Underappreciated Movies/Shows

[theholycow]

Never saw it, but I thought I might. That reminds me: The Shawshank Redemption.

[bowtieguy]

Shawshank, ah yes, a favorite of mine. it is the masculine equivalent to Steel Magnolias or Fried Green Tomatoes.

BTW, speaking of underappreciated, Morgan Freeman is one of my favorite actors. we need to start a thread on that (favorite actors) and profound movie quotes.

my favorite is Russell Crowe in Gladiator as Maximus Desmus Meridius. he said "What we do in life, echoes in eternity!"

[GasSavers_maximilian]

I'm not sure you can be called under appreciated if you've been given an Academy Award.

[bowtieguy]

Originally Posted by maximilian

I'm not sure you can be called under appreciated if you've been given an Academy Award.

oh, but it's the contrary. just like Denzel Washington, Freeman no doubt should have been nominated MUCH more than he has.

these guys should be mentioned more than they are w/ the likes of Pacino, Nicholson, Duvall, etc.

[GasSavers_maximilian]

I'd argue that's a case of them being over appreciated, given that most award institutions are largely vehicles for promotion.

[bowtieguy]

anyone see this?...

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php

i suspect it's under rated just because it doesn't fit hollywood's mold.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php

Ugh. I saw it. It was awful. It was blatant overblown propaganda, way over the top. Only someone who already believes in that agenda will accept it...and maybe someone who is somewhat feeble and entirely without a trace of skepticism. Anyone else would be so put off by the style and excessive slant that they would close their mind to anything proposed in the movie.

I can accept some forms of Intelligent Design ideas, but the movie really reinforced the modern habit of keeping science and God separate by being so ridiculous. It does a disservice to its own agenda.

What was even worse, was that I watched it in a class that had lots of very impressionable young students waiting to have their minds and opinions molded, who were ready to believe whatever the first thing told to them was without any trace of skepticism whatsoever. I could see the wheels turning in their heads. I'm pretty sure that at least two of them thought the B&W footage of fistfights and war was actually footage of conflicts between non-ID scientists and ID scientists.

[GasSavers_maximilian]

Scientific American has a good article on that film.

The most amazingly dishonest part of that film was the implication that Darwin was somehow responsible for motivating the Nazis to perpetrate the holocaust. Not only is that the moral equivalent of blaming the Wright brothers for the use of planes in the 9/11 attacks, but it doesn't even make internal sense as all that is required for the insane racist ideas of the Nazis was a knowledge of heredity, not evolution. Taking his related quote out of context in so flagrant a manner (in the above Sciam link) to try and argue he was in favor of eugenics is inexcusable.

ID isn't a theory because it's not falsifiable. Evolution makes predictions that can be contradicted. That would force a revision of the underlying ideas. In fact many of the specifics of how evolution works have evolved since Origin of the Species was published (such as the details of where genetic diversity comes from). ID arguments are framed in such a way that they will never change no matter what. That ain't science. Sciam has many good articles on the logical fallacies involved.

[bowtieguy]

your critique of it REALLY peaks my interest to see it. my issue is that, like climate change, anyone that has an alternate view is severely criticized even to the point of trying to discredit them.

now doubt, Stein tries to make light of the subject perhaps giving some the perception of a generic viewpoint. i've studied WAY too much to even consider that ID is some religious grasping of truth.

a comment from the logical fallacies involved link...

NerdType at 11:00 PM on 12/09/07
The "controversy" between creation and evolution is false at its core. Over literal interpretation of creation coupled with the arrogance of scientific discovery is the core issue. What is a "day" to God? Do you supposed God to be standing on one point of the earth waiting to revolve to call it "a day". That's comical. Equally farsical is the presumption that the knowledge of evolution as observed scientifically somehow prohibits God from its orchestration.

the absence of logic, evidence, or things seen disproves nothing. we know relatively nothing of our world, let alone the universe and its creator. sorry to digress, guess i'll have to see it and decide for myself if it's underappreciated or not.

[UfoTofU]

I really enjoyed the HBO mini-series / seasonal show called Carnivale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carniv%C3%A0le