2005.10.12 • 02:29 • 0 com
Funniest mindless movie of the last few years. McLovin is the best, and the other guys grew on me. Michael Cera must go and do some Woddy Allen or Charlie Kaufman stuff; he was great at Arrested Development, and is quite enjoyable at Juno and this movie.
2008.04.07 • 14:02 • 0 com
In his job he needs to undervalue the suffering of others in order to make more money. Then there’s the smell, the ass and the eye. The degree of objectification of desire is in direct proportion to the self-debasement of the indulger. By degrading the other, he nullifies himself. The very indifference to the overjealous ones, the suppressed recalcitrant losers of the world, is what causes their victims to exist. Great disturbing movie.
2007.08.01 • 02:53 • 0 com
A lost science fiction PBS movie with Taoist undertones is a real find, right? A guy discovers his dreams change reality—when he wakes up he finds himself in a world where the content of his dreams have actually happened. He of course gets scared after a couple of nightmares, seeks relief in drugs, and then, because of them, is lead to a psychiatrist. It happens the psychiatrist is a positivist type. When finally he gets convinced the guy dreams things that actually do happen, he decides to find a way to control the dreams of his patient to better the world… so easy to see where this leads, right? People should really get into Taoism before discussing politics, sometimes I dream. Well, may this never happen as I wish.
“To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven.”Chuang Tzu
2007.08.01 • 02:42 • 1 com
Here's for all the sissy Apple lovers out there... This is the ultimate design for my old Duron, which faithfully downloaded well over one terabyte (mostly movies, 1300+) always on 24/7/365 over the last four years. It also runs Apache and is a file and printer server, as well as a router for my home network (with four, also damn old and beautiful computers). Sometimes I dust it off with a vacuum cleaner.
2007.07.31 • 02:30 • 4 com
I really enjoyed Requiem for a Dream, and PI was quite interesting. I may grow to like this one, but for now it just seemed a little too newagy to my tastes. It started a bit boring and I never quite empathized with the characters. On the other hand, some of the visuals (and sounds — by Mogway) are quite appealing (no CGI!), and near the end we have some surprises. Actually, some interpretations may not be that newagy — but pretentiousness still abounds.
2007.05.13 • 01:52 • 0 com
I have read the article on “ditching Buddhism” by John Horgan about one or two years ago and I have found it to be as so filled up with misconceptions as not to be worthy even of bad publicity, yet last week somebody remembered me about it and I decided to answer some of its points.
2007.05.13 • 01:16 • 1 com
In imdb a user commented: "Annoying little transition into some sort of regurgitated independent film values finds this shallow project from Brad Silberling offering little and providing less in this embarrassingly exploitive work." I agree, yet it is still watchable — even more so if you understand how clichê is the fabricated spontaneity in it. It is as if independent movie has aquired its own hollywood-like formulaicism. So it kind of becomes an interestingly consumated aesthetic portrail of so many cult-status fabricated stylishness examples we see around. Many people liked Me and You and Everyone We Know, and it is surely a much fresher and pure attempt, but "10 Items or Less" explains all the little (but very much present) annoyances I got with "Me and You..."
2007.04.20 • 07:17 • 0 com
2005.09.15 • 13:57 • 4 com
It seems that Lama Tsering and Ani Zamba are showing this movie to their students. I can understand why, since it seems to be dealing with the virtual nature of reality, and even a bit of mind training. Well, anyway, I have a lot of reservations about it.
I used to think this was a good movie for some people, that is, those with less academic pride. This was not implying that it was for dumb people, or people with bad sense of aesthetics, or for illiterates. It just that it took a peculiar kind of not caring about what scientists and academia in general think about those subjects, and a somewhat 70's view of physics, for one to like it. I used to think it was good in that niche. I don't think this anymore.
I'm a student of Lama Samten, a former physicist, and I know some of the true connections between the epistemology of quantum mechanics and some aspects of the understanding of consciousness and mind — and maybe because I care about this connections, I don't like to see them exploited in the way the movie does. It gives them a bad image exactly for those who would benefit from this understanding in detail, that is, men of science1.
The many gibberishes about quantum mechanics made it aesthetically impossible to mention its name in connection with anything without sounding a new age freak. And this movie is the best example of this gibberish, although I don't deny its main statement (that mind and reality are interconnected, and that one isn't passive of the other2). I dislike its aesthetics and its means, but not its goals.
But this is not the worse. If it was just that, it was ok for simpletons. But it encourages magical thinking, and thus is one of the lowest kinds of new age, the bad kind to put it mildly.
And that's why I think that to make a connection with this movie not only creates obstacles within the academia, but it is plain misleading even for those simpletons who wish to indulge in two hours of mumbo jumbo.
I used to think this was a good movie for some people, that is, those with less academic pride. This was not implying that it was for dumb people, or people with bad sense of aesthetics, or for illiterates. It just that it took a peculiar kind of not caring about what scientists and academia in general think about those subjects, and a somewhat 70's view of physics, for one to like it. I used to think it was good in that niche. I don't think this anymore.
I'm a student of Lama Samten, a former physicist, and I know some of the true connections between the epistemology of quantum mechanics and some aspects of the understanding of consciousness and mind — and maybe because I care about this connections, I don't like to see them exploited in the way the movie does. It gives them a bad image exactly for those who would benefit from this understanding in detail, that is, men of science1.
The many gibberishes about quantum mechanics made it aesthetically impossible to mention its name in connection with anything without sounding a new age freak. And this movie is the best example of this gibberish, although I don't deny its main statement (that mind and reality are interconnected, and that one isn't passive of the other2). I dislike its aesthetics and its means, but not its goals.
But this is not the worse. If it was just that, it was ok for simpletons. But it encourages magical thinking, and thus is one of the lowest kinds of new age, the bad kind to put it mildly.
And that's why I think that to make a connection with this movie not only creates obstacles within the academia, but it is plain misleading even for those simpletons who wish to indulge in two hours of mumbo jumbo.
1. ^ Lama Samten jokes about this kind of stuff. He told he once spoke with Gilberto Gil in an airport, and that he said Mãe Menininha do Gantuá was asked how did she made so many cures and helped so many people through miracles, and she said "quantum physicis, bichinho" — but I would agree with many physicists that what Mãe Menininha did is much more than what they do, she was being far too generous with scientists! We know she meant it was something "non-causal", but this is an anecdote exactly because of the huge amount of gibberish already said about quantum mechanics, to the point where is completely unfashionable even to mention it. The main issue is a philosophycal one, about which most of the physicists work mathematically and don't think or care about, and philosophers don't even consider, even though it works for physicists.
2. ^ That is, the extremes of realism and idealism.
• Chagdud Gonpa, pure lineage holders of the highest teachings of Vajrayana.
• Chagdud Rinpoche, his compassion, courage and strenght will never cease to amaze us.
• Siddharta's Intent, organization connected with the maverick dharma teacher Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche.
• Lama Tsering, Lama Tsering Everest, intense and kind dharma teacher.
• Caminho do Meio, NGO and Buddhist community founded by Lama Padma Samten, great meditator, physicist and popular dharma teacher. (in portuguese)
• Wisdom Heart (Yahoogroups), group connected with Ani Zamba Chödron, impressive and direct dharma teacher.
• Alan Wallace, gentle scholar and meditation teacher.
• Tokuda Igarashi, great zen master, his humbleness and erudition are insurpassable.
• Dharma Centre, Directed by Ji Do Poep Sa Nin, kind and puzzling south-african teacher of koan.
There's also a Yahoogroup on Buddhism (in portuguese), bodisatva.
NOT designed for Internet Explorer
