nes Banned

I know this and mammatus clouds. Honestly, I prefer it in the more verbose and less folk version of mammatus, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that this is a disc that spun quite a lot in my mp3 player last year. The self-titled EP is pretty good too. In short: these kids are quite talented. Eternal praise to bandcamp! As usual, I messed up: "I know this, the self-titled EP and mammatus," and then I went to check, and it’s basically everything they’ve done, oh well…

It's one of the Kims I haven't seen; I remember reading a review almost a decade ago that roughly described it like this: "if the Western viewer were able to distinguish between the two sisters, perhaps the film would enjoy the fame and success it has found at home." That thing had left me stuck at the time. But if you tell me it's on the level of the trilogy that followed, I'll look to catch up on it.

I’m becoming a real pain in the ass with the whole: “damn, what a drag, the singers who ruin the albums” story. To be fair, even the singers who ruin the albums are starting to become a pain in the ass. But maybe it’s not even about the singer and how they sing; it’s more about how much weight is given to the melody line during production. Here, at times it seems like the guy is singing from the basement while the rest of the band is in the living room with you; the voice sounds amazing there, but when it comes to the forefront, it’s criminal. Well, I guess it’s a matter of ears and tastes. As for the rest: great bomb, I didn’t know it before, now I do.

I understand everything. I think one can give a five just for the style alone.

Someone make Stone eat, in the close-ups, as soon as she makes a grimace, you can see the bones of her nasal septum and cheekbones; it's quite impressive.
This was the first thing I noticed about the film.
Then I noticed the rest, charming, from a technical standpoint it’s flawless. "Gratuitously" flawless, I would add: the eternal fake long take, in terms of narrative, what the hell is that doing there? It seemed pretty gratuitous to me, but thank God it’s also quite beautiful and often, thank God (or Peppa Pig, I don’t know), you don’t even notice it. It felt like a calling card from Iñárritu saying: "Hey, look, I really know how to do my job, I don’t just create intertwined destinies." And all in all, if at some point in his career someone decides to show off how big he is, I’d prefer he does it this way rather than in some extremely showy yet completely empty “Only God Forgives.”
Without taking away from the fact that Refn is still worth 18 Iñárritu.

I've never understood why ambient music is considered among the worst of music, while Eno (who makes ambient, even banal and flat if listened to in 2015) is supposed to be a genius guru of something. I mean: if ambient is shit music (I’m not saying it, it seems to be a pretty widespread opinion, especially among critics), according to what ridiculous logic would he be a genius? And diametrically opposed: if Eno is a genius of music, how the hell can one say that ambient is music that anyone can make?

This underground grunge story is pretty comical. Grunge was one, if not the most mainstream genre for a good part of the 90s... which, after the junk of the previous decade, is still a positive thing. So yeah: did you listen to AIC instead of Nirvana? You weren't alternative; you were just a mass-produced young rocker. I repeat: nothing wrong with that; but twenty years later, not realizing this just because "there's no way I was/am like the others" could be serious.
About the album: grunge doesn't blow me away and I never gave a damn about AIC, but I know a shitload of people who absolutely love this album, so it must be good.
About the review: if you had done the same for another album, you would have been skewered here, but since you’re talking about a band that people like, no one bothers you. I'll do it without mincing words, hoping you'll have a good laugh, not take offense, and get the message. Nice: you write well but review like crap. We don't care at all (trust me, everyone here is over the moon because they saw the cover of this album, probably didn't even read the entire review) I was saying, we don't give a damn that you tell us about the album track by track. It's a pedantic, boring, pointless thing that unnecessarily stretches the page. Other than that, good job, well done (or almost). Looking forward to the next one.

Not my type, not my group, not my vibe, I don't even like you, but that "the so-called 'right words' can be left to all those records that need them" is worth a five and that's it. I couldn't care less if you're praising as a masterpiece something that I might listen to later and end up finding it crap, and I don’t even care to keep reading: I wanted to be struck, you hit me right in the eyes.

I got the compliments, thank you too. I was explaining why the review contains spoilers. (I hate spoilers, take a look at the popcornshooter pages and you'll see that generally, where it's not clearly announced, not only are there no spoilers, but often the plot is missing altogether. It's true: spoilers can always be avoided; however, I wanted to prevent a flood of comments like "Oh, but this stuff isn't scary at all" and ensure that people approached the film with a certain mindset (because we’re on debaser, and the attitude towards movies isn’t the same as that towards music. It's not well put, to say it better I should write that the average debaser user experiences cinema like gionnipep experiences Pink Floyd and Queen, or even less than that, but I don’t want to start a pointless and sterile controversy, so please: understand me). By the way, it’s a film that I myself had seen with lots of spoilers, and still, the viewing was not affected at all. And sure, that "house in the woods" is popcorn and coke; if you watch it on an empty stomach, it might be better. I just wanted to say that for certain films, the best thing to do is not talk about them unless you've already seen them, but here we return to the previous discussion: I mentioned it in a comment, it turned out that three people had seen it (including the one who saw themes of The Shining in it...) and it seemed like a pleasant thing to talk about on the homepage.
As for the rest: the first Saw is not a bad film (I mean, I saw it in a screener version, it sounded terrible, looked worse, but with the film, it fit perfectly, plus if it has a glossy photography, then the first one is crap too), I honestly don’t see how to make sequels to it though. I mean, I get it: make the guy who kills people with gory machines. But Saw was cool for the twist, not for the violence. Please, do yourself a favor: look for it in Spanish subtitled as *mientres duermas*. Because 9 horror movies out of 10 around here are dubbed poorly, and I've seen amazing films (like *The Woman*, another female horror. Maybe less great than this one but still very much worth it) get butchered on TV and turn into pure cr*p. And I'm saying this as someone who has always told off anyone who claimed that "dubbed film = crap." To be clear: Robin Williams, when dubbed, is worth five times the original Robin Williams, who’s not an idiot, mind you, but his fame in Italy owes a lot to his voice actor. But it’s been a bit too many years that the quality of dubbing has been dropping. To mention another: *Pain & Gain*, a lousy film. You watch it in the original version and The Rock (...THE ROCK!!!) nearly cracks you up every time he opens his mouth, or almost.

interesting.