Il peccato

A nice but slowly paced biopic about life of Michelangelo Buonarroti . It is a gripping but dull reflection on the agony and ecstasy of his individual greatness as well as his misfortunes and privations . Set in Florence, early XVI century , the picture deals with Michelangelo or Michael Angel who is working on the Carrara's marble creating sculptures and he is then ordered by Pope Julius II to build his tomb and while painting of as called Sistine chapel (that's why it was built by Pope Sisto) . Although widely considered a genius by his contemporaries, Michelangelo Buonarroti (Alberto Testone giving a first-range acting) he suffers poverty , starvation , deceits and shortages . Depicting the profound humanity behind the legend of the Renaissance . Meanwhile , he'll develop various relationships with other Renaissance's important people . The film is correctly based on historical deeds and appearing famous roles , such as : Raphael , Papa Giulio II, Papa Leon X , Dante Alighieri , Giulio De' Medici , Lorenzo Medici , Boccaccio and Marchese Malaspina . The motion picture describes specially the creation of the enormous paintings on the ceiling and the difficulties that Michael Angel is suffering to achieve the immortal legacy . The Pope Julius II will also assign him the realization of his tomb , but then his commissioner and head of the Della Rovere nobility Pope Julius II dies , Michelangelo becomes obsessed with sourcing the finest marble to complete his tomb. The artist's loyalty is tested when Leo X , of the rival Medici family, ascends to the papacy and charges him with a lucrative new commission - the façade of the San Lorenzo basilica . Forced to lie to maintain favour with both families , Michelangelo is progressively tormented by suspicion , betrayal and hallucinations , leading him to ruthlessly examine his own moral and artistic failings.

In Il Pecccato or The Sin whe find us an outandish Michelangelo as a lonely sculptor who's reduced to poverty and depleted by his struggle to finish the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and an unfinished tomb of Julius II . Throughout the film we witness the confrontation of the two families that dominated sixteenth century Florence: the Della Rove and the Medici. At the same time we observe the hard work of Michelangelo as he tries to extract the marble from Carrara and as he sculpts the famous sculptures of Moses and the Pietà. The feature movie obtained a limited success and had a moderated box-office ; however , being nowadays better valued than when its premiere . The movie follows the Pasolinian wake more than the Carol Reed's The Agony and the Ecstasy (1965) style ; but I really prefer the classic and spectacular film with Charlton Heston and Rex Harrison (both of whom were magnificent) than this slow-moving , sad and poor version about this immortal historical character.

The motion picture was well written and directed by Andrei Konchalovsky. His first big hit was Siberiada (1979) - a dramatic and realistic story of the lives of the people of Siberia - was internationally acclaimed and brought Konchalovsky to the attention of American and European producers. From then on-wards his career has been international in scope. Pleasing critics and audiences worldwide, he made the English language films Maria's lovers (1984), Runaway train (1985), Duel for one (1986) with praised for Max von Sydow's brilliant performance), and the award-winning Homer y Eddie (1989) starring Whoopi Goldberg. Konchalovsky moved to the mainstream territory with the action packed Tango y Cash (1989). And other excursions to Hollywood to make mainstream TV productions like the Emmy-winning The Odyssey (1997) and Lion in Winter (2003) with Glenn Close , and several others. Rating Sin : 6/10 . Passable and acceptable.

Instead of being 24 pictures per second, this movie is 24 paintings per second. Contrary to modern cinema camera is very still. Instead of boring, static actors, we have static frames with a lot of movement in them with perfect angles for every single shot. It was so full of atmosphere, 100% realism and natural sounds that I did not blink for two hours. But instead of being some fancy art film, it tells a story which is very passionate, moving, dynamic. The protagonist lives through heaven and hell in following hos passion and this is so natural and real, that combined with the perfect atmosphere and realism, it made me feel as if I was there with him. And I've seen quite a lot of movies and hard to impress. Every scene, every inch of the screen, every sound, every second has meaning. Even quiet, still shots are felt so heavy, that there is no doubt you would feel them too.

The feeling of the age is so true, everything is so analog. As if no computer was used in the making of this film. I can only imagine the tons of hard work put into it to create this realism. Now I want to see more of Konchalovsky!

The main thing I would like to point out is that every single scene from this movie was like a beautiful painting straight out of an Italian museum. I can't remember when was the last time the visuals of a movie stunned me so greatly that I was with each scene change surprised by the beauty of the images.

Secondly, the feeling I get reading the rest of the reviews, and hearing other people comment on the movie, is that that people almost expect this movie to be a some sort of thriller depicting the genius of Michelangelo, the person we all know as the one of the worlds greatest artists of all time. But the greatness of this movie is in the contrary - Michelangelo is portrayed as a mere, sinning human - who steals, betrays, lies, and also hates showering. He is a imperfect person just like any other, haunted by his fears and suspicions and I can't shake off the feeling that people did not (or did not want) to see Michelangelo in those lens. But for me that is the main thing that makes this movie so great - the viewer can share Michelangelos' emotions and thoughts as if they were their own or of their friend, since the artists is another common, but very talanted man, and not some untouchably skilled alien of the past.

Thirdly, the movie shows us only a fragment of the artists life, and a fragment describing the very beginning of the sculpting process, and it is that time that the fullness of Michelangelos' character can be met, like it is in the movie. Who wants to see a historical documentary about his whole life? You can tune into the History channel if your into that. On the other side, the movie is an artistic take at an artists life, excellently describing Michelangelos true identity, his problems and thoughts, related or not to his work.

For me, the point and the idea of the movie is that Michelangelos works such as David and Pieta were not thought up in the vast and luxuriose castles and churches of Florence, while the artists was enjoying a cup of tea snf reading philospophy, but instead, in the middle of a marble mine in high up in the mountains, alongside plain working men, when the idea arises in sight of a mere daughter of one of the workers leans on a marble rock for a short afternoon sleep - it is that plain scene which inspires the divine masterpiece of the artists work today. This is what makes the movie so down to earth and realistic, and in combination with the incredible scenery, makes the viewer feel like he is in 16th century Italy for two hours.

I found watching Il Peccato / Sin (2019) a delight!

Some user reviews of this film express their disappointment in the fact that you don't see the great master in action, working on marble or drawing. But I see that differently. Being trained as an art historian, I recognized the events and characteristics of Michelangelo shown in this film from the historical documents that have survived from that time. Having spent a significant amount of time studying the subject before making the film, I believe Konchalovskiy in particular closely read Giorgio Vasari's Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects (1550/1568), a contemporary collection of biographies of Renaissance artists (in the case of Michelangelo, Vasari knew him personally), as the major themes in the film correspond with Vasari's account of this episode in Michelangelo's long life.

Echoing his early masterpiece Andrey Roublev (1966), which he made together with Andrei Tarkovsky, Il Peccato shows how artists are subjects of the time they live in, dependent on power structures and turbulences in violence and prosperity. The film gives a good insight in Michelangelo's social interactions with his family, rivalling artists, and patrons. Moreover, the cinematography is impressive, and the largely unprofessional acting crew performed overall very strong. A great addition to the genre of movies about artists, much more nuanced and intelligent than the classic The Agony and the Ectasy (1965). Hopefully, Michelangelo's rival Leonardo da Vinci will get a biopic of comparable quality soon!

As a biopic about Michelangelo, it will most likely leave you with more questions about the man that you initially had. The narrative is very cryptic and revolves around him trying to balance his art around commissions and orders he has no hope of actually fulfilling.

Most of the movie is spent on "the monster," a marble block he considers more important than any of his responsibilities or desires. But when it comes down to actually watching the transportation, it is just an accident waiting to happen. You know that it's coming, and yet it is surprising nonetheless when it does.

The plot is stitched with bits and pieces of his life and relationships with multiple Popes he lived through. It only makes sense if you already know anything there is to know about his biography. The movie will not bother establishing differences between the pope factions or highlighting the significance of the events. You are on your own in this one.

His character also becomes more confusing as it goes along, his clear perfectionism and suspicion of everyone stem from vaguely alluded conspiracies around him that start and end abruptly, sometimes in the same scenes. His obsession with the monster and willingness to betray everyone and everything for it is captivating, however, his revelation at the end just seems way too nebulous for it to be understood by anyone except him, and maybe this is how it should be. The best aspect of Michelangelo that the movie so carefully and authentically portrays is that, despite looking like a local madman who has to beg on a street, he was never poor; his tight-fistedness is something of a legend in and of itself. Including a chest full of ducats under his bed that he just doesn't spend while living in what amounts to poverty.

Speaking of which, the mise-en-scene of the medieval cities is impeccable. It's one of those ultra-authentic dirty movies that doesn't resort to erasing color everywhere to show the dirt. No, everything can be vibrant while the roads are made of layers upon layers of mud. That's not a contradiction. Everyone is sweaty with their unwashed clothes full of holes and tears. All this only highlights the absolute beauty of his creations.