odradek

Damn, I would almost reverse the votes, but never reach either 5 or 1.5 in any case...
I was surprised to find you here. Bye bye.

But how true are the other two posts?
I really like this one of yours.

Bah. - Bah.? Well....

Yes, you said something. And this time very intelligibly. I see that you liked the film. If memory serves me right, though (but we know that this is anything but a negligible option), the qualities of the film lie, as often happens, more in your gaze and in your ability or willingness to grasp than in the film itself. Beautiful, the application of the third principle, in your perspective. Was it really there in the film? Or was it rather the worn-out staging of the paranoid genius and his torture machine, the misunderstood, inexpressible talent? Played on a fundamental misunderstanding (let's not talk about the god of lies, let's give the benefit of the doubt). And regarding the protagonist, I see we share the same opinion, you do well to remember the excellent father. I told you that the impression lingers, but that was formed at the moment of viewing. Perhaps it was a pre/vision, even more than a prevention? The fact remains that probably your vision is more recent and, as I had already promised to do with Elephant, I need to find this one. To re/view "all the magnificent obscurantist first part immersed in the 'boredom of household objects'...classic." You know, being open to changing one's mind is not just a saying.

It is like all the films that, drawing from human affairs, abundantly romanticized, base their attempts at emotional engagement on the construction of a one-way plot, with very banal narration, emphasizing the "actor's proof" and not attempting any notable formal solution, never deviating from a charming narrative whose outcome I see from the start. In short, while I observed the glistening eyes of the ladies leaving the theater, I automatically thought of the worn yet always effective mechanism, almost automatic, that leads, through the usual paths, to the desired result. That's all. And since I didn't think it necessary to attempt further verifications or re/visions, I let time (a short time, indeed) erase the details, leaving only the impression I keep. And what I've told you. I won't force myself to an additional viewing to articulate my thoughts better. If that doesn't seem sufficient to you, you've won. Now tell me...

Keep being a smart aleck, carry on like that. But tell me, when will you break out of that cocoon of nonsense to express some understandable opinion and support it clearly? That mediocre film, for example. I'm waiting for an opinion, of course disputable, that reminds me of something worthy of interest. You know, being open to changing one's mind is not just a saying... But at least one scrap of a reason is needed. And it shouldn't be solely the sweetness of your gaze, blondie.

Having raised the issue, attempted a definition, and confirmed the impossibility of a reconciliation, (should we observe the patta instead of the shoes?) I can bid farewell, nonetheless recommending, to anyone who hasn't done so, to listen to Galaxie 500? Bai bai.

You're mistaken again, blondie. There's nothing reckless about it. It's one of the few cases that doesn't require re/evaluations for a definitive judgment. By the way, I rarely express one. Are you starting a new, charming relationship? Always with these derogatory methods? Josi, you already know his fickle and peripatetic nature, right?

Josi, Shine is a mediocre film, the actor does everything that a similar film expects from him, to the best of his abilities (not few, actually)...

Claudia who?