Alex84

Polycentric novel in contrast to Tolstoy? Try taking a look at Anna Karenina, where the eponymous character, if not a secondary character, is sometimes not far from being one.

I found this film ridiculous, perhaps because the Japanese have a completely different concept of horror than we do. What made me laugh the most were the expressions of terror on the characters' faces, so exaggerated they are.

This film is strangely hypnotic and engaging, despite having a very thin plot, replaced by thematic coherence. One could indulge in verbose intellectualism to unveil its meaning, but I believe it is a genuinely powerful film that resonates with anyone, without the need for too much contemplation.

This kind of film is watched if you need to prepare for a university exam on the history of cinema or for personal knowledge, certainly not for pleasure. After all, it's a piece of Soviet propaganda. Nobody gets excited watching Riefenstahl, even though she was a genius, and no one is thrilled to follow the vicissitudes of the Russian people, except perhaps the Russians from the 1920s, and maybe not even them.

Of course, I don't only listen to Madonna and Carla Bruni, even though the former is my favorite singer. I don't ask too many questions about technical quality. I find it effective, frivolous when it wants to be, and serious when it needs to be. There are also emotional reasons that make me love her. I think her music is intelligent pop, and if someone venerates her as an icon, that can be a good thing. A bit of diva-ness never hurts; in fact, a singer who's too humble can be boring. However, too much veneration becomes cloying and superficial. Gay people are champions in this, to the point that the image they have presented to the world is that of a frivolous and irreverent community. Of course, it’s a stereotype, but they created it themselves. I listen to many other genres, though, which are already sufficiently reviewed on this site.

In my opinion, it's frustrating the way gays appropriate something, more than just music. If they knew metal music better, they would make it the emblem of bears.

Thank you, Supernova! Your comment, like many others, contributes to lowering the level of education of this site.

This album could have been more than good if the arrangements had been different. For example, the live version from the Reinvention tour of "American Life" is a thousand times better than the original, which is too basic in its instrumentation. There's a great remix of "Nothing Fails" on "Remixed and Revised," much less sugary than the original. "Love Profusion" is fine as it is, although the remix that was playing on the radio was much more unique. "Die Another Day" is the gem of the album, innovative and bold like never before, alongside "X-Static Process," disarming in its simplicity. It is said that Madonna had to rearrange the album because it was initially too electronic. It was probably much better, considering the great experiments from "Music." She could have skipped the folk and opted for an electronic rock/pop sound like in the aforementioned remixes.

This is my favorite Madonna album, but I don't understand why a bland song like "don't stop" was included, definitely inferior to the rest. They could have chosen the simple yet engaging "your honesty," which later appeared 10 years after on "remixed and revised," or the intriguing "let down your guard," which I think appeared as a b-side on the "secret" single. This still feels like a boudoir album, so soft and sensual. The ballads are stratospheric, but the true gem in my opinion is "sanctuary," pure poetry.

I agree. By interpreting many covers, she usually manages to enhance them or even give dignity to very humble songs. She and her collaborators are masters at snatching up semi-forgotten pop tracks that earn little in royalties, giving them a whole new look. The missteps came early in her career when she wasn't quite sure what genre to pursue. She made somewhat naive pop, seasoning it with her soprano voice.