What was the last movie you watched?

[JRstriker12]

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!

[Power Player]

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.

[3fees]

Green Lantern

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by TennisLovaLova

5. how did bond survive that fall in the beginning? and the shot? who and how was he saved? no explanation whatsoever

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.

WTF?

[Ronaldo]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

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.

WTF?

WTF??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk7vgOU2Ho8

[gavna]

Originally Posted by JRstriker12

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!

Just FYI that Santa is based on the Russian version of Santa - Ded Moroz - kinda of a badass.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by sureshs

What is your opinion of Deepak Chopra? Fraud/genuine guy/both?

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.

[ollinger]

^ 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.

[JRstriker12]

Originally Posted by gavna

Just FYI that Santa is based on the Russian version of Santa - Ded Moroz - kinda of a badass.

Thanks for the info. Very badazz.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by ollinger

^ 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.

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.

[zapvor]

you know whats weird-iron fist isnt being released in most places?????

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by ollinger

^ 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.

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.

[ollinger]

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.

[sureshs]

But what is his own explanation?

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by ollinger

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.

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.

Originally Posted by sureshs

But what is his (Deepak's) own explanation?

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.

Originally Posted by sureshs

He injects spirituality and mysticism into his work and uses words like "quantum" in inappropriate situations.

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.

[ollinger]

^ 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.

[johndagolfer]

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

[ga tennis]

Originally Posted by johndagolfer

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

I agree......

[JoelDali]

Silver Linings Playbook.

Meh.

7.5/10

If you are suicidal over a chick don't see this movie.

[adamX012]

dance with waltz. boring...