Avaliações de usuários

Why would you watch this movie? Probably based on what we know that is said about Sorrentino and his perfect eye for the breathtaking visuals. Indeed, with the first shot in the movie he makes it clear - showing a carriage and the "Captain" floating on the sea with the view on the stunning coast of Napoli!

Not its beauty, but the Napoli itself is one of the key topics. If this city could be personified, it will definitely be a beautiful woman. Only, just like a person, Napoli is much more than a beauty and it definitely has its dark places.

It personally touched me that one of the key topics (and a key question) is also (what is) a study of Anthropology. Anthropology, formed of two Latin words, meaning a person and science. No other study could have been better for this movie, rather than a study of the most complicated being in this world. I will save you from spoilers and let you think of what Anthropology is before the movie answers it for you, but keep in mind that it is shown by the biggest "superpowers" of Parthenope and especially in her brother Raimondo, who in my opinion was the one that taught that to Parthenope.

The third matter that made me absolutely passionate about this movie was the precise choice of words and creation of dialogues. Her love interests were mostly people who had the most beautiful way of expressing their emotions. Listing to their dialogues made me feel like I've read a book.

I highly recommend watching this movie, although it may have some bizarre moments that can make you feel uneasy. But if you are open to understanding and accepting the strangeness, it will definitely let you "get carried away."

Along the lines of the legendary beauty Aphrodite, "Parthenope" (Celeste Dalla Porta) was born in the sea and grew to become a great temptress to both of her male contemporaries. The first being her obsessed brother "Raimondo" (Daniele Rienzo) and the other her adoring childhood friend "Sandrino" (Dario Alta) whose unrequited love for her drove him to distraction. Not, however, to such distraction as that of her sibling, It's when the trio decide to head for an unfunded trip from their home in Naples to the nearby island of Capri that she meets elderly American writer/dipso "Cheever" (Gary Oldman) who finds her intriguing but appears to have a certain immunity to her charms and she's not used to that. Whilst on this carefree trip there befalls a tragic realisation that causes all of them to appreciate the stark realities and fickle shallowness of their lives and brings into focus senses of grief, rejection and emptiness. It's a beautifully photographed piece of cinema, this film, with sparing dialogue and a sexually, but not explicitly so, charged chemistry abundant throughout this rather visually extravagant but disappointingly soulless drama. It is a bit like a postcard upon which is a beautiful picture but just too few words to develop the characters or to quite put enough meat on their perfectly formed bones. Indeed as the second hour starts to drag, the whole thing begins to look more like a repetitively self-indulgent vanity exercise that might be rooted in mythology but that struggles to engage beyond the superficial. It's classy and stylish and well worth a look - but look appears to be all Paolo Sorrentino wants us to do.

I believe this film has a lot more in common with last year's other hit, The Substance, than you might think. Because in my opinion, Parthenope shouldn't be seen as a human character: she represents Youth itself. Anyone who is attracted to Parthenope is actually attracted to Youth.

"She's always fleeing," says her brother Raimondo, because Youth is a substance that constantly slips through our fingers like sand.

I think there is also an obvious parallel with Aphrodite, who was born from sea foam: Parthenope was born in the water of the Mediterranean Sea.

But nice metaphors, analogies and beautiful cinematography are not enough to touch my soul. For me, this film is only a faint shadow of La grande bellezza. I couldn't help but compare the two films and think that Sorrentino put much more soul into La grande bellezza, because he understands men, but not so much women.

What also disappointed me in this film was the acting of Celeste Dalla Porta and Dario Aita: it's not my cup of tea at all, I found their performance very forced. Although I enjoyed the acting of Luisa Ranieri and Gary Oldman.

Overall, it definitely won't be my favorite Sorrentino film.

"As complete as she is-with all her goods and her ills-do you know who she reminds me of?... Naples"

• Eça de Queirós, The Illustrious House of Ramires, mutatis mutandis.

"The most beautiful gift is not the most expensive; it is the most fragile." Marques Rebelo, O Trapicheiro.

As the lights of the nineteenth century faded, Eça de Queirós-the great Eça-painted, through the face of Gonçalo Mendes Ramires, a symbolic portrait of Portugal that, as any good symbol does, contained everything, even when it sometimes seemed to contain nothing at all. Last year, Paolo Sorrentino, the great artist of contemporary cinema, painted with the face and body of Parthenope the symbolic portrait of Naples: yet another of his masterpieces, unveiling a city and a woman that, in the blink of an eye, are one in the lyrical conception of poet Sorrentino. Naples, or Parthenope- a name that evokes the mythological siren whose body is said to have given birth to the city-is not merely a backdrop, but a pulsating character. And Parthenope, the protagonist (portrayed with an ethereal melancholy), is its incarnation: born in the waters of the Mediterranean, like Venus, like Naples, she carries within her the contradiction of the sublime and the grotesque, of desire and death.

Sorrentino, heir to a Fellini-esque sensitivity for both beauty and the bizarre, does not fear excess. In scenes such as the party in Capri-where beautiful faces and bodies dissolved under golden lights-Parthenope, in her melancholy, asks her millionaire admirer: "Lei non pensa che il desiderio sia un mistero e il sesso il suo funerale?" [don't you think that desire is a mystery and sex its funeral]. The phrase echoes like an epitaph, laid bare to reveal the fragility and preciousness of desire and youth: desire as an unfathomable mystery, and sex as the funeral ritual of something that will never be consummated. It is in this interplay of opposites that the narrative unfolds, between the sculptural beauty of Naples' landscapes and the harshness of its forgotten alleys, where the protagonist walks with Roberto, an ambiguous character who unveils to her the other side of the city-a Naples both raw and poetic, where the contrast between the opulent luxury of grand houses and the simplicity of neglected corners becomes a metaphor for the city's inherent duality. Every step, every exchanged glance, carries the tension between the ephemeral and the eternal, between the urgent and the trivial. There, in the interplay of shadow and light, "the irrelevant merges with the decisive," as if chance itself became the silent arbiter of destinies. But is there any sense in speaking of chance? In song, Riccardo Cocciante tells us otherwise-everything was already foreseen.

"Beauty is like war: it opens doors," declares the alcoholic writer John Cheever (portrayed by Gary Oldman) in his brief, ghostly appearance. Drunkenly, he murmurs about the "scent of dead loves," a fragrance he claims to detect in his hotel room, surrounded by bottles of alcohol. So many dead loves in the city, in Parthenope's life. Here, her beauty is a weapon-a weapon that invariably wounds those who wield it: capable of granting access to privileged worlds, yet also imprisoning one in gilded cages. But Parthenope is a woman-city that "sfugge sempre": she flees, escapes, refuses to be deciphered, and always has a retort ready to disarm her interlocutors. What mysteries lie hidden within her?

The narrative delves into a universe where every image is meticulously sculpted to reveal the mysteries of existence. Amid this tapestry of contrasts stands Cardinal Tesorone, with his imposing and perverse figure, his grotesque nature and skepticism-a link in a Neapolitan religiosity divided between the sacred and the profane. His discourse, laden with solemnity and irony, resonates in the scene where, clad only in the adornments of San Gennaro's treasure, he attempts to seduce the city of Parthenope-or perhaps merely the delectable Parthenope herself-with the lubricity of a faun and the cynicism of an old man. Il tempo che scorre insieme al dolore.

In every dialogue, in every exchanged glance, the question echoes: is it possible that by trying to master desire, love ultimately imprisons its own freedom? And in this eternal ebb and flow between wanting and being, the protagonist remains undefinable, always escaping, constantly reinventing herself-as if the very city of Naples refused to be confined by labels or predetermined destinies.

In the twilight of her existence-be it amidst the effervescence of a Capri celebration or in the solitude of a dim alley-Parthenope presents herself as the synthesis of all the opposites that coexist in Naples: the sublime and the grotesque, desire and death, fragility and strength. It is this paradoxical combination that renders her portrait so unforgettable-a mirror, perhaps, of a city whose soul, despite everything, continues to pulse with an indomitable vitality, defying time and destiny with an irony that, in the end, remains its sole certainty.

The main issue with Parthenope is that it adds nothing new to Paolo Sorrentino's filmography. Too many familiar scenes, too many obsessions already portrayed, too many mannerisms endlessly repeated. While it's true that cigarettes have become a signature of the director, when every actor-from the beautiful lead to the extras in the background-keeps lighting one up, it quickly becomes cloying, if not outright ridiculous. I truly enjoy Sorrentino's cinema, but the excitement I felt leaving the theatre after watching The Consequences of Love is now only a faint memory, faded like the summer youth that once was.

I've seen this Art Piece at Cannes Film Festival in the Grand Auditorium Louis Lumière. A room full of cinephiles & cinema addicts. The theatre was filled with a special nostalgic/joyful/emotional atmosphere that I've never felt before. Many tears of gratitude flowed down my cheeks.

And this is only because of the cinema experience. And I hope with all my heart that will never end. Watching a film with other people on a very big screen will always make a big difference comparing with our home cinemas.

I recommend to see this film only in cinema.

Amazing cinematography by the amazing Daria D'Antonio!

Paerthenope isn´t just a film, it is a painting alive: every scene is filmed with such sensibility... If you wonder what real Beauty is, then the film will give you the answer. A real masterpiece in my opinion, that will make you fall in love with the main actress (you can´t escape that !) but also with the beautiful city of Napoli, a city filled with culture and history, the heart of the Italian authenticity. A film that takes you for a walk through essential philosophical questions such as the true essence of Beauty and the ephemeral youth. To put it into a nutshell, I would say Parthenope is a BEAUTIFUL DEPRESSING movie.

I was so close to leaving the cinema half way through this film, but stayed. And the best bits are actually in the 2nd half so Im giving it 6 stars instead of the 4 which the first half deserved. However, I still dont think this is a good movie. Fantastic visually yes, for Sorrentino is a master of unforgettable filmic tableaus, but that just isn't enough.

The overall problem...There is no plot, it's more a series of separate scenes on narcissism, or rather that's how they come across. I think Sorrentino wanted to create something profound but the result feels contrived and sad.

And then there's the anticlimactic ending - a sudden flash forward 50 years to an oddly empty/vacant character that is Parthenope in her 70s. What? Why?

After watching the movie in theaters, i can say i didn't get the best experience while the movie was trying so hard to be an "art" movie.

Let me first go through what i liked. For sure the cinematography was up top. We got a chance to take a closer look at Napoli, also giving aesthetically satisfying shots. Secondary, I enjoyed the music a lot giving lots of Italian vibes, and sound effects were used efficiently. They knew where to use sounds.

Here comes the part where I hardly liked and understood. The plot. Seriously, for the whole movie i was thinking what this movie was trying to explain. Without a proper story to tell, the movie was more than 2 hours long. Later while reading other reviews I was able to catch a glimpse at the plot but that shouldn't be the way you understand the subject rather movie should clearly emphasize its purpose. Also characters were not introduced properly so they fell short, Gary Oldman comes in, says a few fancy sentences and leaves etc. If I want to dive deep about the plot and characters, the review might be a little long.

To sum up, even though an aesthetically satisfying movie, it feels null, boring and leaves you empty handed with absolutely no clue about the story with disconnected scenes one after another.

Somewhat disappointed by his last film È STATA LA MANO DI DIO, with PARTHENOPE I was reminded of what had touched me so much with the films of Sorrentino. Everything is beautiful, from the city of Naples and its pristine water to the yet unknown goddess Celeste da Porta. Add to it the Fellini-like shots and the wonderful jazz soundtrack by Lele Marchitelli : you get perfection.

The beauty of life in its insignificance... One might think he's making another GRANDE BELLEZZA, but it's just not the case. Sorrentino manages to surprise us once again, with a new way of dealing with what is - ultimately - the same topic.

The movie asks questions without ever answering them, as if to say that one should just stop looking for answers and start observing the beauty of the world for what it is. As a result, the spectator leaves the theater not with answers, but with an interesting take on life, and ultimately death...

Oh, and I almost forgot, the movie stars Gary Oldman. Though his onscreen time is limited, he manages to pull out a wonderful performance. He then withdraws, as if he were urging us to enjoy the movie he convinced us (by his presence in the cast) to go watch.

So I know not everybody is going to like it - some scenes are pretty weird I have to admit - but as far is I'm concerned, this movie gave me everything I did (and didn't) expect when stepping into the theater. Sincerely hope/think it will win Palme d'Or.

Grazie Paolo ;)

In the enchanting world of Parthenope, director Paolo Sorrentino weaves a tapestry of captivating imagery and compelling storytelling. The film, named after the mythical siren and the city, is a breathtaking exploration of life, beauty, and self-discovery.

The mesmerizing performance by debut actress Celeste Dalla Porta is the heart and soul of Parthenope. Her enigmatic portrayal of the titular character is a masterclass in subtlety and allure, drawing the audience into her journey of self-realization. The partnership between Sorrentino and cinematographer Daria D'Antonio is once again a match made in heaven, as they paint a vivid picture of Italy's stunning landscapes.

Sorrentino's signature style is on full display in Parthenope, with the film's episodic structure allowing for a deep dive into the protagonist's experiences. While some may argue that the film prioritizes style over substance, it's hard to deny the sheer visual splendor and emotional resonance that Sorrentino achieves.

Parthenope is a celebration of youth, beauty, and the transformative power of self-discovery. It's a testament to Sorrentino's unique vision and unwavering commitment to his craft. While it may not be a radical departure from his previous works, Parthenope is a stunning addition to his filmography and a must-see for fans of his distinct cinematic style.

May be Parthenope is not the best, but I still think it might be my personal favorite among all of Sorrentino's films.

For me, it is not about history, religion, philosophy, or even family, but simply the story of a young goddess experiencing the beauty, love, desire and sorrow of life-a film that ultimately turns the gaze back to our everyone's own lives. So fragile, so nonsensical, so bizarre, so contradictory, so meaningless-yet still met with both smiles and tears in the face of reality... o forse non è così.

I don't see Parthenope as a "moralized lecture" that offers answers or explanations. On the contrary, it feels like a breathtaking and poetic piece of prose that touches me deeply.

I don't really know what to think of the film really. Is it a smack of Catholicism? Is it a tribute to Stephania Sandrelli? A tribute to the absurd, beauty, incest, intelligence? What irritated me the most was that there was a cigarette in almost every scene, as if it had the main role. Yes, at that time there was a lot of smoking, but is that really what you should focus on to show that era? I don't understand how it can be so important to show addiction in various forms in a film these days. It's the same in many films, even how they glorify drugs in the films that are made. Is this really so important to portray? Who should take responsibility for this? The screenwriters, the director or the actors? I think everyone should take responsibility for this and be able to say no to drug glorification. Applies to cigarettes, drugs and alcohol. That will be my assessment of the film. Take it or leave it.

Tries to be a meaningful movie but not able to , so fakes it. Tries to be a new version of " Malena" but not even close. It's just a collage of some good monologues, beautiful woman, different characters of men, landscapes,... around one person.

The movie tries to be original but not able to at all, Even the music.

Every time the music starts, you think this is the beginning of the Bolero, M. 81 but it is not not because it's some thing better or worse, because it's fake.

And all those decent men surrounding a beautiful sexy woman, really? Not even one man bothering her in her hole life or any man trying to get her in a bad way.

This movie is, first and foremost, a tribute to visuals and cinematography. It's a visual poem. Akin to Ridley Scott's earlier work (e.g., "The Duelists", and, of course Paolo Sorrentino's other movies, "La Grande Bellezza", etc.), where almost every scene is a painting in itself.

And only after watching a few times I realized that metaphors and references to painting abound. The opening "Versailles carrozza" water scene, is perhaps a reference to Guardi and Canaletto (and a wink to Edward Hopper's melancholy and solitude). Or, Raimondo blowing air towards his sister's body, like angels blowing life into Botticelli's Venus coming out of the seashell. I suspect there are even more hints towards Sandro Botticelli... like Parthenope caressing her brother into an almost submissive stance reminding of Botticelli's "Pallas and the Centaur"; Parthenope's penetrating stare that travels beyond places and times, perhaps a hint to Botticelli's "Primavera".

And then, of course, there's the Piero della Francesca's almost coin-like profile scene of Parthenope and Sandrino in his departure's scene. Not to mention the Giorgio de Chirico painting in the "helicopter" guy's room.

But the main character is Parthenope's refined and melancholic beauty. Yes, beauty alone is a worthy art subject. Isn't that the case with Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus"? When Partehnope is in a scene everything else fades away. She hijacks the viewer's complete attention like Mona Lisa. You look at her like you look into the abyss. Desperately clinging to whatever you can to not fall, but knowing perfectly well that eventually you'll have to let yourself go. In spite of, or maybe especially because of her stare, which reminds us all that the clock is inevitably ticking towards our own mortality. The Memento Mori stare. Our own inner worlds, no matter how beautiful and complex, will sooner or latter come to an end.

The "beauty that opens doors, like wars", as John Cheever put it. The beauty that can start wars. If you wonder how men can go to war over a beautiful woman... look at Celeste dalla Porta. She would make the perfect Helen of Troy. Had Celeste dalla Porta lived in Boticelli's time... his Venus would be a brunette, now. The "Suicide Brunette", to paraphrase INXS' famous "Suicide Blonde".

Paolo Sorrentino's imagery is stunning. It goes beyond dialogue, action, narrative. He understands perfectly the true power of imagery, like Rene Magritte has: "The habit of speaking for the immediate needs of life imposes a limited meaning on words that denote objects. It seems that ordinary language sets imaginary boundaries to imagination." Paolo Sorrentino does just that: he gets rid of the ordinary.

This film was weird. Very weird. But that shouldn't have been a problem. I love weird. However, Parthenope made the arrogant mistake of having the audience believe it had some point to make. Let me shatter the suggestion of every good review up here: it did not. It mistakes beauty for substance. Because i admit, the film looks good, the scenery is gorgeous and the female lead is stunningly beautiful.

That said, the film did not make me feel anything at all. Beautiful weirdness does not garantuee a good movie and this film is proof of that. It meanders with a fake sense of melancholia and nostalgia. But it simply goes all out to conceal the fact that it is shamelessly boring and depressing.

To compare: David Lynch (i'm still depressed over his passing) made some utterly weird stuff, but no matter how weird it got, it was never boring. It commanded your attention and it had you feel all kinds of emotions. Within that framework, weird does not matter anymore. It makes you feel and experience. Lynch was a master in that sense. With Parthenope director Sorrentino tries, but completely misses that mark.

Don't get me wrong, La Grande Belezza was beautiful, i admire Sorrentino for that one. But he never got to that level of emotion and melancholia after that film. And Parthenope really jumps the shark .

Apart from the beauty of the film, multiple scenes are nothing but vulgar and no fun to watch. But worse, they don't add anyting to the film. I am not a sensitive soul, bring on the messed up stuff. But do-have-a-point! Don't irritate me for the sake of it.

And one final note: ripping off part of the score of Schindler's List is unforgivable. Took me a few minutes to recognize, but wow! A case of plagiarism that could not have been more obvious.

3 stars, for the eye-candy. And i'm being generous.