Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

WichitaColdOne This movie has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Some people i guess would call it excellent for its "artsiness"... but as far as i could tell it was poorly filmed, poorly edited, terribly dubbed and poorly acted. It just didn't find any redeaming factors about it... other then the two main actors who play Jason and Medea made no other movies. Terrible.

lotusponds this film sticks in my mind as one of the greatest by far i've ever seen, for the drive and weirdity is beyond estimation; most peculiar, plus divinely inspired and escatalogically rendered, so potent grand!the section where medea doubles the murder in two different ways flipt me, and so drove me crazy, and caused the most excited response to a movie i've encountered. including those devastating images from ikuru while the old bureaucrat is snubbed and proclaims no time for anger, and the harp of burma when the musician soldier finds the bodies on the beach, and thru the glass darkly when the daughter in the boat wrecked on the shore resigns in the flash it's terrible to understand your own insanity; those can't quite measure up, tho all those films are so brutally exquisite, carrying image and emotion and realization solid.when pasolini hits that scene again, i rose out of my seat and yelled!

zetes I love Pasolini, and Medea is easily the weakest of his works that I've seen. After having made the brilliant adaptation of the Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex, Medea seems rather uninspired. It retains most of Pasolini's beautiful settings, but the script is a poor adaptation of Euripides' play. The film's as slow as they come, and to me it seemed like a way to cover up the lack of ideas. Maria Callas is excellent as Medea, but she really doesn't have that much screen time, if you measure it. Most of the film is made up of people performing weird rituals, and the characters of Jason and Medea don't do all that much. I don't like Pasolini's interpretation of Jason as a chauvanist, egotistical jerk. It's too simplistic, and it's unfair moralizing from a modern vantage point. The character has much more depth in the various myths, even in Euripides' play. Medea's depth is sapped, as well, and her motivation in the film is sketchy at best. And then there are a couple of confusing ellipses, especially an extended fantasy sequence (apparently) where Medea imagines killing Glauce and Creon, followed by the reality. It feels more like there were two versions of this section, and the editor screwed up and left both in. Pasolini's direction is often amazing, as is the cinematography and music. I didn't hate Medea, but I can't muster any enthusiasm for it. 6/10.

existent This version of Medea, overall quite excellent, captures interesting aspects of the original piece. Familiarity with the story is necessary, though, and Passolini's story picks up a bit earlier than Euripides'. He runs through a stream of largely non-verbal sequences that establish a strong sense of place and emotional element that carry through the film. Classicists will enjoy the visual presentation of Iolkis, Chalkis, and their inhabitants -- though I still find it puzzling why the Argo is presented as little more than a raft; perhaps the budget was squandered on making a believable Centaur. Nonetheless, this film captures the mystical, religious, and passionate elements of Euripides' vision, and is highly recommended.