Senmayan

I give it a 4 for the immense sentimental value, for the magician from Segrate, for Adriano Celentano and his old Zaccaria.

Sure, special effects used massively; definitely, the first trilogy is famous for the heavy use of special effects, but come on! Here I have the confirmation that you haven't seen Star Wars, maybe you've seen the first one and some of the new ones. The Star Wars trilogy is renowned for the balance it manages to create between plot and special effects, not like the current sci-fi blockbusters made to see who has the bigger show.

Kooka, if I'm not mistaken, Solaris was appreciated much later than its release. When it comes to cinematic science fiction, American sci-fi films from the 1950s have almost always been referenced. It's not just those, but the main references were films like "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (which is, by the way, beautiful) or "Forbidden Planet," or the various films about Martians, Venusians, and stuff like that. The fact that there were also Solaris and 2001... doesn’t change much; they were rare cases, and by the late 70s, betting on science fiction was anything but a guaranteed success (Flash Gordon, released during those years, was a flop)! Then really, comparing Star Wars to the patriotic Independence Day is a pretty silly thing to do. Those who talk about it as a farce have probably seen the latest trilogy, where in fact Star Wars ended up like the sequels to The Matrix, meaning that special effects were prioritized over the plot. I would bet everything that Poletti hasn't seen all of Star Wars; otherwise, he’d be sadomasochistic because to persist in something you don't like...

The trivialization of the genre? This is pure science fiction; if you don't like it, that's your problem. Then there are comments from people who haven't seen the film or who perhaps watched the latest trilogy, which in spirit and philosophy has nothing to do with the original Star Wars trilogy (the one from the late 70s and early 80s). Dear Tabba, the first Star Wars is famous for using practical effects sparingly, yet achieving a result that made history. The first Star Wars (1978) had a very low budget. I don’t consider it a fairy tale, but an epic saga, and those who start watching it from the latest productions miss out on the magic of the first three films, great characters like Yoda, and a transcendent and mystical vision (the Force). Star Wars never overdoes it with battles (even though they made history in science fiction), it doesn’t aim to amaze with special effects (except in the last three films), so what the hell are you talking about? As usual, like you did with The Godfather, you review three films in one; what the hell are we supposed to vote on? I definitely give you a 1; you come off as ignorant and snobbish even in the field of cinema! As for the rest, this is the first grand science fiction work, a brave move to focus on a genre that was still considered B-list in cinema!

I watched the sequel, only because that evening the cinema cost 3 euros, so we rushed into the theater and found ourselves facing this semi-adolescent film, banal and predictable to the nth degree, and it’s absurd the spotlight and the space that the mass media give it; in fact, it’s not absurd, it’s typically in their nature.

great film, truly distressing and I believe it has never been shown in any theater in conformist Italy!

I also read the review. Excellent!

great film, truly distressing and I believe it has never been shown in any theater in conformist Italy!

a cult movie now!

I may have listened to just a few seconds of this album, so I can't judge, but their pop turn isn't bad; "one second," while not comparable to "draconian times," is a nice album. Paradise Lost are one of those bands that rarely release trivial products!