parcival-3
Joined Jan 2008
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews8
parcival-3's rating
First, as a cancer survivor, I defend the use of powerful pain-reduction drugs. Ibuprofen won't help with some of the exteme pain.
Next, some of the ODs are a consequence of idiocy, i.e., people mixing alcohol with opioids, something that's not the drug manufacturer's fault.
But the film is not so much a critique of the drugs but of their oversales. And the young women who played the sales force, the mentor was effectively evil, and the other one-I don't want to give anything away--was prone to extreme materialism. Great acting.
Oh, and I know that technique was typical of drug companies. The late activist Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a couple of books on the job hunt. She had a PhD is something biology related so applied for a sales position. She didn't get the job as they wanted a former cheerleader!
In any case, each episode starts with a parent or parents of victims of the oxycontin epidemic. They warn us that liberties have been taken for dramatic effect, but "my dead son or daughter" is not a fiction.
The garage owner who's injured and becomes addicted to oxycontin and it, shall I say, changes his life. (At the end of the series, you're not sure what happened to him...)
The black woman who represents the US Attorney's office who has a brother in prison for dealing drugs, and has been sentenced for a long, long term, while the Sacklers--no spoilers--do not., A key element of the story.
Part of what makes it a black comedy is the Sackler family dysfunction. The deceased patriarch and company founder reappears as a Ghost of Chrismas Past, and fights with Matthew Broderick's character, his grandson and company CEO.
Important is that their sole drive was MONEY.
I recommend it, but to through the whole series, in spite of some parts being a little hard to watch.
Next, some of the ODs are a consequence of idiocy, i.e., people mixing alcohol with opioids, something that's not the drug manufacturer's fault.
But the film is not so much a critique of the drugs but of their oversales. And the young women who played the sales force, the mentor was effectively evil, and the other one-I don't want to give anything away--was prone to extreme materialism. Great acting.
Oh, and I know that technique was typical of drug companies. The late activist Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a couple of books on the job hunt. She had a PhD is something biology related so applied for a sales position. She didn't get the job as they wanted a former cheerleader!
In any case, each episode starts with a parent or parents of victims of the oxycontin epidemic. They warn us that liberties have been taken for dramatic effect, but "my dead son or daughter" is not a fiction.
The garage owner who's injured and becomes addicted to oxycontin and it, shall I say, changes his life. (At the end of the series, you're not sure what happened to him...)
The black woman who represents the US Attorney's office who has a brother in prison for dealing drugs, and has been sentenced for a long, long term, while the Sacklers--no spoilers--do not., A key element of the story.
Part of what makes it a black comedy is the Sackler family dysfunction. The deceased patriarch and company founder reappears as a Ghost of Chrismas Past, and fights with Matthew Broderick's character, his grandson and company CEO.
Important is that their sole drive was MONEY.
I recommend it, but to through the whole series, in spite of some parts being a little hard to watch.
We're way past the 3-channel days, and now have a selection of channels of various political angles--don't get me going on some of them!--and even some, say the History Channel, from which we'd expect something credible.
As Gershwin wrote in "Porgy and Bess," "It ain't necessarily so."
Idiocy sells. In my own case, when I was about 15, long, long ago, I read "Chariots of the Gods." I was excited, thought myself to be a step beyond those ignorant fools who haven't yet seen the light.
By the time I was 16, I laughed that it was adolescent nonsense.
These post-truth, post-reading days, we often see claims as aburd as those in that "book" and we look to confirm or deny them. So we can turn to various cable channels to confirm or deny. Unfortunately, they're not very accurate or reliable.
I like those who represented truth in the film, some of whom, Jamie Ian Swiss and Michael Shermer, I've met and spoken with. But there are many others, scientists, lecturers, scholars, who had written something or lectured on it. When the material went to some of those media, their words were pathietically misrepresented.
That's the whole theme of the film. It's well done, reasonably entertaining, not pedantic.
It's a film that I purchased and show to some "true believers," especially those who refer to some of those cable channels as credible information sources.,
My profound hope is that some of the channels are better at screening what they show. I may, if they do so, watch them. Until then, I recommend Science Friction.
As Gershwin wrote in "Porgy and Bess," "It ain't necessarily so."
Idiocy sells. In my own case, when I was about 15, long, long ago, I read "Chariots of the Gods." I was excited, thought myself to be a step beyond those ignorant fools who haven't yet seen the light.
By the time I was 16, I laughed that it was adolescent nonsense.
These post-truth, post-reading days, we often see claims as aburd as those in that "book" and we look to confirm or deny them. So we can turn to various cable channels to confirm or deny. Unfortunately, they're not very accurate or reliable.
I like those who represented truth in the film, some of whom, Jamie Ian Swiss and Michael Shermer, I've met and spoken with. But there are many others, scientists, lecturers, scholars, who had written something or lectured on it. When the material went to some of those media, their words were pathietically misrepresented.
That's the whole theme of the film. It's well done, reasonably entertaining, not pedantic.
It's a film that I purchased and show to some "true believers," especially those who refer to some of those cable channels as credible information sources.,
My profound hope is that some of the channels are better at screening what they show. I may, if they do so, watch them. Until then, I recommend Science Friction.
When I was about 10, I was sleeping outside with friends. We saw something, probably Venus, that swung to the right and turned into a disc. So it seemed.
I was a believer!
Over the years, after, for example, a period in which I challenged the JFK assasination, I "matured" and became a skeptic overall.
This wonderful film demonstrates angles I'd never even considered as the the reliability of UFO sightings. They relied not only on Brian's skeptical expertise--Thanks, Brian--but also Steven Novella and even Jimmy Carter, another "witness" of yore.
For instance, what if some extraterrestrials had visited 22 million years ago? Not only WHY might they have visited, but (2) how long would it have taken for them to get here from wherever and (3) Does their species even still exist?
(Look at our primate/human timeline: we've only been here for a few seconds!)
I think legitimate skepticism is a valid, and necessary institution in the post-truth nature of our times. This is so good I recommend it as a primer to skepticism and as an expose as to the absurdity of the dogma of the ufologists, many of which infect us.
You need to convince a true believer? Show it.
I was a believer!
Over the years, after, for example, a period in which I challenged the JFK assasination, I "matured" and became a skeptic overall.
This wonderful film demonstrates angles I'd never even considered as the the reliability of UFO sightings. They relied not only on Brian's skeptical expertise--Thanks, Brian--but also Steven Novella and even Jimmy Carter, another "witness" of yore.
For instance, what if some extraterrestrials had visited 22 million years ago? Not only WHY might they have visited, but (2) how long would it have taken for them to get here from wherever and (3) Does their species even still exist?
(Look at our primate/human timeline: we've only been here for a few seconds!)
I think legitimate skepticism is a valid, and necessary institution in the post-truth nature of our times. This is so good I recommend it as a primer to skepticism and as an expose as to the absurdity of the dogma of the ufologists, many of which infect us.
You need to convince a true believer? Show it.