emofiliaco

Written very poorly, I'm sorry, I have problems with the Fox...

@Bisius: if you truly believe you're being fair in your judgments, I don't see why you should get upset. @CoreY: it’s not a matter of numbers; you could have given the review a score of 5000, the issue is how much is given (and especially the barrage of insults they receive) compared to others who might talk about artists that are not favored here, where I see little objectivity. @Woodstock: exactly, I didn’t give a vote; I’m exercising my right to think for myself.
@Giorgio: if you read the comment carefully, I’m not talking about myself (go check the average rating of my reviews, it’s unpleasant to bring this up, but since you mentioned victimhood, I have to point out this variable too) but I’m sorry to see that good reviewers are covered in insults because they might write about Michael Jackson or others that I'm not going to name. Well, since freedom of thought is professed here (and often with poor adherence), it doesn’t seem to me that this is being protected by acting this way. Then again, I feel I’ve explained in my comment to the reviewer the meaning of my intervention and that it was not aimed at him but against the general trend. @Pibroch: if you’re sincere, I apologize, but once again: I took advantage of your review to make a general point and not against you or the review, and in fact, I did not vote. @Hanzo: you are right, but am I not free to question the parameters used in judgments, or is it only acceptable when someone conforms to yours: is this what freedom of thought is?

I seemed...

the Vote.

Until "Dangerous," he has done some good things (a couple of great ones), but around here, that's how it is. You have to take a dump on everything mainstream, not realizing that even certain so-called alternative bands thrive on this. Uncle, don’t get mad; it’s the (young) age that causes this, they'll grow up.

There are worse things; there are those who simultaneously like Sonic Youth, Iron Maiden, Genesis, and Tori Amos.

Now start with the 5s full throttle, I recommend, in here there are people who write excellent things (wasting time and resources) (and I'm not talking about em, to be clear) but maybe on artists that you don't like, and you start throwing in 1s left and right without even reading the review often, while here we have a review that is clearly a joke and of relative (if not none) utility and there are already two 5s, I'm sorry for the reviewer who is a nice guy (and given the characteristics of the site he had every right to do it) but this attitude is starting to annoy.

I thought you were talking about this movie which, I repeat, is not that great and is far from being without frills, and above all, it certainly does not aim to position itself as the Revenge of low-key films (in fact, it's the opposite). Regarding the general discussion on prejudices and blind spots, what can I say? It always depends on where you’re looking at something from. One thing I am sure of, however, is that it’s an annoying accusation that many have recently directed at anyone who has a different perspective from their own (and it’s a habit taken wholesale from certain critics). I am lenient towards any taste and any viewpoint, but I think we shouldn’t exaggerate this either. I’m not saying, using the example in question, that it’s right to say this movie is crap, but criticizing certain attitudes of Muccino (whom I repeat, I still consider a good director) is more than legitimate. Just as I think it’s more than legitimate to criticize a Von Trier or a Miike, for example. The problem is that to make this (just) argument, you chose the wrong film. Bye!

Anyway, money or no money, this remains a little film without infamy and without praise. Muccino could be a good director (at least technically) but he is a bit too stiff within market logic; if he were freer, he would definitely do better.

...and it seems to me like a bit of a snobbish attitude (I’m not talking about you, but about the general trend.)