• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Recommend MANY MORE Movies vrs. 3 or something

Status
Not open for further replies.
I also studied sociology, Yella. "Faith or belief in a god or gods" is not a rubbish answer. Refute at will. With reasons why.

Why do you feel the need to "call me out" on stuff that you freely admit is fuck all to do with your particular branch of theology? Groupthink? Or just collective guilt? I suspect the former and half believe the latter.
 
I fail to see your problem with a film that only trashes Christians Who Are Not You then, Yella. It's an interesting film. Set in an era you are interested in. So why all the bollocks about propaganda when you have almost as much <3 of Orthodox Christianity of that era as I do? Why do such distant cousins cause such issues for you? And they clearly do or the discussion of this film would've ended shortly after I posted it.

a) Its a controlling bit of propaganda.. b) historically wrong c) and most importantly among those vicious, bigots that you mentioned in your post, are some Orthodox authors that I absolutely cherish like.. Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, the desert fathers.

I see you skimmed over the definition of religion I gave you even though you asked for one. Sort of. You basically conform to it though by your own words so I fail to see why you have a problem with me using the R word about your beliefs. You have a faith and/or belief in a god. Therefore you are religious. It's simple enough. You almost seem ashamed of it. I couldn't begin to imagine why.
Faith isn't the same as religion. For me part of 'religiousness' involves rituals and rules and I don't do the former or follow the latter. I'm not religious. :) I have faith in a personal God and freedom to change my perspectives and ideas about morality for example which I see as fluid and impossible to set in stone.

Maybe you could just either watch the film and comment on it as a film or perhaps it's best to end this quasi-theological twaddle. I suspect we are both well aware of each others' position on such issues and it's a shame that religion should come between us. Albeit not a problem from my side. Kinda odd that it should seem more squeamish from yours but heyho. Gotta luv the conflicted... or is that afflicted? Never can recall quite what it says in that bewildering book of yours ;)<3

I didn't realise it had come between us !! I'm astonished you said that and sorry if you read me that way :(
 
I also studied sociology, Yella. "Faith or belief in a god or gods" is not a rubbish answer. Refute at will. With reasons why.

Why do you feel the need to "call me out" on stuff that you freely admit is fuck all to do with your particular branch of theology? Groupthink? Or just collective guilt? I suspect the former and half believe the latter.

It was a joke really.. I hadn't realised at the time you felt I was attacking or being defensive sorry. I wasn't

Guilt, thank God is not something I ever suffer from for long.
 
It's surely not come between us, Yella, Hate the faith, love the believer - as I said not two days back in Gibberings. Lost sheep will one day find their way <3

The "vicious bigots" I spoke of in relation to the film are not the ones you hold a candle for. Feel safe to watch at will for they who are portrayed in the film are surely lesser Christians than yours ;)

It's not a "controlling bit of propaganda" by any stretch. How the fuck would you even dare to spout such utterly unfounded bollocks without even watching what you attempt to contend with? This is one of the main reason I fukkin loathe religion. Hypocritical barely comes close. And yes, I am now including you in that. I wish I didn't but you've spent two pages digging that hole so deep it's hard not for you to fall in now :\

And as for the "faith is not religion" shite... words fail me. Truly I thought higher of you, Yella. Come on. gal. Are you really so fukkin predictable? :(

Meh. Hate the faith, love the believer. But the dumbing and numbing effect that the faith has on the believer is precisely why I despise it so. Please come to your senses one day. There's so much more you could be <3
 
That is how you've came across in your recent posts in this thread. I've never once seen you question the accuracy of a film & cite that as a reason not to watch it. Funnily enough, this one seems to be having a little bit of a dig at Christianity. I suspect if this film had nothing to do with religion then you wouldn't have even considered checking how accurate it was.

There are plenty of zealots having a dig at zealots like I said before PTCH and they come from all walks of life not just the religious. I wouldn't have noticed in the midst of Shambles rhetoric that the producers had made a major ricket had the review been on a porn film for example though no you're right.
 
It's surely not come between us, Yella, Hate the faith, love the believer - as I said not two days back in Gibberings. Lost sheep will one day find their way <3
You'd fit in well in a church Shambles.

The "vicious bigots" I spoke of in relation to the film are not the ones you hold a candle for. Feel safe to watch at will for they who are portrayed in the film are surely lesser Christians than yours ;)
confusing but thanks. I think.

It's not a "controlling bit of propaganda" by any stretch. How the fuck would you even dare to spout such utterly unfounded bollocks without even watching what you attempt to contend with? This is one of the main reason I fukkin loathe religion. Hypocritical barely comes close. And yes, I am now including you in that. I wish I didn't but you've spent two pages digging that hole so deep it's hard not for you to fall in now :\

And as for the "faith is not religion" shite... words fail me. Truly I thought higher of you, Yella. Come on. gal. Are you really so fukkin predictable? :(

Meh. Hate the faith, love the believer. But the dumbing and numbing effect that the faith has on the believer is precisely why I despise it so. Please come to your senses one day. There's so much more you could be <3

Just sentence after sentence of insult. I dont really want to respond right now.
 
^ Literally not one single insult anywhere to be found in what I wrote there. If you truly think there is then I really have no clue how to respond to you.

There are plenty of zealots having a dig at zealots like I said before PTCH and they come from all walks of life not just the religious. I wouldn't have noticed in the midst of Shambles rhetoric that the producers had made a major ricket had the review been on a porn film for example though no you're right.

Is there any particular reason you favour the Julius Caesar and/or Omar theory over the Christian one, Yella? The reason I favour Gibbon's version is thus... Plutarch blames Caesar but no other historian nor commentator of any description did and there's copious evidence that he didn't. The Muslim/Omar theory is even worse. Described by a Christan author 300 years after the supposed events he speaks of (bad, but not in itself a massive problem given the level of antiquity involved). More to the point, he speaks of taking six months for the Muslim devils to burn all the works contained within the Library (do you believe that to be the case?) and no other historian of the time, before or since comes close to corroborating his version. Gibbons' version also has issues (it's well known he didn't like Christians) so also to be taken with a pinch of salt. However, there is copious amounts of circumstantial evidence that he is at least mostly correcr. He may well have overegged the Christian Badness... but he didn't just pull it out of his arse either. Both other sources clearly did. So tell me again, please, why is Gibbons wrong and the massively inferior texts with precisely zero evidence within a country mile of their version more accurate in your opinion?
 
Jesus preaches about selflessness the opposite of controllingness. You've not even read it anyway so cant remark also Shambles and I have decided we want to get off this topic now. For the good of Eadd. End of discussion.
 
^ are you on about that film with mel gibson? or the one with yer man out of holby? the one that's in harlequin. Robert Powell. Talkin all about Jesus. Or is it the greatest story ever told.? I'm sick of organised religion. Give me the disorder of fr. ted any day.
 
henry portrait of a serial killer

the murders are so raw and ultra violent its bone chilling not suprised it was banned for nearly 20 years
 
henry portrait of a serial killer

the murders are so raw and ultra violent its bone chilling not suprised it was banned for nearly 20 years

Check "Man bites dog" ;)

Banned for 20 years lol I saw it about 20 years ago ;)

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is a 1986 crime psychological thriller film (released in 1990)
In the UK, the film has had a long and complex relationship with the BBFC. In 1990, distributor Electric Pictures submitted the film for classification with 38 seconds already removed (the pan across the hotel room and into the bathroom, revealing the semi-naked woman on the toilet with a broken bottle stuck in her mouth). Electric Pictures had performed this edit themselves without the approval of director John McNaughton because they feared it was such an extreme image so early in the film, it would turn the board against them. The film was classified 18 for theatrical release in April 1991, but only if 24 seconds were cut from the family massacre scene (primarily involving the shots where Otis gropes the mother’s breasts both prior to killing her and after she is dead). Total time cut from the film: 62 seconds.
In 1992, Electric Pictures again submitted the film to the BBFC for home video classification, again with the initial 38-second edit. In January 1993, the BBFC again classified the film 18, waiving the 24 seconds they had cut from the theatrical release. Instead however, they cut four seconds from the scene where the TV salesman is murdered, meaning a total of 42 seconds were supposed to be removed from the home video release. However, BBFC director James Ferman overruled his own team and demanded that the family massacre scene be trimmed down to almost nothing, removing 71 seconds of footage. Additionally, Ferman re-edited the scene so that the reaction shot of Henry and Otis watching TV now occurred midway through the scene rather than at the end. Total time cut from the film: 113 seconds.
In 2001, Universal Home Entertainment submitted a completely uncut version of the film for classification for home video release. The BBFC waived the four seconds cut from the murder of the TV salesman, and 61 of the 71 seconds from the family massacre scene (they refused to reinstate the 10 seconds of the scene where Otis molests the mother after she is dead). Additionally, they partly approved the 38 second shot of the dead woman on the toilet, but they demanded that the last 17 seconds of the shot be removed. Based upon this, Universal decided to remove the shot entirely. Total time cut from the film: 48 seconds.
In 2003, Optimum Releasing again submitted a fully uncut version of the film for classification for home video release. In February 2003, the BBFC passed the film completely uncut, and in March 2003, the uncut version of the film was officially released in the UK for the first time.


I lived with 2 guys who did film studies at Uni so I knew that was not true about a 20 year ban.
 
Last edited:
ur right farmaz what i meant that it wasnt released uncut for 20 years... the parts of the film the british censor cut were the parts that made it so disturbing
 
Just watched Manhattan Murder Mystery. To quote IMDB "A middle-aged couple [Woody Allen and Marshall Brickman] suspects foul play when their neighbor's wife suddenly drops dead."

1296140160-manhattan_murder_mystery_02-1.png


My pal who recommended it to me said he was laughing all the way through it, well, I found it very amusing rather than hilarious... Precise nature of the humour aside, it has large helpings of all those ingredients which make up the Woody Allen recipe for "charm". I was on the tail end of some MXE and I'm not 100% sure what happened but it's not a problem as it'll easily bear a repeat viewing soon.

I think I'm going to work my way through the Allen canon. I've always liked his films but I've never gone out my way to find them for some reason, just watched them if they've been on TV or if someone had a tape. I didn't realise just how prolific he is, I knew he was busy but with the odd exception he's put out one, often two and sometimes three or four films a year since the mid 60s. I'm quite excited to have a long list of, mostly, very good films by a funny little jewish pervert (allegedly) to watch and I'm not sure why I haven't done it yet.
 
Last edited:
right, I'm only 10 minutes into What's Up Tiger Lily and it's my Christmas Film Recommendation 2012. Not got long before armageddon so get on the purchasing. It's fucking hilarious. Woody Allen redubs a Japanese Bond knock off to comical effect. Can't believe I've never watched this before =D
 
Kumare.jpeg


Trailer

How easy is it to make New Ager's look very silly? Very easy. Some Insight may or may not be had... but... "Bluelight Meditation" is a central part of the proposed philosopy so other Insights are available. This particular one gives pretty good insight (Insight negotiable) and is worth a watch.
 
Kumare is awesome, I posted about in in the Documentary thread

Going to watch this before the NFL game at 1.30am

Deep-Cover.jpg


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104073/

Henry Bean has written 2 of the best Los Angeles based Narc/undercover thrillers ever
Deep Cover and Internal Affairs

Both would make an awesome double bill, but not enough time so just watching this one tonight.
Well worth checking for Jeff Goldblum playing " David Jason"
not the bloke who plays del boy, but a lawyer who gets trapped up in the wonderful plan to market a new drug that sounds suspiciously like a cross between what a RC would have been in 1990 and MDMA

"Without the Parkinsons" as the line goes

Goldblums finest role ever apart from the classic Holsten Pils ad's he did

Brilliant movie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top