IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,0/10
1085
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzu1936, the Italian army is invading Ethiopia. Lieutenant Silvestri, who suffers from toothache, decides to go to the nearest field hospital. But the surprises are not over.1936, the Italian army is invading Ethiopia. Lieutenant Silvestri, who suffers from toothache, decides to go to the nearest field hospital. But the surprises are not over.1936, the Italian army is invading Ethiopia. Lieutenant Silvestri, who suffers from toothache, decides to go to the nearest field hospital. But the surprises are not over.
Empfohlene Bewertungen
This film was nothing spectacular or even above average. It attempts to show one man's world come down on him in a foreign land and turning against his own kind. While it never does accomplish its goal it does explain why Nicolas Cage is one of the best actors of this era. Even in this unknown film which was never released in American theatres, Cage still gives a stunning performance...in fact, perhaps one of the strongest of his acting career. If you truly appreciate Nic Cage as an actor you will truly appreciate his acting in this film.
Found an old VHS version of this film in my parents house so I thought I'd give it a go. Right from the start I wasn't expecting much from this film and I'm glad for that because overall the film was no good.
The acting overall was very poor, even for a Nicolas Cage movie. One scene with a radio controller stands out as being so pitiful that I found it hilarious that this scene wasn't cut. The first 30 minutes of the film had almost no developed plot and I didn't know what was going on.
The story itself had the possibility of being decent but either the director was just bad or was trying too hard to put his own unique touch on the style of the film. I managed to watch the whole thing but I won't likely ever see this film again.
The acting overall was very poor, even for a Nicolas Cage movie. One scene with a radio controller stands out as being so pitiful that I found it hilarious that this scene wasn't cut. The first 30 minutes of the film had almost no developed plot and I didn't know what was going on.
The story itself had the possibility of being decent but either the director was just bad or was trying too hard to put his own unique touch on the style of the film. I managed to watch the whole thing but I won't likely ever see this film again.
This one is quite peculiar. Not in the sense that it is just another one of those Italian badly-dubbed, vaguely narrated movies with much over- and underacting, pretty landscapes and a musical score by (who else) Ennio Morricone. No, the strange thing is that it has Nicholas Cage in the leading role! I never understand why Italian directors feel so at ease with out of sync dubbing and providing a new voice to actors who don't speak Italian. I think sound, voice and language are very essential ingredients in film (but I am not an Italian). Cage still does a good job with someone else's voice and language and that's a true mark of the man's talent.
Although the story is a bit silly and far-fetched, Cage does a wonderful job portraying an outlaw soldier who thinks he's caught an incurable exotic disease.
Although the story is a bit silly and far-fetched, Cage does a wonderful job portraying an outlaw soldier who thinks he's caught an incurable exotic disease.
Tempo Di Uccidere (Time To Kill) by Guiliano Montaldo is a bit of a strange film, but it's good in it's own way.
I won't bother with a summary of the plot. Most that I've read gives the wrong impression and makes me believe that most people who wrote those didn't really understand the film. And you need to understand it to some level, even if you cannot describe for yourself what it's actually about. This film is strange in a "Once Upon a Time in America" way- only shorter.
Many 'Hollywood' stars (whatever that may mean...) have played in lesser known Italian productions. It's known that many actors who are past their prime or slowly rising to it do this. Cage was not yet a real star when this was made. I'm not a fan of him. He's very good in some roles (Raising Arizona, Bringing out the Dead) and weak when he plays the hero. I don't really know what to think of him in this one, but he sure doesn't portray the typical hero main character. This film could have done without him, but the fact that he starred may be the only reason this one ever made it to DVD.
The supporting cast is good. Not one of them looks fake and they act as if they are really there. Solid support.
I have seen 3 films by Montaldo (Marco Polo, Sacco&Vanzetti and this one) and I think he is one of the greater directors of this time. Unfortunately, nobody knows him. This movie was his last in a long time (a break of 19 years). I think that this movie might have failed at the office, but from the way it is done I think that for Montaldo it was a personal project that he really liked.
The production is great. It's always enough. The dusty army camps, the claustophobic cities and the magnificent landscape all play a great part. It all feels very real. In some scenes you can almost feel the heat. The sound itself is nothing special, but the music by Ennio Morricone is very good. It's not a piece that you will whistle when in the shower, but it sure works great.
So this movie looks, feels and sounds just right. It doesn't serve the lessons learned from it on a golden platter, but that may be the biggest difference between Hollywood and euro-cinema all around. It might sound strange to give it an 8 and not recommend it to people, but that is what I do. If you are looking for action; avoid this one! If you are looking for a well made Apocalypse Now in a different time and setting, but with a bit of similar journey into a 'state of mind'(sorry if this sound corny but I don't know what else to call it) you just might enjoy this one a lot.
I won't bother with a summary of the plot. Most that I've read gives the wrong impression and makes me believe that most people who wrote those didn't really understand the film. And you need to understand it to some level, even if you cannot describe for yourself what it's actually about. This film is strange in a "Once Upon a Time in America" way- only shorter.
Many 'Hollywood' stars (whatever that may mean...) have played in lesser known Italian productions. It's known that many actors who are past their prime or slowly rising to it do this. Cage was not yet a real star when this was made. I'm not a fan of him. He's very good in some roles (Raising Arizona, Bringing out the Dead) and weak when he plays the hero. I don't really know what to think of him in this one, but he sure doesn't portray the typical hero main character. This film could have done without him, but the fact that he starred may be the only reason this one ever made it to DVD.
The supporting cast is good. Not one of them looks fake and they act as if they are really there. Solid support.
I have seen 3 films by Montaldo (Marco Polo, Sacco&Vanzetti and this one) and I think he is one of the greater directors of this time. Unfortunately, nobody knows him. This movie was his last in a long time (a break of 19 years). I think that this movie might have failed at the office, but from the way it is done I think that for Montaldo it was a personal project that he really liked.
The production is great. It's always enough. The dusty army camps, the claustophobic cities and the magnificent landscape all play a great part. It all feels very real. In some scenes you can almost feel the heat. The sound itself is nothing special, but the music by Ennio Morricone is very good. It's not a piece that you will whistle when in the shower, but it sure works great.
So this movie looks, feels and sounds just right. It doesn't serve the lessons learned from it on a golden platter, but that may be the biggest difference between Hollywood and euro-cinema all around. It might sound strange to give it an 8 and not recommend it to people, but that is what I do. If you are looking for action; avoid this one! If you are looking for a well made Apocalypse Now in a different time and setting, but with a bit of similar journey into a 'state of mind'(sorry if this sound corny but I don't know what else to call it) you just might enjoy this one a lot.
4eavs
I haven't seen all Cage's works by any means but his acting in this one was truly awful. The other characters run the gamut of ability but, having most of the emotional scenes, Cage's scenes are just embarrassing to watch. He's certainly come a long ways in 12 years.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesFilmed in Zimbabwe.
- Alternative VersionenThe UK video version was cut by 17 secs by the BBFC to remove a scene where a lit cigarette is placed into a lizard's mouth.
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Time to Kill?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 50 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.85 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
What is the French language plot outline for Zeit zu leben, Zeit zu sterben (1989)?
Antwort