The Man from Rome

I was hoping this film would be more action/horror based than cerebral.. Sadly it was more the latter. The action scenes were pretty naff to be honest and really needed beefing up to give the whole film more bite. The long periods of relative inactivity saw some reasonable acting.

Got to admit i have a soft spot for these Euro collaborations, they nearly wlays end up being a mixed bag.

Richard Armitage is pretty comvincing as a Bible Bond, it's just a shame he didn't flex his muscles enough or, like i said previously, be hamstrung by some extremely ropey fight choreography.

All in it's watchable, i gave it a generous 6 but it's more like a 5, a few more better choreographed fights and it would be a solid 6 IMHO.

The locations in Rome, Italy and Sevilla, Spain are beautiful along with many of the buildings they use. It has some well known actors like Richard Armitage, Paul Guilfoyle, Franco Nero and Fionnula Flanagan and Carlos. Cuevas, the rest of the cast were ok.

The script is a mess, too many subplots, boring main plot and boring dialog. Reminded me of 1950s European films that depended on beautiful settings because the script was garbage. Writers, directors and producers think using beautiful filming locations will make up for a poor script, it doesn't. Kissing a bishop, archbishop, cardinal, pope's ring hasn't existed for many decades, shows that the writer didn't research it. I wonder sometimes if these types of scripts are written over a booze or drug filled weekend.

No pun intended - of course some may not know the man (actor that is) - not everyone has seen or does watch many movies like I and maybe you do. On the other hand, if you are here, there has to be a reason for this, no? Maybe even our main actor is one of those reasons. I quite like him - that said, that doesn't change my feelings towards the movie.

It is a nice B-Action movie - with some interesting casting choices. While I really like Franco Nero - he does phone it in. And can you blame him? That's rhetorical of course. Action and cinematography is also at least decent. So if you are into that kind of thing ... there are worse things or rather movies out there than this ...

Well, I sat down to watch this with fairly low expectations, given some of the reviews I had seen from various media outlets. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was a lot more watchable and interesting than I expected.

Richard Armitage is always good value and he has plenty of charisma onscreen. The supporting cast did a good job, too. Sure, the script was a bit clunky in places, but the plot was quite interesting and it moved at a decent pace.

The locations in Seville and Rome were beautifully shot. The natural light made them look stunning, actually.

So, don't take all the bad reviews at face value. It's not a great movie, but it's quite good and certainly not a waste of your time to watch it.

You have a very good book and you strip it of its most colorful characters, you change the attitude, motivations and destiny of others, you change a good part of the plot and what you get is a mediocre movie because among other things the script is much worse. I don't know why some producers, directors or whoever is responsible want to bring a book to the screen if they twist it like that. If you liked the book try to be faithful to it. If you didn't like the book, don't make the movie. And well, the terrible actors, not a single one is spared, even Seville is wasted, being one of the most beautiful cities in the world and practically a "character" in the book. Ed a real waste of movie time, and I am ashamed that the writer Pérez Reverte has allowed something like this to be done. Not everything can be allowed for money, Don Arturo.