The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
A place to talk about your favorite movies, genres, actors and directors. Please try to keep one discussion per genre, actor or director.
Latest Activity: May 27
Started by Idaho Spud. Last reply by Idaho Spud Sep 1, 2016.
Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Loren Miller Nov 12, 2013.
Started by Micah Johnson. Last reply by Craigart14 Sep 1, 2013.
Started by Marc Draco. Last reply by Eric A Flynn Feb 10, 2013.
Started by James M. Martin. Last reply by Eric A Flynn Feb 10, 2013.
Started by Mark Vandebrake. Last reply by Napoleon Bonaparte Feb 2, 2013.
Started by Loren Miller Sep 7, 2012.
Started by James M. Martin. Last reply by James M. Martin Jul 29, 2012.
Started by Loren Miller Apr 21, 2012.
Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Loren Miller Apr 21, 2012.
Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by TNT666 Feb 21, 2012.
Started by vondutch. Last reply by Craigart14 Sep 24, 2011.
Started by TNT666. Last reply by TNT666 Sep 18, 2011.
Started by TNT666. Last reply by Will Faithless Sophia May 29, 2011.
Started by Edward Teach. Last reply by Gabriel Garcia May 29, 2011.
Started by TNT666. Last reply by TNT666 Mar 12, 2011.
Started by Loren Miller Jan 31, 2011.
Started by Ann. Last reply by A Former Member Sep 16, 2010.
Started by S.A. Alenthony. Last reply by A Former Member Sep 16, 2010.
Started by TNT666. Last reply by Tea Cup Jul 6, 2010.
Perhaps it means 'calming yourself while feeling a strong emotion'. Funny you mention it. A friend mentioned this week that my husband always had this mannerism, and it's more noticeable now that he lives as a woman.
In movies and TV shows, the director often has females putting their hand on their chest. It seems to be when they want to express a strong emotion.
Why do they do this?
I’m curious because my mother has never done that. My 2 sisters have never done that. I can’t remember any female in real life, ever doing that.
Are there any females that do that? If so, why? What exactly does it mean? And if they do, did they pick-it up from movies or TV?
Yoooo Hooooo, does anyone come here anymore? !!! There is so much religion and reason to discuss in films!
Anyway, I recently watched three pieces of religious propaganda shit films: The Tree of Life, Take Shelter, and Hereafter. These films, although promoted and reviewed as "drama" are actually sci-fi disguised as drama. I'm a big fan of sci-fi, and I'm a big fan of drama, but when sci-fi is passed off as reality, that's where I become irate! ToL is about gawd taking a life, and accepting his great plan; Take Shelter is about a man who is either schizo or clairvoyant... turns out schizos are in fact clairvoyant!; and Hereafter claims that science/scientists have found proof of life after death, but... ahem... it's being repressed by conspiracy... sigh, what, BS, all three of them.
ToL and TS both have the added annoying flaw of being extremely pompous and faux-artsy, big budget Hollywood "artsy". At least Hereafter has no such pretence, it's straight up boring.
Watching the Oscars on Sunday, I was watching Jessica Chastain, what a beautiful dress she had, IMO the most beautiful dress of the event. But, sorry, her pretty dress does nothing to abate my feeling that she is the worst up and coming actress around!
The amazing story of a nomadic people of Persia. In three viewings.From 1925, Grass: A Nation's Battle for Life, the amazing telling of the bi-annual migration of 50,000 Persians and their flocks of nearly a million, who cross 2 mountains ranges and 2 glacial rivers to reach their summer pastures. There was also a 1973 film cut for the BBC, and then the same footage was recut for a 1976 feature length film. The BBC version's narration is nicer, but the 1976 USA version has all the original footage (available for rent from online services)
The stunning 1925 film, in 5 parts:
The almost as stunning 1973 film, in one single 51 minute sitting:
Watching this documentary... my thoughts were entirely reminiscent of PZ Myers'...
Newsweek. http://www.newsweek.com/id/197812. "Still, a lot of people think Kurzweil is completely bonkers and/or full of a certain messy byproduct of ordinary biological functions. They include P. Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, who has used his blog to poke fun at Kurzweil and other armchair futurists who, according to Myers, rely on junk science and don't understand basic biology. "I am completely baffled by Kurzweil's popularity, and in particular the respect he gets in some circles, since his claims simply do not hold up to even casually critical examination," writes Myers. He says Kurzweil's Singularity theories are closer to a deluded religious movement than they are to science. "It's a New Age spiritualism—that's all it is," Myers says. "Even geeks want to find God somewhere, and Kurzweil provides it for them.""
Just watched a very poor quality documentary on a relatively well known figure in these circles... Ray Kurzweil... Transcendent Man (2009). A piece of gratuitous self-promotion, passing itself off as balanced, while limiting 'criticism' to one-liners from scientists and funny haired fellows. He is a quack, looking for eternal life through 'alternative' medicine, gobbling down hundreds of pills a day, loading the charlatan Terry Grossman pockets with 'supplement' sales. Listening to his talks... the only similarity I could find is with fellow cult leaders... dare I say Jerry Falwell? The man is a quack with messiah/Nostradamus delusions. How anyone can admire this guy I do not understand. So depressing.
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Update Your Membership :
Nexus on Social Media:
© 2017 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.