Onlinewsma Absolutely Brilliant!

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Mariam Mansuryan It really helps when you know the myth of Oedipus. You understand the story much better and can more easily follow the stages of madness of Oedipus.For Greeks, it was not a dishonor to make fun of their Gods, as many did in comedies. But it certainly was a dishonor not to recognize their power. The Gods were so powerful for the Greeks that they could tell you their horrific prophecies and you would still have the same fate despite this. I think the work really encapsulated all of Greek theatre in it. There were people in masks and crowds representing the chorus that in a hidden way was the protagonist narrator of the story back BC. There was a protagonist in his hero's journey and the story was practically the same.One difference was how Pasolini blended the modern times with the antiquity of Greece. Truly amazing how the film starts and end by the same sequence: spinning around, looking up at the treetops, and end with the finite horizon of the green valley. This shows that even though the times have changed and now instead of carriages people travel in cars, and even though Oedipus is not truly blind, nothing has really changed. It's the same journey in the hero's head.This also very strongly links with Pasolini's Porcile (Pigsty) for me. The same combination of modernity and antiquity to begin with, however there, the world is parallel. I would even go as far as to say that Julian was none else but Oedipus. He says he killed his father, ate human flesh and is still full of joy. So was Oedipus. He was full of joy at the end, when he was blind, couldn't see anything and wanted to hear nothing, he didn't belong in this world.Another striking similarity is the carriage that appears in both these films. There is a certain irony in that too because in Porcile there are three women following the carriage instead of men, but still, nothing is different. And Julian still kills his father, that is what his modern self is referring to. And when I was reviewing Porcile, I wasn't sure what the pigs represented. But now I think I know. The pigs are the chorus, the Gods or the society. The pigs are the silent narrators of the story yet again.The portrayal of modern man in both those films is very similar too. He's lost, as if he lives in the past reality and is consumed by the business of the modern world. Deep inside he is still the same man, the same hero undergoing the same journey. The boy is not actually eaten by pigs, but rather hung from the cross in Porcile. And Oedipus truly does lose his sight despite having eyes. There is even a certain feeling that fate is truly predisposed before a child is even born.Another motif in both those films was the musical instrument. In Procile, father of Julian plays the harp that seems to be controlling the world with his Nazi German magic wand. In Rex, Oedipus plays the reedpipe, and I noticed that the sound of this reedpipe recurs through the entire movie many times. It's like all those people are music that a god or gods control, and they don't even know about it.Overall a really cool film, I liked most of the things about it.

Kirpianuscus one of films who remands. the rules of Greek tragedy. the limits of interpretation. the manner to use the myth as contemporary mirror. the art of Piero della Francesca. the conflict between past and present. a film of actors. because each trace of acting defines not the vision of Pasolini about the fate of king from Thebes but its search of truth. the truth - basis of all. Edipo re impress. for atmosphere, for costumes and the use of myth.the eyes of Franco Citti. the presence of Silvana Mangano. the first scenes who are parts from a possible Visconti. the end as warning about the price of fight against yourself. Edipo re is support for reflection. not a new version of well known myth because the important details of myth are insignificant. not example of high art. because it is far to be a show. it is only exploration of meanings. and the sketch about different forms of pride and sacrifice. looking for authenticity. precise definition of life.

tomgillespie2002 Pier Paolo Pasolini's Oedipus Rex is a relatively faithful adaptation of Sophocles' Greek tragedy Oedipus the King. Beginning in 1920's Italy, a baby boy is born and is instantly envied by the displaced father. The setting then changes to ancient times, where a baby boy is being carried out into the desert by a servant to be left out to die from exposure. He is eventually picked up by a shepherd, who takes him back to the King and Queen of Corinth, who adopt the youngster and love him like one of their own. The child grows up to be Edipo (Pasolini's frequent collaborator Franco Citti), an arrogant youth who wishes to see the world for himself. And so he set out on the road to Thebes, the place of his birth.Plagued by a prophecy that dictates he is destined to murder his father and marry his mother, Edipo is a tortured but intuitive soul. He murders a rich man and his guards after they demand he clear a path for them on the road, and later frees a town from the clutches of a Sphinx by solving its riddle. Staying true to his own recognisable style, Pasolini tells the story of Oedipus not with a sweeping narrative, but through a collection of comedic, violent and often surreal vignettes, the most bizarre and ultimately thrilling being the scene in which Edipo murders the guards. He runs away from them as they chase him, before charging at them one by one and cutting them down. It's a moment without any real motivational insight, offering but a glimpse into Edipo's damaged psyche.Post-Freud, the story of Oedipus cannot be experienced without reading into the incestuous and patricidal undertones. But these themes are less explored by Pasolini than the idea of Edipo being ultimately responsible for his own downfall. Rather than the inevitability of fate, Edipo creates his own path, committing murder on a whim and marrying while blinded by ambition. For a bulk of the film, Pasolini keeps the audience at arm's length, favouring his own brushes of surrealism over a traditional narrative. While this may be occasionally frustrating - the pre-war scenes than book-end the film seem out of place and confusing - Citti's wide-eyed performance is a fantastic distraction, and the Moroccan scenery helps provide a ghostly, Biblical atmosphere as well as a beautiful backdrop.

Kara Dahl Russell This film is possibly the most brilliant - color - film AS ART that I I have ever seen. It combines beautiful and fascinating poetic color visuals, unusual landscapes and locations with the classic story of Oedipus.The story is told with very little dialog, (subtitles for the dialog where present) and this enhances the internal, primal feeling of the piece. Pasolini was often compared to Fellini, but I feel he is much better, because he uses his visuals always to advance and to the purpose of the story. To me Fellini's visuals were often purposeless antic oddity. Here, any ambiguity is not in the story, but in character motivation, which lends modern reality and immediacy to the whole.The acting style combines the classic Greek use of stylized mannerisms and mask work seamlessly with smaller modern film acting. The setting transitions from 1960s Italy to a primitive/tribal landscape which lends itself beautifully to the timeless/ancient feeling of the Greek story. An example of detail: tribal body painting is used to represent both a ritual queen in shades of Elizabeth R, to the whiteness of a plague death; the costume designs are a combination of rustic and Egyptian/Papal religious.Cast mainly with little known actors, the big name actor in this film was international star Alida Valli, who has only two or three brief scenes. Her talent is fairly wasted here, but her presence is riveting as the aging, childless queen. (Valli: A brilliant Italian actress who had a brief career here in the 40s-50s, then returned to Italy/Europe, and balanced her commercial work in slashers with more oddball artistically challenging work. Her work often embodies "excess within control," the dichotomy of superficial clam with seething internal emotion. PARADINE CASE, THE THIRD MAN, THE MIRACLE OF THE BELLS, CASSANDRA CROSSING, EYES WITHOUT A FACE, SENSO, WALK SOFTLY STRANGER.) This film is the kind of work I would hope to be a part of as an actress and artist. This film could easily be in theatres today and be even more appreciated now than it was at the time of its making.Theatrically literate, visually stunning, gutsy, and intelligent. Enjoy!