panapp

Great review of a great single (yes, here on DeB there are plenty of single reviews), and I'm about to turn 30 and already feel like a mummified old relic. From time to time I listen to "Magical Mystery Tour" again.

I agree completely, a masterpiece just like the film, and I love the surprising (after forty years, still surprising!) variety and heterogeneity of the album. Essential.

Abused word, yes, but in some cases it is necessary to use it: masterpiece. I deeply love Hitchcock, and I have seen almost all of his Hollywood films; this one was the only one I hadn’t seen, so I finally caught up with it and loved it instantly. I’ve watched it four or five times just this week, and I still want to see it again. Brilliant in every way, the second part alone is worth the film and doesn’t even allow you to blink. If I let it ferment within me, it might even surpass my beloved "Psycho." Since no one has mentioned it so far, I’ll also call out Bernard Herrmann for his extraordinary goosebump-inducing score.
One curiosity: what film did the reviewer watch (a bit too verbose in recounting a plot that thrives on its secrecy)? Because the ending with Scottie leaving under the stars is something he made up, you know.

@mbattu59: But look, there’s no need to apologize, heaven forbid, we are among adults. It’s just that in Italian there’s a word for "singer," and emphasizing that Gloria Gaynor (and also Gloria Jones) is black feels like I would be obliged to emphasize that Gianni Morandi is white.

Welcome to DeBaser! A very good and shareable review; for me, besides the beautiful "Logico #1," the album remains nice but lacks much else to offer, and for me, "Marmellata #25" and "Figlio di un re" remain his masterpieces (the first one especially, heartbreaking).

"The Black singer Gloria Gaynor"??? Three blunders in just six words, a record, my compliments.

Given my endless love for "Mary Poppins" and infinite, infinite, infinite love for Walt Disney, this is probably the film I've been waiting for years, and I've already seen it three times in two weeks: twice in the cinema in Italian and in the original language, and once on a plane. Each time, I had the same feeling: at first, it's not that gripping (thanks to the mannered screenplay and its shallow psychology, like the pear story), but as it goes on, it becomes increasingly engaging, and it improves progressively in the second half, culminating in the absolutely extraordinary last 20 minutes. Apart from the acting performances, which are excellent from the first to the last frame, and a round of applause for Emma Thompson; I was even impressed by Tom Hanks, whom I usually can't stand just like nes. The fact that the story is largely romanticized and sweetened is irrelevant: the film itself works, and that's what matters. Watching "Mary Poppins" once again after "Saving Mr. Banks" gives a whole different effect. The review, on the other hand, doesn't tell me anything.

Triumph of adjectives for a review that is nothing short of celebratory and therefore not sure how reliable it is. I love, love, love Kylieamore so I will get the vinyl, in the meantime I’m listening to the album on Spotify and then I’ll be able to say (but I already know I’ll like it).

Do you write it yourself?

I believe there is nothing more counterproductive and, therefore, worse for the progress of humankind than anthropocentrism. If this author has been accused of satanism, it is precisely because there is nothing more satanic than considering humanity and even more specifically considering oneself at the center of the world, the galaxy, the universe, even of one's personal universe. Why should the Whole have its center in me, in you, in anyone? What sense does it make? If a god were to exist, why would it concern itself with me while ignoring everyone else? Consequently, one might argue that god attends to those who concern themselves with it and ignores those who do not, given that atheists feel no need or presence of it. So if god potentially cares for everyone, then god is for everyone, and feeling like the protagonist makes no sense. Similarly, extending the discourse to the entire universe, even other inhabited planets would have their chance to connect with god: therefore, if a god truly exists, it must be so all-encompassing that it regards everyone, and there is nothing more all-encompassing than science, which logically leads us not to have any other god outside of universal gravitation, relativity, and atomic bonds. So, why should I be the center of everything? Let's hypothesize that god does not exist and that we need to shift the discourse to other realms: why would I be at the center of everything? No one is at the center of everything, not even of their own everything: everything is connected with everything, and achieving personal elevation can have no other purpose than the attainment of collective elevation. Therefore, as fascinating as it is, and as much as satanism is not explicitly mentioned, this book reflects the character of indifference towards others, which is exactly the opposite of the universal brotherhood of Christ.