Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

felixoteiza At the end of Intervista, Fellini mentions the complaints of one former producer because of the usual dark ending of his films and that he kept asking him for "a little ray of sunshine". Well if something can be said right off the bat of VL is that in its case that little sunshine wasn't necessary after all. If this movie was the work of a single director I wouldn't hesitate calling it mediocre but as its was a joint effort I have to conclude there were two conflicting, almost opposing, styles at work there, so the film works its way to its conclusion as a ship sailing with two skippers struggling for possession of the helm, each one prevailing at given a time and producing as the result a rather zigzagging course. Black humor flirts with drama and then with tragedy, but that's all.I haven't seen many Fellini works, but I have seen enough to deduce they are structured on 3 basic components, each one originating its next, something even more clear during his neo realist period. First, individual/collective drama--sometimes presented at as black comedy turning into drama--which occasionally ends up in tragedy, all that the product of fascism, war and the resulting social desegregation and dislocation. Second, as the fruit of it, a thoroughly troubled relationship between his own generation and authoritative figures in society: parents, teachers, priests; institutions in general--fart noises, raspberries, being a usual form of revolt. Third, the childhood traumas resulting from the other two--girl being burned alive in Julietta for ex.--that will manifest later in life as emotional/sexual stagnation. That's the blueprint for most Fellinis I've seen and because of that I conclude about VL is that this film is not a pure Fellini but a very diluted, hybrid, even adulterated one. He was certainly kept under tight control here.Fellini shot VL in the same period he made two other films similar in settings, characters: Il Bidone & I Vitelloni, All three show people who are leeches of others—relatives, society—who see them just as preys or at least as sources of income; the only difference being that he loves the characters in IV (I explain that in that review) while he is indifferent to those in IB and VL. That allows me to conclude that had he been left alone doing this one he would have delivered these people to their (probably sad) fate, as he did in IB, but that every time he was about to do so, the other skipper took the helm and moved the ship the other way. I don't agree wit the DVD text, about Fellini, Latuatta loving these characters. I think the first thing writers give characters they love is dignity and in the case of artists, that means talent, at least a bit of it, and what we see here is only a bunch of talentless drones. That's why I don't think Fellini loved them. He may have loved real life vaudeville artists but fiction characters are different. They are our own creation and it just may happen that we disliked them and that we show it by making them pathetic. We may pity them, but pity is not love.VL is about a troupe of vaudevillians living a day to day existence. We have there the usual characters, magician, clairvoyant, female dancers, etc. To the troupe arrives and sticks like glue, a young, attractive woman who wants to be dancer too. The troupe reject her because they would have to share an already poor pie with one more member, but also for jealousy. Something happens then that forces them to accept her and rapidly she becomes the main attraction. Now most in the troupe love her, specially its director, Checco, who was fond of her from the start anyway, to the great dismay of his girlfriend, Massina's Melina. But the new girl shows up to be just a manipulative leech, only interested in using Checco as a stepping stone. Using her influence on Checco she spends troupe money in hats and dresses so she can frequent ritzier places. In one of those places she finds her next Svengali and then she takes off with him. At the end we see her waving Checco goodbye while taking off to Milan. Later aboard the train where the troupe travels to some provincial town, Checco profits from the brief absence of his now wife Melina to work his charms on yet another young woman who just got into the train.The story is trivial and predictable; we know early on that only lame things will happen because Fellini's pathos is kept well under control. For. ex. when they are all invited by a duke to his estate. During he night he aristocrat tries to work his way into the starlet's bed but he's stopped by Checco, who suddenly appears keen in preserving decency. Later there's absolutely no tension between him and Svengali II when this last steals the girl from him. The only pathos we see in the whole film is when he goes back to Melina, asking her for money, because of the starlet and Melina cries, pitying herself. The rest is lame, predictable.In all, not interesting enough for regular viewers. Only for those interested in Fellini's work, to see the results of his genius being kept under tight rein. 6/10.

rzajac I just saw this for the first time, after sampling much of Fellini's later work over many years.The most surprising thing to me was the sense that Variety Lights (VL) foreshadows Fellini's later "indulgent" work. Here, he bathes the viewer with genuinely warm, almost disconnected bits of life in all its spendor. The fine editing makes it all work; I laughed and sighed out loud through much of this movie, and the first 10 minutes hooked me. A little later in his career, Fellini (with help from other fine story people) showcased straight-up storytelling in La Strada and Cabiria. Subsequent to that, he began exploring "story space" in alinear, character-focused ways, from La Dolce Vita and beyond.The point of all of this is to express my surprise that Fellini appears to have ended his career somewhat as he started it. VL is almost a "throwback" to the directions he took later in abandoning more traditional storytelling methods. Maybe it'd be better to put it this way: When he began diverging from a more conventional narrative style, he was actually taking a step *back* to the style we see in VL. A very good comparison is against his "Fred and Ginger," which explores story space in a studiedly chaotic way, then bowls you over by tying things together with a profoundly touching moment at the end. In "Fred and Ginger," Fellini gracefully brings together his old and new styles. In VL, he seems to bring these together before the new even happened!The tremendous abilities of the actors and actresses are delightful in VL. Something conspicuous in post 8-1/2 Fellini is the purposeful lack of traditional acting craft; Fellini talked about this repeatedly in interviews. In VL (as in La Strada and Cabiria), Fellini shows that he was perfectly capable of directing actors who are plying their skills.Because VL seems to cover the strengths of most of Fellini's career, it is a very fine example of the best he could do. Check it out.

jhclues A young woman pursuing her dream of being on the stage, aligns herself with a traveling variety show band of performers in `Variety Lights,' directed by Federico Fellini (and assisted by Alberto Lattuada). Veteran comic actor Checco Dal Monte (Peppino De Filippo) and his troupe of performers are struggling to get by, living from hand to mouth and show to show, but it doesn't deter Liliana Antonelli (Carla Del Poggio), blinded perhaps by the stars in her eyes, from approaching Checco about joining his show. He turns her down-- they simply have no openings, and certainly no money-- but circumstances soon prevail on her behalf, and much to the chagrin of many of the other performers, she joins the troupe. The effect she will have on the show, and how it will influence her own life, remains to be seen at this point; but with Fellini at the helm, you know it's going to be an interesting ride. And it is. Fellini, a true visionary, is known for filling the screen with vivid images born of his own imagination, especially in his later films. But beyond the sometimes bizarre appearances, there is always an engaging story to be found at the heart of his films, and this one (his first) is no exception. And, though devoid of the surrealism he would use later on, in Checco's company there is something of the carnival motif present that Fellini would return to time and again during the course of his career, and of course, there's the story, presented with that unique Fellini touch and laced with his insight into the human condition, which at it's core is the real strength of the film. No matter what the subject matter, Fellini always had his finger on the emotional pulse of the material and had the innate ability to transfer what he felt to the screen. Very simply, he knew what worked and how to use it; within the images he presents, there can always be found a reflection of reality-- even amid the surreal-- and it's in his characters. Physically and emotionally, these are real people who run the entire gamut of human existence. Beyond his astounding visuals, it's his ability to cultivate that depth of his characters that makes Fellini special; the way they interact with, and relate to one another or the situations in which they find themselves. And by drawing out his actors, he always gives his audience someone with whom to identify on one level or another. As Checco, Filippo successfully taps into the humanity of the character, this aging performer with hopes and aspirations beyond his means or capabilities. He's a character with whom you can sympathize, but only to a point-- for you soon recognize his flaws and transgressions. But even then, you are still able to at least understand him. Most importantly, his performance is believable, and his Checco comes across as a very real person. Del Poggio gives a notable performance as well, as this young woman who makes the most of the opportunity with which she is presented. And as the story unfolds she develops her character extremely well; by the end of the film you know exactly who `Lily' is and what motivates her. In a memorable supporting role, it's the young Giulietta Masina, however, who steals the show as Melina Amour, Checco's girlfriend. She creates the one character in the film with whom you can truly empathize, and she does it with style. Masina has such a radiant, charismatic screen presence, that whenever she appears the eye is instinctively drawn to her. A gifted actress, she is exceptionally adept at expressing her emotions-- often by merely shifting her eyes-- and communicating with the audience. Few actors can say more or convey as much with their eyes or with a simple expression as Masina. And, sparse as it is, her performance here is alone worth the price of admission. The supporting cast includes Folco Lulli (Adelmo), John Kitzmiller (Johnny), Dante Maggio (Remo), Carlo Romano (Enzo) and Gina Mascetti (Valeria del Sole). Well crafted and delivered, `Variety Lights' is an engaging story, told in the same straightforward manner Fellini would later use in `La Strada' and `Nights of Cabiria.' The basic elements of the story may be familiar, but it's an entertaining film, and worth seeing, as it prophesies the triumphs of an artist who would soon be recognized as one of the world's master filmmakers: Fellini. I rate this one 7/10.

zetes If you enjoy Fellini's earlier films, Nights of Cabiria and La Strada, specifically, Variety Lights will please you. A sweet-hearted film not much in the vain of Italian Neorealism (Nights of Cabiria and La Strada were more like the neorealistic classics), but more like the poetic realism of 1930s French cinema, Variety lights is straightforward, unlike Fellini's later films, for instance, La Dolce Vita, and very enjoyable. It never impresses as deeply as most of Fellini's masterpiece, but, hey, it was his earliest directorial effort. You also have to see it, Fellini lovers, for Giulietta Masina's supporting role; it gives you a hint of her later masterful roles. 8/10