The many anachronisms don't feel like such an artistically bold choice as they must have in the 80s. In fact they really detract from what is otherwise a very good film.

Well, that was a surprise.

I've read several biographies of Caravaggio, from Vasari to the modern era, in addition to having seen several documentaries and other more recent biopics. This one stands out in all the wrong ways.

I get it: there are numerous anachronistic elements, the speech was a clever 'ha-ha!' knee slap at the start, and the rusty brogue of the northern parts came through, admittedly, in some very humorous contexts throughout the film. But as mentioned by another poster here below, those things didn't carry nearly as much traction as they may have done around the original release date (anyone care to chip in?), or, above that, for anyone who is even remotely acquainted with the man beforehand.

A gimmicky, piss-poor attempt at a biopic. All one can glean from it is that Caravaggio is a painter, he had... patrons of sorts, and he was involved in some questionable society at times. Even the somewhat brief run-time cannot pardon that failure.

Its alright, but I think the film tries a bit too hard.