Mr.Moustache

Well, are the only films adapted from novels the ones that you self-define as horror/gothic? If you say so... that review seems just thrown together a bit, just for the sake of statistics...

Sorry, I meant '67... I got vaguely confused!

I have no doubt that the film you reviewed possesses that quality you mention: truly exemplary cuts in the shots, innovative colors for post-noir cinema (I mean the film and the exposure), but in terms of content I find it certainly beautiful, but not as much as I find I senza nome. The latter, aside from Volontè who, in my opinion, is too formalized by the director, leaves me with a lot to digest, and Delon (with those little mustaches from years of overexposure) perhaps delivers one of his most stunning performances, not to mention the monsters in the closet; that's pure paranoia never represented so symbolically in the cinema of those years, especially in that genre, a break from the film's metric continuum that gives it an almost shamanic spirituality, so much so that it fits perfectly into a decidedly out-of-place context. Le Samourai is undoubtedly a very, very substantial experiment, I repeat, for the colors, for Delon who is stellar nonetheless, and also for the commissioner who fits perfectly just like all the environments and locations where the film was shot (it was '69..), but the fetishistic realism of I senza nome completely shook me, especially for the tacit relationship that is closely tied to the entire film. A brutal police force, a social situation, that of France, steeped in repression and frustration, with sinners (unforgettable is even the character who recycles the stolen goods, with his disbelieving gaze!). It’s one of the few films where you can only be on the side of the "evil," as it represents the only salvation, survival, with that sense of redemption that seeps through every corner of the film, think for example of the part of the so-called "cursed" sniper. It truly is a film that amazed me with its originality in interpreting criminal life, unique.

I prefer Melville's "The Nameless Ones." But apparently, according to many, I really don't know anything about cinema. Good review.

What memories: a 5, living in the era of the short-shit like Spider-Man, Superman, I, Robot (?!!) Hannibal Lecter and so on, the great and anti-oxidant Robocop deserves all of it, and he deserves it also because, as you rightly explain, there are no more films that treat such varied themes with apparent nonchalance and are accessible to everyone, not just intellectuals who ridicule their own ego, but to everyone. This film belongs to that period of American cinematic history that preceded the end of anime-motion (frame-by-frame movements, meaning a tough job), paving the way for current films where the cyborg is nothing more than a collection of pixels blatantly arranged by a computer to recreate something explicitly anti-realistic and, above all, capable of disappointing. The scene where he fires, sending the bullet through the skirt of the unfortunate robbery victim, hitting one of the ill-intentioned who were bothering her in the lower regions, is unforgettable. That was real violence (innovative in cinema for everyone), unlike Hostel..

Beautiful review, really! This is one of the most interesting films from a compositional standpoint by Scorsese. As usual, there are those who occasionally throw out inexplicable and hasty judgments.

Excuse me, ENEAthedevil.. not enethedevil..

I hadn't noticed Enethedevil's comment, to which I express my total reciprocal solidarity, and which sees me aligned with those who are against pompous concepts cleverly disguised to exalt poorly executed products just because they captivate most people. What Poletti says is his personal opinion, but the way he expresses it, well, that’s a hint of frustration.

Mr. Poletti, how can I put this, Scorsese fascinates me greatly, but you see, in this film, I find him almost unrecognizable, as if "cured" by some sort of "Pharmakòn" capable of altering personality. I find this film terribly predictable, not so much because of the sets, the costumes and so on, but rather due to the unrealistic historical context, specifically the 19th century, which (you will agree with me) was characterized not only by wealth, prosperity, lyrical performances, and so forth, but also by poverty, misery, and social degradation present primarily in that high borough, even before it affected the masses: this film does not fully reflect (in my opinion) what the nobility and aristocracy were in their rigidity, and instead resonates as a diluted romcom with mild content. Lastly, I believe my cinematic culture is not abundantly satisfactory (as I sense you might think it is due to your hint of arrogance, something deeply rooted in you), but I lean more towards Mean Streets, 1929, Taxi Driver, Casino, The Last Temptation, Raging Bull, and (with a few questions) even Gangs Of New York (which I find more explanatory and satisfying in terms of realism of content, of course, in my opinion). In closing, Wynona Ryder seems more like a kleptomaniac than anything else (but these are, excuse the rhetoric, personal tastes). To conclude (this time for real), I feel compelled to advise you to refrain from expressing opinions on others' thoughts so recklessly and coarsely. Even those who assertively and carelessly pass judgment on others' impressions, in my view, have numerous issues with understanding what cinema is and its myriad ways of being interpreted.

Mr. Poletti, how can I put this, Scorsese fascinates me greatly, but you see, in this film, I find him almost unrecognizable, as if "cured" by some sort of "Pharmakòn" capable of altering personality. I find this film terribly predictable, not so much because of the sets, the costumes and so on, but rather due to the unrealistic historical context, specifically the 19th century, which (you will agree with me) was characterized not only by wealth, prosperity, lyrical performances, and so forth, but also by poverty, misery, and social degradation present primarily in that high borough, even before it affected the masses: this film does not fully reflect (in my opinion) what the nobility and aristocracy were in their rigidity, and instead resonates as a diluted romcom with mild content. Lastly, I believe my cinematic culture is not abundantly satisfactory (as I sense you might think it is due to your hint of arrogance, something deeply rooted in you), but I lean more towards Mean Streets, 1929, Taxi Driver, Casino, The Last Temptation, Raging Bull, and (with a few questions) even Gangs Of New York (which I find more explanatory and satisfying in terms of realism of content, of course, in my opinion). In closing, Wynona Ryder seems more like a kleptomaniac than anything else (but these are, excuse the rhetoric, personal tastes). To conclude (this time for real), I feel compelled to advise you to refrain from expressing opinions on others' thoughts so recklessly and coarsely. Even those who assertively and carelessly pass judgment on others' impressions, in my view, have numerous issues with understanding what cinema is and its myriad ways of being interpreted.