puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,42 • DeAge™ : 7901 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
A doubt arises: if he really wanted to silence him, why the hell didn’t he sneak up from behind and finish it once and for all? He had the weapon, the same one used to injure the medium, namely a kitchen cleaver. So, so what? >> How the hell did the guy get there? Others could arrive too. The killer realized he had made too much noise. Killing another one would create double the noise, double the chaos, double the people, double the arrests. Moreover, the guy inside was on high alert trying to find the culprit, and when you’re on high alert, it’s hard not to hear the steps of someone behind you wielding a cleaver. Very plausible, logical, and effective for the plot. <<< Movies like Profondo Rosso aren’t meant to be realistic; they aim to entertain the viewer for a couple of hours while pumping adrenaline into them. >>> But is this mandatory mode of use written in the folded warnings inside the VHS? No, because I didn’t read them; I must have lost them. Or did Dario call you, telling you to spread the true purpose of the film around the globe? A movie is a film; you watch it, and everyone takes away what they want from it. These "you must" "you must not" in my opinion are horrible. It’s not that I “have to,” I just noticed two points that I didn’t like, that’s all. And it’s not that they had to do them differently; it’s just that I didn’t like them.
Voto:
A doubt arises: if he really wanted to silence him, why the hell didn’t he sneak up from behind and finish it once and for all? He had the weapon, the same one used to injure the medium, namely a kitchen cleaver. So, so what? >> How the hell did the guy get there? Others could arrive too. The killer realized he had made too much noise. Killing another one would create double the noise, double the chaos, double the people, double the arrests. Moreover, the guy inside was on high alert trying to find the culprit, and when you’re on high alert, it’s hard not to hear the steps of someone behind you wielding a cleaver. Very plausible, logical, and effective for the plot. <<< Movies like Profondo Rosso aren’t meant to be realistic; they aim to entertain the viewer for a couple of hours while pumping adrenaline into them. >>> But is this mandatory mode of use written in the folded warnings inside the VHS? No, because I didn’t read them; I must have lost them. Or did Dario call you, telling you to spread the true purpose of the film around the globe? A movie is a film; you watch it, and everyone takes away what they want from it. These "you must" "you must not" in my opinion are horrible. It’s not that I “have to,” I just noticed two points that I didn’t like, that’s all. And it’s not that they had to do them differently; it’s just that I didn’t like them.
Voto:
Sèh: the dumb cop, household water running at 110 degrees, the sixty-year-olds experts in Filipino Kali, the 60s toy stores that sell one-meter tall dolls with knives... sure, welcome to Gardaland. Anyway, one thing surprises me << but it’s a movie... it’s a movie >> ... this incredible discovery puts everything in a different light. We absolutely need to investigate. Wow, you really take a long time to get worked up over two nonsense moments; I’ve written and I think it’s a nice film with two annoying parts, not a colossal piece of crap. Compared to the rest of the film, those two moments don’t hold up, that’s all. If it were a load of crap, they wouldn’t stand out so much.
Voto:
It would be too harsh to tell you here, because there might be someone who still has to see it. Take a look online; it’s read in many places, and if I'm not mistaken, you can even find just the cut piece for download. You might not even watch it (I, for example, haven't seen it); it’s a scene of just a few seconds, you only need to read what happens. Bjork, the same adrenaline that a psychopath has, is what someone feels when they know they are about to die. But try it at home: you push someone’s head into the bathtub with your hands, and that someone has their arms free and can leverage against the edge of the tub. You won’t last even half a second before that someone is already on their feet. These are basic concepts; if you want to restrain someone, the first thing you need to do is eliminate any possibility for them to leverage themselves. Not for nothing, the best (or even the only) way to restrain someone is on the ground, with a knee on their back it’s even better. Ask an officer, or a Sambo fighter... or try it at home.
Voto:
Ah, the Calamai might not have been old, but the character certainly was. If her son is almost 40, she must be around 60 at best, or 70 at worst. Or she was a mother as a child, a typical underground phenomenon of the Occult Turin (a well-known shopping center near Superga).
Voto:
But is hell that of the three Mothers? If it is, for me it's unwatchable. Horror movies just aren't for me. However, precisely because I share this <<< The said fear is provoked in moments of stillness, in the sequences where the killer is foreshadowed, in the musical crescendos: >>> those two or three details left to chance annoy me, because splatter wasn't really necessary. It's still a great film... with two or three annoying moments. The example I brought, by coincidence, fits with what you say and that I quote, but if you haven't seen it, I won't spoil the surprise. It doesn't have anything to do with Profondo Rosso (absolutely nothing), but watch it. Possibly the illegal version circulating online, without the cut ending.
Voto:
For me, it's not even a horror film. There's the killer, who murders people for a specific motive, there's an investigator, even if unofficial, who ultimately uncovers the murderer. It's a mystery or a thriller, with some slightly bloody murders. A "horror" film? No, I’ve never seen a “horror” film ten times. Horror is Friday the 13th, where there's the crazy maniac who kills randomly, no one can stop him, and even when he dies, he comes back because it's nonsense and should be viewed like a cartoon.
Voto:
"Are you questioning how an old lady could kill someone 30 years younger than her?" No. Absolutely not, no problem at all. It's in that way, with those details, that it becomes impossible and implausible. But still, I repeat: I don't want to compare the films, they are incomparable. I just pulled the first example of a "spectacular and plausible" murder that came to mind. And I also really like the film; if I hadn't seen it 10 times, do you think I would remember these details? And again: I’m not criticizing the film, nor Argento, I was simply responding to Pietro, who pointed out various good details about the film, and I added two terrible ones, that’s all. Can you not make a focused argument, confined within two boundaries, that can have a conclusion? I didn't want to go on for hours, just wanted to point out two flaws in an excellent film. Period, enough, no rides, no complaints, no comparisons... no, no, no. At least, not from me.
Voto:
But at least once, just once, can you read and understand what’s written? You’re truly hopeless. I’ll rewrite it for you, as usual, as always; I always have to repeat myself with you. <<< an excellent movie, but many murders don't hold up at all. >>> + <<< everything else is fabulous, I won’t argue with that, but those murders are straight out of Marvel Comics. >>> + <<< The murder of Norton in American History X >>> Got it, are you with me? I was talking about specifics, not movies. I know it’s impossible for you to engage in a discussion about something precise; you just can’t do it. But maybe we can, so just let it go; it’s not for you. I didn’t compare movies, I didn’t talk about movies, I was talking about specifics in response to Pietro, who was talking about specifics. Got it, specifics? No rides or punches in the stomach, just the actual plausibility of a murder in a film that also aims to be spectacular. That was the point, and it’s not for you, since you didn’t even understand what I was talking about… as usual, as always.
Voto:
Pietro, it may be an excellent film, but many murders don't hold up at all. An old lady can't have the strength to hold the head of someone 30 years younger underwater, especially if she doesn't brace her back with at least a knee, especially if that person has their hands on the edge. That murder is an unparalleled nonsense; if it had been Emilianko Fedor doing it, fine, but not the old lady. Just two more details and it could have worked. Not to mention the water so boiling hot it cooks a face in 40 seconds... what bullshit, it's a bathtub, not a boiler. Then I also remember that scene where a policeman is given a guided tour of all the corners of his house, and that calm guy, without putting up any resistance, makes out with the fireplace, various tables, etc., always an old lady. Then, that same old lady builds a doll that walks on its own, emits sounds, and wields a knife. But sure, right away. All that was missing was for the final murder to involve one of the protagonist's tsubos and blow him up in three seconds. Maybe the rest is fabulous; I won’t argue about that, but those murders are straight out of Marvel Comics. Norton’s murder in American History X is scarier on its own than all of Profondo Rosso, including the special features. Now that’s how you use the corners: class, imagination, practicality, optimal and quick results.