Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"feel the magic of peanut butter and movies"
A blog dedicated to the lively debate of films (and all things pop culture) between two guys with extremely disparate tastes.
"feel the magic of peanut butter and movies"
Peanut's Reviews
- 3.0 There Will Be Blood
- 3.0 The Prestige
- 3.0 The Descent
- 3.0 The Dark Knight
- 3.0 Shoot 'Em Up
- 3.0 Pan's Labyrinth
- 3.0 No Country For Old Men
- 3.0 Michael Clayton
- 3.0 Lord of the Rings Trilogy
- 3.0 Iron Man
- 3.0 Inglourious Basterds
- 3.0 Halloween (1978)
- 3.0 Eastern Promises
- 3.0 Chinatown
- 3.0 Children of Men
- 3.0 Batman Begins
- 3.0 Atonement
- 2.5 U2 3D
- 2.5 The International
- 2.5 The Bourne Ultimatum
- 2.5 Superbad
- 2.5 Knowing
- 2.5 Knocked Up
- 2.5 Jesus Camp
- 2.5 I Am Legend
- 2.5 Hostel: Part II
- 2.5 Hellraiser VI: Hellseeker
- 2.5 Hellraiser
- 2.5 Half Nelson
- 2.5 Frost/Nixon
- 2.5 District 9
- 2.5 Bruno
- 2.5 Borat
- 2.0 World Trade Center
- 2.0 Willow
- 2.0 Valkyrie
- 2.0 Vacancy
- 2.0 Transformers
- 2.0 The Simpsons Movie
- 2.0 The Kingdom
- 2.0 The Departed
- 2.0 Superman Returns
- 2.0 Resident Evil: Extinction
- 2.0 Hannibal Rising
- 2.0 Halloween (2007)
- 2.0 Gone Baby Gone
- 2.0 Assault on Precinct 13 (2005)
- 2.0 An Inconvenient Truth
- 2.0 30 Days of Night
- 1.5 United 93
- 1.5 The Hangover
- 1.5 Spider-Man 3
- 1.5 Sicko
- 1.5 Red Corner
- 1.5 Push
- 1.5 Premonition
- 1.5 Live Free or Die Hard
- 1.5 Interview with the Vampire
- 1.5 Hellbound: Hellraiser II
- 1.5 Gran Torino
- 1.5 Dark Water
- 1.5 Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem
- 1.0 Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj
- 1.0 Turistas
- 1.0 The X-Files: I Want to Believe
- 1.0 The Number 23
- 1.0 The Mist
- 1.0 The Haunting in Connecticut
- 1.0 John Tucker Must Die
- 1.0 Closure (UK: Straightheads)
- 0.5 The Hills Have Eyes 2
- 0.5 The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)
- 0.5 Rescue Dawn
- 0.5 Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth
- 0.0 Lady in the Water
Butter's Reviews
- 3.0 Volver
- 3.0 United 93
- 3.0 The Simpson's Movie (with a bucket of Duff)
- 3.0 The Devil Wears Prada
- 3.0 The Departed
- 3.0 The Bourne Ultimatum
- 3.0 Thank You For Smoking
- 3.0 Superbad
- 3.0 Shoot 'Em Up
- 3.0 Ratatouille
- 3.0 Children of Men
- 3.0 Casino Royale
- 3.0 Brick
- 2.5 Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?
- 2.5 Knocked Up
- 2.5 Hot Fuzz
- 2.0 The Prestige
- 2.0 The Lookout
- 2.0 The Illusionist
- 2.0 The Good Shepherd
- 2.0 Little Miss Sunshine
- 2.0 Cloverfield
- 2.0 Charlie Wilson's War
- 2.0 Blood Diamond
- 1.5 The Simpson's Movie (no Duff)
- 1.5 Rocky Balboa
- 1.5 Night at the Museum
- 1.5 National Treasure: Book of Secrets
- 1.5 3:10 To Yuma
- 1.0 Spider-Man 3
- 0.5 Babel
7 comments:
As a fan of An Inconvenient Truth and Al Gore, I would like to also say for the record that B has not viewed this movie, and so cannot really judge its validity yet =P
So, to be clear, it isn't that i don't buy into "global climate change". I actually firmly believe that climates change. In fact, the climate of our 4+ billion year old earth has been changing ever since the big bang, a supreme deity, or peanut's mother gave birth to it. What I have a problem with is people who take a social issue and use it as a device to satisfy their own messiah complex. It is as if these folks feed off of horrible things happening (Katrina, the Asian Tsunami, etc) because it furthers their political agenda and bolsters their self-important cause to save the world. I'm extremely skeptical about "scientists" who can prove that global warming is happening, because based on my own research, there seem to be quite a few out there who disagree (they just don't get the headlines).
I believe that life is in a constant state of flux. People, animals, plants, etc are born, live and die. Change is inherent. Many/most species that inhabited this earth years ago are now extinct and new species have taken their place. I don't believe that there is anything morally wrong with that. I don't believe in preserving things exactly as they are today in the name of "nature" or "conservation" or "being green". We are a species, a destructive one at that, but it is part of life that a species impacts the world around them. We do so just as many other species have done so. I would argue against pollution because it makes life unpleasant (dirty, smelly, ugly), not because it may be changing the migratory patterns of some bird that will become extinct just like thousands of species of birds before it. I would support banning the poaching of elephants because I believe that it is silly to kill an animal for its tusks, but not because I think that elephants have some right to never go extinct.
anyways, time to get off my soapbox. has p posted anything in the way of a movie review lately? that's what i'd like to see. a movie review. isn't that what we do on this blog anyway?
B, your list of "climate changes" is not the same as "global climate change." The changes you discuss are naturally-occurring phenomena. The changes that Al Gore discusses in the film are, based on a wealth of scientific data, man-made phenomena. I agree with you that scientific theories are just that--theories. They can't be proven with 100% certainty. But to scoff at the overwhelming evidence that human beings have drastically altered the Earth's climate in the past 50-100 years means that you are in straight-up denial. And I'm sure you can dredge up some scientists who will deny the conclusions drawn by Al Gore in the film, but I recommend you see the film and judge for yourself.
On another note: Alec, I agree with you that Gore, Laurie David, and others enivornmental advocates may be hypocrites when it comes to their own lifestyles. The problem I have with this argument, though, is that the "anti-global warming lobby" (read: oil company executives and follow-the-party-line Republicans) uses this type of argument as "proof" that we should refrain from addressing issues of man-made climate change. If I learned one thing from studying for the LSAT, it's that "ad hominem" attacks are inherently flawed. Furthermore, just because a person does not follow his or her own advice, that does not mean the advice is suspect. Bottom line: we should continue to devote resources to climatalogical research, but we shouldn't await some "absolute proof" (which is impossible to obtain) before we address the implications of global climate change.
i believe that humans have altered (i won't say drastically) the Earth's climate in the past 50-100 years. i also believe that such an alteration is not really any different from so-called "naturally-occuring phenomena". we live on this Earth and are part of it. as such, we have an impact. if that impact means that it gets a little hotter, or a few birds die, so be it. i believe that the uber-hype machine behind global warming exaggerates the "scientific" findings that they support their claims with. i could care less about addressing the implications of global climate change. what i'd like to see addressed are bigger issues like extreme poverty, child soldiers, nuclear capabilities in the hands of unstable governments, AIDS, Cancer, etc etc. What is the point of making the world a bit greener if no one is around to enjoy it?
on a side note, and more enjoyable discussion topic, will Larry and Laurie David's impending divorce prevent a future season of Curb Your Enthusiasm?
B, I would argue that a lot of the "bigger issues" you mention are directly or indirectly affected by global climate change; an increase in the frequency of droughts and famines augments poverty, and competition for limited natural resources leads to internecine conflicts in which child soldiers become pawns. And the main point that serious environmentalists make is that global climate change has implications for the future survival of the human race. (Perhaps not in our lifetimes, but certainly within the next 50-100 years.) But I'll agree to disagree for now.
I'm thinking Larry David's divorce will, if anything, provide more material for Curb Season 7. Plus, it always seemed kind of strange to me that the real-life George Costanza was happily married. Maybe he'll become a swingin' Hollywood bachelor, a la Bill Maher. Also, I've been seeing a lot of Laurie David/Sheryl Crow appearances on TV... Did Laurie switch teams? Perhaps case-by-case? I smell a Season 7 Sheryl-Cheryl fling...
Post a Comment