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
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
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.
I wasn't impressed with The Sixth Sense. I have no problem with slow-building movies, e.g. The Ususal Suspects, but I felt annoyed at the end, thinking "They made us put up with all of that just for a plot twist?" Puh-leeze...
I can't explain the lag other than wonder if they are just trying to figure out how to put failed domestic flops in the black by marketing them differently. Americans certainly don't bite on the "star appeal" bait quite as hard as Europeans -- we're too cynical and jaded.
--
E2 IN2 IE?
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!"
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)
don't feel too badly, the Star Wars: Episode One merchandising scheme was well in effect before the movie released here as well.
:)
but at least seeing that Terry Brooks' (ugh) official book was out oh, a week or so (along with the audio version of same) before the movie.. heh. let's just say my hopes were a good bit lower than they had been. so i wasn't totally disappointed.
however, i agree that six senth rocked.. bruce willis is still a great actor, and the kid in the flick should have been anakin. or.. ani. *shudder*
tried to save myself but myself keeps slipping away.
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"
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.
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 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.
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.
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 think someone is cranky, you might need a nap...
If you believe that belief in a supreme deity is silly and juvenile then I challenge you to espouse to us the correct notion of how the universe came into being, how we came into being, why things are as they are. You see, you can not with confidence say that you are right, because you can not know until it is too late. I suggest you re-examine your life to see if perhaps you hold a belief in some theory which is equally silly, like the Big Bang....
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
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
"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
May I make an observation? You note that I research teh topic I post on and conveigh a sense of intelligence in my writing. You are correct on both counts. I am a computer engineer working on a theology degree -- i guess that makes me qualified.
Maybe the contradiction lies in your characterization of God as a "boogyman" -- and I honestly believe that, if you took the time to research (as I have) you would find that he is far more than a boogyman.
Read about Jesus. And remember that this is God. Not half of God, or part of God, but God's own revelation of himself to mankind. Or at least so I believe. You might be surprised at what you find.
-- Slashdot sucks.
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
"And if you're not careful, you may learn something before we're done." (Bill Cosby)
Fuck Slashdot
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 -------------------
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)
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.
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.
Nobody who thouroughly researches the topic of the existence of a supreme being can possibly deny outright. If you don't believe it, fine, but there is so much deep theological thought by thousands of people that any open minded person would have to concede that the universe is more complex than you have made it out to be.
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
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.
It's fun to see /. talk about religion/theology. A while back (months) /. had articles on creation being tought in high schools, and posters were outraged at how behind the times some state was. I was kinda ticked off by the attitude. This relates to the current thread how?
1.a) There are great reasons to believe in God
1.b) There are great reasons to be an athiest
2.a) There are great reasons to believe in creation
2.b) There are great reasons to believe in evolution
A good book that questions both of these topics is "The 12th planet" by Zecharia Sitchin.
Maybe it is a mix of God and No God.
Maybe it is a mix of creation and evolution.
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.
Before I rant ;-) let me ask you a question...
Do you believe in electricity? In wind? These things have certain measurable effects on the world, but are not visible phenomena. I believe God is much like this.
There are three main evidences that I have seen for God.
1) Man's inherent moral nature
2) Prophicies fufilled
3) His action in my life
Mans moral nature:
C.S. Lewis, a Oxford Prof. or English literature found this to be one of the most convincing evidences for God. He wrote about our "God shaped hole" and how we react to many things in the visable world shows evidence for God. To explain his points well would take to long right now, if you are interested I can write a bit more, or read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. (if you are interested I'll even send you a copy, or your local library will have one.)
(here's a quote from a review on amazon.com:
A staunch agnostic, I read this in college and was floored by the imagery Lewis brings to faith. This book may not convert you, but it offers a view of the power of faith that few writers can create. Religion, in and of itself, is a concept absent of scientific validity because, at its core, is faith. If you are looking for a historical critique or a philosophical deconstruction of Christianity then don't bother becuase, and I will state again, you won't get it. The fact that some will claim the failings of this book are its "flowery postulates without a hint of evidence" show themselves to be living examples of certain characters in the world Lewis creates. It is his attempt to explain that which can not be contained by language that makes this book great. He does not write to prove, he writes to elucidate. It is as if you are reading a landscape painting.
As for the advice to the Atheists, yes, read this book. You might possibly grasp the concept of faith and realize that your "disbelief" is itself a faith, much like Lewis describes, and that your Atheism is a disbelief against the God that is defined and not the God that is.)
Also you might want to do some research on the Bible, find out how many copies we have, and from when.
You will find that we have copies of some of the "Old testament" books from at least a few hundred years before Christ, and every shread of evidence says that they have been around for a long time before that. (we have pieces of books and tablets and such from much before that) It seams that the bible was written by 40 different authors in 10 different countries over a period of 1500 years.
It contains 333 different prophicies about Jesus, with about 60 "major" prophicies. These prophecies included his lineage, his birthplace, his reception by his people, his betrayal and death in minute detail, and many other prophecies. The odds of just 8 of there prophecies coming true in one individual is approx. 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. The odds of all of them coming true is incredible.
Yet, we have records in the Bible of all of these, and no evidence to deny them, despite the fact that the major power of the time hated Christians (burning them alive, etc) and would have loved to be able to prove it wrong. Some of the fulfilment of these proficies are recorded in secular histories also, and by people who disliked Christians also.
There is an astounding amount of evidence for Christianity, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Josh McDowell, an once "anti-thiest" who went to Isreal to disprove the Bible once and for all, came back as one of Christianities loudest spokesmen.
The evidence he found was largely published in a two volume set, "Evidence that demands a verdict".
This is a good source of historical information to show that prophecy happened in the Bible, plus that the bible is historically accurate and evidence that Christ did what the Bible said he did.
Both of the above combined make a rather strong case for Christianity. There are pleanty more writers who I could point you to you make a strong case for Chirstianity, and you would do well to learn a bit about what the eveidence is before you default to no evidence. Research, then conclude, or you are at best a religious bigot, not the rational thinker you believe you are..
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
Hmmm....that's nice....there is no God of any kind, so evidently, according to you, its much more logical that humanity, the earth, and the universe are one big cosmic accident that was just numerically bound to happen sometime given the sheer number of billions of years the primordial soup was just laying around. Which, by the way, is itself a cosmic accident.
I think i'll just stick to believing in a boogeyman, the probabilities of that are infinitely higher than the series of accidents that had to take place for me to be alive and conscious and here today. Plus, I refuse to think of my life as an accident; it's such a futile point of view.
In response to post #169 chronologically.
The Big Bang, the theory that a piece of extremely dense matter about the size of a basketball spontaneously exploded to form the universe as we know it, then this universe that was devoid of life at the time spontaneously generated some form of life which eventually became us, is pretty damn silly sounding to me.
I am a Christian, but most fundies would want me lynched as a heretic. I don't pretend to know the age of the universe because time is a meaningless construct of humanity. As far as we know the universe is only 1 nanosecond old and all of our memories were created as is by some alien computer as a Virtual Life experiment.
I have very Agnostic leanings, but following Pascal's wager (Which I believe to be an excellent model of why scientific logical people should believe in some kind of god ) and my own research on the subject I've come to believe in a more or less traditional Christian view of life,death, God and everything.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
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
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.
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
This also involves a deep understanding of physics and mathematics, the language of the universe.
A good book that questions both of these topics is "The 12th planet" by Zecharia Sitchin.
I also highly recommend this book, I read it for the first time 2 years ago and was intrigued with some of the ideas presented. Anyone who is interested in theological theory should read it.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
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.
2) You're putting all your eggs in one basket by assuming that you're betting on the right horse. One of the problems with Pascal's Wager is that the person who puts it forward assumes that there are only two options: either the christian god exists and the christians are right, or no god exists and the atheists are right. But these are not the only two options! What if Zeus is the real god? Then both the christians who worship Yahweh and the atheists who worship nothing are screwed! If you really wanted to play it safe shouldn't you be worshipping everything from Shiva to L. Ron Hubbard? :)
Point 2 invalidates point 1. My faith in God is sincere.I simply have to hope I'm right. Pascals wager is used as a way to get Atheists to at least consider what I'm saying. I didn't mean to imply that I held my beliefs only because of that.>:)
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I don't think anybody wants this story to turn into a 1500 post argument like the infamous Kansas evolution story but I have to say something about your mistaken beliefs about the universe. I'm no physicist but I am interested and I read alot.
First, no physicist I've ever read has ever said anything about the big bang happening from anything "about the size of a basketball." We have no idea what the thing was that spawned the BB was but physicists tend to agree that it was probably a singularity, a point of infinite density with no size as we think of the word, which are also thought to be at the center of black holes.
Second, "life" is not some mystical thing that had to spring in existence wheras before it didn't exist. Stuff just springing into existence only happens in the Bible. Life is all around us in so many different forms just on this planet that to say that life became us is silly, to use your word. "Life" is just a word that we use to talk about things that are not inanimate. Intelligent life, which is what you probably meant, is trickier to pin down but it still didn't just pop into existence, it's taken billions of years to get to us.
Last, even if the universe is only 1 nanosecond old to some outside alien presence, it's still a specific number of our years old to us and finding that number out is a valuable thing. Time, as you said, is a construct of humanity in the way that we measure it but time as a function of entropy in the universe is not a construct, nor is it meaningless. Even if we are in some VL computer, it's still life to us and really, it doesn't matter whether we're in a computer or not.
I'm not trying to bash you or anything, far from it. Anybody who really researches things like God and life is a-ok in my book. I'm just espousing some views of my own.
In respone to #242 chron.
You just walked into a wall. I challenge you to 'prove' anything. You can only prove something to your own satisfaction, never to anyone elses.
As far as I know you are simply a figment of my imagination and there is no way you can 'prove' otherwise. This discussion can not be about proof because there is no such thing.
Also, the gospels do not contradict themselves, I challenge you to show me where you believe they do and I will show you why you are wrong.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I don't think anybody wants this story to turn into a 1500 post argument like the infamous Kansas evolution story but I have to say something about your mistaken beliefs about the universe. I'm no physicist but I am interested and I read alot.
First, no physicist I've ever read has ever said anything about the big bang happening from anything "about the size of a basketball." We have no idea what the thing was that spawned the BB was but physicists tend to agree that it was probably a singularity, a point of infinite density with no size as we think of the word, which are also thought to be at the center of black holes.
Second, "life" is not some mystical thing that had to spring in existence wheras before it didn't exist. Stuff just springing into existence only happens in the Bible. Life is all around us in so many different forms just on this planet that to say that life became us is silly, to use your word. "Life" is just a word that we use to talk about things that are not inanimate. Intelligent life, which is what you probably meant, is trickier to pin down but it still didn't just pop into existence, it's taken billions of years to get to us.
Last, even if the universe is only 1 nanosecond old to some outside alien presence, it's still a specific number of our years old to us and finding that number out is a valuable thing. Time, as you said, is a construct of humanity in the way that we measure it but time as a function of entropy in the universe is not a construct, nor is it meaningless. Even if we are in some VL computer, it's still life to us and really, it doesn't matter whether we're in a computer or not.
I'm not trying to bash you or anything, far from it. Anybody who really researches things like God and life is a-ok in my book. I'm just espousing some views of my own.
I've got to stop using the basketball crack... I can't remember where I heard that, but for some reason it just pops up as a good way to describe the Big Bang. I realize that it was not literaly the size of a basketball necessarily, but you can't prove that, so it's still just as valid. Also, you state that Life is all around us, yet before the universe existed where was life? Why was there a singularity? What caused the Singularity to ignite? When science can demonstrate to me how life can be created from nothingness I will rethink my position, until then I can not put much faith (You read that right, science is just as much faith as any other religion) in a theory with so many holes which is being presented as provable. At least my religion admits that it relies on faith in an unprovable constant.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
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.
Oh, and don't forget that they were willing to be killed for their beliefs. We all know how easy it is to die for something that you just "made up out of thin air."
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.
Are you implying that the apostles maneuvered and manipulated events in such a way as to make prophesies become fulfilled? They caused Jesus to be born in Bethlehem? They caused him to be crucified? Ludicrous. Rather, you're probably suggesting that the whole story is made-up rubbish--again, one that the creators were willing to die for. After all, the New Testament is so old, how could it possibly be reliable? I'm sure it's much more comforting to just regard the whole thing as a fairy tale.
And please, give references on which Gospel passages contradict each other. That idea is bandied about so much it makes my head spin. I don't doubt that you'll be able to come up with a few passages, and I also don't doubt that your misunderstanding of those passages is the foundation of the "contradictions."
And don't get me started on total recall.
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.
Oh yes, those evil evil christians feeding thousands of poor and starving homeless people, sacrificing their lives to work for charity for the betterment of their fellow people, all of that nasty 'love thy neighbor' stuff is just terrible.
I'm so so sorry you look at Christianity ONLY by the evil that has been done in its name. 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...
Maybe try looking at both sides of the issue?
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
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!
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.
So instead I should take the word of a bunch of people who admit they aren't exactly sure what's going on and believe that is the be all end all of truth? How can you say that when several hundred years ago scientists believed the sun revolved around a flat earth? Science is fallible.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Or maybe that *was* total enlightenment. ;-)
Science is fallible
It sure is. But we admit it so that the failings don't become blockages to new learning. When one scientist says the Big Bang happened from a thing the size of a basketball, another can say "We don't know that" and then they can go off and find the truth of the situation later. When one religious person (my father for a close-to-home example) says "Fags are going to hell" I can't say "We don't know that" and go about trying to prove him wrong. He won't listen, nor is his position provable in any way.
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.
Hmmm... I don't see that at all. For every crusade against the 'Heathens' there was one against poverty. For every Torquemeda there is a mother Theresa, and for every thousand tortured and slaughtered are another thousand fed and clothed.
Non christians do terrible things, christians do terrible things. We're all human, we're all fallible. How many starving people has your family fed? How many times do you stop on the side of the road to help out a stranded motorist?
Good will is not limited to Christians, and neither is malice.
Kintanon
Remember, Christians are people too.
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
It sure is. But we admit it so that the failings don't become blockages to new learning. When one scientist says the Big Bang happened from a thing the size of a basketball, another can say "We don't know that" and then they can go off and find the truth of the situation later. When one religious person (my father for a close-to-home example) says "Fags are going to hell" I can't say "We don't know that" and go about trying to prove him wrong. He won't listen, nor is his position provable in any way.
I can disprove it. If he is a Christian I can show him the specific passages in the Bible which proclaim that God will not deny ANYONE entrance into heaven. I know several Christian homosexuals, I personally don't think homosexuality is right (Mostly on a biological level) but I understand that it doesn't make them evil. They have done what the bible says they must do in order to go to heaven, above and beyond that they are also good people. If you bother to find out about the religion you are bashing you may be able to start proving loud mouthed fundies wrong by showing them a few lines of scripture.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
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
Religion is a very vague word.
It is my belief that God exists, that Jesus Christ was his son, that because Christ died and was reborn I can say a brief, sincere prayer, and I will be able to enter into heaven. In order to show this I attempt to live a good life and live in a manner I believe Christ would approve of. I'm not always capable of this because I am human.
Now, what I believe starts off with a strait decleration that it is all about FAITH, they tell you that it can not be demonstrated or proven, you can not see God, you can not touch him or hear his voice directly. They say that they BELIEVE it is the truth. I believe it is the truth, but I will not tell you it IS the truth, because no one can know that.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
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've said it before and I'll say it again, just because it says so in a book, any book, does not make it true or false. This is another great thing about science, no one position is ever held as the end-all-be-all truth of things until it is proven over and over again.
I never bash religion. I don't like it but I don't bash it. I try to explain the virtues of science but I believe bashing a differing position is never the way to explain why your position is good. This is why the creationist movement (to use an example of what I'm talking about, not necessarily because of our recent discussion) is so weak, they consistantly fail to show the strengths of their views, they just bash evolution. That's never the way to do things.
True.
I wasn't saying that Christianity is necessarily true, though I have come to believe that it is. I am pointing to what I believe is some relevant evidence that this person may not have considered, and to point to a place to do further research.
If you come to a conclusion based soley on your own small sphere of knowledege without making consious efforts to see things from all sides and hunt down evidence from other researchers and on your own, you have made a conclusion on flakey grounds. And a decision with all the posible ramifications of your religion/worldview, I believe it is something that is worth researching fully from every angle you can before making a declaration, and always be aware that there is a huge amount of evidence in many directions you will never have the time or brainpower to decipher. However, we must look for the most convincing answer in wierd places as well as the ones that look comfortable to us.
Your post includes the notion of absolute truth, which shows some of your bias already. There are many such concepts that must be considered as evidence in our quest also.
To sum all this up, our lives are lived by hypothesis, and to cling to our belief without research and examanation is rediculous. I wish to point to research I believe is enlightining.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
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!
--
Hilarious. So where did your omnipotent being (aka "God") come from? An even bigger cosmic coincidence?
I believe the odds are better that we came into existence "randomly" rather than a "supreme being" came into existence randomly and created us. I will certainly admit that I may not know how we came about and am happy to continue searching for a better explanation. When I find one, I'll let you know... oh wait, you wouldn't listen anyway.
A religious person is simply one who will question all other theories except their own.
Your idea of creation has a chronological framework, ours does not. God was, is, and will be. Time is affects God no more than gravity or another other force. I can't even explain the way God exists in realtion to time in words very well, but I'll try.
Reality, existence, the whole shebang, exists in 1 point called 'now' this is the only existence. We provide ourselves a reference point because 'now' changes, so we as humans need some way to measure this change. So we picked a random event (The way the earth and sun move in relation to each other) and divided it up and now we measure things in increments of that. But it is meaningless. We can only say what is now, not what will be or what was. God exists outside of all of this, or we exist within God, however you want to put it. Hmm, maybe I can express it better like this, Time is a function of God.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Hah, there have been no shortage of crazies and loonies throughout history willing to die for their beliefs. Remember Jim Jones, or more recently, the "Heaven's Gate" cult?
And as for "the apostles maneuvered and manipulated events in such a way as to make prophesies become fulfilled" they didn't have to manipulate anything; they were recording the events. However they chose to write it, well, that's how it happened.
What proof have you that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, besides the Gospels? Got his birth certificate handy?
And where, explicitly, is it prophisised that Jesus would die by crucifixion?
Check the Census records taken at that time.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I've said it before and I'll say it again, just because it says so in a book, any book, does not make it true or false. This is another great thing about science, no one position is ever held as the end-all-be-all truth of things until it is proven over and over again.
I never bash religion. I don't like it but I don't bash it. I try to explain the virtues of science but I believe bashing a differing position is never the way to explain why your position is good. This is why the creationist movement (to use an example of what I'm talking about, not necessarily because of our recent discussion) is so weak, they consistantly fail to show the strengths of their views, they just bash evolution. That's never the way to do things.
I fail to see how basing your belief on what a human who is alive now tells you is more valid than basing it on what a human who was alive 2000 years ago tells you. Evolution deserves to be bashed because it doesn't work, it's got holes bigger than christianities by far.
Also, you can not prove a negative, hence you can not prove that there is No God.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
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.
I'm an Orthodox Jew.
(And politically "left-wing" rather than libertariansend all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
I fail to see how basing your belief on what a human who is alive now tells you is more valid than basing it on what a human who was alive 2000 years ago tells you. Evolution deserves to be bashed because it doesn't work, it's got holes bigger than christianities by far.
Also, you can not prove a negative, hence you can not prove that there is No God.
I base my ideas on the work of many humans working together to discover truths about the world. That's my point.
If you believe evolution has holes, the point of science is to try to prove those holes exist and fix the theory or find a new theory. Every single person I've talked to who said they were for a competing theory to evolution only turned out to want to show what their ignorance of the theory saw as holes. They never actually show evidence for anything.
I would never try to prove there isn't a God, just as I wouldn't want to waste my time trying to prove unicorns don't exist.
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 Catholic Church collected (and distributed) alms for the poor on a regular basis throughout the middle ages.
Granted, there have been some unsavory episodes in Christian history, but your hypothesis is just plain not founded in fact.
-- Slashdot sucks.
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.
--->For every Mother Theresa, there's a Torquemada. For every starving poor man fed, a thousand tortured and slaughtered.
---->(snip)
I wouldn't throw Mother Theresa into the roles of history as a humanitarian...She spent her life doing her best to ease the suffering of people dying because of starvation and disease caused by overcrowding at the same time she was constantly doing everything in her power to keep birth control out of third world countrys.
She reminds me of the serial killer who worked on the trauma unit at a hospital and would sabotage patients drug schedule to cause a situation where he could come in and "save them"
Prior to Christian influence, people were commonly killed by exposure. Or being fed alive to lions. The poor were commonly regarded as nothing but a liability.
You complain about how much evil has been done since Christianity? Well how much was done before it?! You seem to be suffering under the misapprehension that, prior to Christianity, the world was a happy place.
So, let me ask you this: is the culture that grew out of Christianity, the United States is the epitome of it, better or worse than the average world culture? Be specific please. And if you want to point out some of the evils done in Western culture, please point out how other cultures were better.
I think you will find that the heavily Christian influenced western culture that has spread to the world was and is far ahead of most other available cultures.
-- Slashdot sucks.
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"
>For a final bit of fun, please explain how the
>law of conservation of energy is correctly
>observed concerning the origins of our universe
>if no "external" energy is allowed in or out of
>our universe... be it infinite or not.
Easy. Gravity is directly analogous to negative energy. Sum the potential energy with respect to gravity over the universe, noting that this is NEGATIVE energy, and then add on all the energy (from E=m.c^2 or hf) pertaining to matter, radiation etc in the universe.
The total is zero; the universe is on loan.
Quantum Mechanics (or more specifically the probabilistic nature of QM allowing a) local negative energy and b) the spontaneous creation of matter as a result) explains how this is possible.
Of course, this is just a theory, same as any other; this one is popular (I am led to believe) with cosmologists at present. It could be wrong, though it neatly observes the evidence seen. Nothing in science can be proved; scientists are just trying to make models and predict what will happen using these models. If something is not predicted, you can disprove a model; but you can never prove it.
Same with faith; if it explains _your_ experience, then you are likely to believe. Don't flame someone's beliefs, because you can't be them and understand why they believe it.
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.
No, as a matter of fact I do listen. you raise a good point; my post was merely pointing out the flaws in the argument that I was replying to, not a statement of my personal beliefs.
I do find it interesting, though, that your post was more about your assessment of my character than of my statements.
A note to all: if you have something to say about what was said, say it! If you have something to say about who said it, keep your mouth shut!
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
And why does Christianity change lives? You may not have seen it, but I have. It changes people, from the inside out. Sometimes it takes years, but once someone makes a decision for Christ, they are never the same.
The gospels idiosyncracies are the best evidence for their truth.
-- Slashdot sucks.
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
Electricity has many effects which I can detect. So does wind. God does
... You will find
not.
> 1. Man's Inherent Moral Nature
(a) Read Axelrod's _Evolution_of_Cooperation_, and study the interated
Prisoner's dillema. Basically, if you live in a society with some good
people, it's to your advantage to be good, as long as you learn to
recongize the evil bastards. Evolution would reinforce any tendancy this
way.
> 2. Prophicies fufilled
Is Jesus's name Ishmael? I've heard that section of the Bible quoted
frequently as prophecy. When you get a thousand pages of text and you
get to chose which parts are poetry and which prophecy, it's not that
hard get a nice set of fufilled prophecies. Combined with a nice tendancy
to selectively remember details of events to make the fit what you want
(which is even for honest people) (especially for recollections written
down years after the events) that the apostles probably fell prey, and
it doesn't make for great evidence. Asimov's Guide to the Bible is
an interesting viewpoint on prophicy in the bible.
> 3. His actions in my life
Go talk to some muslims. Or some buddists. or some
they can talk about how their god(s)/belief(s) affected them. I can
talk about Lucy (my god's actions) in my life, and I don't even
believe in her existance.
> the bible is historically accurate
One word: Noah. With modern knowledge, it's obvious that the Genesis
can't be literally interpreted.
--
David Starner
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.
Mind you, most of the atheists I know are no different from the Christians, Muslims, Wicans, etc, but there is a core group that's arrogant in the extreme! Sadly, such an overbearing, mocking attitude is all too common in our society, and I've noticed it's often the result of deep-rooted fears and inadequacies.
believe whatever you want, just don't mock everyone who has different beliefs. It's such an ethnocentric way of looking at the world, and is no different that the blind arrogance that lead Curasders and NAZIS to slaughter Jews, Skinheads to kill Blacks, and homophobic cowards to gang up and murder gays.
Whatever your views, if you take an arrogant attitude towards "The Other" all you do is stroke the ego of those who agree with you, and eliminate your credibility with anyone who does not agree with you 100%.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Ok, answer this one....
If our universe had a beginning, and "God" is eternal....what took him so long to create the universe?
If you believe that at all.
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)
Look: as evidenced by this thread, Christians often take a lot of flack for what we believe. Do you think there would still be so many Christians if we didn't find some kind of evidence for it? And, frankly, since you have apparently not done the lab work, have not tried the experiment of faith, you have no right to an opinion. Just as the physicists at the beginning of the 20th century who knew relativity was false without studying it had no right to an opinion.
-- Slashdot sucks.
Saying "what took God so long to create the universe" is absurd: it's like asking "why didn't you make that painting the size of the whole planet". The answer is that God made the world the rightsize for God's purposes.
-- Slashdot sucks.
EOD! TS2! TWINE! TND! IMHO!
just because you're a geek.. that doesn't mean you have to abbreviate EVERYTHING.
ok?
As for the prophecy that foretells Jesus' crucifixion, here you go:
"I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me."Psalm 22: 14-18
Sounds like a rather convincing description of a crucifixion, don't you think? You should try reading the Bible some time. There's a reason it's referred to as 'the Good News!' :)
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
No right to an opinion about religion? Ha. I know more about religion than most so-called religious people I know.
Do you think that agnostics/athiests have it any easier in this country? That's exactly why I choose not to outright bash other people's beliefs but to discuss things with them. I may not believe what you believe but actually I have a lot of respect for the way you espouse your beliefs in your previous posts, Amphigory.
And yes, I believe that even if there could be any less evidence for what you believe, that there would still almost as many Christians. That's because the point isn't evidence. The point is belief and faith, which need no evidence and are often strongest in the total absence of evidence. People need something to believe in, whether it's an almighty father figure or a thunder god or a trickster coyote or just themselves, as I believe.
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
For some reason all CGI looks incredibly hoaky once it gets to TV.
And animatronics, and stop gap animation don't? that's rediculs. Just beacuse you have some werid problem with it dosn't mean that everyone does.
CGI has the ability to look *entirely* real, if its done right. You'll probably be able to tell for a while now, but things like toy-story would have been imposible with out it. Yes, they could have used hand draw animation, but that would have been boring.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The Big Bang, the theory that a piece of extremely dense matter about the size of a basketball spontaneously exploded to form the universe as we know it, then this universe that was devoid of life at the time spontaneously generated some form of life which eventually became us, is pretty damn silly sounding to me.
Well, first of all, life didn't start immediately after the big bang. In fact the idea of the 'big bang' has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, or the creation of life (ambiogenisis, I think). You can believe in any of the 3 that you like, ambiogenisys is dependant on evolution, but evolution isn't dependent of Ambiogenisys. The big bang dosn't need any of them
It would be possible for a 'god' to create the universe, and then for evolution to take place.
So, lets say you disagree with the 'scientific explanation for life', and you say its 'ridicules' this is probably because you don't understand biology. There is no difference between living matter, and non-living matter. Life is just an extremely long chemical reaction in 'normal' matter. Nothing special.
And, as far as Pascal's wager goes, what if you belive in the wrong god? And end up in hell? I mean, if you can believe in one god, then what makes others wrong, hrm? Then you'd be screwed.
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 think you will find that the heavily Christian influenced western culture that has spread to the world was and is far ahead of most other available cultures.
I belive I could spread my culture around the world pretty quickly if I out tech'd everyone and I was able to rape the planet and turn most places into colonial 'slave nations' (controled by a central government in europe). The reason 'western culture' spread so much in the past 500 years or so, is beacuse it was shoved down the throats of everywhere else.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Why was there a singularity?
:)
Don't know
What caused the Singularity to ignite?
Don't know.
And, current Big Bang theory predicts that we will never know the answers to these questions. If we ever figure it out, we'll have to change the theory to predict that we will be able to figure it out. Ain't science grand?
Anyway. This is how we got the big bang theory. We looked at what was going on. Everything in the Universe, at least that we can see, is moving apart. That means that at some point, it was probably all in one spot. Then used our laws of physics to try and figure out what it would have been like.
Actually, if you'd read up on it, you would see that we only have a clue back to a few milliseconds after the big bang, what happened before that is a mystery, and we will never know.
The idea that Santa Clause exists explains why presents are there every year, a child might believe it, because there parents said he does. However after a while, a child will start to notice things, like the 'holiday shopping season' and the fact that there parents are hiding Christmas presents around the house. The religious view would simply say, "Santa exists!" and possibly add, "The rest of the stuff was only put there to test your faith," whereas the Scientific view would be "Well, there's this 'holiday shopping season', and me and my little sister are always finding our Christmas presents hidden around the house, so mom and dad are probably buying them at the store."
Now, clearly the scientific view is correct in this case, but really its no different then the idea of Christian creation. The bible says 'X', and therefore you believe it (I'm assuming you're a creationist), there's no reason to believe it, other then that the bible (witch you're parents said was true). The scientific view says "Well, this is what's going on now, so it was probably going on before, and the most reasonable explanation we can think of, based on what we can see is 'X'" To anyone coming to the situation with no pretenses, the Christian idea is no less ludicrous then the One about Santa clause.
If I were to tell you, that despite all the evidence, that I still believed in Santa, and that you should to because you never really know is idiotic. But, is it really any different than 'Pascal's wager'? Oh, and the only thing science says about the 'big bang' is that it's the most reasonable explanation for the observable events.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Person A says:
Invest with us! You're guarantied a 200% return on investment in one year! Without fail!
Person B says:
Well, here's the data, and here's the Mathematical formulas we used to generate it, oh and here's the mathematical profs of those formulas. Here are the SEC filings, and Here is the financial analysis. I think We can achieve a 20%-40% Return on investment, of course we don't really know, since no one can predict the future.
I take it you would invest with person A.
So instead I should take the word of a bunch of people who admit they aren't exactly sure what's going on and believe that is the be all end all of truth? How can you say that when several hundred years ago scientists believed the sun revolved around a flat earth? Science is fallible. It wouldn't be the end of the world if I was incorrect about the creation of the universe, or even if I thought that the sun revolved around earth. You can see the sun going around the earth every day, and it seems reasonable. It's only when you look very closely at the paths of the stars in the sky that you realize what's actually happening. Perhaps our Ideas of the big bang are wrong, does it really matter? No, as I've stated before, once you look at the idea of god without pretense (I should state that I originally believed in god, but the more I thought about it, the less likely it seemed, I never found anything particularly wrong with Christianity, it just seemed silly) it seems ridicules. So, even in the big bang theory were wrong, it still doesn't mean that the Bible is right. How the universe got started, once we rule out the hand of god, has no impact on my life.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
TS2 is going to get it's ass kicked by pokimon (or what ever the hell it is). They are going to be this years furbies or Elmo
I have to return some videotapes...
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
The point is a value judgement between different cultures. People are fond of criticizing Christians record: well, I am asking that you put that into historical context. That you compare the "atrocities" which you lay at Christianities feet (unjustly in many cases; fairly in some) to those occuring in non-Christian cultures.
-- Slashdot sucks.
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.
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!
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.
He talks just like everyone else ... over here :)
1) Moral nature:
Proponents of game theory would say that we do *nothing* which we do not believe benefits us. This seems as reasonable as everyone having a 'moral' nature. Stimulus/response consitioning and a little indoctrination can easily account for people's behavior.
2) Prophecies:
You're using defective methods to calculate this...
You're looking at the chance of eight *seperate* predictions being true and then basing the chance of some of a huge number coming true as being proof of something.
If I make a huge number of predictions, no doubt I can get some right. Do we then multiple the chances of those predictions being true together to see how unlikely this is without factoring in the number of predictions?
A lot of the things you mention can be easily guessed. The reaction of people to someone claiming to be the son of god doesn't seem hard to guess. Ditto with the likely method of death if that prophet is in an empire hostile to prophets and with a well established method of killing people.
So, these prophecies are quite vague, not that suprising, and linked (if his reception is such, his death will probably be such, which is really one prediction in two parts,) but there are enough of them that you could probably prove that anyone was the prophet.
Way to go with the stats there. Now it's up to 68.2% of statistics being made up on the spot or otherwise invalid.
If you believe that belief in a supreme deity is silly and juvenile then I challenge you to espouse to us the correct notion of how the universe came into being, how we came into being, why things are as they are.
Ok, tell us.
We'll work backwards.
God made us.
God made the world.
God made the universe.
What made god?
You aren't offering any solutions.
The difference is that you aren't willing to look for solutions.
The big bang is just a wild guess and while it caught on with the layman, not all (many?) serious physicists are think it's likely. But, at least they're looking for the real answer.
So, get busy telling us where god came from.
I don't pretend to know the age of the universe because time is a meaningless construct of humanity.
Really? Before mankind, everything happened at once?
Stick a cat in a box where it can't be observed and it's not that it's neither dead not alive, but that it's simultaneously dead, alive, a kitten, mulch, and all other things?
Ummmm.. I think you need to rethink that a bit.
As far as we know the universe is only 1 nanosecond old and all of our memories were created as is by some alien computer as a Virtual Life experiment.
"As far as we know" seems to imply that it's as likely that's true as anything else.
Not at all. Just because we can't completely disprove something doesn't mean that it's happening.
I have very Agnostic leanings, but following Pascal's wager (Which I believe to be an excellent model of why scientific logical people should believe in some kind of god )
This being "There might or might not be a god. If there isn't, being xian is just a waste of a little time, if there is, it's saved you from hell, so be xian just to be safe." right?
Why not look at it the other way?
There might be an xian god who is exactly as the contradictory bible describes him. He may decide to torture you for eternity for not following the rules he expects you to hear about and read in some book. Properly following these rules can take a good portion of your time and prevent you from doing many things you might like to do. You can suck up for the rest of your life, on the off chance that the whole story is true, or live your life as you see fit, getting the most enjoyment out of it you possibly can.
Personally, I'm not into long shots, so I don't play the lottery and I don't believe in god.
and my own research on the subject I've come to believe in a more or less traditional Christian view of life,death, God and everything.
How, pray tell, can you 'research' something that you are supposed to take on faith?
By praying and receiving an answer? There are drugs which can cure that you know...
There's a simpler explanation for the growth of western civ. Frontiers are where the innovation happens.
Sure, you can pick some holes in it. But no more than I can pick in your idea that christianity caused it.
Simple enlightened self interest would dictate many of the 'christian' values. Taking care of the poor simply prevents them from deciding to even out the monetary situation with force.
And, pointing out the evils of some christians isn't designed to make anything else look better by comparison, or to invalidate the good things done by others. The idea is to point out that people can do nice things without being christian, and do nasty things despite being christian, thus being christian doesn't mean a lot about someone's character.
If it's possible to experience the sun and earth in different positions relative to each other, then they don't all happen at the same time.
... nevermind. But you bash people who are trying to find out what happened because they don't know, and yet you subscribe to insane theories.
Sure, our calendar, and our days, are arbitrary to an alien, as would theirs be to us. But that doesn't mean that time doesn't exist, that all things happen at once.
God was, is, and will be.
Wow. You must have put a lot into that answer.
What a cop out.
If god can always exist, then why can't the universe just always have existed without him?
This is funny. You don't even realize how silly you sound. You're completely out to lunch, pulling perpetual god theories out of
If you don't post a concrete answer as to where god came from, then you might as well go away. You're telling people they're wrong because they don't have all the answers, so put up or shut up.
One word: Noah. With modern knowledge, it's obvious that the Genesis
can't be literally interpreted.
Noah wrote about the entire world being flooded, well to him the entire world was the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which IS prone to massive flooding, and especially was then. Also, it speaks of never having rained before, because of the desert climate it is quite possible that in living memory it had not rained in that area. So it IS possible to literally interpret Genesis if you give it a few seconds of thought.
Secondly:
(a) Read Axelrod's _Evolution_of_Cooperation_, and study the interated
Prisoner's dillema. Basically, if you live in a society with some good
people, it's to your advantage to be good, as long as you learn to
recongize the evil bastards. Evolution would reinforce any tendancy this
way.
Why should I trust in the word of a human with an agenda? What makes HIS opinion or view more valid than anyone elses? Are you suggesting that I should believe something which goes against all of my own research and knowledge just because someone you agree with said it?
While you may believe that random chance is all that is to blame for the universe existing, but some of us have better ideas.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
*cough*
... well, my intention is not to criticize -- but to present my reality. In my plane of consciousness, the existence of god is irrelevant.
You could call me an athiest.
The day I lost my religion, was the day I lost the ability to magically conjure up hope through gods love.
I do sometimes admire religion, as it offers the follower the ability to believe whatever they want through faith.
I do value what religion has given me and do not question its importance -- but I have recovered and outgrown the damage done and the crutch that was needed as a result.
Instead, I have chosen to build on the fundamental value system presented to me in my childhood. No cloudyness; No lost thoughts. No vulnerability through the inability to formulate skepticism in faith. Just a sense of my worth in this world, and a moral system based on fairness and real world actions and consequences.
Religious indifference to me is a breath of fresh air. Then again, I do envy the effect faith and the denial of this reality created. God did exist. But now he's dead and I'm not prepared to make the sacrifices to bring him back. But that was then, and this is now. I think I kind of prefer science. I base decisions on rationale through experience and harder facts instead of
Do I have a point? No. If i could prove there isn't a god, would I? Nope. Religion doesn't hurt anyone. Opression, hate, self-righteousness, stupidity, and lies, among other things hurt people.
Ok, answer this one....
If our universe had a beginning, and "God" is eternal....what took him so long to create the universe?
If you believe that at all.
What do you mean 'long'? Are you trying to apply time as a way to measure something God did? time is a function of God, God does not exist within time, it exists within Him. Hence there was no time before the universe was created, and to God there is no time, Humans are the only things which have time, and we only use it as a way to measure how things are different in this Now than they are in the Now we remember.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Well, first of all, life didn't start immediately after the big bang. In fact the idea of the 'big bang' has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, or the creation of life (ambiogenisis, I think). You can believe in any of the 3 that you like, ambiogenisys is dependant on evolution, but evolution isn't dependent of Ambiogenisys. The big bang dosn't need any of them
It would be possible for a 'god' to create the universe, and then for evolution to take place.
So, lets say you disagree with the 'scientific explanation for life', and you say its 'ridicules' this is probably because you don't understand biology. There is no difference between living matter, and non-living matter. Life is just an extremely long chemical reaction in 'normal' matter. Nothing special.
And, as far as Pascal's wager goes, what if you belive in the wrong god? And end up in hell? I mean, if you can believe in one god, then what makes others wrong, hrm? Then you'd be screwed.
Ok, first about Pascal's Wager, that's where the Faith part comes in.
Second about the big bang and evolution, if you don't believe in the Big Bang (ie, you believe God created the universe) but you don't believe that God created life, then you have a problem...
Ambiogenisys is at least as ridiculous sounding as anything in Christianity. Micro-Evolution occurs, is demonstrable, and is accepted by pretty much everyone, Macro evolution on the other hand is a load of bullshit. I don't care what you do to a mouse it ain't gonna grow wings, develop hollow bones, feathers, and a hard beak, and fly away. Just not gonna happen.
You can believe that life is 'nothing special' if you want to, that's your own business. But I will continue to believe that you are a bit soft in the head for thinking that way, just as you'll continue to believe I'm still soft in the head for believing the way I do.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Don't know.
:)
And, current Big Bang theory predicts that we will never know the answers to these questions. If we ever figure it out, we'll have to change the theory to predict that we will be able to figure it out. Ain't science grand?
Anyway. This is how we got the big bang theory. We looked at what was going on. Everything in the Universe, at least that we can see, is moving apart. That means that at some point, it was probably all in one spot. Then used our laws of physics to try and figure out what it would have been like.
Actually, if you'd read up on it, you would see that we only have a clue back to a few milliseconds after the big bang, what happened before that is a mystery, and we will never know.
The idea that Santa Clause exists explains why presents are there every year, a child might believe it, because there parents said he does. However after a while, a child will start to notice things, like the 'holiday shopping season' and the fact that there parents are hiding Christmas presents around the house. The religious view would simply say, "Santa exists!" and possibly add, "The rest of the stuff was only put there to test your faith," whereas the Scientific view would be "Well, there's this 'holiday shopping season', and me and my little sister are always finding our Christmas presents hidden around the house, so mom and dad are probably buying them at the store."
Now, clearly the scientific view is correct in this case, but really its no different then the idea of Christian creation. The bible says 'X', and therefore you believe it (I'm assuming you're a creationist), there's no reason to believe it, other then that the bible (witch you're parents said was true). The scientific view says "Well, this is what's going on now, so it was probably going on before, and the most reasonable explanation we can think of, based on what we can see is 'X'" To anyone coming to the situation with no pretenses, the Christian idea is no less ludicrous then the One about Santa clause.
If I were to tell you, that despite all the evidence, that I still believed in Santa, and that you should to because you never really know is idiotic. But, is it really any different than 'Pascal's wager'? Oh, and the only thing science says about the 'big bang' is that it's the most reasonable explanation for the observable events.
A couple of things:
1. My parents did not tell me the bible was true, while I was growing up I was presented with a lot of different religious beliefs and theories. I picked the one that I felt was right.
2. I can watch my parents put presents under the tree, there is no unknown.
Now, you say that the universe is expanding away from something, all well and good. But that is meaningless. We only know that it appears to be expanding away from something based on factors we are able to observe and interpret. We still have no idea what actually happened and never will.
But pure accident is not, to me, enough to explain it. It's like asking your parents 'Why is the sky blue' and they say 'It just is'. That's what science is telling you. You are asking 'Why is the universe here' and they are saying 'It just is'.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
It wouldn't be the end of the world if I was incorrect about the creation of the universe, or even if I thought that the sun revolved around earth. You can see the sun going around the earth every day, and it seems reasonable. It's only when you look very closely at the paths of the stars in the sky that you realize what's actually happening. Perhaps our Ideas of the big bang are wrong, does it really matter? No, as I've stated before, once you look at the idea of god without pretense (I should state that I originally believed in god, but the more I thought about it, the less likely it seemed, I never found anything particularly wrong with Christianity, it just seemed silly) it seems ridicules. So, even in the big bang theory were wrong, it still doesn't mean that the Bible is right. How the universe got started, once we rule out the hand of god, has no impact on my life.
So you picked the option that made you feel all warm and fuzzy and uncaccountable. To not believe anything at all is just a sign of laziness and intentional apathy. I have more respect for those who believe the earth was spawned by a giant chicken labled 'Trump Universe Farm' than those who believe nothing.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I'm serious. Put up or shut up. I want to know when Christians, as Christians, killed 10 million people. The actions of a secular organization in a Christian country don't count. When did Christians do it?
When I post, I use specific examples. If you can't come up with a specific example to back up your contention, you have no point.
-- Slashdot sucks.
My point was that bigotry and hatred are things that transcend race, creed and politics. Please don't attribute murder and torture with my religion just because history contains examples of people using their faith as an excuse for murder. Keep in mind that ALL other religions (Including Atheism) are just as guilty of torture, censorship and everything else. The USA is a predominately Christian nation, which is why most of the examples you're thinking of involve that faith. Look at the Muslim Jihad, or the battles between the different Hindu religions. Look at what Communist China and the Soviet Union did to Christians, Muslims, Hindus and everyone else.
Please don't call torture, censorship and murder the "Christian Way." Doing so reveals ignorance of history, and an unhealthy focus on the crimes of one religion.
PS. You'll probably point out that not all atheists are communist. I know this, that's my point. It is only the extreme elements of ANY religion that turn to what you're calling the "Christian Way." Sadly, the extreme elements are the vocal ones who get noticed and create the stereotypes.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
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! : )
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
Noah said the entire world. Saying that's the area
between Tigris and the Euphrates is NOT literal.
I didn't say believe in Axelrod, I said read Axelrod, and study the interated Prisoner's dillema. Your opinion is not valid as long as you don't bother studying the facts.
And why should I trust in your words? You obviously have a blatent agenda, and worse, completely refuse to consider anything else.
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