Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Ehirerapp Waste of time

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

MisterWhiplash How I love a film that taps into the absurd while staying true to the symbolism, and in the process mocking it and then creating symbolism again. It's a very tricky thing- Bunuel was one of the masters at it- and Pier Paolo Pasolini, in one of his rare outright comedies, does just that. The Hawks and the Sparrows is simple enough to explain, in its central conceit: an older man (Toto) and a younger man (Ninetto) are walking along on some not-totally-clear journey (Toto might have some debts to fix or something, and he has apparently eighteen children), and they meet a talking crow, who talks and talks a lot. Then they get into some strange happenings, all comical. But it's the kind of comedy then that Pasolini uses like some deranged poetic waxing on about silent comedy and theories on God and faith and love and politics and, uh, stomach cramps I guess. It's completely off the wall, at times like a roadrunner cartoon (or, for that matter, the best Buster Keaton), and it's told with a dedication to the comic situation. It's masterful.At times it doesn't seem that way though. It could, in less concerted hands, be more scatter-shot, with some scenes working better than others, and with the one sure bet being the crow (voiced by a great Francesco Leonetti). But from the start, Paoslini is completely confident with the material, from the opening titles that are sung (heh), with the throw-away scene with the kids dancing at the restaurant (with an amazing Ennio Morricone rock song that pops in and out of the film), to the sudden inter-titles ala Monty Python ("the crow is a "left-wing intellectual"), and then onward with the little stories within the framework of the 'road movie'. The biggest chunk Pasolini shows us is the story of two monks- also played by Toto and Davoli- who are instructed by their head monk to talk to the hawks and sparrows and teach them about God. And they do, in bird speak (which is also subtitled in case it's needed), and then go through an allegorical tale of the ins and outs of faith.It takes some wicked subversion to make these scenes work, but they work hilariously, to the point where I laughed almost every minute of the sequence (as well as with other ones, the exception being the archival clips late in the film of the protest marches). Pasolini once said he was "as unbeliever who has a nostalgia for belief", imbues the story of the monks with a sense of charm to it- you like Toto and Davoli in the parts, not even so much that they're good in the roles, which they are very much so, but because there's some bedrock that the satire can spring from so easily. He, via the exceptional Tonino Delli Colli, films the Hawks and the Sparrows as strong in sumptuous black and white as any of his other early-mid 60s films. But there's a lot more going on within the comedy; it's like he skims a line that he could make it as, like with some of his other work (unfortunately ala Teorema) pretentious and annoyingly trite in its intellectual points. But as he goes to lengths to put a spin on it, it turns into pitch-black comedy, revealing him as an even deeper artist because of it.Take the birth scene, where the weird theater-type troupe who drive around in a car have to pause in their play on "How the Romans Ruined the Earth", and it suddenly becomes a sly farce unto itself. Something that should be sacred is given the air of playfulness, as though everyone is told "yes, it's alright to be in on the joke", where Toto covers Ninetto's eyes, other actors in the group pray, and then walla, there's a baby, clean as day. Morricone's score, I might add, brings a lot to this air of fun and playfulness, even when (and rightfully so) it goes to the more typical strings and orchestral sounds than the rockabilly, which sounds more like unused bits from Pulp Fiction. And finally, there's the crow itself, which unto itself- had Pasolini not made it mockable- would be funny anyway, as it's a frigging talking crow who for some reason follows the men anywhere they go. It's already allegorical of a sort of guide or voice of reason on their journey, which is fine. But including the ending especially, Pasolini allows for the joke to flip over itself.With the Hawks and the Sparrows, we get the absurd and the surreal, placed wonderfully in social constructs, and it reveals a filmmaker who can, unlike but like his controversial reputation presents, open up a whole other perspective with a strange twist that mixes classic Italian film style and scathing subject matter. A+

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.

marquis de cinema Confusing but fascinating motion picture about the experiences of a father and son. A Felliniesque story with the two main characters experiencing anything strange or surreal tht comes their way. Maybe influenced from the work Pasolini did with Fellini on Nights of Cabiria(1957) and La Dolce Vita(1960). Has many areas in it that is characteristic of a Federico Fellini film. Even the father reminds me of some characters from a Fellini picture. The direction is simple as well as subtle. Uccellacci E Uccellini/Hawks & Sparrows(1965) is Pasolini's lightest and most gentle picture of his filmography. Light years away from the controversial and nilistic sections of his later films. An uncharacteristic film for Pier Paolo Pasolini because of its cheerful and clownish nature. The comedy in Hawks and Sparrows(1965) is in the tradition of such silent greats as Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd. Complex film that probably should be seen more than once to attempt at getting a clear meaning of its allegoric nature. Hawks and Sparrows(1965) gets some good acting from the leads Toto and Ninetto Davoli. On casting people for Pasolini's film he remarked("I use both actors and non-actors, and I am not interested in their ability. I take them for what they are") with an interesting line. This quote from Pasolini is important in the casting of Hawks and Sparrows(1965) because of his personal perference of non actors over actors. The first film I have seen with the actor Toto. Ninetto Davoli does a decent job for a person who never acted before in his life. The rest of the actors are good in the segments they are in. The director liked using non actors because he wanted a natural and unconscious style that could not be possible with a pro actor. Pier Paolo Pasolini was one of the best and most rare type of movie makers to inhibit is cinema with mostly non actors. Each episode is funny and yet intellegent. Pasolini conveys the character of Toto as someone who is unaware of life around him. Filled with the usual political beliefs Pasolini was into. The opening credits are creative and very unusual. They are played over the screen in the form of a prose. I only wish that more films would use this kind of opening credits instead of the usual opening credits because its more interesting here. The director's intention was to make a film that was pure prose and in the tradition of Buster Keaton and Charles Chaplin. Hawks and Sparrows(1965) does retain the elements of the tragic comedy with the themes of class and poverty. Ennio Morricone plays one of his best film scores in a non Leone film. Pasolini and Morricone did some good work together as director and film composer. Shows how good Pasolini was at in using simple images to push forward a themematic idea. The bird that follows the father and son represents something that is the total opposite of the two. Visual poetry at its finest and and most beautiful. One scene that has recently resurfaced during the late 1980s was an unreleased episode called "Toto At The Circus".

nnad I picked up this Pasolini film a few days back, and I must say it was something a bit incongruous for Pasolini to make. The film takes place in a barren farmland, where a boy and his father meet a talking crow. Thereupon, the film shifts to a local monastery where we see the boy and father as monks. Inch by inch, they have the ability to talk to birds (i.e. chirping and whistling) as well as communicating with them. However, these birds (sparrows) are suddenly being killed off by the Hawks, and the rest is history. Although appearing dull at first, the movie soon gathers interest after the interaction with the crow, but abruptly finishes on a demented yet humorous note. Not as graphic as his later film would be, even so there's a sick sense of style idiosyncratic to Pasolini; although "The Hawks and the sparrows" still seems a bit weird, as if part of the school of Surrealism. I've heard Pasolini made this film as an allegory for his personal eroticism, or an across-the-board motif for homosexuality. If that were the case, it's a very imperceptible one that is obscured by the film's visual aesthetics altogether. Nevertheless, it's worth a look, and most hardcore Pasolini fans would understand it for its existence and beauty.