ajejebrazorf

Well, I believe that in the aromatic challenge, the embalmed grandfather would definitely have had an edge. Anyway, among the "one vs the other," I will eventually manage to see "Maciste contro Zorro," a bit like my "la fin absolue du monde."

On the best "1," I would put "don't open that door," but I hardly remember House 1; I saw it too long ago. You've made me want to watch it again.

A well-known and somewhat cloying little comedy, yet it's enjoyable to watch; I would gladly rewatch it. Nicholson, using the same set of facial expressions from The Shining, is irresistible, and I've always had a soft spot for Hunt. It doesn't change the history of cinema by a nanometer, but it entertains and is fun. A Salomonic two and a half.

In fact, Saw is better than Cannibal Holocaust (which is neorealistic about as much as I am New Zealandese). Anyway, I agree with Eletto, just mentioning Salò in the context of world movie and cannibal films is a blasphemy that cannot be heard in any way.

Well, psycho, I’ll tell you that maybe I’m a bit gullible or easy to please, but I actually didn't mind it, and I really didn't see that twist coming—it left me speechless. It seems to me one of the best thrillers I've seen this decade. Anyway, if I think back on the most ridiculous (or less justified) plot twists of all time, the one in Cani arrabbiati di bava is a pretty silly one, but I think the golden palm goes to Haute tension, where the twist is really just thrown in there, in a "who cares about coherence" kind of way (although I realized it after with that one too), almost worthy of Buñuel for how it doesn't match up with all the details of the screenplay.

Above I wrote: "even if someone would like to frame it like this," and I meant "even someone would like to frame it as a cerebral musician," otherwise it doesn't make sense. @dedoluz: if you're looking for an album similar in many ways to Bitches Brew, try Sextant by Hancock. I'll send you the cover image, and I guarantee that you can understand a lot just from that:

@contemplation: I think you're wrong; it's not a matter of listening to everything. For example, although I try to do it, I've understood many things over time, while some I just don't get because they are somehow distant from me. Like (I keep mentioning it) I loved Ayler immediately (and his music, even if some might try to frame it that way, is as simple as it gets); it took me much longer to appreciate certain pop things. But it’s not that easy: I've never really loved the free jazz of Coleman you mentioned, for example. In short, I don’t believe it boils down to "first the easy, then the difficult," because those are categories that only make sense for readers of books about music; they help us understand how certain musical ideas are born. But the kids from Happy obviously don’t find Bartok difficult (or they couldn't care less about establishing its difficulty), and I doubt they dance to show off their knowledge. Also, when someone asks me for an album, I try to adjust based on that person's tastes, because while kids absorb everything, adults (I think everyone, myself included) are screwed; they generally have their load of various prejudices and only listen to what they are convinced they want to hear, establishing which music is simple and which is difficult.

contemplation, you have this strange notion that one can only appreciate certain sounds after experiencing others: who says that to understand Bartok you need to understand Mozart? who says that to understand Don Cherry you need to have listened to King Oliver? it's fine that some records can be more representative than others, but for the rest I repeat, I speak for myself, I became passionate about jazz because I heard Ayler, not because I heard Kind of Blue.

let the trumpets sound (and let the call girls trumpet, of course): Lukin is back!

don't worry, we’re ignorant at least in two... yes, I have a weakness for free, always have (even though I viscerally hate a lot of stuff in that "genre"), but I listen to other things too, you know.