ARE LOVERS OF THIS FILM JUST CHILDISH? - 28 Days (2000) Discussion

[–] caitrua 20 years ago

I must admit I was somewhat offended by your judgemental attitude.

You can lament the lack of analytical comparative reviews, but to classify viewers based on their emotions is missing the point of storytelling. A story will speak to each person on many different levels.

A comparative film review can be dismissed as inexperienced or less than sufficiently analytical, but an expression of emotion for a movie is personal and cannot appropriately be classified as childish nor promoted as mature. As one with an MA in sociology and psychology, you should know better.

These message boards are generally for people who post based solely on thier emotions. If you need more professional reviews, look elsewhere. But even then you will find that your tastes do not reflect or match many of those given by people who are paid to review. In the end you'll just have to use your own judgement. More movies will disappoint than will please.

Besides as a fan of Steven Segal you can't possibly expect me to believe that his movie fit in the "mature" viewers category. Ultimately it's all about personal taste. I thought "Four Weddings and a Funeral" was crap, but enjoyed "L.A. Confidential'. "Under Seige" (the first one) was fairly decent (except for the unnecessary stripper), but I wouldn't watch another of his movies if you paid me. I have some shows I watch as a guilty pleasure even though I know they are not of the best quality. You, however, may find them unbearable.

If you are worried about spending money on rubbish, see if your library has DVDs and videos to rent. Here in the states most libraries do.

reply

[–] george-parker183 20 years ago

Thanks for your reply.

I’m not saying that lovers are childish. I’m just asking the question.

I am renting. It’s the wasted rental fees that I’m complaining about. What I’m looking for is a critic who is knowledgeable about what is plausible, but I can’t find one.

reply

[–] caitrua 20 years ago

Frankly most of the stuff coming out of Hollywood is garbage, has been for years. They are aiming for the lowest common denominator, and most people will see anything once. That's how they account for opening weekend box office receipts.

You can try these sites: http://www.mrqe.com/lookup; http://movies.go.com/; http://www.rottentomatoes.com/. They will give you reviews from newspapers, magazines and other reviewers from across the country. Try and find a few that you generally agree with and maybe that will help guide your picks. Also pay more attention to the User Comments then the boards themselves.

Again, try your local library, they may not have a great selection but at least it's free.

Perhaps you can try more foreign films. (Although I don't think you're in the US, Canada maybe?) There are many good films coming out of Asia and South America right now. Europe always has some good selections too. Try looking at previous Cannes and independent film contest winners (Sundance, Toronto, Austin). There is bound to be some you will like and will be able to rent. (I find the local rental places don't carry many independent or foreign films.)

You could look into something like Netflix, they have thousands of titles to choose from. It's the cost of a few of rentals and you can watch as many as you want per month.

Good luck.

reply

[–] george-parker183 20 years ago

Thanks for your reply. I'm from Southampton, England.

Some films are OK. Some are very good. I found "The Foreigner" quite clever, but had to watch it twice, but found "Out for a Kill" very childish, for various very clear reasons eg. the Baddie was wooden, and the fight-scenes were slip-shod.

The problem is, getting this info in advance.

reply

[–] violentsociopath 18 years ago

and old people are typically crotchety and judgemental. (realize I'm being judgemental)

reply

[–] z_utj 20 years ago

I too, find this post offensive. You come off all high-and-mighty, and oh-so educated, yet you are a "devoted Sandra Bullock fan"? This movie (and more recently crash) are the only decent movies she's done. The rest were throw-away comedies (No offense Sandra)

Do you really need to know so much about people who have given reviews of the film - education and profession? Give me a break.

I haven't seen Four Weddings and a Funeral, but isn't that a romantic comedy? I HATE romantic comedies. Maybe if I had an MA is sociology and psychology like you, I could appreciate them, LOL!

You said "Is it then safe for me to assume that the "Haters" of this film are mature and that the "Lovers" are childish?"

That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a while. Seriously.

I don't know where you are, but where I live, you can rent DVDs from the library for free.

Since you were so insulting to us "childish" fans of the movie, I don't really feel like helping you save a few precious bucks on your DVD rentals. But, what the heck. Check Amazon. Sort ratings from lowest to highest. That's what I do, and it works pretty well.

reply

[–] george-parker183 20 years ago

Guess we disagree then. I thought it was not only childish but insane, the second time I saw it. Although not the first time, for some reason. I guess I was annoyed I'd rented a film I'd already seen, but I wouldn't have, had it not been for the reviews. I've given up reading them.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] george-parker183 20 years ago

>Also, I'm in my mid thirties, with a Bachelor's Degree, and a former professional journalist. I'll let you decide if this makes me childish.

Haven’t you got the question backwards? I’m asking what you have to be to enjoy the film. You seem to be telling me what you’re not. That’s not a lot of help is it? The question is, what are you, isn't it? And have you seen it twice?

reply

[–] sjr6690 20 years ago

I'm really not sure what you're seeking to get from your posting. You seem to think that if you phrase your not-so-veiled comments in the form of a question, they take on a different life than if you had merely stated, "Lovers Childish, Haters Mature." If you base your rentals/purchases on what others say about a movie and are then disappointed, it seems to me it's not a successful method for you to decide whether or not you will enjoy a film. It hardly seems right to blame your viewing disappointment on those who enjoyed the films you didn't. I can't imagine that it comes as a surprise to you that the world is full of differences of opinion.

As for your "question," are you expecting those who love *28 Days* to raise their hands and say, "Why yes, I am childish--that is indeed the secret"? Or are you expecting a refund because you re-viewed a movie you had fogotten you'd already seen?

reply

[–] george-parker183 20 years ago

>I'm really not sure what you're seeking to get from your posting.

A helpful reply.

>You seem to think that if you phrase your not-so-veiled comments in the form of a question, they take on a different life than if you had merely stated, "Lovers Childish, Haters Mature."

They do.

>I can't imagine that it comes as a surprise to you that the world is full of differences of opinion.

The question is what causes them?

>As for your "question," are you expecting those who love *28 Days* to raise their hands and say, "Why yes, I am childish--that is indeed the secret"?

Guess not. I’m expecting nothing, but hoping for a helpful reply from somebody perspicacious, but I guess I’m not going to get it. The conclusion is that Reviews are useless as guides.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] george-parker183 20 years ago

>I think my reply was perspicacious, whereas yours, despite your age and education, not so much.

Self-confidence. That’s good.

>I am a 28-year-old white woman, a non-practicing Jew, and a lesbian. I work as a manager of technology for a marketing firm. I have a Bachelor's Degree in English and am in the midst of completing my Master's. I come from a sometimes working class, sometimes middle class, sometimes upper middle class family.

How come your family is in three classes?

I’m a bit surprised that somebody from a literary background would like this film. Have you seen it twice? It slid past me a bit the first time, because I was too wrapped up in its being the very fanciable Sandra Bullock, (do you fancy her too), but the second time? I couldn’t believe I hadn’t hated it the first. Her character was implausible for being inane. The clinic characters were implausible for being bizarre, but I might be wrong. What do you think?

>Addiction--from drug to sex to alcohol--runs rampantly through both sides of my family.

Do you know why? Did that affect your reaction to the film?

>The most dangerous and saddest of addicts, though, has been my brother, whose life of stealing, cheating, and drug-abusing culminated in a crack addiction with which he and my family have been struggling over the past year and a half.

Sounds pretty serious. My greatest fear is that I should have a child like that, for thinking that they are lost causes, that cannot be helped. What can you do? If it were my child, even if it was a beloved daughter (I had one), I fear I would very seriously right her off, and make it very clear to her why I was doing it, but I might be wrong, (mine actually died of brain-damage at 15 in 1982).

>You mentioned that someone who is drunk wouldn't necessarily continue to laugh at her/his destruction, that s/he could potentially feel remorse even in the moment.

I wasn’t quite thinking that. I will be more precise and graphic. What I meant was that if you’re pissed and you fall over and smash something or whatever, repeatedly, then, at some stage or other you are going to get annoyed and say, *beep* or *beep* IT!”, you won’t just keep on giggling inanely like a three-year old mental case, like Bullock did, but I might be wrong.

>I answer that the opposite is also true--in my experience, a drunk/junkie is unlikely to feel true regret ..

I agree. I had no expectation of that.

>until a major fall that forces some serious self-reflection,

Does it ever happen?

>and sometimes not even then.

That is my fear. Never. It’s a downward spiral, but I could be wrong. I’ve never met one, and I am precisely the opposite myself. I have a dread of being taken over by anything or anybody, and veer away on principle, although I’m not sure why that is. I’ve also got the opposite trait, beside veering away from what might take me over, I force myself to confront things that I fear, on principle, and ignore the fear, in a worthy cause. I ended up getting four months (suspended), once. I was framed by the Conservative Party. I really upset them. I think perhaps I operate from a phobia of being degraded , and a phobia of losing my self-respect. If you want to reply you might prefer to email me, rather than post in a public forum: [email protected].

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] z_utj 20 years ago

Dude go watch "Four Weddings and a Funeral", you lamer.

This movie is a comedy with a message. Wether you personally related to the message or not is your deal, and no one cares!

I'm not saying this film is a masterpiece. But for you to call fans of this film "childish" was really out of line, and you need to just piss off with that logic.

This film definitely had it's funny/cute parts. And it was totally relateable to anyone who has been to rehab and/or had a substance abuse issue.

It was WAY better than Four Weddings....

You didn't get it, just piss off. This was a decent movie. I can understand if you didnt like it. But I just can't let it go that you are insinuating that "the educated" don't like this picture. You're such a moron. And a troll. If you didn't like the film, give valid reasons other than going on and on about YOURSELF, NO ONE CARES. This may be a "mindless comedy" but so is your precious "Four weddings".

Your criticism is baseless and hypocritical, I hope you enjoyed making yourself look like a self-righteous moron, LOL.

reply

[–] george-parker183 20 years ago

>But for you to call fans of this film "childish" was really out of line,

I didn’t did I?

>This film was totally relateable to anyone who has been to rehab and/or had a substance abuse issue.

OK. So that’s what you have to be, to enjoy it then, is it? Needless to say, I haven’t been to rehab or had a substance abuse issue.

>If you didn't like the film, give valid reasons.

I did didn’t I? Have you read my post?

reply

[–] stephenjrees 20 years ago

Ignore them George, this film was rubbish, end of story.

This film really does tend to stir up passions in people doesn't it? One has to wonder why.... How many of the people posting went to rehab? Probably most!

reply

[–] george-parker183 20 years ago

Hi Steve,

>How many of the people posting went to rehab? Probably most!

I hope they're not as weird as the ones in the film. I thought they were unreal. I thought it was an insult to rehab victims. Nobody seems to have complained about it though, so perhaps not.

reply

[–] kh123 19 years ago

hey idk about all of you but im 15 and i like this movie because my mom was an alcoholic...alot of the stuff gwen went through as a kid i can relate to...its like...idk...i like the movie because i can rleate to the character...they werent asking us to analyze the film to death...they just wanted us to enjoy a movie...i think they did that

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

OK Kid,

Sorry about your mom. Glad you liked the film. I think Sandie's gorgeous .. normally ...!!

reply

[–] stuart_clapham 19 years ago

On the whole, i am sad to say that i think it's you who has been childish in this matter.
Your comments have clearly caused offence to most people whohave replied, and even got one clown believing that most people who did reply have been in rehab.

I for one have NEVER been an alcoholic, taken drugs(of any kind) OR been in rehab, yet my ex-neighbour was a recovering alcoholic(brought on by her ex beating the crap out of her) and we both watched this movie.
She felt it touched on what rehab is pretty much like and also enjoyed the comedy moments, she found it an ejoyable movie, and neither her or myself are in any way childish.

Plus, as an English person, i have always found the American sense of humor to be totally different from ours, what may be funny to them may not be to us and vice-versa, i think it makes for good viewing whatever.

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi Stu,

Thank you for your helpful and constructive contribution to the discussion on this thread.

>On the whole, i am sad to say that i think it's you who has been childish in this matter. Your comments

I haven’t made comments, have I? I’ve asked a question.

>have clearly caused offence to most people whohave replied, and even got one clown

“Clown”? That’s not very in-offence-ive, is it?

> believing that most people who did reply have been in rehab. I for one have NEVER been an alcoholic, taken drugs(of any kind) OR been in rehab .. yet my ex-neighbour and I both watched this movie and enjoyed the comedy moments, and neither her or myself are in any way childish.

So it’s grown up to giggle when you ruin your sister’s wedding reception and drive into a neighbours porch in their car, is it? I doubt if the sister or the neighbour would agree, would they?

reply

[–] sekhmet622 19 years ago

I believe your initial post was to stir up some trouble. If you just wanted people to elucidate more about why they liked a movie you could have asked for that. However posing a question that people who like the film are childish because you dislike it and happen to be old yourself does not mean anything. Neither age nor educational background necesarily make for maturity. I happen to be smarter then most people on here (based on IQ, which yes I know is not the only indicator of intelligence) but it doesn't make my opinion more vaild...and your age doesn't make yours more valid either. Which is what you tried to imply with your question. You might argue that it is a question and not a statement and thus different but anyone with a true ability in your field would understand the semantics of what you said and how it was a way to insult those who liked the movie.

I liked the movie, after both viewings. I didn't find it particulary high brow or believe it to be a completely honest account of rehab. However I assume it is relatively close and I think the characters were amusing, even if there are not people like them in the real world. And I believe that people probably respond in many different ways to a drug and I do think it is possible for someone to find toppling in a cake funny, especially since she just wasn't using alcohol.

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi Sek

Thank you for your helpful and constructive contribution to the discussion on this thread.

>I believe your initial post was to stir up some trouble.

If you read it again you’ll find that it was to explain that I was annoyed to think that the first time I saw the film I enjoyed it, but the second time couldn’t believe it was so irresponsible.

>Neither age nor educational background necesarily make for maturity.

That’s true, but who said it did?

> I happen to be smarter then most people on here (based on IQ, which yes I know is not the only indicator of intelligence)

Well, yes of course it is the ONLY indicator of intelligence. “IQ” literally means “Intelligence Quotient” or “level of intelligence” and if you take ALL the tests, then the result is complete, but if you don’t it isn’t, and there are rather a lot of them covering everything.

> but it doesn't make my opinion more vaild...and your age doesn't make yours more valid either.

Who said it did?

> Which is what you tried to imply with your question.

But I didn’t. I simply stated my position, to ask the question: is age, IQ or profession relevant? You have made clear that IQ isn’t, which leaves age and profession. How old are you and what do you do?

> You might argue that it is a question and not a statement and thus different

True, as it is.

>but anyone with a true ability in your field would understand the semantics of what you said

True. It’s a scientific educational psychological question.

>and how it was a way to insult those who liked the movie.

It is a way to criticize those (including me) who liked the movie, not insult them. I’m prepared to admit I was childish, why aren’t you?

>I liked the movie, after both viewings and I do think it is possible for someone to find toppling in a cake funny, especially since she just wasn't using alcohol.

But it’s not a question of what she thought was funny as a drunk is it? It’s a question of what we the viewers think is funny as mature responsible people, isn’t it?

Is it funny to upset your sister and ruin her wedding reception and upset your neighbour by driving a car into his front porch? How would you like it if it was your wedding or your porch? You haven’t stated your age have you, so I guess it is relevant. I guess you are a child and not a parent, let alone a grandparent, aren’t you and so like childish things, as Bart likes "Itchy and Scratchy" in the Simpsons?

reply

[–] sekhmet622 19 years ago

>If you read it again you’ll find that it was to explain that I was annoyed to think that the first time I saw the film I enjoyed it, but the second time couldn’t believe it was so irresponsible.

That is not at all how I took your initial post. I will be willing to agree that, even after a few readings, I did not fully comprehend what you intended to say, but I also believe some of it was your inabiliy to express yourself correctly in the first post. Even though you seem to have clarified later on or changed what you said, not sure which.

I took it you were saying age an education were a sign of maturity. Instead were you just citing it to find people with a similar background as your own, assuming they would have similar tastes?

I threw in the thing about IQ because people always tell me there are other IQ's, such as emotional IQ, artistic, etc. Which frankly there can't be an intelligence quotient for emotions just an aptitude. But usually people who aren't in the higher levels of IQ, as measured by Mensa (the way they measure it is what most lay people would consider IQ), try to justify a reason why it shouldn't matter that another person is.

You didn't criticize yourself since you said you had to struggle through the film the first time. I also don't think liking one film makes you childish. I liked 28 Days and I also loved the asinine Dude, Where's my Car. I don't feel that makes me childish it just means that for some reason that particular humour, in those specific movies, resonated with me. Normally I dislike low-brow humour, or what you would probably call childish. Such as the American Pie movies, or an Itchy and Scratchy type. If a movie only has violent or sexual humour to recommend it, then it just isn't my type.

I did not say the viewers would or should find toppling in a cake funny at all. I just said I can see the alcoholic who fell in the cake could find it funny. I abhor things like that. Movies that promote irresponsible behavior as funny or okay upsets me very much since I don't think it should endorse such things. Such as in the first American Pie (to reference it again) when he was video taping the girl and accidentally sent it to the whole school. The fact that his criminal invasion of her privacy was never addressed upsets me. However I don't think this was the case here, her toppling in the cake was addressed. It was shown how her behavior alienated her sister and was ruining her own life.

So once again I did not say I personally found any of the actions at the wedding funny, and I am surprised you could read my statement that way.

As for my age and occupation (which I truly don't find relevant) I recently turned 23 and I am currently a student. I put off applying for Medical school until next year so I could continue with my local and international volunteer work and also finally take classes for the hell of it. I am very well educated and have had made different experiences in my life so I am not very narrow minded. However I do have a friend who is a month older then me with a 1.5 year old and with a lesser education then me and is much more childish. Just because I do not have a child or grandchild does not mean I like childish things. When does a person stop being a child in your eyes, when they have children? That is the only thing I could conclude from the statement "I guess you are a child and not a parent, let alone a grandparent, aren't you and so like childish things." What a simplistic idea to think that if someone is a child they must like childish things and what an even simpler way of defining a child. Personally I think once people age past a certain point (which varies for each individual) they start becoming childish again.

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi Sek

>I took it you were saying age an education were a sign of maturity.

I was asking. I was at that time, trying to find out how I could judge other people’s reviews so that I could find somebody I could trust, but I’ve given up.

>You didn't criticize yourself since you said you had to struggle through the film the first time.

That’s a criticism. I couldn’t struggle through it the second, and shouldn’t have been able to the first.

> I also don't think liking one film makes you childish.

Well it does if the film is childish, doesn’t it?

>I did not say the viewers would or should find toppling in a cake funny at all. I just said I can see the alcoholic who fell in the cake could find it funny.

I couldn’t. I thought it was disgusting and insensitive.

>So once again I did not say I personally found any of the actions at the wedding funny, and I am surprised you could read my statement that way.

But you didn’t find them intolerable and insensitive either, did you?

>As for my age and occupation (which I truly don't find relevant)

Why not? What is relevant to maturity then?

>I recently turned 23 and I am currently a student. I put off applying for Medical school until next year. I am very well educated

“Very” well? That’s not a very sensible thing to say, is it? You haven’t even got your first degree yet, have you? What are going to be after you’ve got three?

>However I do have a friend who is a month older then me with a 1.5 year old and with a lesser education then me and is much more childish.

So you are suggesting that education is relevant then, are you? You could be right, but I guess it has to have a social context. A degree in maths might not help much.

>Just because I do not have a child or grandchild does not mean I like childish things.

True, it doesn’t necessarily, but the fact is that you are childish to have liked an irresponsible and insensitive film, so what is the reason? It could be that you lack social experience and have not attended many weddings involving your own family, which you would not want to see ruined.

>When does a person stop being a child in your eyes, when they have children?

We are all children to our parents, but I’m talking about people being irresponsible and insensitive, forget “childish”.

>Personally I think once people age past a certain point (which varies for each individual) they start becoming childish again.

That’s not a very sensible thing to say. I doubt you have much experience on that subject. You are in fact talking about senile dementia, of which I am an expert. Not everybody contracts it, you’ll be pleased to know. You will be old one day, hopefully. For some strange reason, I'm more fit and healthy now than I've ever been. I put it down to playing tennis three times a week, which keeps my body fit, and being immersed in writing a very complicated detective-novel, which keeps my mind fit and happy. Happiness being very important.

reply

[–] sekhmet622 19 years ago

I have my first degree I just haven't stopped taking classes. I am taking classes until I get into medical school because I like to continue my education. I think I am very well educated and I use that applying to more then just academics.

Seriously, it is impossible to have a real discussion with you. Just because I did not say that toppling in the cake was insensitive and intolerable does not mean I though it wasn't. Once again you are drawing conclusions with no basis to them. You did not renounce the actions of the character who cut herself, should I then assume that you think that is a healthy way to cope? No, because that would be ridiculous for me to think that because you did not state the obvious then you must not think it. I think it would be hard to find anyone who felt her ruining her sisters wedding was a sensitive and responsible action.

I have a sister who is an alcoholic along with other familiy members who have had issues. Maybe you are just unfamiliar with them that you can't seem to comprehend that is plausible for an alcoholic to do what she did and laugh about it. I have seen the things that alcoholics can do and I don't condone them which this film doesn't either. It never says that her actions in the first 10 minutes are at all acceptable. In fact it is saying the opp. by showing she has a problem and requires help. How is that making it an insensitive and irresponsible movie, since we are now forgetting the world childish, which was a bad choice anyways.

Just because you find something I say not sensible, does not make it so. Your opinion is only your opinion and I think it is true that oftentimes as people age they become stuck into thinking one way and having the odd belief that age equals wisdom. The way you refuted it shows what is wrong with so much of your arguement is how you make it utterly from your own viewpoint without attempting to see it from others, to realize your reality isn't the only one out there.

reply

[–] sekhmet622 19 years ago

You can respond to the previous post or not but I decided I am done. I usually don't respond this much to a post and I see no reason to continue. I am not the type to really care to argue/discuss things like this when it is clear that neither side will change their opinion. So if you just want to make sure everyone knows what you feel then post but if you were interested in continuing a conversation with me and responding to what I have said then don't bother because it shall not be read.

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi Sek,

>I have my first degree.

In what subject? At what level? Don’t forget I have a variety and got an “A” in “A” level history, which puts me in the top 0.1% in the UK.

>I just haven't stopped taking classes. I am taking classes until I get into medical school because I like to continue my education. I think I am very well educated and I use that applying to more then just academics.

You may be well educated for your age, but education means acquisition of knowledge, and especially psychological, sociological and philosophic knowledge. How much of that have you got?

>Seriously, it is impossible to have a real discussion with you.

That’s not very educated is it? What’s difficult about having a discussion?

>Just because I did not say that toppling in the cake was insensitive and intolerable does not mean I though it wasn't.

Did you mean "thought". You didn’t have to say you found it tolerable. You watched the film twice and enjoyed it and so you must have found it tolerable. That’s logic.

>Once again you are drawing conclusions with no basis to them.

Guess not.

>You did not renounce the actions of the character who cut herself,

I didn’t get that far. I gave up watching the film after the giggling about destroying the neighbours porch didn’t I? Guess I would have found fault with everything had I been able to watch it, wouldn’t I?

>I then assume that you think that is a healthy way to cope?

Are you jumping to conclusions?

>I think it would be hard to find anyone who felt her ruining her sisters wedding was a sensitive and responsible action.

It wasn’t the ruining that I found irritating though was it? It was the incessant giggling about it, wasn’t it?

>I have a sister who is an alcoholic along with other familiy members who have had issues.

How much of an alcoholic?

>Maybe you are just unfamiliar with them that you can't seem to comprehend that is plausible for an alcoholic to do what she did and laugh about it.

Very true. Even drunks don’t think it is funny to do something harmful to their sister and dangerous to their neighbours, though, do they? Why would they? They’re not insane are they? And even then it wasn’t so much the giggling as the complete absence of regret, embarrassment and self-awareness.

>I have seen the things that alcoholics can do and I don't condone them which this film doesn't either.

True.

>It never says that her actions in the first 10 minutes are at all acceptable.

True, but it doesn’t say that they are ridiculous either does it?

>In fact it is saying the opp. by showing she has a problem and requires help.

Well that’s what it is supposed to be saying, but it rather misses the mark doesn’t it?

>Just because you find something I say not sensible, does not make it so.

Do you mean senseless? It does if it’s illogical.

>Your opinion is only your opinion

Not if I dispute your logic. It’s a fact.

>I think it is true that oftentimes as people age they become stuck into thinking one way.

Which way?

>and having the odd belief that age equals wisdom.

Acquisition of knowledge equals wisdom, doesn’t it? Which puts the oldest in the best position doesn’t it?

>The way you refuted it shows what is wrong with so much of your arguement

In what way? If you can contradict my refutation why haven’t you?

>is how you make it utterly from your own viewpoint

There is no viewpoint on the subject of logic. Everybody agrees on the rules and how they should be applied, don’t they?

reply

[–] whitten-1 19 years ago

george-parker183, I followed you from the Man On Fire board to this one. I wanted to see if you acted the same way on this thread.

You have a habit of sticking irritating little interrogative clauses at the ends of your questions, don't you? The phenomenon appears all through your posts, doesn't it? You don't think it makes your writing any more convincing, do you? Why would you? You're not insane are you? It's that you want to convey your sneering tone, isn't it?

No, everyone does not agree on the rules of logic. Do they? No. No, they do not.

"Acquisition of knowledge equals wisdom, doesn't it? Which puts the oldest in the best position doesn't it?"

I don't understand. The first sentence is the premise for the second? But you don't mention age at all in the first sentence! This is... logic? You may think there's an implied further premise: but it happens that the implied premise, which you conveniently fail to include, is the weak one. I would also like to say that no, acquisition of knowledge does not "equal" wisdom. Wisdom is "soundness of judgement in the choice of means and ends" (OED). Almost any modern leader has acquired more overall "knowledge" in his or her education than, say, King Solomon possessed; and yet King Solomon might well be considered wiser than most. Have you never met a highly-learned fool? I know I have. Some might rightly argue me one! (I mean, what am I doing on here, with you...?)

I've noticed you've misspelt 'dumb' in a couple of posts. You spelt it 'dumn'. I know it's a tricky word, but you might want to hold back on your criticisms of others.

"> Seriously, it is impossible to have a real discussion with you.
That’s not very educated is it? What’s difficult about having a discussion?"

Discussions are two-way. A discussion is an "argument or debate with a view to elicit truth or establish a point" (OED). You'll note there was an adjective in the quote, also: "real". To create a reductio ad absurdum, imagine having a 'discussion' with a child who screams "La la la can't hear you! I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong!". Is this a debate with a view to eliciting the truth? I would argue that the child is not interested in the truth. The petulant child is talking, perhaps even engaging in some way with the other person: but not discussing.

I should point out here that I have no intention of attempting a 'discussion' of any sort with you. This is a one-off statement about you, and doesn't bear on any of your somewhat-dumbassed views (although, I must say, arguing that a film is bad because what's morally right doesn't happen in it, or because something is set up only to be destroyed, seems to neglect tragedy and reality: and you have claimed to be a 'realist'?).

This post of mine, while factually superior to yours (or so I would argue: unlike you I recognise that my opinion is not 'fact' simply because I say that 'my logic is infallible'), additionally does not deviate into unconnected personal attacks. It is, in fact, one large personal attack; but since I'm not talking about the movie, as you are, that seems fair enough.

Well, I feel better for purging myself of that bile! I have to keep reminding myself – Never read the boards! Never read the boards! And you know the most irritating thing? If they installed an IQ test before they allowed people to post, you'd probably still be on here. There's no justice. Hope that's OK with you! Not a very happy ending, is it?

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi Wit,

>acquisition of knowledge does not "equal" wisdom.

But it does, doesn't it, (just showing a polite interest in another's point of view), especially the acquisition of sociological and psychological knowledge?

> Wisdom is "soundness of judgement in the choice of means and ends" (OED).

But sound judgement derives from sound knowledge, doesn't it ie. understanding which means achieve which ends?

>Have you never met a highly-learned fool?

You can be highly learned in a specialized field and completely ignorant in others, can't you?

reply

[–] quigley_brown-1 19 years ago

Heck, George might be in denial of his abuse of alcohol. His comments show a text book case.

reply

[–] flasher78 19 years ago

Even if we look at professional reviews, it's unlikley that we would agree with them and watch the movie anyway.. Not everyones tastes are the same, so we can't just read a good review and go and watch the movie expecting to like it..
Example, I had seen rave reviews about Million Dollar Baby, so I watched it and thought it was absolute crap. I've found that most movie reviewers, give the movies reviews based on their own tastes. Alot of reviews I've seen that have given movies low ratings, are movies that I loved, and even own..
If the movie plot grabs my attention long enough to want to watch it, I don't mind spending money on rentals..

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi Flash,

I agree, but I was hoping to be able to find on a website as big as this a reviewer with the ssme tastes as me, but I haven't had any luck.

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 19 years ago

As a general rule, you will usually find movies rated above a '6' on this site to be well-constructed; if perhaps still lacking in other areas depending on one's own personal tastes.

"28 Days" is currently marked as 5.8 (which is in my estimation slightly too high, I would round down rather than up!) and in common with this theory, is somewhat sloppily executed in parts. It's not as emotionally honest or truthful about its subject as either When a Man Loves a Woman OR Clean & Sober (both of which score 6+, according to IMDB - although my own vote for "Clean & Sober" was 4, for reasons which I can't recall right now.)

I'm sorry, I don't speak monkey...

reply

[–] rhonda-44 19 years ago

I think that some people are able/willing to put aside what is realistic while watching movies and that others are not able/willing to do so. People watch movies for different reasons. Some may watch to be mentally challenged with complicated plots or characters while others may watch simply to be entertained, to get away from the seriousness of life...etc. So, I don't really think that your generalization of haters and lovers is valid (unless, course, you consider it childish to be willing to suspend disbelief while watching a film).

Perhaps you could check the boards for someone who seems to have the same reasons for watching films as you do. Maybe you can find someone who at least judges movies in a manner similar to your own.

Also, although I don't think there are many (if any) reviews, blockbuster.com provides recommendations for similar films ("if you like this, try these...").

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi Rhonda,

You could be right, but I've had no luck trying to find someone who thinks like me, so I've given up. Have a look at my "Man on Fire", which was a film I did like, except for the ending, "Why didn't the film end like this" thread. There's some really clashing views there.. especially "CuriousKaty", who's not so much curious as weird.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi G,

>Geez! give the film a break will ya! Oh yea, am 19 and an art student and i like the film!

OK. I guess your answer is, yes, then is it?

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi G,

But I think I was pathetically childish not to have realized how insensitive it was first time I saw it.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi Geo.

>Nice name by the way!

Really?

>Big up to you using the internet, my mum dont even know how to and ur like 70!

What about your dad? Women are anti-tech. For my part I’m a technophile, with a Harley, a Porsche, two DVD recorders, one VHS recorder, a Home Cinema system, SKY box, two Freeview boxes, two digital TV’s playing at once, one being a 28” wide-screen, 2mg Broadband, and the major contributor to the Realdoll section on The Doll Forum.com. That’ll really make your eyes water, with three interviews on TV. SKY One, Ch4 and Ch5.

reply

[–] sekhmet622 19 years ago

Wow, I love supposedly well-educated and experienced people throwing out stereotypes like women are anti-tech, to the point where they can't use the simple internet. Wait, does this make you childish for not realizing how insensitive your comment was? After reading your comment about not realizing the movie had an insensitive initial couple of scenes, I do agree that you are childish or of limited cognitive power. I also don't know if owning a Harley (or a Porsche) can be listed as a technophile, anymore then a regular car can be. However, tt does fit in with your very strong desire to try and impress people...you seem to be one of those people who have an urgent need for external validation.

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi Sek,

>Wow, I love supposedly well-educated and experienced people

Supposedly? And isn’t sarcasm supposed to be the lowest form of wit?

> throwing out stereotypes like women are anti-tech,

Stereotype? According to the Poll on Channel 5 “Gadgets” it’s a fact, but there are always exceptions.

>to the point where they can't use the simple internet.

Who said that?

> Wait, does this make you childish for not realizing how insensitive your comment was?

Are you a bit childish for being a bit over-sensitive, perhaps?

>After reading your comment about not realizing the movie had an insensitive initial couple of scenes, I do agree that you are childish

So you are saying that lovers of this film are childish then are you?

>I also don't know if owning a Harley (or a Porsche) can be listed as a technophile, anymore then a regular car can be.

Who said it was? Wasn’t I replying there to the “70 and past it” thing?

>However, tt does fit in with your very strong desire to try and impress people...

What do you mean “try”? Do you mean I’m not succeeding?

>you seem to be one of those people who have an urgent need for external validation.

Doesn’t everybody?

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi G,

>maybe you are the childish one,

There's no "maybe" about it. I'm quite happy to admit I was childish. Why can't others? I'm not proud of it. It's not that I feel completely stupid, but there's no point in hiding it, is there? It's better to admit the truth isn't it? Otherwise you look even more stupid don't you?

reply

[–] Geox 19 years ago

> Why can't others?

Others like who????

You said lovers of this film are childish, am not going to say i am childish just because i like this film!

GeO.

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi G

>You said lovers of this film are childish,

Did I? I thought I just asked the question.

reply

[–] PuddleMonkey 19 years ago

george-parker183 (Mon Jul 11 2005 02:37:04 )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess we disagree then. I thought it was not only childish but insane, the second time I saw it. Although not the first time, for some reason. I guess I was annoyed I'd rented a film I'd already seen, but I wouldn't have, had it not been for the reviews. I've given up reading them.

reply

[–] PuddleMonkey 19 years ago

One Channel 5 poll does not make something a fact. With a psychology degree you should know this

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi Pudd,

>One Channel 5 poll does not make something a fact. With a psychology degree you should know this.

Who said it did? The funny thing was though that every woman said that they were more interested in their TV fitting in with their decor, than in how high-teck it was, without exception and every man said the opposite. So work that one out.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi G

>You did say you thought it was childish –

Well that is my opinion, but I didn’t say that lovers of the film are childish. I only asked the question to see what others think, didn’t I?

> when everyone here agrees that you are the childish one!

Everyone?? Guess you haven’t read the thread have you?

>You remind me of everyone else i know of your age, you dont listen,

Really? Most people complain because I listen too carefully and dissect them too closely.

>you dont care about what some things might mean for some people.

Like what?

>You make your mind up

I didn’t make my mind up. The film made it up for me.

>and stick with it without thinking about what others may think

I guess we wouldn’t be on this thread if we didn’t consider what others think would we? Why else am I asking the question?

reply

[–] PuddleMonkey 19 years ago

but I didn’t say that lovers of the film are childish. I only asked the question to see what others think, didn’t I?

Did you? Actually, you said

george-parker183 (Mon Jul 11 2005 02:37:04 )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess we disagree then. I thought it was not only childish but insane, the second time I saw it. Although not the first time, for some reason. I guess I was annoyed I'd rented a film I'd already seen, but I wouldn't have, had it not been for the reviews. I've given up reading them.

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi P,

What point are you trying make, that I did say that "lovers of this film are childish"?, because I didn't for a very good reason, because I wasn't sure that they were.

reply

[–] PuddleMonkey 19 years ago

Sorry, you are right. Expectation made me read that people who like the movie are childish when you actually referred to your opinion of it.

The likely reason that people who like this film give it a high IMDB rating is because they don't agree with its average mark. Those who don't like the movie see the average mark and think its too high. One group gives it a 10 and the other gives it a 1. You also have a self selecting population. Only those who either love or despise a movie tend to go to the effort to rate it

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi P

>Sorry, you are right. Expectation made me read that people who like the movie are childish when you actually referred to your opinion of it.

True, but, what do you think defines people who like it?

I’m guessing that the reason I reacted with such hostility to it, when I saw it a second time was because, I’d wasted my money paying to rent it, thinking I hadn’t seen it before, in particular, and was getting even more annoyed to find that half the films I was paying to rent on other people’s recommendations were turning out to be rubbish imho. I’m a bit past it now, because I’m no longer renting for finding TV series to be better than most movies, as I’ve mentioned in some detail, elsewhere in the thread.

reply

[–] PuddleMonkey 19 years ago

Again, one poll. What questions were asked, how many were asked, what age sample was used, what educational sample was used, what race sample was used. How do we know that this is random sampling, self-selecting sample or just the producers mates?

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi P

>Again, one poll. What questions were asked,

I’ve already said, décor v technology.

> how many were asked, what age sample was used, what educational sample was used, what race sample was used. How do we know that this is random sampling, self-selecting sample or just the producers mates?

Don’t know. Does it matter? They obviously didn’t ask you.

reply

[–] PuddleMonkey 19 years ago

Of course it matters. Rubbish in rubbish out. Phrasing of questions change answers, that's why pollsters make so much money. These should be questions that we all ask when we hear of any poll being run. As someone with a science degree you should be particularly aware of such questions and wary of repeating results without drawing attention to the possible weaknesses. One poll claiming a "fact" should be viewed with scepticism

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi P

>Of course it matters. Rubbish in rubbish out. Phrasing of questions change answers, that's why pollsters make so much money. These should be questions that we all ask when we hear of any poll being run. As someone with a science degree you should be particularly aware of such questions and wary of repeating results without drawing attention to the possible weaknesses. One poll claiming a "fact" should be viewed with scepticism

Very true, but you misunderstood my question. I wasn’t asking if the method mattered, I was asking if the result mattered. Who cares what a any sort of poll finds? The findings don’t apply to everybody, do they?

reply

[–] PuddleMonkey 19 years ago

The findings don’t apply to everybody, do they?

Yes, and no. They should be representative of a larger population otherwise we would have to scrap all human-participant research. Given how badly science is taught in schools your average Joe Bloggs would watch that show, see that

The funny thing was though that every woman said that they were more interested in their TV fitting in with their decor, than in how high-teck it was, without exception and every man said the opposite. So work that one out.

and think that it means that all women are technophobes and all men technophiles

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi P

>Given how badly science is taught in schools your average Joe Bloggs would watch that show and think that it means that all women are technophobes and all men technophiles.

Except that it wasn’t “women” it was married women with posh homes, and a very small sample I would guess and certainly not a scientific study. So what percentage of women do you think are technophiles and how do you think it compares with men?

reply

[–] PuddleMonkey 19 years ago

I have no information to base an opinion on.

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi P,

Those with alcoholics in the family seem to like it, so perhaps it's more realiztic than I think it is.

reply

[–] PuddleMonkey 19 years ago

I think those that are pro-AA may be more inclined to like the movie for that element. 5% of those who follow AA remain sober, and that's AA's own statistics

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi P,

Wow, that's not many. Speaking for myself I found the rehabilitation part of the film a bit unconvincing, and Sandra Bullock as a genuine victim even less so.

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 19 years ago

If one is looking to "get away from the seriousness of life"; then one shouldn't necessarily pick a 'rehab' film with which to do so, though...

I'm sorry, I don't speak monkey...

reply

[–] paramitch 19 years ago

Way to make a nice impression...

To answer your questions, I'm 37, female, a publicist who owns my own firm, and I really enjoyed this movie. No, it's not laugh-a-minute stuff, but it is a wry, funny and finely observed movie about an addict, and I thought Bullock and everyone around her were wonderful. I also have to say that I've experienced alcoholism in more than one family member, and I thought the movie's depiction was spot-on. No, it doesn't mean everyone acts that way when drunk -- some people show very little sign at all. Others can barely speak, walk, or function.

And honestly, I liked this movie better than "Four Weddings," which I think is vastly overrated and abominably acted (most especially by Andie Macdowell, although she can be wonderful in the right role).

You sound like you're not actually trying to be insulting, just that you're frustrated with the kinds of movies you're renting.

If you're tired of taking chances, I'd recommend checking out the recommendations of other viewers whenever there's a movie you absolutely love or have a strong reaction to. It might be easier for you to find stuff you really enjoy that way. Both Amazon and Netflix have ways for you to view other users' recommendations for similar films. Rotten Tomatoes actually does a pretty good job of this as well. This way hopefully, if you're discriminating, even if you don't always like what you rent, there will have been at least one moment that made you happy you saw it.

Anyway, to each his own.

P.S. -- as far as "Birth" goes -- I thought it was a beautifully made drama, with a rather gloomy, European, understated cinema-verite feel to it. The acting was superb, and the script was interesting and intelligent, although I felt that the movie was a bit chilly and distant, and did kind of fall apart at its conclusion. But it's thought-provoking and worth watching. I would highly recommend viewing it with someone else because it's definitely got some controversial elements and is a really superb conversation-piece.

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi P

Thank you for your helpful and constructive contribution to the discussion on this thread.

>I really enjoyed this movie. I liked this movie better than "Four Weddings,".

Guess we’re polls apart on movies then.

>If you're tired of taking chances, I'd recommend checking out the recommendations of other viewers.

How do I know who to trust?

>Rotten Tomatoes actually does a pretty good job of this as well.

They don’t work for me.

>Anyway, to each his own.

You can say that again.

>P.S. -- as far as "Birth" goes -- I thought it was a beautifully made drama,

Guess I won’t like it then. What films do you really DIS-like?

>But it's thought-provoking and worth watching. I would highly recommend viewing it with someone else because it's definitely got some controversial elements and is a really superb conversation-piece.

If you want a controversial conversation-piece visit my thread on “Man on Fire”. Here’s the link from my latest contributor, number 600, I think. That seems to be VERY controversial to some people, but I’m not sure why.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0328107/board/thread/20174516?d=32640422#32640422

It doesn't look as if the link is alive on the Preview. Copy and paste it into your web-address field.

reply

[–] paramitch 19 years ago

I just feel "4 Weddings" tends to be overpraised when it's really just a series of vignettes. But because we keep skipping (for me) the good stuff so we can get to the manufactured drama (why in the world would Andie Macdowell, for instance, marry the Scottish guy? where did that come from?) and the real character development, to me the movie just skips across the surface. Apart from Hugh Grant's (considerable) charm, the only thing I found genuinely moving was John Hannah's character.

Anyway -- as far as who to trust in their reviews, I personally will browse reviews for a film I'm thinking of seeing via Netflix or Amazon, and the reviews that are articulate and reasonably intelligent will give me at least some feeling for whether I might like the movie myself.

You are worried about renting a movie and not liking it (for instance, a movie like "Birth"). And if you choose more offbeat or artistic attempts, like that, or the films of Lars von Trier, or even Wes Anderson, etc., you may not always like what you rent. But I come away from a lot of ambitious efforts energized, even if I didn't love it.

For mainstream fare, you could jump from movie to movie based on a preference for specific talent. Using your love of "Four Weddings" as a base -- you could go from there to seeing all of the films of Mike Newell, Richard Curtis, Hugh Grant (who has a surprisingly varied resume -- I still don't understand why "About a Boy" was not a huge hit), Kristin Scott Thomas, etc. Same with "LA Confidential" and its amazing cast (I also recommend this director's wonderful "Wonder Boys").

Or if you're seeking some really ambitious and artistic stuff, you might try the films of more edgy, independent moviemakers as Jim Jarmusch, Robert Altman, Lars von Trier (although I personally can't stand him), Sally Potter, Wes Anderson, Truffaut, Goddard, etc.

You could also work your way through some of the Top 100 lists from AFI, Sight and Sound, etc., or simply catch (for instance) every major nominee for the American Spirit and Academy Awards, guaranteeing a decent mix of enjoyable mainstream as well as artistic fare. Pretty soon you get a feel for artists you trust, as well as those who are more uneven.

Or -- probably the best solution -- read a reviewer you enjoy and trust. Between Roger Ebert of the Sun-Times (www.ebert.com) and Stephanie Zacharek of Salon, I can usually get a sense of whether or not I'll like something (even if they don't). Ebert's reviews are free to browse on the web, as are the reviews at The New York Times via www.nytimes.com (I tend to prefer A.O. Scott to Manohla Dargis, but that's just me).

And right now, a lot of movie columnists are compiling their annual "10 Best" lists (plus honorable mentions), so archiving those might be a great way to keep tabs on movies you know you'd like to see.

Anyway -- hope it helps.

PS -- as far as movies I hated? I can't stand most Adam Sandler movies (at least, his 'genre,' the ones where he plays the stupid child-man-moron-type), hate Von Trier (I think he's misogynistic), and don't really enjoy bodily-function-frat-humor or gross-out horror (although a creepy, elegant little gem like "The Ring" is just fine with me).

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi P

Thank you for your helpful and constructive contribution to the discussion on this thread.

>Using your love of "Four Weddings" as a base

It was OK the first and second time, but then less so.

>I still don't understand why "About a Boy" was not a huge hit),

That was OK the first time.

>Same with "LA Confidential"

One of my favourites. Brilliant acting and a complicated script. Had to watch it three times to start to get my head round it. Actually bought the DVD. I usually rent and copy (that’s a secret).

>"Wonder Boys").

Not so good, if I remember correctly.

>Or if you're seeking some really ambitious and artistic stuff, you might try the films of more edgy, independent moviemakers as Jim Jarmusch, Robert Altman, Lars von Trier (although I personally can't stand him), Sally Potter, Wes Anderson, Truffaut, Goddard, etc.

Don’t know any of them.

>You could also work your way through some of the Top 100 lists from AFI, Sight and Sound, etc., or simply catch (for instance) every major nominee for the American Spirit and Academy Awards,

Nothing and no-one seems to be reliable though, especially when you’re paying for it. I get most of my stuff free off the TV. I also find that series like CSI. Law and Order etc. are much better written, filmed and acted than most films and knock them into a cocked hat. They even had a tsnami in CSI Miama that practically knocked me out of my chair. I was amazed. How can they afford to do it .. just for one episode in a TV series?

>Pretty soon you get a feel for artists you trust, as well as those who are more uneven.

Can’t trust anybody: Seagal, Willis, Arnie, Nero, Pacino, Connery, Brosnan, Caine, etc. etc. whereas you can trust the TV series, generally.

I’m also tracking Poirot with David Suchet. Sherlock Holmes with Jeremy Brett, West Wing (which I’m finding less easy to follow), Sweeney, Minder, Darling Buds of May (actually bought the DVD set!!! .. the picture quality is crap on TV), The Simpsons, Criminal Intent, Special Victims Unit, but not Law and Order itself. I’m recording Gone With the Wind on BBC today, and Chicago, Sky Kids 2, (liked 1 .. it’s a bit like the Indestructibles), and Hill Street Blues.

I record the series on DVD+R and keep them 6hr/disc. I’ve got about 150 at the moment. You can get them online for 16p each now. I remember when they were £16. I put good films on +R too, especially if I can get them from BBC with no adverts, but I put most films on DVD+RW, because most turn out to be rubbish.

>Or -- probably the best solution -- read a reviewer you enjoy and trust.

Haven’t found one. I get all my info from Radio Times online, with their staff reviewers, but the weird thing is that I can usually tell if I’m going to like a film in the first ten seconds, just from watching the credits and listening to the theme tune. Work that one out.

>And right now, a lot of movie columnists are compiling their annual "10 Best" lists (plus honorable mentions), so archiving those might be a great way to keep tabs on movies you know you'd like to see.

And it probably helps to be able to see a lot of excerpts, but only marginally.

>PS -- as far as movies I hated? I can't stand most Adam Sandler movies (at least, his 'genre,' the ones where he plays the stupid child-man-moron-type),

Sounds weird, but I haven’t seen any.

>hate Von Trier (I think he's misogynistic),

Who is he? He’s a bit weird if he doesn’t like women, but I guess it depends on which sort he hates. I’m writing a novel about my ex, and she’s really hateful, or at least she was to me.

>and don't really enjoy bodily-function-frat-humor or gross-out horror

It’s for kids though isn’t it?

(although a creepy, elegant little gem like "The Ring" is just fine with me).

Hated it, and Harry Proctor. Total crap. Didn’t find it convincing. That’s the key with me. I have to find it convincing, but the more you know the more critical you become. I even find myself wondering where the camera crew is sometimes as I watch a scene, especially that one in Poirot’s “Hickory Dickory Dock” where they follow the mouse. How the hell did they do that?

reply

[–] paramitch 19 years ago

I guess we're just too far apart in preference to find much common ground. I enjoyed many of the titles you really hated, for instance, so my input is going to be pretty useless to you at this point.

My only suggestion, since you seem to enjoy television so much, is why not stick with what you know?

Movies are often depressing and badly made these days. I find a superbly made television show to be as engrossing as a great novel, and the sheer number of hours produced allows us to really immerse ourselves in their world.

So why not go out and find more shows to love? More Agatha Christie adaptations, or (God forbid) CSI spinoffs? (I can't stand them except as white noise if nothing else is on, but I still like the original.) If you're seeking critically lauded dramas, be brave and try a few Disc 1's to whet your appetite, of beautiful shows like "Homicide: Life on the Streets," "The Wire," "Veronica Mars" (amazing, wonderful, suspenseful show -- don't let the high school setting fool you), Fox's wonderful "House" (although Season 1 is more formulaic, it's worth watching just for the nuanced performances), "The Sopranos" or even well-made Fantasy/sci-fi like "Angel," "Buffy," "Battlestar Galactica," or hidden gems like "Keen Eddie" or "Miracles."

Or -- playing it safer -- similar shows to CSI -- there are (regrettably) a million procedurals out there on TV at any given time -- some of the least derivative include "Without a Trace," "Cold Case," or the BBC's wonderful "Prime Suspect" series, or "Bones" (which is surprisingly good albeit kinda disgusting).

Good luck, hope it helps.

reply

[–] george-parker183 19 years ago

Hi P

>I guess we're just too far apart in preference to find much common ground. I enjoyed many of the titles you really hated, for instance,

Wonder why that is? Age, sex, education? Mine’s scientific and Sociological so I’m quick to spot scientific inconsistencies, and am dead cynical about politics, and power.

>My only suggestion, since you seem to enjoy television so much, is why not stick with what you know?

Guess I do. There’s so much on freeview at present that I don’t get time for anything else. I’ve discovered I’ve got 250 4-6hr DVD of old series collected over 12 months, I think.

> as engrossing as a great novel

I’ve nearly finished mine. Here’s the synopsis: This is a story about a poor unfortunate young lady in her thirties, who wants to leave her husband and go off with her boyfriend because she's committed adultery and accidentally become pregnant but who doesn't want her family and friends to know what she's done because they are very moralistic and religious, and so because, she hasn't had sex with her husband for two years decides that she will have to tell him the truth about her pregnancy and admit that the baby is her boyfriend's but can then, go on to tell him a lie about her true feelings and pretend that she regrets what she's done and hates her boyfriend and wants to stay with him and have him bring the baby up as his, in the hope that being a devout Christian, he will forgive her, and let her stay long enough for her to get his name on the baby's birth certificate, before leaving him with everybody thinking the baby is his, to go off with her boyfriend without a stain on her character but things don't go quite according to plan.

>So why not go out and find more shows to love? More (God forbid) CSI spinoffs? (I can't stand them except as white noise if nothing else is on, but I still like the original.)

But Miami is marginally better than Las Vegas isn’t it? Why do I like them? Is it because I used to work in a chemistry lab, doing tests as an industrial chemist and enjoy the interplay between the characters?

>If you're seeking critically lauded dramas, be brave and try a few Disc 1's to whet your appetite,

What’s that? Have we got it in the UK?

>Or beautiful shows like "Homicide: Life on the Streets,"

Saw a few way back I think, but they’re a bit old-hat now, aren’t they? Been taken over by Law and Order spin-offs.

> "The Wire,"

Sounds vaguely familiar.

>"Veronica Mars" (amazing, wonderful, suspenseful show -- don't let the high school setting fool you),

Don’t think we’ve got that.

>Fox's wonderful "House" (although Season 1 is more formulaic, it's worth watching just for the nuanced performances),

House’s character is brilliant. I would like a bit more romance with the female doctor though.

>"The Sopranos"

I’ve come to find mafia stuff a bit revolting, unconvincing and formulaic

> or even well-made Fantasy/sci-fi like "Angel," "Buffy," "Battlestar Galactica,"

Too predictable and unconvincing.

> or hidden gems like "Keen Eddie"

Not heard of that.

> or "Miracles."

Vaguely heard of that, but it’s not on over here, is it?

Or -- playing it safer -- similar shows to CSI -- there are (regrettably) a million procedurals out there on TV at any given time -- some of the least derivative include "Without a Trace,"

>Very watchable.

"Cold Case,"

>Weirdly unconvincing.

the BBC's wonderful "Prime Suspect"

>The lead is good, but some of the stories lose their way.

"Bones" (which is surprisingly good albeit kinda disgusting).

Which one is that? But you can’t get much more disgusting than CSI can you? I like “Closer”. The female lead was quirky and brilliant and the conflict was intriguing, but we’ve only had two, I think. Don’t think much of the new San Francisco cop series though. Too complicated and full of itself. “Bodies” was well produced but the storyline stupidly self-contradictory, and the MI6 one was much the same.

reply