Hal

I can't listen to them anymore today, I'm feeling less patient :)

Well, from what he wrote, it's a different flock from yours, Punny, it seems quite evident to me.

Have patience, supercheri, you are not wrong, but sometimes it can happen that the discussion takes a different direction.

That you were convinced of this nonsense was possible to infer from that "maybe" in your last post... repetita iuvant... ah Polé, do me a favor!

What luck, Poletti! You see, I've run into fools of all kinds and origins, so I've never had the chance to make classifications like that, damn it... Ah, Polè... do me a favor.

"So what," Poletti?

Sorry Poletti, I have read several of your reviews about cinema, and in some cases (not all, to be honest) I appreciated your analyses and passion for film. However, I have also occasionally noticed some comments like these thrown out a bit hastily and, all things considered, tinged more with a prejudice than with a judgment. I wonder if you have seen this film and the reasons that lead you to such a strong judgment, reasons based on merit, reasoned arguments. The adjective "videoclippari" doesn’t convince me at all. Also, I would like to know if you are familiar with the work of Frank Miller; I have the impression that you are not (am I wrong?) since you frame everything in a context that doesn't seem to fit. @ happypippo: the comic is in the noir/hardboiled genre, characterized by contrasts between black and white, and it doesn’t need to be entirely naturalistic. As a graphic structure, as a comic it is nothing short of exceptional. What did you mean?

In fact, I appreciate that that opinion expressed some time ago has not found a place on this page, although I'm not so convinced that everyone has a vocation for growth. As for the rest - willingly or unwillingly - in this case you do not express concepts (and words) different from those made public by Binetti a few weeks ago. Call it coincidence, call it what you want, but the fact remains that from that "flock" (which exists... damn it, it exists!!) you're not at all distant, quite the opposite, you are very much aligned, freely, but aligned. And I'm not so sure that this "flock" is the minority. So, in reality, your little pride on this page for having stated something contrary to the mainstream makes me smile a bit... Anyway, it’s not a matter of convenient labels, but of objective coincidences in views, at least from this perspective... and you are not even the only one who partially agrees with the Church. Take, for example, most divorced right-wing politicians, absolutely opposed to even starting a serious discussion on guarantees for cohabiting couples, but not particularly concerned that their own families are not exactly "traditional," nor certainly the kind that the Church advocates. And besides, they have guarantees for their living situations... well. Yes, often what the Church says is fine as long as it doesn't directly concern us... so in those cases we rediscover ourselves as supporters of the secular state. Alright, I won't digress further or I might get worked up...

Read the Sin City saga first, stoopid, it has been recently reprinted in a budget edition.

Yes, but you throw the stone and then hide your hand, Punisher. First, you write this review in this way and then you are "surprised" that it is "negativized" for what it says. You don't seem so naive to me. It was rationally, if not trivially, predictable that, by touching on such a controversial topic and in such an overall radical way, opinions like the ones expressed earlier could come about. Don’t tell me you didn’t see them coming? It almost seems to me that you called for them, but I might be wrong.
If, on the topic of Dico (which, to be fair, does not only concern same-sex couples), we still haven't managed to find a broadly shared solution today, it's precisely because of the conflicting and antithetical positions at play. And referring to the existence of these positions, I am not so convinced that yours is an opinion different from the "flock" or at least from a substantial and represented "flock," see Binetti and Cei. There are several, and you are well aligned with the position of one of these, as has been highlighted before. As for the rest, respecting opinions is fine, but frankly, I do not agree with the review stating as if it were an indisputable fact the alleged "deviance" and "illness" of homosexuals ("normal is not"). Moreover, while reading, I got the impression that you tend to oversimplify and dismiss easily a problem that is neither simple nor easy, linking it to the film, which becomes more of a ploy to assert your general (and debatable) impressions on the topic. The good thing is that you did not reiterate your opinion on the topic of homosexuality, unfortunately expressed in the early days on this site. In short, beyond the film, the review touches, indeed brushes against related topics in a way that, in my opinion, is excessively blunt; the comments—regardless of whether they are more or less logical or correct—are all in all on topic and were predictable.