MovieChat Forums > Viaggio in Italia (1954) Discussion > YOU'RE NOT SERIOUS!!!

YOU'RE NOT SERIOUS!!!

posted 12 years ago by BG43214
8 replies | jump to latest

Just saw this on TCM....."Journey to Italy"?????

it should have been called,,,,,INGRID GOES TO NAPLES....ye GODS.

We are treated to the showing of a villa that I'm sure had any real estate agent green with envy.........Ingrid trooping along to the catacombs, a museum and even a dig at Pompeii, not to mention a volcano.

What the hell was Rossellini thinking?

and Sanders? talk about BAD BAD BAD screen chemistry; NONE at with him and Bergman........

Those French critics.....calling this the 'first modern film'.....what the heck does that mean?

I've seen 3 of Godard's films, (he was one of that group who gave this movie that 'accolade'....and believe me, never again......the man should be locked up and throw away the key!!!)....they are awful to say the least......

Just my opinion......

But "JOurney" is one of those movies that you wonder, 'now why did he make this movie? for what purpose?...".....maybe Rossellini should have gone into the travelogue business instead.

I saw version with subtitles..........I couldn't believe they were both actually speaking Italian, but it appeared that way to me, as when you watched their lips closely, they did seem to be saying those Italian words...

Oh well, wasted time on that one, and time I'll never get back.

If anyone out there has anything positive to say about this movie, I"d love to hear it, and your reasoning behind it!!!

I always try to keep an open mind, but I'm afraid with this one I"ll be gritting my teeth!!!! lol

[–] jj-patton 12 years ago

.calling this the 'first modern film'.....what the heck does that mean?

It means a film "told" in images rather than plot events. Indeed, the beauty of this film lies in the ordinariness of the romance, the commonness of the "chemistry", the dull desire that has been filling the lives piled upon each other, lives of people and couples walking the streets of Pompeii then and now and before and since and elsewhere. The truth,

as the man said, at 24 frames a second.

[–] netczar1 11 years ago

Nicely put!

[–] ghb1134-1 11 years ago

BG43214, You're an idiot, right? I can respect others' opinions, even if I disagree with them. But you come off as a mega-douche who knows nothing of film.

[–] ThomasMuf 11 years ago

BG43214, you're a moron.

[–] DracTarashV 10 years ago

I didn't hate it, but I agree that it felt like a waste of time.

Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry!

[–] jrhpax 10 years ago

It's a love story almost without any feeling in it.

Almost anyone would have had more chemistry with Ingrid Bergman than George Sanders had.

Yet I enjoyed most of it, especially the scenes of Naples and Pompeii, and the excavation of the couple is an unforgettable image.

It deserves to be rediscovered, but it doesn't deserve the wild accolades it's getting from modern critics.

[–] karnevilelp 9 years ago

It means a film "told" in images rather than plot events

That's hardly revolutionary, especially by 1954. Un Chien Andalou from 1929 is just one of many examples, Sunrise by Murnau from 1927 is another. It's a very thin line between portraying ordinary emotions and events and just being dull, and for me this crosses that line in to boredom. I like both actors, but Sanders and Bergman have minus zero chemistry. I saw the shorter dubbed version, the reconciliation at the end rang totally false.

[–] Prismark10 8 years ago

At times the film did feel like a travelogue. As for the lack of chemistry between Sanders and Bergman that just reflected the distance between the character they were playing.

It's that man again!!