vellutogrigio

Poletti, taste and objective beauty do not exist; objective rating scales do not exist. A playful review, made to kill time, implies a subjective appreciation: hence, 5/5 for Roeg for life and 3/5 for Amarcord. In fact, I’ll tell you that Sutherland is better here than in Casanova: indeed, Roeg's Venice is more decadent than Fellini's fake Venice. Bye.

Thank you all, and particularly to Poletti for deliberately reviving - with a controversy too gratuitous to be true - a page otherwise destined for oblivion. Some observations for those who, not knowing our polemicist, take his claims about the film reviewed here seriously: 1) Roeg is one of the best cinematographers and directors of the British nouvelle vague of the late '60s; 2) the film is considered by many a classic for its staging, setting, editing, use of colors, and the bleakness of its portrayal of Venice; 3) all the actors, in addition to being skilled, are very well directed; 4) in its genre, it is by no means a predictable thriller but an interesting one with an seemingly supernatural backdrop, yet, in reality, quite straightforward; 5) I truly don't understand what trash has to do with all this; 6) I don't understand why I am accused of lese-majesty if I express doubts, substantiated, against Fellini and Antonioni.

You are good at writing and make interesting proposals: however, your reviews have a mesmerizing effect that at some point makes you lose sense of things; well, I didn't quite understand what this movie is about, whether it's worth watching or not.

Well done, bravo, encore, especially for the disastrous and outdated dubbing. I like the idea, put forward by Charlie, that the niece Charlotte serves as his double, to the point that in the end, even though it's in self-defense, she also ends up killing. Among the best of uncle Alfred.

Beautiful review, wonderful film.

A brief review, the film perhaps conceals the reflections you make a fleeting reference to, but ultimately it turns out to be a melodrama: it reminds me of the late '80s and the friends I used to go to the cinema with on Sundays at 3 PM. A return to the past, then. It seems that J. Fox - not yet prescient about Parkinson's here - was quite keyed up back in the day, and it's not ruled out - according to recent medical studies - that drug use may have contributed to the early onset of the disease.

Very good, it's nice to talk about Cassavetes on this site; it seems like a provocation from someone who lamented his absence last week. I would have preferred a few more hints about the director, the economic difficulties he faced in making auteur films with a European flavor in the States, the fact that he had to do various cameos in other people's films (e.g. also Fury by De Palma), and so on.

Desade, far be it from me to belittle anyone, I like to have a "secular" approach to the debate. Simply, sometimes I find that Fellini has been elevated to a pedestal more than equally valid colleagues like Germi, Pietrangeli, etc.

Well, at least I livened up a tired page: anyway, I didn't give any dry sh*t to Antonioni. Damn, when it comes to Fellini in this country, the world falls apart, a uniform thought that scares me, good grief.

Poletti, I don't know why I thought you were from Milan, and therefore an Inter fan (that is, a "bislero"). Regardless of these observations, I'm sorry to bring up controversies again - even in polite tones - about Fellini: I follow you and appreciate how you criticize Salvatores, but I don't understand you anymore when you praise Fellini, who is certainly the forerunner of harmless, pro-American cinema in the way he depicts an amoral Italy of sketches. I don't want to get into further polemics: but BETTER ONE MONICELLI THAN TEN FELLINIS.