cptgaio

And anyway, if by many other reviews you mean this one and Miike's (that is, two), you have a strange concept of mathematics. Do you want to understand that it's with people like you (that is, those who only like the sound of their own voice) that I don't want to discuss? Is it victimization? Fine, think what you want; frankly, I don't care what you think of me.

No, no I’m not talking about production, I’m talking about direction, whether it’s there or not, about acting, whether it's present or absent, I’m talking about the script, whether it’s structured for a purpose or purely improvised and based on mere provocation. By the way, I never said that Cipri and Maresco are not consistent, I just don’t like this way of making cinema. Let’s be clear, I don’t like Muccino (and I didn’t bring him up in the discussion), but it’s the system he fell into that I don’t like. As a director, I am convinced that he could give so much more. Remove the provocation from Cipri and Maresco, and what’s left that’s cinematic? A little, in my opinion, if not nothing. Then it’s a matter of sensitivity; maybe mine is different, that’s all.
@Burns: address me politely and you’ll see that I’ll respond. As you can see, my friend Pippo and I think differently, but we still discuss civilly without accusing each other of not understanding anything, as you keep doing since the first post.

Well, I’m talking to you, Pippo, then. No one questions the sociological meaning of the film itself (I’ve said it before, but I’ll repeat it). I’m talking about pure stylistic and technical execution; I don’t know if intentionally or not, but (for me) it’s poorly shot and acted even worse, and on top of that, there are some uglinesses that personally annoy me. Regarding the Muccino clan, I can only agree with you, but the Muccino as a director, despite being a servant of the system, remains a respectable director from a technical standpoint. Ciprì and Maresco might be, but they do nothing to prove it.
Then, if we want to talk about sociology, the ideas are there (though honestly, not very many, but that’s just my feeling). However, I think there are millions of more elegant (even if provocative) ways to express them, that’s all.
Then, what I think might be nonsense, but it’s my opinion. If the various Burns\Iohoilpene\Chandler\Tabba\Kim etc. (who might all be the same person) think that I don’t understand anything about cinema or whatever, they’re free to do so. As I’ve already said, I truly couldn’t care less about what people who are in love only with their own ego think of me. A re-CCiao Vecio!

It wasn't your fault, Pippo; let's just say you let yourself go a bit too much... Hi, Vecio! Now I'm off to play the victim somewhere else ;-)

If you, dear Kim, were not rude, I would gladly talk to you about the review of Miike. If you want to show everyone your inability to read others' posts calmly and immediately resort to various insults, go ahead; I never claimed to be right, especially since, as they say in Naples, being right belongs to fools, so I gladly leave that to you. That said, I want to point out that my thoughts on this film are already evident from my previous posts (which you, as usual, probably haven't read), and therefore, there is no reason to insist on boring others. Best regards!

Do you remember what happened in "A Clockwork Orange," Pippo? Here the premises are the same for letting the situation deteriorate, and I'm not okay with that, so if you want we can discuss it again in the future. Bye!

There has been a bit of confusion; I have never questioned the sociological value of the film, but rather its purely technical and aesthetic aspects, which, in my opinion, are very, very, very debatable. Then again, I repeat, it comes down to taste. In my view, I sense in many of the comments above a desire to find learned references that I honestly do not see. There are millions of ways to be intelligent and provocative at the same time in this world; they have chosen a way that I find unpleasant, which leads me to wonder if they truly sought an alternative artistic path or simply had few genuine ideas and therefore opted for the route of gratuitous provocation (which, as we know, is easier to achieve).
As for the comparisons with "Freaks," everyone is free to see it as they wish. I find such comparisons uncharitable towards the great Browning. One last thing that saddens me is seeing the usual fakes who speak in dogmas (when they are not also offensive like Kim, but I've gotten used to that), ultimately leading an interesting discussion onto the tracks of a deadlock. If I didn’t know it was a waste of time, I would stay in the debate, but I no longer feel like replying to certain characters, so I’ll leave it at that. I affectionately greet Uxo and thank him for the stimulating conversation he created. Bye!

P.S.: look, I don’t want to defend Muccino (God forbid), but if we compare the technical ability in directing, in my opinion, there’s no comparison. The former may be just a lackey, but he’s a lackey who knows how to make films, maybe clever ones, but films nonetheless... Ciprì and Maresco... well, it's all a matter of taste there too... see you again!

Look, it doesn't seem to me that either of us is the kind of person for pointless controversies. I repeat, it's a very personal observation of mine. In this film, as well as in their other works that I've seen, I perceive nothing but mere provocation. Maybe it's my limitation, but that's what I think. As for the idea that ugly is just ugly, I can't help but quote the good Peter Steele: "Don't confuse lack of talent with genius." What Cipri and Maresco create is, in my opinion, bad taste satire, and as such, I consider it pure provocation. As for what is art and what is not, that has been debated for ages, and I've made my decision in my own small way. Goodbye!

Just for Audrey.