ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/movies/archive/v02.n211

Internet Message Format | 1999-07-19 | 51KB

From: [e-mail] (movies-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: movies-digest V2 #211
Reply-To: movies-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


movies-digest          Tuesday, July 20 1999          Volume 02 : Number 211



RE: [MV] some thoughts on south park
RE: [MV] some thoughts on south park
[MV] Movie News - 07/19/99
Re: [MV] some thoughts on south park
Re: [MV] some thoughts on south park
Re: [MV] some thoughts on south park
[MV] Re: Rushmore
Re: [MV] some thoughts on south park
Re: [MV] some thoughts on south park
Re: [MV] Re: Rushmore
RE: [MV] Rushmore
Re: [MV] Rushmore
Re: [MV] some thoughts on south park
Re: [MV] some thoughts on south park
[MV] Just saw Eyes Wide Shut...& a ditty on nudity
Re: [MV] Just saw Eyes Wide Shut...& a ditty on nudity
Re: [MV] Re: Rushmore
Re: [MV] Just saw Eyes Wide Shut...& a ditty on nudity
[MV] a ditty on nudity
Re: [MV] Eyes Wide Shut
Re: [MV] a ditty on nudity
Re: [MV] south park

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:10:04 -0700
From: "Romero, Leticia" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] some thoughts on south park

oh brother...

> -----Original Message-----
> From:    Danielle Conkle [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent:    Saturday, July 17, 1999 11:18 PM
> To:    [e-mail]
> Subject:    [MV] some thoughts on south park
>
> I received this FWD...and since it has to do with movies i thought i would
>
> pass it on.
> ---
>
> >The article by Ted Baehr can be found at
> >http://movieguide.crosswalk.com/1,2046,,00.htm
> >If you haven't logged on to the "MovieGuide" site
> >in awhile, they now provide two free movie reviews
> >per week -- plus many more if you'd like to subscribe
> >to the service.
> >
> >Blessings,
> >Lori
> >
> >
> >
> >To subscribe to this list,
> >http://www.breakpoint.org/script4.html
> >
> >
> >BreakPoint Commentary #90712 - 07/12/1999
> >Causing Little Ones to Sin: South Park: The Movie
> >by Charles Colson
> >
> >A new movie features pornographic perversity, wall-
> >to-wall obscenities, and blasphemous references to
> >God--and the film is aimed directly at young people.
> >I'm talking about the cartoon movie "South Park,"
> >based on the TV series, and it's perhaps the most
> >extreme example of the way Hollywood deliberately
> >corrupts our children.
> >
> >To give you an idea of just how foul this movie is,
> >it was originally given an NC-17 rating--what used to
> >be an X-rating.  Only after intense negotiations with
> >the Motion Picture Association of America was the
> >rating reduced to an "R."
> >
> >But if you've heard anything about this film, you
> >understand why the rating should have stayed NC-17.
> >One scene shows a little boy searching for porn sites
> >on the Internet.  When he finally finds one, he
> >discovers that it features his own mother.  Another
> >third-grader refers to God using profanities.  And
> >believe it or not, the film even features
> >graphic homosexual activity involving Satan.
> >
> >This is "undoubtedly one of the filthiest mainstream
> >films ever released," says New York film critic Rod
> >Dreher.  Keep in mind that we're talking about a
> >cartoon, and that the TV series on which it's based
> >has a huge following among adolescents and even pre-
> >teens.  Almost certainly, says Dreher, many of these
> >underage children will get in to see the film--and
> >will then emulate the depraved characters in it.
> >
> >In fact, that seems to be the filmmakers' intention.
> >The movie plot features a gang of eight-year-old kids
> >who sneak into an NC-17 rated film and afterward
> >spout curse words incessantly.  The children's
> >parents are portrayed as hysterical prudes,
> >hopelessly out of touch with reality.  And in the
> >end, it's the parents--not the children--who see the
> >error of their ways.
> >
> >The film mocks the very idea of childhood innocence
> >and the idea that parents should try to protect that
> >innocence. As cultural critic Neil Postman explains,
> >commercial institutions today view young people as
> >markets to be exploited, not children to be protected.
> >
> >In his book, Saving Childhood, film critic Michael
> >Medved says "this careless cultural assault on the
> >innocence of small children can be directly connected
> >to the development of more dangerous behavior in
> >maturing adolescents:" suicide, drug use, and
> >promiscuity.  And entertainment that includes "crude
> >language, vulgar scenes, and steamy sexuality" tends
> >to make children "more aggressive and insensitive,"
> >Medved writes.
> >
> >In the wake of Littleton, Hollywood promised to clean
> >up its act.  And yet, just a few weeks later, they're
> >offering up unspeakable filth like South Park to our
> >kids. That's why it's up to parents to be more
> >vigilant than ever.  If you call BreakPoint, we'll
> >send you an article written by Christian film critic
> >Ted Baehr, about the moral agenda of Hollywood
> >elites.  We'll also send you the phone numbers of
> >Paramount and Time-Warner, which are distributing
> >this foul assault on childhood innocence. These
> >entertainment executives should hear from parents.
> >
> >And while you're at it, make sure other parents know
> >about the content of this movie.  Many parents may
> >assume it's just another cartoon.
> >
> >Finally, pray that God will have mercy
> >on those who seek to profit from the corruption of
> >the innocent: They will surely need it.
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
>
> [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
> [ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:56:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: ron c <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] some thoughts on south park

Hey Leticia,

Yeah, my responce to that fowarded letter by that person
(church/PTA lady) was about the same; "oh brother". But
lets face it, it's a free country, so if someone wants to
pin all the ills of society on a low budget cartoon, it's
their right. God-forbid if we were to expect people to take
responcibility for their and their children's lives, right?

Later,

Ron "oh why don't they put a sock in it" Cummings


- --- "Romero, Leticia" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> oh brother...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:    Danielle Conkle [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> > Sent:    Saturday, July 17, 1999 11:18 PM
> > To:    [e-mail]
> > Subject:    [MV] some thoughts on south park
> >
> > I received this FWD...and since it has to do with
> movies i thought i would
> >
> > pass it on.
> > ---
> >
> > >The article by Ted Baehr can be found at
> > >http://movieguide.crosswalk.com/1,2046,,00.htm
> > >If you haven't logged on to the "MovieGuide" site
> > >in awhile, they now provide two free movie reviews
> > >per week -- plus many more if you'd like to subscribe
> > >to the service.
> > >
> > >Blessings,
> > >Lori
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >To subscribe to this list,
> > >http://www.breakpoint.org/script4.html
> > >
> > >
> > >BreakPoint Commentary #90712 - 07/12/1999
> > >Causing Little Ones to Sin: South Park: The Movie
> > >by Charles Colson
> > >
> > >A new movie features pornographic perversity, wall-
> > >to-wall obscenities, and blasphemous references to
> > >God--and the film is aimed directly at young people.
> > >I'm talking about the cartoon movie "South Park,"
> > >based on the TV series, and it's perhaps the most
> > >extreme example of the way Hollywood deliberately
> > >corrupts our children.
> > >
> > >To give you an idea of just how foul this movie is,
> > >it was originally given an NC-17 rating--what used to
> > >be an X-rating.  Only after intense negotiations with
> > >the Motion Picture Association of America was the
> > >rating reduced to an "R."
> > >
> > >But if you've heard anything about this film, you
> > >understand why the rating should have stayed NC-17.
> > >One scene shows a little boy searching for porn sites
> > >on the Internet.  When he finally finds one, he
> > >discovers that it features his own mother.  Another
> > >third-grader refers to God using profanities.  And
> > >believe it or not, the film even features
> > >graphic homosexual activity involving Satan.
> > >
> > >This is "undoubtedly one of the filthiest mainstream
> > >films ever released," says New York film critic Rod
> > >Dreher.  Keep in mind that we're talking about a
> > >cartoon, and that the TV series on which it's based
> > >has a huge following among adolescents and even pre-
> > >teens.  Almost certainly, says Dreher, many of these
> > >underage children will get in to see the film--and
> > >will then emulate the depraved characters in it.
> > >
> > >In fact, that seems to be the filmmakers' intention.
> > >The movie plot features a gang of eight-year-old kids
> > >who sneak into an NC-17 rated film and afterward
> > >spout curse words incessantly.  The children's
> > >parents are portrayed as hysterical prudes,
> > >hopelessly out of touch with reality.  And in the
> > >end, it's the parents--not the children--who see the
> > >error of their ways.
> > >
> > >The film mocks the very idea of childhood innocence
> > >and the idea that parents should try to protect that
> > >innocence. As cultural critic Neil Postman explains,
> > >commercial institutions today view young people as
> > >markets to be exploited, not children to be protected.
> > >
> > >In his book, Saving Childhood, film critic Michael
> > >Medved says "this careless cultural assault on the
> > >innocence of small children can be directly connected
> > >to the development of more dangerous behavior in
> > >maturing adolescents:" suicide, drug use, and
> > >promiscuity.  And entertainment that includes "crude
> > >language, vulgar scenes, and steamy sexuality" tends
> > >to make children "more aggressive and insensitive,"
> > >Medved writes.
> > >
> > >In the wake of Littleton, Hollywood promised to clean
> > >up its act.  And yet, just a few weeks later, they're
> > >offering up unspeakable filth like South Park to our
> > >kids. That's why it's up to parents to be more
> > >vigilant than ever.  If you call BreakPoint, we'll
> > >send you an article written by Christian film critic
> > >Ted Baehr, about the moral agenda of Hollywood
> > >elites.  We'll also send you the phone numbers of
> > >Paramount and Time-Warner, which are distributing
> > >this foul assault on childhood innocence. These
> > >entertainment executives should hear from parents.
> > >
> > >And while you're at it, make sure other parents know
> > >about the content of this movie.  Many parents may
> > >assume it's just another cartoon.
> > >
> > >Finally, pray that God will have mercy
> > >on those who seek to profit from the corruption of
> > >the innocent: They will surely need it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
_______________________________________________________________
> > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit
> http://www.msn.com
> >
> > [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message
> "unsubscribe ]
> > [ movies" (without the quotes) to
> [e-mail]          ]
>
> [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message
> "unsubscribe ]
> [ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]
>         ]
>

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:58:04 -0600
From: "The Reporter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Movie News - 07/19/99

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Viewers had eyes and wallets wide open for Tom
Cruise and Nicole Kidman as Stanley Kubrick's steamy, highbrow "Eyes
Wide Shut" debuted atop the box office with $22.8 million, according
to industry estimates Sunday. The lowbrow sex comedy "American Pie"
fell to second with $13.3 million, while Adam Sandler's "Big Daddy"
remained at third with $10.5 million. There were three other new
films over the weekend. The mouth-wide-open crocodile flick "Lake
Placid" opened in fourth with $10.2 million. "The Wood," the story of
a bridegroom and two friends reminiscing about growing up in
Inglewood, Calif., debuted at sixth with $8.6 million and "Muppets
>From Space," featuring Jim Henson's creations searching for
intelligent life in the cosmos, was 10th. Meanwhile, "Wild Wild West"
was fifth with $10 million.

                        -=> * <=-

LONDON (AP) - Irish actor Donal McCann, who starred in "The Dead,"
director John Huston's last movie, has died at 56, the director of
Dublin's Gate Theater said Sunday. McCann died in Dublin after a long
undisclosed illness, Michael Colgan said. "The Dead," made in 1987,
was based on a short story of the same name that appears in James
Joyce's collection "Dubliners" and tells the tale of two Irish
spinsters throwing a dinner for their relatives and friends. It won
an Oscar nomination for best adapted screenplay. McCann and Huston's
daughter Anjelica played Gabriel and Gretta, a glamorous couple with
a melancholy secret.

                        -=> * <=-

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (AP) - Academy Award-winning filmmaker Oliver
Stone has pleaded innocent to drug charges stemming from a traffic
stop last month. Stone was stopped June 9 by a police officer who
said the director was driving erratically. Police said they found
hashish in his 1987 black Ford Mustang. Prosecutors said Stone's
blood-alcohol level was above the legal limit of 0.08% when he was
arrested. Stone, 52, pleaded innocent Thursday to charges including
possession of controlled substances and driving under the influence.


[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:41:13 -0400
From: Mel Eperthener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] some thoughts on south park

At 11.18 PM 17/07/1999 PDT, Danielle Conkle wrote:
>I received this FWD...and since it has to do with movies i thought i would
>pass it on.
>---

Where in heaven's name did you find this??  It is extremely scary that are
people like this out there.

Or as "the boys" might say:

"Oh my God, they killed logic and common sense.  You bastards!!"

>>A new movie features pornographic perversity, wall-
>>to-wall obscenities, and blasphemous references to
>>God--and the film is aimed directly at young people.
>>I'm talking about the cartoon movie "South Park,"
>>based on the TV series, and it's perhaps the most
>>extreme example of the way Hollywood deliberately
>>corrupts our children.

Deliberately??  Gee, I understand that SP is on Comedy Central (hardly
Nickolodian), and late at night (10.00 PM).  The movie is rated R.  Yep,
definately going after the kiddie market here.

>>
>>To give you an idea of just how foul this movie is,
>>it was originally given an NC-17 rating--what used to
>>be an X-rating.  Only after intense negotiations with
>>the Motion Picture Association of America was the
>>rating reduced to an "R."

As Roger Ebert said yesterday (about EWS), if the orgy scene had been an
orgy or ax murderers beheading people, there would have been, without a
doubt, no problem getting the R rating.

>> And
>>believe it or not, the film even features
>>graphic homosexual activity involving Satan.

Gee, considering that the right wing hatemongers (whose influences can
easily be seen in this article) have such a bug up the arse (Ha!) about
homosexuality, you'd think that showing the Prince of Darkness, the Supreme
Evil One as being gay, would fit right into their agenda.

>>
>>This is "undoubtedly one of the filthiest mainstream
>>films ever released," says New York film critic Rod
>>Dreher.  Keep in mind that we're talking about a
>>cartoon, and that the TV series on which it's based
>>has a huge following among adolescents and even pre-
>>teens.  Almost certainly, says Dreher, many of these
>>underage children will get in to see the film--and
>>will then emulate the depraved characters in it.

Well, that's because their parents are idiots.  First of all, whoever came
up with the logic that amimated= children??  There are many examples of
cutting-edge satire (we'll come back to this) in "cartoons":  The
Flintstones, The Simpsons, Rocky and Bullwinkle.  And if anyone, anyone can
think that Heavy Metal and American Pop are for kids just because they are
animated, their problems go far beyond what we can help with.  And I have
not even mentioned Japanese Anime.  Do you think parents in Tokyo are
protesting because Project A-Ko has kids sneaking into it??

>>
>>In fact, that seems to be the filmmakers' intention.
>>The movie plot features a gang of eight-year-old kids
>>who sneak into an NC-17 rated film and afterward
>>spout curse words incessantly.  The children's
>>parents are portrayed as hysterical prudes,
>>hopelessly out of touch with reality.  And in the
>>end, it's the parents--not the children--who see the
>>error of their ways.

I think this author could walk into Clues 'R Us, go right by the display of
big, industrial-strength clues, and STILL not get it.  It's called SATIRE
for a reason.  Parker and Stone are just showing Americans the depths of
their hyprocracy.

>>
>>In his book, Saving Childhood, film critic Michael
>>Medved says "this careless cultural assault on the
>>innocence of small children can be directly connected
>>to the development of more dangerous behavior in
>>maturing adolescents:" suicide, drug use, and
>>promiscuity.  And entertainment that includes "crude
>>language, vulgar scenes, and steamy sexuality" tends
>>to make children "more aggressive and insensitive,"
>>Medved writes.

My view??  Well, we have licences for driving, owning a weapon, even our
dogs.  However, no one needs to get a licence to be a parent.  (Or to spew
their logic-impared ideas on the Internet, for that matter).  Yet when
something goes wrong, everyone BUT the parents get the blame.

When I was growing up, the big "adult" shows were Soap and Saturday Night
Live.  I would have died to have seen either of them.  However, my parents
waited until I was old enough to handle it before I was allowed to view
those shows.  Evidently, today's parents have completely abdicated control
over their society because they cannot or will not be bothered to control
their offspring.


>>
>>In the wake of Littleton, Hollywood promised to clean
>>up its act.  And yet, just a few weeks later, they're
>>offering up unspeakable filth like South Park to our
>>kids. That's why it's up to parents to be more
>>vigilant than ever.

No!!!!

The reason parents have to be as vigilant as ever is because IT'S THEIR
FRIGGING JOBS!!!!!!!!!!  To imply or say that parents need to be MORE
viligent simply says that they have, up to this point, failed to do thier
jobs.

The parents were at fault in Littleton.  If someone (my kid or not) was
building bombs in my garage, you bet your arse that I would be aware of it,
and that the problem would be solved then and there.  Movies are
entertainment, nothing else.  Hollywood no more deserves the blame for
Littleton than they deserve the credit when something goes right.


>>And while you're at it, make sure other parents know
>>about the content of this movie.  Many parents may
>>assume it's just another cartoon.

Once again, this would only be because many parents are complete and utter
idiots!!  It's got an R rating, for God's sake!!  The same rating as EWS.
The same rating as Blair Witch Project.  The children should not be
watching this, and if the parents are unwilling or unable to ensure that
this won't happen, why should I care??  They don't want anyone telling them
how to raise their kids; when they screw up, then they can take full and
complete blame.

>>
>>Finally, pray that God will have mercy
>>on those who seek to profit from the corruption of
>>the innocent: They will surely need it.

Pray that God will have mercy on those who seek to profit from the
corruption of the innocent??  You mean, like the 700 Club??  Hey, Seniors,
send us money from your fixed-income, or else!!!!  If God is a just being,
then Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, and Jim Bakker will be
first in line at the gates of hell, far far ahead of Parker and Stone.

OK, I do apologise for this rant.  However, the death of logic and common
sense are a much more destructive influence on society than anything Parker
and Stone can come up with.

Regards,

- --Mel


- --Mel Eperthener
president, Gowanna Multi-media Pty

Please support the endeavour
of a friend and fellow Australian.

Political Corrections by Michael Jaymes Cassidy
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/politicalmusings

____________________________________________
        If people are worried about the whole Y2K thing,
           just wait until they try to get technical
            support the day "Phantom Menace" opens.
__________________________

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:01:38 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] some thoughts on south park

Yeah, I agree. As long as those Holier-than-thou bastards don't prevent the
hilarious things like South Park from coming out, they can rant and rave all
they want.

Oh, and today I was looking through my DVD collection and what should I find
but Rushmore. Man, what a great film. Bill Murray should have gotten an Oscar
for that movie. And the soundtrack is amazing, too. I love, "Oh La La," by
The faces and Cat Stevens is amazing, too. Well, what did you all think of
Rushmore?

~Matt

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:10:34 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] some thoughts on south park

Yeah, really. I mean, has anyone here ever seen Spawn on HBO? Without a doubt
one of the most realistic animated shows in America, where topics range from
pedophiles to murderous priests to a warrior from Hell. Not "kiddie" at all.
Oh, and does anyone remember back in the day when kids were allowed to go see
that latest Western or shoot 'em up? Just because that was real people
getting maimed and killed it was okay, but now since it's animated, it's a
message from Satan. Oh well.

~Matt

<<Well, that's because their parents are idiots.  First of all, whoever came
up with the logic that amimated= children??  There are many examples of
cutting-edge satire (we'll come back to this) in "cartoons":  The
Flintstones, The Simpsons, Rocky and Bullwinkle.  And if anyone, anyone can
think that Heavy Metal and American Pop are for kids just because they are
animated, their problems go far beyond what we can help with.  And I have
not even mentioned Japanese Anime.  Do you think parents in Tokyo are
protesting because Project A-Ko has kids sneaking into it??>>

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 99 14:14:06 -0700
From: "David F. Nolan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Re: Rushmore

>Oh, and today I was looking through my DVD collection and what should I find
>but Rushmore. Man, what a great film. Bill Murray should have gotten an
>Oscar for that movie. And the soundtrack is amazing, too. I love, "Oh La La,"
by
>The faces and Cat Stevens is amazing, too. Well, what did you all think of
>Rushmore?

I just watched it this past weekend, and was kinda disappointed. The
story line was just SO unbelievable, mostly because the kid, Max, was
implausible. If they'd made him 19, a college freshman or sophomore, then
maybe I could have swallowed it.  And why did Murray's character keep
catering to him?  That made no sense whatsoever.  It was OK, but not
"great" -- although the soundtrack _was_ cool.

For more comments, see the Past PIcks page at FlickPicks,
http://www.flickpicks.com

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 99 14:22:46 -0700
From: "David F. Nolan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] some thoughts on south park

I'll second Mel's remarks, but add one further observation The only thing
worse than the sanctimonious Right is the sanctimonious Left, which gets
just as outraged at anything it considers politically incorrect ... a
point made in a recent episode of SOUTH PARK about lawsuits run amok.

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:20:40 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] some thoughts on south park

Damn right. As a 14 year old (soon to be 15), my parents have given me a very
"hands on" up bringing. Am I allowed to see any rated R movie? No, usually
they see it first and give me the go ahead. But South Park? They trust me
enough to let me see this hysterical, yet crude, movie and trust I won't go
kill half my school. Now Eyes Wide Shut? No, I won't see that until my
parents see it, but my father and I are both HUGE Kubrick fans, so no matter
how explicit, I'm sure I'll be allowed to see this movie and to try and
appreciate it for what it is: the final movie of a great director. And you
bet your ass my dad would know if I was building bombs in my basement. The
reason people get so caught up in crude movies like South Park is because
they are too dependent on the society that makes things such as South Park to
baby-sit their kids, and when they see their kid do something they don't
approve of, they go and blame the baby-sitter. I'll be damned if my
generation is gonna take the blame for a bunch of baby boomers being lazy
bastards.

~Matt

PS: No offense to those of you who are actually good parents.

<<No!!!!

The reason parents have to be as vigilant as ever is because IT'S THEIR
FRIGGING JOBS!!!!!!!!!!  To imply or say that parents need to be MORE
viligent simply says that they have, up to this point, failed to do thier
jobs.

The parents were at fault in Littleton.  If someone (my kid or not) was
building bombs in my garage, you bet your arse that I would be aware of it,
and that the problem would be solved then and there.  Movies are
entertainment, nothing else.  Hollywood no more deserves the blame for
Littleton than they deserve the credit when something goes right.>>

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:30:00 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] Re: Rushmore

At 02:14 PM 7/19/99 -0700, David F. Nolan wrote:
>I just watched it this past weekend, and was kinda disappointed. The
>story line was just SO unbelievable, mostly because the kid, Max, was
>implausible. If they'd made him 19, a college freshman or sophomore, then
>maybe I could have swallowed it.  And why did Murray's character keep
>catering to him?  That made no sense whatsoever.  It was OK, but not
>"great" -- although the soundtrack _was_ cool.

i was somewhat disappointed with "rushmore", too.  i went into it already a
fan of the wilson brothers - "bottle rocket", a 1996 movie written by owen
and luke wilson and directed by the same guy who directed "rushmore" - is
an absolutely HILARIOUS movie, with some of the craziest dialogue i've seen
in a movie.  "bottle rocket" does have a bit of a unique sense of humour,
however, which is why quite a lot of people do not like it - they just
arent into the sort of humour that pervades the film.  but i loved it,
anyway.  and so while i wasnt so much expecting ANOTHER "bottle rocket" out
of "rushmore", i was expecting more than it was.  sure, it was an okay
movie with a few very funny parts, but i agree, overall it wasnt a very
realistic movie, and it had too many mediocre points.

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:34:18 -0500
From: Wade Snider <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] Rushmore

I just watched Rushmore yesterday and enjoyed it. I thought a lot of it was
very funny, and the Max character is bizarre but strangely interesting. I do
love to see BIll Murray in this kind of role, as Mr. Blume, sort of an
older-more stifled version of Max. After watching it, I'm not so sure about
an Oscar, especially when compared to Billy Bob Thornton in A Simple Plan,
but sure, it was a good performance, and while funny (Witness his speech to
a Rushmore student assembly: "...here's my advice to the rest of you: Take
dead aim on the rich boys. Get them in the crosshairs and take them
down..."). He was indeed very good though,and I would hope to see him in
such a strong character that is not a supporting role in some movie in the
future. (Why are his good acting characters.. Tootsie, Wild Things,
Rushmore, always supporting roles, while he gets cast in the lead in things
like The Man Who Knew Too Little?).
I thought some of the plot of the movie was kind of contrived, and while I
enjoyed the irony of it at first, I thought that here and there (some of the
later results of Max & Blume's feuding & the ending to the movie overall, as
well as some of the aspects of Miss Cross and her life), the movie slipped a
bit from the biting "dark-comedyish" (for lack of a better term) scripting
of the first 20-30 mintues of the movie. The movie starts out as if you are
going to enter into an odd dark humor kind of film, but the tone turns a
little sentimental and upbeat, or at least occasionally emotionally
formulaic, over the course of the movie. Still, I am not complaining,
because I enjoyed the movie a lot. It is very funny, and I thought it had
some brilliant pop references and interesting plot turns. Still, I thought
it was funny and definitely worth a rental.
Oh, and I agree. The music is great, mostly 60's british pop stuff, and it
fits wonderfully. Loved it.

Wade


> -----Original Message-----
> From:    [e-mail] [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent:    Monday, July 19, 1999 4:02 PM
> To:    [e-mail]
> Subject:    Re: [MV] some thoughts on south park
>
> Yeah, I agree. As long as those Holier-than-thou bastards don't prevent
> the
> hilarious things like South Park from coming out, they can rant and rave
> all
> they want.
>
> Oh, and today I was looking through my DVD collection and what should I
> find
> but Rushmore. Man, what a great film. Bill Murray should have gotten an
> Oscar
> for that movie. And the soundtrack is amazing, too. I love, "Oh La La," by
>
> The faces and Cat Stevens is amazing, too. Well, what did you all think of
>
> Rushmore?
>
> ~Matt
>
> [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
> [ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:33:10 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] Rushmore

I thought Rushmore was one of the best films of last year, personally (I
didn't like SPR or TRL too much, and shakespeare just got old on me).  I
thought life is beautiful was better, but other than that, I'd say this was
my favorite of last year.  It was very quirky, and the Max character was just
so much fun to watch.  I enjoyed bill murray quite a bit, too, as a sort of
naive Max character plus 30 years or so.  The teacher was wonderful (I forget
the actress's name).  the odd love triangle between max, the teacher, and
blume was hilarious.  The soundtrack, as everyone is saying, was wonderful.
Anything w/the Who in it is good enough for me.  The best part of the film,
musically, I thought, was the ending, when they played wish that I knew waht
I know now, by rod stewart.  That gave me goosebumps, and for something even
remotely romantic to move me in any way is quite an accomplishment.  ANyway,
I just really liked this movie

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:46:01 +1300
From: Al <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] some thoughts on south park

Hi,
If you can put the humour aside for a moment and think about the movie
.......... wasn't the movie about the exact point everyone is making - The
kids being unallowed to see a movie(Asses of Fire) deemed too offensive.

I wonder if someome is just trying to get everyone 'roused up'.
Al.

>I'll second Mel's remarks, but add one further observation The only thing
>worse than the sanctimonious Right is the sanctimonious Left, which gets
>just as outraged at anything it considers politically incorrect ... a
>point made in a recent episode of SOUTH PARK about lawsuits run amok.



Al Dunn
519 Great King St
Dunedin
ph [phone]
email - [e-mail]

***************************************************************************
In case of Sudden and Temporary Immersion, the Important Thing is to keep
the Head Above Water.
(Quote: Pooh's Little Instruction Book)
***************************************************************************




[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 99 16:51:56 -0700
From: "David F. Nolan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] some thoughts on south park

And speaking of sarcasm, satire, and butt-heads, check out this column by
David Horowitz....

http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/07/19/south_park/index.html

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:40:14 PDT
From: "Danielle Conkle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Just saw Eyes Wide Shut...& a ditty on nudity

I saw EWS tonight and i loved it!  Usually I am really effected my reviews
because i start noticing everything they did, and i don't like the movie.  I
wasn't even going to see EWS but my boyfriend wanted to go so we did.   I
never saw a good review, just lots of people told me how awful it was.

So maybe i had prepped myself for something really horrible.  and when it
wasn't...i liked it.  Anyway, i was really enthralled with everything.  The
music was perfectly creepy.  reminds me of how famous the music from 2001
effected the movie.  i didn't think it was boring, and enjoyed the slow
speech  (anyone notice how cruise's character almost always repeated what
the other person would say before he answered or responded?).

there didn't appear to be any plot, but i enjoyed it anyway.

Wasn't real big on watching the naked women ;) and i couldn't even tell
where anything had been digitally covered...and didn't feel anything more
had to be revealed to get across the point.  Infact i think even less could
have been shown.  Sort of like psycho, you got the effect of her being
stabbed in the shower without ever really seeing anything.  I think i would
have preferred something more...i can't think of the word, maybe i'm
thinking of "less".  But i'm a girl, so maybe the guys out there liked all
of that ;)

But speaking of nudity.  What are people's feelings concerning that?  My
boyfriend says he has no respect for people who get nude in films.  i'm not
sure where i stand.  any thoughts?


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:52:02 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] Just saw Eyes Wide Shut...& a ditty on nudity

At 10:40 PM 7/19/99 PDT, Danielle Conkle wrote:
>So maybe i had prepped myself for something really horrible.  and when it
>wasn't...i liked it.  Anyway, i was really enthralled with everything.  The
>music was perfectly creepy.  reminds me of how famous the music from 2001
>effected the movie.  i didn't think it was boring, and enjoyed the slow
>speech  (anyone notice how cruise's character almost always repeated what
>the other person would say before he answered or responded?).

i came into eyes wide shut also with somewhat mixed expectations - i've
been looking forward to the movie for 2 years or so now, but had also heard
some bad things about it, and was also a bit concerned about the digital
effects, so i wasnt necessarily expecting magic, either.  contrary to some
of the things i've read, i also enjoyed the music A LOT.  i've read a lot
of people who have found the piano piece "laughable" - i found it somewhat
"haunting", and very intriguing and useful to the story and the images
on-screen.  i also noticed that cruise's character repeated many things,
but then i noticed that cruise himself was doing this in a lengthy
interview on entertainment tonight.  so either this is a characteristic of
cruise that he took to the character in the film, it is a characteristic of
the character in the film that stuck with cruise, or cruise was kind of
"mocking" the character in the interview (unlikely, considering how much
he's said he enjoyed working on the film, with kubrick, etc)

>there didn't appear to be any plot, but i enjoyed it anyway.

i also came out of the movie a little concerned about the structure of the
plot, but then i read a review (ebert's, i think) that kind of put it
together.  he surmised that the movie is something of a series of
dream-sequences, with one sequence not necessarily relating to the next.
while this perhaps belittles the film and trivializes the plot a bit, it
does cause the film to perhaps make a bit more sense, if not "excuse"
kubrick from the fact that some parts didnt necessarily make sense.

>Wasn't real big on watching the naked women ;) and i couldn't even tell
>where anything had been digitally covered...and didn't feel anything more
>had to be revealed to get across the point.  Infact i think even less could
>have been shown.  Sort of like psycho, you got the effect of her being
>stabbed in the shower without ever really seeing anything.  I think i would
>have preferred something more...i can't think of the word, maybe i'm
>thinking of "less".  But i'm a girl, so maybe the guys out there liked all
>of that ;)

about the nudity: i actually found some of the nudity in the early portion
of the film to be needless.  for example, kidman's disrobing at the very
opening - what was the purpose of that?  other than to get a rise (pun
perhaps intended) out of people, it didnt serve any purpose.  and i also
didnt see a great deal of purpose to the "mirror" scene - except to perhaps
illustrate the couple's relationship (by couple, i mean the characters, not
cruise/kidman themselves).  anyway, once cruise went off on his excursion,
the nudity after that was entirely 'necessary' in the scenes in which it
occured, given the context of those scenes.  for whatever reason, i came in
expecting the "orgy" to be at the end of the film (i think i misread a
review somewhere), so i wasnt thinking "this is the orgy scene with the
digital effects" when the orgy scene with digital effects occured.  but
once i realized that that WAS the orgy scene with digital effects, looking
back, i didnt find the digital effects to be bothersome at all - although,
of course, i suppose i would have "preferred" to see the actual events, as
it was, it didnt interfere with the atmosphere of the sequence or the
overall story.

>But speaking of nudity.  What are people's feelings concerning that?  My
>boyfriend says he has no respect for people who get nude in films.  i'm not
>sure where i stand.  any thoughts?

i personally have absolutely nothing wrong with nudity in any form (films,
public, etc.  but thats another issue), but i've always had this thought:
for those who disrobe in films, what is the purpose, aside from the legal
concerns, of ever wearing clothes again??  once you've disrobed in a film,
the potentiality for anyone at any time to see you in the nude is there, so
why not just go around nude all the time?  a silly thought, of course, but
it does make some sense.

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:38:49 -0700
From: "Jason Cormier" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Re: Rushmore

>>Oh, and today I was looking through my DVD collection and what should I
find
>>but Rushmore. Man, what a great film. Bill Murray should have gotten an
>>Oscar for that movie. And the soundtrack is amazing, too. I love, "Oh La
La,"
>by
>>The faces and Cat Stevens is amazing, too. Well, what did you all think of
>>Rushmore?


Loved it!  Check out Election for similar (intelligent) high school antics.


[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:54:04 -0400
From: Josh Pritchard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Just saw Eyes Wide Shut...& a ditty on nudity

>>So maybe i had prepped myself for something really horrible.  and when it
>>wasn't...i liked it.  Anyway, i was really enthralled with everything.  The
>>music was perfectly creepy.  reminds me of how famous the music from 2001
>>effected the movie.  i didn't think it was boring, and enjoyed the slow
>>speech  (anyone notice how cruise's character almost always repeated what
>>the other person would say before he answered or responded?).

Another wonderful thing what that almost every "random" character reacted
to Dr. Bill in a sexual manner - either positively or negatively; the desk
clerk, the waitress, the group of boys walking down the street, the
costumer's daughter.  And Dr. Bill was almost always unable to react to or
deal with their advances.  Constantly overwhelmed by the carnality of
things around him.

>>Wasn't real big on watching the naked women ;) and i couldn't even tell
>>where anything had been digitally covered...and didn't feel anything more
>>had to be revealed to get across the point.  Infact i think even less could
>>have been shown.  Sort of like psycho, you got the effect of her being
>>stabbed in the shower without ever really seeing anything.  I think i would
>>have preferred something more...i can't think of the word, maybe i'm
>>thinking of "less".  But i'm a girl, so maybe the guys out there liked all
>>of that ;)

The one thing that really irked me about the much-touted orgy editting is
that it seemed almost amatuerishly done.  The pixelization was HORRIBLE on
one of the shots when the camera actually passes through the dark robed
figure ... you can clearly see the blue/grey fuzz of the inserted graphic.
And, along that line ... I find it ironic that they spent this time to
digitally re-touch this particular scene, yet in the early scene in the
movie - at the party... oh wait ...

SPOILER ALERT (very minor, but ...)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Okay ... in the early scene with Dr. Bill and Ziegler up in the bathroom
with Mandy ... as Bill and Ziegler are walking forward after dealing with
her, they pass a polished chrome pole, square in shape ... and for about 2
or 3 seconds, there is clear as day and rather large, a shot of a tech
holding a light meter!!!!  Geez!  I know ... nit-picky but I was so annoyed
at the knee-jerk of the editting of the orgy scene, this particular gaf was
extremely amusing!

Josh Pritchard          Network Administrator, Flashpoint Inc.
[e-mail]

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:40:55 -0600
From: jkrudy <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] a ditty on nudity

The more nudity the better!  As long as it's all female of course :)  I mean
honestly, who wants to see a bunch of naked men?  I think almost every movie
would have been better with naked women in them.  For example:  Armageddon
would have been a much better movie if Liv Tyler had been naked in it.  The
Phantom Menace, as great as it was would have been even better with some
full frontal nudity (Natalie Portman, and the rest of the Hand maidens!!!).
I haven't seen South Park yet, but I'm sure some nudity in it would only be
beneficial!

(NOTE: The old timers on this list know I'm just joking so for you newbies,
save your time and don't rip me apart.)

James Rudy




- -----Original Message-----
From: Danielle Conkle [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 11:40 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [MV] Just saw Eyes Wide Shut...& a ditty on nudity


I saw EWS tonight and i loved it!  Usually I am really effected my reviews
because i start noticing everything they did, and i don't like the movie.  I

wasn't even going to see EWS but my boyfriend wanted to go so we did.   I
never saw a good review, just lots of people told me how awful it was.

So maybe i had prepped myself for something really horrible.  and when it
wasn't...i liked it.  Anyway, i was really enthralled with everything.  The
music was perfectly creepy.  reminds me of how famous the music from 2001
effected the movie.  i didn't think it was boring, and enjoyed the slow
speech  (anyone notice how cruise's character almost always repeated what
the other person would say before he answered or responded?).

there didn't appear to be any plot, but i enjoyed it anyway.

Wasn't real big on watching the naked women ;) and i couldn't even tell
where anything had been digitally covered...and didn't feel anything more
had to be revealed to get across the point.  Infact i think even less could
have been shown.  Sort of like psycho, you got the effect of her being
stabbed in the shower without ever really seeing anything.  I think i would
have preferred something more...i can't think of the word, maybe i'm
thinking of "less".  But i'm a girl, so maybe the guys out there liked all
of that ;)

But speaking of nudity.  What are people's feelings concerning that?  My
boyfriend says he has no respect for people who get nude in films.  i'm not
sure where i stand.  any thoughts?


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 99 08:50:36 -0700
From: "David F. Nolan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Eyes Wide Shut

"torq" wrote:
>i also came out of the movie a little concerned about the structure of the
>plot, but then i read a review (ebert's, i think) that kind of put it
>together.  he surmised that the movie is something of a series of
>dream-sequences...

Yes. The book in which the movies is based is titled "Traumnovelle"
(spelling?) and if I remember correctly,  "traum" is the German word for
"dream."

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:47:18 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] a ditty on nudity

In a message dated 7/20/99 3:43:09 PM !!!First Boot!!!, [e-mail]
writes:

<< The more nudity the better!  As long as it's all female of course :)  I
mean
 honestly, who wants to see a bunch of naked men?  I think almost every movie
 would have been better with naked women in them.  For example:  Armageddon
 would have been a much better movie if Liv Tyler had been naked in it.  The
 Phantom Menace, as great as it was would have been even better with some
 full frontal nudity (Natalie Portman, and the rest of the Hand maidens!!!).
 I haven't seen South Park yet, but I'm sure some nudity in it would only be
 beneficial!

 (NOTE: The old timers on this list know I'm just joking so for you newbies,
 save your time and don't rip me apart.) >>


i agree,the queen's a hottie, hehehe, anyways,i just want to say, that no
matter,how great a movie is, someone'sgoin to disapprove of it, and that's
the total,and utter, TRUTH,ipersonally likedeyeswide shut, and i reccomend
it, but thenagain, i liked lake placid,buti diddn't likethe general's
daughter, so it kinda depends of the person, and also, the government is
screwed,the only reasonthey're cracking down on movies is because they don't
have anyone else to blame, that's about it

Peace out
pete frye

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 99 09:30:40 -0700
From: "David F. Nolan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] south park

From a recent episode of South Park:

- --Lawyer: "You see Kyle, we live in a liberal democratic society, and
Democrats make sexual harassment laws. These laws tell us what we can
and can't say in the workplace, and what we can and can't do in the
workplace."

- --Kyle: "Isn't that fascism?"

- --Lawyer: "No. . .  because we don't call it fascism."

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

End of movies-digest V2 #211
****************************

[ To quit the movies-digest mailing list (big mistake), send the message     ]
[ "unsubscribe movies-digest" (without the quotes) to [e-mail] ]