Eneathedevil

But no, it's "So Far So Close"; anyway, I fully approve, rikà.

Oh my! This is pure manna. Don’t take it as a personal insult; I would have written about this review anyway, regardless of its author. For the first time, I nearly agree with Ajeje: he doesn’t remember much, but I recall finding it one of the most annoying and overrated films in history. Many critics in this world disparage it, but inexplicably, many gurus, perhaps subdued by its easy-going poetic style, ultimately consider it a masterpiece. Morandini states: "It has severe critics who reproach it for its more than budding academism, its prolixity, and its poeticizing concept, while others praise it as a modern fable that combines melancholy and tenderness and recovers the historical and visual memory of Berlin," and then seems clearly to lean towards the second view, giving it a generous 3.5/5. The authoritative filmtv is even more incomprehensible: 4/5 with the terse comment "Wenders tells a modern fable brushing against the academism that will characterize some of his later films"; in short, it seems there’s some sort of spell compelling high ratings for Wenders out of deference, even though the film is burdened by a moralizing didacticism worthy of elementary school. For me, it’s terrible. Pathetic, full of shoulder pats from Mr. Human-Gaze Bruno Ganz, platitudes, mawkish refrains, stories that sing their own dramas. The first hour is suicidal; it gets better afterwards. Alessio, what got into your head? I thought you were so tough...

Hey, Dante, good to see you! Great review, I only remember Glenn Branca from the soundtrack of a film called "Il ventre dell'architetto," a strange movie from the late '80s. You've piqued my curiosity, I'll look for it.

By the way, iridium, since you're hanging around here (and I especially see that the matter of exile is very flexible and the issue of pataphysics continues to attract you), I tell you that right in "Second" by Soft Machine, there's the legendary Pataphysical Introduction, which, needless to say, is a great piece. Make sure you don’t get stuck on appearances, okay? Pataphysic yourself too. And get funky.

Well, exactly: take away all this fuss and throw in, I don't know, a Boy George. Paint the serious parade of hearses and brothels with a lively carefreeness that plagues your big page!

But no, I didn’t catch a damn thing! I’ve followed football from the '70s more than Gaetano, speaking anachronistically. Man, how old are you, now you even have to do the grocery shopping! See, nobody cares about the Jeffersons, not even me.

Damn, Xyz, and put a little '80s synth-pop group in the playlist! Stay easy, Frankie Knuckles rules.

The abhorrent thing is that within the aforementioned scruffiness, on many review sites including Debaser itself, it's easier to come across Captain Beefheart and the Soft Machine rather than certain industrial, certain psych, and certain early prog, because they're guilty of not being mentioned by a Fabretti or a Cope of the moment. This is a great record, but it annoys me a bit because of its monolithic bulk, and "Second" is among those I've listened to, my favorite. Psycho, from the footballer references you make, you seem to have been born in 1951.

Always interesting proposals and snacks! Anyway, I prefer rockabilly.

But when taking things lightly, isn’t it precisely included to criticize the way a person—or rather, an identity—acts? Why is it "light" to unleash torrents of systematic insults, while contesting a person's behavior civilly is heavy? And above all, where is it written that if one doesn’t respond with irony or ignores, one must change sites? Who decided what is appropriate for this site? What fits this site is the "who wants," that's what fits (it's even written at the top of the homepage), and I've been here much longer than you, Ole, I'm telling you without pretension. At least a couple of years ago, Debaser was great in an atmosphere that didn’t necessarily lead to loud arguments. And where the double one for the review wasn’t a rule, nor was the dry dissent from those who thought a review should suck. I assure you. There were certainly some strange characters, some rebels, some Nazis, but don’t think that just because the current trend is towards free criticism, this is the nature of the site. Not even in my dreams. Its nature is that everyone is free to express themselves as they want. Some with irony, some with vulgarity, some with morality. If a person cannot engage, that’s not my fault. I haven’t cursed anyone here, nor have I unleashed the hell that someone else has instead ignited, and in the end, those who left have clearly shown that they cannot discuss. And that they do not take "lightly" the morals of a supposed jerk.