La Dolce Vita (1960) User Reviews

Bitterness Of The Sweet Life

[gftbiloxi · 9/10 · 9 May 2005]

LA DOLCE VITA presents a series of incidents in the life of Roman tabloid reporter Marcello Rubini (Marcello Mastroianni)--and although each incident is very different in content they create a portrait of an intelligent but superficial man who is gradually consumed by "the sweet life" of wealth, celebrity, and self-indulgence he reports on and which he has come to crave.

Although the film seems to be making a negative statement about self-indulgence that leads to self-loathing, Fellini also gives the viewer plenty of room to act as interpreter, and he cleverly plays one theme against its antithesis throughout the film. (The suffocation of monogamy vs. the meaninglessness of promiscuity and sincere religious belief vs. manipulative hypocrisy are but two of the most obvious juxtapositions.) But Fellini's most remarkable effect here is his ability to keep us interested in the largely unsympathetic characters LA DOLCE VITA presents: a few are naive to the point of stupidity; most are vapid; the majority (including the leads) are unspeakably shallow--and yet they still hold our interest over the course of this three hour film.

The cast is superior, with Marcello Mastroianni's personal charm particularly powerful. As usual with Fellini, there is a lot to look at on the screen: although he hasn't dropped into the wild surrealism for which he was sometimes known, there are quite a few surrealistic flourishes and visual ironies aplenty--the latter most often supplied by the hordes of photographers that scuttle after the leading characters much like cockroaches in search of crumbs. For many years available to the home market in pan-and-scan only, the film is now in a letterbox release that makes it all the more effective. Strongly recommended.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Well-made but a bit tiring...

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 7 August 2007]

Okay, get ready and hold onto your hats folks, as I was NOT 100% enthralled with this film and think it's a bit overrated. Yes, this of course if the signal that you should NOT read any more but simply mark my review as "not helpful" because my opinion differs from the norm. I actually get this a lot if I buck popular wisdom but shouldn't a review try to say something different other than "I agree with you and everyone else"? Now don't misunderstand me--I did NOT dislike the film nor do I say it was poorly made. But the film's messages about fame and the pointlessness of life got rather tiresome to me after a while. Plus, while at first the film seems to say that certain lifestyles or types of people are hollow and banal, the final message of the overall film seems to be ALL life is pointless. I really enjoyed the scenes with Anita Ekberg--they remind me of the pointless adulation of celebrity today (such as Anna Nicole Smith) but after a while it seemed that Fellini was pretty much lampooning and condemning everything and leaving the viewer with the possible conclusion that life is meaningless so you may as well become an idiot (like Marcello had become by the end of the film). In many ways, though the movie is often upbeat and trivial, the meta-message is much more depressing and cold than that many Bergman films. I at least liked to have seen SOME spark of hope or at least a movie that didn't go on for so long that it left me a bit depressed.

Overall, not a bad film at all, but there are many Fellini films I prefer, such as WHITE SHEIK, LA STRADA and AMARCORD.

A sprawling epic satire on what Fellini considered the spiritual malaise of modern society

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 9/10 · 12 August 2005]

Long considered a major filmmaker, Federico Fellini established his reputation through an insistence on the interest-value of his own fantastic and idiosyncratic vision of the world… In so doing, however, he repeatedly lays himself open to charges of egomania, self-indulgence and superficiality; certainly much of his work, if visually extraordinary, is hyperbolic, naïve and incoherent…

This film about the hedonistic, amoral life of Rome's "beautiful people" is really a series of startling episodes held together by a character played by Marcello Mastroianni, a gossip columnist who is himself caught up in the aimless, scandalous "sweet life."

Filled, like all Fellini films, with stunning, bizarre images and faces and marked by the director's wild comic imagination, the film was widely condemned as "vulgar, witless, and intellectually bankrupt" and lavishly praised as "a cultural and social document, as well as an exciting entertainment."

"La Dolce Vita" moves from one shocking sequence to another… It is a sprawling epic satire on what Fellini considered the spiritual malaise of modern society… It followed a journalist employed by a scandal magazine around a Rome obsessed with orgiastic parties, voluptuous film stars and the commercial marketing of religion… While its images are flamboyant—a statue of Christ flying above Rome suspended from a helicopter, Anita Ekberg dancing in the Trevi fountain, a kitten on her head—the film's despairing tone often rings meaningless, even though Mastroanni's compulsive womanizer, never glamorized, fails to achieve redemption

my favorite fellini -

[shoolaroon · 23 April 2004]

I first saw this movie probably over 25 years ago when I was quite a bit younger. At that point I enjoyed it for its party scenes, sense of joy and life and vitality and....Marcello Mastroianni. Now that I'm older myself and have just recently seen the movie again, I find that I have a much deeper understanding of it. Maybe it takes some age to find some meaning. In a nutshell, Marcello is at a crossroads in his life, he's unable to settle down or move foreward into any direction - he's a diletante with aspirations but no real goals. He's wrapped up in himself and in projecting rather dreamy ideals onto other people. But as he keeps projecting on to others he comes to find in each situation that he doesn't really know the person and they are a mystery and probably a disappointment to him. certainly steiner is the biggest disappointment and disillusions him to a degree that he is apparently lost to a life of corruption and decadence as a result. but it's not that these people are difficult to understand to someone other than marcello - i think we can see that anita ekberg's character really is just a big good-natured blond and not the mysterious goddess marcello makes her out to be; his father is again - the typical traveling salesman and perhaps not the paternal figure that marcello would like him to be. his amour maddelena lives up to her name even as marcello starts believing himself in love with her - he's literally seduced by nothing more than an image he creates in his own mind. his friend steiner seems to have it all to marcello and to be the renaissance man that he would like to be - but, of course, he is dissatisfied and disturbed and we see what the end is. the only one whom marcello forms a somewhat realistic connection with is his girlfriend whom he treats badly and neglects despite her obvious love for him. he refuses to actually work on the one relationship that he could actually succeed at - he would rather dream about possibilities than actualize something.

marcello cannot communicate with others because he cannot see them as the people they really are - he just sees them as projections of his own needs, aspirations, desires and goals. when he finds out what they're really like, he either turns away or falls apart. this is an outstanding movie - 10 out of 10 and beautifully photographed. if you don't get it now, try again in 10 years - it will wait for you to catch up.

The Warning In Mastroianni's Eyes

[martindonovanitaly · 10/10 · 19 December 2017]

Great artists are like prophets whether they mean it or not. Think of H G Wells and Ray Bradbury or Paddy Chayesfski for that matter. Here Federico Fellini warns us about the disenchantment of plenty. So, at the end, this scandalous film of 1960 is a morality tale. Marcello Mastroianni is superb, a beautiful exterior with an interior that is dying, slowly but surely. The term "paparazzo" was coined in this film. The hunters of the banal grew in numbers over the years but not in scope, Anita Ekberg became a symbol of the sixties and who was she? A fantasy, impossible to reach. Real is his wife, the splendid Yvonne Fourneaux. Real is his father, played with heart breaking resignation by Annibale Ninchi or the suicide of his close friend, the intellectual played by Alain Cuny. La Dolce Vita is almost 58 years old and I imagine that the its message, like in most art, will live forever.

Tolerance of Taste

[mhh3f · 10/10 · 15 February 2001]

To appreciate this film you need to appreciate film. I'm saddened that so many have commented negatively on it and cast dispersions upon those who enjoyed it. It is not Titanic, or Armageddon. It is a long film that attempts to show more than a hackneyed plot about some simple people. It is a beautiful exploration about life that does not preach or try to tell you what to think. I understand why many are frustrated with it. It seems to go nowhere at times, but thats the point. And most importantly the scenery on this trip to nowhere is beautiful.

So, if you are the type that does not like to watch films that are art, do not watch this. Watch Coyote Ugly. It will entertain you. Other films to avoid: Last Year at Marienbad, The Seventh Seal, The 400 Blows, etc. Go see something with a gun on the cover instead.

For those who like a challenge rather than simple escapism, this is a film that engages you.

Different films for different people. People seem very threatened when they don't like a film that is widely regarded as a classic. The reason is simple, it's not your kind of film. But don't assume its a film for no one. Makes sense right?

the one film to take with you on a deserted island

[damien-16 · 10/10 · 28 April 2003]

I've seen this film regularly since 1971. In theatres, on TV, on video, on DVD. It doesn't age. If anybody ever needed proof that Fellini was a genius, this is it. La dolce vita remains the most touching statement about the human condition I ever saw on film. Everybody remembers the magic-realistic image of Anita Ekberg in the Trevi fountain, and a truly amazing image it is. But the film is much more than a slightly surrealistic sketchbook of emotionally empty jet setters. It is more existentialist than any book by Sartre or Camus. The final sequence is simply devastating. We are all Marcello. Since over 30 years this is my number-one film.

Beautiful Looking But Profoundly Hollow

[evanston_dad · 6/10 · 3 July 2006]

A triumph of style over substance.

One can't overcome the feeling while watching "La Dolce Vita" that Federico Fellini thinks he's being terribly intellectual and profound, but there's precious little going on in this film's head. It's telling that on a second viewing, when I thought I would discover nuance and detail I missed the first time around, I was instead bored and found myself counting down the minutes until the film was over.

Fellini seems to be criticizing a decadent, empty modern society in which ideas have died. Fair enough. But if he's going to make that point -- and drag it out for over three hours, no less -- perhaps he would have been wise to choose someone other than the rich, privileged class to make the point with. The grand conclusion he comes to in his film is that money, wealth and status aren't enough to give a life meaning or purpose, and don't offer anything to offset the void of boredom that they create. This isn't news. Has there ever been a time in history when the privileged classes haven't been bored? I thought the strongest sequence in the film was that depicting the media frenzy that erupts when two children see the Madonna in an empty field. It reminded me of a news story that occurred just a few months ago here in Chicago when a similar frenzy erupted over a water stain in the shape of the Virgin Mary that formed on the wall of an Interstate overpass. Fellini beautifully caught the utter absurdity of people trying to convince themselves that what they want to believe is true, and the sadness that this need is necessary in the first place.

In the film's final sequence, Marcello Mastroianni's character tells the people he's partying with that they're the most boring people alive. I second that. Too bad that a movie about boring, vacuous people makes for a boring, vacuous movie.

Grade: C+

Timeless watch

[albuquerque-derek · 10/10 · 12 May 2018]

Once a year, get comfy in your favorite place to watch movies. Exclude yourself from the world for about 4 hours and watch La Dolce Vita. This is going to refresh your thoughts about the society and discover that since the 60' Fellini have already deconstructed millennia society so well that after watching the movie you need to give yourself one day to heal. Every year. Don't forget. And every year you'll discover more and more about ourselves as society. There's too much to be deciphered in this movie.

Fellini out of control

[IkuharaKunihiko · 6/10 · 7 February 2006]

Rome. Marcello, a persistent journalist, is always on the look out for a hot story. He finds his suicidal girlfriend poisoned by pills in his apartment and manages to save her from sure death by bringing her to the hospital. But he doesn't have time for mourning: he catches a plane the next day to talk to the famous star Sylvia, but her husband beats him up in the end. Marcello rushes to one place where a girl had a vision of the holly Mary, then is later on interrupted by a visit from his father. Marcello tries to write a book and end a relationship with Emma…

Federico Fellini is a tremendously talented director, but in my opinion more successful in his first film-making phase of realistic, simple films with heart ( shining „La Strada" and „La Notti Di Cabiria" ) than in his second from „Da Dolce Vita" ( 1960 ), in which he went on producing weird, surreal and heavily pretentious satires and farces. The only excellent film from his second phase is „Amarcord", which ironically reminds us of his first phase of realistic films. „La Dolce Vita" is a quality drama that criticizes an empty society that feeds on shallow, sensation oriented stories from the press and media ( the word „Paparazzi", used for the first time here, later on even became a part of the dictionary ). In that aspect, it doesn't attack the journalists as much as the society that fuels them. But although „Vita" won the Golden Palm in Cannes and was nominated for an Oscar for best director, set design and script, it feels rather shallow and empty itself.

------------------

Many sequences are great - for example, the opening shot in which a helicopter is shown carrying a statue of Jesus Christ, or the one where a man is „protecting" his face from the photographers by placing a newspaper in front of himself – as are some details – but Fellini decided to put too much of his ideas in the story, causing it to go out of control. After 165 minutes of screen time the movie loses it's energy and becomes a little bit of a bore. I guess the ending scene with that rotten fish sums it up for me: subversive and profound, but too pretentious for it's own good.

Grade: 6/10

Oh, Marcello, I'm So Bored.

[rmax304823 · 10/10 · 7 May 2007]

Well, this episodic, ambitious exploration of life in Rome in 1960 hits one bull's eye after another and emerges as one of the best films of the 1960s, maybe one of the greatest ever. Imagine a film about boredom that is not in itself boring.

I fear, though, that some youths may be turned off by it because so many things stand for something else that I'm tempted to bundle them up into "themes." I can see it now. A couple of kids in phat pants wearing nostril rings, their ankles garnished with tattoos of barbed wire, hitting the beer or the hi-energy drinks on the couch, munching Doritos, scowling and cursing at the film from the very start. "Hey -- this thing's in BLACK AND WHITE. They're talking Portugese. And it's got SUBTITLES!" Maybe that's unkind though. Maybe they can shake off the MTV chains and manage to sit through this and discover something they didn't know about someone's life other than their own.

Marcello Maistroianni is the central figure, a journalist with an unfocused vision, who wanders from one episode to the next, wondering what to do with his life. He meets a LOT of interesting characters along the way, each representing something else. His desperate girl friend, Emma, offers him the life of a petty bourgeois. She'll feed him, give him a home and children, and she'll grow plump with age and develop the shadow of a mustache. Marcello isn't sure what he wants but he knows he doesn't want THAT.

His "intellectual" friend, Steiner, represents someone or something that Marcello would love to become. Steiner is sensitive, artistic, talented, a writer, poet, and a musician who plays Bach in a cathedral that is acoustically active because there are no people in it. Nobody is in it -- get it, kids? Anita Ekberg is the hypermastic Sylvia, an American movie star, her head as empty as her bodice is full. She doesn't understand a word of Italian as Marcello woos her, and he can't speak English. As they're about to kiss, knee deep in water, the Fontana Trevi shuts off, night dissolves into dawn, and a pizza delivery kid has stopped his bicycle to stare at them as they swish self-consciously out of the fountain.

Religion? The cathedral may be forgotten but religion in its rawest form is not. A young brother and sister team claim to have seen the Virgin Mary in a desolate vacant lot. The paparazzi have set up bright lights, generators, and cameras all over the place. Hundreds of the lame and halt appear at the site of the miracle, hoping for a cure. The paparazzi pay the kids' mother, father, and grandfather to pose on the balcony of a soulless apartment house, pointing supposedly at the spot where the vision occurred. The fact that the photographers have them pointing in different directions makes no difference. The paparazzi suddenly run off and leave the three alone on the balcony, and Fellini lingers for a few seconds on the absurd and tragic image of three posturing human statues there, mother pointing one way, father another, grandfather praying on his knees -- all of them fakes. It rains, the hot Klieg lights begin to explode, and a riot follows in which the supplicants tear apart the tree at which the Virgin appeared, stuffing leaves into their jackets, wrestling one another for souveniers or charms.

The final scene in which Marcello watches a monstrously ugly fish hauled out of the sea and then tries to communicate with a twelve-year-old blond angel, and fails, is heartbreaking.

The film isn't about boredom. It's not even about emptiness. It's about what's missing, the thing that creates the emptiness and leads to boredom. Fellini isn't up front about it, and neither was Orson Welles when he dealt with a similar issue in "Citizen Kane." Fellini was more explicit in some of his other films -- "I Vitelloni" and "Amarcord" ("I Remember"). Traditional values, and the youthful innocence that made them possible, are being lost. Values have been cheapened. Not that those values were perfect or indeed anything but illusory, but how can we get along without our myths? We follow kids around who see the Virgin Mary and who like some politicians because they resemble "rock stars." We're losing our ability to appreciate Bach and the patience to sit through a black-and-white movie made in another country. Our assessments of other peoples has been degraded into "good" and "evil" without modulation. Our Western culture seems to have passed from naive to decadent without ever having gone through florescence. If this is what Fellini was getting at, it's no wonder the film is as sad as it is.

Methinks that those who rave so much about this film have been seduced as badly as Marcello.

[mdonnelly-1 · 7/10 · 8 July 2005]

Yes, I too found this movie very engaging, intriguing and technically beautiful to watch. But, but, but.... not one of the best movies in the world, not one to take on a desert island with me, not life changing or as brilliant as people here (and everywhere) seem to think. Perhaps because it is now so outdated, and so much from a spoilt man of the mid twentieth century's point of view. I appreciate it and respect it for what it is, and I'm sure I don't get half of its symbolism. I love its mode of narrative, the large ensemble scenes which I can see have influenced Robert Altman and many other great film makers.

But...methinks that those who rave so much about this film have been seduced as badly as Marcello. Who cares about the bloody lifestyles of the rich and famous? Is this really the place to find meaning? I would find a film about the life of the girl Paolo and her family much more meaningful and worthy of my attention. And like in "8 1/2" one has to wonder if Fellini himself would agree - what is the point of making such a film at all? I'm not against art about the aristocracy or the rich and their decline but would prefer something more complex - like "Brideshead Revisited" (the novel) for example. But ultimately it is hard to feel sorry for such people, especially Marcello. His utter contempt for himself at the end of the movie was well deserved and left me depressed and disgusted. I found his degenerate fall just too trite though, using the excuse of Steiner's murder/suicide as justification (a plot twist which while shocking, did not ring true for me). Maybe I'm just not an existentialist.

I might have found this movie more enlightening if I had seen it ten years ago when I was in my twenty's when I was living my own (much tamer!) version of the sweet life, who knows. Certainly we have all been there when we realise that parties, sex, alcohol, beautiful people and sophisticated talk is not all there is to life. Duh! No, for a true, kick in the guts, life changing movie about the inauthenticity of our socially constructed world, and the struggle of the individual to wake up and break free, you can't go past "American Beauty" or "The Truman Show", or many other wonderful movies out there that I feel are far more deserving of the label "classic" and of the adulation that this film seems to inspire.

Seductive but exhausting New Wave epic

[Red-Barracuda · 5/10 · 23 July 2009]

This movie is about a Roman journalist at the crossroads of his life but unable to move forward in any meaningful direction. He is a man trapped in his life of superficiality.

Federico Fellini's La Dolce Vita is a very aesthetically beautiful film. The widescreen compositions are often outstanding. The crisp black and white photography is lit to perfection and a joy to behold. One of the factors that makes Italian cinema in general so appealing for me is the gorgeous natural light of that country, allied with the stylish decor and architecture; and in this film these elements are well in abundance. If nothing else, La Dolce Vita is a treat to the eyes. Style over substance is a term that could certainly also be applied to the denizens of LDV's Rome. We are introduced to an array of beautiful but shallow character's; from Marcello Mastroianni's gossip journalist, via Anita Ekberg's international film star or Nico's fashion model, everyone is beautiful on the surface but somewhat dead underneath. And perhaps this is a problem with the film in general; a three hour expose of shallow people is an exhausting experience.

The film is not plot-driven. It's episodic, divided into seven days in the life of a Roman gossip columnist. It's not always obvious what the point of certain events actually is. I found myself spending quite a lot of energy actually trying to actively understand the meaning of Marcello's experiences, and not always successfully I concede. But suffice to say that a very general reading of the film's message would be that it is about the superficiality of celebrity and the emptiness of much of modern urban life. And while a lot of it is still very relevant today – in particular the public's obsession with celebrity – it's not always clear what Fellini is trying to say. It's quite an obtuse film, with a fair amount of symbolic imagery and loaded dialogue. It's certainly serious cinema. Although I often found myself enjoying it most when it was less intellectual and more sensual, such as the wonderful iconic scene where Anita Ekberg takes a dip in the Fontana di Trevi. This justifiably famous sequence is the most purely cinematic moment in La Dolce Vita and, in my opinion, the film could have benefited from more scenes of such striking power punctuated through its three hour running time.

Overall, although I do admire this film, I find it too tiring and drawn out to love. It's very well acted and photographed, it's just a little unengaging and occasionally tedious. That said, it's one to seek out if you are at all interested in 60's New Wave cinema.

life imitates art? art imitates life? a bit of both?

[Bobbyh-2 · 30 November 2004]

I just saw a new print of this wonderful film after not having seen it for maybe 20 years and it is still spellbinding. Fellini sums up an era and an attitude here, and succeeds in doing something that ought to be impossible: he makes a full and meaningful film about empty and meaningless lives. Mastroianni seems to have been to Fellini what DeNiro has been to Scorsese--a perfect embodiment of a personal vision. What a wonderful actor he was--brilliant in his youth and in his age. Many other performers are hardly less fine here, and the cinematography and composition are stunning throughout. There are so many indelible images from this film, images that have become iconic over the decades: Ekberg in the Fontana di Trevi, the statue of Christ flying over Rome, the astonishing, candlelit procession at the castle, to name a few. It seems plot less and yet it isn't plot less at all; Marcello's ultimately fruitless search for meaning, a search that he abandons in the end, as he stares across a slight and yet unbridgable abyss on the beach at a lovely young girl who seems to possess the knowledge and understanding that is denied to him. I'm astonished at the number of people who don't get this movie, who seem to think that Fellini expects us to admire the bizarre characters who people the film, or who think that a movie about worthless individuals must be a worthless movie, or who don't seem to understand that movies that are full of what become clichés usually do so because they capture an important vision. Fellini made several exceptional films: 81/2, La Strada, Amarcord, and The Nights of Cabiria come to mind, but La Dolce Vita may be, when all is said and done, his masterwork.

One of the Best Films Ever Made

[truemythmedia · 10/10 · 7 June 2019]

Fellini is often mentioned as one of the greatest directors of all time, and this film is a prime example of why that is true. This movie is a gorgeous love letter to Rome, rich with culture, music and art, but it's more than that, it's a scathing look at the lifestyles of the rich and famous, and how utterly unfulfilling having everything you want can be. For a long time, the movie seems to move aimlessly through the parties, much like Marcello himself. But then, thin threads from all the events that have happened start to come together to form a kind of tapestry. Characters harmonize with each other's actions, pledging their love while betraying each other simultaneously. It's beautifully poetic.

It Doesn't Get Any Better Than This

[pgeary6001 · 10/10 · 30 October 2021]

Returning to this film after many years, I was mesmerized for its entire three hours and could have stuck with it for even longer. More than just a parade of degenerate Sixties Eurotrash, all of human life is captured in these frames, from prostitutes living in flooded slum apartments to glittering nobility in their crumbling castles.

The common thread is the thoroughly captivating Marcello Mastroianni as the gossip columnist/aspiring novelist, later turned burned-out publicist. His relationship with the parade of females who inhabit his world, often fleetingly, is nuanced and authentic feeling, while the episode with his father, who shows up for an unexpected visit, is a delight that brought a wide smile to my face.

The unique, episodic structure of the film feels neither showy nor forced, and the film moves through its segments with the natural grace of a great symphony.

An added bonus for me was seeing a young Nico of Velvet Underground fame , looking relaxed and happy. Would that things always turned out that way for her.

In sum, a totally unique tour de force and, unquestionably, one of the greatest achievements in cinematic history.

Brilliant - Italian film making at its zenith

[al cerf · 10/10 · 8 February 1999]

From so many perspectives, this film is a true artistic masterpiece, and happily, a commercial success. Those vehement in their dislike are simply wrong; their criticism does not hold up. Fellini and some few others, unlike most critics, completely understood that film derives NOT from the world of plays but from PAINTING. First time viewers - if the plot seems confusing, should just sit back and enjoy the staggering accomplishments of lighting, cinematography and staging. And that is leaving out of course, acting, writing directing!

Briefly, the film follows seven aimless days and nights in the life of Marcello Rubini, a world weary Roman "reporter" who writes for gossip magazines. Yes, it does document the slow self-destruction of an unfulfilled writer, it is really a dire warning that the banality and sheer boredom of the late 20th Century were (are) likely to bore us ALL to death ... and Fellini hit the mark with perfect precision, the world's best bullseye, if you will ...

The acting is first rate, Mastroianni is so masterful, that when he uses one or two of his cliches - they stick out like sore thumbs in a towering performance. (We forgive him for those tiny imperfections!) Likewise, all the players - from leads to bit roles are brilliant.

A film then, not in this world, or really even of it, but an oblique reflection of the coming decade (the movie was shot in 1959) the details of which, Fellini already seemed to know! Staggeringly hip and modern - well, a Masterpiece!

pure cinema

[christopher-underwood · 10/10 · 11 February 2018]

Generally, I have become more and more certain that 90 minutes is the most reasonable length for any film. So, here we are contemplating watching the famous Fellini epic and so entranced have I been with recent Blu ray viewings of Il Bidoni and La Strada, I take my eye off the ball and forget this runs almost three hours. Of course, it turns out not to matter a joy for it is a joy to watch from start to finish. The camera work and direction are perfect and every scene looks wonderful. Some of the dialogue seems a little arch today, did people really talk like that? Perhaps yes, clearly there were a lot of intellectuals or at least pseudo intellectuals about. Everything unfolds seemingly without effort and in a seeming natural way. We swing from church to whores and literature to night club with the odd something to eat and rather a lot to drink thrown in. Strange times in Italy are being alluded to here and to what extent it was the freedom afforded by the end of the war and a certain flow of money or whatever it is certain that the scandal over the discovery of the body of young Wilma Montesi on the beach and talk of sex and drugs in high places fuelled this little fire. Whether Fellini's invention of the word, paparazzi originated from the Italian word for sparrow or mosquito, the intention is clear and remarkable but then almost everything in this film is. In conclusion I must mention Anita Ekberg and confirm that my screen really did sparkle and shine throughout the period she was there and such was her presence, thanks to lighting, framing and her own seeming 'love of life, that her afterglow prevented the film seeming in any way to lapse into ordinariness once she was gone. Fabulous film and true example of pure cinema. Indeed, I understand there was not even a script.

"Because one can't have everything. You can have one thing or another."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 20 September 2014]

I didn't care very much for this movie while I was watching it, but while taking a walk and thinking about it right after, I was able to discern the picture's message, even if it wasn't a very uplifting one. It seems like Fellini was going for alienation and a search for meaning, and without knowing anything about the director, I would venture to say that the picture was autobiographical to a large degree. I could be totally off base, but that's the impression I got.

Most of the characters in the story are fairly pathetic, including the principal player Marcello (Marcello Mastroianni). They engage in self absorbed, hedonistic behavior, living only for today with little regard for anything other than self gratification. The exceedingly fleeting nature of fame and notoriety is given short shrift with the frantic buzzing of the paparazzo running around in circles trying to capture the next big headline or lurid photo for their tabloids. So it comes as a shock when the one seemingly serious character in the story, Steiner (Alain Cuny), proves to be the one who can't cope with his life of achievement and intellectual pursuit and ends it in tragedy. All rather depressing if you think about it.

I guess the main thing that bothered me while watching the story was how random Marcello's day to day encounters turned out to be. There didn't seem to be a sense of continuity to his life and maybe that was the point. Unable to find fulfillment in his relationship with Emma (Yvonne Furneaux), Marcello simply bounced around accepting whatever life handed him on a particular day instead of seeking out something meaningful.

The one character that I was able to identify with most was the young working girl in the café who didn't want to be there. At least she had a purpose in her situation, it was to get out of there when her father finished his job. I got the idea that she might have been smitten by Marcello's attention in complimenting her, which is why I was left somewhat dismayed when she waved to him near the end of the story while standing on the beach. I replayed it a couple of times, and it looked like she was mouthing 'love you' to Marcello, though of course he was too far away to see or hear her. For her to connect with Marcello would have been an unintended consequence waiting to turn into another hopeless situation if that were to happen.

The best film ever, together with 8 1/2, from the best director ever

[rodeoclown · 10/10 · 2 October 2002]

It left me in silence for at least half of an hour after watching it. It's simply incredible. No other movie has kept so glued on the screen (consider that this one is 3 hours long!). It seems like you're watching the matter of your dreams, especially in the world wide famous scene at the Fontana di Trevi and in the amazing final scene (again, the best final ever). I don't know what else to say, for there's no word to describe this astonishing vision. I don't understand the people who don't like this.

Self-indulgence par excellence

[robintheusa2001 · 6/10 · 29 June 2002]

I don't know what it is about Fellini. I love watching movies and have seen many in time, and appreciate deep, thoughtful movies, be them foreign or independent releases. But with Fellini - I just can't see what all the fuss is about. This is the sixth Fellini film I have seen and each one has fallen short of the mark (two of them I switched off before the end). La Dolce Vita is no exception. I really tried to like this, and the first hour seemed fairly interesting but ultimately it went nowhere. Fellini could have told the same story in half the time instead of 3 hours.

I get the impression that Fellini is a very self-indulgent film maker, which I consider to be selfish. What about those that watch and pay to see your movies? Making movies for your own satisfaction is one thing, but this goes beyond self-indulgence. This is not as big a piece of crap as Satyricon - that one came out of my VCR after 30 minutes (and that was 30 minutes too long). I would avoid this. By the way I gave it a 6/10, because for 1960 it was ahead of its time.

One of the greatest films ever made.

[randallb-2 · 10/10 · 19 April 2005]

This movie ruined film for me.

For a couple of weeks after seeing "La Dolce Vita" at the Bay Theatre in Seal Beach, I tried to avoid seeing movies. Because I deeply enjoy film, however, I was unable to successfully sit out two weeks of viewing, so I saw "Broken Blossoms" and "Trainspotting". Due to the inexpressionable impression "La Dolce Vita" left in my memory, I was disappointed by both films (before you start screaming, "Trainspotting" is also in my top twenty of all time). Watching "La Dolce Vita" was like eating the greatest meal of my life: nothing tasted quite as good afterward.

This film engaged me at all possible levels. It was intellectually stimulating, with endless symbols and philosophical content. Marcello descends into a fantasy world every night, only to ascend to the harsh light of reality in the morning, over and over again. Women, religion, family, work, nothing offers real satisfaction, but only a temporary escape from the dull routine of life. Whether it is Steiner or his fiancé, Marcello ultimately finds that nothing is what it appears and that, when dawn breaks, he is back where he began, searching vainly for meaning until he is left with a life of debauchery devoid of hope, an unidentifiable monster of nature, unable to even comprehend hope or innocence.

It was also technically stunning. Many of the shots are among the most gorgeous ever committed to celluloid. Of course, the scene in the fountain with the beautiful movie star stands out, but so do many others: the ascent in the tower to overlook Rome, the aristocratic party in the old mansion. The acting is flawless, from Marcello down to the smallest bit part.

It was also entertaining. In spite of the heaviness of the philosophical material, Fellini successfully injected a surprising amount of humor. I found myself, and the audience around me, laughing out loud on a number of occasions. Anyone who isn't completely charmed by the night-time dance scene with the movie star is more jaded that Marcello at the end of the film. I found myself with a giant, irrepressible grin on my face at the conclusion of that scene, and realized that I, like Marcello, had been seduced by the beauty and joy of the moment.

This movie is perfect. People have criticized it for meandering about for three hours, but this is precisely the point. We are following Marcello, who is meandering through life, looking for something that he cannot find. At the end, he is left with a life as inexplicable and unattractive as the strange sea monster on the beach, and we are left with startling memories of an unforgettable film.

SilverRating

[Chris_Silver · 6/10 · 10 April 2014]

8. La Dolce Vita- Italy 1960

This is the 8th movie on the list.

Maybe, I know I keep saying it, but maybe I am just that really Americanized boy who can't appreciate the beauty of this movie. And trust me, I do see beauty in the movie. First with the extremely unusual story. Well maybe not that "extreme" but the story. I just saw no plots. I see that there is something like 7 or 8 subplots and little stories that take place in the life of out main character Marcello, but I can't appreciate it. Nothing... interesting happens. This guy lives, I wanted to see this movie so badly because so many people were raving about the new foreign film "The Great Beauty" and how Italy was reaching back to it's older roots with this film. I didn't like "The Great Beauty" very much, I liked it, but not too much. And I can only say the same about La Dolce Vita. I wanted so badly to like this movie, knowing it is an all-time favorite of Steven Spielberg and that so many modern directors take influence from Fellini, but the story just didn't work for me. I don't understand how one would write a "Spoiler" Review for this movie because there is nothing to spoil other than that this movie just follows the life of an aging journalist. Hell, the synopsis on IMDb is an extreme spoiler. I can't name the scenes and what happens, but I will say that the ending scene and the scenes with the actresses Anita Ekberg and Anouk Aimee and the young girl who plays Paulo are interesting. But this film is just, plain. I appreciate that the movie is the story of the life of an Italian journalist, and maybe it is a metaphor stating that no matter how interesting your title is (like Marcello) you really are boring.

La Dolce Vita is a beautiful movie, the costumes are beautiful, well deserved Oscar there. And I can surely see the directing influence of Fellini in Spielberg. But other than the BEAUTIFUL Mercedes driven by Anouk Aimee and Marcello, I have nothing to say. It's good. I guess.

SilverRating: 6/10

I really tried...

[jdphchina · 4/10 · 26 April 2015]

I wanted to like this movie. I truly did.

I am currently working my way through the IMDb Top 250, and I began with "La Dolce Vita." I understand that the movie is culturally significant. I'm not some boor who only enjoys movies with exploding robots or massive amounts of T&A, nor am I a simpleton who requires straight-forward plots with happy endings. But the fact of the matter is that I found this, Fellini's purported masterpiece, to be utterly dull and non-compelling.

I won't say that the film is without merit, because there were some scenes that kept me dialed in. The desire that Marcello feels for Sylvia is one of those, and the scene where Maddalena asks Marcello to marry her is another. But these are scenes that are mired in between other muddled sequences that seem to drag on forever.

And yes, at 3 hours, this film is mercilessly long. I don't mind long films, and have happily sat through much longer. But this film indulges in the mundane. Shots, sequences, and dialogue that contribute absolutely nothing to the story are lingering and plodding. At times, I found myself having drifted off into a daydream, only to come back and find out that I had missed nothing in the intervening time. This story could be told competently, and in half the running time, if the film had any sense of pace.

Part of my apathy goes toward the general unlikability of Marcello. Especially in this day and age, who cares about those who indulge in the glitz and glamour of the film world? Do we really relate to the Marilyn Monroe expy that is Sylvia? I can't look at Marcello, who vacillates between wanting to be a writer and suddenly declaring himself to be an advertising exec and feel any kinship with him. I fear that in 2015, there are precious few people who understand or even want to know what the 1% do, especially when the educated have a hard time finding the most menial jobs. Fascination with the rich and wealthy may have found a wider audience in 1960, but does not play nearly as well to a 21st century audience.

In all honesty, this movie appears to be one of those films that people love to pretentiously declare their love for, if only to win the admiration of other people who also secretly dislike it, but wish to be admired as "film buffs" themselves. Personally, this particular film buff has no desire to ever see this movie again.