desade

Agreeing with Slim, yes, I wrote the comment with the latest Pieraccioni film in mind, but the point remains the same. Always the same crap, always the same nonsense. In the end, they’re all the same, as already mentioned.

Pieraccioni is one of those many directors who, in my opinion, have slowly poisoned Italian comedy. The plot is always the same; this film features slight variations: this time, Pieraccioni is already paired with the usual attractive woman and, for once, he is not at a crossroads between a blonde and a busty woman, a brunette and another busty one. The attempt to satirize the limping Italian bureaucracy is ridiculous, just like the entire film. And beneath it all, there's always the same, banal story of the evil and repugnant showbiz world contrasting with the genuine feelings of ordinary people. And what about the gallery of characters?? The naive and beautiful woman swept up in glamorous whirlwinds? The unscrupulous paparazzo?? The foolish and simple-minded fruit seller?? Truly original...there are far too many clichés in this film; I don't understand how you can talk about it as if it were a comedy by Monicelli. Well...I wouldn't know what to say...just to stick to the theme of banality, I would simply say "degustibus."

And then so much enthusiasm for "the one from 'Dawson's Creek'" I really don't understand.

Bret Easton Ellis is one of the few writers of American literature that I can salvage. "American Psycho" perfectly defined the neuroses of the average American, caught between celebrity and introspection, as did the equally brilliant "Glamorama." To me, "useless" doesn’t seem fitting at all. At most, I would define this film and this review as useless. Admitting beforehand that you don't even understand the basic technicalities of a film is not a justification. The film is clumsy; it manages to differentiate itself from the rest of the disgusting batch of post-adolescent films like "American Pie" through the writer's touch and the tragic ending. For the rest, it gets lost in excess, even to the grotesque, misinterpreting the author's objectives and moving along a screenplay that mimics the book.

The film is poor, and foreigners take pleasure in seeing a degrading image of Italy broadcasted, which explains the many honors from Cannes. Always be wary, without exception.

It's easy to blame an institution. "It's all the society's fault," "It's all the family's fault," "It's all the country's fault." But who is society? Who is family, who is country? Us, obviously. Shifting blame to an abstract entity is alienation, just as religion has been for a long time (and still is) in certain circumstances. The reason Italy is no longer there is the loss of a sense of responsibility. Because it's simple to alienate oneself from the State and make it the scapegoat for our common apathy. "Gomorra" was a punch in the gut for its evocative images, but I don't think any of us were unaware of what organized crime was capable of before.

Oh my, a monument to cinema, more than a review... I only vote for Part I... the rest, I don't know.

Well, yes. Whoever touches Pasolini dies. Italy touched him lethally on the night between November 1st and 2nd, 1975. And here is the new Italian cultural landscape. I might be exaggerating, but I think just like Alessio.

Good review, but the movie...a deadly bore. 2 and a half.

Excellent attempt to update Pasolini's sociological discourse to introduce the review. "Comizi d'amore" is one of the best products of Italian cinema. And that's it.