The film is set in the sunlit city of Naples. The smiling Parthenope recalls her childhood, in which her brother was obsessed with her. Her anthropology professor finds her a brilliant student. She considers becoming an actress, but is not inspired by her eccentric acting coach. She wonders about becoming an aesthete, and meets the drunken writer John Cheever, whose work she admires. Or perhaps she could have a romantic fling with the ugly bishop who attends the miracle of the dried blood that turns liquid each year, the phenomenon she is studying in anthropology.
Parthenope
(2024)19
| Country | |
| Spoken Language | italian, english |
| Runtime | 2 hr 17 min |
| Budget | €26 300 000 |
| Premiere: World | $11 675 156 September 22, 2024 |
| USA | $289 303 |
| Other countries | $11 385 853 |
| Premiere: USA | $289 303 October 27, 2024 |
| first day | $16 381 |
| first weekend | $31 588 |
| theaters | 139 |
| Digital: World | March 11, 2025 |
| Parental Advisory | Alcohol, Drugs & Smoking, Profanity, Sex & Nudity, ... |
| |
| Production Companies | |
Description
A woman born in the sea of Naples in 1950 searches for happiness over the long summers of her youth, falling in love with her home city and its many memorable characters.Сast and Crew
Director
Writer
Composer
Videos Stills Posters Filming Promo Screenshots Concept
Premise
Sign up and you will see here
friends impressions of the movie.
Friends comments and ratings
Well, what can we say about the debut work of the neural network PaoloGPT, which was loaded with all of Sorrentino’s works? Half the battle is that it predictably produced a chaotic and meaningless compilation of his past works, in which, behind the most beautiful interiors and landscapes, there is nothing but a set of quotes for naked philosophers on Instagram instead of dialogues. We would have tolerated this, as, for example, we endured the run-of-the-mill "New Pope", but the neural network turned out to be subject to the modern agenda, and, following it, sawed a girl as the protagonist.
That’s why I easily figured her out – everyone knows that Paolo is a notorious misogynist and is unable to describe a woman in any other way than as a beautiful but stupid empty shell (someone might remember Rachel Weisz from "Youth", but that’s not a woman, but the goddess Rachel, you have to understand the difference), and it’s useless to try to impose on us that he can make the main character as convincing as he makes the men who stare at these same women.
In the end, Parnenope turned out to be exactly like all the other Sorrentino girls: model-like, slutty, but also intellectual for show – with the highest grade for her diploma and a bunch of "witty" comments up her sleeve. Which does not affect the story at all, because she still behaves more stupidly than the dumbest men in the film. Sorrentino himself, not being a fool, and understanding his weak points, in principle would not have done this. And he did not.
I didn’t get what it was. Some kind of highly artistic vulgarity. With inclusions of idiocy, bombast and body horror / Reminded me of the recitation of poetry by the sixties, when the text is good, but with such intonations that it makes you feel ashamed and sounds like a parody
If Sorrentino’s films are like alcoholic drinks, then this one is pure alcohol in its strength. Here Paolo delightfully disregards the (rather conventional) rules of good taste and simply takes and mixes together in maximum concentration all his favorite themes, ideas and images. Therefore, if you are on the same wavelength with him of such aestheticizing pessimism, then "Partenope" will be a holiday that will upset you only because it ended so soon.
A beautiful film, like others by Sorrentino. About beauty, youth, death, aging.
well done Sorrentino, the old pervert found a beautiful ragazza with zero acting skills and jerked off to her for over two hours Jumpsker movie whale at the end what was that??? As per tradition, I add a point for the well-shot beauty of Italy itself 🤌🤌
Too philosophical statement of the director, filled with symbolisms at every step. One can only note the beautiful aesthetic picture, characteristic of Sorrentino. It is difficult to understand this film, in it incest, ugliness, love, death and blasphemy and all this is mixed in a single bowl of anthropological research.
Why do you need the northern seas if you are already in the most beautiful place on Earth? The indescribable signature atmosphere of sadness, melancholy and fatality against the backdrop of bright Naples. A combination of beauty and ugliness, faith and cynicism. A long journey in the dark towards yourself, which not everyone will take.
A gorgeous parable about the beauty of Naples. Paolo again bursts into the charts with both feet, without retreating from his impeccable style, ignoring the clucking of fools about self-repetitions and the objectification of corporeality. The great beauty of youth, which cannot be lived twice, but can be contemplated until old age
Sorrentino’s strangest and most paradoxical film, combining vulgarity and poetry, ugliness and beauty, maturity and youth. There are simply a ton of meanings and symbols. It’s hard to understand, you have to feel it. It’s not for nothing that the film divided both viewers and critics. (7.510)
I know little about Naples and its character, so I can’t evaluate this layer. For me, this is a film about an integrated personality that, having received a trauma, cannot overcome it. From this point of view, the film and its characters are completely logical, and Sorrentino’s work is a brilliant masterpiece.
As always with Sorrentino – bright, poetic, beautiful. The scene of the great merger – my respect! But at the same time, it was not possible to get imbued with the character of Parthenope. The whole story is torn, and something was always missing. Somewhere the drama needs to be twisted, somewhere explained, and somewhere the scene needs to be lengthened.
The film turned out to be gypsy-Papuan: bright postcards and an abundance of vulgar scenes – catch, viewer, your "beads"! And they forgot about the fact that in each "amarcord" the main thing is living, not artificial characters. So it is as far from "The Hand of God" as it is from the Moon – you can’t even step into the waters of the Gulf of Naples twice
I remembered the joke about AvtoVAZ and the cursed place. Sorrentino reminds me of the heroes of that joke: he tramples in the past and does not notice the obvious: it is not the place, but the hands. A pompous, pompous, but very, very beautiful thing.
The intrigue with beauty is only for the first 20 minutes. But then there is some nonsense. Yes, there is a beautiful frame, yes, it is alive (not like in the modern Dune – a dead picture). But that’s all – the main character has no charisma, it’s just drabness. The director tries to play on recognizable moments for those who watched "The Great Beauty", but his attempts look unconvincing and do not achieve the desired effect.
With a bit of a heavy heart, I gave it a 7 for the personal statement. As a story of a real woman of flesh and blood, it’s weak, but as a personal metaphor for the city, it’s good. It’s beautifully shot, with bright colors that are accessible to the eye accustomed to the southern sun.
The film is shot in the style of languid bliss, pre-sunset sadness, with a feeling of dissatisfaction, but also with a sense of fulfillment. Probably, over time, the rating will tend to go up, even without rewatching if
Beautiful people cry too. When they are smart. But at the end of life they laugh if someone’s wild youth passes by. It was very beautiful.
Sorrentino’s signature style is visuals over substance. Dense concentration of aroma and aesthetics. Beauty at the expense of a coherent story, but not without meaning. Some will like it, some will not. And I will just say – bravo! 8!
Add a short review
280 characters