MovieChat Forums > capuchin > Replies
capuchin's Replies
Sorry, man.
<blockquote>The information contained here invalidates your opening claim</blockquote>
No. It really doesn't.
Nobody has pointed out that the study is flawed; someone - probably the researchers themselves - have added a caveat.
I can only provide you with information on how academia works; I can't force you to think academically. I will, however, point out that you are exhibiting the same kind of cherry-picking that you scorn in antivaxxer. The same mental processes and cognitive biases are involved.
You could just as easily have posted a link to a study on vaccine efficacy, invited people to ignore it and tell you how they <i>felt</i> about the subject. You could then have subjected the vaccine researchers to attacks over their 'motivation' and pulled up caveats to attempt to discredit the findings in a completely bogus, anti-intellectual manner.
You can't claim to be in favour of the science only when the science agrees with your own pre-existing ideas or prejudices.
It's exactly the same as the thinking behind antivax conversations. That you can't see this blind spot is a shame. But you can take a horse to water....
I'm bowing out again.
You're not wrong. I do feel a bit dopey for not guessing it before.
Ah, years. I like extra clues... 50 is The Exorcist then.
The data was based on people. The point is invalid.
<blockquote>because instead of doing the RESEARCH themselves</blockquote>
They did do the research themselves; they just used some pre-existing datasets. A lot of science does this. Science is a conversation. There's no reason to believe the used datasets are flawed. The caveat is simply a head's up that better quality data is plausible.
Also: research is expensive and grants are difficult to come by. But happily, science is replicable. Someone else may follow the study up.
<blockquote>Because how would they know whether or not what someone else had done or gathered together was free of FLAWS or not??? </blockquote>
The methodology almost certainly isn't flawed. If it was, the study would have failed at the peer-review stage and would not have been published. Journals need to keep their reputations good. One or two bad studies can destroy that reputation. The peer-review process is very rigorous. That's the whole point of it.
These caveats aren't flaws of methodology; they're just advising that a better quality (in this case meaning more up to date) dataset is theoretically plausible.
If there were flaws in the methodology, it would almost certainly have failed its peer-review unless there had been a catastrophic system failure.
I agree about religious/cultural indoctrination. You think there's a natural or instictive element to 'rebellion' against this? That's interesting. And not something I've ever really considered. I've always thought of these things as more intellectual objections. Hmm, I'll have to think about that one.
Motivation wouldn't flaw a study; only a flawed methodology would flaw a study.
I accept that motivation might lead to a flawed methodology, but it's still the methodology that's important and it's the methodology we would need to call into question rather than the motivation. Attacking the motivation is a logical fallacy known as [i]ad hominem[/i].
And the whole point of a peer-review is to check the methodology is robust and that the conclusions resulting from the methodology are logically sound.
That's how science works. So even if you could prove 'jealous resentment', it wouldn't invalidate the study.
Personally, I've always thought the debate about 'are we born gay' or 'the gay gene(s)' or whatever is - or rather should be - politically irrelevant. I mean, it's academically interesting, but in political terms, it's an issue of consent as far as I'm concerned.
If someone doesn't have the 'gay gene' (or whatever), are they still entitled to have consexual sex with another adult/adults of their choosing? The only sensible answer is yes - so, as far as I'm concerned, the 'are we born gay' thing is a bit of a red herring politically-speaking. I know why people use it - as a response to bigotry - but, to me, it's allowing bigots to set the frame of debate... But, anyway...
An example from religion? I'm confused again now. Perhaps it's just my day for it: what religious ideas would appear to stem more from nature than nurture?
It was probably me being a bit slow on the uptake. I really should've been able to figure out that sexuality was the sort of thing you were driving at.
Ahhh, got you. You're right.
Could you give an example of the kinds of teachings to which you're referring?
Yeah. I like it, hence 4 out of 5. But I agree with you entirely on rewatchability. I guess being the third part of a trilogy, the first of which has basically invented the zombie movie and the second of which has pretty much perfected it, it's just inevitably going to be the moment it falls away a bit.
<blockquote>you are [ba-dump-bump] displaying a hypersensitivity reaction! [*bing!*]</blockquote>
If all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
<i>Abijhan</i> (Satyajit Ray, 1962)
According to Wikipedia, this was an influence on Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver. Seems like a stretch and a half, that. Yes, I know Scorsese is fond of Ray. Yes, this does feature a taxi driver. Yes, the featured taxi driver is a bit of a troubled, insular soul. But the similarities end there.
Nevertheless, it's a good, solid, evenly-paced film - guess what? Much more in the style of S. Ray than M. Scorsese - about the redemptive power of love. I suppose. Which, y'know, Taxi Driver really isn't.
I will refrain from going on a rant about the preservation status of Ray's films outside of the Apu Trilogy. Or the preservation status of Indian films more generally. Suffice it to say many of them are in a right old state and something should be done. <b>4/5</b>
----
That was all longer than I imagined. Sorry 'bout that. I'll be more succinct next time round.
<i>Abrakadabra</i> (Luciano & Nicolas Onetti, 2018)
This does quite an exemplary job of recreating 1970s giallos, right down to the dubbing and a Goblinesque score. As a filmmaking exercise, I can see the point - and they nail it. From an audience POV, I struggle to see what the interest might be. I mean, I guess it's an affectionate send-up, but they so closely adhere to the giallo tropes that it feels more like carbon copy than parody. So, well done, you made a mediocre 1970s giallo decades after the fact. <b>2/5</b>
<i>Thale</i> (Aleksander Nordaas, 2012)
Respect is due, as the production looks great considering it was made for something closer to what I currently have in my back pocket than a proper amount of money to make a movie with. But even at 80 minutes this tale of two cleaners who stumble across a naked woman in a Norwegian cabin who may (or may not) be a supernatural being is thin gruel.
There's rather too much sitting around, and it fails to build the atmosphere that its musical cues suggest it's aiming for. And then it lurches into an attempt at entirely unearned sentimentality at the end. If they'd made it a 20 minute short, they may have had something though. <b>2/5</b>
<i>Warrior Queen</i> (Chuck Vincent, 1987)
An algorithm recommendation, which only leads me to believe I must've made some bad choices. But not as many bad choices as Donald Pleasence and Sybil Danning did. I only watched it. You were in it.
Sword & Sandal 'epic', it says here. More like tits & togas though. Incompetent trash. And not the fun kind, just the dull kind. <b>1/5</b>
<i>Wife of a Spy</i> (Kiyoshi Kurosawa, 2020)
Sold to me by Mubi with the word 'Hitchcockian', because - y'know - spies, espionage, &c. But it's not very Hitchcock. Much more a historical drama about ordinary people attempting to do what they believe is the right thing in the face of an oncoming disaster created by Japanese ultra-nationalism. Not slick or action-packed like a Hitchcock.
And I thought it looked kind of ugly too. Very DV. But I got over that quite quickly and got caught up in the story, which I found to be suitably compelling and well-told. And I was ultimately somewhat moved by it. <b>4/5</b>
<i>Deep</i> (Adirek Wattaleela and four - count 'em - four others, 2021)
Dumb as rocks, this. Medical students in a no-sleep experiment to harvest their precious, um, qratonin. Like the opposite of Flatliners meets the opposite of The Breakfast Club. Or something. Gets a bit of a kicking in the Letterboxd review section, but I quite liked it. I thought it was well-made on a small budget and was in the exact right mood for something this silly and undemanding. <b>3/5</b>
<i>The Unknown Saint</i> (Alaa Eddine Aljem, 2019)
A career criminal buries his loot before the police can grab him. Years later, he returns to find people have built a shrine over the place where X marks the spot. The set-up feels a bit Sergio Leone with wide shots of fairly barren, Moroccan landscapes.
I'd have perhaps liked the film more if it had centred on that storyline of the crook, but it adds in a few other strands from the nearby village - about a newly-arrived doctor and whatnot - and becomes a comedy about rural life. But in fairness quite a good one with some real chuckles. <b>3/5</b>
<i>Enemy</i> (Denis Villeneuve, 2013)
Probably Villeneuve's most elliptical, pick-the-bones-out-of-that movie, but he's a smart filmmaker so never allows it to spiral off into arty abstractions. He keeps it tight. <b>4/5</b>
<i>Yellow Cat</i> (Adikhan Yerzhanov, 2020)
Dopey ex-con obsessed with Alain Delon in La Samourai meets an equally dopey prostitute and plan together to build a cinema in the Khazak steppes. But they both have the same enemies: the local gangsters and corrupt local police.
Billed as a drama, it's actually much more of a comedy throughout most of its runtime - with some genuinely amusing dialogue and entertaining visual jokes. And it all feels quite light-hearted, which neatly disguises the fact that it's really quite bleak. <b>3/5</b>
<i>Elevator to the Gallows</i> (Louis Malle, 1958)
I'm hardly the first person to claim the score - by Miles Davis - is far better than the film itself, but the film itself isn't at all bad. It's a decent noir(ish) drama and a nice artefact in that it captures a moment, dripping with 'cool', in French pop culture and prefigures the coming new wave. John the Baptist to Godard's Jesus. Or something. <b>3/5</b>
<i>The Crazies</i> (George A Romero, 1973)
Kind of Romero does zombies without the actual zombies, and in a way a dry-run for Day of the Dead in that it concentrates squarely on the military response to a problem with a virus in a small town rather than on the inhabitants. But it's, naturally enough, not as accomplished as Day and some of the acting is decidedly shaky. <b>3/5</b>
Hey, hey:
<i>Gamera vs Zigra</i> (1971) and <i>Gamera: Super Monster (1980)</i> (Both: Noriaki Yuasa)
Gamera, as every fool knows, is a friend to children everywhere - which only serves to demonstrate that the big turtle-y freak has more patience than I do.
'Gamera, what are you doing? GAMERA, GAMERA!?', 'Gamera, are you dead?', 'Gamera, what's wrong? Why aren't you moving, Gamera?'
Well, kids, if you look closely, you'll notice this other kaiju is sticking a big spike through my belly - but thanks for your slightly misdirected concern.
'Gamera, Gamera, use your fire-breath!'
OK, kid. Useful advice. But this is not my first rodeo...
I'm just saying there would be a lot of barbecued children in 1970s Tokyo if I were him. Gamera is not only a friend to children everywhere, but a bit of a saint. Bless him.
Anyway, some enjoyable stuff in Zigra, even if we have long since reached and passed the diminishing returns phase. But even my high tolerance for Gamera is tested beyond breaking point by Super Monster, which is essentially a slapped-together clipshow of the previous movies. And not even the first time they'd done that. <b>2/5, 1/5</b> respectively.
<i>Day of the Dead</i> (George A Romero, 1985)
My least favourite of the original 'Dead' trilogy and the one I've returned to the least over the years - this may only be the second time I've watched it. A bit dialogue-y, which makes Romero's usual social commentary feel a bit one-note at times rather than something that is punctuating and balancing out the action and splattered heads. But I like the charged atmosphere and the more sombre tone, compared to the previous entry. I like that Romero was still finding new angles on the material. I think I'd like it more if Dawn didn't exist, but then I can say the same for almost every zombie movie ever made since it. <b>4/5</b>