Hardrock92

No, but on that I agree with you, sorry if I misunderstood. Anyway, I appreciate them live as well; they’re entertaining, just like on their records. The problem isn’t really whether they’re original or not. You mention Motorpsycho, rightly so, and we can take thousands of examples of groups that aren’t too original but still "rock" because they do their thing well and have something to say. What’s missing in Verdena is the ability to say something; they don’t say anything at all, they have nothing to say—nothing at all. They make tracks, I repeat, beautiful to listen to, but with no depth; sometimes they give me the impression that they play certain things just to prove they can do it, which some may like, I won’t deny that. In short, they don’t have anything that makes me say, “hey, I’ll listen to Verdena” instead of going to listen to Queens of the Stone Age, Motorpsycho, or other people like that. I consider them a bit like the band that can introduce you to otherwise unknown music. They lack a strong identity.

Darkeve, you’ve expressed exactly everything I think about Verdena, except that you see it as a positive thing; I’m referring to the fact that they resemble a kind of "encyclopedia" of modern music without a specific personality. I haven't listened to this album yet, aside from the single, but honestly, I don’t expect anything special from it. The problem with Verdena isn’t that they make bad albums, as in the end, one listens to them pleasantly enough, but I repeat, they seem like a surrogate version of all the bands they practically copy from. Moreover, they also write lyrics that are so terrible that calling them awful is a compliment, so even on that front, where they could redeem themselves, they are dreadful.

I didn't say that the banality of the characters is a pretext; the characters themselves are a pretext. For this reason, they have been sketched in a way that could be called "banal," since they are certainly not the most important thing. It's obvious that a lot has already been said about the topic, and there aren't many new things to say, or perhaps there are none at all. As for the boredom discussion: I didn't find this film boring at all; on the contrary, it hooked me right away and never let go. Yes, it's long, but in the end, I don't think there are any unnecessary extensions, just like in all of Eastwood's films. When I was telling you that I had the wrong perspective, I meant that I felt I was grasping too "technical" a point of view focused on the details, which is valid, but in doing so, I lost sight a bit of where the film wants to go. But perhaps I was wrong, it was just an impression :D

<< For me, starting from Invictus (sentimental and rhetorical, as well as a feel-good advertising postcard before the World Cup), it’s in free fall. And here it’s plunging even further by insisting on the fair of predictability and banality. The theme of death and the afterlife is tackled through three characters that couldn’t be more clichéd (the career woman in crisis, the weak child who must become strong, the chosen one who feels lonely because of his gift/curse and no one understands him...) who, for the entire duration of the film, remain true to themselves except for a very forced intersection in the last half hour. >> Well, I don't want to make hasty judgments, but in my opinion, you understood little, not just about the film, but about the perspective from which (in my opinion) it should be viewed. The characters are purposely "ordinary," perhaps even a little stereotyped; but they were merely a pretext to propel the story forward, which in turn is another pretext to discuss the fact that existence has nothing logical about it, even though we, whether with religion or without it, consciously or unconsciously, try to find (even create) this logic. The sixth sense is placed there, again in my opinion, as if to say: "And after you know these things? What changes?" It somewhat represents the futility even of the "supernatural," of what goes beyond science. God or no God, our lives unfold with sequences of random events, many times we can't even control ourselves.

I really liked the film, despite everything. I still haven't "understood" it well; I should watch it again, and I believe I will. However, the theme of the "medium" didn't seem to me to be the main focus of the film—in other words, it's not a movie about spirits; they are an integral part of the story, just an element. And it would have been very easy to fall into kitsch or American clichés, but fortunately, Clint is Clint. To be honest, I went to see this film only because it was directed by Eastwood; I didn't know anything about the plot. If someone else had directed it, I probably wouldn't have cared at all (which would have been a mistake).

For me, all this praise for Ammaniti is exaggerated. I've read "Io non ho paura" and "Come dio comanda," nice books, mind you, but they are certainly nothing more than entertaining reads that can leave something behind, yet remain entertainment. Il68, I agree with what you're saying in the first comment, but I find all the names mentioned completely out of place; at most, you could have cited David Foster Wallace or some "contemporary" author—those would definitely fit better.

Well, the only part of this album that I struggle to enjoy is J's voice at certain points; it doesn’t sound authentically off but rather forced into that kind of tone, it's monotonous and really irritates me. However, to call it a misstep seems exaggerated; there isn’t a single song that isn’t at least good. It’s true that if they had spared us some unnecessary extensions, it might have been better (or not, I love Mascis when he gets lost in his guitar rants, even if I can understand that it may not appeal to everyone, not always, you know), but overall this album, if it’s not a masterpiece, is seriously excellent. And what an opening, the riff of Out There is among the most evocative I have ever heard.

Post Hardcore?

My God, listening to it now out of curiosity, that change of tempo is so clearly inserted just to give a touch of "strangeness" to the piece, which if it had continued linearly would at least have functioned as a "collection-piece-stereotypes-Coldp lay." Chris Martin is incredibly stingy when it comes to writing songs; okay, I don’t know a Coldplay song that isn’t at least pleasant to listen to, but damn, he’s the mummy of songwriting. The last album was saved thanks to Eno who, hell, didn’t just handle the production, he practically rewrote the songs (as explained by the Coldplay themselves in an old interview), but if even this isn't enough anymore, they need to wake up.

I've never read his "works," but I repeat, whether he's a poet or not, I don't even pose the problem. After all, who are poets? :D Anyway, I still think that Jimmo really had an amazing voice, even though he wasn't a "professionally" speaking singer and he didn't even care to be one. He was lucky enough to find three very technically skilled musicians with a remarkable dose of creativity. If you say that once he finished writing the lyrics, in the studio he counted for nothing, I totally agree. But I think that's well known.