Strange at times but a most delightful tale of 8 stories from the mother land. I am confused as there isn't any x rated content in the movie. There is some nudity but nothing that warrants an x rating for sure. I would say its a mild R rated movie. Very humorous and at times strange. I enjoyed the adventurous tales but most of them are ended prematurely and with questions still unanswered. It would have been a better movie if they told 4 tales with more story to them. I never read the actual tales, but if they are anything like whats in the movie, it might be a good read. I have always enjoyed movies from the area depicted in the movie, I just wish that the stories had more content to keep me engaged more. I found myself wondering away from the movie more than once which tells me that the stories just were not interesting enough to spark my interest. That is why I think it would have been a much better movie with each tale telling more of a story then just cutting to one, 10 minutes later your cut to another story wondering what happened. Over all I would still give it a 6 out of 10 for the slapstick English humor.

I was hard done by lately, I hadn't felt too good all day, I was getting a little bit wound by the external forces which I tend to deal with as best I can, but there are things left over which accumulate and just bowl you over some days... it turns out all I needed was the flailing nude people, the most incredible energy filled, bowler hat wearing rascal, who just made you smile, the beautiful scenery, the chirpy humour, the lurches of passion!, the threshold of my troubles were far behind me, all thanks to this film. How can something be this joyous to watch? Americans are too serious, their humour is different... I think it is weaker because they are always smiling... smiling at each other, smiling at boring stuff... smiling at us to death! European humour is a lot more used to misery, because it works: when you're miserable you REALLY start laughing, especially at things that are ACTUALLY funny. I've been getting sick to death of American Hollywood blockbusters lately, I came across this on you-tube (where you can watch the whole thing, what cheer!)and I started watching the beginning at first half-interested... but you know when you get that tugging feeling, and you can't help but let yourself be drawn in... there is some sort of magic in this movie, a rich texture of pure magic... and I was spell- cast after the first segment, then I needed to see more... and it paid off. The sheer BALLS this movie has, the pure passion, the way the scenes just keep getting better, it makes you proud to be alive. Oh believe me, this film pays off in more ways than you can think. I've never read the book, although I own a copy... I could never take the time to learn how to read it proper, like. Me not so Crever, like! No, no... the film will do. If you want to learn about love you can ask a weird geezer, if you want to learn if a film's good, you read what a weird geezer has written on IMDb, it's all the same, all year round, so take what you will of this, but this film is terrific, make sure you see it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ6Zcvyl-Tg That's the you-tube link for it, it's in Italian with English subs, which I'm sure isn't how Chaucer envisioned it in his head, but nonetheless, it's free, so don't pass up this chance... while you're still alive!!

When you consider exactly who would ever consider sitting down and making Canterbury tales into a movie (and this should be a small number- a lot of the tales are too subtle to be represented in any form other than text), you would usually think that the maker of the movie would be trying to stay faithful to the stories in themes, plot, and characterization.It is in this regard that Pasolini fails utterly miserably.The tellers of the tales are completely left out. You do not know who's telling a tale. There is little to no segue between tales. Often times, you do not even realize that the tale is over. So, for the first part, you do not know who is telling a tale, or when, or even if a tale is even going on.The few segues that occur consist of a grimy Chaucer sitting around lazily eventually being prodded into work by his waspish wife. Why this is included baffles anyone who knows anything about Chaucer, or even anyone at all.The dubbing on the movie makes low budget martial arts films look like great pillars of art. At times characters shout for minutes on end for no discernible reason. Other characters are entirely unintelligible.The most appalling thing, though, is the inclusion of graphic, graphic sex. I am uncertain what Pasolini was trying to say with this. Why he felt Chaucer was the best source to draw on for such obscenity is beyond me. Indeed, there are sex scenes in the tales. However, Pasolini often goes far, far over the limit. Many male characters seem to do nothing but masturbate whenever they are on screen. There is one sequence that is no tale that I recall which involved a man peeking through holes in doors watching other men have gay anal sex. This I do no recall from any part of Chaucer. Later, one of the homosexuals is burned alive while the apparent protagonist sells bagles to the crowd. Another instance is that the Pardoner's tale begins in a tavern, but Pasolini felt compelled to begin it in a brothel where hideous men force the whores there to have sex with them. Later, one of the men urinates on a dining table while people are trying to eat, and, yes, it is very graphic. It is actual urine.The movie ends (?) with a scene in one tale where the devil farts and wildly defecates feces that turn into demons for possibly five minutes, over-the-top cartoon noises included.If you're into Pasolini, for whatever reason, I guess you might like this movie. I've never seen any of his other work. However, as a fan and scholar of the Tales, this probably is the worst thing you could have possible done it. Basically, this was low-quality porn with bad lighting and horrific sound effects with a vague medieval background, claiming to be one of the greatest works in the English language. Whoever later murdered Pasolini deserves a medal. No, wait, scratch that, a dozen medals.

In the Middle Ages, people generally did not stroll about in brightly colored, shintzy clothes. Especially not when they went on a pilgrimage, "to seek the holy blissful martyr". Roads and streets were not paved. People stank. One cannot convey that in a film, but please pay more attention to set decoration? The standard you would like to attain in that respect was set by Terry Gilliam in "Jabberwocky": shabby poor people, dirty faces, muddy streets. Or "The Name of the Rose".Besides, you can only follow this movie if you have read the Canterbury Tales first. Otherwise, it's incomprehensible. By the way, almost all Italian movies I re-view of late seem incomprehensible. I used to like Italian cinema, but its products do not seem to age well. The dialogues usually seem hollow and pretentious. One notable exception: "Kaos".