IMO, thees ar interesting in the kreativity thru limitation kind of way. Som great films among them.


Inklusion kriteria:

  • Any film mention on a paj that kontains a list of such films.
  • A such film nown by me.

Exklusion kriteria:

  • If it is nown to me to not be at rufly one lokation.
  • If i kanot find/uniqly identify it on IMDb; bekus it isnt ther or ther ar too many films with the same name.


The list

I sorted the list after falling rating on IMDb.

Download the list: List of films with one or very few lokations

Name Year IMDb rating
12 Angry Men 1957 8.9
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest 1975 8.8
Rear Window 1954 8.7
Reservoir Dogs 1992 8.4
La passion de Jeanne d’Arc 1928 8.3
Persona 1966 8.2
Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? 1966 8.2
Rope 1948 8.1
Dial M for Murder 1954 8.1
Sleuth 1972 8.1
Dog Day Afternoon 1975 8.1
Dogville 2003 8.0
Såsom i en spegel 1961 8.0
The Night of the Living Dead 1968 8.0
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof 1958 8.0
Lifeboat 1944 7.9
The Breakfast Club 1985 7.9
Clerks. 1994 7.9
Glengarry Glen Ross 1992 7.9
127 Hours 2010 7.8
Le locataire 1976 7.8
Wait Until Dark 1967 7.8
Saraband 2003 7.7
Der Totmacher 1995 7.6
Grand Hotel 1932 7.6
Shinjû: Ten no amijima 1969 7.6
The Evil Dead 1981 7.6
Cube 1997 7.5
My Dinner with Andre 1981 7.5
Donzoko 1957 7.5
Obsession 1949 7.5
The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant 1972 7.4
Secret Honor 1984 7.4
Marat/Sade 1967 7.4
Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean 1982 7.3
The Descent 2005 7.3
Identity 2003 7.3
Tape 2001 7.2
Russkiy kovcheg 2002 7.2
Phone Booth 2002 7.2
Clue 1985 7.2
Vanya on 42nd Street 1994 7.2
Môjû 1969 7.2
Buried 2010 7.1
Hwal 2005 7.1
8 femmes 2002 7.0
2LDK 2003 7.0
Gouttes d’eau sur pierres brûlantes 2000 6.9
Interview 2007 6.9
Panic Room 2002 6.9
Deathtrap 1982 6.9
What Happened Was… 1994 6.9
Butterflies Are Free 1972 6.9
Closet Land 1991 6.8
1408 2007 6.8
House on Haunted Hill 1959 6.8
Exam 2009 6.8
Steamers 1983 6.7
Oleanna 1994 6.7
Aragami 2003 6.7
The Last Castle 2001 6.6
Paranormal Activity 2007 6.5
The Big Kahuna 1999 6.5
Devil 2010 6.4
Frozen 2010 6.3
Vacancy 2007 6.3
Inserts 1974 6.2
Gerry 2002 6.2
De Lift 1983 6.2
Lord of the Flies 1990 6.2
Bug 2006 6.0
P2 2007 5.9
Open Water 2003 5.9
Two girls and a guy 1997 5.6
Troll 1986 3.8
The Manipulator 1971 3.1

I was thinking and doing som reserch about one of my kurent projects: Making an English languaj that is syntakialy limited such that it makes posible automatik translation into lojikal formalism. I stumbled akros som prety interesting artikles listed below:

One of them has a website wher one kan find an introduktion to the system. It is aktualy very good and worth reeding. It is a 80 paj powerpoint presentation turned into PDF.

The 1944 paper kritikal of Basic English: How Basic Is Basic English?

The benefits of using plain languaj ar rather obivus and konkreet. Using non-plain languaj makes komunikation take longer and proseed les optimal. This is mostly just waste of time but somtimes it is a mater of life and deth.

My (it is shared) projekt has som on-going diskusion in my forum. However, the languaj i hav in mind is mor similar to formalism than ACE is (the one linked to erlyr). I think that it is too problematik to handle nested konditionals with quantifyrs like:

F1. (∀y)(∀xFxy→Gxy)→Fy

in sylogistik languaj, i.e., as in sentenses like:

S1. “All men are human.”

Rather, one needs sentenses that ar harder to understand and les like ordinary English but beter for formalization like:

S2. “For any X, if X is a man, then X is a human.”

In simple kases, such as the example sentenses with the form:

F2. ∀xMx→Hx

ther is no need for mor advansed sentense syntax, but in the kase of the formalization F1 ther is need for such sentenses.

The evidens seems to be mixed. This is an unfortunate situation bekus it is a forsed chois: one has to eether take vitamins or not. The kost is the risk of geting too many vitamins, som of wich ar danjerus if one gets too many. And the kost of buying the vitamins, as in, money. The benefit is unsertain, but if one is eeting an unbalansed (watever that meens) diet, then one may not get one or mor vitamins and wil therfor, in time, sufer a vitamin deficiensy. Perhaps a kompromise is not a bad idea in this partikular kase: eet multi-vitamin pils, but only ons a week. It wud minimize the chans of geting too many of one partikular type of vitamin, and stil reduse the chans of severe malnutrition.

It wud be nise if one kud just mesur how many vitamins one is geting and then if one is mising any, take som of those.

Mass hysteria anyone?

But then again, mass hysteria does not kaus mental retardation AFAIN [as far as i no]. I think the kloo [clue] with the unusual food is the best kloo:

“Other recommendations are; a need for strengthening of the surveillance and obtain cases house by house during national immunization days and offer social support to the children with NS and encouraging parents not to isolate them. Children with Nodding Syndrome, tend to nod their heads when the patient sees food or when he/she feels cold then will develop a seizure like condition. As soon as either of these conditions is met, the afflicted will immediately begin to nod. These are brief and stop soon after the child stops eating or when they feel warm again. However, this symptom is very unusual as the patients don’t appear to suffer from seizures when they are given an unfamiliar food, for example a chocolate or non traditional food. The seizures can be severe and cause the child to fall, leading to head trauma.” (sors; my emfasis)

One hypothesis is that somthing has gon rong in an area of the brain that rekognises food or is somhow related to food, such that it trigers wenever a person detekts food. It wud be very neet if that area of the brain hapened to be near an area that has to do with temperatur chanjes, as that wud provide a unifyd explanation.

To test the hypothesis, i propose puting somone with the disees in a brain skaner and provoking a reaktion. Also, provide the person with som unusual food and note the efekts on the brain.

This is about the kontroversy that hapened after Dawkins published his The Selfish Gene book.

I was reeding Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea wen i saw a referens to the kontroversy (p. 362). Having diskused it befor (with the mod on FRDB with the unrememberable name that begins with A), i resently diskovered that i hav akses thru my university to akademik papers. I used that akses to download the relevant papers and reed them. Il post them here in kase anyone els in interested/kurius about that kontroversy.

The outline is this:

It is interesting to note that the komonly used frase “the law of the jungle” (DA “jungleloven”), was aktualy populaized as meening somthing els than wat we use it to meen today. Mackie mentions this, but see also Wikipedia:

A benefit of reeding the texts of this kontroversy (i red Dawkins’ book years ago), was to (re-)diskover this nise quote about metafors:

“At times, gene language gets a bit tedious, and for brevity and vividness we shall lapse into metaphor. But we shall always keep a sceptical eye on our metaphors, to make sure they can be translated back into gene language if necessary.” (p. 45 in The Selfish Gene)

Sins the title of my blogs in based on the idea that languaj influenses thots and reversely, it seems apropriate to rite a bit about this. I did som reeding on the subjekt, perhaps u wil enjoy it as wel.

An esay riten for the intelijent layperson wich sums up the history of the idea and mentions a few kases. Most of the spase is spent on elaborating on the usual but fasinating finding that many languajes do not hav words for the relational direktions, i.e., they lak equivalents of “left”, “right”, “in front of”, etc. However, they stil hav words for the kardinal direktions, i.e., they hav equivalents of “north”, “east”, “south”, “west”. Som things that we kan eesyly deskribe, ar very hard to diskribe in such a languaj.

The Wikipedia paj is also worth reeding.

I hav, ofk, notised the problem with using reformed spelings and trying to rite klear, eesy understandable languaj. Reformed spelings make it harder to reed the text. But i stil strive to keep the text klear in other ways, i.e.: simple syntax, using simpler words wen posible. In short, jeneraly folowing Orwell’s advise.
David Rosenhan – On being sane in insane places – 1973

Reed and weep. Think about it next time u watch one of the many films deeling with this problem, e.g.:

Reeding Wikipedia’s entry on the subjekt very much gives me the impresion that this is another term that we shud do away with (taboo). I.e., we shud stop using it and use som other mor useful konsept. Primarily, two such konsepts has been popularized: anti-social personality disorder (aka. ASPD) and dissocial personality disorder.

Other reserchers seem to agree with my asesment. I serched a bit for relevant papers and found three, of wich i kud also get akses to one of them (eeven using my university akses):

John Gunn and Graham Robertson (1976). Psychopathic personality: a conceptual problem. Psychological Medicine, 6 , pp 631-634 doi:10.1017/S0033291700018274. PubMed.


“The concept of psychopathic personality is currently being called into question. Grendon prison has been established for the treatment of psychopaths. A recent study of Grendon prisoners enabled an examination of some characteristics commonly attributed to psychopaths to be carried out. It proved difficult to obtain good agreement in rating such phenomena as “conscientiousness”, “sexual deviation”, “impulsiveness”. Of ten reliable variables including “personal relationships”, “lying”, “alcohol problem”, only five bore a significant relationship one to another. It was concluded that whilst the term “psychopathic disorder” may be appropriate for a small handful of individuals the term is probably now used too widely and too loosely.”

Blackburn, R. (1988). “On moral judgements and personality disorders. The myth of psychopathic personality revisited.”. The British Journal of Psychiatry 153 (4): 505-12. doi:10.1192. PubMed.

Quote from the konklusion:

“It must be concluded that the current concept of psychopathic or antisocial personality remains ‘a mythical entity’. The taxonomic error of confounding different universes of discourse has resulted in a diagnostic category that embraces a variety of deviant personalities. Such a category is not a meaningful focus for theory and research, nor can it facilitate clinical communication and prediction. Indeed, a disorder defmed by past history of socially deviant behaviour is permanently fixed, and cannot provide a point of reference for clinical intervention. Such a concept is little more than a moral judgement masquerading as a clinical diagnosis.

Given the lack of demonstrable scientific or clinical utility of the concept, it should be discarded. This is not to arguethat sociallydeviant behaviouris unrelated to personality characteristics, but the nature of such a relationship is a question for theory and research. To define a disorder of personality in terms of socially deviant behaviour is to prejudge the issue. Our understanding of how the attributes of the person contribute to socially deviant or other problematic behaviour willonly progress when we have an adequate system for describing the universe of personality deviation. Focus on an ill-conceived category of psychopathic personality has merely served to distract attention from the development of such a system.”

Ogloff, JR. (2006), “Psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder conundrum.”. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Jun-Jul;40(6-7):519-28. PubMed.


“Psychopathy has traditionally been characterised as a disorder primarily of personality (particularly affective deficits) and, to a lesser extent, behaviour. Although often used interchangeably, the diagnostic constructs of psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and dissocial personality disorder are distinct. In this article, the relevant historical and contemporary literature concerning psychopathy is briefly reviewed. The diagnostic criteria for psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and dissocial personality disorder are compared. Consideration is given to the assessment, prevalence, and implications of psychopathy for violence risk and treatment efficacy. The DSM-IV-TR criteria for antisocial personality disorder, in particular, are largely behaviourally based. The ICD criteria for dissocial personality disorder, while paying more attention to affective deficits, also do not represent the broad personality and behavioural components of psychopathy. Since 1980, a great deal of research on these disorders has been conducted, using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, Revised (PCL-R). The PCL-R assesses both personality (interpersonal and affective) and behavioural (lifestyle and antisocial) deficits. As such, the research and clinical implications of psychopathy, as operationalised by the PCL-R, cannot be readily extrapolated to the diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder and dissocial personality disorder. As currently construed, the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder grossly over-identifies people, particularly those with offence histories, as meeting the criteria for the diagnosis. For example, research shows that between 50% and 80% of prisoners meet the criteria for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, yet only approximately 15% of prisoners would be expected to be psychopathic, as assessed by the PCL-R. As such, the characteristics and research findings drawn from the psychopathy research may not be relevant for those with antisocial or dissocial personality disorder. “

This topic coms up so ofen (on /lit/) that i hav decided to rite this post so that i can just link to it and copypasta from it wenever i need to anser that question again. A cached anser.

Q: I want to get into philosophy, what should I read?

A: Basicaly, ther ar three aproaches.

1) The history aproach

Basicaly, giv the person a history of filosofy and let him reed that, and then reed up on the stuf he liked in it, if anything. Typical books recomended for this aproach ar:

Bertrand Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy.

Anthony Kenny’s A New History of Western Philosophy

LessWrong recomends: The Great Conversation, 6th edition, by Norman Melchert.

I find this aproach very boring and bad. Bad becus it does not inform the reeder wich stuf is important to pay atention to and wich stuf is not. Most works of filosofy cosist of mostly trash, so such (good) advice is important.

2) The topical aproach

This one is eesy and not so bad. Basicaly, one shud start reeding about the stuf that interests one in filosofy in good sources. If one is compleetly unfamiliar with the scolarship on som particular subject, Wikipedia is probably the best place to begin (as with prety much everything els).

Wen Wikipedia is not enof, ther ar primarily two good sources to go to next:

1) SEP = Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and 2) IEP = Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Somtimes, neether of thees hav anything worthwile on the topic or somone els has somthing worthwile on the topic. Using Google is helpful as one may discover very valuable sources of information.

3) The textbook aproach

The last aproach is not used as much as it shud (the first aproach is almost always used, regretably). It is simple. Giv the person a textbook on filosofy. Not surprisingly, books designed to be good at introducing a person to a topic ar usualy the best at the job, this aplys to filosofy as wel. I particularly like W. V. Quine, J. S. Ullian – The Web of Belief, but other peeple tend to like Russell’s The Problems of Philosophy.

Thees days, ther ar a variety of choices to choose from, including many internet options.

Q: Wat do u sujest?

I sujest a mixtur of (2) and (3) with a litle bit of (1).

I noticed one thing today wile reeding Wikipedia articles (a hoby of mine that consumes a surprisingly larj amount of time). Supose one wanted to abreviate “konsentration” (equiv. of EN “koncentration”). One myt use “kons.”. But sins that in DA definit articles ar aded as sufixes to words and ar not expresed with a (stand alone) word, how does that work?

One cud go for “kons.en” but that wud be very od and probably seen as a mistake by the reeder.

One cud go for “konsen” but that is a bad idea for two reesons: 1) It is not very clear to the reeder that it is actualy the definit form of “kons.” now that the dot is mising. 2) it risks confusion with another word if ther hapens to be a word speled “[abreviation]+[definit article sufix]”, e.g. if ther hapened to be a word speled “konsen”.

One cud go for “kons’en”, and this is the most comon solution, but it is again suboptimal becus now the dot is mising wich is the normal indicator that the word (or ‘word’ if it is an acronym like VCR) is an abreviation.