Il mercante di pietre

Many complain that Italian cinema isn't doing well because it lacks the budget, this is an example of a mess of a movie done with a lot of money. Renzo Martinelli has shot decent films in the past, but this is a big letdown, except for a few high points. The beginning, for instance is very powerful and Harvey Keitel is always quite effective.

The movie has been harshly debated for its controversial, conservative point of view on terrorism. But the screenplay is so bad that its stances cannot really be taken seriously. To make a political statement there are more subtle ways than make a character hold a university lesson (in front of very few students. a metaphor?). Also director Renzo Martinelli here shows he hasn't got (yet?) the hand for action scenes. Few and quite bad, here.

The photography at times were overwhelming, and at other times seemed to be trying to be too arty. The scene when they show the couple flying and being seen outside as the camera withdraws, is like a scene I have never seen before in any movie. It was an actual airplane, not a prop,and i couldn't see that another plane was flying alongside it just to make that scene. See for yourself what I am talking about. Now for the story itself. Terrorism as performed by some of the so-called Islamic group, was not pleasant to watch, but effective. The actors are very good, especially by Jordi who surprised me with the way he acted as a paraplegic. I actually believed that he was a paraplegic. I spent attention to the scene where his wife was rubbing his bare legs as he was in pain and had to take his medication. I did not see any quick 'stand in' during that scene. I do not know how they did it. I thought Keitel was miscast, regardless weather he was good or not in the role. As for Murray Abraham, he was a bit over the top, in a brief role, thank goodness. I could not feel any sympathy for the actress, although her acting was very good. What she saw in kietel is mystifying..although i suspect any man at any time meeting and flirted with her, had a good chance for some action. True, she was married to a 'half man' as Jordi said in a couple of scenes. The story line had its flaws, not a great film, but worth watching, especially the ending with the paraplegic trying to escape from the 2 terrorist that came to kill him. Interesting scene with all those pipes below the ceiling. Better than the usual car chasing scenes for a change.

This one lost me early on at the airport. The editing misplaced the sequence. The security forces had the drop on the bad guys when all of a sudden these two not only get their guns out but manage to shoot several good guys. Impossible to believe. Then again a shoddy sequence (does this group of hapless film makers not expect their audiences to notice what's on the screen?) The last bad guy is shot through the head. A bit of blood is seen on the shoulder of Lydia, that is until the next scene when she sports blood all over her head and blouse. Where'd it come from? Duh! I left the room as the director tried to make me think Lydia would give the stone merchant the time of day. Maybe opposites attract, but I couldn't buy into that idea in this movie.

A total waste of time unless a film student needs watch one about how not to do it.

One of awful film I've ever seen ! The plot miss for any logic, the scenes that insist so much on the protagonist's mutilation are disturbing because it is done only to move mercy and compassion to the spectator. The dialogs are so obvious to become disturbing. The theory behind the film is debatable and a bit racist. Moreover the scene where 2 terrorists chase the protagonist running with the hands is involuntarily funny. I was tempted to leave the cinema before it ends. I can save just Harvey Keithel (I don't understand how such a good actor is in this kind of film ! ) and some soundtrack. So just a warm suggestion: please keep away from this film !

Even amateurs produce better movies these days. The dubbing of the characters is so awful it reminds you of the sleazy Italian movies of the 70s and 80s where content had no place in the movie, and sex scenes were everything. This is repeated in this movie, and makes it devoid of any artistic merit. The characters' motives are masked at best, and there are too many uncomfortable 'coincidences'.

The acting is bad beyond belief. And the subject is not researched at all. A 13 year old history student can teach a lot more than our 'professor' in the movie. There is no knowledge of the way Islam spread. The professor equates Ottoman Empire with the Moors and the previous Caliphates, where in many cases these were antagonistic entities. And the professor forgets to mention that the wars between Muslims and Christians started with the crusades where the Vatican tried to 'repossess' the 'Holy land'; an extension of the wars fought by the Roman Empire. The movie also fails to state that the Inquisition and the church terrorized people for centuries, and it was only by repeated defeats of the Crusaders at the hands of Muslim army that the break in Vatican rule materialized, and the flow of scientific, philosophical and artistic material from Muslim countries into the Church dominated lands began leading to 'Renaissance' and the Age of Enlightenment.

F. Murray Abraham is over the top as usual anyway, but the only regret is having Harvey Keitel staining his image in this manner. My take on this movie: pure garbage.