Movie to See

Jo Firey wrote:

Going to France is one dream I'm unlikely to realize at this point,
as well as my lifetime wish to visit the Hermitage in St. Petersburg.

You must see the movie "Russian Ark" if you're interested in the
Hermitage. The entire movie is filmed inside of it. I actually found
it a bit boring, and I have no idea what it was supposed to be about.
Not even the Russian friends I went with could figure that out.
But it was interesting to look at, that's for sure. Plus, if you like
cinematic gimmicks, one interesting thing about this movie is that the
entire film - feature length - was shot in one *single* take. No edits
or cuts whatsoever.

Joyce

dnr wrote:
. Also the truth about
religion is hopefully brought to light
That people make up the version of religion that suits their purposes?
Er, seriously, curious what you mean by that. I mean, there are a lot
of religions. Saying "the truth about Christianity" could make sense
... but most religions never even came up in the book, that I recall.
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

Not my kinda movie. You intellectuals enjoy DaVinci w/my best
wishes.
I will be at local premier of X-Men sequel....Hugh Jackman w/more
facial hair than Jake Plummer......to each his/her own.

Not my kind of movie, either. I never finished the book. I thought it
was highly over-rated.
The older I get, the more I want to go to a movie to be *entertained*.
Imagine that.

Sherry

Cheryl Perkins wrote:

Well, you won't find much new or truthful in that book. The story
about Mary Magdalene goes way back, so it's not new and there's no
way - other than by faith which I'm assuming from your other post
you are eliminating that as a way of finding truth - to decide now
whether it was true or false.

I didn't find the novel particularly interesting, and I won't be
seeing the movie.

I really loved the book and could not put it down. It was one of the
best reads I'd had in a long time. I liked the all the puzzles they
needed to solve to go from one step to the next.

That doesn't mean I think it's all true, though.

Still, the idea that Jesus might have had a family, and descendants,
had never occured to me before, and the book made the idea seem
plausible. Really, it's not such an unrealistic idea at all.

Joyce

On 2006-05-14, penned:

I really loved the book and could not put it down. It was one of the
best reads I'd had in a long time. I liked the all the puzzles they
needed to solve to go from one step to the next.


I thought the book was fairly good, but my major gripe was that it
felt like the author was hitting me over the head with hints. I can't
remember the specific instances, but it felt like the author was
constantly saying to the reader, "You know how I mentioned something
about the grail earlier in the book? NOW I'M GOING TO MENTION IT
AGAIN REALLY LOUDLY SO THAT THERE'S NO WAY YOU COULD POSSIBLY MISS THE
LINK BETWEEN WHAT I SAID AND WHAT'S GOING ON NOW."

Ahem.

Well, that's how I felt.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Cheryl Perkins wrote:
Matthew aka NMR wrote:
I can't wait to see the movie. Finished to book a little while ago
starting to read his angels and demons excellent book. For anyone
ho has not been to France it will be an experience. I hope the
movie brings out the beauty of France. Also the truth about
religion is hopefully brought to light

Well, you won't find much new or truthful in that book.

Heh, it's called entertainment.

Jill

Tish Silberbauer wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 15:25:01 -0600, "dnr" wrote:

Not my kinda movie. You intellectuals enjoy DaVinci w/my best
wishes.
I will be at local premier of X-Men sequel....Hugh Jackman w/more
facial hair than Jake Plummer......to each his/her own.

I'm with you. Will take handkerchief to mop up drool from watching
Hugh Jackman - hariy or otherwise. Tom Hanks doesn't do it for me.

Tish

Did I say anything about Tom Hanks as a sex symbol? He's just a wonderful
actor. Also a truly nice guy

This is John's step-nephew-in-law (if there is such a thing):

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0765597/

He's not a hunk, but he's cute.

Jill

On Sun, 14 May 2006 02:30:29 -0500, "jmcquown"
wrote:

Tish Silberbauer wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 15:25:01 -0600, "dnr" wrote:

Not my kinda movie. You intellectuals enjoy DaVinci w/my best
wishes.
I will be at local premier of X-Men sequel....Hugh Jackman w/more
facial hair than Jake Plummer......to each his/her own.

I'm with you. Will take handkerchief to mop up drool from watching
Hugh Jackman - hariy or otherwise. Tom Hanks doesn't do it for me.

Tish

Did I say anything about Tom Hanks as a sex symbol? He's just a wonderful
actor. Also a truly nice guy

This is John's step-nephew-in-law (if there is such a thing):

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0765597/

He's not a hunk, but he's cute.

Jill

Forgive me for reading more into your post than you intended :^)
Nice looking guy - John's relative. Looks like he's been very busy
these last few years - a credit to him as an actor.

Tish

Tish Silberbauer wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2006 02:30:29 -0500, "jmcquown"
wrote:

Tish Silberbauer wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 15:25:01 -0600, "dnr" wrote:

Not my kinda movie. You intellectuals enjoy DaVinci w/my best
wishes.
I will be at local premier of X-Men sequel....Hugh Jackman w/more
facial hair than Jake Plummer......to each his/her own.

I'm with you. Will take handkerchief to mop up drool from watching
Hugh Jackman - hariy or otherwise. Tom Hanks doesn't do it for me.

Tish

Did I say anything about Tom Hanks as a sex symbol? He's just a
wonderful actor. Also a truly nice guy

This is John's step-nephew-in-law (if there is such a thing):

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0765597/

He's not a hunk, but he's cute.

Jill

Forgive me for reading more into your post than you intended :^)
Nice looking guy - John's relative. Looks like he's been very busy
these last few years - a credit to him as an actor.

Tish

He (Peter, not John) hosted Saturday Night Live towards the end of last
year. Now *that* is a sure sign you're getting up in the acting world! G

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
This is John's step-nephew-in-law (if there is such a thing):

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0765597/

He's not a hunk, but he's cute.

Jill



No kidding! He'd have to be one of the best young actors around. I
remember him from Shattered Glass, Garden State and Kinsey. One to watch
out for.

No offense you have never been to a Islamic temple a Jewish synagogue or
even the Vatican. They have recorded history plus descendants down to who
the midwife was how many stones the child weighted. Quite a few cultures
have recorded their lineage back down to it

"Cheryl Perkins" wrote in message
...
wrote:
snip

Still, the idea that Jesus might have had a family, and descendants,
had never occured to me before, and the book made the idea seem
plausible. Really, it's not such an unrealistic idea at all.

There's no way to prove it one way or the other, though. And the idea that
the descendants of *anyone* who was born 2000 or so years ago were
recorded and can be traced down to the present day is very unrealistic! It
was quite popular at one time to write genealogies of local rulers tracing
their ancestry back to Adam or, in some non-Christian societies, to a god.
The practice doesn't become any more accurate or realistic when it's
grafted onto Christian beliefs.

--
Cheryl