Il mercante di pietre

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.

For the reviewer here who wrote "the wars between Muslims and Christians started with the crusades " please get some basic knowledge in history before spouting such nonsense. The vast majorities of North Africa, Spain, the near East to include all areas of the Byzantine Empire, to include Anatolia, Palestine, Judea, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq were large majority Christian until wars by Islam forcibly converted or killed the Christians in those places. In fact the Crusades were set off by tenth and eleventh century Califs destroying churches by the hundreds

A handful of people seem upset that the complex issue of Islamic terrorism (by far the largest source of terrorism today) is laid where it is to blame, within the Islamacist movement. Sorry but this is a fact.

I'm a fairly passive critic of movies usually, but I would have guilt-ridden nights if I didn't do my part in exposing the crassness of this particular film.

The opening scene, though not particularly original, looks somewhat promising -but it all comes crashing down from there. The B (or C) rate acting is exposed from the first word uttered and the cinematography is rushed and confused. But that's a "relatively" minor fault. The plot is so savagely simplistic, churning out such skewed analyses as 'But not all Muslims are terrorists -Yes, but most terrorists are Muslims' to deliver it's never-trust-a-Muslim message, you wonder how it made it through even the most bigoted film censors. I am ashamed to say that I watched until the end, with the faint hope that maybe this was actually going to turn into one big joke aimed at exposing a narrow-minded western understanding of Islam. But alas, the film stays its course until its dismal, racist end.

Its one redeeming factor is that it is so plain bad, that it serves as an own-goal to those half-wit neo-cons.

Harvey! What were you thinking when you read the script?! What a hopeless waste of money.

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.

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.