Slashdot Mirror
End of Some Days, Beginning of Others
"The End of Days" is aptly titled: this sorry movie marks the end of Arnold Schwarzenegger's spectacular reign as America's Armageddon Action hero. It also reminds us that Hollywood will soon have to find some doomsday vehicle other than the Millennium.
This movie - awful in almost every conceivable way - is symbolic, if not perhaps in the way it intended. This era in Apocalyptic action movies seems over.
Schwarzenegger has been making end-of-the-world Millenial movies for years, although usually much more inventive ones that this. His films have always had similar plot lines: technology and humanity will collide, possibly to destroy the earth.
In "End of Days," Schwarzenegger plays a suicidal ex-cop up against an adversary that would put Batman to shame - Satan himself. The Evil One has been loosed upon the earth to fulfill ancient prophesies that if he can bed the right virgin at the Millenial hour, the gates of Hell will open so that he and his minions can ravage the earth.
"End of Days" pretends to be a movie about faith versus ultimate evil, about belief versus high-powered shotguns. It suggests that Schwarzenegger has undergone some sort of personal conversion, as the the movie strains mightily to make a personal statement, even down to its pumped-up star's assumption of the cruciform position.
EoD is filled with religious imagery, spiritual mumbo-jumbo and clunky metaphor - fallen priests and others get crucified, burned and butchered almost continuously.
Perhaps fittingly, Satan occupies the body of an investment banker (Gabriel Byrne) as a prelude to his cosmic sexual assault. Byrne is a bright, enthusiastically malignant spot in this dreary tale.
As you might expect, Satan is only nearly as tough as Schwarzenegger, and not nearly as willful. Satan can turn people and buildings into fire, blow up whole blocks with a glare, heal bullet wounds with a touch of his finger, alter fate and time. But he can't quite seem to get his hands on the girl or polish off a suicidal, alcoholic ex-cop or even slow him down much, despite nearly two hours of sometimes mystical, always loud and explosive trying.
The EoD battles rage back and forth across New York city streets and through miles of subway tunnels. Meanwhile, back at the Vatican, the Holy Father and his gloomy cardinals fuss and mumble platitudes and count down to the end of humanity, some trusting in Him, others in more practical solutions like guns and knives.
Around the world, the clerical forces of good are huddled in church basements clacking furiously away at their computer terminals, one of the movie's only original touches (only for the life of me, I can't imagine what they were browsing for).
One of the great blessings of the onrushing Millenium is that there can't be any more movies about Armageddon, since it will either have come or gone.
Or not.
Still, the end of the Schwarzenegger reign - the genre has never seemed more wornout, his stunts increasingly improbably and strained - is bittersweet. In this movie, which fittingly comes with the over-hyped Millenium literally as a backdrop, he seems to be renouncing his own cinematic past, declaring faith and family more powerful than guns and brawn. He seems to be saying that while it's hard to kill Satan off with guns and bombs, pure heart and absolute belief might do it.
It's a wholesome Hollywood message but seems to signal the end of his genre, not humanity's. Movies like "Terminator" were original, even striking in their mixing of dark themes - humans versus machines, technology out of control.
Bully for Arnold if he's found some faith in his life. Really. But he didn't need to share.
The irony in this holiday season is that an animated movie with no humans in it, strikes the more timely themes of humanity, loyalty and friendship, along with technological imagination.
"Toy Story 2"And speaking of imagination, "Toy Story 2" is a knockout. The animation would be unbelievable if it weren't so believable. The movie signals the arrival not just of a breakthrough in computer animation, but the use of computer graphic technologies as a whole new art form, one with amazing creative possibilities. The writing and story line are actually better than the first "Toy Story," a rare achievement for any sequel.
"Dogma""Dogma" is, at least for its first half, a hilariously conceived, funny and brazenly blasphemous poke at Catholic doctrine. That's rare anywhere in American life, let alone from a Hollywood studio (the movie also contains a brief but savage assault on the Disneyfication of American culture). Although the movie struggles over how to end, it's so original as to be shocking.
"Dogma's" weak point is that it's not quite sure whether it wants to be funny, or seeks to make some heavy and serious points about faith and doctrine. This dichotomous struggle shows, giving the movie an oddly-split personality.
"Being John Malkovich"This may be the loopiest premise for a movie in years. A starving geek puppeteer (played by John Cusack) finds himself unexpectedly inside John Malkovich's brain, which he accesses through a closet at work. The result is a hilarious, bizarre and also original journey, the likes of which you are not likely to see very often. This movie has a bit of the same problem as "Dogma": it's a wonderful notion, but the directors aren't entirely sure where to go with it, or how to wrap it up. Still, both are well worth seeing.
"The Insider"
This is one of the best treatments of corporatism and media you'll ever see. "The Insider" purports to tell the story of the squelching of tobacco industry insider Jeffrey Wigand's landmark testimony about nicotine and cigarettes by the supposedly tough and independent-minded newscast "60 Minutes." It's the more or less true story of how CBS producer Lowell Bergman got Wigand, the former head of research at the Brown & Williamson tobacco company to break his confidentiality agreement with the company and go on camera to talk about the biggest health care reform issue in American history.
Wigand's story - that the tobacco industry not only knew that nicotine was addictive, but enhanced the level of addictions in many tobacco products - was explosive. It contradicted the sworn testimony of numerous industry executives, including "The Seven Dwarfs", the tobacco company CEO's who swore before Congress that they didn't? believe nicotine was addictive. Wigand could prove otherwise.
The testimony was suppressed by CBS lawyers - with the acquiescence of timid "60 Minutes" executives - to protect the pending sale of the company to Westinghouse.
Beyond the story of Wigand and the country's most successful TV newsmagazine, "The Insider" is the story of what happens when big corporations take over media, as they've done to virtually all of mainstream American journalism, print and broadcast.
The result isn't pretty, and it's a timely tale for people who love free speech on the Net and Web, as those very same companies are pouring online like the amoral, rapacious and greedy herd that they are.
Apart from the issues it portrays, this is just a great movie. It's mostly a very moving story about what happens to ordinary people when they get caught up in extraordinary events. And it's beautifully shot by director Michael Mann.
"American Movie"This movie blew away the judges at the Sundance Film Festival, and for good reason. It's the documentary account of the profoundly geeky Mark Borchardt, a Milwaukee, Wisconsin cemetery groundskeeper and his obsession with making a retro-horror movie named "Coven" that defies simple discription. Mark's been working on this movie in one form or another his whole life.
His dedication to completing this movie, in the face of staggering familial, financial, aesthetic and emotional odds, is nonething less than heroic. This is an amazing movie, moving, bitterly funny and just plain inspiring.
I'm not interested in any of these films. They are too pop-American for my humble taste. Now, "Wallace and Gromit" (showing this weekend on TV) is another matter. =Those= are TRUE geek movies, IMHO! I'd -love- to see a wide-screen version.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
When TUX (Wheezy) came on screen I know what toy I wanted for Christmas.
But, I can't find one anywhere.
There are 10 type of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Damn it... could you you be any harder on the movie... seems like you were already prejudiced against it before you even saw it. I personally thought it was a great movie, prehaps the most enjoyable I've seen since the matrix. Arnold's perhaps the best he's ever been... especially since Terminator 2. Byrne makes a picture perfect satan incarnate... the actors do a good job... the movies isn't overladen with special effects, and nor does it need to be. So, anyone who reads this... unless you have tast similar to the author... and even if you do... give end of days a chance... I think you'll like it.
I think this flick is still in theaters and it's definatly worth a look. Kevin Spacey has to be one of my favorite actors in a long time. The movie was one of those that had me still sitting in the theater as the credits rolled because I had taken in so much.
The Green Mile promises to be another movie in the same vein as American Beauty in that the movie leave's you in your seat at the end as you try to soak up the whole thing.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
I found Dogma to be hilarious, but I don't know how Geek-oriented it was. It does show a great deal of challenge towards traditional Catholic dogma, which is an interest shared by, but not limited exclusively to, geeks.
I also didn't see quite the split personality that Katz described in the film, I thought the transitions between comic scenes and lessons of faith were very well done. All in all an excellent film, but not for the easily-offended.
-- "God, Root, what is difference?" - Pitr, "User Friendly"
Wow. Did you get the impression that Jon Katz didn't like "End of Days" much? I suppose this validates my decision not to see it.
Toy Story 2, on the other hand, was a blast. In true Disney fashion, there were a lot of jokes thrown in for the adults in the crowd.
[semi-spolier] I was a bit surprised to find out how old Woody is, although the fact that he's made of cloth and stitching should have clued me in. I do find it interesting that both this movie and this year's Iron Giant fell back on a lot of 50s nostalgia. Unless the writers are expecting grandparents rather than parents to be escorting the kids, I wonder why the 50s are still looming so large so close to the turn of the century. [close semi-spoiler]
Of course, I had my own moment of nostalgia when Pixar chose to replay their first computer animated film from way back in (gasp) 1986. I felt suddently ancient as I sat in a room filled with people who hadn't even been born then.
I can't say Toy Story 2 was better written or conceived than the original, but they were sure both fun.
-- I'm not evil, I'm
"What is this power that Malkovich holds over us?"
---------------------------
49 20 68 61 76 65 20 74 6F 6F 20 6D 75 63 68 20 66 72 65 65 20 74 69 6D 65 2E
Out of the movies Katz reviewed here, I've only seen End of Days so far, but IMO, it wasn't nearly as horrible as Katz made it out to be. Sure it wasn't a great movie by any means, but at least it was entertaining. There were some good action sequences, special effects, and a there was some decent humor thrown in there. I agree with Katz saying how unrealistic it was, but how many movies about Satan taking over the body of a human in order to destroy the world as we know it really are? Anyway, it may not be worth the $8, but I enjoyed it. -Sub-Zero
Check out justen.org .
For Katz to blithely state that since the end of the millenium will come and go soon, we'll
be spared any more millenially-themed movies is way beyond stupid. Anyone who understands
the Bible for what it is -a mix of the Word, inspired literature, and redacted history- understands
that the millenium is not some exactly specified date, but an event. Assuming that Jesus isn't
coming back on 12/31/00, I think we'll have a lot more of these movies coming up, and if they
don't have Arnold, so what? He's not the only well-known action star out there.
I think Katz and other reviewers forget that a lot of us go to the movies to just have fun and
enjoy the explosions, not to have some deeply moving Artistic Experience.
When are Wallace and Gromit going to be on TV?
The shareholder is always right.
SH was an awesome movei, tho i am biased towards this sorta movie. Depp's facial acting and Ricci's delicability made this movie awesome. They stayed pretty close to the actual story line also, so thats a good plus. another big plus for this movie, Chris Walken. This man is a bad-ass, no doubt about it. he makes anymovie awesome.
The world is not enough was a mediocre Bond movei at best. the plot was good, but Pierce just isnt the Bond that i like, he isnt Sean. it was worth the 5.50$ i paid to see the movie, but i wont see it again, till its on TV atleast...
Gorfin
I thought TS2 was great (and, of course, our 6 year old loved it). I thought the handling of skin was much improved this time, but I was surprised that they still hadn't gotten realistic walking. Probably the biggest thing left to go is imperfections (i.e., the dust seemed 'flat', the road looked better than any actual road, and where is this town with all shiny cars :) Still, a great story makes it well worth it (plus you get to see a famous short first)
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
I don't care. I'm really not interested in this article. As for most (if not all) articles from
jonkatz.
I'm really wondering what's the guy is doing here.
-- "Life is easier since I have excluded JonKatz stories from my homepage"
You know, Blair Witch (crap as it was), came out in America on DVD before it got to the cinemas here. Can anyone explain why there is such a time lag for us to receive stuff across the Atlantic? There is no good reason that I can think of. I wish the Internet would stop mentioning films that are only out in America, it is very frustrating (The Phantom Menace is a good example, I got to hear all about how annoying Jar Jar Binks was long before it was released. I mean, not finding out the story was HARD ... I could have gone to my local book/card store and BOUGHT the official book before the movie came out!
They talk about information poor. Is this what they mean....
(JOKE: I'm surprised he didn't mention Disney here)
Here in Ireland, we're a bit behind on the movie front; it's generally out on video in the US before we get to see it.
But anyway...
Last week I saw an amusing science fiction movie called 'Tron', which starred Captain Sheridan. Great plot, great graphics... I can't recommend it highly enough.
I was also jealous to note that you've all seen the new star wars movie. I'm really looking forward to it. Is it true that it's no longer called 'Revenge of the Jedi'?
End of Days: Not every movie has to have a deep meaning or good acting. End of Days is a typical Arnold flick. Good action with enough plot to get by. Fun movie to watch, lots of skin shown. Won't ever qualify in my list of favorite movies, but worth the price of admission to be sure.
Being J.M.: This is probably the most origional movie I have seen in a fairly long time, and one of the better movies this year. I dare you to watch this movie and not laugh. Just imagining all the actors having to jump off something by the New Jersey Turnpike and landing hard in the ditch makes me smile. Acting was good, with Diaz actually holding up well with a character that doesn't fit with a normal Diaz role. I applaud.
I didn't see the others.
P.S. Any misspellings or faults of grammar you think you detect are mearly transmition errors, and probably your fault a
But I would rather my movies had real actors in them, and if need be puppets.
I loved Toy Story 2 as a story. Can't stand the CGI. Animate if you are going to animate. As great as computer animation is, there is just something missing, that artistic license I suppose.
I would rather see the obviously made up band members playing their instruments with jerky, un-natural movements, than the stupid computer generated lizard/rats running through the desert in Star Wars IV: A New Hope, after they re-released it. I didn't even bother going to the other two.
Animatronics, and stop gap animation, properly done are far better for movie going enjoyment. And once it is released to tape, there is no comparison. For some reason all CGI looks incredibly hoaky once it gets to TV.
And if Lucas had stuck to makeup and puppeteering, Jar-Jar would never have been such a prevelant pain in the ass.
All this, is of course, IMCO.
I don't think enough is being said about Being John Malkovitch. It's a truly bizarre gem of a movie, one you would expect to be made by a few stoned kids with the Sundance Festival crowd in mind, and not a US-wide distribution with a cast of well-recognisable faces.
I disagree with you. I think they had a very clear idea of where they were going, and they constantly made a point of playing with our expectations. Things like, 'Surely they can't do that to John Malkovitch!' In the end, they took what was a nifty concept, and pushed it to the extreme.
Unless, of course, when you say 'wrap up' you mean 'give a neat little happy ending where bad is punished and the hero gets the girl.'
Frankly, you should have spent more time reviewing movies you liked (like Dogma, BJM and TS2) than blasting Arnie's flick. What did you expect? Shakespeare dialogue? Incisive insight into the nature of evil? EoD doesn't pretend to be anything else than it is: an exploitation, wrapped in special effects and action, of the vaguely pop cultural notion that the world could end in 2000.
From what I understand, Coven is not the end all project for Mark Borchardt. Instead it was simply a film he was making to finance his true project which is a film about life in his Milwaukee, Wisconsin neighborhood. I have even heard talk that the filmakers who made the documentary are considering makeing a sequal of some sorts following Borchardt's further projects.
But at the same time, I thought that this movie was the darkest of Kevin Smith's movies. Besides, I'm not even supposed to be here today.
I have to agree with the assessment of these two flicks. Last weekend I saw TS2, EOD and the latest Bond flick. The only one worth anything was Toy Story II. Gabriel Byrne was the best thing about EOD (and did a good job in Stigmata too) while Denise Richards looked very good in a wet t-shirt in TWINE.
The thing I was most disappointed by was Arnie's weak attempt at acting. I normally like him, but he failed miserably at trying to play a suicidal ex-cop. It was a pale attempt at copying Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon. Mind you, he was hindered by bad writing. Not only did EOD borrow from Lethal Weapon but it also borrowed from Prince of Darkness (IMHO a much better if older movie). Now borrowing isn't bad. I just wished that they'd done something good with the borrowing. EOD was plagued by bad dialogue and bad editing.
TSII on the other hand was a nice, light comedy that was appropriate for Young-uns as well as adults. It had an interesting plot, nice dialogue, intelligent jokes and excellent animation. It was good entertainment.
TWINE was similar in feel to the last Bond flick - TND. However, it was not nearly as slick. The editing just wasn't on - the pacing felt jerky.
Dogma was as the reviewer said not quite sure what it wanted to be. I do think that it worked anyway. I really enjoyed the film and it's blend of the sacreligious, the profane, and the humourous. I am a fan of Kevin Smith and this movie reaffirms that.
Just some thoughts....
IMHO, as per
J:)
Oh well, no point in steering now.
Pretty mediocre; I've still yet to find anyone who particularly loved it. Typical Arnold Schwartzenegger movie with a theological twist. And twisted theology, at that. You'd be much better off trying to catch Gabriel Byrnes' other recent religion movie, Stigmata.
The writers of this movie appeared to have banked on Arnold's name, and not put an ounce of real creativity into the movie; the lunatic priest's name is "Thomas Aquinas". I mean, how lacking in creativity can one writing staff be?
Dogma
Sorry, John, it's only blasphemous if you let it be, and that's what that splinter-group Catholic faction has done. It's not the church as a whole, it's just a small group of people. You run into that with any denomination within the church, any church within the religion, any religion within the world. It was only blasphemous to those who don't want their beliefs to be challeged... really though, if you can't challenge your beliefs about something, you don't really believe.
In any case, this movie was excellent. Chris Rocke wasn't great, but he's a comedian, no one ever said he could act. Silent Bob's (Kevin Smith) rare one-liners were well-placed as always; the constantly-obscene Jay (Jason Mewes) gets the usual, hilarious exposure. Jason Lee was good as Azrael, but I think would have been better-suited for the role originally planned for him (Matt Damon's character, Loki).
Good discussions of faith issues, although I think they could have been longer. However, that would have bored most audiences these days. A lot of blood and guts, but it, like a lot of Smith's work, is intended, hyperbole.
In the end, a really good, really funny movie. No reason to be offended unless you take your faith so seriously (in that sense, I mean mood, not strength) that any criticism pushes your panic button... in which case, I suggest you cozy up with a Good Book.
Oh yeah. Yet Another Hicks Guy (YAHG?) shows up in this movie, too.
Everyone must see "Being John Malkovich"! It's the best movie I've seen in years! I laughed, I cried, I had a great time! :)
Perhaps now that writers will no longer have the impending millenium to prop up their plot lines we will see the return of imaginative speculative science fiction of the likes of Bradbury, Doc smith, Assimov, and Heinlen. Perhaps we will see the birth of the next centuries literary guardians. After all, Science Fiction shapes our desires for science fact, the goal is always to do what the writers said you should be able to do. Welcome the flying cars, the infinite free clean energy, and the world peace, welcome the new age of Science Fiction.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
is absolutely the best movie to come out of America in the last ten years. It's one of those movies you can easilly see several times (I've seen it twice) and still be able to discuss it after seeing it. A great plot, and amazing cast, and many different themes (sexuality, the meaning of life, free will, etc) make this into a wonderful viewing experience!
--
Deepak Saxena
Deepak Saxena
"Computers are useless, they can only give you answers" - Picasso
As for other holiday movies...
American Beauty is so good it's not even funny. It's not really a holiday movie, given how long ago it came out, but if you get the opportunity, check it out.
The new Bond flick was pretty good, though I think some of the conventions are starting to get a bit too cliche.
Dogma was awesome. In spite of what's been said, it does appeal to a geek set. It just so happens that it's not necessarily the same geeks who read Slashdot. Kevin Smith knows what he's doing, though, and the whole movie seems rather personal for him. It's great.
Finally, I thought Sleepy Hollow was just bad. It's even darker than a lot of Tim Burton's other crap, but it wasn't at all scary. Perhaps if you go into it not expecting any sort of fear, you won't be as disappointed as I was.
Well, that's my two cents.
the 50's represent a period far enough in the past that seems to many to be the "golden age".. despite the 50's discusting underbelly, it attempted to present a clean and wholesome society in backlash to the horror of the 40's war and the darkness of the 30's depression.
For the right crowd (mainly the middle and upper class white Americans), the 50's were a heyday of "Americanism", and a nice clear-cut us-versus-them of the cold war.
Now, in the age of non-identity, where being yourself is important, but having an identity that is not acceptible if it makes anyone feel uncomfortable, everyone wants to have that "American-childhood".. or at least they want to pretend that the illusion was good enough.
The 50's resurgance is like the 70's resurgence, young people can only see the images given them of a generation, and most of them provide an unclear picture of those who lived through it.
Many of the failed ideals of the 60's and failed "openness" and "friendliness" of the 70's led to the "uncertainty" of the 90's. So we explored the 60's, and we didn't like how it applied to the 90's (riots at woodstock pretty much signed and dated that death)... so now the 50's and 70's are having a go.
It is interesting to note many of the puritanical "keep it in the closet" Victorian values that are showing a resurgance...
Then Again, it could be that 50's cartoons just had a certain flair... and I'm just over analyzing.
There have been apocaliptic moves in the past and there will be more in the future. just because in a month from now we will be living -yes, i said living- in the year 2000, doesn't mean there will be no motive for these types of movies. with the progression of technology the lay-folk will find something to fear for incoherent reasons. I agree that the graphics in Toy Stroy 2 mark the begining of a whole slew of really cool CGI movies, but the story plot behind it is a genre that has been around for a long time. The movies suit 2 different audiences. I wouldn't take my little sister to EoD, and I wouldn't go to Toys Story 2 w/ "the guys". In a few years we'll just be watching movies about machines taking over their computer generated worlds. then, schwartzenegher can finally put the muscle suit away and just do voices. you've got to admit, the accent is pretty cool.
cheers
I'm sure, in minutes, there will be any number of posts alleging that the "end of days" plot line somehow invalidates Christianity. I'm sure that some people will even try to assert that, when January 1, 2000 comes, Christianity will finally be proved false. In fact, it seems that that is exactly what Jon Katz is trying to imply. This is untrue.
There are a whole range of opinions on how to interpret scripture regarding the apocalypse. Believe it or not, the "left behind" approach exemplified by "end of days" was not at all popular until about the middle of the nineteenth century. St. Augustine thought that Christ's second coming had /already happened/. For those of you who don't know, St. A was hardly a lightweight (although I tend to disagree with him on many things). I'm not saying that either one of these approaches is valid or correct: I honestly don't know. What I do know is that Jesus Himself said that noone would know when he was coming again (in the first chapter of Acts: look it up yourself) -- and I am skeptical of anyone who claims to be able to narrow the time frame at all through any means. And I know that I hope to be ready whenever Jesus comes. Tomorrow or 2000 years from now.
Anyway, the point is that Christian Doctrine is far more complex than Slashdot readers give it credit for. And often, what non-Christians see are only the most extreme examples of it. After all, the slow rise of society to Godliness over the course of millenia wouldn't make a very good movie, would it?
Martin Luther said that most people are like a drunken horseback rider: they fall off the horse to the left, only to get back on and fall back off the horse to the right. This is very true: people tend to gravitate towards extreme. However, in Christian doctrine correctness most often lies in balance between two seemingly contradictory statements. E.g. Jesus being fully God and being fully man. People, through hubris, try to wittle it down to something far easier to understand. And fall off the horse. Why shouldn't God be a paradox?
Finally, let me point out some things that I, as a serious, conservative Christian, don't believe:
- That there is anything wrong with drinking in moderation.
- That government-employee-led prayer in public schools should be allowed.
- That the the Ten Commandments should be posted in schools.
- That Christians should form Political Action Committees.
- That all Gay people are going to hell.
- Most anything you'll hear come out of the mouths of certain televangelists (these people are, for the most part, not very doctrinally accurate).
- Blue laws (I.e. stores closed on Sundays).
Many slashdot readers choose, like Katz, to confine their knowledge of Christianity to one extremist view (in his case the idea that some have that Jesus will come in y2k). And hence, they not only fall off the proverbial horse, but fall behind it, face down, and wonder how anyone could want to be involved in this horse when all they can see is it's rear end.*sigh* I'll take my flames now. And I really wish that Rob would try for a little more balance in the philosphies and world views he allows on slashdot.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Dogma: Renter
Malkovich: See it in the theatre
Toy Story 2: See it in the theatre; requires big screen
Princess Monokone: See it in the theatre; requires big screen
Riding with the Devil: Renter
Insider: Must see it any way you can
Millennium has two N's, everybody.
Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect
Don't get me wrong, it was still a pretty darn good movie, but it just wasn't as good as it could have been.
As per geek orientation: I think this movie scores more points in that catagory than you give it credit for. Begin with the fact that many geeks (probably more than in the general population) despise the whole "blind faith" thing -- the average geek recognizes, for example, that people in Kansas are a bunch of bumkins for banning Darwin in the schools. The part about valuing ideas over faith made me smile.
Additionally, there are a lot of geeks who are into the whole mythology (and I know She hates it wen you use that word) thing. How many of us played D&D when we were kids? How many of us used to try to point out the infamous International Date-Line Loophole in the catholic dogma? How many of us (and I realize that this may be a bit of a departure) like to see Selma Hyak in her underwear?
Besides, who other than a geek is going to find Silent Bob's one-line-per-movie Movie Quotes that funny? (A guy in front of me at the theatre didn' get "No Ticket.")
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
One thing that should intrest some of you was that the translation work was handled by Neil Giaman of "Sandman" fame. So if you have the opertunity check this out.
Later...
Bully for Arnold if he's found some faith in his life. Really. But he didn't need to share.
I don't understand. What's wrong with showing the positive, uplifting side of faith in a movie? You don't seem to have a problem with a movie that purportedly criticizes faith (Dogma).
I think someone should watch Miracle on 34th St. this holiday season, and stop being such a Scrooge.
Happy Holidays!
-jimbo
"Hold me Bob!" "I would if I could man!" -Larry and Bob in VeggieTales
Just wanted to second the opinion on American Movie. Went with two friends - we all agreed it was the funniest and most original thing we'd seen in a long time.
More info about Mark and the makers of American Movie can be had at www.americanmovie.com.
> Bully for Arnold if he's found some faith
> in his life. Really. But he didn't need to
> share.
Jon appears to be easily offended by anyone who makes a statement of faith that he disagrees with. I haven't seen EoD, and I have no idea what kind of theological statements are being made in it, so I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what is said in that movie. However, consider the following:
According to the Bible, there is only one way to have eternal life. For Christians, this means that the stakes are very high and anyone who isn't a Christian is condemed to die. The logical extension from that is that is that you MUST share your faith in the prayer that God will use what you share to bring others to know Him.
If Arnold did find faith in his life, then the worst thing he could do would be to shut up about it.
That's not a very accurate description of what Amereican Movie is about.
Go here for a better idea.
-nme!
Could someone please explain some of the silent bob humor? I saw it, but didn't get it. Marc
I became an instant Keven Smith (aka Silent Bob) fan the first time I saw Clerks. I also really enjoyed Mallrats. Unfortunately, Smith lost it in Chasing Amy. I loved that movie up until about half-way through, when it started trying to make some kind of statement rather than just sticking with the interesting story that it began with. From Katz's rewiew, it looks like Dogma may make the same mistake, and I don't think I can handle disappointment like that again.
If you can read this, then I forgot to check "Post Anonymously".
I haven't seen EOD and probably won't (ok, maybe when it comes out on video...) Judging by your description, though, I continue to be amazed that a sweet and ulimately deeply religious film like Dogma draws protesters while tripe like this which shows priests being butchered and, judging from the commercials, churches being blown up or whatever, doesn't elicit a peep from these morons........
The fundamental nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can. -- John Prine
definitely wierd, crazy, smart (as in you have to be to understand what's going on) - I give it 4 penguins
Sorry for being nit-picking, but I imagine a movie review should be written by someone who is educated in his or her native tongue.
BTW. yesterday wife and I went to see "Fight club", with Brad Pitt. It was great, one of the best movies I have seen in the last 5 years. Put in the list "Hilary and Jackie" and "Matrix".
So, if you fancy an intellectual, hilarious black comedy, go see "Fight club"!
Sigged!
While 500+ lines of bashing "End of Days" is nice, certainly, I find it aggravating that Katz spent only 5 or so lines on description for the movies he actually liked, such as "American Movie" (which I had never even heard of prior to this post). Come on. EOD has all the qualities of a silly action movie. People will see it knowing what to expect. If a good movie comes along I'd much rather have a discussion about the good points of that over the bad points of Schwarzenegger, who will (in my opinion), continue to make 4 bad apocalypse movies for every good one (which is a better ratio than most action actors).
But while we're on the subject, I'd also like to point out that Schwarzenegger doesn't actually write his movies, and thus has very little real control over whether they're good or bad in terms of plot. So attributing the movie's worth to him is really not a great idea.
---
---
Silly rabbit. Sleep is for class!
Nice, first time I've really laughed at a post in a long time.
Before I part with'em: two pennies weigh ~4.996+/-0.014g, have a zinc core, and the face of Lincoln. You can keep 'em.
I don't believe that the end of the 1990's will end Apocalypse movies. At the end of 1997 I heard that we're going to die because 1998=666*3. 3 being some sort of evil number and all. In 1998 comets would bombard the earth and kill us all. In 1999 comets would bombard the earth, earthquakes would swallow us, some planets would line up, and a partridge in a pear tree would eat us. Approaching the end of the 1990s, I hear talks about computers crashing and unleashing global destruction. People are saying that the signs of the end of the world (prophecied in all the major religious documents) have come: floods, earthquakes, war.
:)
Throughout 2000 people will say that 2001 is really the start of the millenium and that paranoia was a year early. "THIS year is really the year we die!"
In 2003 people will say that Christ was really born around 4 A.D. and the calendars are a touch off. "THIS year is really the year we die!"
. . In 2037 people will say that the world will end because the some time function will run out of seconds. "THIS is really the year we die!"
Okay it didn't have a great plot...but with a hot looking actress (who played Christine) and some nekked chixs, who gives a damm about the plot!
Denise Richards: Man, is she hot. Man, she really can't act. I mean seriously, the idea of her being a nuclear scientist seemed like sarcasm. She delivered her lines so poorly I was beginning to wish they'd dubbed someone else's voice over hers.
Poorly Exploited Villain Gimmick: I expected them to do a bit more with a villain who didn't feel pain than to have him hold a hot rock and get a piece of glass stuck in his hand. I liked everything else about this villain other than this. I mean, have Bond blow off one of his arms and have him not give a rat's ass or something.
Silly Action Sequence: I won't be too specific here to avoid spoilers, but the helicopters were a bit much. Besides, I expected some more out of the car (which is usually the ultimate Bond gadget).
Good points: The last line of the movie had me chuckling to myself while I was driving home. The stunt with the boat in the opening action sequence made my jaw drop. The other females were good (even when they were bad). This is the first Bond villain who's ever really connected with the audience. If you absolutely must prepare for Q's retirement, John Cleese is as good a guy as any to fill that role.
Overall, not a bad movie, but definately not one of the better ones and not one which will help Pierce approach Connery's still-definitive Bond.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Oh so true
Bad Command Or File Name
Which is too bad, because Fight Club as a thorough enjoyable romp through the beleaguered psyche of the lower/middle class male which a fun plot twist. Best Brad Pitt film since Twelve Monkeys. Actually, I liked this film more.
What I want to know is why is the church getting so worked up over Dogma when movies like Stigmata and EOD get by with no notice. I am not a christian but to me they seemed a lot more offensive. If you liked Chasing Amy and Clercks then you will love Dogma. I agree that the ending was a little weak but the first 3/4 of the movie more than made up for the weak ending. In case you are interested here is a link to official Kevin Smith page. A new animated show based on Clerks will also appear on ABC next season.
Vidi, vici, veni. (I saw, I conquered, I came)
Excellent performance by Edward Norton and Brad Pitt, killer story, and has some very strong points about our society. Well worth seeing a good theatre if you are into movies that has something to say. I'd say if you couldn't swallow trainspotting, there is no way you'd want to see this movie.
Secondly, Schwartzie had a stroke while recording EoD, thats why it took so long. He kept everything on the downlow about it, thats why it took a while to record it.
simon
"she gets what she wants and walks away.
and she doesn't give a fuck what you might say"
Man, Rob's built some pretty nifty functionality into /. that will let you never again see a Jon Katz posting. Please use it.
I saw End of Days and The Omega Code back to back this past week end. They are basicly the same story. Suicidal characters of zero faith get involved in prophesied evils of biblical proportions and find God just before they die. Although both movies are cinematic distortions of Judeo-Christian eschatology, they have one major difference. TOC takes itself seriously, and it is billed as a tool for saving your unsaved friends. (Translation: getting them to buy into the looney aberations that are Paul Crouch's version of Christianity.)
EoD at least is not pretentious: The idea of Satan getting Pon-Far every 1K years is preposterous enough to allow the viewer to focus on the moral dialogue taking place throughout the movie, rather than on getting the prophecies figured out. (Can we use evil means to accomplish good ends?)
While Michael York presents a credible, nay brilliant, performance as the AntiChrist (benevolent evil), the rest of TOC was poorly directed, acted, and edited. York deserves an Oscar for Best Shakespearian Acting in a Grade B Film. Unfortunately, too many people take the Bible Code as a given, and the writers of TOC see the alleged secret codes as being as deterministic as a COBOL program, so they are only preaching to the choir. The rest of us are left confused and insulted.
Spoilers: The statue in EoD is St. Micheal the Arch Angel, whose job it is to toss Satan into hell. There are no Catholics in TOC because they went up in the "Rapture" first, Mr. Crouch.
Denise Richards is great when she takes the sort of Keanu-ish roles that require terrible acting. A couple of examples:
- Starship Troopers (IMHO a great movie, if you relax and take it for the trash it is meant to be.)
- Wild Things (Just wait until the end.)
I have not seen the Bond movie, but I'm sure that casting her as a nuclear scientist was done almost completely tongue in cheek. Hey, how about Keanu Reeves as a college professor!
"It's OK, my sheet's got a hole in it!"
I suppose that I'm an asshole-- I went to see it simply because it was being protested. I fought my way through the picketers and the people telling me about how I was going to eternally rot in hell for even entering a theatre that would show anything so blasphemous (at least, they'll say that until next week, when they have to go fight the *new* good fight).
I actually liked the movie. And not for the heavy-handed religious principles-- not even for being hilarious. I liked it because Kevin Smith told a story. And as outrageous and outlandish as it was, he told it well.
Now, I've never seen "Mall Rats" or "Clerks" or "Chasing Amy", so I didn't go see it out of any obligation to a specific director (Lucas, anybody?). I went to see it for three general reasons:
* I don't like the church telling me I shouldn't go see a movie, so fuck them.
* I wanted to decide for myself if the fuss was really deserved.
* It looked like a really good movie.
Now, I will admit: Dogma's script needed a little work, but it's better than anything I could ever write, so I don't feel I should complain. And the special effects were, yes, kinda cheesy (the Golgothan, for example, was almost campy).
But the acting and directing pulled it off. The movie is supposed to be somewhat surreal, and it is. In spite of some problems with the script and the special effects and such, the movie comes across as a story well told. The characters aren't as superficial as a lot of people would like to pass them off as being, and it brings out a lot of things in some of the actors-- for example, Chris Rock has a number of serious moments (which he handles quite well!).
As for the "split personality"-- well, I can see where that feeling comes from. But in another sense, I also see the movie as tying the two together. It all depends on how you look at it.
All in all, I thought it was a good movie, partially in spite of its shortcomings, partially because of its shortcomings.
I thought that was a great movie. Really makes a statement on one personnal faith and how far one person can go on that alone.
The visuals were excellent, ranging from the French country-side to the epic battles.
I know that most people didn't enjoy the movie but I like movies which are abit more than eye-candy (Toy Story) or an expensive Jacky Chan movie (Ends of Days). I want movies which you leave the theater thinking (American Beauty).
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Compare:
End of the Days (1999) 6.0/10
and
El día de la bestia (1995) 7.9/10.
Whod do you prefer: Arnold Schwarzenegger or Santiago Segura?
...... all the cute girls in the movie get turned to stone!!!!
-1, informative? i get well confused by moderators these days. but i agree with the original poster, there should be a -2 option for those posts which are totally awful. some posts get moderated down to -1 unfairly, so i prefer to browse with that as my default. but i don't like seeing all the crap. also, i think slashdot should have an upper limit on the posts you want to see ... sometimes i wonder what the (10 scores below your current threshold) are :-)
I'm sorry, but I thought Dogma was pretty damn good. I didn't at all get the sense that it was split over whether to be funny or serious; there's no reason a movie can't be both, and Dogma meshed the two together quite nicely.
Calling it "blasphemous" is short-sighted, at best. So a thirteenth apostle is introduced, and a few other minor modifications are made to traditional Christian doctrine. Big deal. The message of Dogma was that people should find some faith and stop squabbling over stupid details that, even in the short run, don't so much matter. I have a hard time calling that message blasphemy.
Meanwhile, it was a Kevin Smith movie, and was therefore funny as hell. (Yeah, I get the irony in that statement. Ha.)
As such, I'm enclined to place Being John Malkovich in the same thematic category as The Matrix, Thirteenth Floor and Existenz. And truly, Being John Malkovich is way in front of Thirteenth Floor and Existenz in depth and fun involved, and just slightly under The Matrix.
It's definitely a geek flick. It's definitely fun. And it's supremely original. That movie, along with The Matrix, has given me hope and faith in Hollywood once again.
Mallrats stank. It was a classic example of the "Let's give that talented indie kid fifteen million dollars and see how he can waste it" syndrome.
Chasing Amy was a much better, more mature movie. Get it straight.
"It's OK, my sheet's got a hole in it!"
kinda reminds me of the swipe at Japan perpetrated by 'Doc' Brown in Back To The Future 2. He slates Japan and Japanese technology in the '50s, and then uses Japanese chips in the Flux Capacitor in 1985....
Seems to me not everyone has a rose-tinted view of the '50s (even in the '80s where Ronnie tried to take you guys back to 1950's values, and Maggie tried to take us back to 1890's values!)
(pedant-proofing: I know BTTF2 was made in 1991/2, but Zemeckis seemed just as (subtly) scathing in the first movie.)
- "How do we do it? Volume!" - The Bursar of Unseen University.
I'm confused as to what (in traditional R.C. dogma) this movie challenged. I considered it more or less to be a few amusing 'what ifs' (13th apostle, black, supressed by writers of the Bible) than any real challenge to Roman Catholicism. I don't truly understand the bruhaha. AFAIK, the notion that Mary stayed a virgin her whole life long is a medieval one, a popular myth of her as the 'rose without a thorn'
No where in the Bible does it claim that she and Joeseph didn't have children; I believe, in fact that scholars have proven she did. Personally, I've always taken it for granted that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
I think perhaps the people who are creating the fuss are people who don't give their faith much thought, and don't read anything but the Bible, if that. It's just plain ignorance on the part of a few very bored Catholics.
I'm sorry for anyone who can't get past the surface of the movie to notice the deeper themes. Kevin Smith may be an irreverant guy, but he has a deep faith (which I do not share, but I respect). He's trying (I think) to point out to the world that, though priests and people may do horrible things, they are not G/god. They don't even have any sanction by g/God.
And that the beliefs of the R.C. church do not represent all Catholics.
It frustrates me that so simple a statement can't get by without those 'devout' people sending death threats (I don't remember a 'Unless they really offend you or piss you off' clause to 'Love thy neighbor' or 'Thou shalt not kill') to studio executives and other people associated with the movie.
Uhhh, back to the movie; I thought it was solid. Not brilliant, but solid. Nice to see that someone still has faith. And nice to see Alan Rickman, just looking and acting gorgeously. I'm such a sucker for a man with an accent!
And I Feel Fine.
This puts me in mind of a comment in some book I never did finish: Hocus Pocus, by Vonnegut, maybe (I'm not 100% sure of either). It was set just out of the turn of the century, and one of the first paragraphs had a line about the world not ending in 2000, which proved (only) that God doesn't believe in numerology. I'm no biblical scholar, and belief is not an issue I'm going to get into here, but I seem to remember that "no one shall know the hour or the day" if Armageddon is for real. Also consider that the best current estimates of Christ's birth place it several years after the B.C. to A.D. changeover. All in all, I have to consider the idea that the end of the world is pencilled in for 2000 (or the belief that all Christians think so, or even that the Bible says so) are a bunch of hooey.
On the other hand, I do hope that the turn of the millenium will put an end to the gawdawful stream of exploitative pop media based on the idea of a religious or technological apocalypse. The "Y2K" movie (which has caused me to remove NBC from my TV channel scan, it was so inane) was just the latest idiocy, and far from the worst; what really disturbs me is the popularity of the "Left Behind" series of "Christian Science Fiction" novels. My biggest worry about the date changeover is that there seem to be a lot of people who want to bring the world to an end.
That being said, there is one "Armageddon" novel that I do like: Good Omens by Gaiman and Pratchett. I suspect that a lot of the people who enjoyed Dogma would enjoy this one. Very funny, and poses even more interesting questions about religion than Dogma does.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
I how someone, who appears to be very literate and well read, who appears to actually _research_ topic he/she posts on, and who generally conveys a sense of intelligence in their writing (NO, I'm NOT talking about Katz) could continue to profess belief in an omnipitant, omniscient, supernatural boogyman.
I mean, come _on_ - there exists this magical, invisible being, who knows everything and can do anything, and who really loves humanity (as long as they say and do the correct things at the correct times) and who is responsible for everything - but yet never actually manifests himself in any observable way. And while he loves eveyone, if you don't do what he says, when you die you'll be transported to this other magical place full of magic fire where you'll be burned for eternity....
Oh, and there's this other magic guy who lives in this magical burning place (except that he seems to like it there - go figure) and his whole purpose to to intentionally corrupt people so that the DO come to his place when they die (apperently, he Has To Get Them All) - but he can't directly manifest himself either, except in movies.
But do what you're told, and be good, and when you die you go to this other magical place where everything is happy and good and wonderful.
It's all so silly! So juvinile! Hell, I outgrew my imaginary friends when I was 4!
It's all bunk, myth, and story - and not very well written story at that. What hold does this crap put on people?
I hope we see more movies like Dogma, that highlight just how stupid religion really is, and less like End Of Days, which lend it credence.
I am gonna make this short. I am quite Catholic, and I have to agree that nobody shall know when the second messiah will come to Earth. (That is if it has not already happened?!) I am truely bothered that some Catholics think that there will be some sort of Apocolyptic event in y2k.
News Flash!
Y2K is relative! It could be the year 666 for all I care. It is just a number that has some neat 0's in it. SO WHAT!!!
It is nice to get that off of my chest.
Because, after all, the millenium is more than a year away.
(yes, I did read the article at wired, and I'm still saying this)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
you dont know nothing about things you talk, do you? theres hardly a more contrary approach to Hollywood cinema in style and economics than Dogma movies.
Perhaps the best film out this year (and still playing in a few places to this day) is Run Lola Run - a German film by Tom Twyker starring Franka Potente. This is a brilliant film taking non-linear storytelling elements (like how possible outcomes and futures all tie in to a series of critical decisions).. combined with amazing cinematography and a soundtrack better than the Matrix or Pulp Fiction makes this easily my favorite film. I reccomend it to any person - geek or non geek for the sheer fantastical quality of a very realistic film. The heroine and her boyfriend do exactly was any person in a desperate situation would do - whatever is necessary. It comes out on DVD on the 21st, so if you can't be one of the lucky ones to see this amazing film on the screen, be sure to rent it. I personally have my fingers crossed that they win the Oscar for Best Foreign Film in March... if not something more.
American Beauty not only had some great societal criticism and some great acting (Spacey up for oscar, I think, and Benning was pretty damn good, plus that dude from Pleasantville as the kid drug dealer neighbor)... It was also funny as hell. There were a couple a points where my wife & I were just ROTFL.... Spacey's character after buying the old Camaro "I rule!"
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
This shows up as part of Jimbo's sig...
"Hold me Bob!" "I would if I could man!" -Larry and Bob in VeggieTales
Parents -- buy these videos for your kids. They are wonderful, and I'm a pretty poor excuse for a Christian. (Thus the posting handle...)
Sing with me now!
"Veggie ta-a-ales, veggie ta-a-ales, veggie ta-a-alies, veggie tales.
Broccoli, celery, gotta be...
Veggie tales.
There's never ever ever been a show like Veggie Tales."
A good way to beat the Diz-nee system.
Consigned to flames of woe.
Let's be clear: Armageddon is a mistranslation of "at meggido." Meggido is a place in Israel. This mistake was introduced in the KJV (i think). The battle already happened. A *long* time ago. What Jewish apocalyptic theology and the bible prophecy is a day when a judge (the messiah) will come to seperate God's elect from the masses of humanity. Those who were chosen by God will be resurrected, rise up out of their graves, and the earth will be restored to the moral category that existed in prefall eden. There will be no sin, and consequently no death.
cheers,
mark
I saw Princess Mononoke up in Arlington Va. last week with my girlfriend on a big screen with stadium seating (nice, but $8.25 though!) It was GREAT! Then again, I am slightly biased as I am an anime fan anyways! The best part is that (unlike the saccarhine sludge that Disney spews all the time) the characters were, for the most part, not cut 'n dry GOOD or EVIL. Neither side in the movie was completely to blame, or blameless. Also, unlike Disney, there is no nice everything wrapped up ending where all the problems are solved. Overall a great movie with stunning animation, and a decent translation from Mr. Gaiman from what I've heard. I must say that Gilliam Anderson was cool as the voice of the Wolf God, and Billy Bob Thorton as a Buddhist Monk seemd really wacky at first, but the role kinda grew after a while. Respectfully, Kevin Christie kwchri@wm.edu
Whoops! bad formatting! Here's a re-post:
I saw Princess Mononoke up in Arlington Va. last week with my girlfriend on a big screen with stadium seating (nice, but $8.25 though!) It was GREAT! Then again, I am slightly biased as I am an anime fan anyways!
The best part is that (unlike the saccarhine sludge that Disney spews all the time) the characters were, for the most part, not cut 'n dry GOOD or EVIL. Neither side in the movie was completely to blame, or blameless. Also, unlike Disney, there is no nice everything wrapped up ending where all the problems are solved.
Overall a great movie with stunning animation, and a decent translation from Mr. Gaiman from what I've heard. I must say that Gilliam Anderson was cool as the voice of the Wolf God, and Billy Bob Thorton as a Buddhist Monk seemd really wacky at first, but the role kinda grew after a while.
Respectfully,
Kevin Christie
kwchri@wm.edu
The geek count only equals two this time!
And I thought malignant generally referred to tumors. Then again, satan can I suppose be very cancerous ( nothing personal, I just prefer Malevolent to Malignant )
I'm just being pedantic again, I suppose.
Oh and some paragraphs were difficult to read near run-ons.
"End of Days"
In a recent article in Men's Health magazine Mr. Arnold refered to this role as a change for him. That he has waited 4 or so years to do the "right" movie. With this in mind, (read: Very Open Minded at this point) I went to see the film. Boy, was I disapointed. Whining and crying is a change, yes, but it does not make for a good film. Nor does it display any change in his acting ability. I wish he ad not waited so long just to do this horrible film.
"Trekkies"
I'm sure many of you have already seen this film. I must say I was cautious in watching anything that Denise Crosby had to say about the whole Trek phenom. And actually it was don tastefully and with grace. Rather than poke fun at the gangly fan-boys ( With the one exception. During an annual Trekkie themed party held in Vulcan, Canada, the host proudly procliamed " ... and this year we even had a girl come and everything . . ." Mind you this was a man obviously in his mid-thirties.) it showed them in a light of intellignece. Good flick . . . out on video
"The Haunting"
I know this film is a little outdated, but did anybody else feel horrible cheated at the end? How incredibly anti-climatic that was. It seems to be a trend in filmaking o just leave you hanging . . . no resolution. So you can stew about it for days. Can I put a call into the film industry . . . "Excuse me ... Film industry ... we like to have our movies resolved please, unless you plan on making a sequel, tie up the loose ends. Thank you! ... "
"Random Thoughts"
I think this film topic will open up a big can o' worms . . . Here's my suggestion for a future Slashdot poll. Best Geek Movie . . . but here's the catch, no "Star Wars" no "Star Trek" and no "Matrix", "Hackers", or any of that genre. What do you think Rob?
As always . . . Sing it Ani . . .
"When I look down I miss all the good stuff, When I look up I trip over things..."-Ani DiFranco
Big deal, you didn't like EOD. I don't know yet, I haven't seen it. But this isn't like some monolithic black tone tablet falling from the sky in hollywood. Even if this movie is as bad as you say, it's not the first time that someone in hollywood triedto use a previously sucessful recipe and ended up with a dud of a movie.
Waterworld anyone? Lethal Weapon 4 anyone?
Hell original movies can still suck, Blair Witch Project anyone?
My point is this, just because pixar made another great leap forward in CGI doesn't mean that the days of the good old fashioned "shoot 'em up" are numbered.
They've been a staple of US film making as long as there's been a hollywood.
From the James Cagney gangster era, to the 1950's cowboy phase, to the "lone good cop in a corrupt world" and black 'sploitation films of the 70's, and the "Vietnam film of the week" craze of the 1980s, guns and explosives entertain people.
Since Bruce Willis established the prototype for the alcoholic cop/ex cop/ex Secret Service agent having a bad day it's not surprising that screenwriters have tried to recapture that magic. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if this role in EOD was offered to Bruce before Arnold.
The sky is NOT falling Katz, you do realize that if they throw enough money around producers can get decent actors into shit productions. If you had the cash you might be able to get Anthony Hopkins to star in deep throat #500.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Let's see, Weezer + Happy Days, countless of among of the best of the best skateboard videos, and now this. How could anyone even doubt it?
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
Intellect and action are not inherently enemies, remember "Total Recall", "Matrix" ?
Well, for years I've said how STUPID 95% of the movies that come out in the US are. I just can't stand sitting in a theatre, watching a movie where more time and effor is put into the explosions than the plot. The movies are SO 2-D that I just want to vomit. It's gotten so bad that I'm correctly predicting plot 'twists' before they happen in the movie. End Of Days goes straight to this trash heap I speak of. Now I'm sure all of you action film types are saying, 'Well fine you snob nosed prissy, what kinda lame films do you watch?' Well, for one, American Beauty. This is one of the best films I've seen in my entire life. If you're still interested, check out a couple other good films like PI or Le Dernier Combat (I doubt you be able to find the second one, it's very rare). What's my point now? Well folks, please do me a favor and don't even think about going to these glorious bloodbath movies. Nothing will ever change if they rake in $12M on opening day. I'm sure this little rant will do nothing to dent those kind of earnings, but at least it's a start. As for the rest of the populus that find these films mesmorizing, at least it'll keep them passafied.
I wouldn't call Dogma at all suspect -- in fact it's probably the most pro-faith movie I've ever seen. It doesn't Christian-bash at all, IMO. I saw it as a very serious (and funny) exploration of faith and religious dogma. It comes down on the side of God, but not on the side of the Church. I'm an atheist, and I've gone through much of the same process -- though I came up with a different answer, I find Smith's exploration fascinating. In short, ignore the people who haven't seen the movie and are merely objecting to questioning Catholicism (like the Catholic League) and see it for yourself.
'It's ironic that "End Of Days" arrives in theaters the same day as the brilliantly conceived and executed "Toy Story 2," as original and technologically dazzling a film as "End of Days" is boring and ludicrous.'
What kind of sentence is that, Jon?
Now remember I why Katz read I don't.
(name withheld by request)
well. first of all, you won the hearts of slashdotters with your pitiful quest to install linux and "become a true geek". lame. because of this we all have to listen to your useless diatribes and rants which aren't about anything really. what a waste of slashdot space. why jon? what happened to your linux quest? why have you gone from installing linux to lamenting about sex robots and "voices from the hellmouth", and now to reviewing movies. i don't want to be listed as a troll, this is how i really feel and i'm sick of your _TOTALLY_ useless crap. that is just my opinion tho.
There was also a 'Jay & Silent Bob' comic (4 parter), which was put into a compilation trade paperback just before Dogma hit theatres.
(check your local comic shop -- it's $12 or so, but it'd explain some things not fully in the movies...like why the details around the scene in Chasing Amy, what happened to the chimp at the end of Mallrats, more background on Mooby, and where Silent Bob got the Mooby cap from, etc.)
It also pokes some fun as Neil Patrick Harris (and the claim that his job in Starship Troopers was to finance his "quasi-indie film" [porn movie]), and has a brief cameo by Mr. Rogers.
Also, last year, View Askew (with Oni Press), put out the 'Clerks Holiday Special, which explains what happened to Caitlin Bree. There was also an issue of the Clerks comic which explained more about Steve Dave and um...whoever his yes-man is. (unfortunately, I don't know what I did with that...I'm in the middle of packing).
And, for the references to 'Walt Flanagan's Dog', you'd have to find the back issue of Oni Double Feature that had the story. (which again, is probably already moved, so I can't look up the issue in question)
For more info on Kevin Smith's work, there's also News Askew, which mentions that "Clerks: the animated series" will debut on 07Feb2000.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
I haven't seen any of these movies, but there were still a few points I didn't understand what Jon Katz was talking about.
> One of the great blessings of the onrushing
> Millenium is that there can't be any more movies
> about Armageddon, since it will either have come
> or gone.Or not.
What's the Millenium got to do with Armageddon? The Millenium's just a number.
I'm a Christian, but I don't see why people think the millenium's all that special.
> This movie - awful in almost every conceivable
> way - is symbolic, if not perhaps in the way it
> intended. This era in Apocalyptic action movies
> seems over.
Why is that? I don't know much about movies, but they've been writing books about the end of the world since the beginning of writing. If you mean the pre-millenium era of Apocalyptic action movies, that I understand, that'll be over at January 1, 2001.
> "The End of Days" is aptly titled: this sorry
> movie marks the end of Arnold Schwarzenegger's
> spectacular reign as America's Armageddon Action
> hero.
I don't really disagree with this, but I can't agree - why would Arnold Schwarzenegger stop making movies about the end of the world? He's still getting plenty of movie offers, and I don't think he's retiring anytime soon.
Here's the answer for just one woman: 1. Linda Fiorentino 2. Because she has small breasts 3. I would probably change her into PVC so she'ld be light and easy to carry around. 4. She would be lying on her back with her arms slightly spread from her sides and her legs apart. 5. She would have a facial expression of happiness. 6. She would nt be wearing anything but I would dress her. 7. I would probably play with her and fondle her, and kiss her
Why has noone mentioned this? American Beauty has a couple of underage girls and an underage boy. You get to see them NAKED! Beautiful breasts too. This is quite a blast. They're not petrified though.
Umm... well I don't know what to say here. I hope that you aren't the same guy from a few articles that wrote the first comment. I just want to say that it was hularious, that I printed it out, and put it on my wall, next to an article from TheOnion about a kid who was unimpressed with the Aurora Borealis after a whole day of Tekken3. Seriously, though, if you are the same guy, it was funny the first time, less the second. If you aren't the same guy, get your own material.
I saw Toy Story 2 this week. I don't think it compares well, as a movie, to The Iron Giant. The computer animation in TS2 was great and whets the appetite for things to come. The Star Wars references were funny too. However TS2 got no emotional response from me unlike TIG. I actually cried a bit during several scenes and especially the end. That was a first for me in 20 years of watching movies. The Iron Giant is a very special movie. Being John Malkovich was one of the most confounding, funny and jaw-dropping movies I have seen. Aside from the ending, the movie was brilliant! As soon as Malkovich caught wind of what was going on, my mind was already thinking of what would happen if he went through the portal. End of Days? I can't be bothered to see it. I can't see any more crappy movies after having the unfortunate experience of seeing "The Blair Witch Project." What a waste of money!
These movies aren't usually about art. They're about masculinity. We over here in the US like to drink beer, eat pizza, and watch people blow shit up sometimes.
The Terminator series is about the best example of this. Cameron was either good or just lucky enough to give the audience something really good to think about and I've always been fascinated by the paradox he creates in T2. If they successfully prevent SkyNET from being built then how does the T-800 get sent back to 1984? If Kyle Reese was not chasing that T-800 then how did he get to 1984? If Kyle Reese doesn't get back to 1984 how is John concieved?
If John is never concieved then WHO is there to help the humans destroy SkyNET's defense grid and necessitate the sending of the T-800 to 1984? If it's not John Connor then WHY was the T-800 sent to kill his mother in 1984?
I've given up. I'll never run out of questions as it relates to the plotline of this movie.
But my point is this, movies don't have to be about (a bow to Eric Cartman) gay cowboys eating pudding in order to be good. As long as you understand what the point of the movie is. Is it to entertain, is it to make you think, is it to scare you, is it to impressyou with acting ability, or is it something else. Judge a movie based upon what it's intent is and how close it comes to doing what the film makers intended.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
To the general public, I'm curious what some of the more favored movies are, out there. For me, American Beauty, PI, Run Lola Run (Lola rennt [it's a German film]), and Le Dernier Combat top my list. .1 point behind The Godfather?
Also, if you don't believe that American Beauty is a good film, check out this link.
Internet Movie Database
Notice how it's only
The only moives I can think of that Arnold is in that deals with the end of the world as we know it are EoD, the terminator movies. Yes he has starred in many action movies where he needs to stop some other large thing(building, town, etc) from being distroyed or stop some larger than life enemy, but that is a common model of the Action genre and will always be. Hopefully Hollywood will stop making Armageddon movies, but I hope they continue to make great action films.
Action films are not about believable stunts either. Ever see a James Bond movie? Did you like it? Were there unbelievable stunts? Most people will say yes to all three questions. Movies are often about suspending your beliefs in how the world works and escaping in a fantasy world. Or Star Wars or Star Trek, hearing explosions in space? Who cares! It is JUST A MOVIE!
One more thing, Dogma ROCKED! It questions faith, but really ends up being pro God. Also I'm sorry Katz can't handle humor and seriousness at the same time. I think it made the movie dynamic and a joy to watch while still providing a interesting story. Kevin Smith needs to work on his directing, but his writing is by far one of the best in the industy IMHO.
--
?
A movie really worth seeing that no one has mentioned is Steven Soderbergh's The Limey -- a real movie-movie. Terence Stamp gives a movie star turn (in the best sense of the word) as Wilson, an English criminal who goes to LA to avenge his daughter's death. Soderbergh uses a fractured time line to great effect and Wilson's rhyming slang is worth the price of admission alone. The thing looks totally great and the music is very effective as well. Definitely the kind of movie I'd like to see over & over again on DVD. Ted
yeah leave arnold alone or he'll come to your house. You know he still carries the shotgun from t2. lay off that man. It's better than that cheap bastardized sequal of toy story. "wow toy story made a lot of money. Let's make another so the stupid kids will buy more stuff"
So, does Arnie make the obvious proposition (pardon the expression)?
If not, I suppose it's grist for psychoanalysis about the significance of all those Big Fscking Guns....
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
May I suggest that the editors of /. think a little bit about their publication? It might come to their mind, that /. has become an international media. Talking about movies showing up at the US box offices is as interesting to the large international readership of /., as talking about the regular Saturday's dance in a potato-planter bar in Ohio.
You don"t belive that /. has an international readership? Ok, just check out the number of articles starting with "As German computer magazin cm has reported ...", or "Brazilian Linux User Group ...". And don't forget to check out all the comments, e.g. when someone asked about salary in different countries.
The reason to drop stuff like this is not if Katz is a good author or not, or can manage to set up a Linux box. The reason to drop it is because it is irrelevant and not interesting. /. is supposed to be "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.". That's why people read it. Schwarzenegger starring in yet another bam-boom-crash-boing-zapa-ploink-oink-uka-splash movie simply doesn't matter at all.
I was disappointed by Dogma, and I think that while it IS ambitious, ultimately it's Kevin Smith's weakest film.
I heard a rumor that Kevin Smith wrote the script for Dogma before he did Clerks. If so, it explains a lot. Dogma just seems to have been written in a much less mature fashion than Smith's other pictures. In fact, I found the similarities between Dogma and typical fan fic to be striking.
Firstly, the tone of the film is very uneven. Dogma tends to careen between Smith's trademark low comedy, and a "serious" central plot about two homicidal fallen angels trying to get back into heaven, which if they succeed will cause the destruction of all Creation. The humorous parts are funny, but the serious parts don't really ever click, IMHO, and the two parts of the movie never really gel together. It's very much like the kind of fanfic where humorous characters from a comedy are running around with serious characters from an action/drama piece, and both are trying to do their trademark bits, but the two styles of narrative get in each other's way: the serious stuff seem ludicrous alongside the comedy, and the violence makes the comedy seem less funny.
Secondly, we have the problem of self-insertion, where the writer writes themselves into the story. Kevin Smith writes a Silent Bob part into all of his movies, though he didn't originally plan to play the part himself. Usually, though, it's a small part, but in Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob are on screen as primary characters. At times, this tends to weaken the film, especially at one point where Silent Bob gets mad and throws the primary villians around, which kind of diminishes them as a threat.
Lastly, there's the problem that the main story really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. On one hand, the plot is based on the need to prevent God's omnipotent will from being contravened, but on the other hand the plot also depends on God being neither omnipotent, omniscient, nor omnipresent. It really prevented me from buying into the movie.
I don't want to say that Dogma is without any merit. It's very funny in spots, and it has a great cast of charismatic actors who light up the screen and are interesting just to watch (watch for cameos by Smith regulars Brian O'Halloran, Walt Flanigan and Scott Mosier). People like to chide Kevin Smith for his minimal camerawork, but Dogma does a lot better in this respect than some of his other films: there are more subtle dolly shots and quick cuts, and the camera generally moves around a lot more. Ultimately, though, it's a movie that is less than the sum of its parts: it never really comes together.
Jon
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
This is the best movie I have seen in years. It is as striking a work of art as Pulp Fiction or Drugstore Cowboy was when they came out; Spike Jonze's camera work and whoever-wrote-the-script's storyline are fantastic. It's a bit like Brazil.
Simply, IF YOU MISS THIS MOVIE YOU HAVE MISSED THE MOST INTERESTING "ART" FILM IN A LONG TIME.
I have heard great things about The Insider but as far as creativity, Being John Malkovitch is the most innovative piece I've seen in a long time.
I think most people here will enjoy it a great deal; it plays with your mind, the characters are all engaging and well developed, and watching it often feels like a waking dream in terms of the improbable physical principles and phenomena of the world Jonze has created, meshed against John Malkovitch's day-to-day activities. Extremely weird, you probably need to see it to understand.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
You're right on all counts but Dogma. This is basically a prototypical pop movie in that mocking Catholics is just about the safest naughty thing you can do in America today. My biggest problem with that movie is that it was so politically correct in its humor: God's a woman, there's a black apostle, it doesn't matter what you believe "as long as you believe in something"- absolutely typical sentiments of touchy-feely new age spiritualism in the ninties. It's bad news when you sit down in a movie that's supposed to shock and can predict all the jokes. On the other hand, the writing had a lot of wit and the actors that could pull off the Dante and Randal routine (the renegade angels did an awesome job) really brought me back to Clerks, which was funnier and a better crafted movie in the sense that it made its point with a needle rather than a railroad tie.
Okay, i think you read a little too much into the Armageddon comment by Katz. However, since I agree with your views for most of your comment, I'll let that lie.
... to confine their knowledge of Christianity to one extremist view ... And hence, they not only fall off the proverbial horse, but fall behind it, face down, and wonder how anyone could want to be involved in this horse when all they can see is it's rear end.
:-)
Many slashdot readers choose
First lets talk about personal belief.
When someone tells me they are a x-tian, or of any type of faith in fact, I generally turn around and walk away. Why? Because people who say things like that in public should be shunned and barred from polite society.
I don't CARE what religion you are. Deal with your spiritual beliefs on your own time. Belief is a personal thing. It should NOT be presented to others carelessly.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Are you mental Katz? End of Days was a great arnold movie. Much better than your beloved kiddie movie Toy Story 2.
Has anyone seen this movie? Natalie Portman is in it, but I don't know if she was petrified or not.
Perhaps some day a modern director will show real courage and put out a movie that praises Orthodox Catholics and makes atheists and liberals out to look like fools and lunatics. Now THAT would be worth seeing, though given the virulent anti-Catholic hysteria so prevalent amongst the hollywood set I'm not holding my breath.
Actually, read about Jesus and remember that *this is what many people believe to be God*.
Also remember that after Jesus' death (there are claims he is no longer dead and the general consensus amongst the people that believe him to be God is that He rose from the dead and went to Heaven) that the stories and "historical fact" of his existance were passed mouth to mouth for over 200 years before they were written down!
You also need to recognize the claim that these stories were passed verbally with *NO* data loss or embellishment. Verbatim. Everything he said was remembered word for word.
Also recognize that this "historical fact" was then translated through numerous languages with a 100% translational conversion over the next 1800 years!
As an experiment, why don't you take a passage from the new testament and convert it to a language of your choice using Babelfish and then convert it back.
Try another experiment: Tell one of your friends a story or message and have him/her tell another person and iterate this a few times, making sure each person hears it once and tells it once. Have the last person tell it back to you. Did you get your same story/message back? Did you get it verbatim?
Based on your findings, and relating them to the historical path of the New Testament, how accurate do you consider it?
The claims are no more or less credible than the legends of Merlin and King Arthur, Norse history, nor any other mythology except in the fact that a lot more people claim it to be the truth.
If one person believes a story does that make it real? How about 100? 10,000? Millions? Billions?
Is it the truth? No one knows because it can't be proven true. But its not like its the only thing that cannot be proven true so if you feel compelled to believe it to be a personal truth (aka belief) then good for you. If you see it as a bunch of hooey then good for you. But if you can understand the message this Man was trying to convey roughly 2000 years ago then, I believe, you are getting the point of the whole thing.
Sometimes the message is more important than the messenger.
-Vel
what is the infamous International Date-line loophole in Catholic dogma?
I wonder why people think it remarkable or even noteworthy to
"challenge" the Catholic faith. It has been "challenged" for the last
2000 years: the movie Dogma is just another chirp in a long, noisy
and ultimately futile cacophony that spans time and space. The movie is
a bundle of infantile cheap shots meant to convey a sense of
irreverence. The director appeals to being vaguely "pro-faith", as long
as that faith is not Catholicism.
The issue is not really religiousity: that is an impulse burned into the
heart of humanity, and expressed in some fuzzy emotive way in these
doomsday movies. The issue is more a vague -- and sometimes explicit --
anti-Catholicism that seeks to lampoon Catholic symbols and
authority. Director Kevin Smith's agenda is clear: "I made it because I
had become disenchanted with the Catholic Church and I had a crisis of
faith." (Daily Telegraph, 5/22/99, Jessica Callan). American bigotry
has a long history. We know that the Puritans "sought to 'purify' the
Church of England of remnants of the Roman Catholic 'popery'" (quoted
straight from Encyclopedia Britannica). Americans have jettisoned the
Puritans' piety, but retained their bigotry.
Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr observed that anti-Catholic
prejudice is "the deepest bias in the history of the American people."
Yale professor Peter Viereck commented that "Catholic baiting is the
anti-Semitism of the liberals." This bashing, of course, is more subtle
today than the old KKK days. Catholics are praised for not being fully
Catholic in creed or practice. Catholic authority figures, symbols and
images are ridiculed. Crucifixes and rosaries have been used in movies
as Hollywood code for "danger, cuckoos at work". In this regard the new
Arnold movie is no exception. All this knowingly annoy or upset pious
Catholics, while being too boorish and infantile to object seriously. A
look at the Catholic League's reports on anti-Catholicism at
www.catholicleague.org should prove interesting.
I suppose there is some comfort in seeing all this irreverence. It is
not possible to be irreverent unless there is an object of
reverence. You cannot ridicule the ridiculous. As G.K. Chesterton
remarked, "let him sit down seriously and try to think blasphemous
thoughts about Thor. I think his family will find him at the end of the
day in a state of some exhaustion." There is perhaps just enough truth
visible in Catholicism to make people uncomfortable. When we are
uncomfortable, we laugh. Perhaps some of us will stop laughing long
enough to see that there is something there worth investigating
seriously, something obscured by our frantic, desperate flippancy.
Perhaps not that many people have noticed, but the Pope has rather
cheerily proclaimed Y2K as a jubilee year. Maybe there is more to
Christianity than doomsday. The Pope would rather we join the
celebration.
find out that THAT MOVIE FREKKING ROCKED! I even bought the soundtrack. Just give it a
chance. It'll at least tide you over 'till Mononoke. And I loved Mewtwo.
As far Katz's split personality comment, I can't understand why he couldn't just accept it as both. Does it have to be one or the other?
Besides, based on the length of his reviews it makes me wonder whether he really got either of those movies. He obviously wasn't much for insight.
Run Lola Run is a great movie. The only drawback is that you have to be able to read or speak German to enjoy it.
The humor vs. serious is intentional.
If this movie was all about making serious points and pointing out short-comings in religion (mainly Christianity -- Catholicism) the turn out would have been smaller and it would have been deemed more offensive. If you throw a bunch of humor into the mix 1) many people won't even "get" the ontological onslauts and undertones 2) more people will see it and more will return to see it again -- a good comedy can be watched over and over again 3) it makes it easier to digest for some folks 4) the whole "what's life about" *honk* -- c'mon...some people take life way too seriously, i think that held a lot of meaning throughout the movie.
i'm a big kevin smith fan so i'm a little biased, clerks will always be his jewel, but dogma brought on an intelligent humor that is lacking in many comedies [and in all sitcoms].
after walking out of the theater i could tell a lot of people just didn't understand what it was all about...but same holds true with the south park movie... some people will never 'get it'.. and that's what makes it even funnier for the people that do understand what's going on.
Derek
...it is still a lie, and no amount of retelling will ever make it the truth.
(redundant...)
Chances are we'll get another slew of films when Hollywood figures out that the millenium starts in 2001.
I think that there is at least some connection between geeks and religion. On a deep level, many of us don't understand at all how people could believe in God. The problem of Evil is the sticking point for me personally. Even for those of us who do have faith, the external trappings of religion seem incomprehensible. Don't eat what? Why? What the hell? I personally have a deep fascination with weird religious groups, especially the Scientologists and the Mormons. At the same time, I have no real respect for either group. The Catholics, on the other hand, I'm not really into, but at least I have some respect for the Jesuits. The Sparrow taught me that, while confirming my lack of faith. The idea of a religious loophole is deeply geeky. A loophole is a flaw in a formal system that can be exploited. In programming, a great example of this is Duff's device. Actually, Duff's device might be more acurately refered to as a switch-hole, but that's not a word. Loopholes are also a link to the secular law, which can bbe a very geeky subject. IANAL, but my parents both are, so I know a bit about the law. I'll often sit down and try to figure out legal methods for sharing commercial software. Zenon Panoussis forcing his government to publish secret scientology documents is a classic example of a legal hack. So, religion can be geeky, the law can be geeky, and loopholes are very geeky. -Dave Turner, AC of convinience
I think Katz needs to stick with the social issues and leave movie reviews to someone else.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I would venture to say that Katz had the idea of contrasting the new Arnie movie with Toy Story 2 before he saw either one of them and was going to play the "EoD sucked, Toy Story 2 ruled" card no matter what. The only thing that makes me think that isn't true is that I don't think he saw ANY of the movies he mentioned. Three or four sentences on the ground-breaking movie Toy Story 2, and yet a long diatribe about EoD? I could have written the exact same article and I have only seen Dogma. In fact, let me write the same article:
End of Days - sucked
Toy Story 2 - great
Dogma - ok
Being John Malkovich - ok (geek!)
American Movie - great (for a geek)
Why did Jon think he had to flame EoD so much (I still don't think he has even seen it) and barely mention in passing more groundbreaking movies? And knowing that my post so far makes this a pretty ironic point but it just grabs me that Katz feels a more negative, insult filled article would be more interesting than a positive review of Toy Story 2. Katz has never before struck me as so transparent...and unprofessional. Let ME turn in an article so slapdash, unorganized, and so devoid of thought beyond what we might find in a TV Guide review and see if it gets published.
Oh wait, maybe I just did?
And I still believe that Katz has seen even ONE of those movies.
Somewhat off-topic: while bandwidth and TV are great equalizers, movies are about the only "modern" form of the media that people in rural areas don't have equal access to. I for one don't like having to drive 1.5 hrs to see a good movie in a decent environment (yet I can go and see crap like EoD at my local 4-screen, zero-comfort theater), in a college town no less. The decent movies rarely last more than a week, and since it's a four-screener you're lucky if any of them are R-rated (except slasher movies).
Don't get me wrong, I love my DVD player (but that's only good for seeing the best movies of 1998 and early 1999, courtesy of NetFlix). And I did make the trek for Dogma (twice) and American Beauty, both of which are excellent films. Not Egoyan or Sayles, but then again nobody's perfect (except maybe them, on occasion).
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
Some of these are kind of obscure, so don't feel too bad if you didn't pick some of them up, it took me two viewings to discover these.
Let me know if I missed anything.
I finally have a reason to call Katz a shmoo.
Maybe he didn't watch the same "End of Days" I did. Maybe he did a bong hit of bad acid that kept him from seeing any of the wit, the fine acting, or the merciful use of honest-to-god REAL explosions in lieu of the hordes of computer-generated crap (see also: SW:TPM for reference).
Lighten up, Katz. EoD wasn't supposed to be the heavy religious tome "Stigmata" was, even though it wasn't as good. It was an -action- flick that just happened to cast Satan in the role of villain.
A suggestion:
Get a big bottle of vino, and make a Gabriel Byrne triple feature day of it, in this order:
Prophecy (the first one), Stigmata, and EoD.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a bride to find, and 28 days to do it.
Rafe
V^^^^V
Rafe
Opinions expressed by the author may not actually exist in the wild.
As a "serious christian" and a theology student, you enter the game handicapped - the writings you refer to are "gospel truth" for you; they cannot be disputed, only discussed.
Now consider this: the men who wrote the gospels were men. Men with fallible memories, and men with agendas to further.
Those that like to use "fulfillment of prophesy" as evidence for the verity of the gospels overlook the fact that the men who wrote the gospels were involved in creating a movement. They were trying to establish themselves as leaders, missionaries, and religious revolutionaries. They were establishing churches, creating underground cells, safe houses - all the various sorts of activities taken by subversives of any type.
Small wonder that the gospels detail so many prophesies being fulfilled - how better to justify their claim that Christ was the Messiah? Small wonder too that, as the gospel writers didn't get to compare notes very often, that the various gospels differ and contradict themselves so much.
There's no God in the gospels. What is there is a man who defied the authority of the local religious leaders, pissed them off, and got himself executed when these religious leaders manipulated the local secular authority. Then, this man's followers created a mythos around this man, told all kinds of stories about him to make him seem like a god, and built a religion out of it - a religion where they held positions of power.
THAT'S the God in the gospels.
Throw the book away! It's worth as much as L. Ron Hubbard's chicken scratch, or the videotaped rantings of David Koresh. It's a work of fiction that may happen to be partly based on historical events.
Now look around you, and go on the evidence. What proof is there of God? What evidence is there of God?
There is none. Funny about that.
There's another side to Pascal's Wager that doesn't seem to get much press:
"What does it cost me and the world if I worship the christian god?"
How much has 2000 years of a philosophy that espouses peace and love, but practices hate, intolerence, slavish obedience to dogma, active obstruction of those who refuse to follow them, - and even torture and murder - cost humanity?
Christians would do well to put aside their bibles and pick up some real history books, and learn just what it is that they are involved in. There is very little good in there.
The "Big Bang" is by the evidence, an excellent theory, but it by no means a doctrinal certainty.
Ask a scientist how the universe began, and the answer is "Probably the "Big Bang", but we don't really know, and quite possibly never will"
Ask a scientist how life began, and you will get an explination of various types of molecules combining under certain conditions, and creating new kinds of molecules that could self-replicate - life. Ask for those exact compunds and conditions, and you will get "we don't know for sure" - but the process is pretty clear. With time and experiment, eventually the creation of life will be duplicated in a lab.
But both the creation of the universe and the creation of life can be explained by the application of various physical laws that you can go out and test for yourself. God is not part of the mix.
You don't need a "final" answer from science to see that god is invalid.
I had gone up to Fargo (Moorhead actually) from Minneapolis to a see a friend of mine. We decided to go to the movies that night. We had been talking about life in Minneapolis vs. Fargo. I had mentioned that we had had a few protests and things at the U of M. When we pulled up to the theater, we saw protesters outside picketing the movie Dogma. We had planned to see Sleepy Hollow, but when we saw posters that said DOGMA IS BLASPHEMOUS TO OUR LORD and a giant Jesus picture, we said we had to see Dogma instead.
I want to thank those protesters. Without them, I would have not seen Dogma! We both enjoyed the film immensely. We were both raised Christians (he Catholic) and I think that the movie makes people *THINK*. It challenges their faith, which is a good thing, because it will cause a person to reevaluate their faith. They will either become stronger in it, or realize that it really isn't what they believe in.
Photos of bits of the past hiding in the present: afiler.com
I also watched and enjoyed Toy Story 2, but the notion that it was original or had anything really meaningful to say is a comically naive viewpoint.
Toy Story 2 is about one simple thing: marketing. Christmas is impending. Can you think of any better merchandising plug than a movie about toys?
And also, what's with Katz justifying every movie as a "geek" film? Does he think we can't be interested in movies about technically ignorant, bland, or socially successful people?
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
When you look back at the history of christianity, it's clear that the amount of evil greatly, greatly outnumbers the good.
In fact, it's only recently that we've been seeing any real "christian" acts coming out of christians - probably because technology has raised their standard of living to the point where charity is feasible.
For every Mother Theresa, there's a Torquemada. For every starving poor man fed, a thousand tortured and slaughtered.
"Love they neighbor" indeed.
Well said!!
Or maybe that *was* total enlightenment. ;-)
Science is fallible, but admits to it.
Religion is fallible, but insists that it is The Truth in the face of demonstrated falibility.
Science is reasonable, religion is delusionable
I'd rather admit my ignorence and strive for knowledge than believe in a fabricated delusion
I only seen Dogma and End of Days (you can see where I concentrate by this).
;-).
;-)
Dogma:
I just think it's good that Jon backed offa Dogma because it was so frikking hilarious and it was true, all so true!
End of Days:
Jon bashed it a little TOO much don't you think? Arnold's (you wanted me to TYPE OUT his LAST NAME? mwahahah! you're funny) movies have ALWAYS been about pounding action with no real theme or polt!!! The only good movies he made were Twins and that movie where he's pregnant, he should consider more funny movies from now on. Other than those, Arnold always does pulse pounding action in which he gets shot 1,000,000 times and still walks around like nothing. And this is another one of those, and I don't care; I was going "Jerry, Jerry!" half the time of this movie, because that's what Arnold is all about: POW, BANG, SLAM. Who cares?! And there's always that music isn't there? "DUN DUN, DUN DUN, DUN DUN, CLINK CLINK, DUN DUN" oooohhh it's so suspenseful!
That's that.
yeah
I submitted this as a "Ask Slashdot" feature, but it didn't get posted. Since Dogma got mentioned here, I figured I'd ask away.
Yesterday on NPR's Fresh Air, Terry Gross interviewed Kevin Smith. (You'll eventually be able to listen to the show in RealAudio format here in 28.8 or ISDN bitrates.) In one of his responses, Kevin roughly said: "I'm hoping to reintroduce spirituality to a whole generation of people whose last experience with religion [ed: and/or spirituality] was when their parents stopped dragging them to church." So -- the question goes out -- have you explored your spiritual and/or religious side since you were a child? What was the end result?
BTW, I distinguish between spirituality and religion. Spirituality is a personal set of beliefs which deal with metaphysics, the nature of the world around you, Gods and/or Goddesses (or the distinct lack thereof), and your interaction with those individuals and forces. Religion is an extension of humanity to bring together multiple people who have, roughly, the same spiritual beliefs, and generally imposes a further set of man-made rules (dare I say dogma?) on its practitioners.
"But always she's the spectre of uncertainty I first endured, then faded, then embraced..."
I mean, think about it. It all started back around the time of Armageddon and Deep Impact. now don't worry, I'm not nominating these two as examples. I thought they both bit like sharp cheddar (which is to say they were bad), but right after that, movies started to get REALLY GOOD. We had Shakespeare in Love, Pleasantville (maybe that was `98?), Elizabeth, Saving Private Ryan (which I hated, but was well made), The Perfect Husband, A Midsummer Night's Dream (the bicycles were strange, but the rest was pretty damn faithful), Episode I (I come to bury Lucas, not to praise him), the Matrix, The Candidate, The Blair Witch Project (well conceived, even if it did drag on a bit), American Pie, South Park, Idle Hands, American Beauty (OH MY GOD what a great movie!!!), The Insider, Three Kings, Princess Mononoke (OH MY GOD what another great movie!!!), Being John Malkovitch, American Movie, The Iron Giant, Dogma, Toy Story 2, and Man on the Moon (alright, that hasn't come out yet, but I'm such an Andy Kaufman fan that I'm sure it will be good :-)
And that's just a list off the top of my head! I mean, go to the IMDB and see if you can find a year that has more of your favorite movies.
And if you want any further proof of 1999's magical movie power, just take a look at some of the movies that, by all rights, should have sucked ROYALY -- like The Matrix, Inspector Gadget, and Toy Story 2.
A good cyberpunk thriller has to be made, especially one staring Keanu ``Johnny Mnemonic'' Reeves. And yet The Matrix pulls it off wonderfully! It should have sucked, but `99 made it work!
And Inspector Gadget? I don't need to go into all the ways a live action version of that could have been messed up. but though it wasn't one of my favorites THIS year, it did get the same kind of laughs that the old cartoon got. And it easily could have been a favorite on a lesser year when nothing came out -- say `96 or whenever it was that gave us Space Jam.
And Toy Story 2... What can I say? The first rocked wonderfully. And then they wanted to do a SEQUAL!?!? When has that ever worked? I'll tell you when: in the wonderful year of our lord, 1999 . The year when no movies could go wrong!
--
I agree, I think Chasing Amy is the best of them so far. It had a great story, for one thing, and it was based on the characters doing what they wanted to do. One thing about Dogma is that the sympathetic characters are all basically being dragged along for the ride, instead of moving ahead under their own direction. The bad guys act, and the good guys react. That's never a good thing, IMHO.
Actually, I didn't like the boardroom scene: the way they kept cutting away and showing blood splishing on things seemed really hackneyed. It just bugged me. Especially considering what they went ahead and showed at other points in the movie. The hockey scene in Chasing Amy worked much better as a depiction of violence, I thought. I guess the boardroom scene was supposed to be dark comedy, but it seemed more like joke - bang! -joke - bang!, and it was never clear whether this was supposed to be funny, or frightening. Or maybe I missed the point.
Jon
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
sub
I'm an Orthodox Jew.
(And politically "left-wing" rather than libertariansend all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Actually, it was in theatres... for about a week.
The showings for the movie were so incredibly bad that the majority of theatres picked up the newest movie immediately, or added another screen for a current movie.
Here, it did not even go into the cheapo movie theatres (we pay $8 for a regular movie here, $2.50 at the cheapo "wait until everyone else has seen it twice" theatres)
I need only to site two examples:
o The Last Action Hero
o Jingle All the Way
I rest my case...
Jordan.
These people are a serious problem, and I just wish sometimes that other Christians would realize that the biggest threat to Christianity is not attacks from without (if Christians behave as decent people, other people will like them and not buy such slanders) but this kind of behaviour within. It is a real, serious problem and it needs to be addressed. Back when I lived up north (in a mostly Catholic suburb) I tended to believe that this was media bias against Christians and that they just showed a few crazies who were spoiling things for everyone else. But, and my personal experiences may indeed be just a nasty series of coincidences, I've become convinced that the crazies are a serious problem. You don't understand, I'm afraid of some of these people on my campus, afraid of physical violence if I draw their attention in the wrong way. And no one called a Christian should ever inspire that kind of feeling in others.
Amphigory, I apologize for lumping you in with them (in some of my previous posts), but things have been seriously bad lately. I can't pretend I'm as religious as my brother (I was an altar boy, but that was long ago), but I do still take my faith seriously.
P.S. I never read the E-mail you sent me, I was afraid.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I agree with Chewie... one of the best movies I've gone to in ages. But you have to be a certain type of person to enjoy it - the typical /.er probably qualifies. When Malkovich was about to Malkovich himself, I noticed that just some of us started getting really overexcited (you know what I mean, bouncing up and down, laughing hysterically) about the possibilities when nothing had happened yet. It was kind of like a test for who in the theater had ever dealt with recursive calls! Overall, the movie reminded me of when I went to see Pi - the audience was divided into those felt like a movie had been made just for us, and those who wondered why they were there.
I think it's nice to know that there are some conservative Christians out there who aren't extremist. I still don't believe in their doctrine, but it's a relief to know they're not all wigged out. Thanks Patrick!
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Admitedly, it would be a very nice game.... but as a movie, I felt a bit cheapened. I wouldn't pay $8 to watch someone play a video game.
"God does not play dice with the universe." -Albert Einstein
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
BTW, while I was watching Wild Things I couldn't understand where all the hype came from. Then I got towards the end... Wow!
Am I the only person here who thought Dogma sucked?
The only reason Dogma is getting any attention at all is because it attacked the Catholic Church. As if this is so shocking in 1999. And are they really such tough ideas that I had to endure hours of lectures from Chris Rock and Selma Hyak?
Let me look in my crystal ball and describe for you how this movie was written.
The writer is 18 years old. It is 4am, and he is talking with his buddies. They are all drunk. They are excited because, yesterday in their Religion 101 class, the professor described Catholicism in a different way than Father Ignatius back home in Church did! The writer is so charged, he just has to write this stuff down. He always thought there was something funny going on there.
Years later, after becoming the Big Director, he decides it's time to release these "revolutionary ideas" onto the world. So he takes a few minutes to write an incredibly weak plot, and shoots the film in three days. Every scene is shot in one take, with the actors reading from cue cards. And he got his six year old sister to write the score for the thing.
Every monologue was way too long. How many times did we need to listen to the same damn ideas? Have the Mouth of God guy explain this stuff in the first 20 minutes of the movie and get on with it. Oh, here's a new character -- let's have him say what everyone else has said for the next 20 minutes. The acting was wretched. Every scene change meant only that another monologue was coming. The only saving graces of the whole film were Silent Bob and his partner, and they do not make a movie.
Easily the worst movie I have seen in five years.
Therefore, we can expect some people to keep readjusting their schedule for the Apocalypse until 2033.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Anyone who likes Tim Burton movies will love this one. For once, a movie that lives up to the hype surrounding its release.
..the industry would stop releasing so many Katz articles!
Agreed that Toy Story 2 was brilliant - perhaps even better than the first. And I don't even like cutesy kids' movies.
Dogma was a huge disappointment. I have followed all of Kevin Smith's work since Clerks. Dogma wasn't a *bad* movie, but at this point I expect Kevin Smith to do much better than that. Could it be that he's jointed the 'Matt Groening' category of gifted people, meaning that he's all out of good ideas and funny jokes?
Also in theaters: the new James Bond. Don't go to see it expecting anything more than a remake of the last twenty or so Bond movies. But in this capacity, it's very good (just like the other three Brosnan bond flicks). It's highly entertaining, and recommended if you like Bond at all.
Well being an American living in Europe (Norway) for a year, I don't always get the movies fresh and piping hot from Hollywood as I used to. "Fight Club" was well worth the wait. It had a little more realism than "The Matrix" (Although that was a really cool film) and left you wanting to sit down like the Rodin Statue "The Thinker" and just think about life, and what goes on inside your head, and the others. The anti materialism message was funny, an perhaps meaningful to some. There is a good deal of violence, as you would expect from a movie named "Fight Club", but there's so much more. It's Powerful. I couldn't find any real plot holes, like you can with a lot of other films, or say "Why didn't they just do... ... instead of going to all that trouble?" Also the next day I learned about glycerin in Chem. :)
What I'm trying to say is that that was an entertaining and thought provoking movie, and it was solid.
They also pasted in a few porn frames in the last few seconds. They mention doing it a few times in the movie, and then they do it just before the credits.
Also "Run Lola Run", a German Film (lola Rennt or something) was also very good. It's already on DVD, and it came out last year, but it's impossible not to like.
"The Red Violin" was also excellent.
That's about all I have to say about movies. 1999 was a kick ass year for them!
Go see fight club, you're in for a big surprise. Also THX surround sound is a big plus for this movie.
Kninja
"Knight meets Ninja"
This is a common misconception that people have. The Catholic church has not taken a stance on Dogma. Most of the protests are because of a group known as the Catholic League and it's leader William Donahue. Dogma was to be originally distributed by Miramax, which is owned by Disney. Donahue and the League have a grudge against Disney because of their policies. Such as providing benefits for gay spouses, "Gay Day", the movie "Priest" and TV shows like Nothing Sacred. In reality this whole deal is all about gaining publicity for the League by attacking a big cow like Disney, Dogma just got caught up in the middle. Stigmata wasn't really attacked because it was distributed by MGM, which, other than Bond, is dead. Go to www.catholicleague.org/news to see how nuts these people are.
"Don't touch it! It's concentrated evil."
I preffer my evil from concentrate. I won't touch powdered evil. And do you know how long it takes to get evil fresh squeezed?
I took my nephew to see Toy Story 2 over the weekend... it was packed with little kids, of course. Before the film, one of the previews was about the film "Mission 2 Mars"... astronauts go to Mars. They're shown being sucked down a tornado-like storm... shown inside a room with human-breathable air... then walking into a long horizontal black stripe of darkness, while the announcer intones (something like) "... they'll find out more about life on Earth than they ever dreamed."
And right then my nephew said, "and they see a large yellow thing that says: Pichaku!"
I nearly died laughing... it's kind of embarassing to have little kids 6 rows down turning around to stare at the strange giggling man....
Ok, JonKatz gives Toy story two 2 thumbs and his small wank up, but says End of Days was 'awful in almost every conceivable way'. First off, someone making a comparison like this must be homosexual. Nothing against homosexuals, except the fact they have poor taste in everything. Arnold's acting was probably the best in this movie. Some say it would be Terminator 2, but it's not that hard to act dry and talk in a monotone like a robot. Arnold is older now, and his acting has matured. Not to mention the sruff on his face makes him look tough and wise. This is a fine movie, with a great plot, excellent acting, and a superb story line. After all, it was directed by JAMES CAMERON! How the hell can you knock a JAMES CAMERON film?!?!? Ever hear of Terminator 2 (a movie waaaaaaaay ahead of its time, with wanna-be's like Jurassic Park trying to imitate), TITANIC!!!, unreal special effects (made with Linux =D), Aliens 2, the list goes on. Don't listen to what JonKatz has to say about this movie. God, I enjoyed this movie more than Episode One (keep your flames to yourself you fucking 120 lbs. dorks). See this movie or die.
Two really great films I've seen this year are eXistenZ & The Fight Club.
:-)
/.ers (eg JonKatz) think has resulted in an anti-geek pogrom.
eXistenZ is basically the Matrix done properly- with two arseholes
The Fight Club is just incredibly cool. It is even relevant to the "Random Psycho" killings you seem to be plagued with in the US, that some
(Possibly some of The Fight Club is censored in the US, I remember reading something about that.)
John is giving Dogma too much credit and Malkovich not enough.
Being John Malkovich is wonderfully innovative, reminiscent of Terry Gilliam & Monty Python, and very much a trip. Don't think any reviewer has told you what this film is really about, or even more than a tenth of what happens in it: it's much more than a hole into John Malkavich's brain. It's rather fantastical, and it's without a doubt the weirdest film I've ever seen.
Dogma on the other hand is a complete bust. If Smith decided to conduct this sort of religious attack on the Jews instead of the Catholics, hell would have flown in the Hollywood studios - and the satire isn't even funny! I laughed four times. The talent is phenomenal, and that's all: each actor in that film could have easily rewritten his or her part so that it was actually funny. George Carlin as a priest is a hilarious idea, and the funniest man in America is wasted in the part, as an example. If this is the worst that can be said about the Catholicism, I'd say the Church is in pretty good shape.
Arnold throws satan out of a window
how cool is that?
come on, its an arnold movie, they are automatically good, cause he has the neat accent and says "COME ON!"
-I go to Rice, so figure out my email address
Speaking of Asimov, I saw a preview for The Bicentennial Man starring Robin Williams at the last movie I saw. It looked pretty good.
Politas
Actualy, I really liked the movie, I Know a lot of people didn't see it, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad. I always just figured that the subject matter didn't really appeal to every one.
Then I saw leno making fun of it, saying it was 'bad' or whatever. Of course, while leno would think that, it isn't true. It was at least an OK movie. And I think its to bad that it got raped in the press like it did.
As far Katz critique of End Of Days, well, he didn't like it, and I under stand why. But his reasons don't really resonate with me. I mean, Yeh, your not going to fight the devil with shotguns, but then an army of robots isn't going to use the bio-energy of the human race to power itself ether (entropy). Whenever you have any type of 'fantastic' movie, such as The Matrix, or End Of Days, theres going to be some things that don't "Work out". To me, the Christian religion is just a fantasy, like the lord of the rings or something. If someone has a different take, then so be it.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I do plan to. It looks visually beautiful, and if nothing more it'll be a good action movie.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
That's easy.
Science works.
When I use science to predict where a projectile will land, the prediction comes true. When I use science to predict how strong something is, the prediction comes true. When I use science to determine why I am sick, and then use science to cure what ails me, I get better.
Science put men on the moon, and built the Internet.
And if the science of something I am using is a little shaky at the moment, then I'm told up front about the unknowns. In fact, it's not good science unless you include the error bounds.
Religion, on the other hand, accomplishes nothing. Religious explinations of physical phenomena are always eventaully disproven. Prayer has never sent a message to my mother, cooked me a meal, or washed my clothes.
Religion says "trust me, I know best - and I'm not going to tell you any more than that"
Science says "here's what I think, here's the evidence I based my conclusions on, here's how to test it for yourself, and tell me what you think I got wrong"
Religion demands my faith. Science earned it.
The matrix does make you think... just... not very much.
"You know what it really reminds me of? Tasty wheat. did you ever eat Tasty Wheat?"
"no, but technically nether did you.
"I know, but that's exactly my point, exactly. See how do the machines really know what tasty wheat tasted like? Maybe they got it wrong. Maybe what I think tasty wheat tasted like actually tastes like, ahh, oatmeal, or tuna fish.
That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken for example, maybe they couldn't figure out what to make chicken taste like, witch is why chicken tastes like everything. And maybe they couldn't figure out...."
"Shut up, mouse"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
When I was young, I went to a Pentacostal Bible camp where they told me that I was going to hell for liking Van Halen (Pre-Sammy, of course)
My friend, if you liked pre-Sammy Van Halen, you are going to hell.
:-)
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
However, if you are a SINGLE geek then take a look at that girl, maybe you like how she looks as much as i do, then go for it- her face is always on. I drooled the entire movie.
**On the other hand, maybe you could accept organized religion on the basis of your experience with Pentecostals. After all, I would hardly call most Pentecostal churches "organized" *grin* ***
No, it was very organized, we had softball leagues and everything. *rimshot*
-nme!
PS but seriously, thanks for sharing your opinion, which I found to be very interesting. peace out.
I expected BJM to deliver laughs and be thought-provoking, but to inevitably falter when faced with the need to wrap up a plot (I think Katz's review sums up to this reaction). Put another way, that it'd wind up straining to be weird-for-weird's-sake, and that I'd be skimming it for amusing nuggets.
I have to tell you, though, I've never had more surprised/delighted moments from a single film in years! It met my expectations in the first 30-45 minutes, but then it found valid, character-rooted twists to explore, over and over! Much to my surprise, the writer (mea culpa - can't remember his name) really thought out what people would want to know about his premise (can you get better and worse times to be Malkovich? what about during sex? how about if it involves someone you know? what would happen if Malkovich himself tried it? and there's more) - and established a set of characters whose motivations would naturally get us there. It's not flawless, but it's so much better a movie than the premise and experience with movie plots would lead you to expect. I'll be surprised if Toy Story 2 matches it for fun.
_________________
Oh, INTERCOURSE the penguin! (Python tribute, not Linux knock)
Why is it that you treat BJM and EoD as a film critic would and then drool over the meaningless eye candy of Toy Story? Let's face it: you're pretty obviously not a film scholar, so you should stick to evaluating them based on their merit as friday night entertainment (as you did with Toy Story) rather than artistic merit (Malkovich, End of Days). I thought EoD was as good a shoot-em-up as Toy Story was a kids' film.
EOD! TS2! TWINE! TND! IMHO!
just because you're a geek.. that doesn't mean you have to abbreviate EVERYTHING.
ok?
Be careful where you use the word "clueless". "Dogma" isn't a Dogma movie in the Lars von Triers sense. It's by Kevin Smith of Clerks/Chasing Amy fame (and Mallrats imfamy.)
Presto
What they did was to remove it from the required state tests, which means teaching it is now optional instead of mandatory.
That's a lot different from being banned.
Sorry, but taking an infamous historical tragedy and turning it into a three-hour soap opera/action movie hybrid DOES NOT make you a genius, Oscar or no. Cameron is fine for testosterone-pumped action adventures, but Titanic was an absolute travesty. He needs to hire writers next time he attempts a serious piece.
It's about entertainment for goodness sake, fun for the sake of bloody fun...these pseudo-intellectual wankers make me sick!
Arnie doesn't try for Oscars, he settles for cash, subsidised by average people voting with their feet to see a movie with a plot (however surreal) and a cast that is almost guaranteed to entertain.
I love to see shit blow up and dudes die on the screen, and yes I am a Homicidal Psycho, but I reckon it's better that I get my kicks from dropping 10 or 12 bucks at the movies and having a laugh at a scenario where no-one really gets hurt than watch the news and have to face that overrated depressive experience most people call reality!
Um, I don't think so. There are a great many communities in the US where Catholics are held in relatively low regard. Consider John F. Kennedy's race for President -- there were several public grumblings about whether he would be loyal to the United States or to the Pope.
Questioning Catholicism is a popular American sport. Now, questioning the Baptists or Lutherans...
...that God works with numbers in base10, and that She likes round numbers that are ridiculously small (2k ? Hah!)
I haven't seen it.
It seems like the apotheosis of cop culture to me.
The entertainment industry is ridiculous: cops every fucking where you look, even worse than real life. We have cops, tough gritty, decent, yet alchoholic cops, saving us from those awful drug dealers, terrorists, and now, finally, a cop saves us from the fuckin' devil!
After Seattle I'm pretty convinced people just need to start killing cops.
support gun control: take guns from cops
of leaving the house.
Toy Story 2 on the other hand was just simply awesome. If you havn't seen it, go see it.
Personally I think Katz has a point about the beginning/end thing. Except we reached the point a couple years ago. In the last, say, two years I've seen more movies that have really hit me on some sort of philosophical level than any before that.
Thinking back, I'd list Pi, Bulwarth, Clerks, Fight Club, American Beauty, The Spanish Prisoner (maybe), The Matrix (well, maybe not really--it needed a little more Gibson pessimism) and probably a bunch that aren't coming to mind right now. Existential/antimaterialist movies (such as the afore mentioned Fight Club and American Beauty and even movies such as Office Space) seem to be popping up left and right.
Add to that the amazing imagery of i.e. the Wachowski (sp?) brothers (Bound, The Matrix). I am very impressed with movies these days. I haven't seen Dogma or Being John Malkovitch (I'll probably add them to the 'smart' list when I do) but I'm eager to. Cheap thrill action flicks aside, the quality of movies is definitely on the rise.
Jose M. Weeks
God, I hated that movie, and I thought the thing was, at least Denise Richards tried to act intelegent. Elizabeth's character was a complete bimbo!
Nothing in that movie made sense....
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
There is a negative to option (infact, I've seen a post at -5 once, It was rated as "sexist, racist, or crimial" or somthing like that. I think that was a bug though, since the post was nothing like that...
Anyway, if enough people moderate somthing down, it will get -2, and in order to see you need to manualy change your threshold in the URL
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Your post was one of the most intresting, insiteful, and really not-boring thing I think I've ever read in my life! Thank you 'azatoth'!
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Why not take a look at every other organization on earth and tell me that they are all pure and good and have done nothing harmful to anyone, ever...
The Free Software Foundation!!!!!!!!!!!
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I went to see this film last week, based on other glowing reviews... And 3 or 4 hours later, I staggered out, insulted that I'd wasted $10.50 (including popcorn) on this stinker.
The entire movie in a nutshell: There's this guy who loves making movies. His family think he's never going to finish them (and they're pretty close to right). He's broke. He drinks too much. His friends drink too much. He keeps at it (though the documentary skips entire years at a time, so you have to piece together that he works on it at most one month a year...)
And that's it. By the end, he gets his 30-minute money-making movie done, which is supposed to finance his big drama feature. Woo-hoo.
With someone else, this could have been "heroic", as Katz says, but most of his problems are self-made, and while he's steadily working away at everything, he does it so mind-bendingly slowly that it's no wonder he's still stuck in Milwaukee.
The documentary was poorly edited, disjointed, almost incoherent, and after many tedious hours, just stops.
Now, I like independant movies. I've even liked films about filmmaking before. But this is just a waste of celluloid.
-Blank Mark
I could talk about Fight Club for hours on end (yes, even though the first and second rules are that you're not supposed to). At least temporarily it has replaced Taxi Driver as my favorite movie. Hm, my two favorite movies are about young white males frustrated about life who turn to violence. Is that an indicator on those tests for possible "warning signs" about violence in teenagers?
I'm glad to see that looking through this thread, I haven't seen any bad comments about Fight Club, because there's been an awful lot of it in the media. I think it primarily stems from the fact that there are different "levels" in the movie. At least there are different levels that the viewer can approach the film with. One, the mindless consumer, two, the mindless anarchist, and three, the free thinking, ethical person. These are essentially the three "stages" the narrator goes through in the film, sequentially. Unfortunately, I think that if you come into the movie thinking at level one, it's very possible to only realize its transitition to anarchy. Or if you come in at level three, it's _possible_ to think the whole movie is a useless exercise in the obvious. This seems to be the stance many reviewers have taken, adding that it just tends to promote anarchy because someone like Brad Pitt is so likable. One criticism I heard is that while the movie implies that it is necessary to experience violence to realize it's bad, you shouldn't need to. Perhaps this is so in an idealized world, but not in the dronelike, pathetic world of the first 20 minutes of Fight Club, which is all too similar to America today.
Yes, I realize this whole level analogy is really broad and imprecise, but I think it makes sense. I'm sure if you haven't seen the movie, it all makes no sense at all (but that just means you should see it!) It simply seems to me that this structure of the movie, which is very effective if you understand it (is that a paradox?), has been misinterpreted by the media and caused the movie to be a relative failure (yes, it's funny that a movie can gross $30 million plus and still be considered a failure). I have yet to talk to anyone directly who has seen the movie that didn't like it. What I see more of is "Oh, I heard that sucks!!!"
If nothing else, if you disregard its political and psychological aspects, it's a masterpiece of sound and vision in a non-obvious special effects sense (Fight Club uses special effects to show enable amazing "camera" movement in and around a kitchen, a garage, or a trash can, not to show some stupid dinosaur or a space ship blowing up).
And if you're still not convinced, there is a CG PENGUIN in the movie that talks. PENGUIN == LINUX == SEE THE MOVIE.
On another note, for those you have seen the movie, READ THE BOOK. Or at least the last two chapters, because most of the movie is similar to the novel, except for the end. Let's just say that something that seems inevitable as a result of physics at the end doesn't happen in the movie, but does in the book.
(I am not the original poster)
I am sorry, but you do not understand what a proof is. A proof is a valid argument starting from premises which are accepted as true by both arguer and opponent, and proceeding to a conclusion which previously the opponent was unwilling to accept. It is showing the opponent that, given certain truths (which he accepts), he cannot consistently deny certain others.
As to the issue of contradictions in the bible I fear you do not seek to have a discussion, but instead to have a debate. A debate is when partisans of opposed settled convictions defend their respective views, while in a discussion the interlocutors search honestly and without bias for the best solution to a controversial problem. When successfully carried out, discussion should lead to an inevitable and unanimously accepted conclusion, if the arguments, which are presumed to weigh equally with everyone, have, as it were been distributed in the pans of a balance. In a debate on the other hand, each interlocutor advances only arguments favourable to his own thesis, and his sole concern with arguments unfavorable to him is for the purpose of refuting them or limiting their impact (e.g."I challenge you to show me where you believe they do and I will show you why you are wrong."). Did it ever occur to you that perhaps, by some chance, you yourself might be wrong?
As far as I am concerned a debate with you would be a complete waste of both my time and the original posters, considering that I do not derive any particular joy from engaging in a debate. Instead of a debate, how about a discussion?
What most of the pussies who slam Katz seldom, if ever, think about is that they are dissing an admitted outsider while they lounge around as a comfy, self elected member of an exclusive (must be, in order to be hip) CLICQUE.
You have become that which you despise, my brothers.
When I was in school, clicque members were the objects of my contempt. They still are.
I just love this. Alleged, wannabe geeks eating their own.
True geeks delight in your collective folly. Katxz is as much a True Geek as anyone here. He's finding his way.
In fact, he's BETTER! He was not Born To It, via an intellectual family background.
He's attempting a total personal shift of his paradigm, values and all.
As one who has traversed this path since birth, I ASSURE you that you don't attempt it for cynical profit. Breaking away from one's past in a meaningful way for yourself is truly agonising.
Apparently none of the wusses attacking Katz have ever made such a change.
I pity them.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
(I am not the original poster)
Hello, please understand that I do not wish to debate anything, merely to discuss.
I assume that your post was not designed as an argument, but merely designed to cultivate thought in the mind of reader. If I am wrong I apologize and I will show you what led me to make this conclusion. Your first paragraph is composed of questions. Questions are not factual and can not be proven to be true or false, hence they can not be part of an argument. Your second paragraph deals with what you have seen, which though it can form part of an argument, is very weak and should be avoided. After all, who are we to refute what you have seen? E.G. You may see one thing while another man may see something else. We can not disprove that you did not see a change. However your last statement could very well be part of an argument, and perhaps am I wrong, if so I once again apologize.
If it is an argument then a counter-argument could go as such:
If God made up the Gospel, then why doesnt it make more sense? The gospels idiosyncracies are the best evidence for their falsity, since God, being all powerful and incapable of error, would thus be incapable of such things. God does not contradict himself.
OR
Man must have made up the Gospel, because it doesnt make much sense. Man is prone to errors of memory, judgement and reason while God is free of any such flaws. Hence God could not have made up the Gospel.
Please understand that these are not my arguments, these are merely examples intended to cultivate thought and perhaps discussion.
I must agree with you that Chritianity changes people. I too have seen this change. But you do not state whether you consider this change to be a good or bad change. I assume that you consider it to be a good change. But the change I have seen in my opinion is a bad change. Perhaps in the interest of healthy discussion you could respond with what is good about that change, and what kind of change, and I will do likewise.
I must thankyou for your post as I enjoy reading posts on slashdot which address complicated issues like religion.
Sleepy Hollow was a beautifully-staged and -shot film, with mostly good acting, some sweet subtle effects (especially the fog pinching the torches), great sword work, and edited crisply, BUT when oh when will moviemakers stop casting actors for period pieces who can't manage the accent? I mean, it just destroys any believability the sets, music, costumes, etc. produce when you hear a flat, off-key blat like Ms. Ricci's. She was almost as painful to hear as Keanu was in Dracula. Even Miranda Richardson, from whom I expect better, seemed not to have the accent down--sounded too So-Cal, I thought. Grade of B, minus a full mark for voices, for an overall C.
The new Bond, though gripping in spots, had very poor editing; it went on way too long, or just seemed so for lack of action. Preposterous plot, but we expect that from Bond films, and Cleese was surprisingly awkward (but welcome!). The opening, from the banker's office through the boat chase, was right up there with the classics, but the snow chase was pretty pathetic; I nearly choked when the flying snomos appeared. Brosnan lacks Connery's gravitas but is aging very well into the part, edging Dalton for the #2 spot. Denise Richards did look like Lara Croft, but wasn't as bad as people say, and any chance to get a camera underwater with her is alright in my book. Well acted, beautiful women, and Brosnan on the plus side; poor pacing, not enough tech (all the car did was get sliced in half! wtf?), and thin on action to the minus. C-.
American Beauty is a must-see. 'Nuff said. A.
"f@#$ YOU MOTHER!@CKER !!!"
Dear sir, here is what I propose. You agree you let me torture and slaughter, you, your family, steal your funiture, and burn down your house and I will provide payment for my sins by feeding and clothing, and providing with shelter and furniture (HEH, you wont be needing yours anymore) to one homeless family.
Are you trying to imply that if you kill a man today, but save a life tomorow, your past crime is rendered null and void? You appear to be a disgustingly evil creature. Are all Christians like you?
God doesnt frighten us, you and all your Xian clan do. You are the greatest threat to humanity that has ever existed in history. You stupid Xians seem to think you can reap and sow for ever, and that you own the earth. Stupid Xians are responsible for the current environmental crisis. Stupid Xians are a threat to this planet. And all Xians are stupid Xians. And yes you are an imbecille. Your self denial is not funny only because of how dangerous an imbecille you are. And yes the Bible tells you not to think. To have "faith" is to not think or to accept as truth that which defys laws of logic, physics and reason (by not thinking). You stupid Xians, you're all the same.
*SPIT*
He talks just like everyone else ... over here :)
[rant]
Why do those damned Hollywood bastards insist on making us Europeans wait months for the same movies?
On a similar note, whoever came up with the idea for regional versions of DVD should be taken out into the street and shot*.
[/rant]
* despite first appearances, i do not advocate the death penalty.
OK, I get it "Well, yeah, sure, we caused some atrocities but look at [insert group here] they did atrocities too!"
As if that somehow justifies the initial crime.
We had a group of very nasty, ugly people this century - the Nazis. They did a lot of very nasty, ugly things. Because of those deeds, there are no more Nazis. The world will not tolerate them. (Except in small, powerless, fringe groups that very rarely surface)
If a group of Neo-Nazis were to surface, brownshirts, swastikas, and all the rest - but claiming that "this time around, they'd be good", the world wouldn't buy it.
So why do we continue to suffer the presence of Christians, who have at LEAST as much blood on their hands, and for similar reasons?
That's not a prophesy of a crucifixion, that's a description of a violent death - hardly a rare occurence in those days. Not once is the word "crucifixion" mentioned, not is anything that could be taken as a metaphorical descriptions of elements unique to crucifixion.
What's more, the context here is a _psalm_, not literal prophesy. If you had something like "...and the Messiah will be nailed to a cross of wood, and there he shall hang until he dies" you'd have a much better case.
The only elements you have that are explicitly mentioned in the gospels are "they pierced my hands and my feet" and "They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture" - and as I recall my gospels, at least one of them calls these items out _during the story_ as being done to fulfill prophesy. This means that the writer was very much aware that his accounts were being used to verify claims of prophesy fulfillment.
It's not hard to imagine the writer of that gospel sitting down with a big list of items taken from the old testement that could be considered prophesy, and either looking for items that matched so he could call them out, or looking for elements to weave into his account.
Your "proof" is tenuous and strained. Can you do no better?
To the best of my knowledge, no group of Athiests has ever lead a movement to exterminate the infidels.
Those of us in the "vocal and bitter" department are upset about the evils that religion - especially Christianity - have brought into the world, and so we complain about it. Much the same way that we would complain about Nazi activities during the Holocost, or the activities of [insert ethnic group here] against [ethinic group here] in what once was Yugoslavia.
But while we argue, and cajole, and educate, and do our damnedest to try and get you to break your programming and see what a nasty thing it is you've gotten yourself involved with, we won't kill you, or torture you, or censor you - that's the Christian way, not ours.
At no point during dogma did I see any attack on Catholic doctrine. If you did find this then you are blind. That's right you saw what you saw by being blind. Blinded by what? Media...they told you the movie attacked Catholics so you looked for it you looked so damn hard you found it where it wasnt just like the PMRC foud backward lyrics telling kids to kill their grandmothers in Ozzy records.
So what is dogma about? It's about the fact the we spend 99% of the time worrying about shit that dosen't really matter...Is who got the last cookie going to matter when you die.
May your soul reach heaven before the devil realizes you are dead
Okay, it's been a while since I read it... it's not exactly light reading, y'know. What passage is it? Give me a reference! : )
Christians often take a lot of flack for what we believe.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Christians often take a lot of "flack" [sic] because they feel that they have a right to legislate their beliefs, or that they should shove their beliefs down the throats of anybody who happens to be nearby, regardless of whether they want to hear it or not. If I want to believe that the entire universe was poofed into existence by Binky The Cosmic Bunny, then that's my business and I can believe what I want, but when I start going out and telling everybody that they must also believe in the Bunny and that we must start hanging Sacred Carrots in public buildings and things like that, then I've crossed the line. What you believe doesn't have a binkydamn thing to do with it! It's the way that you parade it around and rub it in the faces of everyone within crucifix's reach!
I'll bet that if you stopped preaching to people and writing sanctimonious, self-serving tirades about what a good Christian you are in places where they are clearly inappropriate, you'd find yourself getting a lot less "flack."
But hey, that's JMHO.
I never said it was proof. I understand that someone who refuses to believe that a prophecy is fulfilled will continue to not believe, no matter what evidence they are provided with.
The previous poster asked for a prophecy that referenced the crucifixion. I provided one that is by-and-large considered such. Whether or not you choose to accept it is your decision.
Why is it so wrong for me to admit that I don't know!!!
I don't know how the universe was formed, I don't know how life on this planet started, and I admit it! And yet, some how that makes me a bad person WTF???
Why should it matter to me how the universe started? it has no impact on my life. It dosn't. I do belive in things, I belive in the goodness of humanity, I belive that you should do all you can to ease the suffering of another human. And, at, the very least, I belive that I don't know how the universe started.
You should have respect for people who belive that the earth was spawned by a giant chicken labled "Trump Universe Farm", beacuse that idea is no less stupid then the one presented in the bible.
I looked at the facts, and I looked at what I saw around me, And I made a desision. The truly lazy person is someone who never bothers to think for themselves. To call me lazy, beacuse I admit that I don't know somthing that is imposible to know is the absolute in arrogance.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Ok...my bad. I got a few dates screwed up but here is an informed statement from an old prof:
:)
"Nice to hear from you! Most of the biblical scholarship dates Mark as the earliest Gospel at about the year 70 in the Common Era (40 years after the death of Jesus). Matthew and Luke date to about 85 CE, and John dates about 90-100 CE, according to most scholars (though like everything else, all of this is debated). Most do not believe that original apostles authored the Gospels (several were killed prior to this, including Peter and James, as well as Paul -- who was not an apostle). Paul's letters were earlier than the Gospels, and most believe that most were written by him.
Hope that is helpful. I'd look at Marcus Borg's "Jesus at 2000" book if you want to examine the arguments and evidence more carefully.
Best, Dan Spencer"
*shrug* I guess its really no mare than a 2000 year old X-file.
-Vel