Top 7 Films That Everyone Has Seen Except Me
By Nat Stine
Guess what? My wife has never seen The Wizard of Oz. Can you even be-lieve that??!!!
I say this purely as defense ââ¬â to numb the inevitable shock you’ll experience as you read my list of Films Never Seen. But get out the defibrillator anyway.
7. Shrek (2001) and Shrek 2 (2004): Do you know what the third highest grossing film in US history is? Shrek 2!! Never woulda guessed it. 436.5 million clams. It must have been the stunningly handsome leading man.
6. Pretty Woman (1990): Ah, yes ââ¬â the film that propelled Julia Roberts into super-super-super-stardom. I was seventeen when this movie came out, and Julia was the hottest thing ever at the time, but I never saw it. I am heterosexual, I swear.
5. Every One of the Harry Potter Movies: Harry and his band of Brit-brats ain’t so hot. My two kids can do everything they can do ââ¬â and much more, I might add ââ¬â so why go spend the money when I can see it all at home?
4. Pretty In Pink (1985): The second “pretty” film on the list. You’d think that this Child of the Eighties would have seen this little snapshot of his decade, but hey ââ¬â next time you see Bill Stevenson, ask him what movie he hadn’t even heard of ‘til like two years ago.
3. Gone With The Wind (1939): 1939 ââ¬â arguably the true Year of the Film (The Wizard of Oz, Stagecoach, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, et al). However, my guess would be that fewer people than I think (that are still alive, anyway) have seen this one.
2. Titanic (1997): THE highest grossing film of all time in the US and worldwide. It’s not such a big deal to me; I know how it ends.
1. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) AND The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003): I know, I know. I’ve been meaning to, it’s just that I was having babies and…I mean my wife was having babies…and we just never…um…uh…oh, I don’t know.
I’ll get around to it ââ¬â right after Rachel finishes The Wizard of Oz.
Posted by Nat Stine at August 27, 2006 9:48 PM
Comments
Oh, c'mon! You can address the issue of advocating theocracy in fewer than 900 words!
I can't pretend to understand the drug trade, or the consequences of legalization. But I do find it odd that it is perfectly legal to drink alcohol until you can't walk, and also legal to inhale smoke from a smoldering dried plant wrapped in paper. It is even fine to do both at the same time. But somehow using one thing to do both is prohibited.
Posted by: Bill S at August 7, 2005 11:16 PM
Great piece Kevin. It looks like you read some of Milton Friedman's works. Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote about how government should not make illegal everything immoral because of man's sinful nature everybody will inevitably break a law thus lowering the respect of laws against truly egregious behavior. As a trained economist I tend to view many issues, especially behavior that has no direct harm on other, in utilitarian and cost/benefit terms. Although on some of the most important issues facing society today, especially cloning and stem cell research, a purely utilitarian analysis ignoring the humanistic element might lead us down a road we do not want to go.
Posted by: Michael Kim at August 9, 2005 6:25 PM
Bill and Michael: Thank you for your comments! Even though I am a libertarian, I must confess that I have read very little of Milton Friedman's work (shame on me). I agree that there are limits to utilitarianism, especially for Christians. In terms of embryonic stem cell research, the question boils down to personhood and the beginning of life: At what point does the soul enter the material world? What role does "consciousness" play, and is it possible to measure that? If personhood ("soulhood" might be a better term) begins at conception, then embryonic stem cell research would be wrong - from a deontological point of view. Again, most humans are both deontologists and utilitarians, and like you, I think that more (though not all) issues can be examined from a utilitarian perspective.
Posted by: Kevin O'Donovan at August 9, 2005 7:44 PM