emofiliaco

I don't like the rest of their discography, so I guess I won't listen to this either.

Never endured

beautifully

Always had issues with those who sing despite suffering from chronic sinusitis: her, Billy Corgan, etc. That said, she has been fortunate to cross paths with great songwriters: quite the charmer, I'd say. A beautiful woman anyway from (Y)(Y)(Y)(Y) when she was young.

Thus passes the glory of the world

Ps: for Nes who didn’t understand, I’m quoting comment 41 "emphasizing" the parts that seem unclear to him: "then obviously this film is NOT A MASTERPIECE (due to the various screenplay flaws that have already been pointed out) but it must also be said that Nolan confirms himself as a director of great depth (who is often forced TO NAVE THROUGH STORIES NOT ALWAYS UP TO PAR) among the best of his generation. I don’t quite agree with the references to "Matrix" (because then we would have to dig much deeper into the HISTORY OF CINEMA) but in a film, everyone sees what they want to see."

Nes: I brought Apuleius into the conversation because you brought up Dick when I was referring to the history of cinema (go reread comment 41: come on, play nice ;-D), so when it comes to nonsense... :-D As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry but I have nothing to say in response because it seems like the usual comment with the usual more or less debatable points that the history of criticism has always "fought over," so we risk spending eons listening to the wind talk for nothing. You’re free to consider the film bad just as I will continue to regard Nolan as a great director (see, we're on two different planes: is it really necessary for me to explain things to you three times? ;-D)
@PaolaFrancesca: calm down and stay cool. I didn't say that your idea is nonsense or idiocy (which, for instance, Nes does every time someone thinks differently from her :-D), but simply that if you start from the assumption that this film is "TOTALLY the child of Matrix," from my point of view, the basis for further interaction is lacking as this is, for me, a TOTALLY misleading concept. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but in this case, it's quite clear that "we're speaking two different languages" and therefore we will both waste time discussing nothing (which is a daily occurrence on DeBaser but I promised to stop it ;-D). Clearer now? Take care.

I'll rephrase the sentence, which is better :-D: "also for the now game of 'I expected it', just a precaution ;-), which has involved far too many people."

not "because now the game" but "for the now game" Sorry for the dysgraphia ;-)

Nes: one can go beyond K. Dick; one can reach at least Apuleius (this is to say that certain archetypes have been endlessly circulating since humans became human). As for the rest, the fact that for you "Inception" "doesn't work" and "Matrix" does (many think that the film by the W. brothers is an extreme nonsense: I believe both work, to be precise) I think falls into purely "taste" issues while it is quite objective to note Nolan's directorial skill (though it’s true that you might only like "Memento," tastes vary). In an era where "new stories" to tell have become scarce (not to mention the "twists": also because nowadays the game of "I expected that" has involved far too many people), I focus on those technical aspects that make me "enjoy" what I'm watching. Anyway, I’ll conclude (artfully wondering what I wanted to say) by saying that your discourse confirms to PaolaFrancesca that one shouldn't take "Matrix" as a reference and that Nolan certainly is not appreciated on this site. Take care.