Raf

There are five places in Acts where people are specifically said to have received the holy spirit. In Acts 2, they show this by speaking in tongues. In Acts 10, the house of Cornelius shows this by speaking in tongues. In Acts 19, the disciples of Apollos show this by speaking in tongues. That leaves two that are less clear: Acts 8 does not say that anyone spoke in tongues, but it does say that "Simon SAW that through the laying on of hands the Holy Ghost was given..." Simon had to see something that could only be interpreted as evidence that the holy spirit was received. SIT is a reasonable assumption. The final record is the conversion of Saul. Acts 9:17-19 give no indication that Saul spoke in tongues. However, I Corinthians makes clear that Saul (aka Paul) spoke in tongues more than anyone. Five "receivings" of holy spirit, five incidents of speaking in tongues.

Yeah, this one's a piece of cake.

Gotta be Space Oddity Dang! Right idea, wrong song.

Alas, neither resolved nor alleviated. Just being dealt with.

I always thought the "Five to Nothing" scorekeeping was pretty good, though I never looked at it critically. I think three of them mention SIT outright, while the other two imply it fairly strongly. Wait, one of them was the "Simon saw" verse, which meant that Simon had to see (or witness) something considered proof that "the Holy Spirit fell on them" or however it's phrased in that verse. I think SIT is as safe a bet as any on that one. The other was Saul's conversion, and on that one you may have a point. There's nothing in the Acts record to suggest or hint that Saul spoke in tongues at that particular point in time. There's plenty of evidence he did so later.

I just talked to some friends about this, and apparently the consensus is that if you've seen it live, don't see the movie. But if you HAVEN'T seen it live, the movie's a riot.

Finally! A better analogy than David or Paul! Solomon's writings, if I am not mistaken, preceded his reprehensible behavior. But it is a much better analogy.

I agree with you, Oldiesman. We're not the ones fooling you.

I suspect my initial review was not understood. I was trying to say the movie was flat. More detailed: I like the fact that the musical was put on film, but I thought a lot of the jokes that made my ribs ache on stage were just not funny on screen. I didn't like the fact that they cut Nathan Lane's opening song, which established his character. Matthew Broderick was not very good at all. The chemistry between Lane and Broderick was just about gone. Gary Beach, on the other hand, was very good.

Yes, that is correct. 500 karaoke nights confirm it.

The Man From Snowy River?

Annie Fair Two Ream Amber An Affair to Remember, yes, that's the movie with Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr. They talk about that movie a lot in Sleepless In Seattle. Excellent work, Rhino.

stumped again

Often in the very same words. :)

Yup. Utterly.

just nod if you can HEAR me... is there anyone home? I'm stumped.

I finally saw it! And now, my review of the movie version of the stage musical "The Producers!" Here it is: ready? __________________________________________________________________________

I don't mind endings that aren't "happy." I do mind endings that aren't good or satisfying. To me, a movie ending should say that the story I've just witnessed ends here. There are exceptions, such as trilogies: you know, watching The Lord of the Rings, that the story doesn't end until the end of the third movie, so you're willing to forgive the endings of the first two for not resolving the entire story. This movie's ending doesn't feel like the story's over, mostly because the story wasn't that interesting to begin with. "Total waste of time" seems to be the phrase I would pick.

Golden Globe Awards (my opinion) Best Picture: Not deserved Best Director: Not deserved Best Screenplay: Not deserved Best Song: Didn't even notice.

At least one reason comes to mind: The lousiness of this movie is my opinion. My review was not "objective." It was not "balanced." It was my opinion of a moviegoing experience, and others might have a difference of opinion. Do I think there's a political agenda at work here? Yes and no. I think the producers of this wanted to tell a good story, the actors wanted to work with a renowned director, and, frankly, when Hollywood decides to make something about gay issues that's NOT insulting or stereotypical, the rest of Hollywood tends to go a little overboard in its accolades. Tom Hanks is a great, great actor, but Philadelphia was a TV movie of the week as far as quality is concerned. My criticism of this movie left out any good stuff, and there was some. The scene where Michelle Williams finally confronts Heath Ledger is tense and very, very well done. Likewise, Anne Hathaway lights up the screen. And Jake what'shisname, I should say, gives a sincere performance. Every movie has its good and bad, and it's up to the individual viewer whether the good outweighs the bad. I thought the bad outweighed the good in this movie, but Oscar will disagree, whether "he" has seen the movie or not.

All right, I went and saw it today (kept the date happy. She's a real artsy-movie buff). I don't know exactly what to say about this. It is, without question, hands down, the worst 2005 movie I saw. WORST. It's boring. It's virtually inaudible, which is a plus because you can't imagine giving a rat's behind what Heath Ledger has to say. The gay "community" produces plenty of films about their troubles, their romances, their experiences. Like typical "straight" movies, some are well-reviewed, some are poorly-reviewed. I've seen movies with gay themes, although none as pronounced as this one. Some I've liked (Rent). Others, not so much. I do not recommend this movie: not because it "glorifies" homosexuality (it doesn't. Not really. It merely accepts homosexuality as a reality and tells a story about it). I do not recommend this movie because it is a bad movie, with a bad beginning, a bad middle, and an unsatisfying ending. As for how explicit it is: it's not. Not by heterosexual film standards. Basic Instinct is really explicit. By that standard, this was practically a Disney film. There's no full frontal nudity (although there is a nude scene that shows both men, from a distance, in a side view in a non-sexual context: they're jumping into a lake or something). The scene described in one of the earlier posts is there, but you don't see what's described. You just know it's happening. Don't avoid this movie because it's "gay." Avoid this movie because it sucks. No pun intended.

Aww, COME ON!!!! die THE die!!

I was thinking "Bad Boys," but that's hardly obscure, or recent.

I didn't realize this was posted already. I found this on another site (lots of duplication, but some differences):