odradek

Mhh... I listened to it a lot, as soon as I had the chance about a month ago. Today I think it should be taken for what it is, within his discography: a "minor" album, something very atypical and personal; at times moving, as well as ironic and lyrical, but overall not completely convincing, not definitive like his best albums. If I had to give it a score, it would fall between 3 and 4. But with him, I just don’t feel like it.

It's a pleasure to reconnect with you, Addison. Every now and then you resurface, always pointing out interesting things. I'm just starting to listen to this, and already within the first two minutes, I get the impression that this is once again an excellent suggestion from you.

The new album (which I'm listening to) is very nice. Highly recommended.

Hey, fool, the only one coming here to act like a know-it-all is you. Making a fool of yourself, because if there's anyone trying to peddle their little bits of knowledge, which are made of nothing, with the tone of someone who knows cinema, it's you, only to extensively prove that you don’t even know what you're talking about. And I haven't even insulted you yet: idiot, dummy, and fool are synonyms for someone like you. You haven't been able to logically support even one of the nonsense you've said. That's enough for today, I have things to do. You're still in time to kiss my ass and disappear for a while, which would be the most dignified thing. But I know you won’t, because outside of here you’re lost. Good luck.

The funniest thing is that not only do you not keep quiet for a couple of years, the minimum that decency would require after the nonsense you just wrote, but you also play the smart aleck. You crack me up. You can’t even take responsibility for what you say and you have to twist and turn. What do you mean, you fool? The movies you mention I’ve seen before you, the things you say are clichés that everyone knows and some are even reported roughly. What the hell do they have to do with the nonsense you wrote like "..neither the subject nor the screenplay I believe are important for the good outcome of a film." I know far better than you that there are films in which an uncertain or even non-existent screenplay (written that morning on set, on a scrap of paper) is surpassed or circumvented with excellent results. And what the hell do your comments about my nickname mean? What do you want? Your ignorance doesn’t surprise me; you don’t even know who Kafka was, I wouldn’t even give lessons to a donkey like you for money. And still: why do I read screenplays? The obvious fact that you don’t even know what they are about should make you silent, but I see you are totally lacking in dignity, and you insist. I read what interests me and generally before expressing opinions I inform myself. You throw out such a quantity of nonsense and you dare to respond with a post like that? Poletti, kiss my ass. And have a nice Sunday.

But no, come on, Know-it-all, after all Poletti is entertaining. And he wasn't just referring to Kubrick; he made a general statement: for him, in ALL films, the subject and the screenplay (the difference between which he demonstrated he doesn't know) are not important for the success of a film. He's too funny; if he were to disappear, I’d lose half the fun (which is already minimal) reading this poor cinema section... Anyway, Poletti, read a few screenplays, between one brief overview of cinema and another (and in the overview, don't skip the essential parts, please). Often they are very interesting. You might discover a bit about cinema, an unknown and fascinating world. Have a nice Sunday.

Beautiful, Poletti. I’ll remember this one, really hilarious.

But have you ever read a screenplay? Do you know how it’s made? I don’t know, sometimes your absolute assertiveness in the face of obvious logical inconsistencies on elementary issues leaves me speechless...

Poletti, not to add fuel to the fire, but at least you should know the basics, with all the nonsense you’re spewing! At most, it could be the subject underlying the film who revisits the book: the screenplay is another matter, and there certainly isn’t such a close relationship (especially in this film, unlike Lolita, for example, in which Nabokov actually collaborated on the script), that the judgment on it automatically involves Schnitzler’s story. So if you intend to respond to S4doll regarding his "banalization," at least try to respect a minimum of logic and the meaning of the terms you use.

Nino, the comment section is made for this: users comment or request further information, and the one who wrote the little page acknowledges them with a response or their own comment, ensuring, ideally, that different opinions are not mixed up with personal insults. So please respond here and not privately, thank you. And if you can, make more worthy use of serious feelings such as hatred.