Biographical films tend to be respectful to the historical figures that they describe. Even when they describe complex and controversial characters they try to explain and to put in context the motivation of deeds which in the perspective of history seem evil. Paolo Sorrentino's 'Il Divo' is quite the contrary, it is a negative biography about a character who dominated the Italian politics for most of the second part of the 20th century, the leader of the Christian-Democratic Party and seven-times Prime Minister of Italy, Giulio Andreotti. The film does not lack complexity - quite the contrary - and the historical context of the 80s and 90s is described in detail, but the effect is willingly opposite than in usual biographies. Even political actions which would have seen candid or neutral seem to catch a strong significance and are seen through the perspective of the corruption and Mafia-relations which seem to have dominated Italian political life of the period.My knowledge about the Italian politics is too superficial to make a definite judgment about the correctness of the facts presented on screen. What I can say after seeing the film is that it does not seem to pretend to be objective. Even if there is no explicit statement, there is neither any positive angle we brought into the film or positive dimension that is not questioned. Even the relationship with his wife ('I knew all these years what kind of man I married') or helping the poor (which looks more like a political exercise deprived of sincerity). There are however many other scenes (like the repeated walk on empty streets surrounded by cohorts of security people, the reception after his last nomination as Prime Minister) which describe not only the outer-worldness of the man, but also of the whole system.Even more amazing is the fact that Andreotti was alive when this film was made (he actually died about a month ago) and has seen at least part of the film, allegedly walking out after a while. So this is not only a biography, but a pamphlet directed against a living politician. Andreotti, by the way, was no stranger to the Italian cinema industry, he played an important role in establishing the rules that protected the local industry against foreign (especially Hollywood) imports in the 50s, but also the establishment of a de-facto censorship over the content of the productions which was in place for many decades. Is this film also kind of a revenge of the now free industry over this character? Maybe.To a very large extent 'Il DIvo' relies on the extraordinary acting performance of Toni Servillo. He makes one of these creations which in time tend to superpose and replace the visual representation we have about the real-life person. Great acting indeed, but do we end by understanding better Giulio Andreotti the man? I doubt it. Paolo Sorrentino certainly knows how to construct complex characters which do not show easily their intense internal beings. Looking now retrospectively he did the same thing in This Must Be the Place (which he made later, but I saw it before). He does not however serve the viewers with ready prepared answers about the motivation of his heroes. I knew very little about Andreotti before seeing this film, I know many more facts now, but the man remains a mystery.

Andreotti was a man who never showed any emotions, if not a caustic sense of humour. He was powerful, but he was the head of a minority faction of the Christian Democrats. His power was hidden, but he always stood up to help his friends. Vatican, Mafia, Secrets Services and Dirty Money. But not for him. Although I was always disgusted as an Italian by what he represented, I always felt that he was serving a purpose and that his acts fitted Machiavelli's quote "The end justifies the means". Just a feeling, because I never knew what "the end" actually was. Surely this man was the anti-Berlusconi. Andeotti didn't like how he was portrayed, and kept a grudge. The film is great, because it captures the essence of the man and of the politician and Sorrentino's technique is one of a kind. But it's not just about Giulio. His men are such strong characters. Paolo Cirino Pomicino always introduced by a samba is pure genius, unfortunately non-Italians will not be able to appreciate. Salvo Lima's dark presage of the Mafia closing in on promises that could not be delivered counters that. And Franco Evangelisti, who took care of his electoral stronghold in non-urban Lazio, could only be portrayed as colourless as he was. And then the highlight: the kiss with Toto' Riina, the savage and cruel head of Mafia, on which the Italian media have focused so much and for so long. It was not easy to make such film, but Sorrentino's ability to mix different genres, the use of music and photography, and the much needed dose of laughs have delivered a masterpiece.

Pompous, pretentious, portentous, and unwatchable. The director assumes a great familiarity with Italy's fractious post-war politics but that's understandable: he's made his film for a domestic audience. But the inability to ever truly mount and sustain a narrative is unforgivable for any and all audiences. Enamored of pretty cinematography (arguably ill-suited to the subject matter at hand) and fashionably business-suited (if generally unattractive) men marching to and fro in ornate governmental offices, the director tries for a Guy Ritchie flavor with freeze frames and silly captions. But Ritchie (like him or not) at least believes in action and story; this director makes even the famously discursive Fellini look like a slave to plot.Woe to those who stayed with the movie longer than a polite half-hour to see if any modicum of story-telling sense would come to imbue it. A real embarrassment, especially in light of the Euro-praise and the ridiculous IMDb rating.You've been warned.

I've heard several American viewers complain that this film is all style over substance. I couldn't disagree more.I think that if a viewer is familiar with Italian Political History then this film comes off as absolutely breathtaking, and not just for its amazing filmic style. For one, the performances and interpretations of these real characters are spot on and for another the intelligence and courage to which the script approaches the ethical implications of Il Divo's actions, the breadth of moral exploration, how he defends himself to himself, to others and, often, directly to the viewer, is a welcomed shock and dose of complexity to the often polemic and overly-reductive discourse in Italian politics (not much different than here in the States in that regard). Lastly, for Italians, these events resonate incredibly and speak very much to the current power base in Italy. I truly feel that a lot of Americans are watching this film with cultural blinders on.I won't lie, it is definitely designed for people that already have a strong grasp of the history. It doesn't weigh itself down with long explanations and exposition (except in text at the beginning and end of the film) so if you're coming to this to learn every sordid detail about its subject, or for a plot, even, then you might not find much reward in it. But as an exercise in unpacking a very complicated subject with real style, it's amazing!