panapp

Yawn, how boring.

@O__O: of course it was! ;)

The reviews of O__O with less than 4 stars are a given, that's clear. As for the album, I am less drastic in my judgment: it's certainly not worthy of his previous works, but there are gems, or at least some delightful moments. The fact that one gets their audience accustomed to a certain genre of music doesn't mean that if they produce something different, it's automatically worse: here Wolf has turned to a more accessible pop, but when contextualizing these songs within the realm of easy pop, they appear more brilliant compared to situating them within his earlier production.

The films of Suzuki & Nakata are quite valid, but even more so as a foundation for building even better films. Just as I prefer the American "The Ring" over the Japanese "Ring," here too the American "Dark Water" convinced me more than its Japanese counterpart, and I’m not speaking out of cultural preferences since I am, in fact, passionate about Japanese culture and rather critical of Americans. Simply put, Verbinski first and Salles later took the original materials from the writer & director and improved them; it wasn’t so obvious and taken for granted since the original films are already quite good, but both of them (supported by smart screenwriters and a well-chosen cast) succeeded. A review that is as concise as it is accurate.

@hjhhjij and Dirty Harry: I specified it, De Niro TODAY is a has-been, I don't know why or how he became that way and whether he truly is or just pretending, but he chooses terrible films with performances unworthy of his name.

@Alexandre77: with the difference that DeNiro is (today) a has-been in a has-been film, while Fiennes, Rickman, and Smith are great actors in a has-been film.

@Jack Donney: I went back to double-check, and indeed I was wrong; it's just as you say. The first films sold more tickets, but the latest ones set records like the highest gross on opening weekend and things like that (which ties back to Bartleboom's accurate theory that these are films only for those who are already fans and knowledgeable). @Bartleboom: commercially speaking, it makes total sense; that's absolutely true. Well, I take comfort in the fact that I've read the books, and in my small way, I was able to appreciate the films a bit more compared to non-readers.

@Dirty Harry: I find myself embarrassed to face a series of purely baseless insinuations. You are more important than me: yes, yes, who would deny it, but... based on what? Question: “I play [...] a much more important role”: which one, may I ask? It's not the first time you've hinted at this importance discussion: could you finally explain to me exactly what you mean? No, because as far as I know, registering and participating is free and everyone is welcomed and welcomed back (as you have personally experienced); it doesn’t seem there’s any scoring system where you win prizes or bureaucratic positions, so EXACTLY what are you talking about? I swear, I ask you this with crystal clear interest. That is, by participating in this and other sites, what merits exactly should I earn? I ask because I usually register on a site if I find it interesting, not if I need it to advance my career with “the big bosses” (who would they be, anyway?). But I believe this applies to anyone: if you join a community, it's always to participate, right? I have no interest in being “more important” (???) in here; what do I gain from it? Even if I became the leader, what would I gain? I don't think the administrators of this site receive money, after all, as evidenced by the fact that they ask for contributions to survive, and I'm happy to give because I like this site. If, as you've written, touching situations move your heart, then logically even DeBaser, which survives on charity, should touch your heart. I’m here because I’m interested in seeing, not being seen. Also: my invitation not to create new accounts was not an invitation to stop participating; rather, it was simply an invitation not to create new accounts. If you get banned, it's neither my fault nor the editors', but yours for violating the site's rules, so I advise you to be more moderate so that you can keep your account. When you register, you tacitly accept a code of conduct for the site, did you know that? If you get banned, it's because you are at fault for having violated that code, no other reason. Again: if DeBaser is a “wrong cause” and you don’t like it, then why do you insist on registering and participating? Perhaps because deep down you like it, right? If you register and re-register and participate so persistently, it means one of two things: either you like it, or you’re a masochist. Finally, for the umpteenth time: STOP judging my private life, which you know nothing about.

@Bartleboom: in terms of books, the sixth was the most groundbreaking and content-rich. And indeed, it is the poorest film, completely focused on sentimental nonsense rather than advancing the plot.

@teenagelobotomy: "Personally, the fact that after 10 years they're still going with this saga gives me a bit of discomfort, and I also find it somewhat pathetic... but you know how it goes in these cases," if you mean to say that they've dragged it out for years to make more money... no. The seven films following the first one are not exactly seven sequels just like the six books following the first one are not six sequels. It's a cohesive story; it was known from the start that there would be seven books and seven (eight, fine) films, and since making a film a year is tough due to technical timelines, it was well-known from the beginning that it would take around a decade in total to complete the film series. The seven books and eight films are one long story divided into parts; you can think of it as a single long volume divided into seven tomes, and a single long film divided into eight parts. Too bad the books have stylistic unity and the films... don't.