13 January 2015 | peterosenau
The 1973 comedy classic Malizia" turned Laura Antonelli into a superstar and sex symbol. 18 years later, the sequel "Malizia 2000" killed off her career.
Ignazio and Angela (the ex-housemaid), now married for almost twenty years, have lost the spark in their love life. Ignazio is drooling after his store assistant, while Angela is deeply bored at home. This changes when an archaeologist arrives to conduct an excavation in the caves under the villa. He brings along his fifteen-year-old son Jimmy, who is immediately struck by Angela's mature beauty. But Angela makes it crystal-clear that she is not the right one for him. The pubescent boy just doesn't want to bury his crush so easily. Devious and shy at once, he devises a sinister play with Angela that even includes hurting his father physically. When Angela realizes his intentions, she decides to play along.
What a pointless sequel. As such, it must put up with the direct comparison to "Malizia", and it is a letdown in every aspect. It rips off the general situation and even copies a couple of scenes. But the class distinctions, the social comments – all gone. The sparkling sexual tension – reduced to a minimum. The wonderful visuals and score – forget about it, "Malizia 2000" seems like a cheap TV feature. This is truly shocking since the whole cast and crew is (more or less) the same as in "Malizia", including director and writer Salvatore Samperi. But I just can't get rid of the feeling that probably no one in the artistic and creative department really wanted to do this sequel.
"Malizia 2000" offers a boring story with simple, superficial elements, pieced together without any effect or depth. That Jimmy boy is so purely evil that it's almost ridiculous. To drag out his love letter game with Angela, he creates astonishing traps to hurt his father – in the course of the movie the guy will lose an ear lobe, a forefinger, and will tear open his face because Jimmy placed an extra blade in his razor! I just don't get it – is this supposed to be funny, some attempt at black comedy? Did the old "Malizia" need such crap to create tension? And what does Samperi want to tell us anyway, some comment on the role of mature women, how they see themselves, how they can or should be seen? Rather pointless in such a badly written script, sorry. And I am not even going to discuss the many plot holes and other nonsense surrounding that cave
Speaking of the actors, it's good old Turi Ferro who had my sympathy, even though he's mostly used for cheap comic relief only. Luca "Jimmy" Ceccarelli – just look at his IMDb acting vita, enough said. Probably cast only because he could mix in some English expressions, he's absolutely pathetic. And then Laura Antonelli. 49 years old while shooting this, actually a very attractive lady with the perfect body of a life-long gymnast (there is even a brief side-boob moment). But she is not able to deliver what the screenplay requires. Sad eyes, pale skin, deep wrinkles, she seems to carry unspeakable burdens. In fact she did, this is no acting. The events before, during and after the shooting of this movie are truly infamous, but here is not the place to discuss all this. Let's just say it hurts terribly to see Laura like that.
Overall, "Malizia 2000" completely fails to recreate the "Malizia" formula. The magic is gone. And for Laura Antonelli the curtain falls forever.