Galakordi Urtis Krat

I don't think everything stops at the metaphor of the "stranger." Rather, Close Encounters of the Third Kind is a film about cinema: that's the metaphor (and not so much of a stretch when someone like Francois Truffaut practically plays himself in the final scene). Anyway, I don't like it. I mean, I don't like the film. I don't like Spielberg. He makes me sick. His moralism, his sugary adolescent aesthetic with those kitschy and "teen" images make me want to vomit. But he has talent. Some solutions (many) are beautiful. Gorgeous. Yet he ruins it again with moralism, with the crap he puts in his films. And it's something he's always maintained. Consistency? Courage? Coherence? Believing in it? Perhaps, but you irritate me, Steven. Actually, I'll miss you, Steven. I hope you die soon. Today. P.S.: labeling this film as "one of Spielberg's best tapes" is truly delightful.

I agree with lasacrabibbia. Clearly, 70s splatter movies never had artistic pretensions; they weren’t recognized as auteur products and never aspired to be. Yet today they are celebrated. I won’t hide my hand, because I often advocate for certain films from the past, perhaps due to a fetish for the aesthetics of dated movie imagery (I go crazy for the texture of the images in old films), but I recognize that many of them were made quite haphazardly. What can be said, for example, about Vanishing Point? I mean, praising a film like that is sheer madness. But it also embodies the right spirit with which to approach a certain type of cinema, which, let’s remember, is art of concept even more than of technique. For this reason (as I see it, of course), the technicalities for their own sake are noticeable to the point of grating when they appear on screen (see Old Boy: with its ostentatious techniques reaching levels of overly gratuitousness). Hostel is a product -b, and its status always raises discordant opinions. I enjoyed the review and give it a 5 as a reward for the passion and enthusiasm.

how cool, deathinaugust reviewing (as he usually does) a movie that I need to see. I'm always looking forward to your other reviews.

I would also recommend Sweet Amy Lee.

Do the Griffins have no other claim than to make you laugh? Are you really sure about that? If anything, it is in the Griffins that you find what Poletti asserts.

priceless were Weston’s "question times" while the others were tidying up the instruments after the most intense moments. those who were there know what I’m talking about.

p.s.: seen live in Bologna. no comment. a solid 5. yyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!

ccccccccccccccccooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooosaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa???????? new album by SHELLAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCC???? ?

Stronko, don’t flip the omelet. Rather, accept the fact that you messed up by siding (unintentionally) with that critic who wanted to see in this film at all costs a pretentious movie. Or even a pretextual behavior in Cuarón. (see: I figli degli uomini - La chiameremo Bazooka

I completely agree. Children of Men was truly a surprise. The guerrilla scene in the streets of the city is PERFECT. Wonderful. The review is great too. Essential and perfectly in tone with the film.