Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

Protraph Lack of good storyline.

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

JoeKulik This richly symbolic film is really impossible to understand without some knowledge of 20th Century Italian history, and particularly the power of the Roman Catholic Church. The Lateran Treaty of 1929 finally politically separated Italy from Church power by creating the Vatican as a sovereign state. But the trade off was the that the Church was still left in power over many aspects of everyday Italian life. For instance, Italy finally established a civilian divorce law through a bitterly contested 1970 referendum. Before then, divorce was under strictly in the domain of Church law, and the Church NEVER granted a divorce, even in extreme cases like when a spouse was abandoned many years hence. Overall, however, the power of the Church still resided in the blind allegiance of Italians at all levels to Church morality. Over decades, this led to impeding Italy's social and political progress, and greatly maintained the status quo in the division between the privileged upper class & the downtrodden masses. The Leftist & Communist movements that began after WWII battled against this status quo, and indirectly against the Church through Progressive agendas. ALL This doesn't even amount to an adequate thumbnail of all the issues that this film touched upon. Pasolini really needed to couch this head-on criticism of contemporary Italian society in a comedy, because I suspect that at some level he would have feared for his life had he delivered a more serious work covering the same controversial topics. ... joseph.kulik.919@gmail.com

Atreyu_II I never heard of 'Uccellacci e Uccellini' before, neither of its director (Pier Paolo Pasolini). I watched it now after, recently, this 64-year-old man who likes the film having recommended it. He gave the name of the film and the name of the director. He sort of explained what the story was, but he talks and talks and talks... one moment he is telling one thing, then he suddenly changes to something completely different. So I didn't understand very well what was the story about.I think this is a silly movie. Sure, it is well filmed, with nice cinematography, a nice soundtrack by the mythical Ennio Morricone (in this case, with Domenico Modugno singing) and some clever humor. For example, the bird whistles were fun and I found it funny whenever the crow was following those two guys and, for some reason, the way it walked was hilarious. The idea of the crow telling stories of franciscan friars is kinda childish, nonetheless fun.The stories themselves were not as fun as the talking crow itself, though. They have some fun at first, but then they become boring as hell, making the movie appear to be longer than its short 85 minutes. Plus, there were lots of moments when humor was clearly cheesy and much too silly for my tastes. The ending of the film would have been good if those two hadn't murdered and eaten the crow. Ugh, I can't stand animal cruelty! Pasolini considered this film to be his favorite. On that I can't comment, as I don't have knowledge on his filmography.

Galina "Uccellacci e uccellini" aka "The Hawks and the Sparrows" (1964) - directed by Pier Paolo PasoliniThis is a movie that begins like no other introducing the cast and the crew in the manner that is charming, original, melodious and promising of even better things to follow. The fun begins actually with its Italian title, "Uccellacci e uccellini". I don't know about you but the sound of the title simply makes me smile, it sounds like the birds themselves whispered or chirped it to the Pasolini's ear. It is possible to make a satirical philosophical fable concerned with the serious and even grave matters as religion, social and political systems and the order of things and at the same time highly enjoyable, often hilarious, sometimes sorrowful, always original, in one word -Pasolinesque. "Uccellacci e uccellini" talks about desires, death, the meaning of life, Christianity, and Marxism but first and foremost, it entertains. It is about a father (Italian clown Toto) and his young and naive son (Nino Davoli) whom Pasolini sends to the endless cyclical journey on the road of life where they soon will be joined by a talking crow, will be catapulted 750 years back in time and by the request of ST.Francis, they would become two saints (Toto with his clown's face makes a great saint) who would teach the birds (the hawks and the sparrows) the word of God, in the birds' language, of course. The birds seem to agree and accept the words of love but as we know the love comes and goes but everyone (including birds) has to eat and the hunger does not help to improve the understanding between the hawks and the sparrows and between the humans and the crows, even the talking crows. Some were born to kill and to eat the others and there is not much could be changed about it. Two men will be magically returned back to the present time, will go to funeral, will see the baby born, will meet a beautiful desirable girl named Luna who reminds them how divine the fresh hay smells and how much fun it is to make love in it... Their journey would end where it began and on and on and on they go around the world in circles turning. As for the talking crows, "Takers and fakers and talkers won't tell you. Teachers and preachers will just buy and sell you. When no one can tempt you with heaven or hell- You'll be a lucky man!"

ANNIESCLAN-1 Pasolini carried three labels that implied some sort of political or intellectual curiosity and complexity: Marxist, atheist, homosexual. And, like a true politician, he created evasive films that choose not to elaborate. Everything in The Hawks and the Sparrows is a contrivance used to further deepen the myth of the film. I was silly to think that I could discover something about Pasolini by watching it. Instead, I was separated by WWII-era political ideologies and symbolic occurrences. Yes, that's right, a talking crow is symbolic of a Left-wing intellectual while Toto and his teenage companion act as the apolitical naive characters whose journey ends at the beginning of the film. And you don't have to be a gnostic to find out; Pasolini chose to insert text that reads "the road begins and the journey ends" at the beginning of the movie. The insertions of text are instrumental to Pasolini; they also inform the viewer about the bird being the Leftist intellectual.Yet, most viewers will learn to dislike Pasolini's textual interventions. We want to be lazy, and we want to laugh at Toto's gesticulations and facial movements as he does the impression of the woman who uses the dentures. We don't want to get a history lesson, or at least not on our watches. And, if the text was never in the film, we would be able to disregard Pasolini's symbolic implications. But, since he puts that text in there and tells us what to think, we can't just dismiss it. That text dictates, it says that, even if you had created your own conception of what the bird symbolized, you're wrong, because, "for anyone who hasn't noticed, the bird is a left-wing intellectual." Truthfully, I might've been more interested in the connection between the word "wing" and the fact that the character was a bird than that the bird represented some type of ideology.Did I not know what I was entering into? I bought the movie, knew it was directed by Pasolini, the DVD box was blue on the side, no, there weren't any missing steps. But, even with all of the correct preparation before viewing The Hawks and the Sparrows, it would have been alienating. Although we learn about Pasolini's political status through the actions of a bird, a hatted man and a smiling boy, we are isolated from Pasolini himself. Using politics is a great way for someone to sterilize something. And, in the expressive and vivid area of art, an artist is kicking himself in the pants when he combines art with politics. Can anyone listen to John Lennon without thinking of his political life? Probably not. Which is the same case with Pasolini.As negative as this review may seem, The Hawks and the Sparrows is one of my favorite movies. I love talking birds over Ennio Morricone music. They work well together, like pepsi and Chinese food. I don't know how Pasolini pulls it off. Man. If anyone else tried to combine a political idea with art, it would be like trying to match navy blue with black. Maybe I'm creating the wrong visual image here. This movie is fantastic, especially when Toto and the boy get shot at, making them run up mounds of dirt.