Seneca

To be honest, I almost turned it off at the very beginning of the film because it seemed like a bad joke. I read some very bad reviews and some great praises, so I decided to be open-minded about it. Obviously, it's controversial, which might be what's so fun about it.

I appreciated hearing some of the insightful thoughts presented by Seneca (John Malkovich) about the human nature, life and death etc. In this way, the film is meditative.

I enjoyed the visuals to an extent. I noticed the grotesque visual elements, which were certainly not easy on the eyes, but they had a purpose and actually went well with Nero's horrible character, as well as the absurdity and malignancy presented in the movie. There also were some "quirky" and seemingly unnecessary components.

However, in general, the characters and spaces seemed to be visually portrayed in accordance with the personalities - when you observe them, it just makes sense. Furthermore, this piece also contains elements more pleasing to the eye. I liked the recording style, the perspectives, the way scenes were organized, the colors used. That being said, the movie still definitely has a bizarre quality to it and not everyone could enjoy it.

While the piece offers some profound thoughts, it also contains plenty of frivolous elements. There were things I liked and things I disliked, as well as some choices that just didn't seem to make sense.

All things considered, I don't regret watching it. It was certainly entertaining and even thought-provoking. It's an occasionally smart movie, but it's not supposed to be taken too seriously.

The basic motif for see it was the presence of John Malkovich , no doubts. The feeling seeing Seneca was about a most reasonable version of Caligula by Tinto Brass. Not for eccentricity or for kitsch, but for same fair reflection about power , apparences against deep reality, profound loneliness, fall of world and wisdome as imperfect tool, violence and death, about a Rome who escapes to a precise period for universal message, if it is not faithfull reflection of present .

The good point - the cast. And the admirable performance of John Malkovich. And the nice, sure, respecting a Hollywood recipe, portrait of Nero - the title the President reminds the novels of Garcia Marquez - .

A film who I like . For the irony who seems ignoring the limits, for one of last roles of Julian Sands, for Geraldine Chaplin as matrona refugied in artificial world, for young Louis Hofman and, not the last, I repeat, for Tom Xander as Nero.

Not deserves to be ignored Andrew Koji as Felix.

And for the try to remind essential values, so easy ignored by our time. Not last, for remind of more than significant name for European culture of Lucius Annaeus Seneca.

Senator Seneca (John Malkovich) is a close advisor and supporter of Emperor Nero (Tom Xander). He has been Nero's teacher since childhood. He talks non-stop and constantly advises Nero to be an ethical ruler. As Nero becomes tyrannical, he is forced to bend his views into excusing Nero's excesses. After an attempt on Nero's life, an innocent Seneca is still accused. Nero gives him the gift of taking his own life.

This is a historical dramatization of the Stoic Seneca. It's a smallish production with a nice cast led by Malkovich. It reminds me of a play in the park except it's in beautiful Morocco locations. I find myself drawing parallel lines between this movie and the present day. Some connections are more clearer than others. It's funny that he asks why bad things happen to good people. That's probably my high point. All his excuses ring very real for today. I'm less interested in his decline and his declaration of the Roman decline. He is centuries too early for Rome and anyone comparing this with America is probably almost as early.

The film adaptation of Seneca's "On the Creation of Earthquakes" unfortunately misses the mark. While the philosophical ideas in the original work are fascinating, the film version fails to capture the essence of the text. Instead, the film creates a badly theatrical style that is always over-explaining jokes and making edgy commentary. This is a shame because the philosopher is portrayed extremely badly in the film, and his ideas are not given the attention they deserve.

I had the opportunity to watch this film during its premier week at the Berlinale festival, and unfortunately, many people left before the film ended due to how bad it was. While the idea of adapting Seneca's work for the big screen is admirable, this particular attempt falls short of expectations. The film fails to convey the beauty and depth of the original work, and instead opts for a style that tries too hard to be clever and edgy.

In conclusion, while the film adaptation of Seneca's "On the Creation of Earthquakes" has its merits, the overall execution leaves much to be desired. The badly theatrical style, combined with the over-explaining of jokes and edgy commentary, detract from the philosophical ideas that are at the core of the original work. It is unfortunate that the film did not do justice to the brilliance of Seneca's ideas.

John Malkovich is amazing in this movie!! Despite being the great philosopher, the character Seneca is shown as a human being, with back and forth and reevaluation of his thoughts and feelings, almost letting the audience enter his mind. His opinions though are unaltered and consistently recited from Seneca throughout the movie, mostly to the regret of his companions.

Incredible work also by Robert Schwentke who put the movie into a somehow theatrical setting. At some points he leaves the audience in question with modern requisites and scenery in the picture only to reveal their meaning in the end.

I saw this movie at the Berlinale '23 and it left me laughing, disgusted and enlightened. In its unique style, it didn't fail as delightful food for thought.