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.

If this film had been made by a fundamentalist Christian group lead by the crackpot Koran burning Florida Pastor, I would have believed it. Except for the well known actors, the whole film seemed like one of those church funded efforts usually made with 'C' list players.

Let me list some of the flaws:

The color was awful ranging from almost normal to a washed out blue/green tint to almost no color at all.

Havey Keitel was miscast, and rather than a wealthy cosmopolitan gem dealer able to attract a beautiful young woman, he looked like a seedy old panhandler of the kind you cross the street to avoid. The bedroom scenes were just nauseating.

Did anyone ever shave? Some might find a few days beard growth attractive, I just find it scruffy.

The dubbing was poor. Jordi Molla went from a soft European accent to a sharp American accent in mid sentence several times.

The plot was ridiculous. Not only for the desk pounding propaganda, but the little things, such as why did F. Murry Abraham's character need to be on the ferry to activate the cell phone. He could have done it from the shore in Dover. In an early scene, two terrorists leave their bags under seats in the airport before the shootout with security. What happened to the bags. Were they disarmed before blowing up. Even a five year old could blow holes in this plot.

The lack of subtitles or captions made the dialogue hard to follow for the hearing impaired such as myself. Likewise, the lack of a 'making of' featurette.

Not really a flaw, as you can switch off at the end, but the very lengthy credits which mentioned everyone who had supplied anything and everything for the film in the way of props: e.g. coffee maker, dispenser, hotel furniture, curtains, table ware, and on and on. I am used to hairdressers, make up artists and musicians being credited, and also locations, but this list was ludicrous.

When the best thing you can say about a film is that the singer heard in the opening scene was good, and the scenes of Cappadocia were beautiful, it does not say much for the film overall.

I have never rated a movie before on a site like this, but was moved to do so because the film is so bad. You will see from the comments on here that some people rate this film highly (which is a surprise to me) while others rate it very low. In other words it is polarising. This is because of its political content about terrorism committed by Islamic fundamentalists. I am not someone who would minimise the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalists and a good film on the subject can be made. But this is not it. The dialogue is wooden and obvious. The acting from most actors, particularly the lead male is full of false-pathos and some of the scenes are at turn painfully obvious or laughably implausible - the worst by far is the scene with the maimed 'hero' trying to evade his hit-man killers with a rescue scene where he is saved approximately 2 minutes after making a call to his rescuer (was he waiting outside in the car?). However the two worst things about the film are the cinematography (the ferry scene is reminiscent of 'Thunderbirds') and inaccurate stereotypes about Islam. This is a scaremongering film of the worst ilk and worse still misunderstands its main subject matter. Best to avoid.

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 movie is obviously fiction. Unfortunately the background is not. A war has been waged against the west for nearly 1500 years and in this time 50% of the worlds Christians have been forcibly converted to Islam: the religion of "peace" which kills apostates, kills anyone who tells the truth about Islam and is the most violent, ideology of deceit, lust and greed eclipsing even Communism and National Socialism in its body count.

The comments made here by the leftists with their agenda, the ignorant and the simply biased are an index of the truth in the background of this movie as their writers can be likened to "flat earthers" who deny the blatant truth.

Islam has only been in decline since 1830 in reality when the Barbary Pirates were crushed and all of the Barbary states who like all Islamic states without oil, lived as parasites on the west, collapsed within 50 years with no more loot and slaves. The battle for Vienna marked the high tide mark for Islam. 1830 was its coup de grace.

Now with Saudi oil money and gutless western politicians it is back upon its aggressive march. This is the truth although the flat earthers will deny it. If you understand this, the movie is an above average thriller although the plot really is secondary to the background as the movie really is about the truth with regards to Islam and an attempt to wake up the morons of this world, who being flat Earthers will give it 1/10 as they dislike the truth. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the truth will mark it 5-7. Keitel is uncomfortable with his role but is a consummate professional and is backed well by the rest of the cast.