I can't tell you how many times I've stopped at Andersen's, which is exactly halfway between my house (Oxnard) and my mom's house (Atascadero). There are enormous signs up and down the 101, sometimes like 80-100 miles away from the restaurant. If you regularly drive that stretch, you can't not know about it.

I mean, that's only possible if one chooses to ignore a great deal of what's in the Koran. But the same is true of Christianity and the Old Testament. (It's almost as if we shouldn't base our moral code on books written thousands of years ago.)

This is their first communiqué in the movie (as translated by the subtitles):

It's totally unclear, which is typical of this movie.

It is impossible for me to say that a movie has a terrible ending without people wanting to know what it is. Plug the following into rot13.

Wasn't attempting to "smear" Johnson, and am not even sure myself whether she should have stepped in and taken the axe away, or alerted the kid's parents. (The brother had walked away.) I merely said "Discuss." It's a thorny question.

Blue premiered at Venice '93. White premiered at Berlin '94. Red premiered at Cannes '94 (three months after Berlin). And they were staggered the same way in their original U.S. release. So Wikipedia is correct. But I believe Kieslowski said at the time that the order doesn't matter.

Oh, sorry, didn't see that. (Which is what the other person should have said to begin with.)

Read the thread. This person didn't miss a sentence. When I pointed out that the fun fact is addressed in the review, the reply wasn't "Oops, sorry, didn't see that." It was "I didn't read the review." Well, fine, but then don't post a fun fact that might well be in the review, opening with "Did you know that…?"

Not personal at all. I'd respond similarly if someone else had written the piece. In fact I think I have in the past. It's just plain obnoxious to make a factually-based comment that's in the article itself. You're wasting everyone's time.

The "fight" is not about theological trivia. It's about having the courtesy not to post a comment saying "Hey, did you know X?" when the answer may very well be, "Yes, we all know X, because X is mentioned in the very thing that you're commenting on." At least skim the piece to make sure you're adding something.

Pretty sure it's because of the limited theatrical re-release.

Nope. I think this particular brand of comment obnoxiousness is well worth calling out. Was especially amused by the blithe tone of your second comment, which seemed to imply that actually reading the article on which you're commenting—with said comment sharing a piece of factual information that, sure enough, is in…

Oops, I misremembered this. It was David Denby who hated Three Colors, and Rosenbaum wrote a long piece defending Kieslowski, which quoted Denby's criticisms at length. Hence my confusion (it's been a long time).

Kieslowski was pretty brutally dismissed by Jonathan Rosenbaum around the time of Three Colors, and his rep has never really recovered in certain like-minded circles.

The subtitles on the Facets DVDs are pretty terrible. Not in the sense of being a poor translation (I wouldn't know), but a surprising amount of dialogue just doesn't get subtitled at all. Nothing crucial, I'm pretty sure—you can usually intuit what's being said, which I guess is why they didn't bother—but it's still…

I see. Thanks for only inadvertently repeating one part of it, in that case.

You're right, I completely forgot about the super-green look of Five (mostly because it's one of only two that I didn't rewatch this week, having seen it more recently than the others, along with Six). Most of them do fit that description, though; I was surprised by how uniform the experience is.

Yes I did. In fact I mention that in the review: "In some cases, it’s easy to tell which commandment is being examined, regardless of whether you can recall the order (which varies denominationally anyway)"

I continue to defend it because it's not invalid. I naturally assumed (and I maintain that's it's a completely natural assumption, not something that should be "researched") that the symbolic broken leg was conceived at the script level. Turns out it wasn't, but that doesn't significantly change anything, for the…