh. I liked a particular scene where Francesa's mother met her daughter's intended husband. For some reason, i found that somewhat amusing but the whole movie was funny. Heath Ledger's performance was okay for the part. It's not a serious movie. I mean, come on, is he supposed to act like a Shakespearean character in a movie that doesn't qualify for those intense emotions? I don't think so.

"I outrank you." Brad Chase
"And I'm such a slut for authority." Alan Shore

reply

This is just my take, so hopefully no one takes offense to this...which they shouldn't, because I highly, highly doubt any of crew on this movie will be reading this anytime soon.

*SPOILERS*

The script was just awful. I'm a film major and I've spent my entire life watching movies. So, needless to say, I've seen far more than my share. I've come across poor scripts, but Casanova is another story. The script for this movie has got to be in my top 5 of the most poorly written scripts in recent memory. I wanted to like this movie. I try not to go in with preconceived notions and I try not to think about the reviews I read prior to seeing the movie. However, the reason I expected to like this is because I experienced Venice for myself and loved it. I also happen to like historical films, and while this one wasn't completely true to fact, I thought it might suffice. But I was in for something else. I just saw this movie tonight on a whim; I figured I could rent it, seeing as how there are other movies I would have rather spent the $8 on. Maybe it's because I've seen such glorious films recently such as Match Point and Pride and Prejudice, but I was just not impressed by Casanova on any level. It had a good, solid cast, but with the script they were given, not much could be done to save it. Jeremy Irons, usually a great actor, gave off the idea that he wasn't comfortable in his role, and therefore overacted. I'm not a particular fan of Heath Ledger, but I think he's a pretty good actor, considering the rest of the crop his age, these days. But in this movie, I feel he underacted, contrary to Mr. Irons. Lena Olin was pretty good as Francesca's mother. I also think Sienna Miller did a solid job with her material, as did Oliver Platt. The locations were definitely a plus, it was most certainly a visual ode to Venice. The score went along well with the locations, too. But despite the photography and score, I just couldn't get past the awful, horrible, terrible script. Not only was it poorly written, but it was cheap. By cheap, I mean the jokes were cheap shots and I felt so cheated. I'm not one to walk out of movies (even if they're bad, I have to see the ending), but as the movie went on, I found myself wanting to walk out more and more. The first 20 minutes or so started off alright. But, the viewer knows that Casanova and Francesca will end up together, and an even smarter viewer will also know that a love triangle will ensue, that the church will be after Casanova, and that Francesca's mother and Papprizio will end up together (she said she liked her men meaty, and as soon as the viewer gets a glimpse of Papprizio, he/she knows). Movies nowadays make it very simple to know that the female lead and the male lead will, most likely, end up together. But at least in some of those movies, there is a script to work with. Casanova was just a wreck. As I said, I really wanted to like it. But it's funny: the movie told us, the viewers, where it was going right off the bat; however, at any given time, the movie itself had no idea where it was or where it was going. It didn't know what it wanted to be. It was all over the place. If you are looking for Heath Ledger running around in billowy shirts, cheap thrills, AND cheap laughs, then by all means, go see Casanova. But please, I urge you to think twice. If you want to think, have some plot turns thrown at you, see great locations, AND be entertained, please go see a movie such as Match Point. For me, Casanova was the biggest waste of two hours spent in a movie theatre in a long time.

Where's my $8?

reply

Well... I'm not offended by your post per se, Filmcity, but let me offer another opinion.

*SPOILERS*

Casanova didn't have a bad script! I, too, am a film major; however, I don't think that makes me any more qualified to condemn a movie than anybody else. Movies aren't made specifically for people to study them- they're made for enjoyment! I have to agree, Match Point and P & P were indeed glorious films. But to compare them to Casanova? Come on. It's a completely different genre. Sure, Pride and Prejudice had its funny moments, but Casanova was a farce. Pride and Prejudice was a magnificent tribute to a classic piece of literature; Casanova's a movie to watch, as you put it, "on a whim," to unwind after a long day. In no way were the jokes cheap.

By cheap, I mean the jokes were cheap shots and I felt so cheated.
I still wonder what you meant by 'cheap?' You seem to have used the word in the course of defining it.

In fact, by today's standards, they (the jokes) were quite witty. No references to genetalia or otherwise crass subjects, even though a huge theme of the movie is sex. It was pure humor at its finest. Another thing is, Casanova didn't need jokes to be funny. The situations depicted in it were funny enough on their own to keep me laughing through nearly the whole piece. The script was predictable in some areas, but I must confess I was surprised when Cardinal Lopresta turned out to be Casanova's (common law?) stepfather. Interesting twist. And the fact that Jeremy Irons overacted doesn't mean he was uncomfortable in his role- on the contrary, I think he had to be pretty relaxed in order to enjoy himself as much as he obviously did while filming this movie. The character fit in perfectly.

While you could ultimately tell where the script was going, it was still fun watching the story unfold. I really can't see how you can say:
the movie itself had no idea where it was or where it was going. It didn't know what it wanted to be. It was all over the place.
The movie tied together beautifully! The fact that it was all over the place simply means it was more complex than you might have realized. It did have quite a few more plots than just the Casanova/Francesca one.

Folks, you really won't regret the $8 it takes to see the film.

reply

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the fact that I do not feel I am more entitled to "condemning" a film moreso than the next guy. I gave a little bit of my background just to make it known that I've seen much more than my share of movies, but that doesn't give me a right to say what is right and what is wrong with another person's opinions. So for that, I am sorry if it came out the wrong way.

It seems to me like we just have very different ideas of the term "humor". To me, the jokes in Casanova were ones I would have found funny years ago. By no means am I saying you had no right to laugh, I just didn't, that's all. I found the jokes extremely tired, like they've been recycled from every other poor, farce-like script. I stand by what I said about the jokes being "cheap shots".

I'm not necessarily comparing Pride and Prejudice and Match Point to Casanova (that would be FAR too unfair to Casanova, indeed). What I'm saying is that maybe I would have enjoyed Casanova a little more, granted I had a little more time between seeing those two great films and Casanova. Nonetheless, I was not at all impressed by Casanova. As I said, some of the acting was pretty good, i.e. Lena Olin, Oliver Platt, and Sienna Miller. But I was disappointed by Jeremy Irons, I expected more from him.

The fact that it was all over the place simply means it was more complex than you might have realized.


I'm sorry, I don't know if I should be insulted by that or not. I don't think there was much complexity to be had in this film. Having more than just the "Casanova and Francesca" plot does not necessarily make a movie more complex in the slightest. What makes it complex is its intelligence, its wit, its insight, and overall, the way the plots are handled throughout the duration of the movie.

I do agree with you on the fact that movies are meant to entertain. I am a very firm believer in that (I grew up with a father in the film industry, he is very into the "critiquing"). However, I was not even entertained by Casanova. I really thought I would be, too! Historical (kind of), Venice, farce, good cast...what's not to be entertained by, right? Wrong. It was bland and left me dry.

Still waiting for my $8...

reply

Eh... no accounting for taste, I suppose...

reply

I just got back from seeing it and I LOVED it! I have just become a fan of Heath's (due to BBM) and he is the reason I saw it. Good acting, great costumes, Lena Olin is gorgeous, and a cute storyline made me happy to have parted with my $8.50.

Professional Jayne Mansfield fanatic/loverâ„¢ since 1980.

reply

I pretty much read every reply here and I think, most of the people who replied in this thread enjoyed the movie and so did I.

When I paid my $10.75 (New York City) to see this movie, I knew it would be a farce so I didn't expect anything serious but I expected good entertainment, and boy was this good!

I enjoyed the movie from its very first minute and the only factor that darkened my pleasure a bit was that my husband couldn't be with me watching the film. He would have loved it as much as I did. Smart, clever, well paced, romantic - something for everybody! I can't wait to get it on DVD to watch it all over again. It's my recommendation to everybody who wants to have a good time at the movies without taking life too serious :)

reply

Well said Elke!

Professional Jayne Mansfield fanatic/loverâ„¢ since 1980.

reply