Sin (2019) User Reviews

Michelangelo as (art) historians know him

[nigiweij · 8/10 · 28 June 2021]

I found watching Il Peccato / Sin (2019) a delight!

Some user reviews of this film express their disappointment in the fact that you don't see the great master in action, working on marble or drawing. But I see that differently. Being trained as an art historian, I recognized the events and characteristics of Michelangelo shown in this film from the historical documents that have survived from that time. Having spent a significant amount of time studying the subject before making the film, I believe Konchalovskiy in particular closely read Giorgio Vasari's Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects (1550/1568), a contemporary collection of biographies of Renaissance artists (in the case of Michelangelo, Vasari knew him personally), as the major themes in the film correspond with Vasari's account of this episode in Michelangelo's long life.

Echoing his early masterpiece Andrey Roublev (1966), which he made together with Andrei Tarkovsky, Il Peccato shows how artists are subjects of the time they live in, dependent on power structures and turbulences in violence and prosperity. The film gives a good insight in Michelangelo's social interactions with his family, rivalling artists, and patrons. Moreover, the cinematography is impressive, and the largely unprofessional acting crew performed overall very strong. A great addition to the genre of movies about artists, much more nuanced and intelligent than the classic The Agony and the Ectasy (1965). Hopefully, Michelangelo's rival Leonardo da Vinci will get a biopic of comparable quality soon!

Michelangelo's furious chaos

[Come-and-Review · 8/10 · 2 December 2019]

Up until the final scene, Il Peccato seems a beautiful chaos, with an apparently random series of scenes that seem to go nowhere in particular. But, alas, the finale might be enlightening. Konchalovsky's film obviously echoes Andrei Rublev, even though it can't be but a shadow if compared to Tarkovsky's masterwork, by portraying Michelangelo as a troubled artist that feels out of place in his brutal times. Unlike Rublev, Michelangelo is however torn by less religious themes, even though he too complains about the brutality of his commissioners, the Della Rovere and the Medici families. Always in economic difficulties, always aspiring to a sublime that he identifies in poet Dante Alighieri, never able to settle in one place, fueled by an inner omnipresent rage. Ultimately, Michelangelo's titular 'sin' is not revealed, but it might be pride: he makes no secret of how he considers himself to be a genius far above anyone else, he tries to do overly impossible things without accomplishing them entirely. A physical representation of his pride might constitute the huge marble block seen in the poster, that pays a specific role in part of the film. The cast is made up of less well-known italian actors, but Alberto Testa in particular seems the perfect choice in terms of appearance to play the Renaissance Sculptor. Equally particular is the choice to shoot the movie in 4:3 aspect ratio. The coloring however somehow reminded of Sokurov's Faust.

Historical picture about one great Renaissance figure : Michelangelo Buanarroti

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 31 January 2023]

A nice but slowly paced biopic about life of Michelangelo Buonarroti . It is a gripping but dull reflection on the agony and ecstasy of his individual greatness as well as his misfortunes and privations . Set in Florence, early XVI century , the picture deals with Michelangelo or Michael Angel who is working on the Carrara's marble creating sculptures and he is then ordered by Pope Julius II to build his tomb and while painting of as called Sistine chapel (that's why it was built by Pope Sisto) . Although widely considered a genius by his contemporaries, Michelangelo Buonarroti (Alberto Testone giving a first-range acting) he suffers poverty , starvation , deceits and shortages . Depicting the profound humanity behind the legend of the Renaissance . Meanwhile , he'll develop various relationships with other Renaissance's important people . The film is correctly based on historical deeds and appearing famous roles , such as : Raphael , Papa Giulio II, Papa Leon X , Dante Alighieri , Giulio De' Medici , Lorenzo Medici , Boccaccio and Marchese Malaspina . The motion picture describes specially the creation of the enormous paintings on the ceiling and the difficulties that Michael Angel is suffering to achieve the immortal legacy . The Pope Julius II will also assign him the realization of his tomb , but then his commissioner and head of the Della Rovere nobility Pope Julius II dies , Michelangelo becomes obsessed with sourcing the finest marble to complete his tomb. The artist's loyalty is tested when Leo X , of the rival Medici family, ascends to the papacy and charges him with a lucrative new commission - the façade of the San Lorenzo basilica . Forced to lie to maintain favour with both families , Michelangelo is progressively tormented by suspicion , betrayal and hallucinations , leading him to ruthlessly examine his own moral and artistic failings.

In Il Pecccato or The Sin whe find us an outandish Michelangelo as a lonely sculptor who's reduced to poverty and depleted by his struggle to finish the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and an unfinished tomb of Julius II . Throughout the film we witness the confrontation of the two families that dominated sixteenth century Florence: the Della Rove and the Medici. At the same time we observe the hard work of Michelangelo as he tries to extract the marble from Carrara and as he sculpts the famous sculptures of Moses and the Pietà. The feature movie obtained a limited success and had a moderated box-office ; however , being nowadays better valued than when its premiere . The movie follows the Pasolinian wake more than the Carol Reed's The Agony and the Ecstasy (1965) style ; but I really prefer the classic and spectacular film with Charlton Heston and Rex Harrison (both of whom were magnificent) than this slow-moving , sad and poor version about this immortal historical character.

The motion picture was well written and directed by Andrei Konchalovsky. His first big hit was Siberiada (1979) - a dramatic and realistic story of the lives of the people of Siberia - was internationally acclaimed and brought Konchalovsky to the attention of American and European producers. From then on-wards his career has been international in scope. Pleasing critics and audiences worldwide, he made the English language films Maria's lovers (1984), Runaway train (1985), Duel for one (1986) with praised for Max von Sydow's brilliant performance), and the award-winning Homer y Eddie (1989) starring Whoopi Goldberg. Konchalovsky moved to the mainstream territory with the action packed Tango y Cash (1989). And other excursions to Hollywood to make mainstream TV productions like the Emmy-winning The Odyssey (1997) and Lion in Winter (2003) with Glenn Close , and several others. Rating Sin : 6/10 . Passable and acceptable.

Poor performance

[zeionara · 6/10 · 20 November 2019]

This movie albeit claims to touch an interesting idea having a variety of opinions, as one could infer from the trailer, performs surprisingly poor in every aspect. First of all, the frame is exceptionally narrow, secondly, there is no music at all (if we do not consider sparks of misterious sound in the background of some scenes), thirdly, there are no beautiful scenes, they all seem too standard and lackluster, fourthly, there is of course poor plot with relevant events just before the end and unnecessary long lasting description of main character's life in the remaining part. It's hard enough to point out something positive about this picture, which, should be said, deserves a good mark only because of attempt made by director to produce such an outstanding creation in terms of the underlined concepts, although it is also dubious wether it has been crafted so boring on purpose (due to lack of aspiration for producing something really good which surely always takes a lot of time) or accidentally. Wouldn't want to watch the thing again because essentially it was not beneficial in terms of learning a new sufficiently and comprehensively outlined point of view covering an interesting idea nor in terms of observing a fancy image.

Interesting and unusual human approach to M-A's obsessions

[ivankaczek · 7/10 · 7 February 2022]

Even if it's not an easy film to watch (mostly weird it's the filming 3/4 format, which really accentuates the idea of "something old"), it captures our attention since we discover the darkest side of this genious artist who was famous for being difficult to cope with and for possesing an insatiable appetite for money.

It also explains the unlucky destiny of the famous Julius II tomb that ended up being no more than an architectural frame for a beautifully captivating Moses sculture instead of the huge monument inside St. Peter's basilica.

Amazing

[marko-kole98 · 10/10 · 28 September 2020]

The main thing I would like to point out is that every single scene from this movie was like a beautiful painting straight out of an Italian museum. I can't remember when was the last time the visuals of a movie stunned me so greatly that I was with each scene change surprised by the beauty of the images.

Secondly, the feeling I get reading the rest of the reviews, and hearing other people comment on the movie, is that that people almost expect this movie to be a some sort of thriller depicting the genius of Michelangelo, the person we all know as the one of the worlds greatest artists of all time. But the greatness of this movie is in the contrary - Michelangelo is portrayed as a mere, sinning human - who steals, betrays, lies, and also hates showering. He is a imperfect person just like any other, haunted by his fears and suspicions and I can't shake off the feeling that people did not (or did not want) to see Michelangelo in those lens. But for me that is the main thing that makes this movie so great - the viewer can share Michelangelos' emotions and thoughts as if they were their own or of their friend, since the artists is another common, but very talanted man, and not some untouchably skilled alien of the past.

Thirdly, the movie shows us only a fragment of the artists life, and a fragment describing the very beginning of the sculpting process, and it is that time that the fullness of Michelangelos' character can be met, like it is in the movie. Who wants to see a historical documentary about his whole life? You can tune into the History channel if your into that. On the other side, the movie is an artistic take at an artists life, excellently describing Michelangelos true identity, his problems and thoughts, related or not to his work.

For me, the point and the idea of the movie is that Michelangelos works such as David and Pieta were not thought up in the vast and luxuriose castles and churches of Florence, while the artists was enjoying a cup of tea snf reading philospophy, but instead, in the middle of a marble mine in high up in the mountains, alongside plain working men, when the idea arises in sight of a mere daughter of one of the workers leans on a marble rock for a short afternoon sleep - it is that plain scene which inspires the divine masterpiece of the artists work today. This is what makes the movie so down to earth and realistic, and in combination with the incredible scenery, makes the viewer feel like he is in 16th century Italy for two hours.

Classical

[thebeachlife · 10/10 · 29 February 2020]

Knowledge. Loyalty. Truthfulness. Guilt. Perseverance. Effort. Strength. Love. Spirituality. If you want to learn a thing or two about the above, it's a must to watch.

A missed chance

[depont03 · 5/10 · 27 April 2020]

Watching this film you might wonder "What on Earth this has to do with Michelangelo, except for the decorations?"

While it is a good idea to try a character and period study, rather than a glamorous Hollywood-style biopic, this film is a blank shot at it. On the one hand the cast is interesting, the non-professional actors play well (though such cast would fit better Boccaccio's "Decameron"). The film overall slightly reminds films by Fellini or Milos Forman's "Amadeus" - where there are many grotesque moments, the main character could be almost a caricature but Forman unlike Konchalovsky manages very well the contrast between comical and tragic. In the "Sin" the grotesque is purposeless, because the script is very weak, the storytelling is not engaging and the main character never steps out from the void of half-craziness. In Forman's film Mozart could look dumb, but as soon as music started he turned into a genius. Konchalovsky's Michelangelo only counts coins, argues contracts and purchases marble. He never touches a chisel or brush, he is never shown as a thinker or a poet. There is no moment to sympathize with him or understand why such person could create great art. It is an empty caricature rather than a human.

To sum up, this film is an unfortunately waste of promising actors and excellent Tuscan scenery. Some snapshots are well done because the cast and the decorations are good. But overall you will not gain much by watching this half-baked production, unless you are interested in evolution of Konchalovsky as a director.

As if Pasolini had returned

[erikstuborn · 10/10 · 9 August 2021]

This movie has left me without blinking during the more than two hours it lasts. With beautiful photography, a hard and dry plot, and hypnotic images for its approach to an Italian Renaissance as it must have been in reality, dirty, poor and tremendously unfair.

The actors seem sculpted against the beautiful background of Tuscany with the same rawness that we find in Pasolini's films. We must not forget that Konchalovskiy collaborated with Tarkovsky in the birth of the story of another tormented artist, 'Andrei Rublev', one of his masterpieces.

From the beginning of the film we see Michelangelo in his maturity, when the intense and fierce compulsion of his sculptural works, which seem to relax only in his 'Pieta', are those of a man pursued by 'the devil' -as his character says-, obsessed by money, in a purely masculine world, far from femininity, compassion and subtlety.

The central scene of 'Il Peccato' has been compared to a certain scene in the movie 'Fitzcarraldo' and they are not wrong, because there is dementia linked to the search for a goal that constantly escapes, no matter how much effort is made, and all this is told in a way that takes your breath away. Although it is not a drama, it is the life of someone at the limit of his strength.

Highly recommended.

Simply no plot

[velikod · 3/10 · 1 December 2019]

I went to the cinema because I love art and I am interested in the life and works of Michelangelo. Also I enojy eurpoean cinema, including low budget movies as they are more relistic and down to earth. But the movie was far below my expectations. Both me and my wife wanted to leave the cinema at several points and I saw maybe 4 people leave the cinema for good at different times before the end. The main reason is that I did not feel like there was a good plot line. I actually did not understand what and why happened sometimes. It felt like there is no purpose. The accent was on depicting what the dark times looked like: reallistic scenes of misery and how history was driven by the two rich families and the Vatican. That part was good in the sense that it really gives you that feeling, but the story of Michelangelo did not feel central and very well connected. Actor play was good, especially the main character.

Beautiful film

[natyajena · 10/10 · 22 November 2019]

Nice work with beautiful scenes recreating the atmosphere of those times perfectly well. Michaelangelo was a genius sculptor and each of his creations move the soul even of modern people, lots of whom have hardly any taste of art at all. This film is artistic enough, beautiful and talented, made by a very professional director of soviet school. Just the right background to tell a story of a genius. No soundtrack can also mean no noise pollution. I enjoyed everything about this movie

Moving pictures at their finest!

[whotheff · 10/10 · 29 November 2019]

Instead of being 24 pictures per second, this movie is 24 paintings per second. Contrary to modern cinema camera is very still. Instead of boring, static actors, we have static frames with a lot of movement in them with perfect angles for every single shot. It was so full of atmosphere, 100% realism and natural sounds that I did not blink for two hours. But instead of being some fancy art film, it tells a story which is very passionate, moving, dynamic. The protagonist lives through heaven and hell in following hos passion and this is so natural and real, that combined with the perfect atmosphere and realism, it made me feel as if I was there with him. And I've seen quite a lot of movies and hard to impress. Every scene, every inch of the screen, every sound, every second has meaning. Even quiet, still shots are felt so heavy, that there is no doubt you would feel them too.

The feeling of the age is so true, everything is so analog. As if no computer was used in the making of this film. I can only imagine the tons of hard work put into it to create this realism. Now I want to see more of Konchalovsky!

between sacred and sin

[dromasca · 9/10 · 22 April 2023]

More than half a century before he wrote (in collaboration) and directed 'Il peccato', Andrey Konchalovskiy co-wrote another memorable film about another great Renaissance artist - Tarkovsky's 'Andrei Rubliov' (1966). A year before 'The Agony and the Ecstasy', the adaptation of Irving Stone's novel directed by Carol Reed, had been a great international success. Konchalovskiy's film begins with that moment in Michelangelo's life where 'The Agony and the Ecstasy' ends. Like his illustrious predecessors, the Russian director has created a meditation on the genius artist, his era and his relationship with the Divine. But his hero, even if he is in search of the sacred, appears many times in this film closer to the Devil. 'Il peccato' (distributed in the English-speaking market as 'Sin') suffered the fate of many films released on the threshold of the pandemic, having a limited theatrical release. My impression is that it deserved a better fate and that there is a good chance that this film will be rediscovered and appreciated at its true value in the future.

Art history considers that when he finished the sculpture of David and the fresco on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo was considered 'The Divine', the greatest artist of his age, surpassing in talent and fame even his contemporaries Raphael and Leonardo. And yet, the script of Konchalovskiy's film presents us as a man torn by contradictions, with an enormous ego but also susceptible to criticism and gossip, receiving respectable fees and advances but just as easily squandering the money on the family or to buy the marble for future creations, leading an ascetic life together with two of his disciples of whom he demands absolute devotion but whom he constantly suspects of betrayal. Much of the story relates the master's confrontation with the 'Monster', a huge block of marble that he wishes to bring from Carrara to his workshop to transform into what will forever become the Pieta. The metaphor seems to combine the stories of Moby Dick with that of Werner Herzog's 'Fitzcarraldo'. We see how Konchalovskiy's Michelangelo looks in every form around for a source of inspiration. From the ephemeral he extracts the essence to represent the sacred. He has a vast culture, he appreciates his competitors at their fair value but would never tell it, he reads, Dante guides his steps in life and creation, but Bocaccio is no stranger to him either. He cannot avoid getting involved in the political conflicts of the time and especially in the one between the Medici and della Rovere houses who were fighting for the control of the papal seat and the entire peninsula. The two rival groups will not hesitate to use any means - money or blood - to enslave the great artist. Obstinately pursuing his goal, Michelangelo must fight for his art, lie, betray, hurt with or without intention those around him. But nothing matters to the artist who aspires to the sacred and who, in order to reach it, is ready to cross the abyss.

Konchalovskiy creates in 'Il peccato' a complex visual universe that absorbs us in the Rome and Florence of the early years of the 16th century. The meticulous documentation is evident in various details, from clothing and food to the decoration of the palaces and the tools of the artists of the era. The lead role is trusted to Alberto Testone, an actor I did not know, who has a striking physical resemblance to the artist we know from the portraits that have reached us, and who lives his character with intensity. The same can be said about the actors around him, many of them non-professionals. The film is a Russian-Italian co-production and the influence of both cinematographic schools is evident. The result is a meeting between the historical thoroughness and the artistic and religious fervor of 'Andrei Rubliov' and the natural and realistic acting style of the films of the masters of Italian neo-realism. However, everything bears the signature of the great director that is Konchalovskiy, including the feeling that we are permanently between two worlds.