That Cohen guy is one of the strangest people to come along for a while.

I'm booked in to see this on the 30th of this month and I actually can't sit still because of the anticipation. I will not give The Sun even a minute of my time though.

“Was very funny. Not as funny as Borat, but funny.”

A real idea of what the movie's like there, Jonathan.

How the hell is revealing how the movie ends not a spoiler? Thanks, Peter.

No kiddin, I wish I didn't read that

Agreed.

Am replying to this to try and prompt Peter to remove it. It's a relatively mild spoiler, but a spoiler all the same.

Couldn't agree more!

This is something that's been bugging me recently. Is it really a spoiler? Does something like that "spoil" a movie? Back in the day, a spoiler was a key detail that ruined a movie, like certain details from Sixth Sense or who the murderer was in The Mouse Trap. Knowing that there's a song at the end of Bruno is not a spoiler. I'm pretty sure the movie will be just as funny knowing it or not.

Or am I wrong here?

I can't wait to see this.

I can't possibly bring myself to read the review, but I'm glad to read the few tidbits you threw out. I'm still hoping for a 'Borat'-level of awesome.

Considering Borat wasn't funny at all, this must be just awful if it "wasn't as funny as Borat".

Really Borat not funny?

Did anyone else notice that both Borat and Bruno are both names that have five letters and start with 'B'? Just throwing it out there.

Oooooo so his next film is Brian?

You don't mention though that his first film was Ali G. 4 letters and no b lol.

Hate to do this, but the page has closed out on me.

I mean a leap of logic in the actual trained art, the study of symbolic logic. To say "Existence could be without a creator, therefore there is no creator." Is a fallacious argument. Existence could be with a creator, or it could be without one. This is precisely the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.

For instance, let's say there are two people, Jack and Jill, that make the exact same product, a toy soldier perhaps. They are completely indiscernible once completed, though the methods of making the toy are slightly different. One day, one of them is ill and decides not to make their toy that day. So the other person makes their singly toy soldier and puts it on display. A collector looks at it and believes Jack made it, because Jill is not required to make one tin soldier. The thing is the same could be said for Jack to have made it, since JILL is not required either. Both are sufficient for the soldier to be made, but neither is necessary.

That is a metaphor, of course, but it gets to the point.

And the Big Band DID require something. The fundamental theory is that there was a superdense little something that exploded and released energy and matter that formed the universe. The big bang required that superdense little something. Whether it required a creator or not is precisely the debate, but the Big Bang DID require something to occur.

And the science does not disprove God, in the slightest. I'm not trying to convince you of the divine, I'm just trying to show that it is a personal belief, based on your own instincts and philosophy, and cannot be proven either way.

"Currently, the theory of the cosmological history of the Universe most widely accepted by astronomers and astrophysicists today includes an apparent first event, the Big Bang, an expansion of time and space has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past. Although contemporary versions of the cosmological argument most typically assume that there was a beginning to the cosmic chain of physical or natural causes, the early formulations of the argument did not have the benefit of this degree of theoretical insight. The Big Bang theory, however, does not address the issue of the origin of the initial condition, so it does not address the issue of a First Cause in an absolute sense."

I've quoted to save basically rewriting but that covers my idea and also the fact that it of course proves nothing but that many do hold the belief that The Big Bang was the first cause (And I'm counting the superdense something as the start). I tend to go for the Occam's Razor as God is far and away last on the list of likelyhood.

Now as far as provability that really is a moot point as the 'Russell's teapot' argument has shown. That saying that I could say that there is a teapot revolving around the sun but is too small to be seen by telescopes. This is obviously crazy and yet it can't be disproved. In my mind God is just as ridiculous.

Out of interest what country are you from? Good debate by the way.

I want to watch the full bruno movie online