dromasca Biographical films tend to be respectful to the historical figures that they describe. Even when they describe complex and controversial characters they try to explain and to put in context the motivation of deeds which in the perspective of history seem evil. Paolo Sorrentino's 'Il Divo' is quite the contrary, it is a negative biography about a character who dominated the Italian politics for most of the second part of the 20th century, the leader of the Christian-Democratic Party and seven-times Prime Minister of Italy, Giulio Andreotti. The film does not lack complexity - quite the contrary - and the historical context of the 80s and 90s is described in detail, but the effect is willingly opposite than in usual biographies. Even political actions which would have seen candid or neutral seem to catch a strong significance and are seen through the perspective of the corruption and Mafia-relations which seem to have dominated Italian political life of the period.My knowledge about the Italian politics is too superficial to make a definite judgment about the correctness of the facts presented on screen. What I can say after seeing the film is that it does not seem to pretend to be objective. Even if there is no explicit statement, there is neither any positive angle we brought into the film or positive dimension that is not questioned. Even the relationship with his wife ('I knew all these years what kind of man I married') or helping the poor (which looks more like a political exercise deprived of sincerity). There are however many other scenes (like the repeated walk on empty streets surrounded by cohorts of security people, the reception after his last nomination as Prime Minister) which describe not only the outer-worldness of the man, but also of the whole system.Even more amazing is the fact that Andreotti was alive when this film was made (he actually died about a month ago) and has seen at least part of the film, allegedly walking out after a while. So this is not only a biography, but a pamphlet directed against a living politician. Andreotti, by the way, was no stranger to the Italian cinema industry, he played an important role in establishing the rules that protected the local industry against foreign (especially Hollywood) imports in the 50s, but also the establishment of a de-facto censorship over the content of the productions which was in place for many decades. Is this film also kind of a revenge of the now free industry over this character? Maybe.To a very large extent 'Il DIvo' relies on the extraordinary acting performance of Toni Servillo. He makes one of these creations which in time tend to superpose and replace the visual representation we have about the real-life person. Great acting indeed, but do we end by understanding better Giulio Andreotti the man? I doubt it. Paolo Sorrentino certainly knows how to construct complex characters which do not show easily their intense internal beings. Looking now retrospectively he did the same thing in This Must Be the Place (which he made later, but I saw it before). He does not however serve the viewers with ready prepared answers about the motivation of his heroes. I knew very little about Andreotti before seeing this film, I know many more facts now, but the man remains a mystery.

Tim Kidner Whether or not you appreciate the masterful, almost flashy direction, it certainly turns what could be an absolute dirge of a political lecture into a cinematic tour de force. That makes it fashionable, hip - and popular. And the difference between a two star TV movie and a 5 star, internationally known cinematic hit. I know which I prefer.Many have suggested watching 'Il Divo' more than once - and so I've just finished my second viewing. The first time has you in a swirling grip as it grabs you by the short and curlies and bombards you with unfolding image after another, a legion of facts and then a metaphorical close-up. It's nigh on impossible to make sense of it all, especially, if like me, your grasp on Italian political history is near nil.But, I didn't watch Il Divo for a history lesson, so does it matter that if I took a test on its facts and dates, my score would still be poor? Perhaps, but as others too have said, a wealth of information is on-line for any that want those details.I first came across both director Paolo Sorrentino and actor Toni Servillo, like many, through the hypnotic "Consequences Of Love", which I must have seen five times now. Servillo, playing the flawed mega politician Giulio Andreotti in this and the enigmatic fallen Mafia mogul in 'Consequences Of' is spellbinding in his portrayal of men who are guarded, cunning and deeply, deeply flawed. These foibles are picked up superbly by Sorrentino's camera.Il Divo doesn't have the simplistic beauty of Consequences.. and ultimately isn't as satisfying but you are left in no doubt that not only have we seen a compelling and colourful portrayal of a life but we have seen the cinematic equivalent of that, too.

davdecrane Pompous, pretentious, portentous, and unwatchable. The director assumes a great familiarity with Italy's fractious post-war politics but that's understandable: he's made his film for a domestic audience. But the inability to ever truly mount and sustain a narrative is unforgivable for any and all audiences. Enamored of pretty cinematography (arguably ill-suited to the subject matter at hand) and fashionably business-suited (if generally unattractive) men marching to and fro in ornate governmental offices, the director tries for a Guy Ritchie flavor with freeze frames and silly captions. But Ritchie (like him or not) at least believes in action and story; this director makes even the famously discursive Fellini look like a slave to plot.Woe to those who stayed with the movie longer than a polite half-hour to see if any modicum of story-telling sense would come to imbue it. A real embarrassment, especially in light of the Euro-praise and the ridiculous IMDb rating.You've been warned.

jzappa Il Divo is a tremendous piece of style. The camera soars through complex settings in which countless people are being highly expressive in some way or another. Every other shot is in slow motion. Cuts never hide but outright snap as quickly as possible from shot to shot to shot. The soundtrack is rich with dynamic modern pop music. Captions are everywhere; some of them move, some of them inflexibly wait till the camera reaches a certain point in order to be legible, some are upside down, et. al. Sometimes, the camera calms down to focus on an actor doing something very interesting and moving, but those are comparatively less conspicuous.The film is a true story, and a widely known one in its home land, Italy, one about the corruption of power, the assault of religious guilt on an unrepentant conscience, the rise to excess and the beginning of an uncertain fall to the prospect of a soul's relieving punishment. It is a story that has been told for centuries, one that offers us no real surprises here, so instead it is awash in stylistic flourishes. That seems very vain and shallow, but such gesticulative hyperkinesis affords the film some very moving moments. Some are expository throwaways, which is just as well, but others are treated in that same manner, as mere fine points, when they betray epic stories all their own. There is also an effective amount of time devoted to the central character's fear of God's judgment, and whether or not he inflects it to take the place of life's chance occurrences or the existence of one's responsibility for his own choices.Il Divo is so pumped with testosterone, never slows down, always has something eye-popping, indeed often just distracting, to throw at us, and like a lot of masculine flaunting, it seems to compensate for a lack of something else. But that's not quite the case here. Yes, the film is all style. But the story is not lathered on top of it. It is the cloth with which all that showing off is done. The dialogue in itself is both plentiful and fancy. The way the characters talk to each other has an aphoristic form and a philosophical undertone. For instance, "I know I am an average man but I look around and see no giant." There is a lot of info-dumping with book-ending title cards and myriad captions among other avenues of squeezing out all facts and fine points, but as complicated as the plot is, and as quickly as it is developed in scenes like the almost whirlwind-speed Mafia meeting, the actors are particularly strong and all have the power to wrestle their scenes away from the clockwork narrative and have them stand out as their own beasts, sometimes through blazing emotional deliveries of exchanges, monologues and even soliloquys, and sometimes through simple emoting that winds up pushing all the stylized clutter to the edges of frame to function at just the right pitch to complement such facial expressions and halfway teardrops. I struggle to recall any other film in recent memory in which such seemingly insignificant characters have unraveled so briefly and brought me to tears with such feeling command.So obviously, the film is highly expressionistic, almost baroque. Toni Servillo's make-up job as Giulio Andreotti, the title figure, is very elaborate and the details of his ears, hair, glasses, facial lines and tightly wound upscale dress sense are screamingly defined and allow him to underplay the role to the point where he is almost an oil painting save for his sporadic jolts of tremendous emotional build-up. The food critic Anton Ego in Pixar's Ratatouille comes to mind. Not every actor here is endowed with this advantage, but they do all have emboldened distinguishing characteristics. Despite those few very touching moments and certain powerful images, often spectacle-driven but sometimes not, the brandishing nature of director Paolo Sorrentino's stylisic proficiency keeps us too distant from his real subjects and the heart of the matter. Regardless however, the actors and the prose they perform rebel against such oppression and do some intense brandishing of their own.