This is just about to open in Britain, so probably deserved its own thread.

And there's a very entertaining interview with Paolo Sorrentino here, in which he reveals the reaction of the film's subject:

He did a brief Q&A at the Dublin Film Festival where he mentioned he had an interview with Andreotti where he got little out of him apart from his (apparently trademark) one-liners and inconsequential pithy remarks.

I'm coming into this, having seen no Sorrentino, but with an unwrapped copy of The Consequences of Love at home.

It's an interesting biopic, though I'm a bit reluctant to garland it with the massively effusive praise it's been getting. The film demands a willingness for the audience to consider the entirety of Andreotti's career, not just the short time frame used; there's titles before and after outlining the rise of the Christian Democrats/Andreotti and also his subsequent legal wrangles. I know some critics have said it might not work as well for non-Italian audiences. Well, you get out what you put in.

Superb central performance from Servillo, like a nimble footed Nosferatu. Seems odd how this placid, charisma-free individual inspired such awe and reverence from a larger than life faction. It's intriguing how you learn practically nothing about Andreotti from the performance. Imagine if you were doing a biopic of Berlusconi, whose vanity and ego could be pricked. There's nothing striking about Andreotti; much like the authorities failed to make anything stick to him, Sorrentino can't make anything stick to his character.

It's incredibly stylish, using numerous cinematic techniques and running at breakneck pace, more like an American film in the vein of Scorsese and Tarantino that the conventions of European film making perhaps. Not that the style completely overshadows the substance. I think it was pretty much impossible though to represent Andreotti through film. His career's too long and Sorrentino cuts from incident to incident, not always flowing naturally. I'm not one for simple resolutions anyway but you never really learn anything about him, though the innate corruption and instability of Italian politics and the dark underbelly of Italian society is always prominent.

I'm surprised there's not more conversation on this considering just how grand this film is. While the lead performance may be the best thing about the film, I was most impressed with the sound. The use of whistles, volume, music, and the few other scratches was amazing. I can't think of an other recent film that uses sound so well and in such a creative way.

I think most people, myself included, passed this by due to confusion between this film and the band of the same name.

There's a band?

Unfortunately, yes.

Visually it's very exciting, although I did feel it was style over substance at times. I probably enjoyed it more after watching the DVD extras, and learning more about Andreotti the person since I knew nothing about him beforehand, and they go some way to explaining why you learn little about him in the film because he was such an enigma in real life. It was a bit convoluted at times, but so was Andreotti's connections; perhaps the structure of the film suits the subject matter but I felt the overuse of camera trickery got in the way of telling a fascinating political story.

I prefer his 'Family Friend' over both this and 'Consequences of Love': part of the problem for me was keeping track of the large number of characters he introduced, where I would rather they were introduced gradually, or we could work them out for ourselves.
In his Q&A session I believe he said he had planned, or would have liked to make it as some kind of 'rock opera', a la 'Evita'

Personally I don't see the character problem. It seemed just fine and easy to follow for me, and I probably went in knowing less then most of you. As for the style stuff, yeah it does overpower at times, but I felt it was used in a helpful way to the film. Also I felt there was a very human story there. The one moment I remember most strongly was the one human moment Andreotti has in the film. Of course it sounds like I'm the minority though.

In the Q&A here, an audience member pointed out that Ireland's late, unlamented (?), and similarly Macchiavellian Prime Minister, Charles Haughey, was a huge admirer (of Andreotti)

Just watched this on Blu-ray and was very, very impressed on the whole. I'll start by saying that it's defintely a film where you'll benefit hugely from having some prior knowledge of the anni di piombo in general, the major players of that period and the consquences of that period on Italian society and politics. The film clearly makes the assumption that the viewer will have some prior knowledge and the editor and director have both said it was edited with this in mind, thus cutting out anything that added little to the film and was purely informative. I definitely agree that the film will work better for Italian audiences or those with this prior knowledge. I don't really consider this to be a flaw of a film to be honest.

The cinematography in this film is something really special. Every shot of the film is a work of art and this is reflected in the various still you'll find of the film. I'm tempted to say I found the cinematography in Il divo to be even better than Il conformista. I loved the soundtrack too. A great varied selection of both popular contemporary pieces and classical compositions. Such a shame that the American Blu-ray didn't come with a proper HD audio track although the standard 5.1 was still excellent.

Bringing this in from the Baader-Meinhof thread
I'm glad you liked it to some degree, but a few points.
You mention taking away stylistic flourishes, and I realize this has been argued since Soviet montage at least, but those very stylistic flourishes are the story. Without them, but with the same script he could have shown something dramatically different. Those flourishes make the story. Also I've found that coming at the film as a character piece, ala The Godfather Part II, makes the film deeper and better. While the politics are a key point to the film, the character of Andreotti is far more important. Can a sphinx be human is the core of the film, for me at least. As I mentioned in this thread there are so many human moments like the teevee watching seen or the much shown skidding bit buried within the slickness. Since it seems you didn't dislike the film maybe you'll enjoy it more looking at it from that point of view rather than a more political one.

Having spent a lot of time in Italy, and reading a bit of Italian history, I dare say this was a very good film. The Italian politics was spot on, I really appreciated the scene where the politicians brag (or threaten) about how many votes they can deliver. True mafia-style politics.

I also liked the way Andreotto looked and moved like Nosferatu. Was this done on purpose or not? I don't know, but it does make this particular kind of corrupt politicians look like a leech or parasite on the Italian state.