Waste of Money.

Captivating movie !

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Just recently I posted a couple of critical reviews here on IMDb about films that primarily deal with teenagers and young adults, stating how their appeal seemed to be somewhat limited to a target audience and not particularly popular for folks like me, a seasoned citizen already retired. So now as I contemplate on what I've just watched in "Umberto D.", I realize the shoe is on the other foot. Here's a film I can relate to from having lived a productive life, with an understanding of what the title character is going through in a desperate attempt to keep his apartment and ownership of his pet dog intact. Someone much younger will see the film as slow moving and boring and have an inability to relate. With that little preface out of the way, I'll get to the picture itself.A handful of reviewers describe the picture as neo-realist without explaining what that is. Very simply, director Vittorio De Sica uses real people, not actors, to tell his story, and uses real locations instead of filming on a set. It's a style that's been very successful for him, as anyone who's seen this picture or "Bicycle Thieves" will attest. The two movies are quite similar, as they both deal with impoverished citizens trying to make ends meet, living their daily lives in quiet desperation and not knowing what their situations will lead to. De Sica effectively balances this desperation with moments of subtle humor that diffuses some of the bleakness of the story being told. In this one, Umberto's pet dog Flike provides some of those moments, a memorable one was when Umberto had him panhandle with his hat because he couldn't force himself to do it on his own. There comes a point in the story when Umberto becomes particularly despondent, and he's asked by maid servant Maria (Maria Pia Casilio) at his boarding house what's bothering him. By this time he's been told he will be evicted, he's had a momentary respite at a hospital type clinic for an illness, and his dog was picked up by the city pound while he was absent from home. He's even unsuccessfully attempted to get acquaintances to lend him some money. For Umberto, the frustrations amount to "... a little bit of everything", as he even contemplates suicide as a final answer, though he has neither the will or the stomach for it. The story comes to a close on an ambiguously positive note, since we know as the viewers that Umberto's situation will not change as he playfully skips out of the picture with Flike at his heels. It's the type of ending that requires some contemplation, even though like Umberto, there's nothing we can do to help his circumstance, so all we can do is commiserate and feel compassion for the lonely old gent. Defining what will happen to Umberto rests with the imagination of the viewer.

The plot of UMBERTO D. is again straightforward, a characteristic of Vittorio de Sica's films. Threatened with eviction from the seedy boarding-house room he has occupied for thirty years, retired civil servant Umberto Dominico Ferrari (Carlo Battisti) looks for ways to raise money to pay the rent. He tries every avenue, including begging, but the cause proves hopeless. He contemplates suicide but cannot summon up the courage to do so.The film brilliantly encapsulates the central character's plight through small details: the bed in his boarding-house infested with ants; the suitcase with one neatly folded suit and a pair of shoes, Umberto's sole worldly possessions; the way he tries to hold a hand out while begging and then clasps it to his chest, as if aware of the potential shame involved; and the medium shot of his boarding- house room, now with a large hole in the wall as the landlady wants to convert it into a reception-room.No one in postwar Rome wants to know about his suffering. His landlady (Lina Gennari) is a nouvelle riche social climber inviting well-to- do guests in for a soirée while supplementing her income by renting her rooms out by the hour for secret trysts (including Umberto's). Umberto encounters two of his erstwhile work colleagues on the streets; both of them are too busy to stop and talk, even though they pledge their loyalty to him. Later on Umberto wants to leave his dog Flick with a couple inhabiting a seedy apartment; all they are interested in is how much money he is prepared to pay, and when he will collect the dog. He even tries to give the dog to a young girl, but her nurse and her boyfriend dissuade her from accepting in the belief that the dog will spread fleas around the house.Umberto's only friend is the maid Maria (Maria Pia Casilio), who tries to help him but faces ruin herself as she has managed to get pregnant by an unknown boyfriend. Sex, it seems, is one of the few available outlets for the dispossessed to compensate for their lives.Shot in precise black-and-white by G. R. Aldo, the action unfolds in a series of lengthy takes focusing on the characters' relationship to their often dreary environments. Postwar Rome looks an unfriendly place with its deserted squares and dilapidated buildings. The Roman Pantheon is brilliantly used in one shot, its spires extending far into the sky proving the enduring nature of the ancient world, that contrasts with Umberto's ephemeral world which looks to be enduring prematurely.Umberto's relationship to the dog Flick is the film's emotional center. We share his worries when the dog goes missing; and his almost unendurable anxieties when he tries to leave the dog once more in the park. The final sequence looks to be cataclysmic for the man-and- beast relationship, but this is eventually resolved.UMBERTO D. is a relatively short film (only 85 minutes long), but it crams so much social comment into its running time that every moment seems precious.

Umberto D (1952) is a necessity for aspiring filmmakers to truly grasp the notion of loving and hating on-screen characters, and also to witness the Italian Neo-Realist motion in full swing. The fact that the actors were so able to confidently portray the delicate characters in this classic despite being non-professional actors is simply outstanding, a credit to director De Sica. De Sica, a proved genius due to his earlier film, 'Bicycle Thieves', manages to blend the camera work into the narrative, not making it an addition that the audience is aware of. Paired with the award winning script which constructs the beautiful characters, this is a film that'll make you feel a whole collection of emotions from sadness to glee. Some film-goers may yawn at the 'simple' plot, an elderly man struggling financially in post war Italy, but this absence of heavy narrative allows the focus to shift to other things, a risk that pays off perfectly. Umberto D is an undeniable masterpiece, and one that should be on every persons watch list.

I usually don't cry when I'm watching movies.I have seen many Hollywood movies that are usually considered tear-jerkers by the audience. And yet, most of them left me indifferent. I considered a couple of them to be pretty good, but I personally wasn't particularly moved by the scenes that were supposed to sad or emotional.However, this movie made me cry the first time I watched it."Umberto D." is a truly heartbreaking piece of filmmaking which I found to be even harsher in hindsight when I consider that a story like this could be happening in real life, at the same time when I'm watching this movie.And yet, despite being incredibly depressive, it is also immensely human.Vittorio De Sica doesn't exploit the misery of the main character in this movie. Instead of that, he is able to make, us the viewer, feel identified with him, see him as somebody close to our reality. And that's why this movie is so marvelous and have to be seen, even if it could a very sad and depressive experience.The ending is moving to enough to make any viewer cry.