nes Banned

"I considered the issue from a purely logical standpoint, citing the connections between the synopses of the two films." Ok, so you say: "The point is that in 2010, with a shitty budget, Edwards made a high-quality film, while Hollywood produced a piece of crap..." Someone replies: "Yes, but can anyone explain what the hell Monsters has to do with Godzilla??? And you logically respond like this: "Indeed, nothing at all... Oh no... In both there are monsters, devastations, the flight from inhabited places, the impotence of the military... No no, absolutely nothing..." because Monsters is a film that talks about monsters and people fleeing from inhabited places (???) that's the center of the film, sure. Monster is a film where like in Godzilla, the monsters take center stage... etc... No, because interpreting that sentence LOGICALLY, this is deduced. And, for the umpteenth time, it's nonsense. And then you’re still here discussing this bullshit when the core issue is: the problem with Godzilla isn't the money, because a film like Godzilla necessarily costs a ton of money due to concept requirements. And at this point you start responding (I don't know about now, but until now you’ve done it) "it's a matter of points of view" as if we were discussing whether one thing is better than another and not about data that are not debatable: the bigger the post-production, the more it costs. And to make the special effects of a film like Godzilla, you need a boatload of people. And a film like Godzilla in 2014, you either do it with effects like those or you don't do it because nobody gives a damn about having a Godzilla with puppets or 8-bit cubes. I repeat: it’s not a debatable issue, it’s a fact. Do you want to continue discussing Italian terms? Synonyms? The rules of the standard language? Brush up on your grammar, reach MY level (which by the way is also low, but you still have a long way to go) and then revisit it."

I haven't seen it, and I feel tremendously guilty: he wanted to show me popcorn. I told him that if, once in a while, he watched stuff that doesn't start from premises that border on indecency, he wouldn't run the risk of catching a cold. He, perplexed, let me put on Holy Motors. And now he's acting like he has Tourette's.

It takes a lot of effort to ruin a page like that.

But do they intend to reprint everything else pre desaparecido? And above all: how's the audio quality? Is it like that of the tracks linked above or better (worse is impossible)?

false step??? antenòr alone is worth half of the discography of any random Italian singer-songwriter who isn’t de André or Guccini, it contains half of "fra la via emilia e il west," poor kids from Milan that’s a bomb, lager that... okay, seriously: false step what?

gnagnera: I partly agree, but maybe entirely it all depends on points of view: as a Godzilla movie, it’s excellent, not just good, excellent. And if someone goes to see it to watch a Godzilla film (a Godzilla film, not random giants fighting, the Japanese lizard) they should come out satisfied. The thing is, I couldn’t care less about Godzilla; I was interested in Edwards. It’s worth mentioning that the entire creative process seems wrong; it’s as if they took the director of Let the Right One In and had him make a film in the Underworld saga. Finally, there’s the possibility that someone goes to see it to watch a movie about monsters fighting (and I imagine that 90% of the audience goes for that), and at that point, Godzilla is just a 10-minute short film. A masterpiece of a short film... too bad there’s still an hour and fifty minutes of nothing. All this was to say: I have no idea how this is raking in box office success left and right, but I’m happy for Edwards.

the best integration between CGI and environments, the (THE, not the... I don’t even know if there's more than one actually...) best fight between giants in the history of cinema: it will last 3 minutes at most but it outshines everything in Pacific Rim and probably even its sequel (after all, Godzilla’s sphincter must be of considerable size). It doesn’t even remotely try to capture the vibe of Godzilla from '98 (and thank god for that) Edwards is a hell of a guy. end of the film’s merits, the rest are all flaws, what remains is that the film is poor and Edwards is a phenomenon. I know the film is mysteriously raking in a ton (everyone is talking about this movie like dogs) and they are planning a sequel. if they trust it again to Edwards and don’t give him free rein on the script, someone should burn Hollywood. They essentially took the most complete author around and told him: make the film, sure, but the script is this, my son wrote it. He’s eight years old. Edwards can tweak it as much as he wants to try to say something, but it’s hard to pull something tasty out of crap.
so: "And yes, the dear Edwards should know a thing or two about Monsters; is it possible that the increased budget corresponds to a radical decline in product quality?" it's not about the budget, in Monsters he was the director, visual effects supervisor, screenplay writer, and director of photography. Here, he’s not and you can tell.

L0LL=: inseparable yes, m butterfly is my second favorite, the fly yes, shivers is my absolute favorite. rabid is terrible, scanners mediocre, videodrome on a first viewing had me screaming miracle, the second time I couldn't make it to the end, it's a constant dribble of Cronenberg. the dead zone is crap (like 99% of films based on King) naked lunch I fell asleep, crash would have been great in the 70s, in the 90s it’s just a thing that wants to say "look how over the top we are" but at the end of the day it’s a film for girls in a boarding school. existenz like videodrome is a dribble too, plus on a theme that in 3 years saw matrix, the thirteenth floor, truman show, and I don't know how many other films all the same, and existenz is the dullest. I haven't seen spider. but I’d say I’ve kept more than an eye on Cronenberg... but if you want, you can come and rave about it to me, a semester of Canova wasn’t enough to make me see all of his unchallenged genius, but maybe if you come by, you can change my mind.

Of the must-see films, you can count them on the fingers of a blind circular saw operator. Four or five mind-blowing films, a slew of stuff that fans and critics have passed off as gold: "let me write this piece quickly so I can go eat"; and a bunch of nonsense. "History of Violence" was embarrassing, "Easter Sticazzi" was a nice little entertaining film, but to call it art house cinema is stretching it. After that, I stopped following his work. And I have no intention of starting again. Good job, though, but after a certain point: ahddavideeh, you're really starting to get on my nerves.