Hal

Certo! Inviami il testo che desideri tradurre e provvederò a farlo.

Thank you for your response, Poletti. In general, film adaptations are always something different from the source material, whether it be a novel or a comic. In this case, however, we must acknowledge the authors for managing to capture the spirit of the original work on screen, thanks in part to Miller's involvement among the film's creators. Perhaps that's also why Bruce Willis has the monotonous expression that you point out. For this reason, I believe that any judgment on this work should take into account the context, more so than in other cases. Returning to the relationship between cinema and comics (by the way, isn’t the Addams Family film more linked to the television series than to the comic?), this relationship has sometimes yielded results that are nothing short of despicable, disgustingly so, like From Hell with J. Deep (rating: 0). In this case, I think technology has greatly assisted in bringing Sin City to life as it could have been on screen. Sure, it might not be art-house cinema, but it has its own dignity in this specific realm, a dignity that, in my opinion, isn't of the youth-oriented, television-like nature that you suggest (perhaps a bit snobbishly). It may not be a masterpiece, nor will it mark the history of cinema, but within its domain, it is a well-made work. One last thing. It doesn't seem sensible to me to present the existence of films like these as a premise for not knowing about other films and directors as you do. The latter probably don’t have the visibility they deserve, partly because there are more niche products and products aimed at the general public. And this applies somewhat to all the arts. In short, I don’t believe that people listen less to, say… Luciano Berio because there’s Madonna. In fact, to tell the truth, I believe that the existence of popular forms of art is a good thing, as it brings people closer together. Some will go beyond, while others won’t; it’s a kind of natural selection. Well, sorry for the confusion, I’m sleepy. Bye :)

heard trell, interesting thanks :))

I am only grateful to this film for one thing, and that is the fact that it sparked the creation of one of the funniest episodes of South Park.

I don't see what this question has to do with socio-political discussions regarding rights and their balances. Do you need to be a woman to affirm equal opportunities? Do you need to be young and unemployed to advocate for the necessity of work? Do you have to be black to be against racism? Do you need to be a parent to defend school and family? Do you have to be homosexual to advocate for social rights? These are mental barriers. The answer is no punisher, but even if the answer were yes, it wouldn't change anything at all. Here the discussion is about the POLITICAL necessity to provide answers (output) to clear signals (input) coming from a changing society. I believe it's absolutely right to recognize the social and economic rights of those de facto couples who demand them; I believe they should be discussed and balanced. In the case of adoptions, these rights are less immediate because they must be measured against other rights (child) and contexts. I think it's uncivilized to claim that homosexuals are deviants, and based on this logic, to close every door to dialogue. That's all.

... but ... but ... the intro with the banjo and guitar is nice, and his voice is not bad at all, I like it thank youuu trell :))))

So I will consider your comment an integral part of the review, cheers :))

Freudian slip? :)) Yeah, yeah, now the CEI is in favor of regulating cohabiting couples (including same-sex ones). Funny how a star just pops out of nowhere... You always tend to trivialize everything, but I'm sorry, reality is much more complex. The discussion about adoptions is very nuanced because it concerns not only the rights of a couple but also those of the child. Moreover, in Italy, the issue of allowing adoption for homosexuals has not been politically addressed in relation to DICO and PACS. Even in other countries like France, the PACS do not include adoption. So, when talking about DICO, bringing up this argument is quite off the mark; let's say the intent is propagandistic: scaring the petty bourgeois by throwing shit into the fan. Watch out, they want to destroy the family! These are pretty much the things you wrote in your review. The point is that you're distant from the concept of family undergoing dismantling (I wholeheartedly agree with Bonny that the controversies around the alleged dismantling of the family are instrumental) and from love; moreover, you're also far off in your view of homosexuality, which you see as a deviant illness (a debatable stance). It doesn't seem to me that the points of contact are greater than the distances after reading everything carefully. You agree that adoption should not be allowed for same-sex couples, but it would be interesting to understand the reasoning behind this idea, which is not exclusive to the CEI. In fact, many others, even secular ones, believe it is necessary to balance this option with the child's right to have heterosexual parents. Others still think it's essential to balance another factor, namely the social context (favorable/unfavorable). In short, while for the PACS, we talk about the rights of cohabiting couples (including homosexuals), in adoptions, a third competing right comes into play, which is why I also have many reservations regarding this issue. For the CEI, however, the discussion is easy; just deny any kind of right to everyone, and it’s quicker... easy.

Dear M.Poletti, I didn't know that resorting to insults was the only way to get a response from you; otherwise, I would have spared myself the questions. Bah...

indeed trell, stoopid thanks for the trust :)