rj_anderson (
rj_anderson) wrote2008-03-28 09:09 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
An awesome movie is an awesome movie, no matter how G-rated
I've just come back from Horton Hears a Who.
What a BRILLIANT film. I absolutely loved it. And spent half of it laughing out loud, which I rarely do even with films that amuse me. The anime parody alone was worth the ticket, and that's not even halfway into the film.
Also, to my gratified surprise, movie critic Gina Carbone was right about the resemblance to the Intelligent Design debate. From now on I shall always think of Richard Dawkins as a purple kangaroo, and my life will be considerably enriched.
--
* Yes, I am fully aware that this was not Theodor Geisel a.k.a. Dr. Seuss's intent when writing the book, any more than it was his intent to support the pro-life movement. Nevertheless, the parallels are irresistibly there.
What a BRILLIANT film. I absolutely loved it. And spent half of it laughing out loud, which I rarely do even with films that amuse me. The anime parody alone was worth the ticket, and that's not even halfway into the film.
Also, to my gratified surprise, movie critic Gina Carbone was right about the resemblance to the Intelligent Design debate. From now on I shall always think of Richard Dawkins as a purple kangaroo, and my life will be considerably enriched.
--
* Yes, I am fully aware that this was not Theodor Geisel a.k.a. Dr. Seuss's intent when writing the book, any more than it was his intent to support the pro-life movement. Nevertheless, the parallels are irresistibly there.
no subject
[1] I know, you said Intelligent Design. I specified six-day Creationism instead because the former term can have so many meanings and I don't consider some of them ridiculous in the least. (I have no problems at all with the idea of a universe that was originally set in motion and given definition by a guiding Intelligence and thenceforth developed further along the lines of the principles set in motion then. Science can handle the whats very well, but has no view into the whys.
[2] You once wrote something on the debate, on athiests who respect the beauty and majesty of religion and religious people with a sense of humor and respect for opponents that's still one of the best things I've ever read on the subject.
no subject
And I often think that a lot of atheists and agnostics must be facepalming every time Richard Dawkins opens his mouth.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject