desade

A four for the review because they seem like sincere words, and tributes to one's idols (if detached from various forms of fanaticism) should always be appreciated. In fact, you didn't add anything new about the album with a healthy page, let alone I with a comment. A loquacious 5.
P.S.: In my humble opinion, all this controversy about Buckley's talent, whether greater or lesser than his father's, is ridiculous. It's really annoying to notice that there's something to criticize even when the music speaks for itself.

Woody's presence on stage is certainly a great incentive to watch the film, we agree on that. As for your thoughts on "Scoop," although I don't find it hilarious, I enjoyed it a lot. My point was always about the critical judgment that stupidly compared "Scoop" to Allen's past comedies, and, as predictable, the comparison with films like "Annie Hall," to name the most famous, only harmed the movie. Thank's for the rating on the review.

I kept going back and forth on this review, but I just couldn't grasp something that I sensed but wasn't quite clear to me. Then I remembered having seen a film by Haneke before, "La pianista," a masterpiece with Huppert, already a stunning novel. I haven't seen this film yet, but since you often get ahead of me in reviews and given certain affinities in choices, I truly believe I will watch it... a correct review, brief, and pleasantly atypical.

I've never been able to get a good grasp on this Ligabue. Honor in the review and demerit in the comments... none of this helps me.

Perfect review, great album.

I believe that along with "Cavie", "Soffocare" is the book I prefer the most from the American author. The latest publications have left me a bit disappointed; with "Rabbia" there was a slight recovery, but we are far from the glories of "Fight Club" or the two already mentioned.

Of course, I wasn't referring to you, Gustavo.

Sure, but what a drag...in a comment lost among the many, there’s one written by me where I state that I made a mistake by giving 5 stars, I meant to give 4. But no one should worry: I will kneel on chickpeas tomorrow morning.

It didn't really seem like a "great film" to me, personally speaking. At times, it feels like a comeback to Woody's roots, those of the absurd comedy. Nice and enjoyable, for sure, but nothing special.

Alessioiride: sorry for the delay. Thanks to your girlfriend first and foremost. More than indecipherable, versatile.
Alex84: the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, whereby the latter is the author of polycentric novels as opposed to the epic and monologic tendencies of the former, is quite marked: in all of Dostoevsky's novels, there doesn't seem to be a well-identified protagonist (Example: in "Demons," the narrative begins with a long description of the relationship between Stepan Trofimovich and Varvara Petrovna, but the actual protagonist is Nikolai), allowing space equally to all the characters like a great choral portrait, only to bring them together at a certain point in the plot (Example: in "Crime and Punishment," when in Raskolnikov's humble room, mother, sister, Razumichin, etc., gather...). In Tolstoy, this does not happen: realistic tones abound, even if with strong romantic undertones, and it is possible to clearly identify the core character of the book (Example: "Anna Karenina," which you mentioned, is introduced to the reader through long interior monologues, but it is primarily through the contrast with the figure of Kitty that she and her failed romantic experience are fully revealed.). At a stretch, "War and Peace" might lead one to err, considering Tolstoy a "polyphonic" author, but this latter work was and remains a historical novel, akin to "Les Misérables" or "The Betrothed" (which cannot be considered polycentric given the absolute centrality of Renzo and Lucia). For this reason, I hate it; better "Resurrection."