ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/movies/archive/v02.n235

Internet Message Format | 1999-09-21 | 53KB

From: [e-mail] (movies-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: movies-digest V2 #235
Reply-To: movies-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


movies-digest      Wednesday, September 22 1999      Volume 02 : Number 235



RE: [MV] Name That Movie
RE: [MV] Name That Movie
Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.
Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.
Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.
Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.
[MV] RE: American Beauty
[none]
Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.
[MV] Movie News - 09/21/99
Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.
Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.
[MV] Favorites [was Top Ten]
RE: [MV] Be fair to Blair.
RE: [MV] Be fair to Blair.
[MV] Movie News - 09/22/99

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

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:50:35 -0600
From: jkrudy <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] Name That Movie

I agree completely with him.  The madness must stop.  This list seems to be
mutating into something completely unacceptable, and us "old-timers" will
not tolerate it!

James




- -----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 10:50 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] Name That Movie


Anyone agree/disagree w/the Wizard If OZ here? I'd really like to know.

- ------------------( Forwarded letter 1 follows )--------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 02:12:40 -0700
To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] Name That Movie

"(David M Hoptman)" wrote:
>
> Can the owner of this list please respond to this Oz guy about "Name That
> Movie. If owner doesn't want it,I'll quit forwarding it,but if not,I think
> it's fun for all,and we all enjoy guessing the films and we can discuss it
> afterwards if it makes you happy.OK?

Dude, work it out. Firstly "we all enjoy guessing the films" is
incorrect. I for one do not, and I dare say getting twelve emails a
day about it pisses others off too.

Secondly, if there's already a "name that movie" list running, why
don't you just send details of that list so that interested people
can SUBSCRIBE TO IT?

Man, for a newbie you sure are presumptuous.

    ----------------- {{{OZ}}} -------------------
    ------- http://www.filmink-online.com --------
    ----------------------------------------------

- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Want to earn money on your website?  How does 17c a click sound?
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.valueclick.com/cgi-bin/refer_host_signup?host=h0032965
- ----------------------------------------------------------------

[ 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]          ]

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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:58:57 CDT
From: "Wade Snider" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] Name That Movie

I must also agree. If you want to guess the name, then we should sign up for
that list. It was cute the first time or two, but now it is clogging up the
mailbox.


>From: jkrudy <[e-mail]>
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>To: "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: RE: [MV] Name That Movie
>Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:50:35 -0600
>
>I agree completely with him.  The madness must stop.  This list seems to be
>mutating into something completely unacceptable, and us "old-timers" will
>not tolerate it!
>
>James
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 10:50 AM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [MV] Name That Movie
>
>
>Anyone agree/disagree w/the Wizard If OZ here? I'd really like to know.
>
>------------------( Forwarded letter 1 follows )--------------------
>Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 02:12:40 -0700
>To: [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail]
>Sender: [e-mail]
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [MV] Name That Movie
>
>"(David M Hoptman)" wrote:
> >
> > Can the owner of this list please respond to this Oz guy about "Name
>That
> > Movie. If owner doesn't want it,I'll quit forwarding it,but if not,I
>think
> > it's fun for all,and we all enjoy guessing the films and we can discuss
>it
> > afterwards if it makes you happy.OK?
>
>Dude, work it out. Firstly "we all enjoy guessing the films" is
>incorrect. I for one do not, and I dare say getting twelve emails a
>day about it pisses others off too.
>
>Secondly, if there's already a "name that movie" list running, why
>don't you just send details of that list so that interested people
>can SUBSCRIBE TO IT?
>
>Man, for a newbie you sure are presumptuous.
>
>     ----------------- {{{OZ}}} -------------------
>     ------- http://www.filmink-online.com --------
>     ----------------------------------------------
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Want to earn money on your website?  How does 17c a click sound?
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>http://www.valueclick.com/cgi-bin/refer_host_signup?host=h0032965
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>[ 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]          ]
>
>[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
>[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:35:07 -0700
From: Oz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.

Wade Snider wrote:
>
> >This was without a doubt one of the finest pieces of work ever to be laid
> >down on celluloid, so how you can justify standing in line for a refund
> >boggles the mind.
> This is a joke right?

I feel the urge to jump on in here and do some defending. There
seems to be a point or two about Blair Witch that folks are missing.

Firstly, I sat through The Haunting a while back. Before the film,
the Blair Witch trailer ran, and I have to say that one 20 second,
mostly black trailer sent more shivers down my spine than The entire
Haunting movie did. In fact, it sent more shivers down my spine than
the last eighteen so-called "horror" movies I have watched ever
threatened to, combined. I mean, can an M rated movie ever truly be
called horror? Or a slasher film?

But then I saw the Blair Witch Project and it blew pieces out of me.
Why? Because the fear is not on the screen. It's in your head. To
enjoy the Blair Witch Project, a person has to be able to not just
rely on whatever is being depicted on screen (because there's
precious little there), but to let every childhood nightmare and
boogieman out of seclusion.

Granted, this is hard to do if you have a theatre full of teenagers
rustling candy wrappers and kicking your chair. It's even harder to
do if your expectations going in were to see some guy with a hook
chasing chesty bimbos. But things have to be put into persepctive.
This was never a slasher film. It was never an effects flick. It was
never about script or even story.

It's about the hobgoblins that might live under your bed when you
turn off the light, or the dead relative you sometimes feel is
watching you, or that noise when you put out the trash that, who
knows, just might an axe murderer, or that double-take you do when
you walk past a drain, just in case the clown from "It" is down
there.

The hype hurt Blair Witch as much as it helped it. As much as it's
nice that little Artisan Distribution made $100m+ on Blair, it
really had no place playing to a wide audience that accepts crap
like The Haunting, Chill Factor and Wild Wild West as the norm.

The Blair Witch Project is a film that you have to see in an empty
theatre, by yourself. No distractions, no expectations, no advance
knowledge. Just a dark room, a big screen and every fear you've
repressed creeping back into your thoughts.

I feel a little sorry for those people who expected Halloween, or I
Still Know Blah Blah. I feel even more sorry for those with so
little imagination that they can't be taken away to another place
without everything being spelled out for them on the screen.

What makes a good film? A steady camera? A polished script? A big
pay off finish? Celebrities?
No, that makes an average film. Real life isn't always so neat. The
bow doesn't always get tied around things in the end. Sometimes
people say "fuck". Sometimes they say it a lot. If I'm scared to the
point of prolapse, I'd reckon my "F word" usage would increase a
heck of a lot. And if I was in fear for my life, I tend to think I
wouldn't be holding the camera straight.

I give the people behind Blair Witch big credit for trying something
new. That kind of thing, whether it fails, wins or finds some middle
ground between the two, is admirable and in short supply in today's
world of cinema. Being unique is an achievement in itself. Robert
Rodriguez was unique once. Now he sells Tommy Hilfiger. Tarantino
was unique once (kinda). Now makes intentional B-movies. Kubrick was
unique... perhaps a little too unique.

Few would disagree, if they know his work, that Hal Hartley is an
artiste of cinema. But give his best work the kind of
expectation-inducing hype campaign that Blair got, and a theatre
full of 16 year olds, and what you'll have is one disappointed
audience.

Y'see, Hal has his place. It takes a certain patience, a certain
mentality, to get the most out of his work. Henry Fool is a movie I
can watch over and over and never get bored. But for others,
generally people who describe Will Smith as "a great actor", they
can't deal with the first ten minutes, let alone the whole two and a
lump hours of Hartley dialogue.

Blair was not a movie. It was not a film. It was a mindtrip. Closed
minds were never going to get anything out of it.

Two things to finish off. Firstly, if I'd been the manager of the
cinema where Gene demanded his money back (I'm assuming he did this
after the film was over), I'd have told him to get stuffed. To quote
my local bar-jockey, "I don't care if the beer was warm, you
finished it, you got your money's worth."

And lastly, if people would actually read the reviews of their
preferred film critic (someone who presumably, generally agrees with
their taste in films), and there's a lot to choose from, not only
would you never be disappointed in a Blair Witch again, but you'll
never sit through another Inspector Gadget. And isn't crap like that
what we should REALLY be asking for refunds after?

    ----------------- {{{OZ}}} -------------------
    ------- http://www.filmink-online.com --------
    ----------------------------------------------

- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Want to earn money on your website?  How does 17c a click sound?
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.valueclick.com/cgi-bin/refer_host_signup?host=h0032965
- ----------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:43:23 CDT
From: "Wade Snider" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.

Well made point, but do you think it was one of the finest pieces of work
ever to be laid on celluloid?


>From: Oz <[e-mail]>
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.
>Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:35:07 -0700
>
>Wade Snider wrote:
> >
> > >This was without a doubt one of the finest pieces of work ever to be
>laid
> > >down on celluloid, so how you can justify standing in line for a refund
> > >boggles the mind.
> > This is a joke right?
>
>I feel the urge to jump on in here and do some defending. There
>seems to be a point or two about Blair Witch that folks are missing.
>
>Firstly, I sat through The Haunting a while back. Before the film,
>the Blair Witch trailer ran, and I have to say that one 20 second,
>mostly black trailer sent more shivers down my spine than The entire
>Haunting movie did. In fact, it sent more shivers down my spine than
>the last eighteen so-called "horror" movies I have watched ever
>threatened to, combined. I mean, can an M rated movie ever truly be
>called horror? Or a slasher film?
>
>But then I saw the Blair Witch Project and it blew pieces out of me.
>Why? Because the fear is not on the screen. It's in your head. To
>enjoy the Blair Witch Project, a person has to be able to not just
>rely on whatever is being depicted on screen (because there's
>precious little there), but to let every childhood nightmare and
>boogieman out of seclusion.
>
>Granted, this is hard to do if you have a theatre full of teenagers
>rustling candy wrappers and kicking your chair. It's even harder to
>do if your expectations going in were to see some guy with a hook
>chasing chesty bimbos. But things have to be put into persepctive.
>This was never a slasher film. It was never an effects flick. It was
>never about script or even story.
>
>It's about the hobgoblins that might live under your bed when you
>turn off the light, or the dead relative you sometimes feel is
>watching you, or that noise when you put out the trash that, who
>knows, just might an axe murderer, or that double-take you do when
>you walk past a drain, just in case the clown from "It" is down
>there.
>
>The hype hurt Blair Witch as much as it helped it. As much as it's
>nice that little Artisan Distribution made $100m+ on Blair, it
>really had no place playing to a wide audience that accepts crap
>like The Haunting, Chill Factor and Wild Wild West as the norm.
>
>The Blair Witch Project is a film that you have to see in an empty
>theatre, by yourself. No distractions, no expectations, no advance
>knowledge. Just a dark room, a big screen and every fear you've
>repressed creeping back into your thoughts.
>
>I feel a little sorry for those people who expected Halloween, or I
>Still Know Blah Blah. I feel even more sorry for those with so
>little imagination that they can't be taken away to another place
>without everything being spelled out for them on the screen.
>
>What makes a good film? A steady camera? A polished script? A big
>pay off finish? Celebrities?
>No, that makes an average film. Real life isn't always so neat. The
>bow doesn't always get tied around things in the end. Sometimes
>people say "fuck". Sometimes they say it a lot. If I'm scared to the
>point of prolapse, I'd reckon my "F word" usage would increase a
>heck of a lot. And if I was in fear for my life, I tend to think I
>wouldn't be holding the camera straight.
>
>I give the people behind Blair Witch big credit for trying something
>new. That kind of thing, whether it fails, wins or finds some middle
>ground between the two, is admirable and in short supply in today's
>world of cinema. Being unique is an achievement in itself. Robert
>Rodriguez was unique once. Now he sells Tommy Hilfiger. Tarantino
>was unique once (kinda). Now makes intentional B-movies. Kubrick was
>unique... perhaps a little too unique.
>
>Few would disagree, if they know his work, that Hal Hartley is an
>artiste of cinema. But give his best work the kind of
>expectation-inducing hype campaign that Blair got, and a theatre
>full of 16 year olds, and what you'll have is one disappointed
>audience.
>
>Y'see, Hal has his place. It takes a certain patience, a certain
>mentality, to get the most out of his work. Henry Fool is a movie I
>can watch over and over and never get bored. But for others,
>generally people who describe Will Smith as "a great actor", they
>can't deal with the first ten minutes, let alone the whole two and a
>lump hours of Hartley dialogue.
>
>Blair was not a movie. It was not a film. It was a mindtrip. Closed
>minds were never going to get anything out of it.
>
>Two things to finish off. Firstly, if I'd been the manager of the
>cinema where Gene demanded his money back (I'm assuming he did this
>after the film was over), I'd have told him to get stuffed. To quote
>my local bar-jockey, "I don't care if the beer was warm, you
>finished it, you got your money's worth."
>
>And lastly, if people would actually read the reviews of their
>preferred film critic (someone who presumably, generally agrees with
>their taste in films), and there's a lot to choose from, not only
>would you never be disappointed in a Blair Witch again, but you'll
>never sit through another Inspector Gadget. And isn't crap like that
>what we should REALLY be asking for refunds after?
>
>     ----------------- {{{OZ}}} -------------------
>     ------- http://www.filmink-online.com --------
>     ----------------------------------------------
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Want to earn money on your website?  How does 17c a click sound?
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>http://www.valueclick.com/cgi-bin/refer_host_signup?host=h0032965
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
>[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:59:08 -0700
From: Oz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.

Wade Snider wrote:
>
> Well made point, but do you think it was one of the finest pieces of work
> ever to be laid on celluloid?

Yes with disclaimers. "One of" the finest is a pretty easy category
to fit anything into. One of the finest thousand? One of the finest
scary movies? One of the finest indies?
Certianly in terms of it's 22,000% return on initial investment,
it'd be up there.

But no, it's not in my top 10.
Top 30? Absolutely.

    ----------------- {{{OZ}}} -------------------
    ------- http://www.filmink-online.com --------
    ----------------------------------------------

- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Want to earn money on your website?  How does 17c a click sound?
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.valueclick.com/cgi-bin/refer_host_signup?host=h0032965
- ----------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:27:58 CDT
From: "Wade Snider" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.

As for the "one of" statement, I was just echoing what another Blair Witch
apologist was quoting, which was the impetus for my intial comments.

But to nitpick, I think we've had the revenue versus quality discussion
before. Maybe you think the movie is of exceptional quality, but I don't
think its revenues are the judge of that. I wouldn't have thought you did
either, but maybe you do? Maybe it's just supporting info then?


>
>Wade Snider wrote:
> >
> > Well made point, but do you think it was one of the finest pieces of
>work
> > ever to be laid on celluloid?
>
>Yes with disclaimers. "One of" the finest is a pretty easy category
>to fit anything into. One of the finest thousand? One of the finest
>scary movies? One of the finest indies?
>Certianly in terms of it's 22,000% return on initial investment,
>it'd be up there.
>
>But no, it's not in my top 10.
>Top 30? Absolutely.
>
>     ----------------- {{{OZ}}} -------------------
>     ------- http://www.filmink-online.com --------
>     ----------------------------------------------
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Want to earn money on your website?  How does 17c a click sound?
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>http://www.valueclick.com/cgi-bin/refer_host_signup?host=h0032965
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
>[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:19:36 +0900
From: "billy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] RE: American Beauty

Hi,Jackie!

I read your  very exciting message,and....
When it'll come to Japan?I can't wait!

> I had the great opportunity to see American Beauty about 3 weeks ago at a
> student screening in the Westwood Village. The cast, producers
> and director were present and there was a Question and Answer session
>  following thescreening. This is a truly special film.
> A film that defies any attempt at categorizing.
> American Beauty runs the gamut of emotions, from happiness and
> elation to bitterness, contempt and violent anger. The acting is
> superb, and it is more than a fitting compliment to the crisp and
intelligent script,
> and wonderful direction. Dreamworks is very proud of this film, and they
> have a reason to be...
> American Beauty
> opened in New York and Los Angeles on Sept 15th
> opens in 700 additional theaters nationwide, on Oct 1st
> Go see it, the early Oscar buzz on this one is more than deserved...
> Jackie

- --------Ninja Sasuke


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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:17:14 -0600
From: yosunepg <[e-mail]>
Subject: [none]

I want to talk about "Eyes Wide Shut". I haven't seen it yet, but I live
in Spain and I'll see the whole movie, maybe we could discuss
differences.

 ___________________________________________________________________
 Consigue tu e-mail gratuito OLE.COM
 Haz click en http://www.olemail.com


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

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

Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:44:37 -0700
From: Oz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.

Wade Snider wrote:
>
> But to nitpick, I think we've had the revenue versus quality discussion
> before. Maybe you think the movie is of exceptional quality, but I don't
> think its revenues are the judge of that. I wouldn't have thought you did
> either, but maybe you do? Maybe it's just supporting info then?

Strictly supporting info. Actually, an example of how there can many
ways of judging a film. I've seen some films mentioned in people's
top ten lists here that made me spit my Pepsi. (Dead Man On Campus?
What was she thinking?!)

Ultimately it's a case of to each their own. I'm not going to spew
at anyone who hated Blair Witch, but I do feel sorry for folks who
can't enjoy some of the stuff I've got great enjoyment from. I guess
they feel the same way about me when I say Armageddon made me angry.
Que sera.

    ----------------- {{{OZ}}} -------------------
    ------- http://www.filmink-online.com --------
    ----------------------------------------------

- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Want to earn money on your website?  How does 17c a click sound?
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.valueclick.com/cgi-bin/refer_host_signup?host=h0032965
- ----------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:56:04 -0600
From: "The Reporter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Movie News - 09/21/99

LOS ANGELES (AP) - In his first try at carrying a film, Martin
Lawrence made it all the way home with "Blue Streak," which earned
$19.2 million in its debut weekend, easily beating out Kevin
Costner's baseball movie "For Love of the Game." The Costner film
finished second in Friday through Sunday receipts with $13 million.
The previous week's box office leader, "Stigmata," dropped to fourth
behind "The Sixth Sense." The top five movies at North American
theaters Friday through Sunday, followed by distributing studio,
gross, number of theater locations, average receipts per location,
total gross and number of weeks in release, as compiled Monday by
Exhibitor Relations Co.:
1. "Blue Streak," Sony, $19.2 million, 2,735 locations, $7,023
average, $19.2 million, one week.
2. "For Love of the Game," Universal, $13 million, 2,829 locations,
$4,610 average, $13 million, one week.
3. "The Sixth Sense," Disney, $11.2 million, 2,788 locations, $4,020
average, $213.3 million, seven weeks.
4. "Stigmata," MGM, $9.2 million, 2,901 locations, $3,181 average,
$33 million, two weeks.
5. "Stir of Echoes," Artisan, $3.9 million, 1,943 locations, $2,032
average, $11.9 million, two weeks.

                        -=> * <=-TORONTO (Billboard) - DreamWorks' "American Beauty" grabbed the
People's Choice Award at the Toronto International Film Festival. The
Kevin Spacey starrer about suburban angst, which had its world
premiere in Toronto ahead of a limited box office release last week,
was a "clear winner" with festival audiences, which vote for the
award, Toronto festival director Piers Handling said. "It ('American
Beauty') was the buzz of the festival, the film most talked about,"
he told reporters after a news conference in Toronto on Sunday. The
DreamWorks release marked the motion picture debut for Sam Mendes,
best known for his award-winning theatrical career. Also starring in
the movie are Annette Bening, Thora Birch and Mena Suvari.

The noncompetitive Toronto International Film Festival also gave
Jeremy Podeswa's "The Five Senses" the Toronto-City Award for best
Canadian feature film, and the City TV award for best Canadian first
feature went to Catherine Annau's "Just Watch Me: Trudeau and the
70's Generation," a production of the National Film Board of Canada.




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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 13:24:12 CDT
From: "Wade Snider" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.

Completely understandable. I feel the same sense of frustration when I can't
convince someone that a movie is as good as I think it is, and then have
them see it with the same kind of awe as I do, as well as the reverse of
that as when I feel cheated, pandered to, and ripped off by a movie.

My wife absolutely hates gangsterish movies or similar noir-esque types of
thrillers, but some of that genre are my aboslute favorites. Chinatown is my
current favorite, but my wife hated it. Of some of my favs in that genre (if
you can label them that way).., she also hated The Godfather, Goodfellas,
and Pulp Fiction, but she enjoyed Bonnie & Clyde, LA Confidential, and The
Usual Suspects. When I used to try to persuade her (key words: 'used to' - I
gave that up before we ever got married) to rethink what she thought about a
movie, she usually just nodded and grinned, and then rolled her eyes and
proceeded to think what she thinks anyway! More power to her. :-)


>Wade Snider wrote:
> >
> > But to nitpick, I think we've had the revenue versus quality discussion
> > before. Maybe you think the movie is of exceptional quality, but I don't
> > think its revenues are the judge of that. I wouldn't have thought you
>did
> > either, but maybe you do? Maybe it's just supporting info then?
>
>Strictly supporting info. Actually, an example of how there can many
>ways of judging a film. I've seen some films mentioned in people's
>top ten lists here that made me spit my Pepsi. (Dead Man On Campus?
>What was she thinking?!)
>
>Ultimately it's a case of to each their own. I'm not going to spew
>at anyone who hated Blair Witch, but I do feel sorry for folks who
>can't enjoy some of the stuff I've got great enjoyment from. I guess
>they feel the same way about me when I say Armageddon made me angry.
>Que sera.
>
>     ----------------- {{{OZ}}} -------------------
>     ------- http://www.filmink-online.com --------
>     ----------------------------------------------
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Want to earn money on your website?  How does 17c a click sound?
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>http://www.valueclick.com/cgi-bin/refer_host_signup?host=h0032965
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
>[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:50:20 -0400
From: Mel Eperthener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.

At 12.35 AM 22/09/1999 -0700, Oz wrote:
>I feel the urge to jump on in here and do some defending. There
>seems to be a point or two about Blair Witch that folks are missing.

Ya know, it's not too often that I agree with Oz.  Yes, he makes you think,
and he makes you angry sometimes, but I think he adds a lot to the list
here.  However, rare is the time that I sit here and think "Right on" as I
read what he said

Well, Oz, Right on!!!

The American Public has gotten so used to having everything explained to
them, and not being challanged that they cannot handle using their
imaginations.

There has not been a good horror film in 20 years.  Nothing is implied
anymore, everything is graphically shown.

The horror films of the 50s and 60s (and even the 40s and 30s) are still
great, because what you DON'T see scares you more than what you do see in
Scream If You Know What I Did Last Halloween with Chuckie.  Nothing
compares to what your imagination brings to the screen.

And I really agree with his view of the crap that the American public has
supported.  This is why we have a horrible dubbing of Life is Beautiful
that will probably do 10 times the business that the subtitled version did.
 This is why La Femme Nikita was remade into the dreck that is called Point
of No Return.  This is why Robin Williams can get a huge budget to shoot
Jakob the Liar (ironically, from the book that Life is Beautiful is based
on).  And this is why Will Smith, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger
are some of the biggest stars in Hollywood.

I had people tell me how funny they thought Waterboy was.  I laughed maybe
three times.  I thought Night at the Roxbury was funnier (and that says a
lot), but, oh, it's Adam Sandler, he's so funny.

Meanwhile Steve Martin shows his dramatic chops in The Spanish Prisoner,
and no one wants to see this movie.  Kevin Spacey does another great turn
in HurlyBurly (which even has Meg Ryan playing a prostitute), but everyone
complains that it is "too talky"

Too talky??  No, too talky was the group of college students behind me at
Star Wars.  Shut the hell up and watch the movie.  It cost me $20 to get in
here, and I will see it and decide for myself.

The point??  Oz is right, Blair Witch has too wide an audience now.  The
Philistines see it, and don't understand.  So they want it remade, and then
the Americans ruin another great film.

Regards,

- --Mel


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

email: [e-mail]
          [e-mail]

http://www.webz.com/gowanna

419 Butler Street
PO Box 95184
Pittsburgh, PA 15223-0184
[phone]
[phone]
1-888-45-GOWANNA -- TOLL FREE
(1-888-454-6926)
____________________________________________
"Mulder, if you had to do without a cell phone for
two minutes, you'd lapse into catatonic schizophrenia"

- --Dana Scully
______________________________________________


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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:39:35 -0400
From: Enrique Bird <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Favorites [was Top Ten]

Friends,

A re-revised listing:

1930s
Gone With the Wind - saw it first in a theater in 1963; tired me then (I was
12/13); still tires me and I love being tired by it!
Adventures of Robin Hood
A Tale of Two Cities
Lost Horizon - I find the closing narrative haunting
Captain Blood - recently re-watched after some years; what a ton of plot,
action, romance, and drama in less than 2 hours! Today it would be a 10
hours miniseries.

1940s
Casablanca    #1 to me
Rebecca        #2 to me
And Then There Were None(1946) - the best ever Agatha Christie adaptation
and a great suspense   movie
Maltese Falcon(Bogart)
It's a Wonderful Life #6 for me
The Best Years of Our Lives - a movie at times long but with so many lovable
scenes
The Mark of Zorro - as fun as a fun movie should be. I love Anthony Hopkins
and did not dislike The Mask of Zorro but this is still the definitive Zorro
movie. Only the serial Zorro's Fighting Legion equals the portrayal of
Zorro. Will list separate in an email commentig on serials.
Green for Danger - one of the greatest classical mystery adaptations of all
time
Thief of Baghdad (Sabu) - just enjoy it!
Laura

1950s
Ben Hur
Swiss Family Robinson(1959?-Disney)
The Ten Commandments
Vertigo
North by Northwest
Sleeping Beauty (Disney-animated)
Scaramouche - if you like swashbucklers, do not dare to overlook this one!
Shane
High Noon

1960s
Mary Poppins #4 for me
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance - just great and understated and Lee Marvin
as the definitive Western bad guy.
The spaghetti Western thrilogy - A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars
More, and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.        Fistful is best  (to me)t,
For a Few... enjoyable, Good... is, in many ways, more "fun" and has great
characters.

1970s
The Godfather #5 for me

1980s
Field of Dreams
Milagro Beanfield War

1990s
Silence of the Lambs
Schindler's List - has climbed to #3 for me through no defect of the others;
have watched it complete in one sitting over 5 times. A month ago, on a late
Sunday night, felt restless and tired. I picked it up with the hope it would
send me to bed and just watched the entire movie again with no problem and
lots of enjoyment.
Beauty and the Beast

Enjoy, dissent, and comment!

Enrique Bird


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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 19:37:00 -0400
From: "Chris Culligan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] Be fair to Blair.

Man, if I had only realized that you could get a refund after sitting
through a bad movie I sure would have got one after sitting through
Armeggedon, Godzilla, Halloween H20, etc, etc.   In fact I may just start
asking for a refund after every movie I go to.  I didn't know you could do
this and actually get you're money back!  Alls you have to do is tell the
theater manager you didn't like the movie and you get your money back (or
even a free pass)??

Now that's cool!!!  I'll never have to pay for a movie again!!!

CHRIS

- -----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Oz
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 5:45 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.


Wade Snider wrote:
>
> But to nitpick, I think we've had the revenue versus quality discussion
> before. Maybe you think the movie is of exceptional quality, but I don't
> think its revenues are the judge of that. I wouldn't have thought you did
> either, but maybe you do? Maybe it's just supporting info then?




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

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

Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:30:14 +0100
From: MARK <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] Be fair to Blair.

October 29th, that's how long we in the UK have to wait to see this
film, another month.

However, going back to Oz's articulate and damning riposte to the US
film-going public, a huge and hearty "Hooray" goes your way my friend.

How many times on this list do people discuss the finer plot intricacies
of "Wild Wild West" or "Armageddon" - never!  So why all the brouhaha
about Blair Witch?  I'll tell you why!  It's a movie that made people
think, which is something that we are becoming rapidly aneasthetised
about.  For the Global (not just US) movie going public to enter a
theatre and have to do more than concentrate on grabbing the largest
handful of popcorn, is an almost alien concept to us.  This is why films
like "Go", "Smoke" and "The Ice Storm" do very little business.  It
seems that a movie these days is not for entertainment, but almost for a
brain washing, cleansing element. And the less amount of time you think
about it, the better.

Don't get me wrong, I love to go to the cinema and watch a big budget,
all action, big name movie ("Die Hard" will always remain in my top
ten).  Equally, I enjoy finding an arthouse flick, or low-budget
character piece just as entertaining.

Over here in the UK, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was finally released,
after almost 20 years in censor hell.  I was there with a friend, and
behind us were sat two couples, late 20's, who obviously thought they
were going to see a slasher pic. As the film progressed these people
turned from trying to take the piss out of the film, to almost silent
terror.  You could tell that they didn't understand the film properly,
but that it had without a doubt disturbed them.  And how much blood and
gore do you actually see in this film - very VERY little.  It's a film
that plays on the mind, conjures up images in your head that are
ultimately more disturbing than anything that coulc be put to celluloid.
It's a process of movie making that has been almost forgotten, which is
a shame.

It's just a shame that for every thought provoking film that is
launched, we have to sit through 10 mediocre to shite big budget films.

I tell you, if they operated a refund system over here, I can only think
of one recent film that made me sick to my stomach, it was horrific -
bad acting, no plot, clunky script, over long, poor effects, no
characterisation - that film is "WILD WILD WEST".  A more nauseating
length of drivel I have yet to sit through - man, I even preferred "The
Avengers" to this.  So why don't people lambast this film on the list?
This is a film that has made more money that "Blair Witch", this is a
film that more people have been to see.  This is a film that was hyped
to the gills on every "Burger King" box.  This film has had more direct,
in-your-face contact than "Blair Witch",  THIS film you should get your
refund on, and then some for compensation.  But a film that makes you
think, irrespective of whether you enjoyed it or not, that film you
should thank, for letting you use part of your anatomy (ie: your brain),
that you wouldn't have normally used for those two hours.


MARK

> -----Original Message-----
> From:    Wade Snider [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent:    21 September 1999 15:43
> To:    [e-mail]
> Subject:    Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.
>
> Well made point, but do you think it was one of the finest pieces of
> work
> ever to be laid on celluloid?
>
>
> >From: Oz <[e-mail]>
> >Reply-To: [e-mail]
> >To: [e-mail]
> >Subject: Re: [MV] Be fair to Blair.
> >Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:35:07 -0700
> >
> >Wade Snider wrote:
> > >
> > > >This was without a doubt one of the finest pieces of work ever to
> be
> >laid
> > > >down on celluloid, so how you can justify standing in line for a
> refund
> > > >boggles the mind.
> > > This is a joke right?
> >
> >I feel the urge to jump on in here and do some defending. There
> >seems to be a point or two about Blair Witch that folks are missing.
> >
> >Firstly, I sat through The Haunting a while back. Before the film,
> >the Blair Witch trailer ran, and I have to say that one 20 second,
> >mostly black trailer sent more shivers down my spine than The entire
> >Haunting movie did. In fact, it sent more shivers down my spine than
> >the last eighteen so-called "horror" movies I have watched ever
> >threatened to, combined. I mean, can an M rated movie ever truly be
> >called horror? Or a slasher film?
> >
> >But then I saw the Blair Witch Project and it blew pieces out of me.
> >Why? Because the fear is not on the screen. It's in your head. To
> >enjoy the Blair Witch Project, a person has to be able to not just
> >rely on whatever is being depicted on screen (because there's
> >precious little there), but to let every childhood nightmare and
> >boogieman out of seclusion.
> >
> >Granted, this is hard to do if you have a theatre full of teenagers
> >rustling candy wrappers and kicking your chair. It's even harder to
> >do if your expectations going in were to see some guy with a hook
> >chasing chesty bimbos. But things have to be put into persepctive.
> >This was never a slasher film. It was never an effects flick. It was
> >never about script or even story.
> >
> >It's about the hobgoblins that might live under your bed when you
> >turn off the light, or the dead relative you sometimes feel is
> >watching you, or that noise when you put out the trash that, who
> >knows, just might an axe murderer, or that double-take you do when
> >you walk past a drain, just in case the clown from "It" is down
> >there.
> >
> >The hype hurt Blair Witch as much as it helped it. As much as it's
> >nice that little Artisan Distribution made $100m+ on Blair, it
> >really had no place playing to a wide audience that accepts crap
> >like The Haunting, Chill Factor and Wild Wild West as the norm.
> >
> >The Blair Witch Project is a film that you have to see in an empty
> >theatre, by yourself. No distractions, no expectations, no advance
> >knowledge. Just a dark room, a big screen and every fear you've
> >repressed creeping back into your thoughts.
> >
> >I feel a little sorry for those people who expected Halloween, or I
> >Still Know Blah Blah. I feel even more sorry for those with so
> >little imagination that they can't be taken away to another place
> >without everything being spelled out for them on the screen.
> >
> >What makes a good film? A steady camera? A polished script? A big
> >pay off finish? Celebrities?
> >No, that makes an average film. Real life isn't always so neat. The
> >bow doesn't always get tied around things in the end. Sometimes
> >people say "fuck". Sometimes they say it a lot. If I'm scared to the
> >point of prolapse, I'd reckon my "F word" usage would increase a
> >heck of a lot. And if I was in fear for my life, I tend to think I
> >wouldn't be holding the camera straight.
> >
> >I give the people behind Blair Witch big credit for trying something
> >new. That kind of thing, whether it fails, wins or finds some middle
> >ground between the two, is admirable and in short supply in today's
> >world of cinema. Being unique is an achievement in itself. Robert
> >Rodriguez was unique once. Now he sells Tommy Hilfiger. Tarantino
> >was unique once (kinda). Now makes intentional B-movies. Kubrick was
> >unique... perhaps a little too unique.
> >
> >Few would disagree, if they know his work, that Hal Hartley is an
> >artiste of cinema. But give his best work the kind of
> >expectation-inducing hype campaign that Blair got, and a theatre
> >full of 16 year olds, and what you'll have is one disappointed
> >audience.
> >
> >Y'see, Hal has his place. It takes a certain patience, a certain
> >mentality, to get the most out of his work. Henry Fool is a movie I
> >can watch over and over and never get bored. But for others,
> >generally people who describe Will Smith as "a great actor", they
> >can't deal with the first ten minutes, let alone the whole two and a
> >lump hours of Hartley dialogue.
> >
> >Blair was not a movie. It was not a film. It was a mindtrip. Closed
> >minds were never going to get anything out of it.
> >
> >Two things to finish off. Firstly, if I'd been the manager of the
> >cinema where Gene demanded his money back (I'm assuming he did this
> >after the film was over), I'd have told him to get stuffed. To quote
> >my local bar-jockey, "I don't care if the beer was warm, you
> >finished it, you got your money's worth."
> >
> >And lastly, if people would actually read the reviews of their
> >preferred film critic (someone who presumably, generally agrees with
> >their taste in films), and there's a lot to choose from, not only
> >would you never be disappointed in a Blair Witch again, but you'll
> >never sit through another Inspector Gadget. And isn't crap like that
> >what we should REALLY be asking for refunds after?
> >
> >     ----------------- {{{OZ}}} -------------------
> >     ------- http://www.filmink-online.com --------
> >     ----------------------------------------------
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >Want to earn money on your website?  How does 17c a click sound?
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >http://www.valueclick.com/cgi-bin/refer_host_signup?host=h0032965
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
> >[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.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: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:56:31 -0600
From: "The Reporter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Movie News - 09/22/99

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) - A coalition of Arab-American groups asked "all
peoples of conscience" to boycott the Walt Disney Co. Tuesday because
of its plans to host an Israel exhibit at its Epcot theme park. The
boycott includes TV programs on Disney-owned ABC, Disney merchandise
and Disney films, said Khalid Turaani, executive director of
Washington-based American Muslims for Jerusalem. The Arab groups said
at a Washington news conference that they object to the exhibit
because it depicts east Jerusalem as part of Israel, designates
Jerusalem as the nation's capital and marginalizes the roles of
Muslims and Christians in Jerusalem.

                        -=> * <=-

LOS ANGELES (Billboard) - Italy opened its arms to "Star Wars:
Episode I - The Phantom Menace," Australia to "Big Daddy" and
"American Pie," France and Spain to "Eyes Wide Shut," and three Far
East countries to "The Sixth Sense" as U.S. hits spread their wings
in the international market. Coming back in a big way after the
summer solstice, Italy greeted "Phantom Menace" with $3.8 million at
605 screens, the third-biggest opening ever in the market after
"Titanic" and "Independence Day." Simultaneously, six Eastern Europe
countries set opening marks as the George Lucas epic pulled in $13.1
million over the weekend from 3,225 screens in 31 countries, lifting
the international cume to a heavenly $367.6 million.

Initial openings in Asia augur well for "The Sixth Sense," as the
Bruce Willis starrer chalked up $675,000 at 105 screens in Thailand,
the second-biggest bow there ever for Buena Vista International after
"Armageddon" - $640,000 at 37 screens in Korea, triple the
second-place entry "The Haunting" - and $550,000 at 27 screens in
Singapore, the second-biggest opening this year after "The Mummy."
Four markets, including Hong Kong, brought in $2.1 million from 218
screens over the weekend.

                        -=> * <=-

LOS ANGELES (Billboard) - Strong opening sessions from "Blue Streak"
and "For Love of the Game" led the domestic box office to slightly
higher ground for the weekend. Receipts generated by the 100 features
tracked by The Hollywood Reporter in North America edged up 2% over
the comparable period in 1998 to $78.9 million. That figure
represented a 5% gain over last weekend. Sony's "Blue Streak" was the
runaway winner with $19.2 million for the three days, representing
the second-highest September opening on record. New Line's "Rush
Hour" set the mark with $33 million on the same weekend last year.
Universal's "Game" opened in second place at $13 million. That
performance, while respectable, came in near the low end of
expectations based on prerelease indicators of moviegoer interest.

"Blue Streak" and "Game" registered promising patron reaction in exit
polls, suggesting that activity can be sustained at reasonable levels
going forward. "Game" is probably the more vulnerable of the two,
however, as its mostly adult following sits in the cross hairs of the
majority of new competition in the weeks ahead.

                        -=> * <=-

TOKYO (Billboard) - "The Third Man" was chosen as the best foreign
film of all time in a poll of Japanese filmmakers released on Monday
by the Kinema Junpo movie magazine. The 1949 British classic,
directed by Carol Reid, headed a Top 100 lineup compiled by Kinema
Junpo to mark the publication's 100th anniversary. Based on the
responses of 141 leading producers and directors, the poll was the
first of its type in Japan, the world's second-largest cinema market.
Unsurprisingly, Hollywood dominated the chart with six of the Top 10
films. Perhaps influenced by the recent demise of Stanley Kubrick and
the release of "Eyes Wide Shut," the most popular American film was
"2001: A Space Odyssey," which took second place. It was followed by
William Wyler's "Roman Holiday" starring Audrey Hepburn.

                        -=> * <=-

LOS ANGELES (Billboard) - Director George Lucas, producer-writer John
Wells and DreamWorks principals Steven Spielberg and David Geffen
have made financial contributions toward the development of the
Robert Zemeckis Center for Digital Arts at the USC School of
Cinema-Television. Lucas, who committed $1.5 million to create a new
digital studio earlier this year, has now pledged an additional
$500,000 to underwrite a CGI and advanced media classroom. Spielberg,
who had given $500,000 to fund a CGI/advanced media classroom, has
contributed $1.5 million more to fund a digital studio honoring late
director Stanley Kubrick. Geffen has committed $1 million toward a
multi-camera soundstage, and Wells' $500,000 donation will go toward
a CGI/advanced media classroom.

                        -=> * <=-

MANAGUA, Nicaragua (AP) - Spanish actor Antonio Banderas has been
tapped to play the lead role in an upcoming movie about Nicaraguan
poet Ruben Dario. Script writer Julio Valle Castillo said the $30
million film is scheduled for a world premiere at the 2000 Cannes
film festival. It's to be filmed in places Dario lived in or visited,
including Nicaragua, Spain, Chile, Argentina, France and the United
States. Dario, a key figure in literary modernism, died in 1916.


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

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

End of movies-digest V2 #235
****************************

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