Listen to your heart. That's what I do.
You're psychoanalysis is irrelevant as you are not pointing out any facts, just suppositions and theories. My emotions are not relevant because there is no emotion involved, just an analytical response to your silly armchair psychiatry.
The facts are in Ebert's review. I've drawn my suppositions and theories, which is most all that psychanalysis boils down to, about Ebert's psychology thereof.
What's silly is you referring to how you're whelmed as "analytical."
There are no facts in a review, only opinion. That you would draw such odious suppositions from what is only an opinion is silliness. Your last sentence doesn't make the least amount of sense so I can see how you would interpret Ebert and likely the movie as confirming your foggy logic.
True, LW. The review is Ebert's opinion. The facts of his psychology are revealed in his opinions as he opines them. A person's opinions can reveal quite a bit of his psychology. As Ebert has in his; as I have in mine; as you have in yours.
That you don't see how a person's psychology can be revealed in their opinions, and your reference to how you're whelmed thereof as "analytical" is foggy thinking, let alone logic.
That's a philosophy, not a psychology. He's not on your therepy sofa, or at least he shouldn't be. You have no idea what Ebert's psychological makeup might be. I find him to be more objective than nearly any critic even if opinion is going to always be highly subjective.
Your final sentences, again, don't make good sense but I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. You have fun on your jet-propelled couch.
A therapy sofa isn't necessary to make a judgement about a person's psychology, LW.
Don't take my judgement about your hero so personally.
Don't judge lest thee be judged. I've learned nothing about your psychology other than you indulge too often in crazy talk, stupid talk.
You can't accept the fact that your hero wrote his review from the point of view of a geek (he's revealed elsewhere that he'd get beaten-up for it in middle school) who's taken the movie rather personally. Like you have about what I've written about him.
Crazy talk is something like, "You have fun on your jet-propelled couch."
Stupid talk is something like, "Your final sentences, again, don't make good sense . . ." And then ending it with the previously quoted inanity.
"The Jet Propelled Couch" was psychiatrist Robert Lindner's examination of how craziness can infiltrate even the mind of a psychiatrist. The final story in the book was "The Three Faces of Eve."
Without knowing the book, your statement is an example of your own craziness.
After taking eight days to compose your reply, you resort to the inanity you are certain I am induging in. The balls in your court and it just landed where it hurts the most.
As to Ebert being "my hero," categorically a falsehood. You obviously haven't been following the film threads well enough to know I've criticized him on many occassions.
It took me about eight days to regain my cable internet connection, LW. I regained my connection just last night. I just read your reply today. I didn't take eight days to reply to you. You give yourself way too much credit there, LW.
Instead of leaving it at agreeing to disagree you throw in your inane slight, putting the ball in my court, and then respond with your arrogant ignorance. My statement about your quip merely shows that I was unfamiliar with the book title you were quoting. Unfamiliarity is not "craziness."
So, Ebert isn't your hero, then don't take what I have to say about him so personally.
I haven't been followng because I'm lazy...but are you guys aruging over f'n NAPOLEAN DYNAMITE?!?!?!?!?
Dumbest movie eva.
Endorsed by SDH.
Adolescent minds seem to like it SDH and those who are unfamiliar with the real world, aka craziness.
Yeah, well, your Mom went to college!
Actually she didn't but I did. This movie is still way on the back burner for me -- too many bad responses from friends and relatives, notwithstanding Ebert or the other critics who panned it. I was assuming as it was well received at Sundance that Ebert would at least be kind. Anyway, this seems to be enough said about this movie, so Bye!
Flick
I also watched Napoleon Dynamite with my 17 year old daughter. I didn't think it was a particularly hilarious movie but it was funny. My daughter bought the "It's a Liger" T-shirt.
All and all I enjoyed watching it although I may have been disappointed if I had gone to the theater to see it.
I finally got a shot at seeing it on HBO -- not an awfful movie and actually better than average soft comedy. I think it's overpraised as I would not make it a point to see it again. As to any nerd/geek being offended and put off by the movie, I still feel that's a fantasy. The movie attempts to show "they're human, too" but in a rather absurd way and missed the target as a coming-of-age movie.
