He said early in the film that the kids should be left alone to work it out themselves like men and that's exactly what happened in the end. Penelope's bleeding-heart, sanctimonious meddling didn't accomplish anything other than making both couples miserable.
shareI thought that was perhaps the only sort of "objective" flaw in the movie (regardless of me personally agreeing with Alan). We're presented with four deeply flawed people and there's sort of a balance for most of the film, but in the end we see that Jodie Foster's character was wrong about the kids needing formal mediation. Ultimately, most viewers conclude she's probably the worst of the four.
It's still a wonderful movie, though, and I don't think I'd alter it.
How was Penelope the worst of the four? She is overly passionate in her opinions but I didn't find much wrong with them whereas the flaws in the others are easy to see.
shareSee, this is why i think the movie is well made. i do think Penelope was the worst of the four. She was what is called nowadays as a moral crusader, basically a person that takes her personal belief, applies it to everyone and ignores any reason that may contradict her worldview. She is the modern version of a religious zealot. Yet, because you agree with her opinion, you did not find much wrong with it.
------------------------------------------------
Resistance is impolite, Friendship is mandatory.
It's been so long I don't remember but perhaps I felt that she had the best of intentions while the others were mainly selfish? Even if I don't agree with her (entirely possible) I'll take a moral crusader over a narcissist any day.
shareExcept she was the most selfish of them all. She wanted not only for herself but to force everyone into her ideal world utopia.
------------------------------------------------
Resistance is impolite, Friendship is mandatory.
She was easily the worst - a bullying tyrant hiding behind the sanctimonious robes of ‘good causes’, she’s like a Communist, their body count put the Nazis to shame.
shareThe people who think Penelope was the worst are probably conservatives who don't give a **** about anyone but themselves.
Intolerance of intolerance should be applauded.
But we are honest about it, unlike these liberals who don't walk the talk. Unless these liberals are literally devoting their lives to the suffering, they are full of *beep* if they claim to care so much. I suspect you are one of these hypocrites.
We, on the other hand, are full of honesty and integrity. Don't give a *beep* and don't claim to.
So, wanting our government to do something about the downtrodden isn't genuine unless we are more saintly than Mother Theresa? Isn't that a bit like saying you're not a skater unless you're Tony Hawk? Or you're not a good cook unless you're Julia Child?
False: all conservatives are stupid people;
True: most stupid people are conservative
No. Increased government intervention through social spending is a specific policy measure.
But liberals generally claim to care for the poor, to a high extent. If that is true, then they should demand both increased government intervention and personally intervene as well. One does not exclude the other. One can easily vote for higher social spending and volunteer at the soup kitchen.
Yet, we extremely rarely see liberals devoting their entire lives to personal intervention. Conservatives are consistent. They generally do not claim to care for the poor, to a high extent. And they live by what they preach. Liberals can avoid being hypocrites if they moderate their claims to only caring mildly/somewhat for the poor. If you constantly mouth off about how much of a hotshot skater you are, why yes, you should be nearly as good as Tony Hawk!
It's like what I said just went right over your head. It's called a conscience, buddy. Look it up.
False: all conservatives are stupid people;
True: most stupid people are conservative
Haha. Owned you! Knew you were going to back down because you are in the wrong. Since you are unable to defend yourself, accept that you are wrong and stupid.
My position is simple. Liberals generally do not practice what they preach. They preach great devotion to the poor, but they themselves do not personally practice this. Hence, they are hypocrites.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are sincere heartfelt people. They generally preach doing nothing, and they do nothing. Very consistent.
Conservatives generally believe that helping these poor in the way liberals intend are wrong. Different values. Your values are not called a conscience just because you yourself happen to believe in it buddy. Look it up.
Oh, please. Just because our side doesn't take things to their extremes doesn't mean you "own" us.
Moderation, if you recall, is key to a just life. Or did you forget that simple lesson from Jesus? Oh, that's right, the right are total hypocrites when it comes to Christianity.
False: all conservatives are stupid people;
True: most stupid people are conservative
That is a fair enough position if you honestly state that. Do you in fact claim to care for the poor only to a "moderat[e]" extent and not "extreme[ly]" care about them? IF so, you are not a hypocrite in this regard. Do you?
I am a Atheist, not Christian. And yes, the Right often are hypocrites regarding Christianity as are Liberals in general.
I never claimed to care for them in the extreme. I care for them only so much as how I feel government policy should be directed. It's wiser to help those who need it than it is to pay for a $70,000 toilet seat. In my opinion.
False: all conservatives are stupid people;
True: most stupid people are conservative
But do you actually volunteer at the soup kitchen yourself? And help out at the food bank? Maybe not literally every single weekend, but at least most of your weekends.
shareI served in the Army. Was disabled as a result. Yet, I still have volunteered for Meals on Wheels in the past (delivering meals to the homebound). I regularly donate to charity. I take care of my mother and younger brother, neither of whom could live on their own. And I vote with a mind toward the well being of all. I think I have lived a charitable life.
False: all conservatives are stupid people;
True: most stupid people are conservative
You have since discontinued your 1st item.
You do not deserve credit for the 3rd and 4th items. Taking care of family should not be classified as charity. And voting does not cost you personal expenses.
Fair enough on the 4th item. And exactly how much of your annual income (in percentage terms) do you donate? 0.0000000000000000000000000001%? 1%? 100%? Since you claim to only moderately care for the poor, I am curious as to exactly how moderate is this.
I care (almost) nothing for the poor, and I donate nothing. In case you accuse me of hypocrisy in this.
I suppose you have since come to realize your hypocrisy then? In proclaiming such concerns about the poor while doing little except mouthing words of support and voting to spent other people's money?
After all, however much the government spends on social causes, you can always help even more with your own contributions to charity. Is it not so?
I am not about to justify my charitable nature, life choices, sacrifices, etc. to you.
*beep*
False: all conservatives are stupid people;
True: most stupid people are conservative
What is the point of deflecting like this? It is in my interest to humiliate you by constantly harping on your hypocrisy. Unless you have a answer to that, I am not going to let go of it. So, you are screwed. Yes? Probably best for you to leave quietly without humiliating yourself any further.
Because you have already claimed/implied great devotion to the poor. Unless you are going to claim you constantly volunteer at the soup kitchen or equivalent, you are a hypocrite.
Hypocrisy = Unproven
How much of a creep you are = Affirmed.
False: all conservatives are stupid people;
True: most stupid people are conservative
Hypocrisy is proven for those Liberals who claim great devotion and yet do little or nothing. As for you in particular, awaiting your response as to whether you yourself claim great devotion.
And your answer is?
Wow this guy was a dick towards someone who is both a veteran and participated in charity.
shareNah, i think people who think they can determine politican leanings and character of people simply by them not liking a movie character are far worse in my opinion.
Also regarding your signature: Intolerance of intolerance is itself intolerance and according to you should not be tolerated, rather than applauded.
------------------------------------------------
Resistance is impolite, Friendship is mandatory.
You're an idiot.
False: all conservatives are stupid people;
True: most stupid people are conservative
Why is it a flaw?
----------------------
http://viverdecinema.blogspot.com.br/
Alan was the most realistic about the incident. and he was a high-powered lawyer in the midst of an important matter, and so what if his cell kept going off? That was how he supported their certainly lavish life!
Penelope was a helicopter parent. Meant well, but took the incident too seriously.
I grew up in the 1960's, in the city. no parent would have done this, meeting to talk about their kids. It never happened.
[deleted]
I remember having the parent of one of my daughters friends show up at my door over an argument our girls were having, another girl was also involved. She actually bad mouthed the 3rd girl to me! I kindly said that we shouldn't get involved as they would be friends again before we knew it! They were.
shareYou're right. The boys did seem to work it out. In the end credits, Ethan and Zachary are right back at that same playground and seem to be playing as though nothing ever happened. All that sound and fury signifying nothing. We even see the gerbil scamper by, so things worked out for it, too.
Food in Films: Despite Nancy's reaction, that apple-pear cobbler looked very tasty. Alan certainly seemed to relish it.