nes Banned

I support Parma, but there's little to do; when I see the hordes of Berlusconi's financiers lose against Inter, I enjoy it as if I were a Nerazzurro.

I don't know... the comments from the Milan fans are still a hoot!

But come on, don’t stoop to his level! You're better than that, aren’t you? I believe so! :)

The thing I preferred about these reviews was reading them alongside the disgusting image of the cover... it makes me lose too much... However, I am perfectly aware of the problems that can arise with the publication of the aforementioned covers. What a shame.

these are the games I enjoy, take that slap!

Atanas, you are worse than him, do you realize that? Creative... are you hoping for a response too?

you! This is advertising :)

Wow Bartle, you were right. I was convinced that the one talking to the priest was a doctor (the one who "saves" Johnny in the last scene from death by asphyxiation). So if that’s a general (I can’t understand the military logic that would keep him alive while I see the medical logic) and not a doctor, then I take it all back. That said, the phrase that Trumbo clearly didn’t think of, but many who opposed aggressive therapy have certainly said multiple times: "one places oneself in the position of God (for those who believe) when one 'attaches' a man to a machine to keep him alive, and not when one 'disconnects' him" does apply to the film. (I would say the final scene emphasizes this quite well).

Yes, sorry, you're right, it's from '80. I don't know how I made such a mistake (maybe because, unlike some, I don't use Google). However, that doesn't change the fact that what the editor is saying is that the Oscar should go to the direction and not to the editing (whether it's Raging Bull from '71, '80, or '56 doesn't change the basic concept, which is that editing is not the most important thing in a film). This phrase "the director makes the difference and the direction makes the difference are two phrases that mean the same thing," which you countered with a simple "what are you saying?", shows your poverty of arguments. I've already explained this before, but evidently, you enjoy exhausting your interlocutor with nonsense, then clinging to the slightest flaw that probably has nothing to do with the basic discussion (see Raging Bull from '80 and not '71). If you want, I can explain it to you again: what does the director do in a film? The direction! So, in a film, saying that the direction (the work of the director) is less important than the director is a senseless statement. Let's try to make it even more understandable (sorry, but I don't have the puppets at hand). In a guitar solo, is the execution of the solo more important, or the guitarist who is playing? (At my place, I would say they are the same thing, but we've already seen that at your place things are different since "poor idiot" (referring to Tony Scott) and a valuable director mean the same thing to you...) Unfortunately, there are no contradictions in my discussion (so much so that you don't even try to demonstrate this thesis of yours); I've never insulted you (while you call me incompetent); and I’m really fed up with discussing with a pompous, rude person who accuses others of being condescending when you, first and foremost, don’t justify anything you say (except for justifying your statements with an ipse dixit), and you try to conduct examinations as if you were in cultural heritage studies. So please reflect before you speak, the pompous attitude is yours. Not only that, but you keep harping on this point hoping to irritate me. Seriously, in twenty comments, you couldn't find a better way to justify your theses? Maybe that means they are somewhat flimsy, right? But then, who cares, after being insulted by Riccardo Cuor di Leone, who speaks from behind a computer, I think I have nothing left to say to you. You can easily respond now and have the last word; given how you've approached the discussion, it's the only thing that interests you. I always gladly cater to kids, sorry I didn't do it earlier; I thought I was talking to a more mature person. My mistake.

Now enough, you're becoming boring, sorry to point it out. "It's the DIRECTOR that makes the difference, NOT THE DIRECTION!" Direction is the work of the director, editing is the work produced by the editor, cinematography is the work done by the cinematographer (and lighting technicians, etc.). Your statement is completely meaningless; therefore, "the director makes the difference" and "the direction makes the difference" are two phrases that mean the same thing. Avoid playing rhetorical games that you're not good at... but never mind, keep talking and looking for flaws in my argument. /// "Get the latest Tony Scott films" but also the early ones! Are those your masterpieces? No, those aren't it; I mentioned Scott because I would say that "Domino" and "Man on Fire" are the best examples of how editing is not the most important thing in a film; of course, I didn't mean to say Tony Scott was a good director since in the comment I left you earlier, he was associated with this phrase: "otherwise you end up with kick-ass editors working for semi-idiot directors." Semi-idiots doesn’t mean good in my book; I don’t know about yours.
"I'm not reading all your poor comments, I just went to Kim's review since I know his films and it was a recent review, and I didn't see your pompous comments." Well, decide then, are you going to search for them or just randomly check reviews and then look at my comments? (Seems like there’s not much difference...) "Regarding the rest of the emptiness of YOUR discussion, I won’t even comment." Look, this is a discussion we’re both engaging in, and for me, it could've ended with comment 102 (as I told you there), I even said you can take whatever reasons you want, I couldn't care less, just avoid going on spouting nonsense. And stop calling me pompous; you're the one who takes exams and tests... I just say that editing is not the most important part of a film, and all the editors I've met agree with me, and since you like names, Thelma Schoonmaker, the editor I mentioned before, won an Oscar in 1971 for "Raging Bull."