puntiniCAZpuntini

HILARIOUS COVER.

Thank you. I laughed so hard. Really, I laughed a lot. I thought it wasn't loading the others, but instead, I laughed so hard. Thank you.

The murder committed by Norton. The Brother dies in a standard way, the handsome one does it Norton. Come on, it was easy.

The man killed by slamming against the edges is - in the film - Professor Giordani, played by Glauco Mauri, and not a policeman. >> Ooohhh... finally someone who knows the film. Everyone pretends to be connoisseurs, correcting the nonsense, and they don’t even realize when they’re being mocked. They even start with "<< A LITTLE ATTENTION PLEASE :::: >> ". Oh sure, plenty of attention. Good job Velluto, you’ve uncovered the culprit :) - The real nonsense of the film is just one: the bricked-up wall is bricked up perfectly, by professionals, invisible, with flawless plaster... and a corpse inside in plain sight. To brick up a window, you have to do it from the inside. You can’t carry bricks up a ladder and you think you’re going to build scaffolding to brick up a window. And you think that even if you bricked it up from outside with scaffolding (and then plastered it later), you wouldn’t notice there’s a dead guy inside. Bah, you’re just trivial opponents :D - I was disappointed in Enea; I would have never expected it from him... (damn)

<< ok dots YOU'RE RIGHT >> No, it's impossible. If we’re saying the same thing, and you just keep confirming it, how can I be right? We agree, it's just that you add a few extra spoonfuls of nonsense to your posts. Think it over before you write, calculate, reason, give yourself some doubts. Or: << A LITTLE ATTENTION PLEASE :::: >>. Eh.

Yes, but the next time you see me buying Nonna Isa pads, try to avoid pointing and shouting "puntiniCAZpuntini!"... be a little nicer, come on.

"What I have noted are formal inaccuracies, inaccuracies." Well, inaccuracies. And so, with these inaccuracies, how can you say "THE MOVIE IS PERFECT"? There’s a conflict in your words, perhaps you have some difficulties in lowercase. Or maybe you think too much about the teachers, I don’t know.

<< A LITTLE ATTENTION PLEASE ::::: >> Stunning, there's no denying it. I watched the entire movie again, and while noticing the inconsistencies, wow. But the best part is this << FOUR INCONSISTENCIES >> ... I had only found two. So we're in agreement, actually, it increases... so where is it that << DROP IT BECAUSE YOU'VE MADE A MISTAKE, THE MOVIE IS PERFECT >>? Either there are inconsistencies, or it's perfect. I really don’t understand you, and yet I was paying attention. Ah, please, all in capital letters again, otherwise I won't pay attention. Bisius, the << shotgun from the steel wall cabinet behind your study credenza. >> was just to say, meaning: "arm yourself." Anyway, great discussion, I might just write in capital letters.

And of course :D

<< where I clearly state that the act of the crime of the journalist in the villa is implausible >> We agree on that point, should I respond, "Well done!"? Ok, I'll respond: Well done, we agree! << The actions that precede the crime, I don’t see how you could find them implausible: >> The fact that it starts well doesn’t mean everything goes well. It ends in an implausible way, and summing up the beginning and the end, it’s implausible for me as a whole. << (which I don’t know where you see it, enlighten us; maybe because she made a small jump from a balcony? >> Maybe because she throws people around as if they weigh 15 kg? Have you ever tried to slam someone against the wall? It's not easy, you know, not at all. << If you intend to judge the soundtrack, only in that case post the comment. >> Oh my… << Next time, try to specify: >> I have already specified it, several times. I'll repeat them for your convenience. First comment << an excellent film, >> + << everything else is fabulous, I won’t argue about that, >> Third comment << those two or three details left to chance annoy me, because there wasn’t really a need for splatter. It remains an excellent film... with two three annoying moments >> And from the third onward, I just repeated and quoted what was quoted for the umpteenth time now. More specific than this, do you think it’s possible? No, tell me, I’m curious.