Italian Studies

Oh my god. This is complete incoherent junk. Mubmbling no talent acting and script that seems to be improvised by idiots and which goes nowhere. Zero stars.

It's good but could've been better. It has an interesting idea, I mean it's just awesome to see Vanessa Kirby walking around NYC and talking to strangers, but the execution is moderate. The editing is messy and annoying. And the screenplay has holes, it needs some more depth. All in all, it's far from being a masterpiece and might be confusing to some but it's still watchable.

Someone, somewhere, enjoys and appreciate this movie, and understands nuances about it that I've failed to pick up on. I'm glad for them. I, however, am at a loss. There are strong storytelling possibilities in the concept of someone suddenly losing their memory in a big city. It could be turned into a film of any genre, but in keeping with the tone here, as a straight drama that concept could be explored as the sad, active experience of such loss, and trying to survive and find oneself, or as a grand esoteric examination of self-discovery and reinvention. To some small extent Adam Leon touches upon these ideas in his movie. To a much larger extent, it doesn't actually feel like 'Italian studies' has any plot or meaningful writing at all.

Whatever narrative the film would seem to carry in regards to protagonist Alina's memory loss is... well, lost, and upended, by frequent interspersed conversations with the teens she meets. There is a suggested story thread here, too - Alina is using the idea of writing about teens as an excuse to hang out with them, and cover for the fact that she doesn't know anything about herself or her surroundings. The problem is that it doesn't feel like a real story, only an interruption from what the narrative for this feature could have been. The conversations bear no weight, and no real apparent meaning. Compounding this aggravation is the fact that the teens aren't exactly likeable: Whatever characterizations Leon gave them in his screenplay, and whatever personality or quirks the young performers infused into their roles, the effect is a group of young people who present like self-indulgent exhibitions of every worst impulse, hammed up to impress they person they're talking to.

Dialogue mostly seems fake and contrived, characters are hollow and empty, plot is all but absent, and scene writing feels blase. I suppose the acting is fine, such as it is, but what is it that the players are supposed to be portraying? 'Italian studies' is well made from a technical standpoint, but what does this matter in a picture that's so directionless, and aimless? I'm honestly unsure. There are concrete ideas herein, and one of them - mentioned in passing within the last lackadaisical stretch of the movie - is the notion of acknowledging something good that happened, but not hyperfocusing on it, and just remembering it and moving on. None of these ideas are treated with any care or respect, however, and so the picture ends as bland and indifferent as it began, with these qualities only amplified between the bookends. What was Leon trying to communicate with 'Italian studies?' What was he trying to do? I think I might understand the intent, but in my opinion, it simply didn't work. Another viewer may learn these hidden truths as a revelation, and I congratulate them. Me? I could do with a bit of memory loss right now.

Saw that this had a pretty low rating but after watching the trailer, figured maybe it was unfairly judged and I'd give it a go.

I honestly don't think I have the artistic perspective or cerebral capacity to fully understand what the plot was, and the worst part is that I really can't be bothered to care to after watching it. It started off promising but never went anywhere satisfying. There are a few "ah-ha!" moments that didn't work because of the format of the film. It's very scattered. It probably makes complete sense to the writer but the viewer needs something to gnaw on, too. I can appreciate films taking liberties and trying something new but it just does not work here. It's not cohesive enough for the average viewer and I doubt there's enough for arthouse-lovers either. Some might classify it as style-over-substance or even pretentious but I feel like there is something here, it's just not fully realized.

The performances, particularly the ones given by the "teenagers" were actually very good and felt genuine, the camerawork was okay (except for the time they literally lost the actors walking, but maybe that was intentional), sound design and score was good, but it was ultimately a jumbled mess.

The biggest issue for me was: it was boring. It's shorter than most movies but still felt like a slog because I was left guessing until the credits rolled with only brief interludes of interesting characters that never meant much to me even though they're supposed to. If you are going to undertake something more freeform and have the capacity to make an otherwise fine movie from a technical standpoint, and hired a competent actress, why not invest in your main character? You know, the one that the entire movie revolves around and has to carry the audience's attention 'til the end? The way that the story is set up supposedly disallows this and it's a detriment to its ability to create any investment from the viewer.

My prediction was it was going to turn out to be a young author stricken by early-onset dementia or had some form of trauma-related amnesia triggered by something "mundane" on the streets of New York. There were even things that cemented my theories. I thought, surely, sticking with it would pay off in some way. But no, by the end, you're just left with a few decent puzzle pieces of filmmaking while some of the most important ones are lost, leaving you with an incomplete picture.

Most viewers will find themselves asking for their time back, unfortunately. However, if you are someone who can simply enjoy any ride, maybe you'll get something out of this that the rest us couldn't.

It's one of those "Art Films" us New Yorkers catch at posh theatres like the IFC Center. It was the middle of the day and I wanted to see a movie, and this was a movie I had not seen yet, but I tell you, this was not the movie to see in the middle of the day when you have nothing to do.

Ironically, I wanted to waste some time and I did it on a movie that was a waste of time.

If I came out of this feeling like this was the worse movie I ever saw, then that would have been something, and obviously I did not come out of this thinking it was good, but this movie did the worse thing I think a movie could have done: waste my time.

I was bored, so bored. I could not believe this movie was only 80 mins, it felt like an entirely waiting for something to happen. Vanessa Kirby is no Margot Robbie. In all fairness maybe I can watch Kirby do nothing in a film if the film is right. Kirby tries and you can see her charm, but that was not enough. It's possible Robbie would have bored me to death in the same role.

I am more of a low budget B-movie type than an indi art house type so maybe that goes with it. I certainly admit I did not understand the plot well enough to even describe it here. That could just be me, but I've seen enough Art Films to know that's most likely not the case.

Sometimes it just doesn't click, and this is one of those times.