So, I finally watched In Bruges (2008). The casting was great indeed , and you have several great actors in the movie (Colin Farrell, Ralph Fiennes). I liked Brendan Gleeson's performance in particular (incidentally he played Hamish in Braveheart - didn't recognize him at first).
I was a bit disappointed with the script, at times I felt like watching a tourist prom of Bruges.
Btw, I had a slight disagreement with my friend. I claimed that Farrell saying at the end of movie "I really wanted to live", meant he had finally overcome his suicidal tendencies; he claimed that four bullets are four bullets and he died.
Pasolini's Canterbury Tales (1972). Not as good as his two other movies based on literature's greats (Decameron, Arabian Nights); partly because England's nature is not as interesting for film purposes as Italy or Arabia, and partly because the stories in Chaucer's text are not particularly suitable for filming.
Still, the movie has several of Pasolini's strenghts. What I liked the most is his ability to make the best out of amateur actors. Seeing a young girl smiling genuinely at the camera can be really beautiful. And the settings are convincing despite the film being relatively low budget.
L'inferno (1911). Based on Dante's Divine Comedy. It was an international success to the point some people say its the first blockbuster in film history. Personally, although I like silent cinema, I didn't much enjoy this one. Rendering Dante's work in film is difficult, let alone if you do so without dialogue. The result was an endless succession of long intertitles explaining to the viewer what was actually going on.
At its time, the movie must have made an impression a human "freak show" due to the appearance of all kinds of mutilated and oddly shaped humans (mostly with the help of special effects) - but today this aspect of the movie feels like meh.
Still the movie did contain a few memorable powerful images.
Dante's Satan chewing Judas, Brutus and Cassius (don't ask me which of the three it is)