Pidesco

We know what it's about. What we want to know is why you think it's so deep.

Rutger Hauer was great in Blade Runner.Sure, he sucked in about everything else he did, but that shouldn't take away from his performance in the best sci-fi flick of all time. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/page/0...1290764,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/sto...1290567,00.html

Me too. It's not incredibly shallow, but when compared to Blade Runner it really sticks out as superficial. Not to mention it doesn't meld it's themes with the narrative even half as well as Blade Runner does.

He's still right. And to think I was about 13 when I first saw it.

No. Sorry. There is however a thoroughly brilliant scene where she's cutting some vegetables in the kitchen that is quite interesting. If you want sex,

Well, it's quite funny at times, and that always works well with big crowds. It's also very interesting culturally because of the way it describes small Spanish villages. And, as usual Almod

Caetano Veloso - Cucurrucucu Paloma Because I'm thinking of Almod

Ghost in a Shell (the first one) is good but it's no Blade Runner. What exactly do you mean by more thoughtful?

Almod

Try The Haunting, then. Or Rosemary's Baby. And The Thing is pretty damn good. Edit: Hey, what's this deleting crap?

Well, you can't really go wrong with Bergman and I've heard that Bresson's flick is really good, but I haven't seen it. It's hard to think of a movie you haven't seen, but I'll see what I can do. Edit: Are you familiar with Almod

To the best of my knowledge the Huns were religious. And they were not that primitive. Also, don't forget that progress is exponential.

Yes, like Narcissus are an actual flower, but really have bugger all to do with the Narcissus myth.

I don't know Mori Masaki, but Oshii is in no way as talented as Miyazaki and Takahata.

Because George Lucas sucks?

I'm not complaining. I'm actually glad someone saw where I was coming from.

It's not cold until you have an ice stalactite hanging from your nose.

I'm familiar with Nietzsche's work. Do you think I post these things blindly?

Indeed.

Yes. My point is that, perhaps, some years from now (100, 500, 5000?), we won't need religion because we've gone beyond it. It's just an idea, I'm not saying it's true.

I played the level three times: Fighter, stealthy assassin and mage. Great fun all around.

Download it! You won't regret it.

Faith and religion are not the same thing. Lots of people have faith in something but aren't religious. One can have faith in himself; one can have faith in the basic goodness of humanity; One can have faith in lots of things and not be religious about it. Also, I think faith is essential to a person's wellbeing and his/her ability to accomplish anything. On the subject of religion, personally I think that it's appearance in human societies is derived from two things: One is the desire to explain the unknown, and the other is a need to establish universal rules and laws that the whole society can follow so that it can be kept together. Now, explaining the unknown is, I feel, no longer a part of religion in modern societies. And of course laws and rules are already provided by about every society in the world. All this I feel makes religion kind of pointless in the world today. Except of course, that the word of God brings with it a certain moral authority, that governments simply don't have. Finally, it's perfectly possible to argue that the only reason religion has been a part of every civilization so far, is a reflection of humanity's primitivity as a species.

We can't prove the Trojan War happened.

Historically, there is no reason to doubt their existence. Even if the stories of their lives are exaggerated, there is enough archeological evidence to support the time and places as accurate. It makes little sense to completely fabricate an individual and spread the stories across the world and over the centuries. The odds are much greater that these individuals existed. Of course, over time you need to account for events being exaggerated or altered. Much of what we know about these figures was passed down through oral traditions. With Muhammad, the Qu'ran was completed 15 years after his death, so we have a much more accurate account of his life. Abraham and Moses (and I'm not a theological scholar so I could be wrong) is going to be less accurate because the written records available are written much later than their lifetime. I don't think there's any archaeological evidence for the Exodus.