fusillo

Yes, good night... Let's try again: @flinstone: those nice typos from back in the day are gone. :-)

Oh hi debasers. For those who are interested, I've added a handful of samples. @flinstone: there are no more those lovely typos from back in the day. :-) @autopilot: availability? Pretty scarce, I’d say, but you can find everything on eBay. @PaolinoPaperino: I don't waste the 5... The thing is, I'm generous. And then these guys, after all, deserve it. Hello everyone.

@flinstone: "fusillo oibo' but do you know that you amaze me! Seriously, you know? And how come you know things that Odradek would have said to me?" ---> I've read Odradek's posts, flinstone, that's all. Even that big one up here. :-)

Look, Flinstone, I don't take myself too seriously and that "porci debaserati" doesn't offend me. But it doesn't make me laugh either. And anyway, you keep misunderstanding. Odradek (by the way, he has told you more than once) didn't mean that only those who are competent should write reviews. He meant that those who are not competent should avoid making final judgments expressed with terrible arrogance, like Valerio did on this page. Why? Because there's a risk of making a fool of oneself and coming across as bothersome instead of likable. That's all...

Flinstone, in my opinion, you misunderstood: Valerio Rivoli did not express an opinion. He didn’t say, "I don’t like De Andrè’s voice." He said, "De Andrè’s voice is worth zero." Then he launched into a miserable technical analysis of Fabrizio's vocal qualities. Now, to express technical evaluations, you need expertise. That expertise which, I can say after hearing his songs, Valerio does not have. But look, it wasn’t even necessary to listen to his songs to understand that Valerio is speaking nonsense. Just listen to De Andrè... Moreover, Valerio expresses himself like a perfect boor, throwing insults at all the users (I quote: "porci debaserati") and that certainly doesn’t reflect well on him... Anyway, if you like Rivoli, that’s fine, it wouldn’t be a problem... However, Odradek's argument makes perfect sense. Bye.

Hey, I'm in too on the twenty-second!!

A step back? I don’t know, it doesn’t seem like it to me...

Don Quixote does not die because of madness. He dies just when he regains his senses... Which connects to the point you make at the end. By the way, if I’m not mistaken, there’s a "Don Quijote" with Franco and Ciccio. When can we expect the review? Bye.

For me, "sulle corde di aries" makes my knees weak. :-) Fripp, you made a huge mistake. :-)

And finally we come to the true or presumed "greatness" of this film. Again, I don't pose the problem. I watched it, I enjoyed the story, the actors entertained me, and that was enough for me... Does "broken flowers" serve a purpose? I might be superficial, but this is also a problem that doesn't trouble me. As far as I'm concerned, I like Jim Jarmusch's films. I haven't seen them all, but the ones I have seen, apart from a few episodes of "cigarettes and coffee," I enjoyed. When the next one comes out, I'll go see it because I love his way of storytelling "by subtraction" and the artisanal care with which he crafts his films. I also find that he has a subtle and intelligent sense of humor. All of this is more than enough for me. Anyway... I wouldn't want to indulge in shallow sociology, but some meaning can certainly be drawn from it. I don't know if you've noticed, but the adults in this film don't come off very well. I would say the only one with a "normal" life is Winston. The others are, let's say, eccentric individuals who do rather strange jobs when they work. And Don, as we've already established, is not a satisfied type. I wouldn't say "broken flowers" is a generational film, but perhaps Jarmusch wanted to send a message to his peers. Hello and sorry if I wrote too much.