Saputello

@ Odradek: I found this film much more impactful than a film like Lolita, even though it's tough to make a comparison. Lolita is from '62 (if I'm not mistaken), so it comes out in a period when Kubrick's art has different characteristics compared to those he adopts at the end of his career. I don't know if it's because of the censorship that led to the cutting of some scenes in that film, but I didn't particularly like it. From that period, I much preferred "Dr. Strangelove." Not by chance, I learned that the only film Kubrick would have wanted to remake is precisely Lolita (obviously we cannot know about Eyes Wide Shut). What I don't like about Lolita, to put it simply, is the fact that some themes from the novel are left heavily in the shadows, themes with a sexual undertone.

@ sephirot: "necessary for artists, not for buyers." Well, forgive me, but knowing it's necessary for artists is enough for me to say it's necessary.

"But since it's the last Kubrick, it has to be a masterpiece." No, for me it's not a 5 just because it's by Kubrick. There are other Kubrick films that don't deserve a 5. For example, I would give Full Metal Jacket less than 5 stars because it has never seemed particularly successful to me, or even Lolita. This is truly one of my favorite films for the reasons stated above. But I understand those who can't stand it.

“For them, it was just an original marketing move.” Yeah, sure, for a billion-dollar and world-famous group, any action becomes like a marketing maneuver. Let’s look each other in the eye; I think this controversy really becomes sterile. Anyone who goes against the system becomes the system and deserves criticism too. It’s a type of old and overly moralistic controversy. The situation is much simpler: 1) Radiohead have been without a record label for 3 or 4 years 2) they went against their record label probably due to artistic diktats they had to endure 3) they looked around and saw it was a good idea to ride the wave of people who publish music freely and it certainly wouldn’t hurt their wallets. It was a good idea, it was necessary that it happened, that a group of a certain caliber finally took a clear stance. Radiohead were the first to do it, kudos to them. And enough with the wanking.

Hail to the Thief is a nice album that, made by Radiohead, disappointed me. Significantly inferior to OK Computer, to Kid A, to Amnesiac. i_love_music, don’t make me come there or I’ll spank you. Eh.

Just for the choral scene of the ritual with masks and for the chosen music (including that of Jocelyne Pook), it deserves a 5. Just for the introspective level (held back only by the mummy named Tom Cruise) achieved by the narrative and the thousand psychological outlets it offers, it deserves a 5. Just for the acting and for Kidman's backside, it deserves a 5. Then there's also a cameo of Kubrick himself in the scene at the bar with the jazz musician. He can be glimpsed in a frame, it seems. One of his best films for me.

Of course, my opinion may change, but for now it's disappointing upon first listen.

Congratulations on the operation. It’s not a valid excuse to say that sooner or later someone would have done it, so they shouldn't get credit for it just because they are billionaires. What nonsense.
I've had the album for two days anyway. Disappointment: burning. Like Hail to the Thief, but even worse. They can't renew themselves. For me, they are finished. But it's known that debaser is the fan club of Radiohead.

All this need to find meanings in music has given me a bit of a craving. Ambrogio?! Give me a blowjob.

"the intentionally contradictory 'shutting oneself' within a context of explicit and even glorified elementary simplicity is, on the one hand, both an aesthetic necessity (the most predominant) and an existential one" ---> Aside from the fact that the child's perspective is anything but elementary (and indeed, the album is anything but elementary), it seems to me that this album is precisely lacking that aesthetic necessity you are looking for (I set aside the meaning of existential necessity, I don't know what you meant). Picasso spent a lifetime learning to paint like children; does all that seem elementary to you? Ah, it isn’t? Then in that case, why do you first say that this album contains the expressive viewpoint of the child and then emphasize the glorified elementary nature? This album has absolutely nothing elementary about it, neither the harmonies, nor the rhythms, nor the sensory result to the ears of the listener. It makes you feel as if you are in a circus with all the distorted lights of the rides, it confuses you, it’s not immediate, it’s a cerebral album.