Solomon

Oh my God Poletti, what's wrong?

Spiass punisher, top secret. By the way, I’m so ignorant that I forgot an "h". Belin...

oh come on, I have to watch it again. ;)

I QUOTE POLETTI: "history, which is the necessary characteristic to be considered a fundamental film" "Ultimately, did they mark an era? Did they revolutionize something? Did they have any kind of impact on subsequent cinema? Things like that, this is what I mean by History."
I wanted to copy and paste some of your terribly pompous statements, but I chose this one because it is the most significant. -What the hell are you saying?- would be the appropriate response to all your questions… but since I don't want to be vulgar, I'll respond: -You’re quite mistaken, my friend, really mistaken.- What does "fundamental" mean? For whom? For what? Are you some kind of regurgitation of positivism? Do you really think you can dictate what is fundamental and what is not in the evolution of an art form like cinema? Come on! What are you talking about? So according to you (taking as an example a film that has made history by your parameters… let’s say Full Metal Jacket, okay?) if Kubrick had been inspired by, borrowed from, or even just elaborated on some little-known and technically poor film, that film wouldn’t have made History? Think about it for a moment, and maybe you’ll understand what I mean... THERE ARE NO 100 "fundamental" films you preach about… they cannot exist. Every work is fundamental in itself, even the craziest piece of junk you’ve ever seen. The History of Cinema. But read something that was written after the 1980s on the subject (since you want to act smart) and then we can talk about it again. Sorry for the really acidic tone, I realize that. It’s just that you reminded me so much of someone I can’t stand…

"but if you’ve read Ballard’s book, it’s the feeling that comes through from the book itself, very 'mechanical' in its writing, I believe Cronenberg has faithfully transposed it. Regarding James Dean and the simulated accidents, it's not my invention, but I read it in an interview with Cronenberg where he spoke about it himself; anyway, Vaughan also talks about it in the film, in the scene of the simulated car crashes. What can I say if you don’t remember that scene? Just rewatch the film :-). Perhaps this is the film most imbued with Cronenberg’s poetic essence (absurd that you don’t see any of this). I’m still here; I haven't read the book (and at this point, I think I will...just to find out) but, as I mentioned before, I don’t see why it should be necessary to read a book to understand the film adapted from it. If you’ve read the other book 'The Atrocity Exhibition,' maybe it will be clearer to you why the protagonists in this film act and think this way...I believe this film is more a transposition of 'The Atrocity Exhibition' than 'Crash,' I find even more affinities there. Did none of this resonate with you? Well, it definitely did for me and many others." Likewise above. Passing (indeed, bring it on) a network of quotes and references is acceptable, but they must not and cannot be the main pillars of a work. And it seems to me that beyond these references, this particular film does not add anything of its own. The fact that you and many others have grasped things that I instead did not find does not necessarily mean it’s something strange...it may be that you saw something because you started from some references that are external to the film. But it often happens that this occurs precisely thanks to a posteriori reasoning you have developed by going BEYOND the film. I repeat, as interesting as the theme you raised is, I still believe that the film contains only pale reflections of what you say and that the core of your analysis is in your head, not in the film."

Oops... I put three one on interventions... precise. :)

So, take it easy. Regarding Alias: I placed 2 "1"s without realizing I had already done so before (count my contributions and see how many times I've voted), but I certainly don't want to discuss this here (I find voting absolutely pointless, it's more of a "tic"). If you expect me to know what your second, third, and fourth nicknames are, you're dreaming. Log in with just one name, and everything sounds simpler. What the hell do I know about who Vic Sorriso is? That said, the reason I consider this worthy of a minimum score is the expectations that come with it... I don’t watch Vanzina's films; they don't make the cut, but this one I did want to see and expected great things, instead I saw a film that constantly winks at the audience trying to come off as "cool" but actually rests on nothing. I'm also responding to kataklisma: the fact that it implies other elements doesn’t make me doubt it... but here the film DOESN'T stand on its own, it’s boring and repetitive; your analysis (and I refer to Vic's comment) is an elaboration on nothing... interesting, for heaven's sake, but it seems to me that you want to see something in the film that just isn't there. Maybe it was there in the intentions, but it's simply not on the screen. For muffinman, unless you have other nicks as Alias, I don’t find any arguments in your comments above to defend the film. Unless "I saw it in theaters when it came out (by the way, is it available on DVD???) and I found it splendid, perhaps one of Cronenberg's best where he expresses the full poetry of his cinema. Beautiful, and nice review. P.S.: when I went to the cinema, we weren't too many but no one got up before the end" counts as an argument. So I’ll remain silent...

Alias, I appreciate your effort to raise the average rating of this film beyond what it currently is, but let me tell you that your attitude seems a bit childish to me... your judgment ("it's a great art film not for everyone") suggests that you have something to add to these 5... why not make your thoughts public?

I reply to kataklisma: you hit the nail on the head, I haven't read the book. I understand your reasoning, but I don't fully subscribe to it. I believe that a film, no matter how much it may be based on a previous work, must stand on its own to be appreciated. Let me explain: it cannot be a good film if it is only enjoyable to those who have previously read the book it’s based on. That means it’s a film that lacks something, it's cripped. A film is a work that must be self-sufficient (it’s another matter if you say it can be MORE appreciated by those who have read the book...but it can't please some and disgust others).
The film in question is repetitive, tattered, and sometimes even ridiculous. It wants to be a cult film (and you can see it...it winks and winks and winks) but it is missing a lot of things. Among other issues, it is also poorly acted. Terrible and even worse considering the expectations it had.

but then I'm not the only one! that makes me feel a bit better...