An adaptation of nine stories from Bocaccio's "Decameron": A young man from Perugia is swindled twice in Naples, but ends up rich; a man poses as a deaf-mute in a convent of curious nuns; a woman must hide her lover when her husband comes home early; a scoundrel fools a priest on his deathbed; three brothers take revenge on their sister's lover; a young girl sleeps on the roof to meet her boyfriend at night; a group of painters wait for inspiration; a crafty priest attempts to seduce his friend's wife; and two friends make a pact to find out what happens after death.Not surprisingly for the guy who gave us "Salo", the film contains abundant nudity, sex, slapstick and scatological humor. It is never as offensive as "Salo" is, but if you are easily taken aback by male nudity, you might want to shy away... because this film gives no care at all about your sensibility.I am not sure what issue Pasolini had with the Catholic Church, but he pokes fun at it here, as he is known to do. You might think this would be a problem in a heavily-Catholic country like Italy, but yet he has gone on to be legend, not least of all because of his courage in courting controversy.

Plenty of positive reviews on this site. The Decameron is great - the 14th-century book I mean. What I've read of it anyway, the writing is a mix of Saki and Tales of the Unexpected and holds up very well, in particular the tale about the Christian who hopes to convert his Jewish friend, who decides to go to Rome to observe the clergy to see what all the fuss is about, with unexpected results.The film can't cover something like 100 tales in the book, but the director seems to handpick the bawdy ones for our (or his) delight. But the bawdiness is unerotic, as if to highlight how comical and debasing such lusty antics. And the 'punchline' - so excellent in the story I mentioned above (which doesn't feature) - is often so weak as to be unnoticeable. You wait for something more to happen, only to find, oh, it's a new story. Okay, that was it was it? What's more, there isn't the comic touch to milk some of the set-ups properly. Frankly, some of the Carry On films do this stuff far better. It's a shame they never set a Carry On film in the medieval era actually. On the plus side, the wonderful scenery stays with you, and it is good to see women who aren't the usual Hollywood example, it does change the mindset regarding the opposite sex a bit.This is a rare example where the book (in particular the Penguin translation) is easier to dip into.

I remember that I first heard of Pier Paolo Pasolini in John Waters's "Cecil B. Demented", and I interpreted that he was a very arty, non-mainstream director. I then read about how he always infuriated the Catholic Church, and they often took him to court (I get the feeling that his open homosexuality might have also gotten to them), and was brutally murdered in 1975.So, I've finally seen one of his movies. "Il Decameron" (or "The Decameron", depending on which language you want to use) tells several stories of life in a medieval-to-Renaissance Italian village. There's lots of sex to go around (especially in places where it's not supposed to happen), and any gross thing that you can think of will probably happen. But believe you me, Pasolini knows how to make it fascinating; after all, who doesn't love some debauchery now and then? So anyway, this is definitely the sort of movie that you would watch for film history classes and things like that. Not at all a movie for the world's straight-laced factions. But I certainly liked it, and not just because Caterina was really hot. This movie is an important part of film history, Italian history, and other things. You just might want to go to Italy after watching it.

Film lovers know "Andrei Rublov," that Russian film about an icon painter. The beauty of the film comes in part because the filmmaker is on the same quest as his character, and that quest has as its core the discovery of beauty. The interesting thing about movies is that they create and sustain a fantasy world that lives beyond any one movie and into which we assume each movie is born. That world has its own type of beauty, one born of color and glamor and poise.Paosolini does the same thing as Tarkovsky, but where Tarkovsky dealt with cosmic beauty and recognition, this artist has simpler goals: to engage with flesh, to flow with the simple streams of ignoble daily motion, and to discover beauty in that plain world.Oh, what a terrific cinematic place to visit! This is a far from that collection of movie metaphors and beauty as we can go. There is no movie acting here. There is no external beauty. There is no recourse to familiar characters or representation. As usual, he draws his source material from matter that is not only before cinema, but before any popular writing.And he works with that material outside any movie tricks. Well, he still has that Italian tendency to believe that the world is populated by characters and not situations or any sort of fateful flow. Just people who do things. Lots of little things, usually associated with pleasure.So if you are building a world of cinematic imagination you need to have this as one of your corners. That's silly, every one of us is building a cinematic imagination — we cannot avoid it. What I mean to say is that if you are building an imagination, some of which you understand and can use, some of which you actually want and can enjoy without being sucked into reflex...If you want to just relate to people as people and test how easy it is to find grace in the strangest of faces, then this is your movie voyage for the night.One rather shocking thing is how the nudity works. In "ordinary" film, we thing nothing of seeing two people humping and moaning, nude pelvises grinding is the most hungry of ways. But we gasp when some genital is shown. Here, the exact reverse is found: no shyness about the obvious existence of genitals, an erection even. A sleeping girl with her hand in her lover's crotch. DIsplayed as if it were in the same cinematic territory as the faces he finds.But when these characters lay on each other for sex, we have the most prurient of actor's postures. I think this was done simply to avoid an automatic sweep into ordinary film ways. It has that effect anyway.I don't know anyone that chooses more interesting faces. Distinctly Southern European, odd atypical faces.And finally, there is the bit of his own story inserted, the artist in the church. Creating scenarios of rich life. In the movie, the most amazing scenes are those that have little or nothing to do with the story. There's a "death" tableau that could be the richest single shot I have ever seen, anywhere.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.