puntiniCAZpuntini

<< So those of Caravaggio (just to name one randomly) are worth nothing, >> Either you're really stupid, or you just don't read. I've written and specified ten times that you can have nothing original, you might not even know what it means to be original, and yet produce stunning things. I read books that are all the same and listen to records that are all the same, and I'm very happy about it. Your little head can't seem to dissociate one adjective from another; I'm not saying that Original is necessarily Beautiful, just as I'm not saying the opposite. I'm discussing, specifying it for three days now, only the originality of the work and not its value. And I keep going for three days because you’re hilarious. << 36 chambers... I own it too, I know exactly how they are dressed on the cover and everything else >> But if you told me before that there are no guns in Wu... come on... why do you have to tell lies? You just end up embarrassing yourself by looking at the covers online. But keep going: send more. Now go watch all the videos on YouTube so then you can talk to me about the videos and exchange opinions on the flow of the Chef and the metric of the Genius, in the parking lot under your house on the Hummer with 26" rims, yo bro', light 'em up. But knock it off.

Ah, just to clarify, since you’re obviously too stupid to figure it out on your own << couldn't understand shit about cinema >> We're not talking about cinema, but about whether an idea is original or not; whether it’s cinema, painting, literature, or music doesn’t change the topic. I couldn't care less about cinema, and I watched this film ten years ago, losing interest during the first half.

Alright, you're stupid. We've been saying the same thing for two days, it's just that you used the wrong words and I didn't understand you right away. << what you describe in the Wu songs isn't here, since he runs around with rifles and guns, gun! >> But if you don't know them, why don't you just be quiet? I gave you an example from thirty albums, they're black from New York, do you think they don't talk about guns? They talk about guns, swords, rifles, uzis, and all other possible and imaginable crap, even the flying guillotine. << that Jarmush was inspired is evident since the soundtrack is mostly in the hands of RZA pirletto, >> Yeah, we're saying the same thing. You didn't even know who RZA was before this review, I told you, I'm right, but a little fool. Then continuing for another six months, we're saying the same thing, it's just that for me, an edit isn't enough to define an original film.

<<If a montage is innovative, it’s innovative, it’s not a matter of me or you…>> But you choose your words completely randomly, huh? You’re talking about the original film in its entirety; if you’re talking about original editing, I could somewhat agree, I barely know what editing is. When you change the subject, we agree; however, the original film is not just a matter of me or you, as you say, it is simply not original. <<The kung fu films of the '70s, unless you mean the ones with Bruce Lee, but they seem so out of place to me that I think you’re referring to other films.>> Do you even read the comments? WU TANG CLAN, RAP GROUP FROM '92 TO PRESENT. They draw inspiration from the films, Jarmusch is inspired by them, and to do this, he collaborated in this film with their leader, RZA. How many times do I have to write this? Give me a number so we can get it over with. <<It seems like a copy of the film "Johnny Got His Gun">> Do you know what Rap is? I don’t think so. It’s not music; it’s Rap. The Metallica lyrics are ten words, a rap lyric is a lyric. In three minutes, you say 2000 words, and you have time to describe scenarios of modern samurai with katanas going around beheading people in the Bronx, just like this film. You don’t even know what I’m talking about, yet you insist on arguing against me. Read some old interviews with Jarmusch; he says himself that it’s an idea taken from Wu-Tang, because at the time they had already won at least 10 platinum records, he couldn’t hide the obvious inspiration, especially with RZA’s collaboration on the music. You talk a lot, but you don’t read. Maybe you should read first, then open the dictionary, choose the right words, and then respond.

It's not growl, but it's not a normal voice either: it's raspy in all the albums like the links I included in the review. Much better than Bongzilla, much worse than Crowbar. \\ Tilburg 2008 is the recording of the finale in the Psych room at Roadburn, of course they had to go overboard more than the other exaggerators for the "always harder" theory that exists in Tilburg. Not that the albums are light, but it's a more interspersed issue. Take the first "relaxing with," if you like that, go ahead through the years; when you see they take it too far, you stop: the more recent, the more exaggerated. But maybe if you take it gradually, you might start to like it.

You see, if you speak in Italian it makes sense. << it expresses itself through sequences of images, >> it’s different from “it is based on.” It’s not “me putting it the way I want,” it’s the convention called word that puts it in certain terms, if used. I still disagree on the underlying concept, but we are entering very personal territories, where there is no truth. For me, this film is and will remain a copy of Welcome To The 36 Chambers, which is heavily inspired by 70s kung-fu cinema transported into the neighborhood competitions of 90s New York Projects. "Shaolin Shadowboxin."

Wait, wait... we always need to see what you believe the meaning of "to base" is. If you don't mean the definition understood in the Italian language, then perhaps we agree. But in Italian, I would say I think the opposite. You want to tell or describe something, and you use writing or a camera. It's not that you want to write words just to bind them in a piece of cardboard; instead, you use a story to do that. The starting "base" - if altered - also changes the final objective, which is no small matter.

Ah, and of course a book is not "based" on the word; it's just the chosen channel of dissemination.

Okay Muffin, I already understood how you thought three posts ago. Now that we have repeated the same concept three times while still disagreeing, are you satisfied enough or do you want to keep writing the same thing without changing a comma, convinced that sooner or later you will convince the whole world? A movie does not "rely" on images, it "utilizes" them. It's different.

I've already written it; if you really want me to repeat it, fine: for me, a film that takes its story from a book cannot be original. It can be beautiful, awful, average, but not original. If it has copied the story, how can a copy be original? It's normal and even right that these films exist, but that doesn't change the fact that calling the director original is inaccurate. Moreover, apart from rare cases, they do nothing but ruin the reading of a good book; maybe after reading the book, you appreciate them less, but that's okay. However, if you've seen the film first, the book is ruined; you know everything that will happen.