puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,44 • DeAge™ : 8166 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
I don't know who the images belong to, but if they're by Cunningham, then he was incredibly skilled because they fit perfectly. All Is Full Of Love should be done in one way, Aphex in another, right? If you know Aphex, you know it's violently disgusting (there you go, Kataklisma, about the fact that you don't know him, if you're surprised by such a performance), so it needed some disgusting violence. Kataklisma, why are you mad at me?
Voto:
But what do you want? You came here putting words in my mouth that I never said, you came here claiming to know Twin when you don't even know who he is. I only explained what I wanted and what I didn't want to say, and then I explained who Richard D. James is and who he isn't. That's it. But you, what do you want?
Voto:
No, I only comment on what I know. I haven't read Carmisasca, I've just seen the cover with the comedian's photo, and I know the comedian. As for Venditti, there seemed to be a general fuss that didn’t make much sense, and since I know those people, I butted in. Liquido play something like punk; punk is all the same, so if you know one, you know them all. There you have the mystery explained :D
Voto:
Did you make the liquid? I only remembered Battisti Dalla Stewart, but it's normal for me to get mixed up, I've read at least half of the 3500 reviews :D
Voto:
Yeah, well, logically, that's my vision of Kubrick's mind. It's not an analysis of real facts, so I could very well have thrown out tons of bullshit. However, the Bacchic enthusiasm has little to do with acid, and even natural things have nothing to do with it. Kubrick feels very much like acid to me, while Tarantino is more about joints & wine. If you think acid is thrilling, you’re really quite mistaken :) - You know Jack Nicholson, with that face that smiles but isn’t happy? That’s acid. (In fact, Jack has taken loads of it; it's well-known and you can see it from a mile away.)
Voto:
You are absolutely right, I need to quantify words based on the stupidity of the people they are directed at, I often make mistakes. Sorry.
Voto:
Life's Bitch, Fuck It. Thr'ap your gun, shot it. (Onix, from the gospel according to All We Got, Is Us)
Voto:
And a nice one to this shitty reviewer, to him and to the little bunnies with their stuck paws... but fuck off, seriously.
Voto:
Anyway, you can see that Enea, you didn't take all the acids that Kubrick had eaten, you're too moderate and you don’t see how to justify his exaggerations. I have a very tragic view of the future, and most likely if I had been alive at the release of Clockwork, I would have judged Kubrick as a messiah or a seer. Today I would realize I was wrong, but back then I would have agreed with him.
Voto:
I don't follow you on the paradox. I follow you TODAY in 2005, but a film from the 70s should be judged with the eyes of the 70s. In the 70s it wasn't paradoxical, so it isn't a paradox now either, but just a TRAGIC vision, as I said before. If you want to talk about how A Clockwork Orange appears in 2005, you're right, but discussing A Clockwork Orange as it appears in 2005 seems stupid and pointless to me; I TRY to evaluate it with the eyes of the time. Of course, I can't fully succeed, but at least I try.