User reviews

Some people would complain that this movie has no plot, but does life have a plot? No, of course not! And so this movies goes, from scene to scene, through memories, collages, documentary footage, hallucinations, with only one continuous character but hundreds of faces, bits of conversation, music, all flowing around just like life when you are very drunk and everything in life makes sense, no matter how absurd.

This movie contains some stunning scenes: the "ecclesiastical fashion show"; the Roman traffic jam in the rain; the deli-style whorehouse; the family style meal; the discovery and destruction of Roman ruins during the construction of the subway system. You can walk in at any moment on this movie and it doesn't matter, you don't have to follow it to enjoy it. Perhaps this is true of all Fellini movies, I'm not sure -- certainly it's true of another favorite of mine, Satyricon.

At the opening credits of "Roma", we are informed by our narrator and director Federico Fellini that this is not a normal film in the traditional storytelling sense, but more a perception of Rome, the way Fellini sees it. Sounds interesting? Well, it is, in that one must be so in love with their city to want to show it to the world through a series of small stories and shots of random happenings. I can relate: I have the same love for Melbourne.

We shift from a portrayal of Fellini as a schoolboy with dreams of going to Rome, to a depiction of Fellini as a young man, moving to the city he always wanted to live at. There's also scenes of early 1970s theatre attendance, the almost ritual-like eating habits of the Romans, and then we move onto a documentary-like part of the film where we get to see Fellini's camera crew struggle as they try to capture the hustle and bustle of the entrance into Rome via a major highway, filled with drifters, animals, trucks, hitch-hikers, bikes, and more.

The constant changing in scenes and stories is a bit messy, and could possibly confuse those not understanding what Fellini is trying to do with the film. At some times, I found myself questioning whether what we were being shown was a realistic dramatization of Fellini's past experiences, or some kind of farcical take on Roman culture (see the religious clothing fashion show scene!). The film is quite intriguing, taking in the sexual revolution of the era and putting it up against a city full of tradition. We are also exposed to some of the city's dirty little secrets, such as the surprising popularity of their whorehouses.

It can't be denied that there is something endearing to "Roma" that allows Fellini to get away with a film that doesn't really give you much to take home with you, other than an idea of what Rome was like for someone in 1972, and what kind of life was lead to come to those perceptions. It is somewhat self indulgent, but Fellini does put across the impression that he has something to show you, something he'd like to share with you, because he has loved it for so long, and it still fascinates him on a daily basis.

Roma explores the city of Rome from several different perspectives, giving it a mystical life of its own that hangs in the balance between its rich history and its modern identity. With no real chronology, Roma is a tapestry of bizarre scenes and familiar images that blend together into a gorgeous visual carnival. Typical of Fellini, with the carnival comes a critique--and Roma tears through the city's political and religious history, satirizing the Catholic church and various faces of Italian government from Renaissance times through Mussolini's reign and on into the 1960s. While the camera lavishes affectionately over Rome's art and architecture and is clearly a tribute to the Eternal City, most of the sets in the film are constructed, reinforcing Fellini's narrative imagination and keeping viewers caught in a perpetual contradiction between reality and fantasy, history and the present, fact and fiction.

Beautiful and colorful Fellini's Roma (1972) is a very enjoyable film with a subtle message and a lot of heart. The magnificent Eternal City, one of the most famous cities in the world is deservingly the main character of this very personal for its creator, Maestro Fellini, film that can be described as a montage of unrelated scenes.

"Roma" consists of three parts. In the beginning, young Federico, the student in his native Rimini, learns about Rome from movies, plays, works of art, and from school history lessons. Then, as a young man, he arrives to Eternal City, strange, loud, and confusing on the outbreak of World War II. The third part takes us to the beginning of 70th when Fellini, the famous master is creating a visually unforgettable, full of life and history portrait of Rome consisting of several vignettes that take us back and forth in time and director's memory.

I think the reason I enjoyed "Roma" is that its vignettes have so much heart and love, irony , and interest to the master's favorite city, its past and present, to its streets, palaces, and cathedrals, and to its people, their laughs, smiles, and tears. Some of the stories are amusing (variety show, first Federico's dinner in one of the outside restaurants where everybody knows everybody) while some are very emotional.

A powerful scene takes place in an underground tunnel where subway construction workers discovered an ancient palace filled with beautiful frescoes of Ancint Rome period that later slowly fade out and disappear before our eyes taking with them a mystery of times long gone.

I loved the fashion show of nuns and priests; I liked the sequence with the prostitutes on display – both are typical Fellini's surreal scenes, funny and sad in the same time.

In improvement from "Satyricon," this time, Fellini, did not have any central characters presented in every vignette; and result is more satisfying: this is one of the best documentary style movies that I have seen. The main character in all its stories is Rome and that's the only character we need here.

Gracie Federico!

Opinions may vary regarding the work of this artist.

One thing is certain: the man had a genius for making any person, place or thing a "Fellini subject": no matter where his camera pointed, what emerged on celluloid was a "Fellini image."

In "Roma" the shot could be a routine traffic jam; with Fellini not an ordinary one. Along the standard highway appears darkly hooded figures--one holding a silhouetted parasol--while a bonfire casually smolders, emitting clouds of black smoke.

It's no longer just a normal freeway but a Felliniesque creation mounted on the surreal palette of a genuine stylist.

Contemplate the quality of his characteristically rapid-paced dialogue, and you'll discover it's less communicative discourse and more self-indulgent chatter.

All the Fellini trademarks are there: big breasted women, clownlike characters, rude Rabelaisian remarks, all to brassy street band accompaniments tooted on worn, cheap instruments.

In some ways "Roma" picks up where "Satyricon" leaves off, minus main characters. It's all an extremely personal vision--and not a little bit weird, rather like temporarily inhabiting the domain of a slightly warped mentality.

Recalling my own visit to the Eternal City, I don't recall experiencing anything like this purgatorian collage. Then again, I suppose what we see is pretty much the result of who we are.

Made just a couple of years after Antonioni filmed his "Zabriskie Point" in Los Angeles, Fellini never "did the foreign thing," opting to remain working on his home terrain.

For Fellini fans and others with an interest in film history, "Roma" occupies a valid place for observation, notation and appreciation.

ROMA is not the kind of film you may want to watch if you are in the mood for a made for TV movie, but perfect if you want to get away from one. The ultimate cinematic escape, it is a collection of interesting and arresting scenes and images from Rome throughout history. It does not concentrate on history per say, but excerpts Italian society and it's lifestyles from the conformity of Mussolini's time to the hippy-dippy days - in a non-narrative, non-documentary way. Some things change, others stay the same. Don't expect to find much of a plot, but rather moments of great amusement with character and sometimes very involving images. ROMA doesn't insult it's viewers with it's unconventional liberties, and that alone makes it a worthwhile trip to take - even if only once.

A very personal, even autobiographical, always loving portrayal of the city wildly mixes documentary and fictional elements in a seemingly chaotic order, but thoroughly entertaining and amusing.

Fellini's films are a collection of unforgettable images, rather like reading through a photo magazine in a foreign language - you don't need to know the language to understand the pictures. The subtitles can be turned off and you can still follow one stunning vignette after another. Best of all, this film can be watched over and over because you will see something new or interpret it a different way each time.

Rome is seen as a carnival and the people are the freaks, carneys and revellers. Rome has been a great city for over 2,000 years and was once THE city - the center of the world. One cannot imagine New York in 1,800 years time, and certainly not Washington. The film shows the evolution of that great city into a noisy, overcrowded, modern-day nightmare of chaotic traffic, circling around the ancient ruins. Life goes on. We all turn to dust, but others come to take our place.

The most unforgettable image for me was the ecclesiastical fashion show as gaudy and vulgar as anything Ken Russell could dream up. My biggest problem was with the subtitles. Somehow I doubt that the viewers of Fellini's film choose to use vulgar American slang.

Legendary Italian director Federico Fellini creates a movie of his life from childhood under the Fascists to his youth in the city to his filmmaking life in the craziness of Rome. This movie is rather scattered in its plot, such as one exists at all. It's more a feeling of Roman life than an actual story. I do wonder if a Fellini enthusiast would recognize some of the scenes in this movie. Maybe some interactions inspire him in creating some of his famous films. This is probably a must-see for his fans.

You may or not like Fellini's extravagance ... and there's plenty to be had in "Roma". You may dislike the movie going back and forth in time, and around a period in history which you can't even relate to; you may dislike the lack of plot, the series of episodes from the director's past or fantasies. You may not share his vision of Rome, its women, its chaos, its fascist monuments and its hippies. You may not even be at all interested in Fellini's world and may find his movies, boring, or uninteresting. This one will be no exception, then. Well... After all, we did not all like Citizen Kane either.

For one thing is beyond doubt: Fellini's Roma is a true, genuine, masterpiece, one of the last gems coming out of the relentless, colourful imagination of an Italian director, who from La Strada to Amarcord, in some 15 years of movie-making, was able to concoct classic movies and nothing but. Fellini's Roma is a series of exaggerations (the characters, chaos, the brothels, the nights in Rome...) as Rome can be. It is an absolute tribute to a city one thousand times destroyed, one thousand times reborn, to the "city of illusions" as Gore Vidal puts is. It is above all a tribute to the Romans, who basically "could not care less whether you are alive or dead". And who better to capture this than Federico Fellini?

I gotta say, I love this film. It's not a full feature, but highlights the version of Rome that inspired, and delights. The vignettes are exquisite and endearing.

Everything is revolving around Rome in this movie, its beauty, its decadence, its history, its inhabitants, seen with the eyes of our magnificent Maestro: Fellini. The scene of the war-period theatre is one of the funniest of the whole history of cinema and no subtitle can render it in a proper way, you should live in Rome for years to fully appreciate the dialogues. It's worth seeing for the countless characteristic "faces" that Fellini was used to employ for his movies, giving that special taste to his works we are still call "fellinian" nowadays.

I have come to believe that Fellini is a genius (past tense would be irrelevant here). More so since as an American who studied film in Britain came to live my life an hour's drive from his birthplace when I was 49, 14 years ago. And discovered Italy. Fellini expressed Italy in the most accurate way imaginable. The so-called "Fellini crowd" does exist, everywhere here. Fellini lovingly satirized everything pitiful and shameful and laughable he saw around him.

I don't know whether I would call Roma a masterpiece, yet it is the work of genius. Fellini growing up under Fascism in Rimini, near the river (more of a stream really) Rubicone which Caesar crossed with his legion marching on Rome. Later, Fellini as a young man arrives in Rome at the outbreak of WWII. And Finally, Fellini in the early 1970ies introduces us to Rome. There is a plot! A very clear one. What's wrong with those who say the film consists of unconnected vignettes? But you have to live here for at least a decade or more to find the plot in Fellini's Roma.

Chaos is an Ancient Greek word, but it describes Italy to a "t". A chaos organized only in the imagination of arrogance of fascism and of the church, and of everyday ignorance.

"May I ask you a question" Fellini asks Anna Magnani attempting to interview her around midnight at her Roman doorstep. "No, I don't trust you, Federi, go to sleep" responds the famous actress. Should we trust him to tell us the truth about Rome, the Church, fascism and ignorance?

It's well known that Fellini abandoned linear, narrative film-making sometime during 8½, though perhaps the seeds were already being sewn with his two episodic dramas, Nights of Cabiria and La Dolce Vita. Like those films, Fellini-Roma offers up a similarly episodic, shambolic and deeply romanticised depiction of Italy's capital. However, unlike those films, there is no central figure or narrator, like the prostitute Cabiria or Marcello the playboy journalist, to guide us through Fellini's labyrinthine concoction; only the fevered musings of it's director and the rambling recollections of a series of fanciful weirdoes. Thus, the film isn't a film in the traditional sense, but rather, a fusion of documentary style-footage and stylised recreations of characters, places, times and events.

Many have criticised the film (as well as others from the same era, particularly Juliet of the Spirits, Satyricon, Fellini-Casanova and The City of Women) as being trivial, meandering and self-indulgent, all of which are true, but certainly the element of indulgence and theatrical abstraction (as well as a penchant for the outrageous and arcane) was always part of Fellini's appeal. Here, the previous hints of free-form abstraction, is taken further, with all semblance of story removed, so the film, unlike his previous two films Juliet of the Spirits and Satyricon, which were abstract and sprawling but still had a sense of character and plot, Roma instead, wanders along from one scene to the next, with no real focus on character (although there are many faces that reoccur throughout) and nothing in the way of narrative momentum. Now, this will undoubtedly be a problem for some viewers who require a sense of pace or meaning to their films, though, for those of us still interested in what Fellini has to offer, regardless of content (or lack, thereof), it is perhaps best to think of the film as a collection of scenes to dip in and out of at random.

As was the case with many later-Fellini, the film has a number of intoxicating set pieces scattered sporadically throughout, amongst the most impressive being an epic fashion show replete with the trademark Fellini grotesques, social and political commentaries and a fair bit of sniping, sycophantic star-worship. Other standouts, with the film traversing a number of different time periods, include a reconstruction of Rome during the reign of Mussolini, a heated traffic jam on the autostrada and a lengthy documentary-like scene following a group of archaeologists searching through Rome's labyrinth of subway systems. There are a variety of other set pieces scattered throughout the film that probably warrant some sort of mention, but they just didn't resonate with me as highly as they have with certain other viewers.

However, that's one of the great things about Fellini-Roma, with the director stringing together a series of impressionist sketches that will no doubt conjure different moods and emotions in whoever watches the film. As was apparent right from the start with Fellini, was his ability to evoke a certain time and place through his images, set-construction, sound-design, and overall iconography... and that's certainly evident here. Of course, like all of the director's work from this period, the film won't be to all tastes, with many no doubt despairing of the filmmaker's seeming indulgence, pretension and wanton disregard of character and narrative. However, if you treat the film more like an episodic tapestry (or travelogue) to dip in and out of, then you're sure to get a lot out of Fellini's majestic, carefully orchestrated imagery, bizarre cavalcade of clowns, freaks, geeks and weirdoes (not to mention the usual barrage of buxom ladies), and a collection of cameos and in-jokes from a variety of Fellini regulars.

For my money, this film isn't quite as essential as 8 ½, Amarcord, La Dolce Vita or ...And the Ship Sails on, though it does rank alongside the sentimental La Strada and the similarly episodic Night of Cabiria (I'm not sure whether or not I prefer Casanova over this... I'd have to see both films again) and is much better than the free-form bombardment of Juliet of the Spirits, Satyricon and The City of Women (in my opinion, at least). Regardless of the comparisons to his previous films, Fellini-Roma is still an enchanting film with some astounding moments of visual spectacle to compensate for the overall lack of plot. Probably a worthwhile purchase for die-hard Fellini fans, though those new to the director's work would be better off starting elsewhere.

Fellini's Roma falls somewhere between Julliet of the Spirits and Amarcord. Both were directed by him in 1965 and 1973 respectively. The first was a mess and virtually unwatchable. The second is one of the greatest works of cinema. So Fellini's Roma too is a fragmented mess. There is no coherent story and absolutely no plot. The fragments are not inter-related and some of them are completely surreal. The one with the papal fashion show immediately leaps to mind. However, there is great beauty too - the Fellini touch. The scenes with the eating out and the fresco discovery were shot with a master touch.

The bulk of the action takes place over a 24 hour period in Fascist Italy. Its worth a look for Fellini fans but don't try to derive any sense from this. Ciao!

Fellini's ROMA imposingly alternates between two paralleled narratives in Rome, his salad days during the WWII and the beginning of 1970s, when he is an eminent filmmaker making a new film about the city, erratically charts its local customs and folk culture to pay homage to an ancient and great city. Structurally, the film doesn't stick to a linear one, instead it disguises with a pseudo-documentary style, in fact, most of the scenes were re-constructed in Cinecittà, however, Fellini stuns audience again with his majestic undertaking which significantly blurs the line between fiction and non-fiction.

The film is not just an ode to the city, more prominently, it is the clashes between past and present that reverberate strongly today. His young self (played by Falcon), a doe-eyed townie arrives in Rome for college, enjoys a boisterous dinner in the street trattoria with the entire neighbourhood, watches a shoddy variety show with crude spectators which would be interrupted by an air raid, flirts with the brothel for the first time; when time leaps forward to the 1970s, the flower-child generation is consuming with alienation and torpidity, a poetic episode of the underground metro construction team encounters an undiscovered catacomb, where fresh air breaches into the isolated space and ruins all its frescoes in a jiffy. A superlative conceit encapsulates the dilemma between modern civilisation and ancient heritage.

There is no absence of Fellini-esque extravaganza, the brothels during wartime are quintessentially embellished with crazed peculiarity and vulgarity for its zeitgeist and national spirit, where sex can be simply traded as commodity without any emotional investment. The most striking one, is the flamboyant fashion-show of church accouterments organised by Princess Domitilla (De Doses) for Cardinal Ottaviani (Giovannoli), consummated in an overblown resurrection of the deceased Pope, it is sacrilege in its most diverting form, only Fellini can shape it with such grand appeal and laugh about it.

Two notable celebrity cameos, Gore Vidal, expresses his love of the city from an expatriate slant, and more poignant one is from Anna Magnani, her final screen presence - Ciao, buonanotte! - a sounding farewell for this fiery cinema icon. The epilogue, riding with a band of motorists, visiting landmarks in the night, Fellini's ROMA breezily captures this city's breath of life, sentimental to its distinguished history, meanwhile vivacious even farcical in celebrating its ever-progressing motions, a charming knockout!

When was it exactly, in this long, plotless film, that the visually striking gave way to the enervating? Somewhere between the pointless, rain soaked drive through the outskirts and the extremely dull WW2 vaudeville show would be my best estimate. C plus.

As I already knew this film was virtually plot less I had not been expecting a great deal from Fellini, but I was given more than a great deal. Fellini sets out on an almost mythical journey through the shocking but wonderfully real City of Rome as he remembers partly as a boy and as a young adult. You could be mistaken for thinking that Fellini was criticising Rome but he is actually praising its vibrancy in a way in which only he can. There is no plot to speak of, just an array of both gritty characters and breathtaking backdrops. I am not surprised that this film has a relatively low rating because most viewers would feel that for a film a plot is essential. However in my opinion Fellini demonstrates that a plot is not always needed to make a film enjoyable, funny and gripping, as he showed with his brilliant account of his growing up in Amarcord. I would definitely urge you to see Fellini's Roma, as it is not an unbelievable storyline, but a pure film, which will grip you with its continuous vibrancies. 9/10

Whereas a film like 'Bueno Vista Social Club' depicts a poor city in a charming and loving way this depicts the not so charming aspects of a relatively rich city, still with lots of heart and irony though. We get several episodes in this non-documentary like one about traffic, one about whorehouses, one about peaceful hippies being beaten by the police, one about the digging of tunnels for the metro system and so on. There is a frame story about Fellini, first about the young Fellini learning about the old Roma, then about how Roma is now, its not so important, but its well integrated into the whole story and shows how personal this film is.

We get bombarded with the rude, the noisy and the chaos, as usual for Fellini a lots of things are happening all the time so don't watch it while not up and awake so to speak. The implications are many, the comments likewise. Its never sentimental, but it still opts for change.

Wait a minute, isn't the Vatican in Roma(in double sense)? Well, check for yourself.

In this movie Federico Fellini attempts to contrast the Rome of his youth with modern day Rome with mixed results. The Rome of his youth is gaudy, earthy, raucous, but with a sense of community, while all that is lacking in the present day, yet Rome endures despite the changes. Fellini clearly yearns for the earlier time and provides a glimpse of a world and subculture that is now extinct. Oh, to go back to the days when neighborhoods existed, when people knew each other, when life was simpler and more fun. Yet the problem is that the movie lacks any real dramatic content. The movie is basically consists of anecdotal vignettes that show the ridiculous side of life, yet it's all based on caricatures that lack substance. As a result, the movie is dramatically flat. One can appreciate Fellini's attempt to recreate a happier bygone era but people are more than just caricatures and to portray people as such becomes a form of mockery which is ultimately unfair.

Director Federico Fellini's impressionistic tribute to Rome, Italy is both loving and disdainful, a past and present collage of a city in transition. Lots of gorgeous imagery, but the loosely-structured 'plot' doesn't warrant much attention. With action swinging back and forth in time, the film lacks a kinetic energy, and the inherent bittersweet nostalgia doesn't always carry it through. For those so inclined, a few of Fellini's trademark freaks do pass by, but the film isn't as garish--or as exciting--as Fellini's earlier works. It seems the artiste was in transition himself. Although the film won a technical Grand Prize at Cannes, it was snubbed at Oscar time. ** from ****