puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,44 • DeAge™ : 7956 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
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...
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.