Slashdot Mirror
Always Look on the Bright Side of Life
Dolemite_the_Wiz writes "The BBC reports that Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' will be re-released, with the remaining Python troupe's full support, in US theaters next month. The Film's Distributor, Rainbow Film Company are marketing the film as an alternative to all the hype that Mel Gibson's film 'The Passion of the Christ' has generated. Trailers for the Film will begin running in theaters on Good Friday. Wait until Biggus Dickus hears about this!"
I think this is a great thing to take that as humoristic rather than serious.
I never got the chance to see the movies on the big screen, so it will certainly be an interesting experience to have it in theaters again. I can only imagine the kind of crowds it will draw, though :)
KappaStone
there was a heated debate on TV between Palin and some religious guy.
Have religious people took the stick out their ass, or will there be more criticism?
Have you ever seen a movie in a theater?! I have, it's a heck of a lot better than watching it at home. Thus, THAT'S the advantage of re-releasing a movie to the theater. We get a chance, or a second chance, to see a great movie on a large screen.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
There are plenty of products on the market that prove that consumers do not act logically. Why else would people pay hundreds of dollars for a stuffed animal (a.k.a. beanie baby)???
Or why do people trade most of their tax return in order to get credit to lease a car, that they will wind up paying wayyy more than what it is worth.
Heck, I don't even make logical economical decisions all the time. Besides which, this offers the opportunity to go out and see it in the theatre... a potential good time with all your friends.
anyway, point being... consumers aren't always logical.
DATA comments; PROC SORT DATA = comments BY score; PROC DELETE comments >> 1; RUN; DATA entertainment SET commen
have always been the masters of irreverence. The silly and sometimes seemingly lame sketches have always just been a veneer over them thumbing their noses at God, Queen and Country, bureaucracy, castes and whatever else they thought deserved a bit of a dressing down. Satire was their means of writing an indignant letter to the editor.
I know in Canada This Hour has 22 Minutes fills a similar role, what American comedy troups or performers do this in the U.S.?
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
Call me flamebait, but I always thought Life of Brian was the Pythons' best work. Highly underrated, IMO.
With as much crap as is released today, I'll gladly contribute my share to all of the folks who contributed to making and re-releasing this movie. I never understood why "timeless classics" stop playing in theaters. How many times have you wanted to go see a movie, in a theater (for a date, or just to get out of the house) and ended up watching something terrible like "scooby doo" because nothing good was playing? Life of Brian in the theaters will be an event to remember. Screw dressing up for star wars (every theatrical release of star wars post 1990 has been disappointing), I'm going to dig up my "Big Nose" costume.
Hail theathar! and Welease Wodewik!
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
Nothing like the theatre experience. Frigid temperatures, people talking behind you, people trying to get by at the best parts, projectionist who falls asleep at the reel change, overpriced tickets, popcorn, soda and candy, sticky floors, long lines all to see a comedy? Star Wars, Matrix, Jurassic Park - these are movies that are much better in the theatre. For watching a comedy with zero special effects and stereo sound there is nothing better then the couch.
As a thinking Christian (Yes, such can and do exist), I never really had a problem with Life of Brian. It contains nothing which denies or detracts from the life and acts of Jesus, and accurately portrays the unthinking masses in a clever and thought provoking way.
Really, the whole point of the film is that an awful lot of people believe things without fully thinking them through.
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
Obviously you've forgotten about the spaceship scene. "You lucky bastard."
Despite how geniously funny this movie is, it is also a great look at how ridiculous terrorism is. I can't stop laughing at the hate the two terrorist groups in the movie have for each other, the People's Front of Judea, and the Judean People's Front. It's like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestein and the Palestein Liberation Organization. I can just image these guys sitting down saying: "What did the Israelis ever do for us?" "They gave us plumbing?" "Electricity?" "Internet?" "They built our schools?" It's just an observation, let's not turn this into a flame war.
Little Britain. It's great, but again, probably one that 95% of American's won't understand, due to cultural differences, and that won't survive a remake. Stars Matt Lucas of Shooting Stars fame.
Also good at the moment, Nighty Night (think darker than the League of Gentlemen) and Catterick (if you like Vic and Bob that is).
Black Books is also in the middle of a very funny third series.
Of course most of these are shows that have probably never been heard of in the US - pity, so visit BBC Comedy and Black books for more detail.
MP have never made any claims of not cashing in! Somewhere in my collection is a record entitled something like Monty Python: The Final Ripoff>. Frankly, I respect them for seizing the moment. I had been thinking of trying to book The Passion of the Christ and Life of Brian for a double feature over at the brew cinema.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
yeah yeah troll. think about this:
If religion didn't already exist, P.T. Barnum would have invented it.
I hope you understand my real point in this headline instead of modding me down.
Instead of letting Life of Brian stand on its own, you just have to draw the the comparison between the Passion and proudly declare the the seasonal alternative. If I didn't know better, your end statement seems to imply you feel very threatened by Passion and comforted by Life of Brian.
Here's a small hint: live and let live. Nobody is forcing you to watch Passion. For a lot of geeks, the release of Passion would've been just as big a news item as this, but it has a snowball's chance on a blue star of having that happen. If you're not comfortable enough with your beliefs to let Life of Brian stand on its own, or feel that you need to try to counter or bring down the beliefs of others, then you need to address your own personal crisis without dragging all of Slashdot in with you.
No matter what I believe, I recognize your right to believe whatever else you want. You should do the same. Just don't use Slashdot as your religious indoctrination platform. You'd be smart to leave those comments to the comments and not risk losing a small segment of readers who see the comment for what it is and threaten your ad revenue. Most of us don't go around trumpeting our religious beliefs at work, so don't do it here.
My local university put Pink Floyd's 'The Wall' on the big screen back in 198x. First (and only) time I've ever seen it, I don't want to spoil it by watching it on a tv.
Yes, if my local theatre puts Life of Brian on I'll go and see it. It's immersion vs entertainment.
Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
how many people completely miss the point of "The Passion."
Apparently they were two busy being mortified by the violence to read the subtitles which did in fact reveal much about Christ's teachings. Not only "The Passion" as in his death and resurrection but his passion as in the number of times he forgave those who were scorning him. If you notice he even forgave the people who nearly whipped him to death. The verse at the beginning was also key but apparently ignored considering all the critisism about it being anti-semetic. What part of "our" didn't they comprehend? Some guy even when so far as to try to tell Gibson to put a disclaimer at the end. IT WAS AT THE BEGINNING!
One reviewer was so dense they complained (paraphrasing) "so much for love they neighbor." What part of forgiving your tormentors isn't loving your neighbor? Geesh. Apparently we're too accustomed to Disney morality tales where it's all cutesy and they spell it out for you at the end like you're 2 years old.
The whole reason "satan" was put in was to give Mel something of a narrarator. When Satan spoke it was usually a negation of something out of the Bible. I'd imagine that people who never read the Bible (or don't know even the basics) had no clue what the point of the snake was at the beginning. It was a reference to what God said in the Garden of Eden after kicking Adam and Eve out.
This movie really revealed a lot about those who reviewed it. The people who didn't "get it" and whined about the violence and didn't catch the doctrine that was presented are probably just generally bad at philosophy or never took the time to study the Bible. It's an art film. It wasn't intended to be a mass market film.
This is not a movie that you can just be a professional critic and have a valid opinion. It's amazing how many critics complained that a square has three sides.
On Topic: Life of Brian is hilarious and I'll definitly be seeing it in the theater. I've watched the DVD many times.
I don't know if I'll buy "The Passion" on DVD. It's not exactly a movie you'd watch just for the heck of it.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Jesus is better documented than any of the Caesars
You have contemporary (and I mean contemporary, not 50, 100 years post) documentation of Jesus' life? Something that compares to Augustus' Res Gestae, Julius Caesars' Gallic Wars, Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, Trajan's letters to Pliny...I could go on...? Do please tell!--
This sig is inoffensive.
> Great movie, but way too many man-pubes!
Why ? Are you disturbed seeing dicks ? Btw, can you look at yourself in the mirror ?
In some ways you could equate the Life of Brian to a funnier Forrest Gump, but you'll have to see it to understand what that means.
If Jesus was just a clever, wise or insightful man, his entire life was essentially wasted, and on top of that he is recorded as lying about his abilities. All of the serious documentation we have available from the time (and there's a surprising amount of it) indicates that he was considerably more than that. Jesus is better documented than any of the Caesars. There's also a heck of a lot of non-literate archaeological evidence which is very difficult to explain if the canonical record is not reliable.
It is simple enough for a one-word summary explanation: bias.
Anecdotes are not considered good evidence these days.
Look at any modern-day cult leader, then analyze what their followers write about them and their abilities.
What if Jesus and L. Ron Hubbard had switched places and times... what if his followers' documentary 'evidence', written decades after the fact, were what persisted in history? Would you then argue that indeed he was a war hero who used the power of his mind to heal crippling war injuries?
How about if Jesus and Sun Myung Moon swapped? After all, on objective record Jesus was a criminal, just like Sunny boy, but his followers say differently. His followers also have documented his mystical powers.
History would make all three of these men liars if their followers' word can't be trusted and they weren't really supernaturally connected. Yet Jesus is exempt because he got a headstart on the other two gentlemen?
Give it some perspective.
The poltical/terror groups protrayed in LOB are actually pretty close to what was going on in Judea at the time. Perhaps not as comically... but pretty bloody close. The country was riddled with tiny factionalised groups trying to remove the oppresive Roman occupiers[*] and fighting amongst themselves as much as the Romans.
Alas for the Romans stationed there it was the armpit of the Empire. The Romans didnt really want Judea. It didnt really get them wealth or power. They invaded Judea at the request of the Eygptian province(which was part of the empire). Because bands of invaders keep raiding into Eygpt.
[*]Who werent actually that bad... in fact a lot of countries joined the empire without coersion as it made your country a lot better off... the romans had a standard deal to the king of a country... let us run your country but only after you die. In exchange will give you milarty support against your neighbours. A sweet deal for both parties. The romans will enventually get a new country, the neighbours wont make any trouble... but if they do the Romans have an excuse to conquer them
There are no inherent HUMAN rights beyond what a society grants to those who live it. Brutality, slavery, and callousness towards others is the norm over the course of HUMAN history. HUMAN rights as a notion is a new comer. Anyone who says otherwise is a history revisionist.
Perhaps Americans are arrogant, but to large degree Americans do have a basis for that arrogance. If the rest of the world wants what America has then stop bitching about it and do it.
I found myself amazed that this comment got modded to funny. Then I started to think about our international readership, and started wondering if global opinion about us has sunk so low that they find humor in our misfortune. Of course, we are responsible for that low opinion ourselves.
---- Just another spud server.
It does prove that there was a record of winemaking before the Romans were in Israel. And he didn't say Noah was the first to 'make wine', he said 'plant a vinyard'. Probably there's an earlier record of vinyard planting somewhere, but the point still serves. No matter how skeptical, you have to acknowledge that a people don't record acts of winemaking before they can do it themselves.
Thus, the Romans did not bring winemaking to the Jewish people. Their records of such acts radically predate the Roman invasion.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
I am rather disappointed by the reaction to this post. I understand that most of Slashdot readers are movie buffs besides being geeks and open source followers, and Monty Python has a strong following among them. However, considering the reaction this post has drawn, much of it disrespectful to the Christian faith, I wonder: What has this got to do with open source and the open source community (remember - OSDN)? That is the main reason I read Slashdot, and is what I understand to be the main purpose for Slashdot. I understand Micheal posted this with informative intent, but I think there are more appropriate websites for these kind of announcements.
Why does this person feel like The Passion needs some kind of antidote? Why should this movie need "counter-programming"? What's wrong with having a millions of people very interested in a film which, like it or not, has serious artistic merit? Even if it didn't have artistic merit, why should a popular movie need an alternative?
Quite obviously, despite protestations to the contrary of aethiests, agnostics and liberals, thier desires to push thier own beliefs on the world are just as strong as the Christians they're constantly accusing.
Sighted person: Okay, stand right where you are.
Blind skeptic: Why?
SP: I'm going to take ten paces away from you.
BS: Okay.
SP: Now hold up one of your hands. Aha! You just raised your left hand.
BS: What about now?
SP: It's still your left hand.
BS: How did you know that?
SP: I can see.
Now have the sighted person get four items, each a different color, and hand them out. The items should have the same size, shape and texture. Have the sighted person identify each item to the person holding it. Have the sighted person occupied by a fifth volunteer so that the activites of the first four are hidden from sight. The first four will now trade with each other, whispering the color the sighted person attributed to the item he/she held. The sighted person is brought back into view and questioned about the items again. Repeat with a new group of blind volunteers. Assuming the blind are honest, this would provide proof. It's called "The Scientific Method."
On the other hand, the proofs I hear from theists include
Responses:
I know that I will hear noise about "strawman." Fair enough. Provide proof and we'll be done with it. If you can't provide proof, God is as likely to exist as the Giant Burnt Umber Crayon.
You are free to believe what you will. But unless you can demonstrate it to others, don't be indignant when others point and laugh at you when you proclaim it as truth. Don't want pointing and laughter, keep it to yourself or prove it.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
Jesus did not take his own life. He GAVE his life up while we (all of us) crucified Him. There is a difference.
Sure, he didn't pull the trigger or nail himself to a cross. On that same merit I can jump in front of a moving bus and blame the driver for not stopping. The point is that he intentionally let himself die, which qualifies him as suicidal in many people's eyes.