ricbigi
I saw VENERE IMPERIALE when it first came out, in its Italian version, in its full-length, glorious cinematography, and I must say that most reviewers have missed the point in evaluating the film. This is a great epic on the life of a woman legendary for her beauty and love affairs. While many scenes are perhaps too static, resembling scenes from an historical frieze, others have adequate tone, pace and atmosphere, do projecting a real feel for the times and people depicted. I never thought the film was overlong when I saw it, but it is obvious it could have used better editing, a faster pace in some places. Nothing wrong with the art direction and the use of location for the external scenes. If anything, I would have entrusted the screenplay to Jacques Prévert and Jean Aurenche, who did such an outstanding job in NOTRE DAME DE Paris, instead of using five writers as Delannoy did. Too many people, perhaps too many hands involved. Delannoy loved Gina Lollobrigida, and directed her well. I never understood the negative criticisms directed at Lollobrigida as an actress. Those who pan her performance in this film should have a good look at Sophia Loren's in MADAME SANS-GÊNE. That's mediocrity for you. Gina at least was beautiful to look at, and possessed true star quality. One regret, though: why use Micheline Presle so sparingly? She was so wonderful a presence and deserved far more screen time than was given here.
dbborroughs
Gina Lollabrigida headlines as the sister of Napoleon in the huge spectacle of the life and loves of a footnote person in history. This is epic story telling on a grand scale. Unfortunately the story is incredibly dull and probably pointless. I saw this in a version that was shorn of twenty minutes and while it was choppy at times (I sensed something was missing) it was still a tough slog to get through. Sure it looks great as many of the huge color epics do but beyond the look there is nothing. Lollabrigida looks good but really can't act. I was never a fan of hers and knew her more because she was a "star" more than as someone who made films I wanted to see. She's paired with Stephen Boyd, a good but limited actor, who was probably better in his supporting roles. I really can't recommend this unless you're a fan of Gina, of spectacles (regardless of quality) or are in need of sleep.
MARIO GAUCI
Turgid historical saga, a semi-biopic of Napoleon Bonaparte's courtesan sister(!); the overall effect is as improbable as the Hollywood version, DESIREE' (1954), which had focused on the life of the famed French leader's 'girlfriend'.Gina Lollobrigida is monotonous in the title role (not to mention unconvincing when it comes to the dramatic passages of the plot); incidentally, she had previously worked for the director on THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1957). In support of the star are the likes of Stephen Boyd (who would fare much better playing alongside the Italian sex symbol's rival, Sophia Loren, in THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE [1964]), Raymond Pellegrin (making for a pretty good Napoleon) and Massimo Girotti while Micheline Presle (playing Josephine) and Gabriele Ferzetti put in 'guest appearances'.At an interminable length of almost 2½ hours, for what amounts to a largely unexciting narrative, the film which, at least, has the virtue of expansive locations and attractive widescreen photography understandably adopts an episodic structure throughout. In fact, the heroine is seen being involved with various lovers (including officer Ferzetti and roguish Hussar Boyd) and husbands (General-turned-Viceroy Girotti and a wimpish Italian Prince)
apart from facing such calamities as war, plague, deaths in the family and, finally, the humiliating abdication of Napoleon himself!
kosmasp
I saw this movie in a German dubbed version, so I can't judge the "original" version (if there was an original soundtrack to the movie, it's more likely that this has been filmed, like the Leone Westerns, where every actor spoke in his native language)! But I did like the German version ...As is obvious from my rating against the "beating" it got before my rating. Now I think most of the reviewers can agree, that the actors did a good job. I also have to agree with the fact, that nothing explicit is shown here (neither sexual nor anything else), but is played with. But the sexual innuendos that are used here, are really great. At least I could enjoy them. Since back then, they couldn't be more free with "topics" like that, I'm even surprised they got away with some of the things in the script. Anyway, the movie has it's downfalls, but I rated the high points (jokes and actors against an incoherent story)!
AD
