Scott44 ***User-reviewer bennyraldak ("Forbidden desire", bennyraldak from Netherlands, 4 September 2009) sees "Sandra" as being focused on Claudia Cardinale's character's demons. Ilpo Hirvonen ("The decay of an aristocratic family", Ilpo Hirvonen from Finland, 21 September 2010) has a good general summary.*** Luchino Visconti's Sandra (1965), is a puzzling but splendorous visual treat that depicts incest, homo-eroticism, madness and collaboration with the Nazis. Its fairly slow pacing and reluctance to make obvious useful information will challenge those who spend hours a day gazing down at their QWERTY devices. However, "Sandra" is very rich and satisfying; it is flawlessly served up by the great Visconti. (I like it more than "The Leopard.")A modernized retelling of the Greek myth Electra, an attractive, upper-class, socialite couple (Claudia Cardinale in the eponymous role, Michael Craig as her husband Andrew) return to the mansion of Sandra's youth (which she was forced to flee), to attend a small ceremony honoring her father, who was murdered by the Nazis at a concentration camp. When she is reunited with her unstable brother, Gianni (Jean Sorel), the physical connection between them is made very obvious. Their closer-than-normal relationship is never a secret to the audience, but revealing it is a big concern to Andrew and other observers, such as Sandra's barrister stepfather Gilardini (Renzo Ricci). The perpetually nervous Gilardini and Sandra's clinically insane mother (Marie Bell) may also have collaborated with the Nazis by betraying Sandra's father, creating an unusual conflict of pairs.Shot in high-contrast Black and White, Visconti's skill at shooting his photogenic cast in tight quarters is evident. Because the English translation of the film is somewhat talky, it helps to develop the skill of quickly reading the subtitles in order to enjoy Visconti's work. It is amazing how precise and detailed the imagery is. The scenes between the anguished brother and steely sister are frequently filled with erotic tension. Visconti's trademark homo-eroticism is also present, but to a smaller degree.One of the more interesting characters is Sandra's "first love" who is now a physician. He seems to personify not just a mixture of Sandra's husband and her brother, but also the Nazi collaborator Gilardini. At least, that's my interpretation of the final image.Visconti's depiction of a decaying aristocratic family has great depth, and fans of the great director will not be disappointed with it.

bennyraldak Great film about dark secrets and forbidden desire. Luchino Visconti depicts the life of a beautiful woman caught between her past and her present. Underneath her beauty she turns out to be filled with ugly and painful memories. Sandra (played by Claudia Cardinale) struggles with obscure feelings of guilt, alienation and questionable longings. After she takes her husband to her childhood home she finds herself thinking about her painful past. When her somewhat estranged brother shows up things turn out to be more obscure. Hidden secrets and feelings from the past seem to float to the surface once again. The o so beautiful Sandra turns out to be a complex and mysterious woman. A little more raw than most of Visconti's work, but still beautiful and authentic. A film about a woman struggling with her demons, both inside and outside of her.

daniel-smague This movie is definitely the worst movie Luchino Visconti has ever made. All actors and especially Claudia Cardinale are ridiculous. The choice of black and white could be interesting ,but why to choose so much contrasted black and white photography ? Claudia Cardinale's face has never been so ugly lighted.Visconti's whose masterpieces like "Senso" are so marvelous was completely wrong with this pseudo freudian movie which is, nowadays, very old-fashioned.Even the musical score on the sound track is bad.It's really awful to hear the lines of dialog between Claudia Cardinale and Michael Craig covered by such loud and inappropriate piano concerto.

inoz This movie made very little sense to me. First of all, the subtitles (I'm not a fluent Italian) were written in white text over a frequently white background. The actors were very good, especially Claudia Cardinale as Sandra. The storyline itself, however, was a bit odd.First of all, Sandra and Gianni had some strange preoccupation with being nearly naked. That didn't bother me, though. What bothered me was the fact that the storyline started at one point and never progressed. At the end of the movie, I knew little more than I did at the beginning. For example, what exactly happened with Sandra's parents and Giraldini and Pietro? Nothing was explained.However, the movie was strangely captivating. I wanted to get up screaming 'WHAT'S GOING ON???' (and at some point, I probably did) but I never fund myself trying to escape the room. I kept wanting to know what was going on... I never did.Although this comment may seem confusing, I would still recommend this movie. It's good for anyone who wants to know what Italian cinema is all about. Nearly all old Italian movies I've seen are the same.They don't end. They just stop. 'Sandra' follows this standard.