nes Banned

The opener is a rare beauty bomb, the rest of the album is yet another good work by Black Mountain, but "how much more personal the first album was..." To me, in the future has always been somewhat crap. Maybe it was something I kept to myself, but today, eight years after its release, I can candidly admit that I don't remember half a note of it.

Oh my God: the story that Italian cinema is doing poorly was already annoying in 2000 when it actually made sense, let alone today when it doesn’t make any sense at all. Kubrick is mentioned a tad out of context, the film had already been reviewed (not long ago, by the way), and recounting the end of a movie doesn’t mean reviewing it, it means ruining it.
After all, not every doughnut comes out with a hole. No big deal, next time will be better.

About a year ago (I think) I heard the one with the cover that looks like an 80s comic with the big green hand and the two wizards. I was on the lookout for some new ignorant doom albums, and well, for what I was searching for, apart from being out of genre, they seemed too cheerful, like I’d listen to them and wonder: "What the hell is the drummer laughing about?" But I didn't dislike them. It’s just that then time passes, you remember the awful cover but you forget the name, and it ends up that you lose track of the band (at least, that happens to me all the time; God knows how much stuff has caught my attention but didn’t satisfy me that I’ve “lost”). And now I open Debaser, see that Psycho is back with three albums, two of which are by the same band, and I say to myself: "Well, if they're promoting these guys with even two works, they must be really tasty, let’s hope it’s something I’ll like." So I open Bandcamp and I find myself in front of the big green hand. Damn, nice, now I even know the title!

no one can take a five away from you

Beautifully written, but I wouldn't know about the work itself. I'm hearing it mentioned for the first time, and when one doesn't know, one can't question the real value of something. However, I do know that branch of art created entirely for the use and consumption of women (I don't know if this film falls into that category; maybe it's something better than "Terms of Endearment." But sure, it's got René Ferretti in it, so it's already better than "Terms of Endearment"). A branch that, on one hand, offers emotions and reflections to the female universe, while on the other hand contributes to relegating it to its dichotomous role in the "Man/Woman" universe. As long as there are men and women instead of people, you will NEVER have sexual equality.
In the end, the aforementioned "Terms of Endearment" and, I don’t know, "Predator," are somewhat the same thing: easy entertainment, written and crafted with a keen focus on the target audience in mind. My grandparents were farmers in the Po Delta; the more educated of the two had a second-grade education, obtained before the war. Two goats, they’d be called today by Sgarbi. My grandfather always knew the importance of his wife within the “economy” of the family (which has nothing to do with money). If he knew it, we know it too; you're not unknown animals; you're just second-class animals in our society. I believe it would be more beneficial for women to stop focusing on the differences that exist between the "A" and "B" leagues and start concentrating on all those similarities that inevitably reside in two animals that differ from one another just for the tail of a chromosome.
The woman as "different/a world apart/a universe to discover" is an image that benefits only that segment of society that thrives on the division into "classes." I don't even know who this division might serve; it’s not like the boys live much better after all. I wanted to make examples but I think it’s best to avoid them since there’s the risk of starting a competition on who has it worse, which is one of those typically human things (both men and women, go figure) that contribute to the self-deprecation of their own species.
I don't know, whatever... I think I've been as clear and transparent as oil... in the end, I just wanted to say that patriarchy is a tool for controlling society as a whole, not just women in general, and that true female emancipation must necessarily start from the abolition of the very concept of "Woman." And of "Man," of course. Though even saying it that way, I'm not sure if it's clear, but "who cares": I need to order pizza now.

And so the dissing of De Gregori is a poetic attitude in a country where Immanuel Casto is considered a comedian's joke. For Christ's sake, this country is getting worse by the day. The indie and the hipsters certainly aren't helping, and the situation isn't exactly rosy in the rest of the world either, but dear God, I find the idea of dissing De Gregori quite foolish. Maybe, as I hope, I misunderstood. But I will never find out because, for Christ’s sake, I wouldn’t even get close to a cover that's so annoyingly terrible: "Damn: look how alternative we are!!!" Well, yes, the impression you give at first glance is that of being an alternative quite distant from the principles of the philosophy "let's do things well." To be serious, indie was a genre that was booming when digital terrestrial television was just coming in, when there was Flux, or when Brand New was on MTV. Then Flux became Qoob, then MTV shut it down, and then they shut down MTV. Nothing from that period remained, except for a few cathode-ray TVs in the basement. And indie. Which is now a standard, alternative only to the desire to listen to new stuff. All things considered, it’s a big contradiction that indie is music for conservative tastes, but then again, it’s a "genre" so ridiculously pretentious and annoyingly snobbish that I don’t think it’s strange at all if it ends up ridiculing itself today. Write well, do yourself a favor: don't waste time on this nonsense.

I will gladly listen.

like bluesboy: if you keep it up, you're going to annoy even those who have been listening for 20 years. especially since you’re the same ones who on one hand are like: “drake is god, he’s underrated, everyone listen to him!!!” and on the other: “oh, drake in the soundtrack of an ad, what’s that? did you mistake him for a contestant on maria de filippi?” you’ve broken the balls.
unlike blues, I've read the review. like blues, I think you’re really good (seriously), but this time you’ve come up with a real piece of junk. and I think you know it too (because, indeed, you usually write beautiful stuff). But: “damn Drake... FIVE for the review, the author, and my mom who made me so handsome that I listen to Drake.”
this need to let the world know that you listen to "different" "underground," emotional, "cultured" music is turning one of the best artists of the last century into a status symbol, and seeing rake treated like a gold watch to wear over your cuff, quite honestly, disgusts me.

DiCaprio has never been immature; he has always been a talent. Here, however, he delivers his worst performance ever; I absolutely agree. One expression (one) from the beginning to the end of the film: whether they kill his father or he sleeps with Cameron Diaz, it's the same for him. Maybe they told him he was on the set of Terminator...
As for the film, I don't know, I only saw it in the cinema at the time of release; I remember enjoying it and that by the end I had a sore ass. But all in all, Scorsese has been "finished" for a while; his "food cinema" (made for eating, to fill time, or whatever you want) remains an aesthetic and wonderful cinema, but in this wonder of direction and photography, he often gets trapped. There isn't a character in The Departed that takes flight, none in Wolf of Wall Street, and in Gangs of New York, the character of Daniel Day-Lewis owes more to D’s performance than to M's undeniable charisma. In The Aviator, it's a different story; we start from characters that are already legends and have charisma from the screenplay, but they are then managed poorly from start to finish. The Aviator is a film made for those who don’t know the characters involved, but know all the cinema of the '40s, which seems like a rather elitist premise for a film from the 2000s produced by Hollywood and costing one hundred and ten million dollars.
Then, to be fair, with what he has done in the past, he is free to do whatever he wants, but it cannot be denied that the cinema he offered until the first half of the '80s had a decidedly higher artistic value. Even Casino, which I really like, compared to Raging Bull or even just to Goodfellas, has an alarming emotional sterility.
Then again, what Scorsese did before the '80s was something else entirely; he was writing history. And, all in all, nowadays he can do whatever the hell he wants until he decides to make a fool of himself.
Ah, then there’s Shutter Island… no, come on, let’s pretend Shutter Island doesn’t exist.

Very tender, but I think Bong Joon-ho did better with Shaking Tokyo by avoiding that dreamy ironic aura which, on one hand, gives this film a lot of charisma, but on the other hand reduces the viewer's focus on the central incipit of the work: extreme isolation, it exists.