What is the last movie you saw? and rate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

While I'm not trying to play the devil's advocate, it's an indisputable fact that any photographic material can be falsified whether taken from the moon, from space or earth.
As I've said, it's a matter of comparative indifference to me whether man has walked on the lunar surface or not, but there's a beautiful irony in the fact that the 'Mythbusters' had to construct a film set of the lunar surface in order to 'prove' that man went to the moon.

---

I've never seen the Mythbusters, but it looks like this is what you were referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0

Score on that Mythbusters' episode: 3/10

They get that high of a score because they made me wonder just how much the terrain does affect parallel shadows. However, they would need to do this outside with a real sun and witnesses so one can make sure they did not fake it themselves.

I finally finished What Happened on the Moon?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POLgS99dSjE

Score: 10/10

This is one of the few documentaries that messed my mind. Taking into account the link qimissung posted which did site references of 3rd parties who were able to track the Apollo voyages as well as the obviously faked Apollo evidence and the history of faking such evidence, I now believe the following is true:

1) There were no actual manned Apollo missions although lunar samples were returned to earth. The manned portion of the missions was faked. One doesn't need a manned mission to bring back rocks.

2) I don't think there were any "whistle blowers" that the documentary suggested for the inconsistencies. Whoever made the fakes figured what they did was good enough for government work.

3) I don't think the Soviets were aware that the US faked the evidence as the documentary suggested although they might have suspected it since they faked some of their own evidence as the documentary showed.

I'm past the point of shock. I just hope the calculation of the age of the universe that NASA did recently wasn't bogus as well.

I also watched Apollo 18: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_18_%28film%29

Score: 5/10

For those who don't know, there were only 17 Apollo missions. This is science fiction and except for the expected hostile aliens is OK as far as it goes. But it does try to answer the question why haven't we returned to the moon? Indeed, why hasn't anyone returned to the moon in over 40 years?

Show people you can build a nuclear bomb and they want to build one for themselves. Show people you can put satellites in lunar orbit and they do this themselves. But the US showed people they could put a man on the moon--6 times in a few years--and no one, including the US, has been able to repeat this.

There is something suspicious about experiments that can't be repeated.

Still wondering how the conspiracy folks' debunking of NASA's claims is more credible than both NASA's claims themselves and the debunking of the debunkers' claims.

Also, the Apollo program ended due to a combination of increasing costs and decreasing need for more manned missions. I've never before heard of the U.S. being "unable" to repeat them for some reason.

As I do most often, a documentary. This time about Martin Luther. Excelllent. Empires: Matin Luther. Available on Netflix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I've never seen the Mythbusters, but it looks like this is what you were referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0

Score on that Mythbusters' episode: 3/10

They get that high of a score because they made me wonder just how much the terrain does affect parallel shadows. However, they would need to do this outside with a real sun and witnesses so one can make sure they did not fake it themselves.

---

I hadn't seen the Mythbusters TV programme either but noted that it was referred to in Qimissung's Wikipedia item.

If using a couple of comedians and a spotlight to simulate the sun in a studio setting is proof, then it's going to have to be rather more convincing that that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

Still wondering how the conspiracy folks' debunking of NASA's claims is more credible than both NASA's claims themselves and the debunking of the debunkers' claims.

---

Well it's for individuals to decide for themselves. If one is happy with the status quo, and sees no reason to doubt it, then stay with it.
On the other hand, if one suspects that certain questionable elements have not been sufficiently addressed, then stay with it also.

My cousins called me and together we watched Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunter. I wonder why Jeremy Renner worked in such a film! 3/10

I saw Ron Fricke's and Mark Magidson's documentaries Baraka and Samsara. Although there is some chanting there are no spoken words in either of these movies, just images and sound. Quite beautiful and unusual.

Score: 9/10

It looks like there are a lot of Hansel and Gretal movies coming out. Although I haven't seen the one Snowqueen mentioned, I did see one some time ago called Hansel and Gretal: Warrriors of Witchcraft which probably gets a 3/10 also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I saw Ron Fricke's and Mark Magidson's documentaries Baraka and Samsara. Although there is some chanting there are no spoken words in either of these movies, just images and sound. Quite beautiful and unusual.

Score: 9/10

---

If you've never seen Godfrey Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi, on which Fricke served as cinematographer, I highly recommend it.

I haven't seen Kyaanisqatsi. I'll keep it in mind when I'm looking for something at the library. These movies without dialogue to hold one's attention are unusual. The sound and images are all one has.

http://imageshack.us/a/img96/8404/lbwz.jpg

It speaks volumes that the title of this British film in the UK was The Last Page but needed sexing up for US audiences.
American actor George Brent plays a bookseller who is blackmailed by British sexpot Diana Dors, who is murdered by her partner in crime, and
the bookseller is accused of killing her. Another Hammer production it was quite well done and kept me watching to the finish. 7/10

Was there life before YouTube?

I watched Shirley Valentine the other night. Hadn't seen it in years. It still brought a smile to my face about the drudgery of wifehood, the loss of one's identity and the need to escape. But perhaps others might think I need to talk to a wall? :biggrin5:

The Hanoi Hilton in military channel. Probably as meaningful as Oliver Stone's Platoon.

Yesterday was another rent 2 for $1 at the library.

One of the movies was typical Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained. Blood splattered every which way while stereotypical characters fed the audience with righteous rage.

Score 3/10

The other was a mature action film, The Cold Light of Day. Good and bad weren't so sharply drawn and the plot was more interesting.

Score 9/10

The Apalachean Trail. Excellent documentary of the more than 2000 miles trail spanning 14 states. Available on Netflix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Yesterday was another rent 2 for $1 at the library.

One of the movies was typical Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained. Blood splattered every which way while stereotypical characters fed the audience with righteous rage.

Score 3/10

---

I enjoyed Django. Forgive me, but aren't Tarantino's movies comedies? It seems to me that taking them seriously is a little like thinking Malvolio in Twelfth Night is a noble and sadly maligned character.

I can sort of see Tarantino's movies as comedies the way Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus might be a comedy (although I think that was considered a tragedy because there weren't enough people left standing in the end, but I'm no Shakespeare scholar and can't remember Twelfth Night).

True, Tarantino's movies can't be taken seriously. They do feed on existing righteous rage in the audience. I think I enjoyed Kill Bill better than Django.