Watch L'Avventura For Free

Good concept, poorly executed.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

By the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Italian economy had already started stabilising and moving away from the devastating consequences of WWII. The stabilisation and subsequent economic growth took place through rapid and widespread industrialisation. One can also clearly notice a shift in the sensibilities in the Italian films which were made during these years by acclaimed filmmakers like Antonioni, Fellini, Ermanno Olmi, etc. Their films shifted away from the concerns of neorealist films of the 1940s and early 50s. In this context, it is very interesting to note the dissimilarities between a typical Italian neorealist film and a post-neorealist film like 'L'Avventura'. While Neorealism dealt with the economic fallout of WWII, 'L'Avventura' deals with a sense of disillusionment in the midst of rapid industrialisation(the very first line of dialogue revolves around how the natural woods are being being replaced by houses). While Neorealism focused on the poor working class Italians, 'L'Avventura' focuses on the privileged upper class or the bourgeois section of the Italian society.From a technical standpoint, it has to be said that 'L'Avventura' is exquisitely shot. The camera movements and numerous tracking shots are executed with a distinct sophistication and methodical precision. There are a lot of complex frame compositions that take place in the interior scenes which scream perfectionism on the part of Antonioni. The overall tone for the film is one of extreme austerity. This austerity and lack of humanity to the film is clearly meant to represent the supposed lack of humanity in the midst of mindless industrialisation and consumerism. I think one thing that the viewer has to assume in order to buy into the film's plot and story elements is that the film takes place in Antonioni's own world which is a little different to the real world. This is because accepting the reaction of some of the characters to certain occurrences in the film will involve a certain amount of the suspension of disbelief.The problem I had with 'L'Avventura' is that after a while, the relentless austerity started to get a little unbearable and tough to be receptive to. It's interesting because I know the austerity is absolutely deliberate and it's intended to epitomise the ennui that the characters get afflicted by along with Antonioni's own idea of the blandness and aimlessness of life in contemporary industrialised Italy of the early 60s. The first hour of the film is absolutely spectacular and rich with abstract existentialist intrigue. But once the group leaves the island and we re-enter civilisation, the film gets progressively less intriguing for me. I generally don't get negatively affected by the austerity of Kubrick or Bergman. But the second half of this film really started to progressively weigh me down.I don't think any acting performance in the film is particularly special. But of course Monica Vitti offers vulnerability and a sensitive touch to her character and she is the only one that the viewer can find any reason to sympathise with. But to be honest, it is clear that Antonioni is in no mood to make any character singularly likable.Overall 'L'Avventura' is a film that clearly shows a master at work who clearly has a visual flair and a philosophical voice. But the austerity and lack of humanity in the film makes it tough to rewatch and revisit too often.

This is my third Antonioni film after deserto rosso and Zabriskie point. As I was fascinated with the first two, I opted to go for another one.It was mostly the unconventional plot, which especially attracted me to l'avventura. One of the main protagonists disappearing mysteriously quite at the beginning, a fact that later on in the movie is almost forgotten and never resolved, this was so unusual that I really had to see this one. Considering this, I was of course in a completely different situation than the first nighters, who did not have this information and hence probably were waiting for the whole rest of the film for the riddle to be resolved. As their expectations were not met, the film apparently was being barracked at its premiere.My expectations, however, still were a bit discharged, because the lost person is not as much forgotten in the movie as most movie comments suggest. After the disappearance, there can always be felt a certain indisposition among the new lovers. Due to this fact, the film to me is not so negative since after all, people in the movie still have their qualms whether it is right to forget so soon … There is, of course, a certain decadency in the life style of the boat trip society, but a life in riches usually gives this impression to the ones, who do not have the luxury of being idle from financial sorrows. Moreover, the lush environments in Sicily (beautifully captured by Mr. Antonioni's long takes) also contribute to this impression and to the mindset of enjoying life.What was it then what Mr. Antonioni motivated for this kind of movie? This can only be a guess but I think that Mr. Antonioni was mostly interested in showing that moral values not necessarily hold if people are exposed to emotional excitement in stress situations, especially with the growing importance of individualism. Confusion and opportunity make the thief, so to say. Probably he also wanted to show how unimportant each of us becomes once he has left the scenery, as life always needs to go on. This may not be a pleasant thought but it cannot really be denied.Moreover, the flawless performances by Gabriele Ferzetti and a fascinating Monica Vitti alongside with the beauty of its camera work make this movie overall to a gem, that has to be recommended to all those who are looking for a movie that, for its loose ends, probably would no longer be produced nowadays.

Wow! Okay. Wow! If I had been in the audience at the first showing in Cannes, I would have felt I was amongst kindred souls.Great reputations don't impress me. I have to see it myself. I have given it the benefit of the doubt by bothering to read several of the comments here. I'm glad there are those of you that got something special out of this film. A good editor with a sharp knife could have improved this film considerably. Even that would still not be enough for me.Certainly the cinematography was beautiful. I just returned from a trip to Sicily and that was the initial motivations for viewing this film. It turns out that even that was not enough for me.I don't mind that Antonioni's motivation for doing the film was to explore the delicacy of human relations. I do mind that he disguised his purpose for so long. Okay, I get it that Anna brings it on herself to encourage Sandro's wandering eye. But Claudia's motivation is a mystery to me. Antonioni spends too little time motivating Claudia. Even the kiss on he boat is not nearly enough. Sandro didn't appear to be THAT good a kisser. Where Antonioni DID spend his time was largely wasted. The interminable search for Anna on the island. In real life real characters would certainly search thoroughly. But we don't have to see ALL of it. Other directors and editors have discovered ways to shorten the screen time and still give us the impression that a serious and thorough search was made. And Claudia's "running down the hall" scene ... hello? What about abandoned town of Noto scene? The deeper meaning was lost on me. If this is a part of the "new" language and "new" images everyone is talking about, well, I just don't like it. I spent 30 years in the movie biz and if I learned one thing, it's that screen time costs money. If it doesn't have a direct bearing on the plot, don't put it in. Again, if Antonioni is just breaking this rule to give us a new way at looking at movies, I don't like it.It's okay if it's not important to Antonioni as to what happens to Anna. But I feel that it is unfair for him to expect us to pay to see his movie and not tell us. We are regular folks and have a regular curiosity. But by the time this ponderous epic was finally at an end, I really didn't care either.And as to the ending, this really didn't do the women's movement any favors, did it? Like the "battered woman syndrome", she takes him back almost immediately. Bummer.I will give it another look. So many have said you need at least two viewings. Many have also said that it helps considerablu to read what critics have said in order to completely understand it. This is just wrong on so many levels. If a film can't stand on its own, it's just poorly done. I have seen many films that I have gotten more out of each time I see them, but they were always films that were worth re-watching after a first viewing. I can't say that for me this is one of them.I gave it a 6 for the cinematography.

"L'Avventura" is an artsy sort of film and the winner of an award at Cannes. While I don't think it's a bad film (and some of the director's films, despite his reputation, are just bad) but not at all as marvelous as some think it is. It is, however, in some ways rather innovative if not especially pleasant.The story itself is paper-thin. Anna is a disaffected young woman. Although she is pretty and has every apparent reason to be happy, she mostly sulks during the portion where she is in the film. When she and a group of others are on an outing on the islands, she mostly behaves unpleasantly. Out of the blue, she disappears and even when the authorities are called, she cannot be found.For the rest of the film, Anna's boyfriend, Sandro, as well as her friend, Claudia, look for Anna. They follow clues throughout the countryside and soon, Sandro is like an octopus--with his hands all over Claudia. At first, she is offended but after a while she reciprocates and soon the pair are talking about getting married. By the end, however, Sandro screws everything up and there is an ending that is a bit vague.The film has a few strikes against it. Most importantly, it's not especially exciting fare--with quite a few lulls and a plot that isn't especially complex. Additionally, the characters are either vague (such as Claudia) or unlikable--such as Sandro and Anna. However, I don't write off the entire film as a pretentious art film. The film was quite groundbreaking in its frankness about sexuality. While there is no nudity (at least in the version released by Criterion), sex is very matter-of-fact. Yes, folks who are unmarried have sex--something which I didn't think was invented until the 1980s. Mildly interesting at best, I just cannot see most people giving a darn about this one. Be forewarned about all the hype.