panapp

Where did you read the word cross-over? Anyway, it makes sense, because he often blended genres together in a very original way.

Excuse me, I don't doubt that you liked the film, but I wonder what logic is behind the star ratings: is it a completely subjective evaluation (ranging from "I hated it" to "in my opinion it's a masterpiece") or does it have some semblance of logic and comparison with other works, using references such as (for example) one star for "Pink Flamingos" and five for "Citizen Kane"? In the first case, okay, but in the second, I doubt that this film, no matter how much brain matter is splattered on the wall, can truly deserve five stars. On this site, everything has five stars.

Bugo is fantastic; I'm proud to say that I've followed him since his early days and he has never disappointed me. Tricarico is a bit of a strange character; I can't say I really like him, but I also have no reason to despise him: he remains anonymous to me. I think it was a great concert.

@ Sotanaht: "The films of A. Hitchcock or W. Herzog no longer scare anyone"... but speak for yourself, excuse me! Herzog, maybe, but Hitchcock, if you don't mind, is still disturbing and quite a lot, and precisely for the reasons I mentioned earlier, that is, the images may not be shocking, but the ideas are there and they are truly unsettling, pervasive, and especially persistent.

@ Mopaga: yes, you're right about both the spectacular death of Paris Hilton and the immediate beatification of her killer! I’d also like to point out that lately the queen of whores with 9 zeros in the bank has even run for the White House (choosing Rihanna as her vice). It's a wonderful world.

XD It could be! In reality, for them, achieving success isn't that hard; they give everyone (especially women) an opportunity, but the difficult part is staying in the business, and there it's harder than anywhere else in the world (the turnover of faces and people is incredibly fast).

I also wrote it in the comments on the other review: sad beyond all limits, the saddest film of all time, I would say, I cried like a fountain in the final scene. In any case, it's truly effective, and anyway, Björk is absolutely stunning and Von Trier may be as technical as he wants, but the film works and reaches where it wants to go. Which is remarkable.

I, on the other hand, cried a lot. Lars Von Trier may be a technician, but he works well. For sure.

5 to the review because for the first time, finally, I found another human being on this earth who considers "The Exorcist" a bad and boring film (I thought I was crazy... or maybe there are two of us). If The_dull_flame also cites the film's age as a reason for its now faded scariness, I say that, in my opinion, the technical quality is very good even by today’s standards: the special effects are more than fine and they work, it’s the film itself that doesn’t work. Whether the film is older or newer is an excuse that makes no sense: "Nosferatu" is from 1922 and still today it terrifies me; I can barely watch it. "The Exorcist," in my view, doesn’t work because the purpose of the film was simply to shock the viewer with strong images, not to create a mythology of fear. "Psycho" has half a glass of blood and nothing else, yet it’s frightening because it’s intelligent and knows which strings to pull; "The Exorcist" has liters of vomit, blood, various fluids, shocking lights, a dolly camera, everything you want, but it lacks strong visual or conceptual ideas. The only strong idea it had, and in fact it survived the film itself, is the descent down the stairs like a spider; the rest of the film relies on momentary inventions and a terror that disappears all too soon. "The Ring" disturbed me greatly and almost kept me from sleeping at night; with "The Exorcist," I was already asleep by the end of the film: but the former has conceptual ideas, the latter does not. It’s not the technique that’s lacking, it’s the content (P.S.: zero plot). I have no doubt that after this film horror has changed direction... but in what direction exactly have they gone? Into the teen horror genre: shockingly visual moments (that, over time, seem less and less impactful) and almost zero plot just for the pure purpose of leaving a little bit of recycled unease in the viewer. Before "The Exorcist," fear was psychological and persistent; after "The Exorcist," fear is visual and momentary and refers only to the moment when I see it in front of me, and then not anymore. Japanese horror films generally don’t scare the American and European audience much because fundamentally there’s nothing much to see, but the sensation of fear is such a subtle and hidden aftertaste that it is felt after watching the film, not during it. Which is a great step forward compared to films where the only thing that counts is the pure, simple, and instantaneous visual data. The other day I was watching on Italia 1 the terrible "House of Wax," the film with Paris Hilton: that is a worthy heir to "The Exorcist," made of pure images that disturb while you watch them, and nothing else. Thank you, "The Exorcist," for changing horror cinema.

Gainsbourg is clearly a fundamental figure in 20th-century music, unfortunately overlooked by too many people. His arrangements with electronic bass, just to mention one of the many contributions he made to music, are absolutely essential for contemporary music. This collection features wonderful sounds that Gainsbourg gathered from all over the world and then "Latinized": just listen to the brief and stunning "Érotico-tico" to understand that it is a melting pot track of a thousand cultures in Brazilian sauce. A genius, in short.