I'll tell you why so serious

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Pasolini follows up "The Decameron" with this adaptation of several of Chaucer's stories. Like the proceeding film, this is an extremely earthy and bawdy adaptation of the material, celebrating life's pleasures and castigating authoritarian hypocrisy. This film is mildly inferior to "The Decameron", although it's high points, including an extended homage to Chaplin and an amazing vision of hell, are higher.

The Italian movie I racconti di Canterbury (1972) was shown in the U.S. with the translated title The Canterbury Tales. It was written and directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini, who adapted it for the screen from the original work by Geoffrey Chaucer.What this movie has in abundance is male and female full frontal nudity. This was a big deal 45 years ago, but it's not noteworthy now. Once you accept the fact that there's endless full frontal nudity, the rest of the film has very little to offer. Chaucer is one of the greatest English language authors. It's hard to believe that an experienced director couldn't make these stories come alive. However, for me, nothing came alive in the entire two hours.For example, the movie is dubbed, and the dubbing doesn't work. There's no shortage of medieval crowd scenes--pigs, dogs, urchins, beggars, etc., but they are confusing and don't really move the action forward. I have to give credit to Pasolini for using an extraordinary number of extras. (Of course, to a certain extent he saved on costume expenses.) There are also some great shots of Wells Cathedral. Not much else. Chaucer's strength is that he brings the people who tell the tales to life. Here, we just get the tales. Also, Pasolini has added some material, with no obvious purpose. In fact, the last tale looks like something out of a Bosch painting, not something written by Chaucer. Did Pasolini really think The Canterbury Tales needed improvement?We saw this film at the wonderful Dryden Theatre in Rochester's George Eastman Museum. It's the best venue for movies that I know. Not only is the auditorium perfect for films, but the Dryden shows movies that are hard to find and sometimes controversial. The program director knows that not every film will appeal to every person. He takes chances, and that's great. However, that sets up a situation where you win some and lose some. This movie was a loser. Don't waste your time and money on it.

Uneven, with some mildly interesting stories and some pointless ones.Based on Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, Pier Paulo Pasolini's adaptation doesn't do the book much justice. Many of the stories are plain dull and pointless. Some are interesting, but then end anti-climatically. (This is worse, in a way, as you get your hopes up of a decent story, and then it doesn't really go anywhere). Quite similar to Pasolini's previous work, The Decameron, in many respects. Also doesn't have anything that ties the stories together (although The Decameron did at least have a summarising statement at the end, which was reasonably profound).Performances here are better than the The Decameron, though there are some absolute shockers again. The lead character in the Chaplinesque scene involving the egg salesman takes the cake in terms of hammy acting.

It's entertaining but certainly not for the faint of heart. Pier Paolo Pasolini's take on (at least some of) Chaucer's ribald tales is grotesque, funny, ugly and never dull. Pasolini himself plays a particularly cadaverous looking Chaucer and the large cast of both English & Italian actors is excellent. Hugh Griffith plays the blustery Sir January and Josephine Chaplin is his unlikely May in "The Merchant's Tale," the most flat-out entertaining vignette. Laura Betti plays it especially naughty in "The Wife of Bath's Tale." Tom Baker is her unlucky fifth husband. "The Summoner's Tale" is absolute insanity. It's far more Pasolini than Chaucer, as if Ken Russell had directed The Three Stooges! The great cinematography is by Tonino Delli Colli.