ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/movies/archive/v02.n280

Internet Message Format | 2000-07-26 | 51KB

From: [e-mail] (movies-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: movies-digest V2 #280
Reply-To: movies-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


movies-digest         Thursday, July 27 2000         Volume 02 : Number 280



Re: [MV] More on Star Wars
Re: [MV] More on Star Wars
Re: [MV] Please answer ASAP.
[MV] Chicken Run
Re: [MV] Chicken Run
[MV] WHAT LIES BENEATH *SPOILERS*
Re: [MV] WHAT LIES BENEATH *SPOILERS*
Re: [MV] WHAT LIES BENEATH *SPOILERS*
RE: [MV] Patriot - the british
[MV] MI:2 - should I be flogged
RE: [MV] Chicken Run
RE: [MV] Chicken Run - a modern masterpiece?
Re: [MV] Patriot - the british
[MV] Re: Trailers
RE: [MV] Patriot - the british
[MV] RE: MI:2 - should I be flogged
[MV] RE: Chicken Run
Re: [MV] MI:2 - should I be flogged
Re: [MV] RE: MI:2 - should I be flogged
Re: [MV] RE: MI:2 - should I be flogged
[MV] Trailers
Re: [MV] Trailers
Re: [MV] Trailers
[MV] True Modern Classics
[MV] RE: True Modern Classics
[MV] High Fidelity - (Not the Kids from Fame Song)

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

Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:39:46 +0100
From: "geeg23" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] More on Star Wars

First off, my son is only two and a half, so I believe it is probably all
the
explosions that keep him watching.  Secondly, I have seen plenty of Samurai
movies, be it Yojimbo, Sanjuro and the seven samurai to Shogun assassin. I
actually don't like the hidden fotress much.  As for calling Star wars a
samurai film, I can't go with that.  Yes, imagery has been stolen from
Japanese history but so what?  I find the Star wars films very shallow and
in retrospect cannot understand as to why episode 1 has been seen as a let
down, when the plot , characterisation and "message" are just as weak as the
original trilogy.
TPM has an irritating character in Jar Jar but so does star wars with r2d2
and c3po.  I hate those robots!  Why are they any less irritating than
Binks?
Why are those two robots also in Phantom? IN "A new hope"Would'nt c3po on
crashing down on
Tatooine not say "I was made here".  And on meeting Luke "Hey, I knew a guy
called Anakin Skywalker...........any relation?"
Also, what's wrong with having cups in the future?  If we have been using
them for the last three thousand years why wouldn't we be using them in the
next three thousand?  Some inventions such as chairs, tables and cups can, I
believe,can safely be predicted to be a part of our future.  And why
would'nt a
chair that looks 70's style not be around in a hundred or more years time?
Lava lamps have made a comeback since the 60's!!!!
Yours
Gerry T.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: 21 July 2000 21:38
Subject: [MV] More on Star Wars


> Ah well.  I disagree.   On the issue of faults you found, I'm not sure
what they
> are as you didn't go into detail but even the best films have faults.  And
a lot
> of times they fall in the category of logic. Something in the screenplay
is left
> out in the final cut and there are little things knit pickers will find
was
> contradictory or didn't make sense at all... case and point... the Matrix.
Neo
> gets a call from Morpheous, he says the phone it tapped and he must get
going,
> but give away the exact location of where to meet Trinity anyways.  That
is
> total baloney. If it was tapped the movie would have ended there.  The
screen
> writer was definately going for  a sense of urgency when he wrote that
line, and
> it blew a hole in the logic of film.
>
> As for Darth Vader being a lumbering villian, I guess you haven't seen
Samurai
> films. They aren't the most graceful when walking, or even when fighting.
> It's not ballet pardner.   The thing you also miss is that scienfiction
film age
> so quickly its not even funny.  As I said in a previous post, most science
> fiction writers have a real passion for science, so they base their
projections
> on the current cutting edge knowledge of science and those very
fundamental
> theories often are proved wrong sooner or later and the movies who use the
> science just end up looking like relics with a really ridiculous logic.
A
> mistake more common is the attempt by science fiction writers to project
into
> the future.   They ask  "hmm... how will our cities look like in the
future..."
> and they end up with an elaborate set up that looks outdated very quickly.
And
> problem is not that they didn't work hard enough but they are grasping at
> nothing.   Ask me how computers will look like in 100 years and I probably
can
> give you a really elaborate design with VR goggles and the like, but 10
years
> into that next 100 years, my design would look utterly outdated and
> misinformed.   Take an science fiction and they try so hard to predict the
> future they can't predict it all.    So, really, Star Trek has a holodec?
So why
> do they drink out of cups?  Why do those chairs look like something I
found in a
> furniture store last week.  Many science fiction films, because of their
focus,
> becomes very lopsided. The producers spend so much time dreaming up of
this one
> thing that is the future, the rest are glossed over, things from our
> contemporary world are used and many times (I'm not saying always, but
many
> times) it strikes me as very phoney and unbelievable.
>
> Star Wars, as I said isn't science fiction.  It isn't bound by the idea of
> predicting futures, but it also project certain elements we have in our
world
> into this  state hi-technology ... but by being hig-tech, doesn't
neccessarily
> mean its the futre.   Coruscant in Episode 1 is a great Capital city.  It
is
> like New York, mixed with Rome and Washington.  We don't get the sense its
the
> city of the future, but we do get the sense it is the heart of a very
advanced
> civilization.   I've heard people like film critic Roger Ebert for example
> comment on how wonderful the scene in the Senate chamber was with
thousands of
> Senatorial pods anchored in a large dome. For all its high technology, its
still
> a Senate, like the one we have, it doesn't go overboard with video
displays that
> will look outdated in 10 years, and flashing and blinking lights.    I'm
> rambling here so let me get back on track.
>
> Star Wars in terms of its story and design have always taken something
from the
> past.  Its story, as I've said before is really retelling of human themes.
> Basic ideas.  This is in contrast to most science fiction which tries to
do
> somethign else. Star Trek tries to do human dramas in space, with some
success
> and films like 2001, or Metropolis is projecting the idea of human
evolution in
> the future. That is what their story is concerned about. How humans on
this
> earth lives and deal with this fantastic world of the future.  And that
> perspective carries with it an inherent leaning towards telling a story
from
> our  contemporary point of view. The film often needlessly goes out of
their way
> to show people little details.  It is as if the directors are saying  "Hey
look,
> this is how couples in 200 years will have sex.  This is how kids will
play.
> And take a look at our fantastic video monitors, they look like relics
from the
> 70s don't they?"
>
> I made a comment earlier about how technology in Star Wars feels like
throwaway
> stuff.  That's exactly why.  The Star Wars films doesn't have to slow down
the
> movie to show you that nice speeder Luke is using. The speeder gets less
screen
> time than most cars do in a contemporary movies, and it says volumes about
the
> priorities of Star Wars. Yes, its got these cool high tech gadgetry that
will
> make boys cream in their pants, but it doesn't slow down for them.  The
films
> are known for showing flashes of fantastic things, and then boom, they are
> gone.  Lucas isn't going to slow down the film and do a slow pan over a
Star
> Destroyer for a minute.   He's going to do it in 15 seconds, because 15
seconds
> is all he needs.   and he's going to saturate the frame with Tie Fighters
flying
> in formation and 2 other escorting battleships.
>
> For all its faults and I concede there are faults, Star Wars' brilliance
is its
> timeless and ageless quality.  Let me ask you, why does your son like Star
> Wars?  There are several films made after the trilogy which have aged
faster
> than the Star Wars movies and will certainly strike your son as being
phoney and
> overly concerend about predicting the future that it ends up looking old
> anyways.
>
> Dexter
>
> geeg23 wrote:
>
> > Actually I don't think Star Wars is good at all, I am currently having
the
> > misfortune of sitting through nearly all four because my young son likes
> > them.  I fail to understand your point below as Star Wars was definetely
a
> > film of it's time.  It was groundbreaking for the day and Science
Fiction
> > had not been potrayed in this big budget way towards a large audience.
> > Watching the first (or to be more precise 4th) film again I am stunned
at
> > how inept it all is, and for all it's faults (and there are hundreds!)
Darth
> > Maul actually comes across as a better villain than Darth Vader who
actually
> > looks a little inept lumbering around in his big helmet!  I just fail to
see
> > what all the fuss is.  Yes, in 77 (when I was 9) I was
> > hooked...................but time has past, I have seen a lot more (and
> > better) films and the thrill has gone.  I can assure you, after multiple
> > watchings, Pee Wee's big adventure is far more watchable than Star wars.
> >
> > Gerry T.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
> > To: <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: 21 July 2000 11:04
> > Subject: Re: [MV] Re: WHaaatttt????
> >
> > > >  Why can't people accept Star
> > > > Wars as what it is.........a mediocre sci fi fantasy tale that hit
the
> > > > screens at the right time.  Groundbreaking yes, brilliant-no!
> > >
> > > The same can be said for Citizen Kane.   Hindsight is not always 20/20
and
> > its
> > > pretty obvious you think very highly of the films, which is fine, but
to
> > try to
> > > re-write history and cliam star wars was just lucky is really
revisionist
> > > nonesense.
> > > what may seem so obvious to us was probably never obvious to the
people
> > back
> > > then.  Remember your first encounter with multiplication? Same idea.
> > Before it
> > > hits, you don't get it. After you get it, it becomes easy and you'd
wonder
> > why
> > > you didn't think of it earlier.
> > >
> > > Dexter
> > >
> > >
> > > [ 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]          ]
>
> --
> Dexter S.
> Tendo Box - Nintendo e-zine
> Http://www.tendobox.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: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 03:08:57 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] More on Star Wars

geeg23 wrote:

> First off, my son is only two and a half, so I believe it is probably all
> the
> explosions that keep him watching.  Secondly, I have seen plenty of Samurai
> movies, be it Yojimbo, Sanjuro and the seven samurai to Shogun assassin. I
> actually don't like the hidden fotress much.  As for calling Star wars a
> samurai film, I can't go with that.  Yes, imagery has been stolen from
> Japanese history but so what?  I find the Star wars films very shallow and
> in retrospect cannot understand as to why episode 1 has been seen as a let
> down, when the plot , characterisation and "message" are just as weak as the
> original trilogy.
> TPM has an irritating character in Jar Jar but so does star wars with r2d2
> and c3po.  I hate those robots!  Why are they any less irritating than
> Binks?

That's the topic of another discussion so I'll just leave it at that.

>
> Why are those two robots also in Phantom?

It's actually inspired by the Hidden Fortross.  The idea was to tell the story i
through the eyes of the lowest person(s) in the foodchain.   C3P0 and R2D2 is to
Star Wars what the two lowly peasants were in the Hidden Fortress.

> IN "A new hope"Would'nt c3po on
> crashing down on
> Tatooine not say "I was made here".  And on meeting Luke "Hey, I knew a guy
> called Anakin Skywalker...........any relation?"

I imagine it will be explained by Episode 3 why things are they way they were in
Episode 4.  But being nothing more than just robots, we assume, and the film
alludes to the fact that memory wipes are not uncommon.  I mean one scenes early
on in Episode 4 involved the discussion about bringing the robots to a station
for their memory to be wiped.   Hmm...  It's never really been a big problem to
me logic wise.

>
> Also, what's wrong with having cups in the future?

Nothing. But why would people drink out of flasks and test tubes? are they more
efficient?  I think its just another whacky attempt at making things look
futuristic.  I've said it before and I'll summarize it more coherently.  Star
Wars isn't weighed down by the need to tell human stories in the future.  It
tells human stories in a galaxy far far away, without a specified time or
place.   By detaching itself from Earth, and due to the very nature of its
story, it does have this immaculate naturalism.  There is no need for the film
to be the futurist.  It borrows from everything and it is post-modern in that
repect.  The designs of the movies feels true, they feel like they could exist.
They aren't sanitized.

> If we have been using
> them for the last three thousand years why wouldn't we be using them in the
> next three thousand?

When you have holodec technology and teleportation technology, you're figure
they'd have a system to teleport food and nourishment into the body. its
probably more efficient.  Like i said, its lopsided.  Fantastic technology of
the future mixed with very contemporary technogy.  And the problem is, the films
are trying to sell the audience on this world of the future, which doesn't help
because civilizations don't evolve in one direction   I understand why this
happens. There are simply an infinate amount of things to imagine so story
tellers take the liberty to freeze certain things in time.    And that strikes
me as very untrue and doesn't immerse me fully.  Science fiction like Starship
troopers which deals wit the more immediate future are more belieavable simply
because we would assume we wouldn't develop as far.

>  Some inventions such as chairs, tables and cups can, I
> believe,can safely be predicted to be a part of our future.

Yes. But would they look like furniture you'd buy from a store today?

> And why
> would'nt a
> chair that looks 70's style not be around in a hundred or more years time?
> Lava lamps have made a comeback since the 60's!!!!

True enough :)

Dexter


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

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

Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:08:57 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Please answer ASAP.

Chris Parry wrote:

> Enrique Bird wrote:
> >
> > Again in action mode, and again with an "If you..", if you like action
> > movies and John Woo, and do NOT expext to really see Mission Impossible, the
> > TV show or Mission Impossible, the Movie 2, do not miss Missing Impossible
> > 2. Not expecting what I mentioned above, this is a really thrilling Woo
> > movie, with guns and martial art, as well as some thrilling vehicle chases.
>
> Gunna have to disagree quietly with you on this one, Birdster. After
> seeing some of Woo's earlier non-Hollywood stuff, such as The
> Killer, Bullet In The Head and Hard Boiled, it's hard to look at
> garbola like The Replacement Killers, Face|Off, Broken Arrow and
> especially MI2 without being really disappointed. Especially MI2.
> Woo has used these tricks so many times in so many movies, they're
> just tired now. He must go through a fortune in white doves...
>
> But a question on MI2, it's been widely reported that the
> screenwriter of MI2, Robert Towne, was given a list of action scenes
> and told to write a script around them. With producers and director
> treating the story as such a secondary concern, why the hell did
> they use a writer of the calibre of Towne, who gave us classics like
> Chinatown? In my mind, they could have got an 18 year old bowling
> alley attendant to write it, since they weren't interested in it
> anyway.
>
> </rant>
>
> OZ
>
> http://www.efilmcritic.com
> http://www.mymovies.com.au
> http://www.tribe.com
> http://www.if.com.au
> http://ifmagazine.ifctv.com
> http://www.sain.com.au
>
> [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
> [ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

- --
Dexter S.
Tendo Box - Nintendo e-zine
Http://www.tendobox.com



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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 03:17:43 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Chicken Run

Anyone have comments for this film?

Dex


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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 07:53:05 -0700
From: "David F. Nolan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Chicken Run

on 7/23/2000 3:17 AM, Dexter Sy at [e-mail] wrote:

> Anyone have comments for this film?

I saw Chicken Run last week and enjoyed it a lot. It's creative, clever and
amusing.... a "kids' movie" for people of all ages. My only complaint is
that at 79 minutes or so, it didn't quite seem worth a full feature price;
they should have had a co-feature of some sort ... or cut the price by a
buck or two.  If you don't want to "share the experience" with a lot of
little kids, go to a late show!

For more comments, see the PEOPLE'S CHOICE page on FlickPicks
(http://www.flickpicks.com) where Chicken Run is rated 6th out of 32 current
movies with 3.5 stars (out of a possible 5).


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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:28:00 -0600
From: ("Paul D  Richardson") <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] WHAT LIES BENEATH *SPOILERS*

Why is it that the marketing folks in Hollywood insist on spoiling movies for
us?  Don't they realize surprises are part of the big thrill in films?  I call
this current trend of giving away too much in trailers the "Truman Show
Syndrome," after the film where the marketing gave away the only major plot
twist.

WHAT LIES BENEATH is a victim of this syndrome.  If you've seen the trailer,
the first 2/3 of the movie have been completely ruined for you.  This includes
an enormous subplot that you'll already know is a red herring.  I know I
should make an effort to avoid movie trailers...but they're like car
wrecks...I can't look away!

However, even without the trailer the film would be highly predictable.  In
every scene, I knew exactly what was about to happen.  Why?  I've seen it
before in another movie!  The film is completely derivative, largely from
Hitchcock (even the music rip offs PSYCHO!), but from many other sources as
well.  There is a plot twist at the end that is completely conventional, and
relies more on the actor involved's reputation rather than clever
screenwriting.  The script is pretty atrocious, and does a clumsy job at
giving exposition, including one ludicrous plot point involving a cell phone.

This is all too bad, since the film is actually well made.  Directed by Robert
Zemeckis and featuring good performances by Harrison Ford and Michelle
Pfeiffer (especially Pfeiffer).  If you've never seen any other movie before,
you'll love WHAT LIES BENEATH.  Otherwise, don't bother since you've seen it
all before.

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:07:59 -0400
From: Gene Ehrich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] WHAT LIES BENEATH *SPOILERS*

>If you've never seen any other movie before,
>you'll love WHAT LIES BENEATH.  Otherwise, don't bother since you've seen it
>all before.

I agree. Although it was well shot and acted the plot was preposterous. The
pieces never fit together right and nothing was at all believable. Pretty
bad movie.



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

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
P.O. Box 3365   Spring Hill Florida   34611-3365

www.voicenet.com/~generic
Computer & Video Game Garage Sale






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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:43:33 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] WHAT LIES BENEATH *SPOILERS*

I think the problem is, there is not much in the story to begin with.  And in this
competitive market, trailers would have to capture the audience, which means they
are mini movies in on themselves.  You know how important these trailers are when
they become topic of discussions.  My friends and I judge movie experiiences not
only on by the quality of the movie, but by the quality of the trailers as well.
Its strange but we do it.

Trailers today are very much an integral part of selling a movie to the public.
its not just about awareness anymore. its about hype.

Dexter



"(Paul D Richardson)" wrote:

> Why is it that the marketing folks in Hollywood insist on spoiling movies for
> us?  Don't they realize surprises are part of the big thrill in films?  I call
> this current trend of giving away too much in trailers the "Truman Show
> Syndrome," after the film where the marketing gave away the only major plot
> twist.
>
> WHAT LIES BENEATH is a victim of this syndrome.  If you've seen the trailer,
> the first 2/3 of the movie have been completely ruined for you.  This includes
> an enormous subplot that you'll already know is a red herring.  I know I
> should make an effort to avoid movie trailers...but they're like car
> wrecks...I can't look away!
>
> However, even without the trailer the film would be highly predictable.  In
> every scene, I knew exactly what was about to happen.  Why?  I've seen it
> before in another movie!  The film is completely derivative, largely from
> Hitchcock (even the music rip offs PSYCHO!), but from many other sources as
> well.  There is a plot twist at the end that is completely conventional, and
> relies more on the actor involved's reputation rather than clever
> screenwriting.  The script is pretty atrocious, and does a clumsy job at
> giving exposition, including one ludicrous plot point involving a cell phone.
>
> This is all too bad, since the film is actually well made.  Directed by Robert
> Zemeckis and featuring good performances by Harrison Ford and Michelle
> Pfeiffer (especially Pfeiffer).  If you've never seen any other movie before,
> you'll love WHAT LIES BENEATH.  Otherwise, don't bother since you've seen it
> all before.
>
> [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
> [ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

- --
Dexter S.
Tendo Box - Nintendo e-zine
Http://www.tendobox.com



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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:06:48 +0100
From: MARK <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] Patriot - the british

Whaaaat!!!!!  First of all I couldn't give a damn about our ex-empire.
I said that I wasn't defending what we did during this war, didn't even
make a comment on this war per-se, rather I gave an indictment on the
film - remember??  The Americans won the war of independence, fine.  I'm
sure that there were fights and battles that were underhand on both
sides.  What I was talking about was the fact that the character writing
was so nonsensical.  How can we have apathy for a guy who does exactly
the same as his enemy?

Sir, I suggest that before you launch a pre-determined vitriolic rant,
that you at least read what I said, and comment on that, rather than
comment on what you wished I would have said.
MARK

> -----Original Message-----
> From:    Mel Eperthener [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent:    21 July 2000 19:26
> To:    [e-mail]
> Subject:    RE: [MV] Patriot - the british
>
> At 09.10 AM 21/07/2000 +0100, MARK wrote:
> >He wasn't a villain, he was an officer in an opposing army.  Then Mel
> [Gibson]
> >and his kin mercilessly slaughter him.
>
> Oh, Gawd, don't tell me we are going to have to put up with this
> tripe.
>
> Methinks someone is cranky about losing their Empire.:-)
>
> Besides, you're just jealous that the Magna Carta gives you nowhere
> near
> the rights that the Constitution gives the Yanks.  Also, if you think
> the
> film is inaccurate, why not go to Boston, and ask the relatives of the
> people YOUR relatives slaughtered??  The US newspapers did, and those
> guys
> are as put off with your attitude as you are about the film.  Hell, it
> was
> the actions of the British Army that directly led to such
> Constitutionally-protected rights, like Security of Property and
> Against
> Unreasonable Search and Seizure. (In other words, get the **** out of
> my
> house)
>
> And if we are going to talk about revisionist history, let's not
> forget
> Bond, James Bond, shall we??:-)
>
> Only the British would have the chutzpah to have as a hero a master
> spy, a
> decade after the Cold War ended, and half a century after you were no
> longer a Great Power.  And yet, 007 acts like he is fighting for
> Universal
> Freedom singlehandedly.  Occasionally, the CIA does appear, but there
> is no
> doubt that this is a British world.
>
> So, before you go off on the Yanks and thier view of the world, I
> would
> suggest that you look at your own film industry (and these movies
> would not
> even exist if not for Hollywood backing).  And get over it, the Empire
> is
> gone:-)
>
> 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
>
> ______________________________________________
> I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the
> death,
> your right to say it. -Voltaire (1694-1778)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> ---
>
>
> [ 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, 25 Jul 2000 12:04:31 +0100
From: MARK <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] MI:2 - should I be flogged

    I know it's not de rigour, but I really enjoyed this film, sure
when compared to Hard Boiled the story holds no comparison, but as a
wham-bang summer action flick I thoroughly enjyoyed it.

    Sorry if my views offend

    MARK

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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:02:15 +0100
From: MARK <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] Chicken Run

I was glad it was as trimmed as it was, most films these days try to
break the 2 hour barrier just for the sake of it.  What would you rather
have - perfunctory tripe such as Wild Wild West lasting for over two
hours, or a far superior quality.  We shouldn't cut the price of class
films just because they don't make our asses sore, imagine if the price
had been cut, the overall take would have been down, and that could have
precluded us from having any more features from the Aardman outfit.

Think through before trying to save a buck here or a buck there.

MARK

> -----Original Message-----
> From:    David F. Nolan [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent:    23 July 2000 15:53
> To:    [e-mail]
> Subject:    Re: [MV] Chicken Run
>
> on 7/23/2000 3:17 AM, Dexter Sy at [e-mail] wrote:
>
> > Anyone have comments for this film?
>
> I saw Chicken Run last week and enjoyed it a lot. It's creative,
> clever and
> amusing.... a "kids' movie" for people of all ages. My only complaint
> is
> that at 79 minutes or so, it didn't quite seem worth a full feature
> price;
> they should have had a co-feature of some sort ... or cut the price by
> a
> buck or two.  If you don't want to "share the experience" with a lot
> of
> little kids, go to a late show!
>
> For more comments, see the PEOPLE'S CHOICE page on FlickPicks
> (http://www.flickpicks.com) where Chicken Run is rated 6th out of 32
> current
> movies with 3.5 stars (out of a possible 5).
>
>
> [ 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, 25 Jul 2000 11:47:50 +0100
From: MARK <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] Chicken Run - a modern masterpiece?

If only other films placed as much attention on plot, and not on
star-power.  Chicken Run was a wonderfully crafted film, o.k. so it was
one long special effect, but it was so wonderfully done.  It's one of
the few times in recent years that my sides have hurt after watching a
film.

MARK

> -----Original Message-----
> From:    Dexter Sy [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent:    23 July 2000 11:18
> To:    MOVIES
> Subject:    [MV] Chicken Run
>
> Anyone have comments for this film?
>
> Dex
>
>
> [ 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, 25 Jul 2000 07:41:22 -0700
From: "David F. Nolan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Patriot - the british

on 7/25/2000 1:06 AM, MARK at [e-mail] wrote:

> How can we have apathy for a guy who does exactly
> the same as his enemy?

Apathy is exactly what I'd feel!


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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 08:47:00 -0600
From: ("Paul D  Richardson") <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Re: Trailers

> I think the problem is, there is not much in the story to begin with.  And
in this
> competitive market, trailers would have to capture the audience, which means
they
> are mini movies in on themselves.

I agree, but that hardly justifies the spoiling of major plot points.  Take
the trailers for CASTAWAY and UNBREAKABLE.  Neither shows anything but the
setup of the films...they introduce us to the characters and show us something
interesting that happens to them.  Best of all, they do it in an entertaining
way.  I've talked to several people who are already interested in these films
from the trailers.  No doubt that new trailers will come out closer to the
release dates for these films that give away more...and therein lies the rub.
For now, I wish the marketing people would take a cue from these and other
good trailers and stop spoiling the movies.

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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:31:51 +0100
From: MARK <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] Patriot - the british

ooops!!!  I meant SYMPATHY!!!!

Forget all my arguments, I'm English and can't even speak it!!

D'oh!!!

> -----Original Message-----
> From:    David F. Nolan [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent:    25 July 2000 15:41
> To:    [e-mail]
> Subject:    Re: [MV] Patriot - the british
>
> on 7/25/2000 1:06 AM, MARK at [e-mail] wrote:
>
> > How can we have apathy for a guy who does exactly
> > the same as his enemy?
>
> Apathy is exactly what I'd feel!
>
>
> [ 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, 25 Jul 2000 09:32:00 -0600
From: ("Paul D  Richardson") <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] RE: MI:2 - should I be flogged

> I know it's not de rigour, but I really enjoyed this film, sure
> when compared to Hard Boiled the story holds no comparison, but as a
> wham-bang summer action flick I thoroughly enjyoyed it.

You aren't alone.  I thought MI-2 was a fun flick.  Yeah, it's not going to
change the world but it was fun.  Some incredible action sequences and fun
scenarios.  It was certainly better than the first MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE.

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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:15:00 -0600
From: ("Paul D  Richardson") <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] RE: Chicken Run

> I was glad it was as trimmed as it was, most films these days try to
> break the 2 hour barrier just for the sake of it.

Amen to that!  Longer is not always better when it comes to movies.  Often
certain scenes, or even entire subplots can be removed from a film and
actually improve it.  Explicit exposition is almost always unnecessary as
well.  One of the things that separates a good filmmaker from a great
filmmaker is the ability to sacrifice certain scenes that just don't work
within the whole of the film.  Take Paul Thomas Anderson...he is so in love
with his material that his films go on and on.  There's a great film within
MAGNOLIA, but Anderson (like an eighth grader in a creative writing class)
dared not trim what needed to be trimmed.  Compare to Kevin Smith who cut over
an hour out of DOGMA, and made similar trims to all of his other films as well.

The public, however, must take some of the blame.  Whenever a film comes out
that they like, they call out for a longer version, thinking that will somehow
be better.  Take X-MEN for instance.  Somehow, the word got out amongst the
fanboys that Bryan Singer was forced by Fox to cut 45 minutes of character
development and action sequences.  Soon, the word was all over the Internet
that the theatrical cut of the film was bastardization of Singer's vision.
Eventually, word got back to Singer himself who was surprised by this rumor
(which by then had turned into Internet "fact."  He admitted to cutting some
20 minutes here and there, but said that it was nothing plot-critical and that
he was happy with the results.

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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:27:32 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] MI:2 - should I be flogged

MARK wrote:

>         I know it's not de rigour, but I really enjoyed this film, sure
> when compared to Hard Boiled the story holds no comparison, but as a
> wham-bang summer action flick I thoroughly enjyoyed it.
>
>         Sorry if my views offend
>
>         MARK

I generally like action films and found myself captivated by the Die Hard
movies but Mission Impossible 2 lacked something...  I didn't care about
the characters.  Tom Cruise's presence was overwhelmed by Woo's stylistic
flourishes.  Moments where the Cruise character could be developed so the
audience would feel sympathy were squandered in James Bond-esque love
making scenes which did nothing but show off the fine curves of the actors.

I know that action films isn't about character, but the really good action
films makes you care about the character so when there is a cliffhanger and
you see them beat up, every punch to their face is like a punch to yours
and when you see the villian thawrted, you feel relief, happiness and
joy.   Gladiator isn't exactly an "action" film as it may appeal to the
more intellectual crowd but  Maximus as a character isn't all that deep.
Its a classic revenge flick, and Maximus might as well be the action hero.
And it worked as a film because it people cared about the character, and
they hated Commodus.

Dex


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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:31:06 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] RE: MI:2 - should I be flogged

>
>
> You aren't alone.  I thought MI-2 was a fun flick.  Yeah, it's not going to
> change the world but it was fun.  Some incredible action sequences and fun
> scenarios.  It was certainly better than the first MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE.

The first one was nearly incomprehensible at first viewing but its such a deep
spy flick it oozes with intrigue.  MI2 has so little emphasis on the spy
elements its trying to be a James Bond film, and I resented its "cloned"
feel.     MI2 should be a more comprehensible spy thriller, but keep it a spy
thriller and don't turn it into another James Bond wanna be.

Dexter


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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:25:45 -0400
From: Gene Ehrich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] RE: MI:2 - should I be flogged

At 09:32 AM 7/25/00 -0600, you wrote:
>I thought MI-2 was a fun flick.  Yeah, it's not going to
>change the world but it was fun.  Some incredible action sequences and fun
>scenarios.  It was certainly better than the first MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE.

But nowhere near as good as the original TV series. Lots of exciting
action and sound but not at all true to the TV show which at least had a plot
to make you think.


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

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
P.O. Box 3365   Spring Hill Florida   34611-3365

http://www.voicenet.com/~generic
Computer & Video Game Garage Sale






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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nathan Lemrick <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Trailers

I would agree with you about trailers that are out on the market. I saw the trailer for CASTAWAY and that got me interested to see the film. But then there are trailers like WHAT LIES BENEATH which give away the plot. Seeing this I do not know if I am going to see this film because it seems all the suspense is gone for me. All the whole trailers today tell to much of the films and that gets to me. If I am going to see a movie, seeing the trailer is just one part to my decision. But if it shows to much then most of the time I am disappointed when I finally go see the film.
   One other thing I saw a trailer for Hannibal, what for? They had not even started filming the movie when I saw this. To me that is way to early to start marketing a film. What do others think?

  Nathan


  >I agree, but that hardly justifies the spoiling of major plot points. Take
  >the trailers for CASTAWAY and UNBREAKABLE. Neither shows anything but the
  >setup of the films...they introduce us to the characters and show us something
  >interesting that happens to them. Best of all, they do it in an entertaining
  >way. I've talked to several people who are already interested in these films
  >from the trailers. No doubt that new trailers will come out closer to the
  >release dates for these films that give away more...and therein lies the rub.
  >For now, I wish the marketing people would take a cue from these and other
  >good trailers and stop spoiling the movies.
  >
  >[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
  >[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail] ]



___________________________________________________
GO Network Mail
Get Your Free, Private E-mail at http://mail.go.com



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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:58:09 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Trailers

Nathan Lemrick wrote:

> I would agree with you about trailers that are out on the market. I saw the trailer for CASTAWAY and that got me interested to see the film. But then there are trailers like WHAT LIES BENEATH which give away the plot. Seeing this I do not know if I am going to see this film because it seems all the suspense is gone for me. All the whole trailers today tell to much of the films and that gets to me. If I am going to see a movie, seeing the trailer is just one part to my decision. But if it shows to much then most of the time I am disappointed when I finally go see the film.
>    One other thing I saw a trailer for Hannibal, what for? They had not even started filming the movie when I saw this. To me that is way to early to start marketing a film. What do others think?

Can I be frank? I thought the trailer to Hannibal was "gay". There were chuckles all over when it came on. I've seen it 3 times and the reaction has always been the same.




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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:33:00 CDT
From: "Wade S" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Trailers

The only thing resembling a trailer to Hannibal was a tiny teaser that
basically showed a bunch of words and a 2 second shot of Anthony Hopkins in
Silence of the Lambs. Somebody did that job in an afternoon.

Wade


>From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [MV] Trailers
>Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:58:09 -0700
>
>
>
>Nathan Lemrick wrote:
>
> > I would agree with you about trailers that are out on the market. I saw
>the trailer for CASTAWAY and that got me interested to see the film. But
>then there are trailers like WHAT LIES BENEATH which give away the plot.
>Seeing this I do not know if I am going to see this film because it seems
>all the suspense is gone for me. All the whole trailers today tell to much
>of the films and that gets to me. If I am going to see a movie, seeing the
>trailer is just one part to my decision. But if it shows to much then most
>of the time I am disappointed when I finally go see the film.
> >    One other thing I saw a trailer for Hannibal, what for? They had not
>even started filming the movie when I saw this. To me that is way to early
>to start marketing a film. What do others think?
>
>Can I be frank? I thought the trailer to Hannibal was "gay". There were
>chuckles all over when it came on. I've seen it 3 times and the reaction
>has always been the same.
>
>
>
>
>[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
>[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com


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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:26:17 +0100
From: MARK <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] True Modern Classics

    My local Megaplex has started showing older films on a Tuesday
night, last week is was my absolute pleasure to watch HEAT again.  A
truly wonderful film.  Crackling performances from all concerned,
especially in the wonderfully underplayed coffee shop scene between De
Niro and Pacino.

    Last night I went along to see my all-time favourite film "Die
Hard".  I know it's a fairly shallow choice, however, I just love that
film to death.  For me it typifies what an action film should be about,
a great and almost believable plot, good character build up (even the
minor ones have some depth), fantastic action scenes and good suspense.
Sure, since 1988 when it was released I have seen many, many films
crossing many different genres, but Die Hard will always stay a firm
favourite.

    On 15th August they are showing my 2nd favourite film, the
wonderful Horror Film that is "Alien",  for me this is the best of the
whole legacy, it still scares the bejeesus out of me.

    It's really great to be able to see films like this where they
should be shown, ON THE BIG SCREEN.

    They have a suggestion box for future performances, any ideas???

    MARK

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:15:00 -0600
From: ("Paul D  Richardson") <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] RE: True Modern Classics

> They have a suggestion box for future performances, any ideas???

I never liked CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND until I saw it on a big
screen.  Wow, what a difference that made!  That would be my top
recommendation.

Also, any Marx brothers movie.  For the longest time, I wondered why there
were these strange little pauses throughout their films.  Something would
happen, and everybody would just stand there for a moment.  Then I had the
good fortune to see one of their movies (I don't remember which one) with an
audience.  It finally occurred to me what they were doing...they were holding
for laughs!

If possible, it would be neat if they could get some old 3-D movies (like
HOUSE OF WAX or DIAL M FOR MURDER).  The 3D effects usually aren't transferred
to video and even if they are it never works as well as on a big screen.  It's
funny to watch the movies without 3D since highlights of the theatrical
release make no sense on video.  For example, in HOUSE OF WAX there's a long
sequence of a guy hitting a paddleball towards the camera.  Completely
pointless without 3D, but amazing with.

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:45:43 +0100
From: MARK <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] High Fidelity - (Not the Kids from Fame Song)

> Hi, I know this film has been out in the States already, but it was
> only released on Friday in the U.K.
>
> Now I was both a little apprehensive and also a little excited when I
> heard that John Cusack was going to be making this film, but
> transferring the location to the U.S.  You see, John Cusack is one of
> my all time favourite actors, I grew up on films such as "Better off
> dead", "Say Anything" and "The Sure Thing", and his later efforts such
> as "Grosse Point Blank" and "Being John Malkovich" are modern day
> classics for me, so sure I was excited at the prospect of one of my
> favourite actors doing one of my favourite books. But my British
> snobbery wouldn't let me fully embrace the fact that he wanted to move
> the story to the good old U.S. of A.
>
> However, I am glad to say that my fears were unconfirmed, because the
> book is such a salutary piece of literature, it delivers a universal
> message to men around the globe, and therefore location doesn't
> matter.
>
> The film is basically the story of Rob Gordon, record store owner,
> vinyl snob, and terminal dumpee.  Yep he never has much luck in his
> relationships, be it through his own insecurities, or through his
> inability to stop his girlfriends sleeping with other men.  It's a
> kind of reflective rights of passage type movie that will touch a
> chord in every man, (and some women) that watch the film.  We all, at
> one time or another, have experienced some of what Rob goes through,
> though I doubt that there are many out there that have gone through it
> all.
>
> The film sports some excellent supporting roles from Todd Louiso and
> Jack Black as Cusacks record shop co-workers - inveterately introvert
> and bitingly extrovert in turn.  Catherine Zeta-Jones finally gets a
> juicy role, and shows that she can pull off acting, as one of Robs
> snobby exes.  Tim Robbins as a wet and wimpy hippie girlfriend
> stealer.  Of course, Johns' sister Joan makes her usual scene stealing
> cameo as Rob's girlfriends best friend.  However the Cusack clan
> doesn't end there, Johns father makes an appearance as a minister, and
> his sister, Susie, as a party guest.
>
> The film, like the book, is slightly flawed and continues beyond what
> should have been a natural end, but we forgive this as the film gives
> us many excellent and genuinely funny moments - for example the "Top
> Five" lists, which were prevalent in the UK when the book was
> released.
>
> Do I recommend this film - BOY YES!!  If you haven't already, go see
> it, it'll make you laugh and sympathise with equal measure.
>
> Regards
MARK

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

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

End of movies-digest V2 #280
****************************

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