Stromboli

Daring in the sense that Rossellini would not return to what was expected of him he finds new inspiration in Ingrid Bergman to re-imagine a new type of Cinema for himself and in doing so he creates a very personal journey driven by his subconscious imagination and fuled by his aproach to improvisation and discovery of a subject matter (Bergman and Europe). Perhaps in the end some people might feel there is something missing that would make it more special, more importantly in relation to his previous films, but an artist must keep changing and evolving and in it he finds a new beauty, truth and insight here. It is a master at his craft and it makes for a wonderful viewing experience.

Since the 1940's Roberto Rossellini was a forward thinking revolutionary, so why does 'Stromboli' feel so stuck in the past?. I think it's as a result of the films semi-autobiographical & biographical nature, and the "sinful" Rossellini + Bergman relationship that flourished during production; both a very 50's relationship and a very scandalous one for the period.

Fourteen years before "Zorba the Greek," Ingrid Bergman is stranded on a Mediterranean island, surrounded by water and ignorant peasants. But, unlike Irene Pappas, Ingrid Bergman has to carry the picture. This is neorealism: simple script, low production values, and a cast of amateurs. She's a great actress and acquits herself well of the burden; the audience is not as lucky, but we do get shots of fisherman hauling in huge tuna in a bountiful catch and villagers fleeing a volcanic eruption. But there were many better neorealist movies.

When this first came to the USA, it had already garnered quite a bit of publicity because of Bergman's liaison with Rosellini. But the initial reviews were very bad. Those reviews were correct. Seen today, the movie is a mush-mash. The voice of performers change in mid sentence. Continuity is amateurish. Bergman, the lead character seems to change her personality from scene to scene. Using real people as secondary characters may have seemed like a good gimmick when they were speaking a language not understandable to the audience, but when you hear them fumble with English and hear the risible dubbing, it is a major distraction,.

I was interested in this movie because of its placement in the life of the director and actress. The plot and images are great, the sound and the translations are very bad, but you can still understand what is happening in this tragic film

I don't know what I'm missing. There's only one real character in this film, and while she's the beautiful Ingrid Bergman she's undeveloped and is a detestable person from beginning to end. Every other character is two dimensional and nobody develops in any way. The dialogue is stiff and overdubbed poorly. It's interspersed with contextual footage that clearly has nothing to do with what the characters are doing on the soundstage. Nobody in this film is likable. Its world is bleak. They started making talkies 20 years before this was made, but you'd never know it.

I guess I just don't have an eye for his movies. I watched because I am a Bergman fan. I did not like it at all. Who would put up with Stromboli, even post WWII! I would have started swimming for the mainland the moment Antonio hit me. I tried hard to like this one but I just could not find a reason to do so. In my opinion this film was a snore-fest. I checked IMDb feeling pretty certain other reviewers would feel the same. I was certainly surprised that I was the only one who disliked the film. Oh well; like I said I just must not appreciate his movies. I still like Ingrid however!