let the right one in

B

Bwood

Bwood
Rent it, put it in your queue. (And, heck, I'm not even a fan of vampire tales.)

Drink whatever the hell you like when you watch it.

Although you could do worse than drinking a 2007 wine of some sort. Maybe a Poulsard from Overnoy/Houillon (close to perfect), a Breton Les Galichets, a Baudry Chinon, a Produtorri Langhe Nebbiolo, a Puzelat Touraine Pinot Noir or Le Telquel, or a Pothiers Cote Roannaise Reference (all are wonderful), which is what I've been drinking lately.

Have I mentioned lately how much I like the 2007 vintage in France and Italy, to speak in overly broad terms?

Maybe the 2007 vintage is the right one.
 
I saw it. It was on the edge of excellence. Just needed a little something more for me, but very good.
 
originally posted by Joe_Perry:
I saw it. It was on the edge of excellence. Just needed a little something more for me, but very good.
Click to expand...

I thought the last shot on the train was pitch perfect, and the two young actors were stellar. And very nice cinematography.
 
I cast another vote for excellent movie. The two kids who played the leads are great, and the movie had a wonderfully spooky atmosphere.

I've also been having some luck with 2007 Loire wines. While the 2007 Ppire Briords was quite crisp, I didn't find the problems with the acidity that some have posted about. Neither did our non-winegeek guests, who finished this bottle faster than any of the others we opened. I know the regular bottling better, and have only had a couple of vintages of the Briords, but I thought it was very good. The 2007 Breton Franc de Pied was lighter and brighter than I remember the 2006. There's not a lot of tannin to resolve. I thought this was a tasty, lighter-weight red to drink now (which some will think is a good idea because it's closed with a Nomacork). Finally, the 2007 Thomas-Labaille "Monts Damns" was a beautiful match for a halibut dish at a local BYOB place: clean, crisp, and lively. It's fun to drink now, but I'll put a couple of bottles away for a few years.
 
originally posted by Bwood:

Maybe the 2007 vintage is the right one.
Click to expand...

It was sure fantastic in Paso Robles and the Edna Valley, particularly for the Rhne varieties.

-Eden (but you already knew that, from reading about it in your allocation letters from Saxum, Alban, and Turley)
 
originally posted by Steve Guattery:
While the 2007 Ppire Briords was quite crisp, I didn't find the problems with the acidity that some have posted about. Neither did our non-winegeek guests, who finished this bottle faster than any of the others we opened.
Click to expand...

It amazes me that someone would actively purchase Briords only to call it too acidic.

I've found that folks love it, geek and non-geek alike.
 
You guys are killing me. I had the DVD from Netflix at my place for almost two weeks before I ended up sending it back without watching it. I just never found myself in the mood for a Swedish vampire movie (even knowing how good it is). I'm getting our new TV delivered today, so that will be motivation for seeing it on a much larger screen in the near future. Though part of me doesn't want to see the US DVD release as apparently they've "dumbed down" the subtitles from the theatrical release let the wrong subtitle in. I just keep hearing how good it is.

As for the Pepiere, my three cents are that at the moment I much prefer the regular bottling to the Briords, but I think that in a year or two (or more) the Briords will be the one on top.
 
originally posted by lars makie:
I just never found myself in the mood for a Swedish vampire movie (even knowing how good it is).
Click to expand...

I've had this problem lately with film in general. As good as I know many things to be, I've had problems being in the mood for anything of real depth that wasn't of the long form narrative type.

As for the Pepiere, my three cents are that at the moment I much prefer the regular bottling to the Briords, but I think that in a year or two (or more) the Briords will be the one on top.
Click to expand...

I always like Briords more. I think an argument can be made about one showing better than the other, but Briords is always the innately higher quality wine.
 
originally posted by VLM:

I always like Briords more. I think an argument can be made about one showing better than the other, but Briords is always the innately higher quality wine.
Click to expand...

Since I started buying both in 2000 2007 is the first vintage where I've had a strong preference for the regular Pepiere over the Briords. I'm not saying it won't come around with time, just that I didn't actually enjoy it that much currently. Which shocked me as that's never happened before.
 
I always like Briords more. I think an argument can be made about one showing better than the other, but Briords is always the innately higher quality wine.
Click to expand...
Sure, but those are two different arguments. Unless you're Parker, in which case "I like" = "innately higher quality," Q.E.D.
 
originally posted by Thor:
I always like Briords more. I think an argument can be made about one showing better than the other, but Briords is always the innately higher quality wine.
Click to expand...
Sure, but those are two different arguments. Unless you're Parker, in which case "I like" = "innately higher quality," Q.E.D.
Click to expand...

One doesn't have to be Parker to question whether their is any difference in the distinction between "I like," and "I think it has innately higher quality." Unless one pointlessly trivializes the meaning of "I like" to "it tickles my lower order gratifications," if one thinks something has a high quality, one must like it and if one thinks it has a higher quality, one must like it more. Parker's error is in fact precisely thinking that he can perceive an innate quality that differs from mere liking.

VLM's distinction on the other hand is coherent. One can think that the regular sometimes shows better than the Briords, but in time the quality of the Briords will show through.
 
Well, we've had this argument before, so there's no need to revisit.

But:

unless one pointlessly trivializes the meaning of "I like" to "it tickles my lower order gratifications"
Click to expand...
Surely you know that there are many for whom that's exactly what it means. I'd give you a URL, but we'd have to wake Chris up.
 
So when someone says, "you think Dickens is a lousy writer?" and I say "No, I like Bleak House and Our Mutual Friend, it's just Old Curiosity Shop that stinks," and I'm making a standard statement of aesthetic evaluation (the one Kant distinguishes from "Canary Wine tastes good to me," because Kant didn't think there was any such thing as even a coherent call on others to share one's tastes), it turns out I'm speaking German?
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
So when someone says, "you think Dickens is a lousy writer?" and I say "No, I like Bleak House and Our Mutual Friend, it's just Old Curiosity Shop that stinks,"
Click to expand...

Really? I always thought it was one of his better comedies (with the obligatory nod to Mr. Wilde).
 
You might as well be.

Look, maybe I'm the only person in the world who thinks this way, though I doubt it. (Actually, I know I'm not, because my wife thinks the same way.) But the statements "X is better than Y" and "I like Y more than X" are not inherently contradictory to me, never have been, and never will be. No matter how many dead people think otherwise.

If you can't, or Kant can't, imagine how that could be, then you and Kant can't. I can't imagine how anyone could like Mollydooker, but people do. And we carry on despite this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top