What I saw was a movie that concentrated more on questioning the nature of humanity and existence than the mundane details. Sorry if that's not exciting to you, but it sure as hell is to me. I didn't see anything resembling lip service to deep philosophical questions, I saw a sci fi movie that raised great questions without giving trite predigested answers to them. I didn't think it was banal or unimaginative, but I sure do think it relied on an audience that would THINK about what they were seeing. If that's not to your liking, enjoy Mission to Mars or Red Planet. And FYI, I didn't get any of the things you considered "the movie's message" out of it. Those things are apparently your ideas, and if they sound like crap to you that's clearly your problem.
I second that. Every bad review I've read seems to add up to:
"I wasn't pandered to enough. This movie didn't feed me pat answers to deep philosophical questions. I wanted to see more breasts, aliens, and crap blowing up."
For which I have exactly zero sympathy. If you want that sort of stuff, this is the wrong movie. Just stay away and let the grownups enjoy this one for a change.
I'm not afraid to say it sucked, but I'd be lying. It was one of the best movies I've ever seen. Sorry if your attention span is too short to appreciate good storytelling and character development, but that's really not the movie's fault. I don't need some intellectual to better explain its virtues, either, I understood them well enough on my own. My wife and I have talked about the questions presented in the movie for DAYS and plan to go see it again this weekend. I don't think I've ever seen a movie quite so thought provoking. Just seems that maybe some peoples' thoughts are harder to provoke than others, I guess.
Check the user reviews and ratings at IMDB...over 56% of the people there gave it an 8 or better. I've only read one critic who actually seemed to "get" this movie, and he happens to be one of the only two critics I've EVER trusted on movies, reaffirming my opinion of him. The two are Keith Phipps and Scott Tobias of The Onion. Sad that so many people just ignore the AV Club; it's some of the best arts and entertainment journalism out there.
Pretty damn silly comparison, given that Solaris is three decades older (plus change) and a million times better. Like reading the bible for the first time this week and saying "I liked it the first time I saw it, when it was called A Veggie Tales Movie". Come to think of it, that would be a lot funnier.
Re:This is about par for the reviews I've seen of
on
Review: Solaris
·
· Score: 1
Amen. I was absolutely amazed. The funny thing is that if you check out user reviews at IMDB it's always all or nothing. Likewise the votes seem pretty bimodal. There are a lot between 8 and 10 and a big clump at the bottom. Worth noting that over 56% of the people who saw it rated it an 8 or better, though. Shows you what the friggin' critics know about good movies.
"These flaws might be forgivable if we were truly interested in the plot, but we aren't: it's a trivial love story, told many times before."
As I said, speak for yourself. I was fascinated. I think this is one of the best sci fi movies I have ever seen. It was very cerebral and relied a lot on the audience doing some thinking about what was going on. I don't think that's a problem, I think it's an absolutely wonderful thing. I can understand how, if you just wanted to have some trite, stupid, half-assed philosophy fed to you, you might be a little disappointed with it. But if that's the kind of movie you went to see, why the heck did you go see Solaris? Seriously, every review I've read of this movie is either positively glowing or basically bios down to "not enough boobs and explosions". Every one I read of the latter type convinces me of nothing but the author's simplemindedness.
It's not offtopic so much as it's just kind of a silly question. To buy a $2k+ computer just to run Photshop under OSX instead of Win is the kind of luxury most of us don't have. Man, if I could run OSX on COTS hardware, I'd be there in a heartbeat.
It's been a couple of things. I do audio recording, and IMHO Linux audio still kinda bites. I can't afford a G4, so that leaves me with windows. Add to that the fact that most of the games I like are Win only, and there's your answer. I do dual boot, though, and use Macs at work.
Another thing I'm VERY happy about is that they're finally going to show "Rejected" next Sunday. If you haven't seen that, you really should tune in for it. Don Hertzfeldt is a friggin' genius.
I'll third that. Mission Hill was an excellent show, and Ripping Friends is without a doubt one of the worst things I've ever seen on TV. I used to like Kricfalusi, back when he was funny and occasionally had an idea. Everything I've seen of his in the past few years (with the exception of Tenacious D's F**k Her Gently video, which was only good because of Tenacious D) is absolutely unfunny lame CRAP. I think that show got on the air on name recognition alone; I can't see any other redeeming quality to it.
It farking rocks, I must say. I use linux for my research, but it's still not my main home OS, largely because I had so many difficulties trying to get my sound card to work. Mandrake 9, on the other hand, recognized both of my sound cards immediately, and runs just beautifully. I know it's been said many times before about other distros, but if there ever was a windows-killer Mandrake 9 would be it.
That's true, we did shell out a pile for the monitor. I had momentarily forgotten that. So, slightly unfair price comparison, but nonetheless the speed results hold.
I work in a lab where we produce a very widely used piece of scientific software, and we do benchmarking on everything from old 68k Macs to new Dual G4s to AMD and Intel boxes running both Windows and Linux. The fastest benchmark we have on record, despite the fact that we dropped over five grand on our dual G4, was an $1100 dual Athlon XP 1800+ using Intel's C compiler version 6. It's not just faster than the fastest Mac benchmarks, it's WAY faster. We haven't tried any higher dual Athlon systems, but I suspect they'd be faster still. I'm not saying that an Athlon system would be faster than a Mac in all circumstances (I don't know one way or another), but the benchmark I've got the most experience with has got the Macs losing in a landslide.
That being said, I think OSX beats the crap out of Windows as an OS, and I'd really love to see such a great OS on a cheap, fast box. Can't have everything, I suppose.
Well, there is no legal recognition that life begins at conception, which is why abortion is legal. You may think that's right or wrong, but it nonetheless is the law. That being the case, there's no reason why a state shouldn't be able to pass a law which is in line with the supreme court's interpretation of the point at which life begins.
On another note, there are some huge misconceptions about how therapeutic use of stem cells is actually practiced. For the most part, they use tissue from fetuses that were already aborted for other reasons. Furthermore, if the assertion is that the use of tissue from one already aborted fetus isn't allowable even if it saves the lives of thousands of people who have families and friends of their own, you're on pretty shaky moral ground to say the least. Allowing thousands who may not share your beliefs to die for your belief that an already aborted fetus is somehow sacred seems to me (and a lot of the medical community) to be tantamount to murder in its own right. I can't expect to convince you of that, but at least you have to think about the fact that people WILL die from diseases that these treatments might cure, and weigh that against the use of something that, even if you believe that a 32-cell blastula is somehow human, is already dead.
I mean really, it is a little steep. I still pay for it, because I'm a nerd and consider broadband second only to running water in importance, but if they're wondering why adoption hasn't been more widespread, the answer seems pretty damn clear.
Just like California's medical marijuana laws and their opposition by the federal government, this can also be seen as an issue of....drumroll please.... tate's rights. I see it as quite an interesting way to bring the issue of state's rights to the fore, as the people who normally bang on about state's rights all the time (conservatives) are exactly the people who will HATE these two laws. It's quite interesting to see how (for some of them) their belief in the sovereignty of the states completely evaporates when the states are doing something THEY don't like. I'd like to point out that I said SOME of them, as I know there are people out there on both sides of the political spectrum who honestly believe that states should have sovereignty in most issues that won't flip-flop in this situation. I'm just saying that I know for a fact that there are a LOT that have.
And really, science doesn't need to disprove the existence of god. As the skeptics always say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Seeing as the religious people are the ones claiming something that defies all we actually know about the universe, the burden of proof is on them.
I'm not sure how it applies. Game theory does address "cheating", but mainly in terms of screwing your neighbor in an asymmetric contest. It's used a lot in evolutionary biology to model ways in which cooperative behavior can evolve in what's essentially a "selfish" system. Is there some other part of game theory that applies here? Not being facetious, just curious.
Slashdot Mirror
Spock's on there! He wasn't in Star Wars.
What I saw was a movie that concentrated more on questioning the nature of humanity and existence than the mundane details. Sorry if that's not exciting to you, but it sure as hell is to me. I didn't see anything resembling lip service to deep philosophical questions, I saw a sci fi movie that raised great questions without giving trite predigested answers to them. I didn't think it was banal or unimaginative, but I sure do think it relied on an audience that would THINK about what they were seeing. If that's not to your liking, enjoy Mission to Mars or Red Planet. And FYI, I didn't get any of the things you considered "the movie's message" out of it. Those things are apparently your ideas, and if they sound like crap to you that's clearly your problem.
I second that. Every bad review I've read seems to add up to:
"I wasn't pandered to enough. This movie didn't feed me pat answers to deep philosophical questions. I wanted to see more breasts, aliens, and crap blowing up."
For which I have exactly zero sympathy. If you want that sort of stuff, this is the wrong movie. Just stay away and let the grownups enjoy this one for a change.
I'm not afraid to say it sucked, but I'd be lying. It was one of the best movies I've ever seen. Sorry if your attention span is too short to appreciate good storytelling and character development, but that's really not the movie's fault. I don't need some intellectual to better explain its virtues, either, I understood them well enough on my own. My wife and I have talked about the questions presented in the movie for DAYS and plan to go see it again this weekend. I don't think I've ever seen a movie quite so thought provoking. Just seems that maybe some peoples' thoughts are harder to provoke than others, I guess.
Check the user reviews and ratings at IMDB...over 56% of the people there gave it an 8 or better. I've only read one critic who actually seemed to "get" this movie, and he happens to be one of the only two critics I've EVER trusted on movies, reaffirming my opinion of him. The two are Keith Phipps and Scott Tobias of The Onion. Sad that so many people just ignore the AV Club; it's some of the best arts and entertainment journalism out there.
Pretty damn silly comparison, given that Solaris is three decades older (plus change) and a million times better. Like reading the bible for the first time this week and saying "I liked it the first time I saw it, when it was called A Veggie Tales Movie". Come to think of it, that would be a lot funnier.
Amen. I was absolutely amazed. The funny thing is that if you check out user reviews at IMDB it's always all or nothing. Likewise the votes seem pretty bimodal. There are a lot between 8 and 10 and a big clump at the bottom. Worth noting that over 56% of the people who saw it rated it an 8 or better, though. Shows you what the friggin' critics know about good movies.
"These flaws might be forgivable if we were truly interested in the plot, but we aren't: it's a trivial love story, told many times before."
As I said, speak for yourself. I was fascinated. I think this is one of the best sci fi movies I have ever seen. It was very cerebral and relied a lot on the audience doing some thinking about what was going on. I don't think that's a problem, I think it's an absolutely wonderful thing. I can understand how, if you just wanted to have some trite, stupid, half-assed philosophy fed to you, you might be a little disappointed with it. But if that's the kind of movie you went to see, why the heck did you go see Solaris? Seriously, every review I've read of this movie is either positively glowing or basically bios down to "not enough boobs and explosions". Every one I read of the latter type convinces me of nothing but the author's simplemindedness.
Ok, good point.
As long as Lucas doesn't write it, it will be the best Star Wars since the original.
It's not offtopic so much as it's just kind of a silly question. To buy a $2k+ computer just to run Photshop under OSX instead of Win is the kind of luxury most of us don't have. Man, if I could run OSX on COTS hardware, I'd be there in a heartbeat.
It's been a couple of things. I do audio recording, and IMHO Linux audio still kinda bites. I can't afford a G4, so that leaves me with windows. Add to that the fact that most of the games I like are Win only, and there's your answer. I do dual boot, though, and use Macs at work.
Another thing I'm VERY happy about is that they're finally going to show "Rejected" next Sunday. If you haven't seen that, you really should tune in for it. Don Hertzfeldt is a friggin' genius.
I'll third that. Mission Hill was an excellent show, and Ripping Friends is without a doubt one of the worst things I've ever seen on TV. I used to like Kricfalusi, back when he was funny and occasionally had an idea. Everything I've seen of his in the past few years (with the exception of Tenacious D's F**k Her Gently video, which was only good because of Tenacious D) is absolutely unfunny lame CRAP. I think that show got on the air on name recognition alone; I can't see any other redeeming quality to it.
It farking rocks, I must say. I use linux for my research, but it's still not my main home OS, largely because I had so many difficulties trying to get my sound card to work. Mandrake 9, on the other hand, recognized both of my sound cards immediately, and runs just beautifully. I know it's been said many times before about other distros, but if there ever was a windows-killer Mandrake 9 would be it.
That's true, we did shell out a pile for the monitor. I had momentarily forgotten that. So, slightly unfair price comparison, but nonetheless the speed results hold.
I work in a lab where we produce a very widely used piece of scientific software, and we do benchmarking on everything from old 68k Macs to new Dual G4s to AMD and Intel boxes running both Windows and Linux. The fastest benchmark we have on record, despite the fact that we dropped over five grand on our dual G4, was an $1100 dual Athlon XP 1800+ using Intel's C compiler version 6. It's not just faster than the fastest Mac benchmarks, it's WAY faster. We haven't tried any higher dual Athlon systems, but I suspect they'd be faster still. I'm not saying that an Athlon system would be faster than a Mac in all circumstances (I don't know one way or another), but the benchmark I've got the most experience with has got the Macs losing in a landslide.
That being said, I think OSX beats the crap out of Windows as an OS, and I'd really love to see such a great OS on a cheap, fast box. Can't have everything, I suppose.
Well, there is no legal recognition that life begins at conception, which is why abortion is legal. You may think that's right or wrong, but it nonetheless is the law. That being the case, there's no reason why a state shouldn't be able to pass a law which is in line with the supreme court's interpretation of the point at which life begins.
On another note, there are some huge misconceptions about how therapeutic use of stem cells is actually practiced. For the most part, they use tissue from fetuses that were already aborted for other reasons. Furthermore, if the assertion is that the use of tissue from one already aborted fetus isn't allowable even if it saves the lives of thousands of people who have families and friends of their own, you're on pretty shaky moral ground to say the least. Allowing thousands who may not share your beliefs to die for your belief that an already aborted fetus is somehow sacred seems to me (and a lot of the medical community) to be tantamount to murder in its own right. I can't expect to convince you of that, but at least you have to think about the fact that people WILL die from diseases that these treatments might cure, and weigh that against the use of something that, even if you believe that a 32-cell blastula is somehow human, is already dead.
Fire hot!
I mean really, it is a little steep. I still pay for it, because I'm a nerd and consider broadband second only to running water in importance, but if they're wondering why adoption hasn't been more widespread, the answer seems pretty damn clear.
Just like California's medical marijuana laws and their opposition by the federal government, this can also be seen as an issue of....drumroll please.... tate's rights. I see it as quite an interesting way to bring the issue of state's rights to the fore, as the people who normally bang on about state's rights all the time (conservatives) are exactly the people who will HATE these two laws. It's quite interesting to see how (for some of them) their belief in the sovereignty of the states completely evaporates when the states are doing something THEY don't like. I'd like to point out that I said SOME of them, as I know there are people out there on both sides of the political spectrum who honestly believe that states should have sovereignty in most issues that won't flip-flop in this situation. I'm just saying that I know for a fact that there are a LOT that have.
And really, science doesn't need to disprove the existence of god. As the skeptics always say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Seeing as the religious people are the ones claiming something that defies all we actually know about the universe, the burden of proof is on them.
They've taken the most effective of all anti-piracy measuers...
SUCKING.
It's not really going to crush itself. It's clearly just a ploy by the server to get attention, as most suicide attempts are.
I believe it is the same researcher. I'm almost positive it's the same university.
I'm not sure how it applies. Game theory does address "cheating", but mainly in terms of screwing your neighbor in an asymmetric contest. It's used a lot in evolutionary biology to model ways in which cooperative behavior can evolve in what's essentially a "selfish" system. Is there some other part of game theory that applies here? Not being facetious, just curious.