>> ^xxovercastxx:
I think The Sixth Sense had more general appeal than Unbreakable, but obviously I liked Unbreakable better. There's nothing wrong with TSS, mind you.
Signs was awful, I thought. The story wasn't bad, but I just didn't feel like it translated well to movie.
I really enjoyed The Village. Yes, there are holes and such in the story, but I enjoyed it in spite of them.
I fail to see how Unbreakable has a tacked-on ending.
I was also pleasantly surprised by Lady in the Water. It was unfortunate that it was billed like a kids movie, because it really wasn't. It was about a fairytale, yes, but it was far from a kids movie.
The Happening and the Avatar movie don't interest me, so I haven't and/or don't plan on seeing them.
>> ^Smugglarn:
Well I thought The Sixth Sense was contrived and forcefully understated.
The Village even more so and that film is kind of a missed opportunity not focusing on the reason why cults separate their members from society. What you get is pointless mystery story. Since you mentioned Hitchcock I could liken it to one of his television episodes, rather than any of his films.
Unbreakable is, with the exception of the clearly tacked on ending, his standout work.
I have avoided The Sham's later films like the plague.


I was referring to the "signs" at the very end in the sense giving the movie, which is essentially an origin story, a friggin epilogue.

I think The Sixth Sense had more general appeal than Unbreakable, but obviously I liked Unbreakable better. There's nothing wrong with TSS, mind you.

Signs was awful, I thought. The story wasn't bad, but I just didn't feel like it translated well to movie.

I really enjoyed The Village. Yes, there are holes and such in the story, but I enjoyed it in spite of them.

I fail to see how Unbreakable has a tacked-on ending.

I was also pleasantly surprised by Lady in the Water. It was unfortunate that it was billed like a kids movie, because it really wasn't. It was about a fairytale, yes, but it was far from a kids movie.

The Happening and the Avatar movie don't interest me, so I haven't and/or don't plan on seeing them.
>> ^Smugglarn:
Well I thought The Sixth Sense was contrived and forcefully understated.
The Village even more so and that film is kind of a missed opportunity not focusing on the reason why cults separate their members from society. What you get is pointless mystery story. Since you mentioned Hitchcock I could liken it to one of his television episodes, rather than any of his films.
Unbreakable is, with the exception of the clearly tacked on ending, his standout work.
I have avoided The Sham's later films like the plague.

>> ^dag:
Shamalamaman gets a lot of grief- but I've always thought his movies were pretty damn good. He's a cheesier, modern version of Hitchcock. Am I the only one who actually liked The Village? I love movies with surprise hooks- especially if I haven't guessed or been told what it is. 6th Sense was an amazing movie. >> ^Smugglarn:
I like that movie a lot too. My only real gripe with it is the text at the end saying "and he turned him in to thepolice yada yada yada... whatever - ruined a great movie.
Then again Shamalamanamanam turned out to be full of shit.



Well I thought The Sixth Sense was contrived and forcefully understated.

The Village even more so and that film is kind of a missed opportunity not focusing on the reason why cults separate their members from society. What you get is pointless mystery story. Since you mentioned Hitchcock I could liken it to one of his television episodes, rather than any of his films.

Unbreakable is, with the exception of the clearly tacked on ending, his standout work.

I have avoided The Sham's later films like the plague.

Conan isnt understated enough for this imho

It's amazing though how something so profound can be so understated in our society by the use modern technology. There's the capability today for individuals to drive to work at 9 in the morning, kill some people using computer controlled planes, and then drive back home at 4 as if it never happened.

I wish I dont ever have to be a in situation where I have to take someone's life.

from http://seekingalpha
.com/instablog/439442-thomas-macleod/13809-five-non-traditional-inflation-indicators-inflation-is-coming

"Accordingly it does not take a rocket scientist to work out that there is a vested interest to understate inflation."

I have to admit, finding a web page to disagree with netrunner was kinda hard. BUT I WILL NOT BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS. (or government statistics)

The Moon was a good, understated Sci-Fi that does what Sci-Fi does best: examine social/psychological issues by using imaginary scenarios. I can't stand how Sci-Fi has been co-opted by brainless Hollywood movie execs who think Sci-Fi should equal big budget action movies that require you to check your brain at the door. Movies like The Moon are a return to form and with the advent of cheaper special effects I can't wait for more filmmakers to usher in a new era of Sci-fi.

Sorry HadouKen, to say that $250k can only come after an expensive, loan-heavy private undergrad followed by an expensive, loan-heavy professional degree is just not based in fact. I understand why you extrapolated from undergrad to grad school, but undergrad is not grad school, and certainly not law or medical school. Here is an example of a cost of attendance sheet from a well-known medical school. Take notice that the overall cost for this academic year is $70,364. Now adjust for the fact that the "Housing" line item is probably understated, and that nowhere does this list make allotments for incidentals, expenses, etc.--ie. food, entertainment, insurance, new laptop. Now adjust over a three year period at a rate increase of usually 7-10%. (I won't do math here; you get the idea...total cost is prob about $300k). Many if not most medical students do get some scholarship, but how much do you think? Unless they get half or more off tuition ($20k per year), cost of attendance is already over $250k. Note also that these students cannot work during this three year period. Unlike law school, there are no highly paid summer internships to mitigate the intense cost of attendance. In short, medical school is ridiculously expensive, and graduates frequently come out of school owing more than $200,000. Just to give you some personal stuff, I'm in my first year at a competitive NY law school, I've got $25k in scholarship, and I'm already $50k in debt, and this is week 5. Luckily, if I do well enough, I'll make a lot of it back during a summer internship in a big firm (yes, yes, working for the Man; sorry, they pay more than you can imagine for a summer), but the same is not true of med students. I'll get out owing (hopefully) around $100-150k, but medical school is far more demanding and they don't get the big kick-back like we do.

To volumptuous's comment: I couldn't find the number you quoted on findaid. Was that for this year? I found this fact sheet for the class of 2007. Looks like their debt was a bit above that average you quoted. Remember also that these are averages; many fell below these numbers, and many fell above.

Also, this guy Tiahrt is full of shit.

You're kidding! This is very subtly funny. This is one of the more understated things they've ever done.

I think it's brilliant!

Apology accepted, though!

True, Zach G is amazingly and understatingly funny. I think Posehn gets lost amongst them when he deserves his own credit.

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
I'm a fan, but I think Zach Galifinakis stole the show in that movie. I became a lifelong fan of Patton and Zach by watching that film.

In reply to this comment by brycewi19:
>> ^kymbos:
Welcome to the club. I recommend the doco "The Comedians of Comedy" if you're keen for more.


Good movie. Saw it a couple months back.

Big Brian Posehn fan, then?

Sorry there were no car chases in it for you Ponceleon.

It's not useless to compare them. Pardon me but what an asinine comment. This is far enough from what Hellblazer really is that I don't think it deserves to be called a Constantine movie. There are choices made in the process of adaptation that affect the quality of the outcome.

What is the essential difference between cinematic and comic book storytelling that requires changing the main character from a wise-cracking englishman to a dour american? It certainly doesn't bring anything to the table, from what I can see, apart from allowing Keanu Reeves to play the part, which looking back didn't seem to help the movie, aside from securing a decent budget, which probably worked against it in the end. If any "comic book movie" did not need to be all that visually spectacular, this is the one. Hellblazer should be understated with occasional horrific moments, not big action set pieces like happen every 20 minutes in this fucking movie.

In the comics he chose to mess with magic and it cost him bigtime. That's the essence of his character. Even if he saves the day it will be in a rotten and nasty way because he uses black magic. Having him be chosen as some kind of secret weapon, caught up in a conspiracy against the devil, is typical hollywood horseshit.

Also, come to think of it, I think John would have a Liverpool accent as I think that he only ended up in London as a young man.

My thoughts:

1. Star Wars
On a whole different level as far as mythic filmmaking. Rings very deeply, almost universally, with people of our generation (I'm 33). It rings so deep that it's a better guide to basic humanity than most parents and religions.. or at least the OT is. Too bad the prequels get so confused with the morality, having Anakin basically just "turn evil" for what the average viewer takes out of the story. I really regret not attending the marathon OT screening which I bought tickets for in 1995.

2. Star Trek
A bit uneven, but in my opinion I, II, III, and VIII (First Contact) are classics in sci-fi/fantasy film. Part II, nobody can argue with. I don't think First Contact gets enough respect for having lots of action while hitting emotional beats, all with a tight plot. Yes it subverts the whole idea of the borg a bit, but they already did that with the TNG episodes about the borg "Hugh". Can't wait for the blu-ray of that film. Also pretty excited to see the new version, which I believe opens next week. One of the rare times lately that I'll be going out to see something rather than wait for the blu-ray.

3. Lord of the Rings
Also totally classic, but a bit repetitious with all the walking and swordfighting and hobbit jargon and slow-mo moony-face shots of Elijah Wood. Still, classic enough that I'll be buying it on blu-ray or maybe even the next higher-def format beyond that.

4. Harry Potter
Didn't read the books. Really didn't like the first film, found it all too precocious and tedious. Was curious enough mainly due to boredom at the time to see the second, which was a decent improvement in terms of relatability for the non-readership. Part 3 was frigging awesome, really liked the visual style and the story was satisfying, finally some real darkness. Part 4 was a bit boring, I think I fell asleep in the movie theatre. Recently watched part 5 on blu-ray, found it pretty amusing and like the visual style which is understated compared to part 3 but wonderfully art-designed. Looking forward to the next two movies although not exactly salivating.

5. The Matrix
What more can be said? Could have been the greatest. Could have unseated Star Wars. For my generation, the first one is an all-time, top-five classic regardless of genre, and from a certain POV can be taken as a hard sci-fi film. Then the second and third come along and they're just so far up their own asses that it's almost hard to watch. To put this in perspective I say that about Matrix Reloaded having seen it a total of six (possibly seven, can't remember) times in theatres.

his little understated slur/grace note at around 0:41... love it great singer.

>> ^dag:
That was so cool - I love how it came up and sucked on the arrow


That might not have been an arrow, the bow didn't look loaded to me though the vid isn't clear enough to be sure. That could be the center stabilizer though I can see how it could look like an arrow. Basic design of the compound bow can be seen here, though the illustration has a very large one. Some are more understated.

http://www.archery.metu.edu.tr/siteen/compdbow.html

Very cool clip though. I'm glad he didn't shoot it.

>> ^jwray:
The United States federal government is not paying for its deficit spending by printing excessive amounts of money. It is borrowing instead. Inflation is at 3.66% and falling. It peaked at 5.6% in July, before the economic upheaval.


Oh really, is that why it takes 3x as many dollars to buy an ounce of gold today than it did ten years ago? Of course the government is printing obscene amounts of money. Stop picking and choosing little short term windows of time where the trend is not apparent, nothing goes in a straight line. Do you even know what monetization of debt means? If foreigners are no longer interested in buying our government debt (bonds) that the treasury issues every year, the Fed has to raise interest rates to lure them in, because that's the yield on their loan to us. But they're LOWERING THEM. Yields are NEGATIVE. You loan money to us, you will be paid back in depreciated dollars that buy less than what you had before you loaned. So now that foreigners aren't doing that, guess who has to step in and buy those bonds? The Federal Reserve. Except that money isn't someone's savings, it isn't backed by a product in the world. It's pure inflation, pure funny money. That's what's coming, their balance sheet is going into the TRILLIONS.

This is the symbiosis that enabled government excess. A tax is an honest appropriation, people see it and are far more likely to resist it. Inflation is arbitrary money creation in a back room that siphons value from existing dollars. You can pull a curtain over that, lie about how much you're doing it, and watch as people see prices go up 10% in health care, food, per annum with absolutely no idea what hit them. After all, the government weatherman says that prices only went up 3%.

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html

The calculations are a joke, after we left the gold standard in the 70s, they kept changing them to understate real inflation and welfare obligations so they could spend more and more without it being easily noticed. They no longer include homes, energy, or food. Also, they introduced a subjective concept called hedonics adjustment, which negates price increases as inflation by discounting an assumed increase in quality.

The most galling result of this Keynesian nonsense is it blinds people to where inflation is going. Keynesian economics is the equivalent of teaching astrology instead of astronomy. First, they change the definition of inflation to mean prices instead of money supply. The correct definition of inflation is an increase of the money supply with the common RESULT being higher prices. After doing this, they then categorize inflation (to them: prices) into "asset-based" and "goods-based," and tell us that they don't fight asset-based. But asset-based inflation is what causes bubbles in assets like homes and stocks. We want things we own to go up and things we consume to go down, of course, but we don't want our assets to go up from artificial demand created by inflation. That's an illusion. So when inflation goes into tech stocks or homes, nobody sees it as inflation. Not the Keynesian Fed Chairmen, not the Keynesian financial managers, almost anyone with a degree in economics was less reliable than A COIN FLIP. That's when you know when your "science" has a problem. And then boom, when it starts going into commodities futures after the implosion, it exposes the inflation at all once that people were previously blind to.

And then here's a guy like Schiff, Ron Paul's economic advisor and Austrian economist, who was warning the whole god damned time since 2000, telling people to get into gold when it was $275 and getting laughed at by every confused Keynesian educated retard on television.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucDkoqwflF4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

>> ^dtmike07:
Austrian economics has about as much credibility as scientology. They don't even believe in empirical evidence, for crissakes. Mainstream economics does't have a much better theory - essentially its an extended and mathematized version of Austrian economics. But at least mainstream economists know what the data says and use statistical techniques to analyze it. You know, like real scientists. And regarding the Austrian "theory" of the Great Depression - they pretty much pulled it out of their asses. Its just an attempt to blame the whole thing on the government, and exempt the free market. Austrian economics is a religion - the free market is God and government is the Devil.

You are 100% dead wrong on this. Keynesian "empirical data" is bogus, I've only scratched the surface on how they try to complicate simple concepts into a symbiotic swindle by redefining inflation, making up new terms, and it keeps blowing up in their face no matter who's in charge because that's the whole point. For you or Stukafox to even compare this problem to the firecrackers of banking panics (from fractional reserve lending, a legalized form of fraud that persists to this day with government backstops, an entirely different debate) is unbelievable, there's no proportion to a decade long depression and a bunch of shitty banks going under to remind people not to carelessly deposit all their money in banks.

Second of all, economics is a study of human behavior. Keynes was an idiot whose theories arose from a complete misunderstanding of what caused the great depression. He basically threw classical knowledge out the window and decided that economies needed central direction and stimulation by government. See, like the dumbfucks in this video, most people thought letting the banks fail was what caused the depression. It wasn't. It was what came before and after it. The inflation of the 20s was what caused the crash in the first place, you don't have a crash without a Fed-created bubble. You don't have withdrawal without being high on drugs.

But while withdrawal symptoms suck, they're actually the solution to the disease of the high. Hoover and Roosevelt saw the hangover as the disease, and began administering shock therapy. Over the course of many years, they raised tariffs, raised taxrates, and nationalized industry. The economy would have recovered, capital and jobs would have reallocated on its own. Instead, anyone who had any money after that crash had no incentive to invest or employ anyone, because now government was promising to take 90% of your profits if you made any. So unemployment got worse. The tax revenue the government did manage to appropriate, it used to pay for new government jobs that were extremely inefficient (being immune to bankruptcy, financed by theft, and having no competition tends to be an unproductive business model, ask the soviets). FDR also ordered livestock slaughtered and fields plowed under because he believed falling food prices were bad for farmers. No, I'm not making this up. Deflation being bad is another Keynesian myth, they think more efficient production lowering prices makes people sit on their money rather than invest it. Which is totally untrue if you look at the computer sector where prices fall IN SPITE of inflation and have never had problems raising capital or selling well despite falling prices and obsolescence. FDR is the same asshole who allowed Pearl Harbor to be a massacre and issued unconstitutional orders to confiscate gold from the poor, hungry citizens who had just seen the banks absolved for destroying their savings. The man was a fucking monster, it took four terms to get rid of him.

What got us out of the depression was a just war and FDR's death. WWII had the entire country up in arms because we were attacked by another country. People were willing to sacrifice their wants and contribute to the war effort, this was no pushover on a third world country, it took everything we had. People were buying warbonds based on patriotic fervor alone. Massive amounts of infrastructure was built to produce wartime materials. That manufacturing base remained after the war for private industry, taxes came down, trade resumed, and we emerged as a leading producer of wealth in the world. By default. Because the rest of world was in shambles, only the Soviets were left to compete and their socialist economy eventually crumbled. We didn't plan it that way, it just happened. We were also still on a semi-gold standard, we still had a savings rate, and we became the largest creditor nation. We've lost ALL OF THAT. It's all gone, we're the direct opposite now. No gold standard, negative savings rate, largest debtor nation in the WORLD.

Keynes main problem is, politicians have no precise idea what all needs to be produced and created to please everyone in a PEACETIME economy, it's impossible. The free market is millions of individuals with diverse wants and needs, there's no way in hell you can centrally manage that. But they think they can and want to spend, that's why they picked Keynes as a replacement for old models, because his theories completely justified what socialist academics had been wanting to do all along. They honestly believed they could spend money more efficiently than its earner. That's impossible, the earner has a stake in the money. If he throws it away, he loses the labor he spent to obtain it, so he has a natural incentive to be thrifty. A politician spending it loses nothing, they have no incentive to be thrifty. They're people motivated by self-interest, just like you and me, their only legitimate job in the economy was to make sure force and deception is not used when we are out here transacting with one another. That's what graphs and "empirical data" doesn't explain, and it's why history will show Keynes to be a failure.

Far from our free market roots, we centrally fix interest rates, we declare lending standards discriminatory with goofy programs like the community reinvestment act, we redistribute capital from good businesses to failed ones, savers to speculators, and pass all kinds of anti-competitive laws. That's what Ron Paul understood and was going to put a stop to. He was going to end the monopoly on currency that forced us all into accepting the bill for government excess. He was going to end the useless military expenditures overseas. He was going to eliminate the income tax and cripple the ability of politicians to engage in collusive campaign dealings, or "engineer" society by issuing special credits to certain types of marriages, incomes, families, or investments. He knew the enablements, he understood how seemingly innocuous program could change human behavior. Politicians are just lawyers spending and accepting millions of dollars to get a low-paying position of controlling other people's money. That's it. And if you think they should be controlling 50% of our money in life, you deserve everything that's coming to you. Your employers are all going to close up shop to avoid the tax, your education is going to suck, your welfare dollars' value is going to be pissed away on foreign entanglements and overpaid execs, your gold is going to get confiscated (again). It's all coming, comrades.