joe strummer

How can one expect a film like Kill Bill to have a complex plot? KB is an extreme amplification of a very simple event. Unlike Pulp Fiction, which intentionally portrayed events from a distance to create a more abrupt and brutal impact, this film successfully attempts to analyze the facts in a detailed manner, making it more engaging and "personal." Not coincidentally, at its core, we find a dialogue that explains every detail of the story. Tarantino's work is masterful in this regard, as he scatters the film with small details that are essential to fully understanding the psychology of the characters, which reaches unprecedented heights in this work. Pulp Fiction, which remains an absolute masterpiece, lacked this emotional richness because it stopped at the first impact, at the vulgar dialogues, at the shootouts. KB is infinitely more subtle and rich in this sense. Quentin manages to portray his characters in full depth, from Beatrix to Bill (the extraordinary Carradine), from O-Ren to Budd. Not coincidentally, the only character that is not thoroughly explored (even though we find numerous hints (niki)) Vernita Green, is used as an incipit of violence at the beginning of the first Volume. KB is fundamentally a static film, with few developments in the plot (but those few that are present are spot on (B.B.)), crafted with unparalleled finesse and depth. On top of all this, it is also a feast for the eyes, with every cinematic style utilized to perfection. It makes no sense to criticize a film for copying from others when its very prerogative is just that. It's like criticizing a punk album by saying "it's technically inferior."

poor psychopath.

satoshi etc. I heard them at Echoes on August 6 for the XX anniversary.

Have you read the review???

hard life easy is not at all a piece of routine

easycure, I agree with you. But indeed, no one has ever talked about any groundbreaking innovations with Neon Bible. An update of the classic can be a masterpiece, though. And then, with this search for a new poetics, isn't there a risk of losing sight of the ultimate purpose of music, which is to be enjoyable? Between baroque and neoclassical, which is better? It's hard to say; it needs to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. But there could be a situation where the neoclassical, lacking in fantasy but perfectly executed, is better than the baroque, which aims to astonish but often implodes on itself, suffocated by the relentless pursuit of the new at all costs.

But excuse me, how can you say if an album is modern or not? Just based on whether there are "new things"? So, according to you, neoclassicism is garbage. The Arcade Fire, even though they draw from pre-existing sounds, certainly don't fail to update and shape them to their ends. This is not a style exercise without soul.

My goodness, what a mental mess. There are people who, as soon as a group becomes successful (either with the public or with critics), start to hate it. Look at how we've ended up...

very catchy

will be my epitaph!!!!!!