Il mercante di pietre

I have never rated a movie before on a site like this, but was moved to do so because the film is so bad. You will see from the comments on here that some people rate this film highly (which is a surprise to me) while others rate it very low. In other words it is polarising. This is because of its political content about terrorism committed by Islamic fundamentalists. I am not someone who would minimise the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalists and a good film on the subject can be made. But this is not it. The dialogue is wooden and obvious. The acting from most actors, particularly the lead male is full of false-pathos and some of the scenes are at turn painfully obvious or laughably implausible - the worst by far is the scene with the maimed 'hero' trying to evade his hit-man killers with a rescue scene where he is saved approximately 2 minutes after making a call to his rescuer (was he waiting outside in the car?). However the two worst things about the film are the cinematography (the ferry scene is reminiscent of 'Thunderbirds') and inaccurate stereotypes about Islam. This is a scaremongering film of the worst ilk and worse still misunderstands its main subject matter. Best to avoid.

For the reviewer here who wrote "the wars between Muslims and Christians started with the crusades " please get some basic knowledge in history before spouting such nonsense. The vast majorities of North Africa, Spain, the near East to include all areas of the Byzantine Empire, to include Anatolia, Palestine, Judea, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq were large majority Christian until wars by Islam forcibly converted or killed the Christians in those places. In fact the Crusades were set off by tenth and eleventh century Califs destroying churches by the hundreds

A handful of people seem upset that the complex issue of Islamic terrorism (by far the largest source of terrorism today) is laid where it is to blame, within the Islamacist movement. Sorry but this is a fact.

This one lost me early on at the airport. The editing misplaced the sequence. The security forces had the drop on the bad guys when all of a sudden these two not only get their guns out but manage to shoot several good guys. Impossible to believe. Then again a shoddy sequence (does this group of hapless film makers not expect their audiences to notice what's on the screen?) The last bad guy is shot through the head. A bit of blood is seen on the shoulder of Lydia, that is until the next scene when she sports blood all over her head and blouse. Where'd it come from? Duh! I left the room as the director tried to make me think Lydia would give the stone merchant the time of day. Maybe opposites attract, but I couldn't buy into that idea in this movie.

A total waste of time unless a film student needs watch one about how not to do it.

I'm a fairly passive critic of movies usually, but I would have guilt-ridden nights if I didn't do my part in exposing the crassness of this particular film.

The opening scene, though not particularly original, looks somewhat promising -but it all comes crashing down from there. The B (or C) rate acting is exposed from the first word uttered and the cinematography is rushed and confused. But that's a "relatively" minor fault. The plot is so savagely simplistic, churning out such skewed analyses as 'But not all Muslims are terrorists -Yes, but most terrorists are Muslims' to deliver it's never-trust-a-Muslim message, you wonder how it made it through even the most bigoted film censors. I am ashamed to say that I watched until the end, with the faint hope that maybe this was actually going to turn into one big joke aimed at exposing a narrow-minded western understanding of Islam. But alas, the film stays its course until its dismal, racist end.

Its one redeeming factor is that it is so plain bad, that it serves as an own-goal to those half-wit neo-cons.

Harvey! What were you thinking when you read the script?! What a hopeless waste of money.

Even amateurs produce better movies these days. The dubbing of the characters is so awful it reminds you of the sleazy Italian movies of the 70s and 80s where content had no place in the movie, and sex scenes were everything. This is repeated in this movie, and makes it devoid of any artistic merit. The characters' motives are masked at best, and there are too many uncomfortable 'coincidences'.

The acting is bad beyond belief. And the subject is not researched at all. A 13 year old history student can teach a lot more than our 'professor' in the movie. There is no knowledge of the way Islam spread. The professor equates Ottoman Empire with the Moors and the previous Caliphates, where in many cases these were antagonistic entities. And the professor forgets to mention that the wars between Muslims and Christians started with the crusades where the Vatican tried to 'repossess' the 'Holy land'; an extension of the wars fought by the Roman Empire. The movie also fails to state that the Inquisition and the church terrorized people for centuries, and it was only by repeated defeats of the Crusaders at the hands of Muslim army that the break in Vatican rule materialized, and the flow of scientific, philosophical and artistic material from Muslim countries into the Church dominated lands began leading to 'Renaissance' and the Age of Enlightenment.

F. Murray Abraham is over the top as usual anyway, but the only regret is having Harvey Keitel staining his image in this manner. My take on this movie: pure garbage.