puntiniCAZpuntini

<< 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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.