yea, and there was something about the "bear" that just kept getting commented about on the internet. I didn't pay any attention to that either.
I thought you were being a tad too serious. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <emily.mae50@...> wrote : Ah Steve, don't feel like that. The problem with email and the internet is that you couldn't see the good-natured glint in my eye or hear the playful tone of my voice. I thought it was pretty amusing, actually, that they played up the point of "natural light" in the promotion. I assure you that I could/would have missed it, amidst all the grunting and moaning you mention. Not a movie I need to see. :) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Wow, I feel like a real dodo. Yes, the scenery was exquisite, and I guess I was somewhat in the dark about the lighting, (-: but reflecting on it now, the natural light did make a difference. That and the scenery were the strong points. It was just a long movie, and some point it occurred to me the guy just keeps escaping death through somewhat impossible means, and yes, he does grunt a lot. I didn't mean to imply the scenery was mediocre. Just the overall movie. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <emily.mae50@...> wrote : Did you think it was a better movie because it was filmed using only "natural" light and not "electrical" light? Did you notice? Did you say to yourself...."there is something special about the lighting in this movie that makes the scenery extra-special." Or, maybe it was a subconscious appreciation. Or, maybe, none of the above and it didn't even occur to your finely tuned senses! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Jesus, an awful lot of moaning in that movie. I enjoyed the scenery. Sorta mediocre, I think. Mildly entertaining?