kubrickblues

Among the many posts that I honestly read distractedly, but then re-read, I found Eletto stating "apart from the story....". But gentlemen, are we talking about Cinema or something else? If you wanted the record for atrocities, I could name you a thousand pseudofilms, but in a true film, the story is the very first thing; it seems obvious to me, but reading you all, it doesn't seem so. I repeat, Eletto, you say "apart from the story...", "the story is good," the concept is good, there's no usual serial killer, the setting is good, some scenes are quite disturbing, even if not record-breaking as you all claim, so what?? For a horror film, I think that’s more than enough. The surrounding campaign is obvious; the film was created to make money, not to make us reflect on the fact that certain things shouldn't be done, or to convey the message that causing pain to others isn't entirely right. Roth didn’t want to create "Once Upon a Time in America," "2001," "The Hundred Steps," or "American Beauty"; he simply wanted to make a good horror film that was at times disturbing and to maximize its box office returns. It seems to me that he managed that compromise quite well.

I like the way the review is written, but I don't agree with its concept. It seems to me that the criticism of the film is actually more focused on all the promotional baggage surrounding it than on the film itself. You say the idea is good, there isn't the usual serial, the location is unusual and dark, like the scene of entering the factory, with that enormous cramped and gloomy space seen in a long shot, in Ridley Scott style, similar to the scene in Alien-ship interior where a crew member is looking for the cat. I don't judge the film based on whether it surpasses or fails to surpass the violence record compared to Saw or similar films, or based on the positive or negative influence the promo had on me in relation to the viewing of the film. Undoubtedly, I watched the film, like everyone else, because of the advertising for unprecedented violence and the name of producer Tarantino, but once seated I simply judge the film, and not the chatter around it; I won't let myself be influenced in either direction. I also don't understand the crude way of making the scenes, what are you referring to? Some posts say it was a scam. A real scam in cinema was Blair-Witch-Project. Hostel, in its genre, is an excellent film, well made, certainly not the usual teen-horror-movie.

In the meantime, the film is inspired by true events that occurred in Thailand, see backstage. Anyway, it is technically impeccable. The first part is deliberately and misleadingly in a classic, silly teen-college-horror style, only to change radically—far from slightly—its tone. In my opinion, the director doesn't care at all about making us initially sympathetic to the protagonists, a clichéd cinematic mechanism, albeit a valid one. He tricks us in the first part by serving up the usual dish without illusions or high expectations, but spices it up with more intriguing girls than usual and manages to create an excellent and evocative sex scene, especially thanks to the background of a beautiful and unique song by Sneaker Pimps, if I'm not mistaken. Then, however, he drags you into a true nightmare—not the usual serial killer, but a new situation that hits you psychologically beyond the highly graphic scenes. Absolutely unexpected horror, wonderfully shot, that runs like a well-oiled machine and hits the target of a horror film: building tension and engagement, making you stay glued to your seat, experiencing the horror firsthand just like the protagonist does.

I liked the review more than the movie; it’s nice, but light-years away from dramatic masterpieces like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Let’s say it’s worth watching, and Norton is excellent.

Thank you, sir.

In conclusion, finally. The album in question is a masterpiece, just like the previous one; the review in the first part is excellent, then a few missteps, like "Where The Streets… a symbolic song... of rock and BLUES," no, definitely not blues, and then "smashing guitars... sex, drugs," no, really not, spare us the feel-good nonsense, respect the Who, Jimi Hendrix, and many others. Long live sex and fire to the guitars!!

In the previous post, I correct myself: "I hope to always be one against." Well, the U2 may be liked or disliked, just like the Beatles, but objectively we must acknowledge their value and the mark they have left in this two-decade span.

Continuing on, I can tell you that in spirit and instinct, I have been and hope to remain "against" and not one of the many millions of sheep that flood this planet with true crap, and I'm not just talking about music, but especially about political, social, and cultural crap. That said, returning to our Irish discussions, I would define them as the modern Beatles. Neither particularly exceptional technically (the "edge" style is quite good, though), but they have managed to compose countless songs that are seemingly simple and popular in the broadest and most positive sense of the term. But without resorting to hyperboles and adjectives typical of critics, I would say they have written numerous songs that are simply beautiful, beautiful and that's it, without the flair of Joe Satriani, just to cite a technical monster, but beautiful.

I woke up to a lovely smell, anyway sorry for the tons of SHIT mentioned, I won't do it again, but it was a way to give you a rough idea of some of my wonderful travel companions who have accompanied me in life.

It's 3:35 AM on December 25, 2006, I'm dead tired.