Loro

not sure if the two-part version clarifies some weird choices here but this is one of the rare films where an "ad-like" aesthetic is actually justified. expressionism of sorrentino serves well to the topic considering how it's almost impossible to satirize the existing political reality, but it still treats its subject with undue respect as it turns an utterly evil figure into an almost naive prisoner of desires.

Comparing this to his film about Andreotti, it's hard not to feel that Sorrentino's ability to write has declined. The insights are meagre and the narrative goes precisely nowhere. On the other hand, the performances are at times unnecessarily cartoonish, in a way that undermines whatever virtues are possessed by the screenplay. Years ago I felt that Sorrentino was born to make a film about Berlusconi, but now that he has, it seems like nothing more than treading water at best. A lost filmmaker.

Sorrentino has a penchant for sympathizing with, on the surface, grotesque reactionary figures (see also: The Young Pope), perhaps to be contrarian but also seemingly to investigate whether there is anything there at the heart of conservatives' belief systems. Along with his continual homages to La Dolce Vita, his conclusion is ambiguous - any external facade seems to be motivated by an internal narrative (in this case) Berlusconi needs to tell himself. Score is for all 3 entries of this film.

At times it does shows Sorrentino's excellent hyperstylized directing skills. Some individual hedonistic scenes are hypnotic combinations of visuals with music . But overall it feel very empty and shallow. Maybe that was by design cause of its topic, Doesn't make for an interesting watch nonetheless. Definitely a movie in which the total is not more than the sum of its different scenes. (Maybe the two-part version solves this problem. But this wasn't promising enough to go seek that out.