Io Ho Il Pene Banned

"With that ending, Kubrick created the perfect visual work, so stretched towards infinity that it disconnects from any earthly meaning." After Jupiter and beyond the infinite, the astronaut definitely puts his feet on the ground :-), in that 18th-century room, anyway I know very well that Nietzsche was an artist philosopher; we're not talking about whether he is greater or lesser than others. Nietzsche was one of the few philosophers to also be an artist and not consider them fools, but the fact is that Nietzsche is such a comprehensive philosopher that you can see him everywhere. I invite you to watch an interview on one of the many unofficial Kubrick sites where he himself admitted in a '70s interview that Bowman's transformation was into a superman; it seems he let it slip. Furthermore, every time Kubrick was asked if the film was about God, he skillfully dodged the question and started talking about the fate of man. Of course, as you say, there are other levels of interpretation, but one of the levels that finds greater confirmation (also from the author himself) is undeniably the one I have outlined.

Iside, I’m giving you a 1 for the review, even just for your statement where you say this is the FILM and the others are just films. I could just tell you to watch Solaris to realize the nonsense you've said. Then another thing, you talk about the Bible, about biblical significants when the first Kubrick scholar could dismantle your belief in two sentences. Kubrick uses Strauss's Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the reference to Nietzsche, the one who declared the non-existence of God, the one who wrote The Antichrist, the one who effectively renounced any glimmer of truth contained in the sacred text of Christianity, that is, the Bible. 2001 is a very Nietzschean film, and that’s precisely why the Bible really has nothing to do with it. 2001 is Kubrick's homage to a philosopher very dear to him, 2001 is a celebration of this Nietzschean allegory, the advent of the Overman. The soundtrack heard at the beginning is indeed a tribute to Zarathustra by Strauss (who in turn wrote it as a tribute to Nietzsche). The monolith is the symbol of metaphysics (it doesn't take much to understand, it’s a perfect solid, hyperuranic, not of this world, etc.), that is that tool which was previously an instrument (the Greek logos) to solve problems (for the ape in the early shots), producing evolution (technology as a prison, dehumanized men and victims of the rational environment they themselves created, etc.), and then began to dominate man (the second appearance of the monolith, the creation of HAL 9000, the tool to the nth power that prevails over man). Nietzsche writes that man is a rope stretched between the ape and the Overman, adding that man is something that must be surpassed. This overcoming in 2001 occurs in the fateful scene where Bowman defeats HAL by not surrendering to his logic. Of course, if you don’t have a philosophical background or significant knowledge of Nietzsche, it will be difficult for you to ever understand a film like this. I would invite you, however, in the future to be less superficial precisely because this is a film of such magnitude. The fact is that it’s embarrassing to associate Kubrick's thought with the Bible; I genuinely felt embarrassed reading your review, I don’t know about others...

and you do well giorgioladisa

I really like the third part as well; the ending reminiscent of a Greek tragedy gave a reason to the project. More than anything, I found the part assigned to Coppola's daughter to be a mistake. I would have chosen Winona Ryder as it was planned just before filming started.

no no I also criticize the directors, who are the ones making the films, I never separate the work from the author, it would be a crime to do the opposite, let's get that straight, the author is the work of art, and then Kim Ki-duk is light-years away in terms of sensitivity, and not just because he is an Asian. Von Trier uses this tragic essence in an Aeschylean way just as the big American studios use special effects, no more and no less, with the difference that at least American films are not as boring as his. He is convinced he is making political films, and he can't even manage to be a B-list entertainer. The tragic nature of unfulfilled love between the protagonists in In The Mood for Love (just to give an example of recent Asian cinema) is more impressive than all the morons, the handicapped ones executed, the mother murderers, the retarded prostitutes, and the raped women of Von Trier.

The geniuses are on the other side in cinema, Von Trier is practically my cinematic nemesis. I managed to sit through "The Element of Crime" entirely, which isn't bad. As for the rest, my endurance has been this: "The Idiots" 15 minutes, "Dancer in the Dark" 20 minutes, "The Waves of Destiny" 40 minutes. I have never watched "The Kingdom," and I will remedy that because something tells me I need to see it. Von Trier is a self-promoter, a "creative" like the directors of commercials. I wouldn't even want to engage in a debate with those who believe he stands among the greats like Welles, Polanski, Kitano, Lynch, Fellini, etc.; I really don’t care to argue about Von Trier, it would be a waste of time, with all the gems out there still to see...

my generation by The Who and from '65, and already in '64 the Stones were belting out the classic blues and rock and roll from the '50s, reinterpreting them. Have you ever heard "Route 66," "Come On," "I Need You Baby," "Little by Little," "I'm a King Bee," "Carol," "Not Fade Away"? Stuff that had never been heard before, and it's all from 1964 on the first album.

"There are two roses, which would represent the two partners, one rose begins to take the shape of a vagina and the second rose penetrates it like a penis (woe to anyone who sends banning emails, I’m using appropriate terms),” this is beautiful porn, I will ask with an email to the court-martial to ban you from the internet.

Great review j&r, you captured the right spirit of the album, the very rough Neil of tonight is a close relative of this way of preparing a rock record (I’m singin' this borrowed tune/ I took from the Rolling Stones/ alone in this empty room/ too wasted to write my own.”), under the fumes of a shameless chaotic staggering and many shots of tequila, overflowing boogie blues.

Even Santa Sangre deserves it, a surreal story with gothic tones, psychoanalytic elements, and a hint of macabre romanticism worthy of the finest Poe.