Bubi

Very interesting proposal. Review in line with the others, meaning good.

Respect for other people's ideas, because when someone writes a review, they express ideas. Theirs. Of course, if someone claims that Pooh are the Italian progressive band, they’ve written nonsense, because there are certain postulates that cannot be ignored; Pooh do not make progressive music, but pop, catchy tunes. According to your reasoning in 27, if someone writes and argues well in a review of an album that they believe deserves a 5, but you think it deserves a 2, do you give them a 2? And if someone writes in an infantile and ungrammatical way about an album that you and they both think is worth a 5, how do you rate them? Recently, I’ve bought a lot of movies; before doing so, I read MyMovies. There’s a woman (Marzia Grandolfi) who writes excellently, but often leads me to buy films that I evaluate differently than she does. The same goes for Mereghetti. However, I would never dream of thinking they are bad reviewers, but rather that they have a different perspective than mine when it comes to evaluating certain films. Just a couple of days ago, I gave 4 to the review of "Murder on the Orient Express," because I saw it the opposite way of the reviewer. As for removing scores, that wouldn’t be a bad idea; it’s the written judgment that matters, the score is just a shortcut. Moreover, over time, tastes change; what one thought 10 years ago about an album or a film might be evaluated differently today. P.S. Don’t take this as an attack, but as a different opinion from comment 27.

27 of Supersoul. For me, a review should be evaluated based on how it is written and how the reviewer presents their arguments, regardless of whether one agrees or not. With your reasoning, the review would be stripped of all meaning. Even Voltaire wrote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." In this phrase, besides the consideration, there is also an implicit respect for the ideas of those who think differently than you. You write: that ingredient which MUST characterize a good review: knowing how to judge a record... and who can decide whether a record is judged well or poorly? At most, one can write that they judge the record or the film differently or entirely divergently, but one must not forget that tastes are not up for discussion, and they all have the same dignity.

Raw and intense like few others, perhaps the most gifted in compositional talent.

Isis, there were three of us, and he winked at us. Then when it was over, we went to the locker room and talked a bit together. I remember we had fun, but I don’t remember what we were saying; it’s been a century, it was '72 or thereabouts, and the little mouse was still a stranger.

The most overrated of the characters allowed to make records. I saw him when he had just started out in a venue in Livorno; there were also two or three dancers, and when the sound system went down, the little mouse started telling jokes. Actually, he was shouting to make sure everyone could hear him.

I already had a similar discussion on another review of a film adapted from a Christie novel. After all, for me, the best of this genre are on par with delightful comedies like Gosford Park, The Players, The Good Fortune of Cookie, all by Altman and all vastly superior to this. (I chose poorly, I should have mentioned The Mystery of Bellavista, Mi manda Picone or The Conspiracy of Innocents by the same Hitchcock.) As for Psyco (this is the title in Italian), it was my first review of a film, you can imagine how much I like it. Perkins acts brilliantly, but the film would have been a masterpiece even without him; it’s the story that captivates, and Hitch tells it masterfully. Just to shoot the shower scene, it took him a week. Furthermore, it is based on a story by Robert Bloch, just like many of his other masterpieces, Rear Window by Cornell Woolrich, Vertigo by Thomas Narcejac, The Other Man by Highsmith, etc. etc.

I have some doubts about it being a cornerstone of Giallo cinema. I believe I could name about twenty films that are more foundational to the Giallo genre, more authoritative than this one (not just from my perspective, but from the criticism in general). However, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so yours is also valid. The film and the novel have a couple of good ideas, for example, the train stuck in the snow. The fact that there are so many stars doesn’t mean anything to me; what interests me is the story and how it is told. A Giallo should grab you by the balls from the very first scenes and not let go until the end. I’ll give a couple of examples: Elevator to the Gallows, North by Northwest, The Infernal Quinlan, In Cold Blood, to not always mention Hitchcock, who made at least ten films more esteemed than this one. Even "The Bloodthirsty," which has no stars, is better than this, and especially (like the other mentioned ones) it saves us from the final lecture given by Poirot after he has gathered all the suspects. Sometimes even half an hour of chatter. You have an opinion opposite to mine on how a Giallo should be, but from your point of view, it’s not poorly written.

As was the case for John Fogerty, (I don't remember who wrote it) almost nobody pays attention to Merle Haggard. For me, this is a bad sign and a detriment for a site like DiRango; artists of this caliber deserve much more attention. The review of Fabri Fibra, (but who is he?) received 500 comments and was viewed 68,392 times.

I really like Merle Haggard, you did well to remind me, I almost forgot he existed. I'm buying it right away.