supersoul

Templar, look, this is dangerous. He deserves to be massacred only for the Sabbath albums he recommended to Melissa. Besides, someone who considers the trained dog Blaze from Wolfsbane (I really use their first album as a coaster) the best singer in the northern hemisphere, what advice can he possibly give?

For me, the judge said everything that needed to be said.

"For all those who say I take on a teacherly attitude, I understand you, that's just how I am; maybe it’s something you carry inside or perhaps, more banally, it's my soft 'r' that gives off such a chic professor vibe." And no, Poletti, the problem is that behind your teacherly tone there’s fluff. Because time and again you’ve shown you can spout nonsense like a machine gun, which clashes a lot with the teacherly demeanor that would be acceptable if an expert were behind it. You ask, "Why does Mel Gibson keep making films?" I wonder why you keep doing reviews when more than half are meant to mock a film and the other half are to show the suburbs a competence that is a bluff. Among the gems, I noticed that in the review of Gallipoli, you insisted on saying that Gibson is Australian while here, with your usual teacherly air, you scolded Björk, showcasing your knowledge that he’s American with a grand mother twist. (Not to mention that you claim that Weir's film is the best of the director without even mentioning Picnic at Hanging Rock, universally recognized as his masterpiece). The same Björk has finally sketched you well after your gaffe about Ardolino in the review of "Sister Act". Your attitude, as I’ve said many times, is that of Colonel Kurtz going into the indigenous village as a superior being to dictate his dogma to those four bumpkins. But Kurtz was a man with balls; you just dish out fluff.

An excellent album for those coming to Black Sabbath from Korn, the review is essential just like vaseline for Selen.

first go fill up the Harley psycho.....

No problem, psycho, but it seemed strange to me to define Oblander's voice as melodic...

It's your request not to copy, muffin. Those who enjoyed this movie couldn't care less that it's been copied; in fact, I believe they praise it for making a great adventure film filled with swords, love, and whatever else it can throw in. I don't think there's any need for a poletti or a morandini to warn us that it's all fluff compared to the great battle scenes of the past. Today, people like to watch gut-wrenching action in close combat, which wasn't seen in the classics of the past. Gibson is a rough Australian and doesn't do anything to hide the borrowings. You have to go watch his movies (if you do go) with the same spirit with which you watch Rambo, who with just one leg and three monosyllables takes out half of Burma. If you go just to compare it with Ejzenstein or Laurence Olivier, and mark it down with a red pen for borrowing, it means you're a complete idiot. (this expression has recently become very trendy on debaser)

90% of today’s production mimics or tries to mimic the great cinema of the past; making Mel Gibson (who is certainly not one of my favorites) the scapegoat for this situation is childish. This also seems quite elementary to me, poletti.

The originality of Braveheart is a need that only you, Poletti, feel. I believe that none of the commentators asked Gibson to be original in the battle scenes. Once I wondered if you were pretending or if you truly were; for quite a while now, I have had no doubts.

LAIF IS NAU!