TomSawyer-2112

The film is professionally made, with a few standout scenes featuring original dialogue.

Robert De Niro plays both roles: two young mobster friends who share similar views on making a living as Italian immigrants. Over time, their paths diverge. This dual casting seems to be a creative attempt to highlight the contrast between their personality shifts-Frank Costello becomes measured and diplomatic, Vito Genovese remains aggressive and unyielding.

The film contrasts how one man adapts to life in a new country, while the other-after spending seven years back in Italy-remains stuck in his old ways. It suggests that while aggressive tactics may bring fast success, lasting power comes from adaptability and diplomacy.

But what is the underlying message? Are violent immigrants somehow softened or reformed by American society? Is Italy being portrayed simply as a nation of mafiosi? That feels unfair. My own ancestors were Italian immigrants-honest, hardworking people who took pride in their skills and integrity.

Is the film subtly commenting on modern immigration policy? A critique of hardline views like Trump's-implying that forcing people out only hardens them further when they return ?

Regardless, the movie is worth watching. What isn't, unfortunately, is De Niro's double role. Not because of the makeup-but because his signature presence is too strong. His body language, expressions, the way he moves shines through the face make up and the camera setups.

It all feels unmistakably like De Niro, no matter the character.

If there's one takeaway, it might be the long-standing critique: that De Niro often plays a version of himself. Despite his legendary status since Taxi Driver, one can argue he's been somewhat overrated-especially when it comes to his range of playing a wide variety of roles with different personalities, emotions, and styles.

His ego limits his ability to completely disappear into very different characters.

As a European, I find it difficult to rate this movie.

I likely rate a 4 or a 7.

To accept the plot's circumstances, I feel it's required to be receptive to the mindset and practices of Asian remote rural areas.

Who would tolerate being compelled to give up his daughter, sister, and beloved without some sort of struggle, denouncing to some authority? I successfully challenged all authorities and typical unfair applications of laws that separated me from my children throughout a divorce. The non-existence of an organized resistance is beyond my comprehension, but I decided to accept that initial plot.

Then greatly romantic vibrant pictures merge with the harsh poor dusty captivity, giving the movie the cachet of a fable.

The contrast is quite upsetting. The religious parts of the traditions are not clearly laid forth. It is rather suggested that a group of local dominant men exploit traditions to impose their own personal interests and impulses. Their abusive behaviours are in no way religiously or morally motivated.

It is difficult to accept that the girl survived so many atrocities for years, on the dusty floor of a single room cabin without proper clothing, water, or a bed, only to peacefully fade away at the moment of her rescue.

This culminates in an inappropriate amount of melodrama and sentimentality included in may scenes.

However, the film left a deep impression, as I could identify so deeply with the victim's fate.

It effectively depicts how oppressive rules make it impossible to be respected, resulting in abusive punishments, uncontrollable emotional resistance, and an overall denial of responsibility. So much misery for so many involved, all in the name of honouring a tradition and a family.

So I gave it a 7 as it felt more like a bestiary with human beasts than a true story.

The film begins well, but after 20 minutes, it repeats the same topics, behaviours, and events.

The environment is gloomy, sunless, bleak, depressing, and dull.

The characters are caricatures; one is solely concerned in marketing the product, the other in mourning his loss; you see them without concern, and the grieving anyones have no individuality at all.

For minutes, one character sits at a table, takes numerous tablets, and walks slowly, depressed, down the stairs.

The scenarios in which they present their idea to concerned parties or prospective clients are extremely repetitive without any climax.

Is the slow, monotonous, colourless portrayal of this daily existence of inventors, scientists and investors intentional? For what purpose?

The invention isn't really comprehensible; how technical is it beyond biologically transferring neurons and synapses?

They communicate through a simulation of the deceased, but a lot of substance is missing.

What do the simulated individuals see? Do they live in their own world? Or are they just lying bodyless and without eyes? What are they doing when they are not speaking out of the simulator?

It merely presents an interpretation of Freud's theory of human consciousness. Three levels of awareness, conscious, preconscious, and unconscious, intersect with his concepts of the id, ego, and superego.

But the researcher in the film describes the simulation as combining three voices in our heads: the morality of the superego, the reality of the ego, and the instant of the Id.

What is the moment of the id? What a bad, ambiguous, and inaccurate interpretation of the pleasure principle, which is the source of drive in all humans... What a squandered opportunity to base murders and suicides around this principle. What about the id of the simulated, what if the scientist pulls the plug. Void.

They mention moral questions rising, to seek the brain of the deads, but none are mentioned in detail, or in their effects. It does not even raise the issue of of the legal aspects of confidentiality, of a habeus corpus.

It is so devoid in content!

The movie repeats: Saying everything is OK is the biggest lie.

Saying this film is good would be my greatest dishonesty. I am truly generous to give it four stars.

It demonstrates how a wonderful idea dies when it falls into the hands of uninspired, uncreative individuals.

Rewatchabilty index : zero!

I urge you watch the Minority Report instead or again...