Hello, Due to some health issues (diabetes), I need to start being more physically active... Since I spent about ten years involved in martial arts and combat sports, my instinct is to look for something within that sphere. It’s important that it isn't overly strenuous—nothing involving intense drills or heavy contact—and ideally, something relatively casual. It doesn't necessarily have to be highly effective for self-defense, though that’s fine if it is; it's not a requirement. Tai Chi has crossed my mind... does anyone here practice it? How much muscle engagement can I expect from Tai Chi? (I'm looking for moderate physical activity.) I see there are a few studios in Chicago that offer classes. Does anyone have a recommendation for a high-quality place in the Chicago area? I realize some might not classify Tai Chi as a true martial art, but again, the combat aspect isn't my primary focus. Scheduling is also a factor. Anything before 7:00 PM won't work for me. I know that sounds like an odd constraint, but my work schedule makes earlier sessions impossible. By the way, I'll pass on Aikido. I attended a session once and it just didn't click for me. Thanks for the input.
I suppose movies that lean heavily on those "true love conquers all" tropes are a bit tiresome. Then again, it's a direct result of people being conditioned to crave them through various other social institutions. The whole idea that romantic love is the ultimate purpose of human existence—which seems to be shoved into about 80% of Hollywood movies—is essentially a distraction. It keeps people from focusing on much more pressing issues, like wealth redistribution and systemic inequality, though I won't veer too far off-topic from this film subforum. It’s not that love itself isn't important, but it needs to be properly prioritized.
I once heard someone argue that American action movies actually do more harm by toning down the violence for younger audiences. The idea is that sanitizing the gore makes violence seem trivial, rather than showing its real consequences. (I can't quite recall who specifically made that point) ... but it's an interesting perspective. In my view, parenting is everything. You have to talk to your kids about sex and violence because that is the world we live in; it's reality. However, in today's fast-paced society, many parents are either too busy or simply indifferent, leaving their children to be raised by mass media—and I'm not just talking about violent films, but all sorts of programming—or by whatever they pick up on the street. That can be dangerous. It isn't a universal rule, of course; it largely depends on the crowd a kid hangs out with. But if there isn't a parent keeping a watchful eye, things can go south quickly.
Jose Miller17 said:...if they really want to see something, they'll find a way to make it happen... the reality is we live under a child's dictatorship... 😁😁 look at it this way: if a studio sells a movie to a kid, they've already sold a ticket to the parent... a horror movie? They’d sell the devil himself if they could... long live capitalism :-/
I agree with the logic, but I don't agree that it's right.
There's also another point... I'm genuinely curious which mother would take her 10-year-old son to see some hardcore adult film? I doubt they'd even be allowed in the theater, regardless of the profit. But they'd happily go to a super violent, bloody flick. 😕
It’s pretty obvious, ... if they hadn't cleared the theater, it would have just been me and some other couple in their late teens. My mom probably wouldn't have even gone without her boy by her side.. Still, I think it was wrong.
I caught a screening at the local AMC Theatres the other day. The showtime was 5:20 PM, and the movie was The Grudge. It wasn't anything special. Even the original didn't particularly impress me, but that’s beside the point. It has plenty of violence and blood for those who enjoy that sort of thing. What struck me, however, was the audience. About 90% of the people in the theater were middle schoolers. Based on my own kid at home, I’d guess they were mostly in the 6th to 8th grade range. I'm a horror fan. I don't mind sitting through Hannibal Holocaust, Ferox, or similar titles, but I don't think kids under 15 belong in these movies. I started watching stuff like Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, zombie flicks, and even Italian horror when I was 16 or 17—not at 10 years old, which is what I saw in the theater. It feels strange that society would ban a soft erotic film but allow a bloody slasher... You can watch the carnage, but apparently not the sex. In fact, I was likely the oldest person there. There were maybe 30 of us total, including one mother with a son who looked about 8 or 10. She could have taken him to see Over The Hedge or something similar at the AMC Theatres instead.
I believe these kinds of films can desensitize children to violence. Maybe I'm just being a cranky old man, but I don't like it. I don't know where the exact line should be drawn, but in my view, kids shouldn't be watching this stuff until they are at least 15.
goldenhound32 said:4 There are some nice scenes, but the pacing drags a bit. Horror? Please... what kind of lists have you been reading?
I honestly can't remember which specific lists I was looking at. All I know is they were good enough to make me track the movie down. It isn't a horror movie to me. As a thriller, it's fine, but it just didn't click for me—which doesn't mean it isn't a good film (some might even call it a masterpiece). That whole hippie, New Age, Wiccan dialogue in the movie is just irritating. I get that it was trendy in the '70s, and since we're watching a remake, it's clearly still playing to current trends. The New Age, spiritual, Orientalist, Westernized Feng Shui nonsense makes my skin crawl (if I actually had hair to stand on end). Maybe that's why I couldn't get into it.
It’s strange that there isn't a dedicated thread for this movie yet. Most critics consistently rank it as one of the better horror films out there. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070917/ To be honest, I’d probably categorize it as a thriller rather than horror, but that's splitting hairs. I spent quite a while hunting down a copy of The Wicker Man. Once I finally sat down to watch it, I wasn't exactly blown away. Perhaps I've just become desensitized by much more intense films, but to me, it felt pretty mediocre. What does everyone else think of it? I've included a poll here. What do you all think about including a poll in the opening post of a movie thread? We could even start an official forum ranking list for films. (Maybe the moderators could pin polls to existing movie threads... or perhaps I'm asking too much and that's a silly idea.)
The real reason I'm posting is because of the upcoming remake of that film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450345/ It stars Nicolas Cage along with a few other mostly lesser-known actresses. Neil LaBute is handling the direction (not unlike Nurse Betty). I'll check it out if it hits theaters or becomes available to stream, but I'm not setting my expectations high.
Bound is easily the best thing the Wachowski siblings have ever produced. It’s a genuine neo-noir crime thriller.
Plus, Jennifer Tilly and G. Gershon make a killer duo.😍 The scene where they show off their tattoos is one of the most erotic moments in film, at least in my book. (I usually find Tilly gets on my nerves, but she’s great here).
Here’s a link regarding the connection between creativity and mental health... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1001061055.htm
Honestly, from what I recall of my psychopathology coursework years ago, most patients we worked with presented with below-average intelligence. There were certainly a few outliers with above-average IQs, though. Regardless, the correlation isn't straightforward. It almost certainly depends on the specific diagnosis you're looking at. There is a massive difference between someone dealing with depression or anxiety—disorders where they remain largely grounded in reality—and someone living with Schizophrenia, where that contact with reality is fundamentally broken by delusions and hallucinations. Furthermore, those clinical diagnoses are much more "exact." We have a relatively clear grasp of the underlying physiological mechanisms. Intelligence, however, remains a fuzzy concept. It is far more of a hypothetical construct than many mental illnesses, such as Schizophrenia.
Lawrence Robinson11 said:What does the location of the next World Cup have to do with intelligence😁? Give me a break...
Intelligence correlates positively with general awareness. There is a connection, even if it isn't direct; intelligent people simply tend to show more interest in the world around them. This logic is why vocabulary tests are such a staple in standard IQ assessments. Ultimately, Openness—one of the personality traits in the Big Five taxonomy—is also linked to intelligence. ****. As for the vegetable question, my understanding is that there are two primary definitions (botanical and agricultural). One suggests fruit comes from perennial plants while vegetables come from annuals; the other focuses on whether you're eating the reproductive part of the plant or something else.
I tend to fall into one of two categories. Either I’m part of a group of about ten people heading out to catch a massive blockbuster, or I’m flying solo because a specific film just caught my eye and I felt like seeing it on the big screen alone. (Either way, I always grab a coffee by myself before or after the show.)
A new US DVD release of this fantastic 1981 film just hit the shelves.
The plot follows a National Guard unit training in Louisiana, which ends up infuriating the local population—the Cajune folks—who then launch a retaliatory strike against the soldiers.
The film was directed by Walter Hill and features an ensemble cast including Powers Boothe, Keith Carradine, Fred Ward, and Peter Coyote. They are all classic character actors, though that certainly doesn't mean they aren't talented. The soundtrack was composed by Ry Cooder.
... In my opinion, this movie deserved a much more substantial DVD release than what we got, but I suppose something is better than nothing.
------------ * The Cajune people, numbering about 500,000 in the southern USA (Louisiana), are descendants of refugees from the French colony of Acadia (formerly in Scotland, Canada). They migrated to their current territory in the mid-18th century to escape the Englishmen. They still speak an archaic form of French.
Charles Hill78 said:The hardware is solid. I'm picking up all four major networks—ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC—perfectly with just my indoor antenna. Given how pricey these cards usually are, this one feels like a genuine bargain. On the software side, things are a bit underwhelming. I still need to hunt down some better tools if I want to handle basic tasks like recording shows, trimming out commercials, and burning them to a DVD.
I’m using a standard TV tuner card and rely on Windows Media Player for my recordings. It works great for me; it captures directly into MPEG DVD format. To cut out the ads, I just use mpeg-vcr. For the final authoring, I use Adobe Premiere. My only question is regarding satellite streams—specifically that transport MPEG format—whether I can follow the exact same workflow. Once I pick up a satellite card, I'll give it a shot.
Charles Hill78 said:I was actually going to ask what I'd need to burn that MPEG onto a DVD, though I'm not sure if it's even worth the effort.
I usually just use Adobe Premiere for that. It's straightforward and easy to navigate. You can grab a trial version to test it out, but you'll have to source the full version on your own if you want to commit. http://www.pegasys-inc.com/en/download/index.html