Rating: 
Summary: Good but not Pasolini's finest!
Review: "The Canterbury Tales" is second part of Pasolini's 'Trilogy Of Life' but certainly the most innocent, and perhaps dullest, of the three. Based on stories by Chaucer the film has been set in England, however the native tongue has been dubbed in Italian with English subtitles. The stories are fairly adult in nature but mostly harmless unlike Pasolini's shocker, "Salo". Final thoughts - watch but don't buy unless you're a fan of the director!.
Rating: 
Summary: Beware of the unworthy DVD
Review: Beware, and read the details carefully. This DVD is only in dubbed English, which destroys the originality of the film. Quite unforgivable. Don't buy this.
Rating: 
Summary: BEL FILM
Review: FILM TRATTO DAL LIBRO END
Rating:
Summary: Read the book
Review: I read the stories of the Canterbury Tales and was blown away. I saw the movie and was disgusted. The acting is horrible and some of the people are just UGLY. The plot does stick to the tales but if you've read them, you don't really want to see them enacted. It reminds me of an old cheesy HBO porn, but that is even giving it too much credit. Do yourself a favor and stick to the book.
Rating:
Summary: A LOAD OF RUBBISH!!!!
Review: I really wasted my money on this one! I was totally disgusted with this movie, it demeaned women in the most part and looked much like cheesey low budget porn film. There was really only one scene in the whole movie that I would have called humourous. The scenes of execution and murder were the most realistic part of the movie that I would even consider crediting the actors. I recommend no one buy this film if they can't stand, sex, violence and women being treated like objects.
Rating:
Summary: Pasolini on Chaucer
Review: I was fortunate enough to purchase this DVD when originally issued, not so with Pasolini's other films. I had seen this film almost a year before buying it, and while it's not a GREAT movie it is still better than some. First off, the picture quality is not great, due to the museum conditions the print seems to have been stored under. This leads one to believe that not many prints survived. Using a mostly British cast adds as much realism to the film as can be mustered. The humour is typically bawdy and quite perverse at times (as in Satan farting out the monks ). I am quite sure that Chaucer would have been proud of this film of his work. The only problem i have with the picture is the uneven cinematography. Tonino Delli Colli's work has greatly improved since, but in this film is either over-saturated with light or is too dark. His ultimate camera work is in Leone's ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, but apart from the inconsistancies with lighting he is a quite capable cameraman. One wonders what use Pasolini could have made with Giuseppe Rotunno or Luciano Tovoli. Other people might have a problem with Pasolini's inclusion of homosexual love scenes, but they are quite subdued from being actual pornography. And although Pasolini was himself homosexual, he doesn't throw it the viewer's face as being all-important. All in all, the film is quite deserving of the NC-17 rating which my DVD copy carries. Too bad the United Artists logo doesn't appear at the beginning since they distributed the film in the early 70's
Rating:
Summary: Maybe the worst Italian film ever
Review: In the Middle Ages, people generally did not stroll about in brightly colored, shintzy clothes. Especially not when they went on a pilgrimage, "to seek the holy blissful martyr". Roads and streets were not paved. People stank. One cannot convey that in a film, but please pay more attention to set decoration? The standard you would like to attain in that respect was set by Terry Gilliam in "Jabberwocky": shabby poor people, dirty faces, muddy streets. Or "The Name of the Rose". Besides, you can only follow this movie if you have read the Canterbury Tales first. Otherwise, it's incomprehensible. By the way, almost all Italian movies I re-view of late seem incomprehensible. I used to like Italian cinema, but its products do not seem to age well. The dialogues usually seem hollow and pretentious. One notable exception: "Kaos".
Rating:
Summary: Maybe the worst Italian film ever
Review: In the Middle Ages, people generally did not stroll about in brightly colored, shintzy clothes. Especially not when they went on a pilgrimage, "to seek the holy blissful martyr". Roads and streets were not paved. People stank. One cannot convey that in a film, but please pay more attention to set decoration? The standard you would like to attain in that respect was set by Terry Gilliam in "Jabberwocky": shabby poor people, dirty faces, muddy streets. Or "The Name of the Rose". Besides, you can only follow this movie if you have read the Canterbury Tales first. Otherwise, it's incomprehensible. By the way, almost all Italian movies I re-view of late seem incomprehensible. I used to like Italian cinema, but its products do not seem to age well. The dialogues usually seem hollow and pretentious. One notable exception: "Kaos".
Rating:
Summary: This is a mighty peculiar film...
Review: It's certainly not a faithful adaptation of Chaucer's work, if that's what you're looking for. It includes four segments that are fairly faithful tellings of tales (Merchant's, Miller's, Reeve's, Pardoner's), along with bits that take one or two elements from different tales but don't really go all the way, and quite a number of unspeakably bizarre bits that have absolutely nothing to do with the source work. Extraordinarily strange, with less-than-impressive acting/dubbing, but sort of entertaining anyway. And...do my eyes deceive me, or is one of the extras in the first scene that guy (Nicholas something) from Are You Being Served?
Rating: 
Summary: MASTERPIECE!!!
Review: Literally!!!Brilliant!!!Pasolini is beyond reproach!!!!Go watch yer Hollywood super sound pictures for technical perfection!!!For heart and soul on the screen this is among the best!!
| 
