panapp

@ ricola: what is the subject of the question?

@ cacaminkia: I kindly suggest you avoid writing huge spoilers like you did. As for the anime (in my opinion pitiful, and even more so compared to the manga, but that's just my take): the only reason there are no fillers is that the series started when the manga had already concluded, so there was no need to insert filler episodes to give the creators more time; I don't consider this a merit at all. In fact, I find those fillers that, while being mere fillers, still manage to be interesting quite commendable.

I discovered him in the mid-'90s and I find him to be a truly interesting musician. I don't know the album in question, but I have no doubt it is of high quality.

The Ascolano is me? Saturday, January 24th, I’ll mark it down.

The name of the band already blows my mind. The SEGA logo on the cover amuses me, though. And they even live close to me (Ascoli-Giulianova: 44 km)!

Welcome to DeBaser! :) Congratulations on choosing "Death Note," but the review is mediocre for such a title; I’ll still give you an extra point because it’s your debut. About "Death Note": honestly, I wanted to write a review for it a long time ago, then I thought again and said to myself that certainly someone would do it and it would be more fun to watch. And it’s indeed more fun. The work is definitely very worthy, BUT it doesn’t deserve 5 stars: the beginning is unquestionably exceptional, the death notebook is a conceptually and graphically brilliant invention (the author initially thought of making it like a mini-Bible, but the illustrator preferred to make it a simple black notebook). The psychological introspection is there, and how! The characters are also very well developed, and I was struck by the fact that the protagonist is the killer, because that meant the author had to work hard to make him empathetic to the reader (and indeed in my case she didn’t succeed); L is extraordinary, yes, so well crafted that Ohba didn’t know what else to put in, and indeed M and N are identically autistic and eccentric. The schemes used by the characters are truly Machiavellian and complex, very entertaining, and I really enjoyed them. On the other hand, though, there are too many concessions to fan service (continuous yaoi hints and winks to the girls with delightful goth-loli outfits), the second part of the comic (volumes 7~12) is really convoluted and boring (thankfully the great Teru Mikami is introduced), and especially the use of Christian symbolism is completely arbitrary and dictated only by aesthetics and not by concept: just like the author of "NANA" has no idea what punk is but uses it in her comics, the author and artist of "Death Note" ignore what Christianity is, but they like it visually, so they use it; it’s as if I were to make a comic and graphically exploit elements of Shintoism choosing them for their graphic value. Last but not least, a negative note: it’s evident that the authors wanted to exploit the "Death Note" merchandise until the last drop; the characters wear costumes and accessories always in plain sight and materially feasible, so today comic fairs are flooded with Misa’s earrings and crosses: disgusting. As for the animated series (currently airing on MTV on Tuesdays at 10:00 PM, if anyone wants to check it out): it’s O-R-R-E-N-D-O, poorly drawn, poorly colored, poorly animated, poorly scored, and poorly directed. It makes your balls drop to the ground for how slow and heavy it is, while the comic is very well written and very fast-paced, and the fake pseudo-Gregorian music only worsens the situation; and L is drawn by a dog (literally the animal, I’m convinced, otherwise there’s no explanation for how he looks so bad in every single frame). Comic book highly recommended (but it would have been better if it were less commercial), anime highly rejected.

A huge masterpiece not of cinema, but of art in general. I saw it at night on Rai Tre when I was a teenager, and it shocked me negatively; I watched it a couple of years ago again on Rai Tre at night, and it shocked me positively.

And after this review, Martina, you've lost my respect. You can continue to be sharp and ironic as you like, but either you're too young to understand what you're reviewing, or you're foolish: take your pick. Antonioni is universally regarded as a genius, and rightly so. Points 1 and 2 are completely nonsensical: if you want happy faces, go watch "Natale a Rio," and if you don't understand a film, don't blame the director. The other points are at best debatable, and above all, I don't understand how you can think of criticizing a highly awarded and widely recognized masterpiece with phrases like "it's the work of someone who was already old at the time and in my opinion didn't understand the world of young people" (but were you there in the '60s???) or "I find the setting in the United States forced. There was student protest in Italy and France too, and Antonioni could have made the same film in Europe, where there are still beautiful places to photograph and shoot in" (?????). The discussion on neorealism is too complex and there’s a lot to say, but I don't want to come off as a know-it-all teacher, so I’ll refrain. I kindly ask you, as a friend, to review things that are suitable for your target from now on: it will benefit both you and all of us.

Let’s put aside the CD and the review; I’ll let my grades speak and interpret them as you wish. Dear Martina, after this review, I have serious doubts about you. I mean: you are really sharp and truly ironic, but if you are 14 years old, you are either a little genius or you are not 14 years old. Anyway, I can't help but strongly contest several of your points, especially points 1, 3, and 8. The first one makes absolutely no sense, as no one says that in 2009 one must necessarily produce music solely in the form of songs, and neither does math rock intend to produce only songs, given that much of the time it is just music (while a song is words or music or even just words). The third point is completely devoid of any logic; I would like to know what "difficult music" means in your brain: is Bach, who is technically of infinite complexity, difficult? And if so, how come he has endured through the centuries and has come to us? If everyone thought like you, then 50% of all music throughout history would need to be eliminated, leaving only things like "Nella vecchia fattoria" and "Fra Martino" (actually, forget "Fra Martino"). About the eighth point: but music IS mathematics!!! Until the Renaissance, music and mathematics were the same subject, you know that, right? Even music that tries to break established laws, like Schönberg's, inevitably ends up respecting its own rules. Try listening to Luciano Berio, and you'll understand in an instant what it means to apply mathematics to music, or also, on a more common level, try to experience something progressive from the mysterious T. Then we can talk about it again.

Oops, the vote for the book.