puntiniCAZpuntini

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.

The example is not relevant, as that wasn’t me, but a chief inspector from one of the largest Italian cities in the 60s and 70s. So, thinking it over, he comes from the old school of Italian cops, no RIS di Parma or CSI: people who hit hard. Moreover, if you were in the police at a high rank during that time, you were probably there for a while, and if you had been there for a while, you had also fought in World War II. So again, people who hit hard. People who hit hard, with a service weapon. So you don’t go breaking dolls, you go get the shotgun from the steel wall cabinet behind the credenza in your study. The point isn’t "can you free yourself?", the point is "do you seriously think you’re going to let yourself be screwed over like an idiot?". If it had been some random guy, that would have been one thing, but a police inspector...