uxo

a fusillo 2) what does cast away have to do with it? do I have to repeat myself? the film, frankly, rests on silence in its ending. the character looks around, lost. it seemed to me that murray was doing the same: which path is his son on? but that's just my opinion, as is YOUR opinion "what are you doing at home, why don’t you leave?". no intent to insult. I gave it a 3. I’m not looking for originality at all costs. I want to emphasize that there are too many forced elements. which I already mentioned. tell me how you came out of this film. what did it "pass" to you? then do me a favor. there’s something off about the review. I made the effort, I didn’t before because I got home from work at 8:30 and was exhausted. I await your reasonable news.

a fusillo 1) No, Murray is fine with me. He is the character in this film who presents himself as a "washed-up womanizer, pretty jaded." But you only perceive this from a few elements. Too few. The absolute void... is it possible? And how do you justify Winston's attachment (the black neighbor) to such a lifeless and sex-obsessed character? Here are the nuances I'm talking about that leave a bit of splatter and few certainties. What mechanism goes through the viewer who wants to take sides and the one who doesn’t? I would like to know, but I don’t. Thus, the approach to the film imposes doubt (a series of doubts) about the character. Other things that need to be grasped: he's rich, he made money, but now he does nothing. His girlfriend leaves him. Why? And he doesn't react. Why? Why is his life so grotesque? All these questions led me to write "dark nuances." Am I clear, FUSILLO? I’ll continue. Is he looking for a good son? Then why does he get laid by Sharon Stone? It didn’t seem to me like he was looking for that. And yet. And during his visits, doubts continue to emerge. And in the end, the viewer is left with the doubt that only the dead one couldn’t have sent the letter. Murray even suspects his ex. In short, the film relies on many dark aspects. Even the cat of the "animal psychologist" reads in him a mystery. The reference to Lolita is pathetic, and the Lolita behavior. And then he also sleeps with the mother. Where’s the greatness of this film??? Where's Jarmusch’s? COME ON FUSILLO, you can write, you've always done it in old posts. Why do you treat me from a position of superiority? I seem to think you are a reasonable person, and now just because you're all twisted up (but why is your business), the comparison has already been fucked...

you won't get answers if you don't ask questions. plus, you don't explain a damn thing. I can't find any ground to stand on, so I'm done wasting time with you and I'll go back to the debaserians who I get along with better. I don't feel like asking you anything because you're just playing the annoying part. however, know that I never get stuck on my positions if I have someone to discuss with.

EXTRAORDINARY EPIPHANY. GIGANTIC. CAN I SIGN UP FOR THE UNION?

why, why???? I wanted to download it!!

Yes, indeed there are 3 pieces by Mulatu Astatke that are fantastic. It’s an intense instrumental acid black jazz. Remember the name and download something.
A fusillo: it seems to me that I was clear. What else do you need? The guy has already vanished, I was pondering Murray's vacant stare. He was doing fine at his place, then the black neighbor gets busy with his own stuff and hands him the research, examines the letter, something Murray wouldn't have done on his own. Now I'm bringing up the classic of literature "Demetrio Pianelli," but I'm afraid I won't be understood, it's just an analogy. Murray is stimulated by something he never even imagined, for which he had no genuine interest. Sorry, but your post doesn't tell me anything. I don’t know what to bring up to think about it together. Regards.

I really liked the album (I was still in middle school). Today it shows its age, and you can definitely feel it. The review is not pleasant. Maybe try to bring a bit of objectivity into it.

There is something good.

Otherwise ZION, tell me what parameters to take into consideration. We know you liked the film a lot, maybe for the girl’s tits or Murray's sad faces. Maybe not. But I don’t say much, you don’t say a damn thing. Give me something to talk about. I don’t see why I should write 16 pages of posts trying to interpret 100 different uncertainties. For the sake of completeness. Come on, be brave.

There’s nothing more useful than the superfluous. Aside from this saying borrowed from the film "Life is Beautiful," I wonder if there’s any half-hearted intention to engage in a discussion about "To serve or not to serve." Let's start with Murray's performance: it’s not necessary. Seen it already. Now let’s talk about the plot: it’s not necessary, read it already. Now let’s talk about the director: he hasn’t contributed to writing pages in the history of cinema, and the Cannes award is not A substantial proof of quality. I also connect serving to using parts of films or phrases or stylistic elements or contexts to argue, produce discourse, refer to something, maybe just to reflect. So what are we reflecting on then? The unsaid? The search for oneself? Don Juanism? The homage to Kubrick? What is there to reflect on? There’s a point in the film, towards the end, where Murray loses sight of the boy and looks around, in the midst of several streets. Each street is a metaphor for "a path taken" or "a path to take," in any case, uncertainty. Well, I’ve seen this too, in the Hanks film "Cast Away." To me, these silences seem frankly forgettable. It’s too easy to stimulate the intelligent viewer who finds hidden values in Morandian white canvases. Is that all?