desade

The review is really well written, but as far as the band goes, it was enough for me to see one of their videos rotating on some unclear channel, and I understood that this is not their thing, as we say in my area. They don't seem to deviate much from various Simple Plan and Good Charlotte lurking on radio and global charts. Someone tell the sodomized apple to take a good chill pill beyond the counterpoint it must legitimately express.

But vellutogrigio, what the hell are you babbling about? Fellini's cinema is far from harmless; even "Amarcord," which is a simple revisitation of his childhood memories, manages to shake you with its visual power and the caricatured nature of its characters. As for the "filoamericano," I think we need to tread carefully with this statement, but on the other hand, the political and cultural sympathies of the director have never undermined the value of his works (After all, Pirandello voluntarily joined the fascist party, but this aspect doesn’t matter in the analysis of his masterpieces, or Kazan was an active participant in McCarthyism, but that does not detract from the discussion of his films). The neorealist school, which marked his debut as a director, certainly led him to outline that boorish and amoral Italy, as you say, but this is also a limited definition because it doesn't consider Fellini's extraordinary ability to portray his characters with a melancholic and instinctive touch (See Gelsomina... unforgettable). It is quite legitimate for you to prefer Monicelli over Fellini, because tastes are tastes and should be respected, as long as they are not passed off as universal truths and do not undermine the objectivity of judgment.

Von Trier? I believe he could spare us many sophistries from an experienced intellectual that can become tiresome over time, but I invite all his detractors to watch "The King Is Alive" rather than "Dogville."
P.S.: They also suggest "The Element of Crime," which I personally haven't seen.

A truly balanced review, it's a shame that I don't know the subject. I will make up for it.

If the movie hadn't had so much advertising and if it weren't the masterpiece that everyone says it is, this review would have deterred about 80% of readers from the cinemas. As for the rest, I will watch it in a few days.

The movie is a colossal crap; instead of Witherspoon, they could have cast any girl next door, starting from Meg Ryan down to that idiot Julia Stiles. The review is really well written, but the accent of "nostos" is on the first vowel, right Portland? :)))))))))))

Agreeing with bjorky, Kidman in "The Hours" and "Portrait of a Lady" is stunning. "To Die For" has been recommended to me for a long time but I haven't seen it yet... I'll make sure to do so.

Poletti, putting me to discuss musicals in a review of a film that is not completely a musical is debatable. What do you want? An applause for your extraordinary knowledge on the subject? As I said, I hate musicals and have never wanted (nor had the chance, by the way) to binge on them. Think what you want of the film.

Bjork is Icelandic... well, I see that you judge on a matter you know little or nothing about since you lack the basic elements... not knowing that Bjork comes from Iceland is like studying Pascoli without knowing the name of his beloved homeland (with the necessary differences between Bjork and Pascoli :)).

No Poletti, it's legitimate that you didn't like the film and that you consider it rubbish compared to many other works by Forman, that's obvious. But to speak of intellectual honesty and lecture about the fact that a film should be judged independently of the director or the actor is something we all understand to some extent, and, by the way, it also felt like a nice insult towards me and my judgment skills. But that's just a note, you're free to write what you think... bjorky love you.