Rooftrampler92

Sorry, I reversed the vote.

So: "This kind of film is totally passive," rather it is totally passive. "The viewer's gaze is not involved." Whether it makes you laugh or scares you, the viewer's gaze is engaged, and even if it weren't because the plot annoys them, it would surely be just because of the enormous hype around the film. "Unjustly labeled a cult," I don't even know why it's a cult, it surely made an impact back in the day. "The narrative is as flat as an episode of OC." After having binge-watched all four seasons of that show (hehe, no kidding, I grew up with that and you were probably at Beverly Hills, or maybe Dawson's Creek) I can proudly tell you that OC lacks something other than a flat narrative, especially because it's greatly supported by the atmosphere of a corrupt world and a poorly raised kid, and also by the soundtrack, which is a small gem of music in TV shows. "The fear is absent," I absolutely agree with this, but behind it lies a complex discussion that you can already imagine, which goes into sensitivity and awareness, since we know that the concept of modesty, violence, and realism has changed a lot from the 70s to today, also due to cinema (think of the first color horror films, Kubrick, Cronenberg and the gang, Tarantino, up to the present day). "A meatball of extreme boredom," whether you laugh (as you said) or cry, this film cannot be boring, and so if you felt bored, you cannot claim that for other viewers as well. "Seen today, the film doesn't even leave an unaware thrill," as I said before, it's true, the film seen today is not scary at all, much less the atmosphere, but the concept of horror has changed a lot over the years. This review seems quite undetailed, a subjective dismissal that I feel is really just a waste of time.

Certo, inviami pure il testo e procederò con la traduzione.

Yes, I had heard about them, but I never had the chance to listen to anything. I like the review.

This music simply entertains me. Extreme but fun.

Certo, inviami pure il testo e procederò con la traduzione.

Certo, invia pure il testo e procederò con la traduzione.

Paloz, like many users (and like me, as seen in my early reviews), started young with reviews of important albums, writing some pretty big nonsense, but he was still just getting started. We should look at the Paloz of today compared to the one from before; yesterday he listened to two or three records, today after so long he could potentially have a vast culture or could have remained as he was. From how Paloz writes now, I would lean towards the former, so you (David 81), having only read Paloz's reviews on "In the Court" or on the Pied Piper, cannot claim that you have listened to more albums than him and therefore know more about music (which, by the way, is also a load of crap, because it depends on how one listens to music, not on how much one listens). The review is well written, so you know how to write, but to be on Debaser, a bit of civility is also required; it gets heavy when insults start flying (and what insults!), a phrase like Paloz's wasn't meant to be provocative, and it's not even an insult.

Interesting, let's say I only know Suede by their reputation for bringing glam attitude to the Britpop that was so rampant in 90s England. Maybe I'll get something.

Not a bad review, I only had some stuff from the group on my computer, I didn't really like it. Anyway, good job.