Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by jamesblakefan#1, Mar 22, 2010.
missed that.. added to my to-watch list.. thnx
I just watched brave, first new movie in a few years, it was cute
Life of Pi was REALLY good!
Life of Pi
If Deepak Chopra had written "Castaway" this is what it would have been. Ang Lee makes visually gorgeous films, and this is another of those. The tiger deserves an Oscar.
K, no probs .. its a good flick..
'I AM' by Tom Shadyac is good too, same guy made films like 'Liar, liar' ,'Bruce Almighty' and 'The Nutty Professor'..
Plenty of food for laughter and thought.
Saw "The Life of Pi"- visually interesting. At the beginning, one character suggests that the story Pi tells will "Make you believe in god (or God). If that was the objective, then the story failed to deliver. An "A" for visuals, "B-" for story.
Sort of reminded me of "Joe Versus the Volcano", in parts, but not as interesting.
SkyFall ....... not the typical Bond movie.
Stupid and sentimental character without a cell phone.
Skyfall. Say it yesterday. While it's pretty easy to pick holes in the plot - like the laughable computer security stuff - it was entertaining enough.
The biggest disappointment with the film was that they put so much effort into painting it as being the best one yet - which it definitely was not.
A pretty good movie. The theme is similar to "Stranger than fiction" but this one is more deep and serious affair. I looked it up on IMDB after watching and found an interesting fact: the actress who plays the lead role is also the screen writer ! Smart woman ...
What is your opinion of Deepak Chopra? Fraud/genuine guy/both?
Genuine guy who somewhat fraudulently takes advantage of the naive...
Saw Rise of the Guardians last week with my daughter.
Decent kids flick. Loved the Elves, the Yeti, and they did a great job of refreshing the image of Santa and the Easter bunny.
I mean Santa carries 2 swords and has tats. I would not want to be on his naughty list. LOL!
End Of Watch - Was loving this thing until towards the end when it just kind of became a cliche. The Mexican gangsters started off as somewhat legit, but that collapsed rather fast.
The story basically built me up to expect more.
That being said, it is a very solid rental.
Also rewatched HEAT for the 10th or so time. Absolutely love it, even with Pacino's over acting. Just a great, great movie.
More on this point... he gets shot with a depleted uranium round - gives it to the guy to analyse and they have a bios and photos on three people known to use those rounds ha ha.
Just FYI that Santa is based on the Russian version of Santa - Ded Moroz - kinda of a badass.
Chopra is either delusional or a fraud. I wish he was just the former, but I think he is the latter. Early on in his life, he seems to have realized that the Western world is ripe to be duped by his brand of Mysticism Lite, so he moved in for the jackpot.
BTW, last movie: Lincoln. Daniel Day-Lewis is really, really good.
^ I see no reason to consider him either delusional or fraudulent. He's a popularizer who tries to simplify the message a bit for the masses, not in itself a bad thing. Popularizers tend to be targets because of envy of their commercial success; Carl Sagan was a competent scientist (per my brother who was a friend and colleague of his) who also was ripped because he was able to cash in while simplifying things for the TV audience.
Thanks for the info. Very badazz.
Wrong tree, I'm afraid. I've got no problem with Chopra being a popularizer, but a big problem with what he is popularizing and how he is doing it.
I adored Carl Sagan. Your brother is right, he was a competent scientist who got ripped for being a popularizer of science rather than doing the lab/theoretical/experimental work that scientists do. That perception of Sagan was only accurate regarding his later years. Before Sagan became Mr. Science, he had several important contributions in astronomy, notably regarding the greenhouse effect on Venus.
There is a big difference though: Sagan's populism was for scientific, i.e., properly verifiable, things. Deepak Chopra popularizes a warped and cherry-picked version of eastern culture. I grew up in India, and have a fairly good grasp of the things that Chopra appropriates from the culture and wraps into his own clarified bullshit. On related matters, it is entertaining to see people like Leonard Mlodinov or Sam Harris or Michael Shermer debate Chopra, but therein lies the problem. By associating their names with him, they give Chopra much-needed credibility. With them, he is an unusual spiritual thinker. Without them, he is just a fool.
you know whats weird-iron fist isnt being released in most places?????
What Carl Sagan said was within the confines of known science. He had also published many papers before he took on the popularizer role.
Deepak Chopra was also a successful doctor before he turned into a popularizer. But he does not confine himself to science. He injects spirituality and mysticism into his work and uses words like "quantum" in inappropriate situations. That does not mean that a holistic approach is not good. He also talks about many useful things. But he has ventured into domains where he cannot be rigorous about facts. When electrical activity in the brain was noticed after death, he proclaimed that evidence for the soul had been found. It turned out that rats also show the same "evidence." It is basically the residual electricity discharging through the neural circuits. For him, just the news was enough to talk about the soul.
He has done a great job of picking pieces of Eastern philosophies and packaging them for Western consumption. Many have done that before him, but as a doctor, he has to be held to a higher scientific standard compared to a Swami or a Yogi who has simply studied scripture all his life as part of a monastic tradition and has not had exposure to modern education.
Che Guevara was a physician too but it has little to do with his career of political activism. Likewise Chopra, who's really well into a second career that his little to do with science. Sure, he uses and abuses scientific jargon at times, but what philosopher or religious zealot doesn't. That he deviates from standard eastern dogma is immaterial; his own explanation of things is not necessarily any less legitimate than anyone else's.
But what is his own explanation?
Legitimate from what standpoint? From the point of view of a man's right to freedom of speech? From the point of view of a man's lawful right to his own livelihood in whatever manner he chooses? Yes, of course. It is his right to say and do whatever he wants. It is mine to claim that he is, nevertheless, either fraudulent or delusional, and that his views have no basis in observable reality.
He doesn't have one. He has what can only be described as an obfuscation. In a less civilized but altogether more accurate vein, one may say that Deepak Chopra is full of shit.
Yes, he routinely invokes quantum theory and non-local phenomena and claims that these prove the existence of the soul or the infinite or some silly thing like that. He has shown repeatedly, under scrutinizing questions from physicists, that he does not understand even a whit of quantum mechanics yet he shamelessly appropriates terms from it, with the deliberate aim of misleading the public. And the public is, mostly, ready to be misled.
^ Well, no, strictly speaking you have a right to BELIEVE but no right to CLAIM that a person is fraudulent or delusional unless the majority of the evidence supports you. As religious or philosophical beliefs have always been held excempt from a diagnosis of delusional, and expression of religious/philosohical beliefs are not considered fraud, you would have no legal protection and could be cited for slander or defamation.
Lincoln! Didn't think I would like it, but was pulled in from the very beginning.
Thought it might have been 5-10 minutes too long, but otherwise now on my allt-time favorite list. Daniel Day Lewis will win best actor
Silver Linings Playbook.
If you are suicidal over a chick don't see this movie.
dance with waltz. boring...
The last movie I watched was Piranha. It was pretty good.
Was it fish and chip night?
Where did the movie take Plaice?
It took place I believe in Arizona. Its the 2010 version. It had a lot of blood and gore but there was quite a bit of comedy mixed in.
Bartelby, it makes me not want to go swimming. lol I'd rather be eaten by a shark than be shredded by hundreds of piranhas.
Lake Havasu, Arizona. Did not want to use the real name of the lake in the film to avoid loss of tourism.
They found high concentrations of water herpes in the lake last summer. Be careful swimming there.
Ok, so it wasnt in the ground water outside W. Street when stocks flounder.
Understood. And I agree with every word of that post.
Agreed. The ending had that same last minute re-edit feel of Spielberg's A.I. It looked like he originally planned to end the film with Lincoln leaving the White House for Ford's Theatre.
Lewis' performance was outstanding. I was really surprised by the casting of Sally Field as well as the portrayal of Mary Todd Lincoln. I also couldn't help but notice how much of "Saving Private Ryan's" score was re-used in this movie.
Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows
Stopped after 40 minutes: boring, bad acting, stupid fight scenes and weird time anticipation system used by director made it seem weird.
Watched Dark Knight Rises on my new tv last night and it was pretty good. Not my favorite of the Christopher Nolan Batman movies but decent none the less. Picked up The Bourne Legacy today but have not watched it.
I saw the human centipede 2 last night, it wasn't that great. I preferred the first one more. The main character is just really messed up and he doesn't even talk in the entire movie. It was gory but it was also really goofy at the same time. Also the picture quality is kind of weird in terms of colors used, its very bland maybe to tone down the blood and gore.
Red Lights. I got it at redbox. Anybody else see this? I thought it was really good. Had a lot of popular actors in it. De niro was in it
Thursday night was Great Expectations, which apart from an impressive cast was decidedly meh.
Tonight was The Hobbit, which was a lot of fun but felt like a filmmaker compelled to do something out of loyalty rather than passion. A very pleasant return to Middle Earth, and a very very good film too, but it just doesn't have the magic that the LOTR trilogy had.
Martin Freeman is an excellent Bilbo though.
Watched Skyfall last night.
Was ok. Not bad for a Bond movie, but the plot didnt make a great deal of sense. Felt more just like a standard action movie.
I also saw Skyfall, second viewing. I enjoyed it a lot more this time round, and I'd enjoyed it a lot the first time I saw it a few weeks ago
Fantastic to see it doing so phenomenally well around the world too.
I watched Ted a few days ago. Loved it. Thought it was hilarious and sweet
People even clapped at the end, and that's very unusual in my experience.
Finally watched The Hunger Games to understand all the hype with the books and movie. Wow this is how adults entertain our youth today…by glorifying kids killing kids. Can’t wait for more sequels, prequels, reality shows.
Separate names with a comma.