Am I the only person that didn't think it was too great?

That's interesting. Because as one of my favorite films the cinematography was actually one of the last reasons I love this movie. The actors weren't even actors, the protagonist was a factory worker. And the extras were just a part of the the common rabble, also with absolutely no experience. So yes they were amateurs. But that is of little relevance as it is not the intended objective of every movie to attain perfection in every quality.

Your criticism regarding that plot hole makes little sense. I don't quantify the extent of my empathy by the relative suffering of a person. We measure suffering by the standards of our own existence. We place ourselves in their shoes. We don't imagine how their peers would feel if they were place into their shoes.

I'll agree good film but not great, I was saddened and did understand the struggles but it would never be on my top ten, it just draws things out a little too much. I almost fell asleep and I'm not saying that I need constant action for a movie, I'm a big fan of Lost in Translation in which we just have drawn shots of Japan and constant small talk. But the bicycle theif was just too bleak for me, reminded me of All Quiet on the Western Front, not a bad film but just too drawn for me to really be interested in.

[deleted]

Now you're just being silly but don't take that the wrong way.

Freedom of speech? That would depend on topics and where you're from but I don't even think you have to worry about not having the freedom to write what you want on a forum about cinema and films.

The other poster didn't say you couldn't have your opinion but his comment did sound a little pompous. It wasn't necessarily meant as an insult but a clarification that you didn't find the aspects you complained about to be integral in understanding the meaning of the film. At the same time that poster did not point out to you that what you wrote was about right and that the only thing you didn't get was that you perceived the film correctly but confused your own opinion with not being provoked by the film.

I'll tell you why it wasn't an insult. You didn't actually write anything that one could insult you for until you wrote your second post.

I will not go on about that but this film was part of the neo-realism that came during post-WW2 and portrayed the European depression. This showed what had happened after the war. In the United States of America the situation was different, the main land was never bombed and instead had a time of prosperity while a large part of the world and especially parts of Europe lay in ruin.

This film was made at a time (1948) when the story had something important to say about the situation in Italy. That a viewer fifty or sixty years later find it not to be appealing doesn't mean that the film would be bad but it doesn't state that it is entertaining to watch. I would assume that it feels like a history lesson about a part of history we usually wouldn't want to here about.

We would rather listen to the stories about battles being won and the victory being claimed by the good guys but what did happen afterwards?

Like in Italy that had been ruled by the fascists and Mussolini that was allied with the Nazi-regime of Hitler's Germany.

No heroic portrayals of homecoming sons that fought in the war.

No economical and social prosperity.

This film shows one of the common people that might not have been directly involved or hurt by the war but would have to live in the aftermath of what had happened.

Personally I did not have such a different reaction to the film than you did and I was wondering about what it meant but than again I was still not thinking about it as if I had actually seen it back in '48 when I had not even been born.

I can't say that you have to like it because I didn't like it but I find it to be a very good film none the less. It is drawn out as you say, many films are and it is also very depressing and the characters might be hard to find interest in because they're down on their luck and the lead's hopes are crushed in the end.

You don't have to like this film and you're probably not supposed to.

This isn't escapism, inspiring fiction and it isn't trying to make you feel better about yourself or a post 80's spirit of americana and the idea of individualism.

There was a time when people's lifes didn't mean anything and around the world there's still societies where people's individual freedom don't mean much.

When a movie has such a theme there isn't much more you can do than to speak your mind. You did watch the film. Now that you've seen it perhaps you wouldn't want to experience it again and you don't have to. You gave it a try.

There are other films that might not be as depressing but they're not always as thought-provoking or good.

Then again there's probably movies that can give you an easier version of some of these themes.

wow preppy-3. you're a dumass.
i never understood people who came in here and posted insults.. but now i do.

thank you. ps. it doesnt matter what you think. i didnt especially love this movie either but it was pretty good in what it did, which was, as Zavattini himself said, depict reality in the truest of forms, as truest to its essence as possible, by showing people, events and their dailiness and duration in the best approximation to reality, which is what contemporary cinemagoers sometimes cant stand.. which is why he names viewer impatience and indifference as a major problem in society today.

Looking at your post, i am amazed at how right he was. ppl like you exasperate me. seriously. think of something other than yourself and what 'interests' you. or rather, make yourself be intested in other things.