puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,44 • DeAge™ : 8096 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
Did you make the liquid? I only remembered Battisti Dalla Stewart, but it's normal for me to get mixed up, I've read at least half of the 3500 reviews :D
Voto:
Yeah, well, logically, that's my vision of Kubrick's mind. It's not an analysis of real facts, so I could very well have thrown out tons of bullshit. However, the Bacchic enthusiasm has little to do with acid, and even natural things have nothing to do with it. Kubrick feels very much like acid to me, while Tarantino is more about joints & wine. If you think acid is thrilling, you’re really quite mistaken :) - You know Jack Nicholson, with that face that smiles but isn’t happy? That’s acid. (In fact, Jack has taken loads of it; it's well-known and you can see it from a mile away.)
Voto:
You are absolutely right, I need to quantify words based on the stupidity of the people they are directed at, I often make mistakes. Sorry.
Voto:
Life's Bitch, Fuck It. Thr'ap your gun, shot it. (Onix, from the gospel according to All We Got, Is Us)
Voto:
And a nice one to this shitty reviewer, to him and to the little bunnies with their stuck paws... but fuck off, seriously.
Voto:
Anyway, you can see that Enea, you didn't take all the acids that Kubrick had eaten, you're too moderate and you don’t see how to justify his exaggerations. I have a very tragic view of the future, and most likely if I had been alive at the release of Clockwork, I would have judged Kubrick as a messiah or a seer. Today I would realize I was wrong, but back then I would have agreed with him.
Voto:
I don't follow you on the paradox. I follow you TODAY in 2005, but a film from the 70s should be judged with the eyes of the 70s. In the 70s it wasn't paradoxical, so it isn't a paradox now either, but just a TRAGIC vision, as I said before. If you want to talk about how A Clockwork Orange appears in 2005, you're right, but discussing A Clockwork Orange as it appears in 2005 seems stupid and pointless to me; I TRY to evaluate it with the eyes of the time. Of course, I can't fully succeed, but at least I try.
Voto:
Ah well Enea, so you think like me. If he exaggerated a bit more with "the tragedy," my little machine would light up with "mavaffanculo imbecille che cazzo dici?", but it only went to first gear. Oh, anyway, whenever you want a vaffanculo or a one-star review, just say the word, eh. I have to admit I haven't read even one, Dalla Battisti Stewart really don't knock on my door, I let them be. :)
Voto:
But what did I win? One thing you said correctly: I still don’t understand.
Voto:
(The Kubrick was not intended, I always get it wrong) - On A Clockwork Orange, I insist on my thesis. It is not pushed to the paradox; it is what Kubrick thought would really happen. In the years when drugs were spreading as a cure for ills and the negative effects were still unknown, many thought, like Stanley, that if those people (the Freaks) had children, only beasts would be born. In that film, Alex is the victim as a child brought into the world without parents who could teach him how to live, and thus at the same time he was giving the young people of the time a hard time, depicting them as old in Alex's brain-dead parents.