Continue with Google
>
L'Avventura Reviews
True cinema. The shots, the plot, the score, and the boldness.
One thing I disliked about this film was the runtime. I felt a lot of scenes dragged on with no dialogue or meaning. Just more and more shots of the surrounding scenery. Though it gets cookie points for being beautifully shot (+ Sicily is gorgeous). The acting is great. The plot is romantic but at the same time the ending doesn't really make sense. I read the ending as the film as showing how quickly feelings change and how we have to be easier on peoples emotional changes, as long as it's clear they did not intend to hurt you. I would recommend to most but please remember it's a very long film, romantic but not something to watch with a pestering girlfriend.
Um filme interessante mas sem seguir uma linha linear, bem comum nos filmes italianos dessa época.
Movie is kind of overrated, But I can see what the filmmaker was driving at, Monica Vitti is the whole show,
In Michelangelo Antonioni's L'Avventura, friendship and love are fleeting and dispensable commodities in the world of the wealthy and powerful. When a group of affluent Italians anchor their boat to explore a remote volcanic island, one of the women inexplicably disappears. However, what starts as a mystery eventually evolves into something quite different as the fiancé of the missing woman seeks comfort in the arms of the woman's best friend. Those expecting a film that neatly ties up all of the loose ends will no doubt be disappointed by the outcome of L'Avventura, but the film is ultimately a meticulous examination of corrupted human nature that features beautiful cinematography, interesting directorial choices by Antonioni and a great performance from the beautiful Monica Vitti.
Starts well but when the story flips from the list woman to the affair, it starts to meander aimlessly whilst dragging out a non story. Does a great send up of the creepiness of Italian men though.
This is a classic of world cinema? Really? The only reason to watch this plodding film is to watch the stunningly beautiful Monica Vitti for 160 minutes.
Some may criticize the erratic pacing, focus on characters over narrative, and radical shifts in tone that seem to take place spontaneously, but I say that each element adds to the authenticity. (4/5)
I don't know how I wanted this movie to end, but it had to do something different for me to love it. The visuals are desolate yet still spectacular. It gets hard to watch people suffer, rich or not. I think maybe i'd like it better if I could blame them.
L’Avventura starts with some potential. While it is paced somewhat slow, it takes some time to establish characters and their relationships, so I was ready to forgive the pacing. Then something happens and the film becomes a mystery. For a little while, it appears we are actually on the case of a missing person, and I was intrigued to see how this would be resolved. After a little while it becomes obvious that this is not what the movie is actually about, and we will never see resolution. I should have known, based on my past experience with films by Antonioni, that he’s more interested in exploring relationship dynamics than actually telling a satisfying story. Boredom set in and I became more disconnected from the plot with each passing moment. The characters aren’t interesting, and don’t do much of anything, so following them on their wanderings is tedious. The movie is terribly long, particularly when you consider how little happens. I think there’s more static shots and total silence than there is movement and dialogue. I find myself more annoyed by movies like L’Avventura because they trick unsuspecting audience members like myself into thinking they will have a normal story structure, and then leave you hanging until the final moment when you realize the writer/director is actually giving anyone who wants a satisfying conclusion a big middle finger. He cares about Anna about as much as Sandro did, and for all of us curious about her...screw you! I also know I’ll be in the minority on this, because the kind of people who would seek out L’Avventura are the kind of people who like a film that values existential exploration over plot.
The landscapes reflect the emotional desolation of the characters. The plot drags on, but that's the point. Sad, disconnected people wandering through bleak landscapes of intrapsychic despair.
Greeted first with boos and later a Jury Prize at Cannes in 1960, Michelangelo Antonioni's first film of his alienation trilogy on bourgeois ennui remains often mischaracterized and notoriously divisive.
I just watched this film for the third or fourth time, and 2 moments struck me as very important. Early in the film, before Anna disappears, she tells her fiance Sandro that she loves him, but while he's been away, she also realized that she's perfectly happy without him. Later, when Anna has disappeared and Sandro is with Claudia, he talks to her about his work. They are looking at huge Gothic cathedral, and he tells her how buildings of rich importance used to be built with the intention that they last for centuries. Now they aren't even intended to last a decade, so rather than try and build things, he makes a fortune providing estimates on other people's projects. The characters in this movie inhabit a world where the traditional values no longer apply, but they have been unable to forge any replacements, so they act out the hollow shell of old roles and spend their time seeking sex and entertainment. Similarly, this film sets itself up as a traditional meaningful narrative, setting up a key character and then just letting her vanish. The remaining characters act out the shell of a plot, trying to find her, but just drift off into the shell of a romantic plot. I think it's a brilliant and rare example of a film's themes being expressed not just in it's plot but in the very form the film takes.
3 1/2 of 5 stars L'Avventura challenged my threshold right to the absolute brink of turning it off. It starts off wandering aimlessly, characters with no direction, nor any interesting qualities, besides obvious superficial attractiveness. Anna is unhappy in her relationship with Sandro. They go for a boat ride with her friend Claudia and others out to some volcanic islands. Nothing about these relationships is connecting. The photography is hardly inspiring. Why would anyone hold this film in high esteem? Are we waiting for something smarter than us? It is just at half an hour in that I'm ready to turn the film off, something interesting happens: the main character, Anna, disappears. We know she's been unsatisfied, that it doesn't seem like her life is going anywhere, so maybe she's playing a practical joke to get a rise out of the others. But as the search continues, we start to wonder if she went to great lengths. The supporting characters now shift to the leads, something interesting that undeniably captivates me right after I was ready to stop watching. The film took a risk by having no objectives for half an hour, but now an odd group of supporting actors are thrust into the main task of getting the movie back; we care about them finding the thing we never cared about! There might be reverse psychology at play, that we're curious about finding why we were never interested to begin with. After the rest of the group leaves the island for the night, Sandro and Claudia are left isolated with one other, a chance for him to reveal his male urges and make advances towards her, which at first she rejects. He is persistent, perhaps driven by 'my girl's best friend' fetish, which lands him a kiss. The next day, a search party arrives, and she does everything she can to stay away from him. The first of two references to an abandoned city is made, the group realizing this is an archaeological site when they stumble upon an artifact. After they return to civilization, Claudia tries to disappear on a train, but Sandro won't have it, chasing her down. Make no mistake, Sandro is a horny man who is badly chasing an idea, and who will convince himself he's in love until he scores it. This film underscores the torment women undergo when subjected to pure sexual objectification. Claudia wants real love, thus she's willing to eventually go along with Sandro if his intentions are true. But there are other women, like the trance writer with the torn dress who's like a stenographer for the dead, an extremely attractive woman - she rather enjoys being a sex object men throw themselves at. Sandro and Claudia's relationship continues to develop as they look for Anna, at one point arriving in a ghost down, the second occurrence of an abandoned city. The idea of this recurrence may have some reflection on the subject Anna, how she made us feel the first thirty minutes: an empty shell, abandoned within, no direction forward, only what is behind, which we know very little about. The camera is aware of this feeling, focusing on the city for moment above the characters, a slow push-in on a church through an alleyway. Eventually, the tables have turned, Claudia head over heels for Sandro as he begins to cool off. Just like a man to finally get that lay, only to become slightly less passionate than his score. The film continues to explore horny hounds, Claudia the subject of mass leering in another town, her response opposite that of the reveling writer. She wants one man badly, and she's even become a little pathetic about it, desiring that he need her. Before he got laid, he didn't mind saying "I love you," but now she can't get him to say it. The film highlights her self-disparagement accented by inferiority. Yet it also accentuates her desire to be free with someone, like she was with Anna, who may yet be her true lover. Her guard is down for Sandro, she sings and dances for him, only to be greeted by his lessened enthusiasm. True to the unfulfilled wishes of David Lynch, I root for the mystery of what happened to Anna never be resolved. You'll have to see for yourself how it all turns out, but regardless of whether or not she's found, we realize that the film we thought was about Sandro and Anna's doomed failure is about the challenge ahead for any possible future between Sandro and Claudia. Sandro is earthbound to male urges, and Claudia's doomed to the lust of all other men, as inescapable eye candy for the pleasure of an objectifying culture. Her love is weak, and underlying she knows it, but in this kind of culture, her identity can only be found in the protection of a male suitor. Perhaps her happiness was with Anna; there was plenty of flirtation between them. This society will never allow that kind of exploration.
L'Avventura is certainly not the most satisfying of films, but it is a poignant film today, what with masses turning to wine or opioids to wait out the meaningless days of their boring lives. Here Antonioni takes us into the mindless minds of the idle rich, going on a half-assed search for a friend and lover who mysteriously vanishes, while seeming not to care less that she's gone. After the initial disappointment the woman is never found (sorry there's a spoiler on this review of a movie that's almost 60 years old) has passed, the movie makes you think and sticks with you. The photography is also striking and immerses you in the world of the film.
I saw L'Avventura for the first time, last night. I can see that this film will not strike everyone the right way, the first time, but fortunately I have been prepared for it by 40 years of seeing a variety of innovative or even experimental foreign and American films. After seeing the film, I also had a good discussion with my friend and adult son, who were with me as well. This movie struck me in a whole sense -- not through the intellect, but as a canvas of lost or confused people living life, with streaks here and there of genuine and intense humanity. The story is not meant to be held too closely to logical ideas, but it does make sense, overall. The intensity of the story comes from allowing the imagery and the momentary impressions to enter one's perceptions at a deeper level. Without giving away anything, the last few moments of the movie drive home the human core of the story, and yet remains understated. As the director said in an interview, he wanted the audience to do some of the work in connecting with his film, and if the viewer does so, it is indeed a very rewarding film.
A slow burning but well acted and executed drama.
Great cinematography and a meaningful plot but simply too long. There is no climax leading up to the ultimate point, but a long plateau where the audience has too much time to consider the outcome. It suspends it's viewers like a tea kettle waiting to boil, only instead of a whistle it gives one loud 'toot' and fizzles out into nothingness.