ajejebrazorf

your usual tasty arguments. You just recycle other people's comments, you say nothing that hasn't already been heard or read: look, I also know the various Morandini and Mereghetti. And the impression that you don't have your own opinion is reinforced by the fact that in every review you don't engage with others, you can't compare any opinion, you just pronounce judgments. These two pieces of crap you wrote (not to mention the gem: Mulholland is a masterpiece, Lost Highway is crap because... because yes, which is a truly valid argument, wow) describe you perfectly. You're also wonderful when you get scandalized: "2 for Kubrick, 2 for Fellini": hey, have you realized that films are what get rated, not directors? Could you stop with this nonsense?

that focus more on the spectacle, not "that sacrifice to the spectacle"

Poletti, you should read more carefully; this isn’t the first time: I wrote ADJECTIVE TO BE TAKEN WITH DUE CAUTION. This means that I was anticipating objections like yours: however, there are films that are the result of an expressive urgency, which is palpable, and others that sacrifice themselves for the sake of spectacle. And don’t annoy me, you gave two to Strade Perdute saying it was "self-serving," which doesn’t mean a damn thing, and you didn’t know how to respond either there or on Blair Witch Project, so before objecting to anything, go answer there :)

Of the films considered to be major works by Kubrick, A Clockwork Orange is, in some ways, the one that convinces me the least. It seems to me to be the most aesthetic and self-indulgent film, with its persistent use of wide angles and photographic and directorial tricks. Perhaps giving everything—images and characters—an excessive and spectacular appearance was Kubrick's way of better defining the type of expressionist atmosphere, but... I don't know, I still have some reservations (another film with the same characteristics could be Trainspotting). For me, it feels less effective and sincere (an adjective to be taken with the necessary precautions) than on other occasions.

very entertaining, beautiful actors. It’s not a masterpiece, but it’s one of those ideal films to watch when you want to see something light and not pointless, and excuse me if that’s not enough.

I'll do it too because I always have fun with rankings: 1. 2001 2. Stalker 3. Alien 4. Blade Runner 5. Solaris 6. Back to the Future 7. Aliens 8. Close Encounters of the Third Kind 9. Twelve Monkeys 10. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. And then the various Brazil, Tetsuo, Star Wars, Matrix, The Thing, Strange Days, Terminator... I'm missing Gattaca.

And why would Mulholland Drive be brilliant and this not? Ah, in the meantime, I'll help you with the average, since it matters so much to you (my grade and what I think are up there).

Engineer, I respect your opinion, but what exactly is an audience seeking complacency? I don’t have a solution for everything that happens in the film, but I found it powerful, effective (as well as original), and that’s enough for me. Just as I can appreciate a painting by an Impressionist (even if it might have seemed imprecise to contemporaries), I can enjoy a stream of consciousness in a book, and I really like garage even if it sounds bad. In short, the game of seeing if everything is justified (justified at a low level, in pure event chaining) seems to me to be a somewhat sterile and a bit pedantic exercise (and my impression of Mulholland Drive, where Lynch doesn’t dismantle the plot but hides it, is that his approach was almost a critique of viewers who judge it nonsense for this very freedom). If it works, if it’s effective, great. For me, it is at absurd levels; for you, maybe not, amen :)

No Dave, a 7. Instead for you, since you give 5 to this but you like the third of Soft Machine or The Piper more, they invented 2 extra votes, for certain records you can give 6, 6 and even 8. You know how I am, I stick to this scale from 1 to 5 like the other users of Debaser.

Engineer, you talk about cunning: but can you explain to me what cunning there is in putting your heart and soul into something to the point of not having a place to sleep (Lynch wasn't anyone yet)? It's not exactly clever, is it? Whether you like it or hate it, the last thing you can accuse his work of is slyness. Anyway, Randolph has already explained: I just want to point out that rather than symbolism, I would speak of dreaminess (just like the surrealists or like Buñuel), Lynch's films, and this one in particular, refer to the times of dreams, and among other things, Lost Highway has been compared to the Moebius strip. Moreover, the theme of the double was certainly not invented by Lynch; it has been dealt with in cinema many times, not only in Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive: for example, it was already present in Belle de Jour, concerning Buñuel.