Pietro Minchiadura

Of the five, only Salvatori is in the shadows. The rest is history. And what a history it is.

Oh, how picky you are. The serious comparison with Chaplin and company doesn’t hold, but the film at times is funny, and in some ways it’s several notches above certain trash from De Sica, indeed, which is based on loud and vulgar comedy. The site has hosted music reviews on questionable bands, so if it has now opened up to films, I don’t see why it shouldn’t also host reviews on the supposed “garbage.” Refined individuals.

I never saw him, he’ll be one of the next ones.

I got pissed off, you see. I won't even put the gay emojis for you, you need to understand that. Actually, no, I’ll put this one: -----> >:-( <----- Malnato.

At the top of my personal ranking alongside other 4-5 titles. But Fidia, come on... listen to that neglected one. What a respectable opinion; we should put him in solitary confinement with four visionary plungerers. Bah.

1. Okay, for you it's a minor art in the sense that well, point 2, we got that. 2. Right, see point 1, 3. Okay. Anyway, you have fun discussing the new movie reviews, we’ll definitely argue more later! Oh, too many of these movie reviews, damn it, I can't keep up with all of them. Watch out!

The comedy film, not the comedian himself. Néh.

No, you didn’t satisfy me, and you know it well. I recognize that in a sense this is a form of “minor art” and that it’s unlikely many comedians would make it into my personal ranking, but I would be less harsh in my judgment. In the sense that here it gets a 3 because I didn’t like it much, but compared to other films I would be more generous. You mentioned Fantozzi? Well, Welles deserves more, of course, but I would rate the first two episodes quite highly. There’s inventiveness, bitterness, a certain intelligent perspective on social issues. In that sense, these are comedies of a certain quality. Then you talk to me about Chaplin: well, assuming “The Gold Rush” is comedy, let’s say it’s a masterpiece on par with many other serious works. Don’t tell me you’d rate it with half an eye only because it “doesn’t convince you”. For me, it has a far more significant meaning than many of Kubrick’s ruminations, for example.

Rightfully in the Olympus of "winking" films, in the Empyrean filled with cheesy flicks where one can appreciate, in no particular order: 1) two very bland protagonists, her anorexic and him beardless, 2) an extrasecular plot with proleptic flashbacks and various nights of yore to the tune of "La vie en Rose," 3) a cloying soundtrack with gypsy violins and plenty of bitterness. And Pappalardo, damn it! No one mentions Pappalardo! Mediocre.

Well, yes, elected, let's say you kinda got us: in my opinion, you digress too much, but certainly your judgment does more justice. Overall, there are too many reasons not to be able to garner a decent consensus for this film, including the Von Sydow character, Oldfield, the incredible (for that time) evolutions of the "creature" commanded by the special effects, the incalculable value the film has assumed as the most quoted film in every horror culture (and not just that). The review reflects a very nice point of view, so it deserves a 4, but since there was a lot to say and it ultimately reveals a bit of whimsical anticlericalism, the score is 1, which averages out to 2.5, which we round to 2, because the jury is ugly and silly.