LONG EXPLANATION: To the twinks that wonder where to find this untraceable film, I am sorry but I cannot give you the resource. It’s been almost two years since I last viewed it, and my device has gone through too many updates to recover this film. What I can tell you is that I found it on a website which now belongs to the internet archive, but was able to find a new version of it after some days of research. I discovered that Fantasia was still available on the new website, but you had to pay almost $30 ($25 is the number I remember) to watch it. Being 13 and too scared to ask for it for Christmas, I put myself in contact with an employee of the internet archive site. After a week, she was able to contact who ran this updated version of the obscure theatre film website, and gave me their line. The man who ran it used to be apart of a theatre group in Bologna, that was associated with a camera man of Fantasia, who gave the theatre a copy of it. I convinced him to let me watch it, saying it was for a school project and I didn’t have enough money to pay for it. He wasn’t persuaded initially, but eventually gave in, on a condition that I have it for a day before he deleted the email linking me to the film. Some noticeable people were in here, but I did not watch it for school. So, Pietro, if you see this 2 year old review - I’m sorry for my lie, and that I blocked your email when you asked for the school document linking you to my review. I’m a changed woman who was 13 when she did that and now 15 (sarcasm). Wow, my written odyssey is longer than the actual review. Apologies.

To the internet, Fantasia, ma Non Troppo, per Violino is a very mysterious film, as there are no official film posters, videos or reviews released of this movie online. So, let me be one of the first people to provide a bit of insight into this beautifully crafted film, for strictly English speaking speakers. Named 'Fantasy, but Not Too Much, for Violin' in English, the film was released in 1976 and the plot centres around 4 main characters and the narration of Bologna and its history. The director, Bologna native Gianfranco Mingozzi was looking for a Bolognese to play a character who would act as a link between the various episodes, those being the 16th and 17th century blacksmith, a storyteller from San Giovanni in Persiceto, an actor for Giulio Cesare Croce, who is the author, among other things, of Bertoldo and Bertoldino. Also in this film also features Bruno Musso, who portrayed Carlo Porro in the 120 Days of Sodom, and the wonderful actress Piera Degli Esposti, who recently passed away this year.

Now, getting back to the film. Whether or not the stories told in this film are accurate (I haven't educated myself on Bolognese history so I wouldn't know), I enjoyed watching it. For a film that's only an hour & 33 minutes long, the pacing was quite slow but I got used to it and anyone else will do similar. The acting is quite impressive and something I preferred over the plots. Considering most of the actors are mostly, or were once amateur actors whose filmography featured no more than two or fewer films, the actors are rather talented and made for a wonderful film. The aesthetic too. This is a strange thing to admit but when it comes to a film, if the atmosphere makes me uncomfortable (especially if it's a black and white film) I usually turn it off and watch something else. But for Fantasia, it was the opposite. I'm not sure who the cinematographer of this film is, but they did an amazing job catching the beauty of Fantasia, and within 10 minutes I truly felt comfortable with it and was even excited to see what would happen next. I also liked how detailed this film was and, considering its budget, the creators of this film used the money amount to their advantage and, honestly, I'm thankful they did!

Overall, this film was actually quite good, although I wouldn't recommend it to teenagers my age. I'm sure they'd think I'm weird for even watching it to begin with. I also think it's worth a look if you're interested in Italian history and aren't a native.

8/10

In all honesty, The Gospel According to St. Matthew is one of the most complex, intricate films I have ever viewed and I'm not even joking. I can't even believe I was able to sit through this entire film without going on my phone, or skipping dull parts, based on how stretched out I thought it was. Yet, once I finished the whole two hours and 17 minutes, my emotions surrounding this film spiraled in many different criticisms, and I had to turn off anything near me so I could fully think about what I had just watched.

First off, let me state that this film isn't an easy watch and will require your complete attention. Even if you have read Matthew's gospel or the Bible itself, many events happen in this film and oftentimes it can be quite rapid, so this is why immersing yourself into the whole climax without any distractions will make it easier to comprehend. When doing so, The Gospel According to St. Matthew will give what it needs to give. It fills a void in you that speaks of your perception of Jesus, his disciples, and the despair of his betrayal and execution. Although everyone has a different view on who he actually is, this one may be the most accurate. Watching this movie felt like a fever dream, but in the best way. At times the pacing was lengthy and difficult to sit through, but ultimately watching this entire film was worth it, even if you have to wait for the memorable moments to occur. I also liked how it never succumbed to a principal bias and Pasolini's faithfulness to what he's adapting except it has a neorealism to it.

The acting was decent too. There was no outstanding actor I could ramble on about, but everyone's performance was well and made for a good movie. The aesthetic was okay but definitely not a favorite. The atmosphere was bleak and melancholic and made some parts utterly dull. What I will say is that when Jesus was being crucified it shocked me just how depressing, and somewhat graphic it was. Definitely a scene I will avoid the next time I watch this film.

In conclusion, this is a well-directed movie that featured many surprising occurrences and a somewhat personal look into Jesus of Nazareth. I'm not sure if I'll ever want to see it again, but if I recommend this to someone I'll have to be aware of what genre of movies they mainly watch.

7/10

"Blessed are the young who see what isn’t there!"
A masterpiece of a film with few flaws and a dynamic, fast-pacing storyline. 1900 explains clearly both the rise of communism in Italy and just how terrible fascists can cultivate into, as well as give us a first perspective view on the classes it affects. This film aligns completely from childhood to the senior years of our two main characters, and never once did I feel as if Novecento was dragging out its plot to make it more pretentious than it needed to be. Every part felt incorporated for a reason, even the scenes I wasn't so fond of.
To watch 1900 is to watch it in two parts, not the complete near 6 hour English overdub. So, in conclusion, if you have the attention span and are interested in films discussing politics with simplicity, I recommend 1900 to you. Politics I believe are not the main plot with this film, as Novecento undergoes themes of marriage, relationships, and the effect of being friends with someone in an altered class as you, during the first few decades of the 20th century. I don't often say this with films that have disturbing content placed into them, but 1900 is a must-watch piece of 7th art that everyone must view once in their lives.
10/10
5/5

The Last Metro is a very distinguished, exemplary piece of 7th art which was one of Truffant's last films before his death. The romance between Gerard Depardieu's character Bernard and Catherine Deneuve's Marion I found very ironic. Never once did I see they cultivated an interest in each other prior to their affair, nor any chemistry. The parts where they are particularly intimate, Depardieu and Deneuve make a nice pair and give it their very best.

Towards the end, The Last Metro felt purposefully slow pace, as if to lengthen it out, to its current runtime. Up to an hour and a half, The Last Metro was excellent, with the capability of a rating up to 5 stars. But once the center of this whole flick elapsed, it soaked up every other storyline included and executed the ending of those storylines in a swift, anticlimactic manner. So, in a way I am both disappointed it was so rushed, yet how each tale concluded the way they did.

However, I did enjoy the acting altogether. The actors deliver swell performances that still weave potential even if this film didn't contain a plot. Whether or not the storylines are accurate when compared to the literal events that occurred in 1944 Nazi-occupied France, I frankly don't care. As a whole, each is solid and believable, so much so it opposes itself from similar World War 2 French films.
In conclusion, I do believe that despite The Last Metro's flaws, it is undoubtedly a unique watch. It provides a feeling I believe these characters felt for the ending sequence; pure poignancy.

Truffant has much better films than this flick however, and though that statement won't make me stop you from initially viewing it, movies such as Jules and Jim, The Wild Child, and Day For Night are ones I will recommend over this one.
3.5/5
6/10

As someone who's seen all of Pasolini's films I can definitely say without second thoughts The Canterbury Tales is his most comedic one. Some of the scenes - especially those with Ninetto Davoli were hilarious, and regardless if the hilarious parts had deeper meanings they made me smile. The acting is exactly how most Pasolini are so no performance was amazingly notable for me to put in here. Also, Franco Citti was apparently in this film, but like multiple times over I wasn't able to recognise him. Is this because he has a dissimilarity from primarily every appearance he does in Pasolini films? I'm not certain on that. Regardless, I'm sure if I saw this movie again I'd be able to recognise his face.

Asides from the casting, The Canterbury Tales is a film that is memorable in multiple ways for both its humor, stories, and pure aesthetic amongst multiple other key elements. Though no story contains a deep, thought provoking, intellectual message, I'm glad I saw it. However, on that note I wouldn't recommend it to someone who's just starting with Pasolini films, because they might get the impression from both this one and possibly Salò that they're all explicit, exploitive films that have no plot besides erotica. This just isn't literal and sheds a bad light on the meaning of many of his other films, which are primarily contrasting to each other and not only tell a different story, but have a different meaning. In conclusion, I give this one a now 6/10. It's a good movie but Pasolini undoubtedly has better ones.

Porcile, or known in English as 'Pigsty', is a film that surprised me in several ways and will definitely do the same to every newcomer about to watch it. First of all, when I read the description of this film, I expected the story of the man who forms a tribe of murderous cannibals to be nothing more than that said man exploring a deserted desert whilst eating what is initially animals, then transiting into humans. I also expected it to be just that for the entire runtime and rethinking that just makes me laugh, because there's so much more plot that dwells in Porcile. However, halfway through the film, I realized that this obviously isn't the plot, but I thought so in an impressed, surprised way. By then, it was enjoyable watching and I was looking forward to what else this movie would dwell on from its dyad plots and conversations, which were thought provoking. The final that deserves to be mentioned in this review is the main character in the succeeding story's ending. Though the title itself (possibly) gave it away, his conclusion was ironic and was one I never would've, under any circumstance, thought of.

Now, moving onto the acting. The performances by Franco Citti and Ninetto Davoli (rightfully named the 'faces of Pasolini's films') were per usual. When I say that, I don't mean to display their acting in a negative light and say that they're basic, but their portrayals of their characters are how they perform in MOST Pasolini films. By saying that, I believe Alberto Lionello and Ugo Tognazzi are the highlight actors of this film. They carried every scene they shared with their characters intellect and conversations, within how fascinating they'd make each one sound. Whenever one of their scenes concluded, many of their lines still remained, spiraling around in my mind. Jean-Pierre Léaud, Pierre Clémenti, and Anne Wiazemsky were individually well-endowed, but it was Lionello and Tognazzi who were most excellent and raw.

The imagery of Porcile was decent, but the aesthetics of Pasolini's other films are much more pleasing and delightful. This doesn't mean I don't think there's some truly beautiful shots in this film, such as when Ida and Julian are walking next to a gigantic fountain (placed behind an enormous mansion), and towards the very end when Ninetto Davoli and (what I believe is) Alberto Lionello are in deep discussion about the fate Julian was subjected to. The writing was also wonderful, but it's how most Pasolini films are written.

Despite the positive things I can say about Porcile, the real-let downs were the plots. Yes, I'm aware I said in my first paragraph that halfway through it was enjoyable, but as someone who loves the way Pasolini makes his stories, these two were simply weak and out of place with each other. Such as, in one bit a cannibal is either devouring or dispatching a human, and in another Lionello and Tognazzi are having an intellectually high conversation. See what I'm saying? The plots don't correlate with each other and that's what made Porcile weak, alongside the plot in itself. But on a positive note, I was looking forward to how Porcile was expanding, and by the mid-section the stories became more tolerable; as if more than just the plot was carrying this movie.

In conclusion, Porcile was an interesting film despite the plot not being the best part about it. If I'm being honest it's one I wouldn't recommend but that won't let me stop people from not seeing it by saying it's a terrible film, because it isn't. But this is a movie that you shouldn't feel contrived to see as there are several films from this era of Italian cinema that are more worthy of your time. And from that statement, I give Porcile a 4/10

My relationship with Nymphomaniac: Part II is very 'love hatred'. It was very disturbing, but at least I have some good memories with it!

This book is very psychologically based, as most of it chronicles the life story of Jude St Francis and an analysis of how severely his childhood trauma affected him to the point no one can 'fix him', and how he copes with the immense pain and suffering the first 15 years of his life has incorporated into the rest of his life. The small percentage of the book that isn't based around St Francis details his friends, their ambitions, hopes, ... as well as the family he meets along the way.

Personally, I believe a Little Life was an incredible book. It taught me so much, and truly I went through so many emotions whilst turning each page and unfolding what was on one, then another. It is a rollercoaster to read, but truly in the best way possible. Many difficult parts were put into this book that weren't nice reading, but at least it showed that there are so many despicable people in this world. As long as you can tolerate some extreme, triggering content - A Little Life is an eye opening book that is undoubtedly worth a read. 

8/10

I have deliberately avoided reading reviews on Now and Then because I know most of them are going to find a way to make an invalid statement on how 'terrible' this film is. I'm telling you - the girls that get it, get it. The girls that don't, don't.

Don't watch this film if you have anxiety or if you're young...thank me later. I watched it once and thanks to me worrying so much I could never again