Buy the book (paid link)
Written by: Louise Kugelberg, Julian Schnabel (screenplay), Nick Tosches (based on the novel by)
Directed by: Julian Schnabel
Starring: Oscar Isaac, Gal Gadot, Gerard Butler, John Malkovich, Louis Cancelmi, Sabrina Impacciatore, Benjamin Clementine, Martin Scorsese, Al Pacino, Jason Momoa
Rated: R
Watch the trailer
Plot
A handwritten manuscript of Dante Alighieri's poem "The Divine Comedy" makes its way from a priest to a mob boss in New York City, where it is taken by Nick Tosches after he's asked to verify its authenticity.
Verdict
Some movies are fun, and others are In the Hand of Dante. From nearly the beginning this feels like a movie that could have been much better with a different director and editor. Scenes are never as exciting nor as interesting as they should be. Some movies can be re-edited to improve the story and pacing, but this stumbles on a fundamental level. With the excessive run time, it only cements the artistic choices as indulgent. This movie should be better than it is, alas. I do think I might appreciate this more if I had a thorough understanding of "The Divine Comedy," but this movie, despite it's intention, doesn't encourage me to do any homework.
Skip it.
Review
Dante Alighieri wrote "The Divine Comedy" in 1321. The epic poem depicts the soul's journey to God through the afterlife, including Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise. This movie depicts both Dante (Oscar Isaac) in the 1300s and author/journalist Nick Tosches (Oscar Isaac) in the present. By using the same actors and overlapping the stories, this seems like an attempt to make a connection.
I started wondering about the pacing during the title card sequence which reveals each letter one at a time. It takes thirty seconds, which is longer than you might think. Nick is a fan of "The Divine Comedy." He talks about wanting to rewrite it for a modern audience.
 |
| Oscar Isaac plays Nick Tosches |
It's a meandering film that doesn't provide context for the characters introduced. We don't know who Louie (Gerard Butler) is or why he matters. Eventually we learn he's muscle for gangster Joe Black (John Malkovich). Joe thinks he's found a legitimate copy of "The Divine Comedy." Nick is tasked with authenticating the document. One he claims is priceless.
This wants to be an artistic movie. Twenty minutes in it's straining towards that goal with no results. Is there a statement in having Butler play both the assassin Louie and the Pope? It doesn't seem like it. So many stars in this pushes it to the verge of stunt casting. There's a flatness to the script. Louie kills the priests that hold the copy of the manuscript. It begins so suddenly and is over before we know it that we don't feel anything about what's happened. Even Nick just follows along despite being completely unaware that was going to occur.
 |
| Gerard Butler plays Louie |
We see characters doing stuff, but it's not grounded in a situation where we can speculate on their thoughts and feelings, rendering it hollow. There's no way to connect to this. The flashbacks to Dante don't add much. I expected the movie to draw a distinct parallel with Nick trying to rewrite it as we see Dante's inspiration. That's not what this movie is. It definitely could be shorter, but it does include a surprise. The movie needed something, thought I don't know if that's exactly it.
Nick tries to get the manuscript authenticated without revealing exactly what he has. He has a vested interest as he's studied Dante, almost obsessively. If he gets it authenticated, what then? It doesn't seem it's about the money. I wondered if he just wanted to be credited with what he would consider the greatest literary discovery, of finding the impossible. By all accounts this document didn't exist. Will he reveal it to the world or keep it for himself as the ultimate prize? It's also a direct connection between him and Dante. The movie doesn't expand on this, but "The Divine Comedy" talks about love and obsession, how those feelings become distorted and begin ruling people.
Joe Black wanted the document purely for the profit. Rosario (Jason Momoa) appears, though it's unclear how. He exists mostly for the plot. He's another opportunist that wants to profit off the book.
 |
| Oscar Isaac, Gal Gadot play Dante Alighieri, Gemma Donati |
This is a movie that could be better with a different director or editor. Since I haven't read the book, I don't know how authentic the adaptation is, but I can imagine what the Coen brothers or Fincher might have done with the script.
The ending implies some kind of reincarnation with the interaction between Nick and his girlfriend Giulietta (Gal Gadot). They seem to be a modern Dante and Gemma. It's also the most, or even the only, prominent connection between the two stories. In the end Nick sold a few pages, but he's abandoned his obsession over "The Divine Comedy" to live a life with Giulietta. The importance of this ties back to the book itself and how obsessions imprison people. The failing of this movie is that it expects you to have a basic understanding of the book at the center of the plot. That or it expects you to put in some homework. I expect if my understanding was even deeper, I might like this more.
 |
| Title Card |
No comments :
Post a Comment