Io Ho Il Pene Banned

cinema dies and is reborn from here, from bande à part, from pierrot le fou, certainly unlikable godard but G.E.N.I.U.S.

I read comments that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up, so: Ciprì and Maresco do not engage in social issues with their art, fortunately I might add, let it be clear, even though I don’t have much sympathy for that kind of art that uses the social to express itself and make a living, workers’ issues, etc., exist and have existed in great cinematic works that drew from social themes, but the level of poetry was so high that one could only remain entranced despite the arrogance of certain socially charged themes, let’s think of Pasolini’s “Accattone,” or more recently the Dardenne brothers’ “Rosetta.” Ciprì and Maresco use a different language that transcends the social, dense with metaphysical ferocity that transcends the microcosm and thus the social even when they comment on the territorial decay of the Palermo suburbs. Two artists who have experimented in both television and cinema, two artists who declare that they despise fashionable cinephilia that reads specialized magazines to participate in the game of cultured references. The aesthetic of beauty and ugliness is a dichotomy that loses value when it is understood that the two directors draw inspiration from Tod Browning's "Freaks," a recognized masterpiece. I just wanted to say this, especially for anyone who will visit this comments page in the future and read false claims left by certain users who do not do justice to these two courageous filmmakers. As for the comparison with Muccino, no comment; what could one possibly respond to such provocations??

The aesthetic brutality of the inhabitants is an allegory of the spiritual misery not only of the people in the Palermitan microcosm but of the entire Italic nation; this is the salient trait of Ciprì and Maresco and their Pasolinian vein, the last true corrosive directors in the history of Italian cinema. The subsequent film to "totò che visse 2 volte" is one of the most censored films in history, accused of blasphemy and corruption of the Christian religion. The institutions and bourgeois and communist morals have destroyed them, and it will be difficult for them to return to cinema and produce anything at that level again. What they have shown in these two films is not far from today's reality, where even Christ sells himself to the mafia and, to save his skin, says: "sono incarricato sono," while young people fight each other from morning till night, rolling their eyes even in front of the statue of the Madonna (in a shocking scene, a guy copulates with the statue of the Madonna), all now corrupted at a subgentile level by sexual perversions. Uncle of booklin is even more underground, but I tend to prefer totò (more shocking and targeted). Anyway, a 4.5 out of 5 for the rating.

All it took was seeing the book in a commercial in Samantha de Grenet's hands to immediately understand what this project was, who sponsors the writer, and all the advertising bullshit that lies behind it... and, coincidentally, there’s Uncle Tom Hanks, as usual, playing the lead in yet another saga of his face lent to the global industrial Hollywood Zionist mafia.

Scully in this movie? Where? LOL

Well... cult film but in my opinion quite mediocre.

the raven and rattus norvegicus are the best of the group, but folie also contains some fascinating gems, a band with exceptional class at least during its golden period 1977 - 1981

but Vertov was not at the mind-blowing levels of Buñuel in terms of surreal cataclysm; Buñuel and Dalí truly delivered an unparalleled shock to this art, not to mention the Buñuelian editing which, as early as 1930, had surpassed that of Eisenstein in terms of modernity.

for the younger ones, here’s who Corrado Guzzanti was: corrado guzzanti

the sprawling cinematic creativity all started from here, then there was Bunuel, then Ulmer's Detour in the 40s, then Lynch with Eraserhead...