odradek

What convinced me the most is the consistency, throughout the film, of the "psychic atmosphere," definitely supported by the choice of colors and cinematography, and by an unexpected quality in the acting of an actor I didn’t think was capable of such a performance. All the references mentioned in the previous posts are quite accurate, but they do not make it, after all, a film devoid of meaning and its own dignity. Considering that and the pleasure of watching it (free from the exercise of tracing all the possible "debts" of the film), a solid 3.5. - A note on the good and concise page: besides those mentioned by other posts and the formidable Spider that you cite (which is, for me, a true gem), I find that, in the attempt to categorize this film in what you call "psychological or metaphysical thriller" (and there would already be a significant gulf between the two meanings), you associate with these a title that, in my opinion, is really distant, namely "The Sixth Sense."

What a cover is this? Well done, good idea to revisit this unusual live. The affinity to prog (as commonly understood) doesn’t seem very present; rather, it leans toward what is often called "art rock." But these are perhaps trivial matters. What matters, for me, is that "Baby's On Fire" alone is worth the purchase. Back then, I had a real crush on that piece, which still sounds simple, complex, "screaming," refined, and, in its own way, brilliant.

A good album, certainly an enjoyable and intelligent mix of different influences. But the page seems too emphatic and somewhat approximate at the same time.

Really nice. Congratulations.

OUTRAGEOUSLY IGNORED.... but do you really think that one should rush to read your "outings" in order to have the luxury of saying something to you, having previously informed themselves about every fundamental statement of yours? And in case some essential knowledge has slipped through, one must avoid interacting because they are not sufficiently prepared? Don’t you find it childish (and, please, don't hide now behind a “but I was joking”) to complain that “the debaserian people” gives your reviews a 5 while skipping yours? And do you really believe you can shake someone up beyond your own ego with this game that straddles the line between serious (and whiny) and jesting (if necessary)? I appreciate the quality of some of your pages, but this way of approaching things seems to bolster Caz's proposal.

But how, didn't you notice? :)) bai

Well, is it possible that anyone expressing doubts about your statements hasn't understood what you were saying, hasn't read the review in full, etc.? I found this last one in the cited Asia review where, among other things, you say that with your reviews you exercise your narrative nature rather than critical judgment. Well, you exercise it twisted into attempts at critical contextualization, sometimes using the album almost as a pretext. And it seems impossible not to observe, precisely in this practice, an excess of "analytical" temptation that leaves the object of discussion a little flat while it flutters off wherever it pleases. And not really in favor of the "narrative" nature of the page. In fact, I appreciated more those that pursued this phantom narrative aspiration concretely, without trying to "explain" every time some grand insight. Oh, and if you were exclusively talking about MAINSTREAM, FOR GOD'S SAKE! you would have been better off finding the brief space to say it clearly instead of shouting it irritably in the comments. - Another thing I noticed as a constant in many of your posts is the reference to the meager participation on your pages compared to others. Almost a kind of annoyance. Well, I've read and commented on several of your reviews, but I remember very rare occasions when you deigned to give some form of response, which you always grant to your loyal admirers. Not that this surprises me; it's just one way to use this space. Perhaps not among my favorites.

I believe that the book and, in the end, also the film say very interesting things regarding the topic that the conversation has led to. Perhaps not at a first level, but if you read and watch closely... I might just watch it again. Bye, Fusillo, take care.

Well, as often happens, the pleasure of arching and illustrating, under the guise of an insignificant record, a sort of rather curious theory, takes precedence over the desire to verify its foundations. It's a small annoyance to find, among the names used for such an exercise, The Go-Betweens, who, at the time of their first records, were definitely very original and had a very personal style. And to notice the absence of many names that, obviously, would have contradicted the "thesis" put forward. In short, this page doesn’t seem very convincing to me…

I didn't say that the new one has to please you more, Sonic80. But since you gave this 5 stars (which I truly think are exaggerated), I made a joke to underline it. After all, you're the one saying that the world is beautiful because it's diverse, right? Well, in that diversity, can’t you allow a joke or not?