Stoney

I've never understood why in the modern era "prog" has to be synonymous with: copying from other genres, copying from other styles, random shifts during the pieces, and the most annoying of all, compositional merit irrespective of everything. It’s probably a dead genre, but apparently, the assholes keep making a fuss even from the afterlife.

Yes, but if the comparison is with Marco Carta and PornoVasco, then ANYONE should be considered a god descended to earth. What kind of reasoning is that?

I quote comment number 46.

What assholes, always these fucking movies about how hard life is, about how Italians are a people that suffers and seems to be made up of sons of bitches who always screw you over but in the end, if you take a closer look, they are great people full of feelings who work, go to war, suffer, despair, love, have kids, stoically sacrifice themselves (especially this, they sacrifice themselves, how much we love this concept). Gratuitous goodism passed off as philosophical depth about life, which I can’t stand anymore. And they are always set either during the war or in southern Italy, and in my opinion, they don’t say a damn interesting thing about either the war or southern Italy. And this time they even combined the two things. What a drag, really, what a drag... Will we ever be able to say that a movie is "beautiful" regardless of these themes and/or settings? No.

I’m getting serious. I don’t know if you’ve ever noticed, but representing the mediocrity and lack of values of a generation is surprisingly similar to rambling nonsensical phrases and looking like a mess; after all, one can always justify themselves by saying they wanted to portray generational discomfort. And Vasco is a myth for THIS reason, precisely because he was one of the first in Italy to use this easy and free excuse to become who he is. No one gives a damn about his poetic vision, if it even exists.

"No, that's not right." Lux, you're great :D:D:D

@MARPADO, my comment is two years old, and my ideas have changed a lot in those two years. I believe you make a point that holds up to a certain extent. What you say is true, but be careful: in my opinion, it’s exactly this way of thinking that is leading us to trouble these days. In modern times, the concept of "ideology" has been reexamined; we’ve realized that having ideas about the perfect way the world should function is utopian and unachievable and can cause more harm than good. So, we’ve dismantled all the ideological complexes we used to refer to. Great, except we’ve, as the saying goes, thrown the baby out with the bathwater: now, if your opinion contradicts the majority's, one can always respond that you are inconsistent or hypocritical. Those who seek justice are hypocritical because they too have something to hide; those who accuse government bodies are hypocritical because they too would take advantage if they were in the same situation; those against war are hypocritical because they also are part of the system, and so on. This attitude is dangerous, because starting from the right premise of unmasking hypocrisy and simplifications, one effectively becomes a censor of any thought that strays too far from the flock. As I said here on DeBaser regarding issues that are much less serious, the gravest censorship is not that imposed by a governmental authority, but that which accuses others of being insufficiently objective or superficial in interpreting reality. Thus, under this pretext, we can silence anyone while posing as mature and intelligent individuals who do everything for a good cause and know how the world works. That many "pacifists" are perfect idiots is absolutely true, and I'm okay with that; I know several of them, just as I know countless other idiots who are not pacifists and don't hang colorful flags from their balconies, and so you don't see them. However, this does not justify the total demonization of those who believe in ideas of peace and peaceful coexistence among peoples. Is it utopia? Who cares. There must be an alternative between being fools and being conformists; otherwise, everything will always end in an annoying "zero to zero," where everything is flattened, trivialized, and nothing can be said or done in a cultural paralysis dominated by particularism and the social violence phenomena we detest so much today. Hi, I hope I haven't been too long-winded, and I look forward to your response.

Do you remember 1994? That was the year when our beloved leader appeared on all channels to tell us that the communists were the bad guys and that we had to vote for him to save us from a Bolshevik catastrophe. Five years after the dismantling of the Iron Curtain, this gentleman, already famous for his dark past as an entrepreneur, for his connections with important political figures, and for his alleged involvement in shady dealings, came to tell us that the "red threat" was imminent, with polished and rehearsed manners. That moment was a turning point, a point of no return. There, in front of the television, facing that ambiguous guy with a smarmy face, and those commercials with fake light like the Miracle Blade infomercials, any individual possessing not just common sense but an IQ of at least two digits should have understood the warning even before he opened his mouth. Even then, a decent nation should have cried scandal; it just took doing 2+2, and the phenomenon would have died before it even started. The rest is just talk. Let's take a moment to reflect and face the truth: we don't give a damn about our country and our future, as long as we're getting by. We are not capable of imagining a life better than this—therein lies the truth. And that’s why we will accept the destruction of the State without batting an eye, "it's not my stuff." I believe that nowhere else in the civilized world could such a disgrace occur. In France, when Sarkozy tried to touch the social state, the ENTIRE nation went on strike for a whole week, paralyzing the country. Here, those who strike because workers are dying are considered subversives, not by politicians, but by other poor workers like themselves. These are thought-provoking things. And here we are still chatting about whether to support Travaglio or not. And joking around, that's how 20 years have gone by. How nice. Wake the hell up...

But in fact, no one denies a Catholic the right to be Catholic; the problem is much simpler: I would just like atheists to stop bothering us, that’s all.

I also remember the "nude patch" to have Lara Croft competing with her breasts exposed. I think it was the only real reason why everyone got that game.