odradek

Well, it’s probably pure coincidence, but I see that after my post there have been other comments that aren't exactly positive. What surprises me the most, however, is reading that Saputello believes Lolita to be inferior to this... Whatever the highly respectable opinions of Tobont may be, a film "based on" a book has a relationship with it that cannot be ignored, unless you decide to bemoan the evidence in order to proceed according to your own preconceived notions that disregard the facts. Well, Lolita is a foundational book by one of the most interesting writers of the 20th century. The difficulty of translating it into images and the result achieved by Kubrik (and the sublime Mason) despite the impossibility of certain solutions and complete control of the outcomes (due to censorship) are certainly not inferior to the pretentious mess that ended the career of the great director. It wouldn’t have been significantly different with another actor in place of Cruise (who serves the film)—Regarding the "uncomfortable film for many," I don't know, it seems to me an effect of the film's overestimation, which doesn’t seem "uncomfortable" at all, but rather unsustainable, if not from the devotion of those who strive to find elements that the film itself is unable to articulate effectively.

Cute Doctor J who, in the same post where he highlights a mistake, clearly a typo, of the reviewer, writes to Poletti: "..if you weren't there.."

errata corrige: reca xi = recarci - xonsurto= consueto

Probably because I loved "Dream Story" so much in my youth, and because I am not intelligent enough to decipher all the indisputable (or so they tell me) subtle implications of the images, I found it boring, pretentious, unresolved, irritating, and disappointing. A sermon I didn’t feel the need for, one of his worst films, or perhaps the worst. But this cannot be said, so I haven’t said it. The things that Saputello points out are quite undeniable, and they are what earn him the 3 that I think he deserves. But of course, as previously mentioned, it is an evaluation driven by my obtuseness, to which even my wife, who enjoyed it very much, attributed my eagerness to leave the theater as soon as possible, to head to some healthy evening with a ritual pagan consultation of Masonic origin, I seem to remember... - P.S. In this, therefore, I partially agree with the review that identifies the line from Kidman as the key to understanding...

I had to listen to them because they were among the "pallini" of a friend, a well-known music critic, but I never managed to appreciate them as much as he did, even though, especially in this album (for me their best), they showcase all the qualities that Donjunio's page describes, particularly an excellent melodic vein.

Certo! Inviami pure il testo e procederò con la traduzione.

Listening to it at the exit, out of curiosity about their past, I remember a respectable album, at times epic, well-produced (there was the guy who had worked with J. Cope, if I’m not mistaken) with the usual inspired moments (he undoubtedly has talent) but many inconsistencies. In short, the impression of an album in transition, caught between unsatisfactory solo temptations and the need for a new direction. I don’t think a re-listen would significantly change the impression, and a rating that sits between 3 and 4.

For me, however, it’s the second time, with the Rivoli (which I have harshly criticized on other occasions) but it still remains a "surprise." - I used to have this on vinyl, I liked it (I remember it being "fun" and in particular I really liked the cover of L.S.) I lent it out and I’ve never seen or heard it again. Did they reissue it on CD? Were there also some guys from Green on Red involved?

I'm too out of it: the comments were from the other review...

Never heard of it. You've intrigued me.