Larrok

I saw it again not too long ago, and it gave me the impression of a good film but poorly aged, describing that era a bit too simplistically and feeling rather sterile and artificial in the dramatic moments. In this genre, I prefer "Goodfellas," for example, or even the more recent "American Gangster," although there is a great performance by De Niro here. Let's say 3.8.

I liked it; not an immortal masterpiece, but it has its claustrophobic charm, and honestly, I hadn't figured out the ending half an hour in, like so many people here on this page, and maybe that's why I enjoyed it more. Excellent performances by Ruffalo, Kingsley, and Williams, masterful direction as always.

I would remove "Youthanasia" from the trilogy and include "Peace Sells."

mien, LAROCK is a woman, maybe you got confused with my nickname.

So, the first thing to say about this album is that it has excellent sounds and arrangements. It's a pulsating album; the basses play a fundamental role in creating tension, which is very noticeable, for example, in "Being Held." We are hovering between post-rock and slowcore. "Snoother" is wonderful. Overall, it's a bit different from the EP "Marshmallows," which I prefer.

The first two tracks are a blast and the best episodes of the album; "Leland Mississippi Blues" is practically a revamped version of "Rock me Baby," "Good Morning Little School Girl" is fun but really shines live, the two acoustic pieces I like a lot, especially the use of slide in "Dallas," the rest isn't particularly remarkable. Still, a great album overall.

But is it true that in 3 you can screw Aphrodite?

Yes, I understand, but it isn't fair to condemn 96% of people just because they don't think the right way. A large portion of that 96% doesn't even have the means to acquire the knowledge that would allow them to take advantage of others through rents, real estate exchanges, auction discounts, etc. We're talking about people who live in villages with huts or who have never seen a book and can't even afford to think about certain things.

Bardolla criticizes those who settle and get up in the morning, but without them, he couldn't do what he does. It is precisely thanks to them that the wealth is generated on which he can then speculate. You can't speculate on nothing. Essentially, he spits in the plate where he eats. But then, if the Bardolla were not just 1% of the population, but let's say 60%, do you think it would be a better society, even just from an economic standpoint? The models I respect are those that, when broadened to encompass the entire society, improve it, not those that start from the assumption that since a system is unjust, it is our right to exploit it as we please.

"For Bardolla, the important thing is that you know how to make those 300 or 3 million so that you don’t even have to get out of bed to go to work, having automatic income. If someone makes money without getting out of bed to work, it means they are not producing anything for society; they are literally a parasite living off those who work hard, exploiting the aberrations of capitalism just as a mushroom exploits the roots of others. If everyone did that, there would be no civil society and therefore no 'money machine.' If no one got out of bed, you wouldn't find bread at the baker’s, you would be without electricity, running water, and a car, and then you would have to make your own bread, light your way with candles, go to the river or the well for water, move on foot or by bicycle to get anywhere, and trust me, if you don’t want to die, you will definitely have to get out of bed. The model of the 'money machine that works for you' only works as long as there is a majority of people who break their backs and work from morning till night; a society where the Alfio Bardollas are the majority couldn't even be conceived, it must necessarily be a minority of people who use perverse mechanisms to enrich themselves by speculating on the wealth produced by 'those who get up in the morning.'"