panapp

Very funny! :D P.S.: "In the Mood for Love" leaves you speechless even after many years and many viewings, and "2046" is NOT bad at all! My favorite by Miike is "Gozu."

Woke up at 5 to watch the rhythmic gymnastics final, but instead there's cycling; while waiting for it to finish, I check DeBaser and find a new piece by The_dull_flame! The review, as usual, is beautiful, but I haven't seen the film. The only thing I can say is that if there are two words I absolutely CANNOT stand, they are "normal" and "particular"... first line of the fifth paragraph: «inquadrature sempre particolarissime»... I mean??? What does that even mean??? What is "particular" for you can be pretty basic for me, and vice versa)! Anyway, I repeat, it’s clear you love what you review and you really know how to write about it well. P.S.: but what does “utilizzo extradiegetico di rumori disturbante e metallici” mean??? Is the director hitting us spectators over the head with ladles and iron bars?

@ Blujules: yes, I agree with you, both when you say that comparisons are illogical and when you say that Bach is mathematical and van Beethoven is human; we completely understand each other. It’s purely a matter of preferences: I imagine you prefer the latter, I prefer the former, if I understood correctly. @ Contemplation: you may not believe it, but I agree with you too. I know I tend to be extreme; in fact, I stated it right away, and I also made it clear that I consider van Beethoven a genius (line 4/5), BUT I prefer other things purely out of personal choice. As for Classical and Romantic music, I wrote: "it's my impression" (line 6), nothing more; I find it charming and formally beautiful, but conceptually poorer than other things, not poor in absolute terms. I imagine you also prefer (I’m shooting in the dark) the Beatles to the Rolling Stones, yet you still acknowledge a value in the latter, right? Regarding the rating: I just signed up for DeBaser recently, and I’m seeing that here the rating isn’t "objective" (comparative), but subjective, and subjectively I think these tracks are worth 3, which doesn’t mean "total garbage," but rather "nice" (on MY scale of 1 to 5, which is horror-bad-nice-wonderful-masterpie ce). As for the ignorant pompous person: yes, that is entirely possible.

4 stars just for the phrase "A Charlotte likes to meow so much"!!! "The Song That We Sing" is nice, but it's objectively a copy of her father's work. To be clear: the album is all cute, but between the plagiarisms of her father and tracks that are 100% Air where Charlotte is just a decoration, I'd say the album doesn't take off completely. However, I want to give her another chance, as I like her a lot as a woman (and a hair of pussy pulls more than a cart of oxen).

Unfortunately, I share the impression of eletto1987: I believe the movie is well made, for sure, but 5 stars... I mean, 5 stars! I’m revisiting the discussion I had on another review: wouldn’t it be better to establish a clear policy that states "DeBaser is totally subjective and everyone gives the stars they want" OR "DeBaser has a logical sense and gives 5 to masterpieces and 1 to crap"? At the moment, it seems to me that the first solution prevails, but what I would like to know is whether this is an unwritten rule or a drift from the original spirit of the site, which initially was following the second approach. Returning to the film: as interesting, philosophical, mysterious, foggy, and fascinating as they are, let’s be objective—Asian horrors (not just Japanese ones) are all, I wouldn’t say the same, but almost. There is an incredible monotony in themes and plots, and if there isn't some spark of genius to move them (like in "The Ring"), then the film sinks into anonymity. Do you know how many of these kinds of films are made every year? Making a good film is not too difficult; inventing a great idea is much, much less easy.
P.S: I’m also against American remakes (in general, not just of Asian horrors), except in one single case: "The Ring" is 3456870564465076845 times better than "Ringu."

An excellent review; it even manages to make me appreciate a musician I have never particularly liked, like van Beethoven. Unfortunately, I am a faithful Bachian, and the Classical music of the Eighteenth century and the Romantic music of the Nineteenth have always left me with a sense of formal beauty without conceptual beauty (from Schubert onwards, everything regains meaning). Of course, I am not deaf, and I recognize that van Beethoven was certainly a genius; at the same time, however, his music continues to strike me as, I don’t know why, an excellent musical “exhibition” that is truly powerful and well-constructed, but (in my opinion) slightly theatrical, empty. That’s just my impression. One small note: "Dramatically you realize that you have never heard and will never hear anything else so complex."... well, I would say Bach has written worse, much worse! I might be spoiled by my admiration for him, I don’t know, but (for example) "The Art of Fugue," in its apparent simplicity, is actually of an inhuman complexity and genius, inhuman.

The review is very interesting and clearly explains some themes of the film that may not be grasped on the first viewing. The film is beautiful; it deserves to be rediscovered even just for the scenery (Ascoli is stunning) and Moravia's screenplay, a rare example of a writer in a state of grace throughout his career.

Very good and convincing review, and I liked the appropriate tripartition of Neapolitan music. The work is excellent in itself and supreme within the realm of Italian music.

@ psychopompe: saying "J-pop has never produced gems" is just as generalized as "American rock is still stuck in grunge times" or "in Italy there are only neomelodic singers." If you allow me, it’s just a personal opinion, but Utada Hikaru is not at all, at all bad. In fact.

No, I’m not the bot, the fake, or the clone of The_dull_flame! I know who Tetsu Inoue is, but I don’t listen to him…