Pietro Minchiadura

And don’t say it’s a matter of votes: it isn’t. It’s a question of mindset. When you judge, you can’t detach yourself from your ancestral menstrualities and measure everything against your goat-like sensitivity. I, on the other hand, when I have my issues, resist the pain and manage to have a critical judgment irrespective of it. You, however, always have to be the star of the Crazy Horse. They should put you in a cage with the plumbers, I repeat. And there you go: ---> >>>:-( <---

Ah, here you are: I’m quite impressed that you’ve chosen the path of public ridicule, I expected it. Setting aside the fact that it's "Sprach," not "Spracht" (I can't understand why everyone gets this verb wrong), and especially the fact that your emotions seem to be measured by the ecstasy you feel when seeing the tuna sandwich appear as a steaming turd, let me show you how, in just a couple of moves, the knight, rook, and pawn can checkmate the king. First of all, I’m not sure if "very sentimental" applies to the film; rather, it’s presumably, under the pretense of supposed pathos, the most inhuman of Lynch's films, the most brutish and raw. But let’s not get bogged down in minutiae: the focal point is all encapsulated there, in that last unfortunate parenthesis you added. "2001" is a bore; I stand by that. But that will never give me the right, when the review comes out, to slap you with a 2.5. It’s a film that personally bores me, but I recognize its historical value, its incredible uniqueness, the proverbial and priceless analog montages, the abyssal epilogue to the notes of Also Sprach Zarathustra. I can, while noting the immense boredom, scale back the overall enthusiasm and acknowledge a 4.5 or maybe a 4 at the very least. This would allow me to say that it is indeed a good film. Here’s how I differ from you, or hyena. You presumably give a 5 to 2001 and a 2.5 to this one based on your boredom with the pathos. But if a film truly disgusts you, what do you give it? I’ll have to ask the dwarves for the ability to give whole negative scores. 2.5 for this and issues included. I don’t want your commiseration (don’t even think of giving sterile 5s to raise the average), your critical taste is dreadful.

LOL, damn it! I messed up again!

LOLI

Can I do LOL? I never understood what schifio means, but it sounds really cool.

Uhm, the reference seems more like The song remains the same by Led Zeppelin.

Just a step below the Cutugno-Minetti duet 2005. Sweet as can be.

Almost astounded by such a unanimous plebiscite for this film. Is it the pinkfloydian proselytism blinding the critical spirit? Come on, it's a decent film, but nothing special. For some, it's even one of the greatest films of all time (sic!)... it seems like science fiction to me. The video adaptation of Roger Waters' egotistical delirium. With a few moments of quality.

Aside from the fact that among the axioms of Euclidean geometry there's the one stating that Ajeje is never right, the issue is this: the story is true, so it's not really about discussing originality or not. The creature's skull was modeled on the cast of Merrick's skull (compare the photos of the real Merrick circulating on the internet with Lynch's character: the resemblance is striking), the plot is followed meticulously, and it seems that Merrick truly died trying to emulate "normal" sleep (he was found lifeless without the pillows he was forced to sleep between). But let’s assume it’s a "lightweight" film. How can one overlook Treves's Hamlet-like character, the cinematography, the Wellesian shots, the splendid black and white? You decide. I mean, a bit of decency.

Are you here too? Stop him. For the sake of Debaser.