Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant? Maybe to esoteric?
Review: I don't know... It was beautifully filmed. The crescendo reached in perverse and inhumane or essentially human behaviour was interesting to follow. The thing that sticks out for me is the laughter in this movie, haunting and scary to me in retrospect. Very difficult for me to grasp, but liked it for the images and the power of the film
Rating: 
Summary: One of the best films I've ever seen
Review: I firmly believe that if one does not "get" this film, then they are the type of person this film is satirizing. Something tells me that Fellini, with this film, came closer to illustrating the actual ancient Rome than anybody. It shows the pitfalls of superstition, how drugs and illusion play a role in what people have called "witchcraft","voodoo","macumba" and such. It shows the unmasked view of the delight that some people take in others misery, in watching them suffer, and in confusing and bewildering them with smoke and mirrors. I enjoyed the scenes that depicted the morally reprehensible theatre of ancient Rome, especially in using period sound effects to illustrate how what we today see and hear in film and theatre is not so far advanced from the illusions that the ancient Romans used to propagandize and marginalize the lives of it's people. The parallel to modern society is so great that those who fit that materialistic mold won't get it, because their minds will protect them from the truth. However, we see over-indulgent despotic emperors using their wealth and power to seduce the minds of the populace. We see the same social elite engaging in disgusting orgies of food and sex. The main character, Encolpius, believing himself to be on a path of discovery is actually being lead through a maze of snares and traps at the delight of his so-called mentor who not only fakes his own death, but shows up to taunt Encolpius with this fact. This film is a such a startling comparison to modern life that it will stop all temporal arrogance. How dare we think we're so advanced when we can't even get from here to there without burying the earth beneath us with concrete and polluting our own air. This is Rome, we live in Rome, it's only been transplanted over here and updated to "modern sensibilities" but Rome is still as decadent and wasteful as ever, as if we think we're rising above nature by destroying it. Well, isn't that how "civilization" works? Destroy one people's way of life and force them to conform to yours. This is Satyricon.
Rating:
Summary: You don't get it? You may be the one being taunted,friend.
Review: I firmly believe that if one does not "get" this film, then they are the type of person this film is satirizing. Something tells me that Fellini, with this film, came closer to illustrating the atmosphere of ancient Rome than anybody. It shows the pitfalls of superstition, how drugs and illusion play a role in what people have called "witchcraft","voodoo","macumba" and such. It shows the unmasked view of the delight that some people take in others' misery, in watching them suffer, and in confusing and bewildering them with smoke and mirrors. I enjoyed the scenes that depicted the morally reprehensible theatre of ancient Rome, especially in using period sound effects to illustrate how what we today see and hear in film and theatre is not so far advanced from the illusions that the ancient Romans used to propagandize and marginalize the lives of it's people. The parallel to modern society is so great that those who fit that materialistic mold won't get it, because their minds will protect them from the truth. However, we see over-indulgent despotic emperors using their wealth and power to seduce the minds of the populace. We see the same social elite engaging in disgusting orgies of food and sex. The main character, Encolpius, believing himself to be on a path of discovery is actually being lead through a maze of snares and traps at the delight of his so-called mentor. Soon one might be asking themselves if this man is mentor or tor-mentor to poor Encolpius. This film is a such a startling comparison to modern life that it could stop all temporal arrogance. How dare we think we're so advanced when our society behaves the same as they do, only the names and methods have changed. This is Rome, we live in Rome, it's only been transplanted over here and updated to "modern sensibilities" but Rome is still as decadent and wasteful as ever, as if we think we're rising above nature by destroying it. Well, isn't that how "civilization" works? Destroy one people's way of life and force them to conform to yours. This is Satyricon.
Rating: 
Summary: Satyricongame
Review: I give this film one and a half stars because it is unique and,in places,a beautifully shot film. That said,I've never been able to sit through the entire film. I've seen all of it but it's taken almost 10 years, at least 3 rentals and a fist full of fragmented viewings on cable tv. The last was only a few minutes ago. This film may be the biggest diapointment of my mature film viewing experiences. From the time I first heard of it,maybe 15 years ago,I had set myself for a feast and have always gone away feeling like I got microwave popcorn.Fellini always said he was a man who had nothing to say. Some of his films contradict that, some leave you believing he was on to something and a few (like Satyricon) back it up with ample evidence. Wouldn't it have been possible to make a film that explores and exposes the indulgences of this era that doesn't become indulgent itself? If you have no attachment to plot or characters that are more than ghosts-then dig in. This is full of Fellini's strange characters and weird faces but the gallery is uglier here. The faces are more grotesque and greasier than usual. There are bits that are clearly meant to shock but anybody familiar with the sexual proclivities of the Roman's,their decadant lifestyles or their increasingly insane rulers will come away unfazed. This is a shallow film that tries hard to be different. The shots of guts,naked bodies...etc,the artsy "anti-structure" and the overall feel here give the impression that it's straining too much. Fellini has never been one of my favorites but I've seen MUCH better from him. I gave this one a number of chances but it never rewarded my patience. The part's concerning the main character's attempt to rediscover his sexual potency play like a crudely conscieved Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer parody. Am I suposed to feel sorry because he couldn't play in any Roman games? Do I feel any emotion when he gets his groove back? No. This film is tedious and shallow. Mere eye candy I dare say. I firmly believe that if you hear the word "trippy" being tossed around.....beware. It's most likely to mean that you are really in for something. And it's likely not very good. Trippy is mostly used in place of incoherant or as code for "this is better when you're stoned". Those new to Fellini should check out 8 1/2.
Rating:
Summary: Painful.
Review: I know I'll be criticized for saying this...people will say "You didn't understand its deeper meaning!" or something, but I'm sorry, I found this movie practically impossible to sit through. Please understand, I ADORE Fellini, he may be my favorite director. I can watch NIGHTS OF CABIRIA, JULIET OF THE SPIRITS, ROMA, AMARCORD or LA STRADA over and over again and never tire of them, but watching this seriously made me consider suicide. The cinematography, as always with Fellini, is gorgeous, and some of the grotesque images are interesting, but they don't save the movie from being a painful experience. It is about two hours long, it seemed like 105. I don't believe that a movie has to have a linear storyline to be enjoyable (Dario Argento's INFERNO or Bava's LISA AND THE DEVIL are good examples of films with non-linear storylines that are still brilliant), but Satyricon is completely, completely incomprehensible, and the arresting images don't, in my opinion, make up for that. It bores me more than anything else I can think of. Rent ANY other Fellini film instead of this one.
Rating:
Summary: Not a birthday present for grandma!
Review: I saw the last half of this movie on cable late one night and had to buy it simply to see what it was all about. Honestly I'm still not entirely certain. This is all the strange, sexual, drugged up orgy, cross dressing, twisted and theatrical fun you'll ever need! It's a trip right from the beginning! Like nothing else I've seen. Go into this one with a very open mind! I've given it five stars, but it's difficult to rate something that can't really be compared to anything else. Rated R is an understatement.
Rating: 
Summary: symbolism
Review: i've only seen 2 of felleni's movies, the other being La Strada, and have been a little disappointed, more with Satyricon than La Strada, in their uses of symbolism. At first glance, you can see the relationship that he is trying to make, but when you pull back when the movies over, tend to find flaws in them. Like, for instance, the minotaur in the labyrinth. At first you, you relate it to the confusion of man, and how a power can come to power, but when you pull back and see that it is only, well you know who have seen it, it begins to counter-act your thinking. Or in La Strada, the trumpet is suppost to represent his love, but it doesn't. It had more exposition with the fool than the brute (his name has escaped me), adding more irony than symbolism. His symbolism is like the plot scheme, and my closing sentence, it just switches locations with no notification. Also, i just wanted to point out, in his movies(or the 2 that i have seen) the protagionist has blond hair, whereas everyone else has dark.
Rating:
Summary: Visually Stunning But Disjointed and Sterile
Review: If one rates a film on visuals alone, Fellini's SATYRICON would surely be completely off the scale: a phantasmagorical mixture of sensual beauty and the distasteful but evocative grotesque set in an ancient Rome that never was, never could have been, and yet which plays up to every extreme concept we secretly harbor about Roman decadence. The leading men are incredibly beautiful; the women are generally seductively depraved; and the broad vision that Fellini offers is easily one of the visually stunning creations ever put to film. And yet, oddly, the film is sterile. The story is impossible to describe, a series of largely unrelated events in the lives of two impossibly handsome youths (Martin Potter and Hiram Keller) who begin the film by battling over the sexual favors of a slave boy (Max Born) who alternately unites and divides them until all three find themselves sold into slavery and flung from adventure to adventure, most often with sexual (and frequently homosexual) connotations. Clearly, Fellini is making a statement about the triviality and emptiness of a life lived for physical pleasures alone. But the film is jumpy, disjointed, disconnected; the sequences do not always arise from each other in any consistent way, leaving viewers with a sort of "what the ..." reaction when the film unexpectedly shifts without explanation. In consequence, SATYRICON is ultimately less about any philosophical statement Fellini may have had in mind than it is about sheer pictorial splendor and deliberate weirdness. Whatever its failings, it is an astonishing film, and one that would have tremendous influence on a host of directors who followed in Fellini's wake--although all to often without his style and vision. Clearly Pasolini, director of such works as SALO, ARABIAN NIGHTS, and CANTERBURY TALES spent the better part of his largely unlamented life trying to out-Fellini Fellini; likewise, it is impossible to imagine how Tinto Brass and Bob Guccione arrived at the notorious CALIGULA without reference to Fellini's SATYRICON. Such efforts to expand on SATYRICON were merely more explicit and less interesting than the original, and I do not really recommend them--nor do I really recommend SATYRICON for any one other than Fellini fans, for with its oddly disjointed feel it is unlikely to please those raised on mainstream. Still, it is a powerful, remarkably beautiful, and completely unexpected film that must be seen at least once by any one with a serious interest in world cinema, and to those I recommend it without hesitation. --GFT (Amazon.com Reviewer)--
Rating:
Summary: Rome before Christ. After Mind-Altering drugs.
Review: In the late 1960's Federico Fellini created one of the most beautiful and at the same time disturbing films ever made. Watching each frame is like gazing into a bizarre painting. I am honestly surprised that Salvador Dali didn't have anything to do with this film. It tells the epic tale of a Roman student's journey through a nightmarish landscape chock full of weird characters and even weirder events. With all the extras, costumes, and set designs, there is so much for the eyes here it is truly unbeleivable. The most disturbing thing I caught about the film is how characters will look into the camera in a frozen stare. It makes you feel as if you are right there. My favorite scene is when Encolpius battles the Minotaur, I don't think I will ever get that chanting out of my head. There is a constant undercurrent of humor that most viewers might not get at first, so you really need to read between the lines. The cinematography is nothing short of perfection thanks to Giuseppe Rotunno accompanied by an always eery music score by Nino Rota. The intense experience you get from this film is unlike anything in film history. Its just one of those great films that shakes you up and leaves you pondering it for hours, days, even years. Its influence can be seen in films like Terry Gilliam's "Time Bandits", "Brazil" and "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen"; as well as the Shakespeare adaptation "Titus" and even the more recent film "The Cell". I recommend Fellini Satyricon for fans of abstract or surreal art and set design who can see past the disturbing plot and appreciate a true masterpiece of cinema.
Rating:
Summary: A BIG SHEET!
Review: IT'S A FELLINI BIG SHEET! TERRIBLE! HORRIBLE! IT'S THE WORST FILM I EVER SAW!
|
