azzo

I quote not only the reviewer but also London. One of the problems with Italian cinema is that, in practice, it is essentially in the hands of Berlusca alone. That is to say, Medusa Distribuzioni, which militarily occupies most Italian theaters with its monstrous crap. And as a football enthusiast, on that rainy Sunday I even had to endure Banfi, who is absolutely pathetic and doesn’t even make eight-year-olds laugh, appearing in all the sports programs of the day. The Medusa/Mediaset combo, which means low-cost cinema and content that primarily aims for a TV airing, given the now poor box office results, has long since proclaimed the end of Italian cinema. Not only auteur cinema, but even the little crap, which could, however, be done much better.

The thing that amuses me the most about this debate on Depp’s value is that a lot of boys have come to his rescue and not a single girl :-))). I propose again an axiom I’ve put forward before: that if an actor performs with more or less big, but important, directors, he can’t be that bad. It’s not just Burton's fetish; he has also worked with Kusturica, Polanski, Gilliam, and, above all, with Jarmusch in one of my favorite films of the last fifteen years.

So, fuck off. Obviously, I'm not so naïve as to not have thought about it, just calm that there weren't assholes of that ilk still around. And lazy. Because I had indeed thought about doing something like Arnold and typing the first sentences into Google...

In fact, there's only one review missing about the hairs on our asses. Cap...you're sick, so are you. Ciauz.

Welcome! Great debut, even though I have no freaking idea who this guy is. What does 3.1.2006 at the end of the review mean? That you wrote it two years ago?

Welcome back! I just discovered it today. Truly, you are like a fine vintage wine: few bottles but of excellent quality.

Nice there. In fact, even the Generic doesn't win you over after the first listen... maybe not even after the fifth. It takes a while. I don't know this one, in fact I wasn't even aware of its existence.

Boredom, allow me to disagree. It's not about the hype. Radiohead could easily live off the money they've already made. The smartest move would actually be to disband and come back in ten years: they'd be covered in gold. In any case, they don't care how many records they sell, as they make billions with the sold-out concerts. They didn't renew with EMI because of product control issues. They wanted to defeat a major at a power level, and there, perhaps they came out defeated: EMI stood its ground. At that point, it’s inevitable to say: then we don't give a fuck and we'll give away the album. It doesn't change a damn thing for them. I know that thanks to our cynicism we immediately think there's a strategy aimed at the dollar behind it. However, let me believe that they are still acting in good faith, in the sense that, being now full of money, they are more interested in power. After all, if they hadn't done it, who could afford to release an album online? Among English bands, in terms of importance, hype, feedback, etc., I believe it's Coldplay and U2. As for the quality of the album, I can only reiterate that it's a great pop record, which, as such, also finds its limits, in the sense that it can get tiresome pretty quickly (I haven't listened to it in several weeks). Anyway, it ended up among the top ten albums of the year in practically every magazine in the world. These are the times, and this is what we bring home.

I don't know who the hermaphrodite was, but the 40-year-old junkie was definitely me :-)

Come on Trel, I respect you too much for that "Illuminate us" to make me think you’re being sarcastic. No problem, anyway. I’ve never seen them live, but I haven't even gotten off my ass and pulled out 5 euros to go see them 500 meters from my house, where I played a few months ago. And since I'm Aristotelian, if they’re playing where I play, they can’t be that exceptional and historic, as I've always thought for the past twenty years.