Hacker News Reader

Comment by ciaranbradley | Hacker News Reader

I'm ashamed to say I haven't seen this movie yet, I must order the DVD this weekend, (now that I've been reminded for the umpteenth time).

On a side note, my biggest annoyance with Wikipedia is manifest in articles about movies. For some reason, they allow an editorial policy of essentially writing out a scene by scene account of a movie.

View on HN

It's on Netlfix Streaming if you have an account...Was recommended to me last week by the system - which I'm definitely glad for.

I'm in the UK, I'm not sure whether Netflix is over here yet. Not to worry, it's on a retail website for reasonable money, and I wouldn't mind owning a copy :)

... and it's expiring from Netflix Streaming Sunday midnnight (5/30) so catch it today!

... and it's expiring from Netflix Streaming Sunday midnight (5/30) so catch it today!

True, but it's informational not editorial. I think the best they could really do is have a spoiler/non-spoiler view.

They used to have a spoiler warning in movie articles but they got rid of it. I kind of liked it, but I suppose it made it seem less like an encyclopedia article and more like a forum post.

I agree that it's an informational site, but the nicest to read information adheres to editorial principle. To me, information for information's sake is a poor substitute to well crafted, and concise "simply what you need to know".

I would stress that not all of Wikipedia falls into that trap. Obscure information (histories of places, etc) read quite well, and tend to get the information balance right. However, pop culture and movies in particular, seem to attract a kitchen sink style, as though someone just sat through the film with a laptop, and typed up everything as it was happening on the screen in front of them.

It's indeed informative. Now I have to watch it five more times to understand what the wikipedia article says.

From about two or three viewings, I got about a third of it right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com