ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/movies/archive/v02.n293

Internet Message Format | 2000-09-19 | 53KB

From: [e-mail] (movies-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: movies-digest V2 #293
Reply-To: movies-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


movies-digest      Wednesday, September 20 2000      Volume 02 : Number 293



Re: [MV] closing pandora's box
Re: [MV] It's the Reasoning methinks...
[MV] The Tyranny of the Masses
Re: [MV] It's the Reasoning methinks...
Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.
Re: [MV] closing pandora's box
Re: [MV] closing pandora's box
Re: [MV] closing pandora's box
Re: [MV] closing pandora's box
[MV] Video Pick o' the Week: Groundhog Day
Re: [MV] closing pandora's box
Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.
Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.
Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.
[MV] SNATCH - ubermesiterpiece or more of the same?
RE: [MV] SNATCH - ubermesiterpiece or more of the same?
Re: [MV] SNATCH - ubermesiterpiece or more of the same?
Re: [MV] SNATCH - ubermesiterpiece or more of the same?
RE: [MV] SNATCH - ubermesiterpiece or more of the same?
[MV] Blue Man Group - O.T.
Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.
[MV] American psycho - 2000
Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.
[MV] ALMOST FAMOUS

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 20:56:10 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] closing pandora's box

> Of course, I respect the opinions of the critics, but I'm talking about
> those, like Chris, who decided to call me an idiot based on the movies I
> like.  Some, might I add, that he hasn't seen.

I wouldn't bet on it. I've suspected for a long time that he reviews movies and
I think he just said so in his last post :)

>  I've said that I respect his
> views on movies, but he needs to respect others' tastes as well.  By calling
> me a moron because I like something he doesn't doesn't exactly earn him my
> respect, but I like that he has, somewhat, apologized for sounding so
> snobbish.
> -Eric-

Yeah, well, I realized I can be quite the snob sometimes.   If you haven't
played the classic Final Fantasy titles on the NES and SNES, then I judge you
differently. Hahahaha.

BTW, FF movie in 1 year.

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: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 21:36:32 -0400
From: Mel Eperthener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] It's the Reasoning methinks...

I have a couple of major points that I am saving up to find the time to
address, but this is a pet peeve of mine, and I would like to attack this
right now:-)

At 11.30 PM 17/09/2000 -0700, Dexter Sy wrote:
>Actually Oz, if that's the best example you can give, then your case has a
major
>flaw.   As we all know, the Ninth Gate bombed at the box office, so did a
great
>many movies that were expected to do well because of star power.  If you're
>following the American film industry, you'll note Keanu Reeve's recent  films
>all did poorly at the box office.

$5.7 million and a number one opening is  poorly??  Geeze, I should do so
badly.

When did it become necessary for a movie to open up with a $10 million
first week-end (quickly turning into a $20 million opening week-end) to be
considered a success??  Like only $8 million is just not good enough.  This
ties into one of the points I am saving up for, namely when a movie makes a
third of it's budget back in the first week-end, who really cares if
word-of-mouth quickly scares everyone away??  Everyone that went the first
week-end already made the film a success.

And, with few exceptions, this is the major difference between our
generation and yours.  We will wait (for the most part) to see a movie to
hear what everyone else thinks (my exception being TPM and Star Trek
movies, as my geek customers will ruin the film for me by noon on Saturday
if I don't go the first Friday), but the young'uns have to rush out the
first week-end.  Heck, how can you value Ebert's opinion, when the show
isn't even on until Sunday (Sunday night here), and everyone saw the movie
Saturday??

The upshot is I see very few movies in the theatre, because by the time I
get around to it, the movie is already planned for video, and likely I have
a promo copy sitting on my desk.

Additionally, concerning Ninth Gate.  Considering that it was an Artisan
release, and likely not advertised as much as say, oh, The Patriot, I think
the studio might feel it was not a complete failure.  And I would go as far
to say that Artisan's definition of success is slightly different than
Paramount's or Warner's or even Buena Vista's.

> Do I need to paint
>Godzilla on my forehead before anyone takes notice that big hollywood
projects
>fail spectacularly.


If you think Godzilla was a failure, I fear we have to redefine success.
The movie made money, the video sold well, a sequel has been discussed.

 This year's spectacular failure is Battlefield Earth  and
>it can be said that the fact that the top grossing film of the year, Mission
>Impossible 2, failed to even breach the 300 million mark domestically is an
>indicment that while it may have attracted huge audiences,  a lot more people
>decided not to see it.

Failed to reach $300 million?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!  Give me a break!!!!!  Guess
what, I failed to reach $300 million last year, too.  Don't hear me crying
about it, do you??

>
>That said, I think there are many more factors that affects a movie's
success.
>The "herding" mentality, as previously noted is a factor.  But let me say
it is
>a factor in everyday life.  It is a proven hypothesis in psychology that
we are
>all wired to follow the group.  Cars drive in packs,

To go off-topic:  Very dangerous.  Driver's Ed 101 says that you should not
drive in a pack, but away from the pack.  Gives you more time to react.
Actually, I can tie this in.  By waiting a few week-ends and not going with
"the sheep", you can have a much better chance of avoiding "disaster" movies.

>  Yes, Godzilla opened big because the marketing, the hype drew
>attention, people wanted to see what is was about, and when the first wave of
>audiences saw it sucked, word of mouth turned against the movie and the
movie's
>box office takes plummeted like a stone.    Conversely, films like the Sixth
>Sense or the Matrix opened modestly, with moderate marketing (the trailers
for
>both movies received little attention and even less hype) but the audiences
>loved it, reviews were generally positive, and they came back for more.

Uh, I can't speak for Sixth Sense, but didn't Matrix open number one??
Same as Godzilla, only the total number of people seeing the movie was
less.  Heck, even The Wonder Boys (which screwed itself in Oscar contention
by opening in January, and thus has a re-release planned.  Hey, I might
actually go see this one!!) opened well, if I recall correctly.  Granted it
didn't do $20 million that first week-end, nor is it threatening to "breach
$300 million", but I think Mr Chabon is likely very happy with the measure
of success it did have.  If it means being a failure in the eyes of your
friends and others of that generation, I doubt he is going to be all that
despondent about it.

And althought there is more I could say, I am saving that for another time.
 And, no, the audience is not always at fault.  I have managed to get many
many people to take and enjoy Deterrence.  And I still maintain it is a
crime that Paramount did not release this movie wider.  Go watch it (if you
can find it) and judge for yourself.

Regards,

- --Mel


- --Mel Eperthener
president, Gowanna Multi-media Pty     http://www.webz.com/gowanna
mailto:[e-mail]                  mailto:[e-mail]

419 Butler Street
PO Box 95184
Pittsburgh, PA 15223-0184
[phone]                                    [phone]
1-888-45-GOWANNA -- TOLL FREE     (1-888-454-6926)
____________________________________________
"Wow! So that is what all that extra space on the movie screen is
 for!" reaction to  "Gladiator"
______________________________________________


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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 21:57:59 -0400
From: Mel Eperthener <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] The Tyranny of the Masses

At 12.35 AM 18/09/2000 -0700, Dexter Sy wrote:
>> just because you're concerned about... tyrants... was
>> that it? We're supposed to embrace awful movies so tyrants don't
>> rise up?
>
>From your readings, I get the impression you would love nothing more than
for every
>movie goer to pick up a review  before going to see a movie and heed its
advice so they
>are never cheated out of their hard earned dollars.  Is this not true?  If
so, what
>does it make critics?  An all powerful class with the power to influence
people's
>viewing habits at your very whim.  That  ironically put critics in the
same position as
>the marketing people, who you claim to have a stranglehold on people's
thoughts, a
>hypothesis I dispute.

Uh, big BIG huge honking difference here.  The marketing shrills are PAID
by the studios.  A good reviewer will be INDEPENDENT of the studio system.
(and this means not believing Ebert when he reviews a Disney movie, sadly).

 (see my e-mail entitled "It's the reasoning methinks") And we
>are not even getting into the issue of critics who may want to  advance a
political,
>social , moral, agenda, and  change  their reviews accordingly to change
public
>perceptions.

Well, gee, then good thing the critics aren't MAKING the bleedin' things,
or they might just have the chance to do that.  This is the danger you are
under currently, and independent critics would PROTECT you from that
BECAUSE they are outside the studio system.

>There is certainly an ideal out there which I share with you that all good
films
>deserves equal viewing, but there are problems.  The Definition of good is
 murky at
>best, and the ideal is nothing more than that, an ideal.  If it were to be
put into
>practice, it becomes very clear that it is nothing short of mind control,
which I'm
>sure you would oppose.  If critics control you movie going habits, what
else can they
>control?  perhaps moving homosexuals into heterosexual movies to try to
change their
>orientaion? Make boys love War and Peace TheMovie so we will have a
generation of
>sensitive men?  You get into the space of social planning in the very vein
of communism
>and totalitarian regimes with your ideal that the movie goers should read
and follow
>the whim of critic.

Again, the critic protects from this.  Don't you think the government is
pushing for this??  Have you read the paper recently??  If critics control
your movie-going habits, at least those habits are removed from the
controll of the studios and the marketing departments.  News flash, this is
a good thing.  And keep the entire government the hell out of the decision,
too.

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]          ]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 21:36:32 -0400
From: Mel Eperthener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] It's the Reasoning methinks...

I have a couple of major points that I am saving up to find the time to
address, but this is a pet peeve of mine, and I would like to attack this
right now:-)

At 11.30 PM 17/09/2000 -0700, Dexter Sy wrote:
>Actually Oz, if that's the best example you can give, then your case has a
major
>flaw.   As we all know, the Ninth Gate bombed at the box office, so did a
great
>many movies that were expected to do well because of star power.  If you're
>following the American film industry, you'll note Keanu Reeve's recent  films
>all did poorly at the box office.

$5.7 million and a number one opening is  poorly??  Geeze, I should do so
badly.

When did it become necessary for a movie to open up with a $10 million
first week-end (quickly turning into a $20 million opening week-end) to be
considered a success??  Like only $8 million is just not good enough.  This
ties into one of the points I am saving up for, namely when a movie makes a
third of it's budget back in the first week-end, who really cares if
word-of-mouth quickly scares everyone away??  Everyone that went the first
week-end already made the film a success.

And, with few exceptions, this is the major difference between our
generation and yours.  We will wait (for the most part) to see a movie to
hear what everyone else thinks (my exception being TPM and Star Trek
movies, as my geek customers will ruin the film for me by noon on Saturday
if I don't go the first Friday), but the young'uns have to rush out the
first week-end.  Heck, how can you value Ebert's opinion, when the show
isn't even on until Sunday (Sunday night here), and everyone saw the movie
Saturday??

The upshot is I see very few movies in the theatre, because by the time I
get around to it, the movie is already planned for video, and likely I have
a promo copy sitting on my desk.

Additionally, concerning Ninth Gate.  Considering that it was an Artisan
release, and likely not advertised as much as say, oh, The Patriot, I think
the studio might feel it was not a complete failure.  And I would go as far
to say that Artisan's definition of success is slightly different than
Paramount's or Warner's or even Buena Vista's.

> Do I need to paint
>Godzilla on my forehead before anyone takes notice that big hollywood
projects
>fail spectacularly.


If you think Godzilla was a failure, I fear we have to redefine success.
The movie made money, the video sold well, a sequel has been discussed.

 This year's spectacular failure is Battlefield Earth  and
>it can be said that the fact that the top grossing film of the year, Mission
>Impossible 2, failed to even breach the 300 million mark domestically is an
>indicment that while it may have attracted huge audiences,  a lot more people
>decided not to see it.

Failed to reach $300 million?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!  Give me a break!!!!!  Guess
what, I failed to reach $300 million last year, too.  Don't hear me crying
about it, do you??

>
>That said, I think there are many more factors that affects a movie's
success.
>The "herding" mentality, as previously noted is a factor.  But let me say
it is
>a factor in everyday life.  It is a proven hypothesis in psychology that
we are
>all wired to follow the group.  Cars drive in packs,

To go off-topic:  Very dangerous.  Driver's Ed 101 says that you should not
drive in a pack, but away from the pack.  Gives you more time to react.
Actually, I can tie this in.  By waiting a few week-ends and not going with
"the sheep", you can have a much better chance of avoiding "disaster" movies.

>  Yes, Godzilla opened big because the marketing, the hype drew
>attention, people wanted to see what is was about, and when the first wave of
>audiences saw it sucked, word of mouth turned against the movie and the
movie's
>box office takes plummeted like a stone.    Conversely, films like the Sixth
>Sense or the Matrix opened modestly, with moderate marketing (the trailers
for
>both movies received little attention and even less hype) but the audiences
>loved it, reviews were generally positive, and they came back for more.

Uh, I can't speak for Sixth Sense, but didn't Matrix open number one??
Same as Godzilla, only the total number of people seeing the movie was
less.  Heck, even The Wonder Boys (which screwed itself in Oscar contention
by opening in January, and thus has a re-release planned.  Hey, I might
actually go see this one!!) opened well, if I recall correctly.  Granted it
didn't do $20 million that first week-end, nor is it threatening to "breach
$300 million", but I think Mr Chabon is likely very happy with the measure
of success it did have.  If it means being a failure in the eyes of your
friends and others of that generation, I doubt he is going to be all that
despondent about it.

And althought there is more I could say, I am saving that for another time.
 And, no, the audience is not always at fault.  I have managed to get many
many people to take and enjoy Deterrence.  And I still maintain it is a
crime that Paramount did not release this movie wider.  Go watch it (if you
can find it) and judge for yourself.

Regards,

- --Mel


- --Mel Eperthener
president, Gowanna Multi-media Pty     http://www.webz.com/gowanna
mailto:[e-mail]                  mailto:[e-mail]

419 Butler Street
PO Box 95184
Pittsburgh, PA 15223-0184
[phone]                                    [phone]
1-888-45-GOWANNA -- TOLL FREE     (1-888-454-6926)
____________________________________________
"Wow! So that is what all that extra space on the movie screen is
 for!" reaction to  "Gladiator"
______________________________________________


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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:08:18 -0400
From: Mel Eperthener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.

At 09.32 AM 18/09/2000 -0700, David F. Nolan wrote:
>I'm curious: how many people are on this discussion list?  The majority of
>postings are from a small handful of people, and I don't think I've seen
>messages from more than 25 people in the last 2-3 months.

Quite common.  Most lists have a active posting rate of less than 10%, vast
majority are lurkers.

Regards,

- --Mel


- --Mel Eperthener
president, Gowanna Multi-media Pty     http://www.webz.com/gowanna
mailto:[e-mail]                  mailto:[e-mail]

419 Butler Street
PO Box 95184
Pittsburgh, PA 15223-0184
[phone]                                    [phone]
1-888-45-GOWANNA -- TOLL FREE     (1-888-454-6926)
____________________________________________
"Wow! So that is what all that extra space on the movie screen is
 for!" reaction to  "Gladiator"
______________________________________________


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

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

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:12:41 -0700
From: Chris Parry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] closing pandora's box

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Of course, I respect the opinions of the critics, but I'm talking about
> those, like Chris, who decided to call me an idiot based on the movies I
> like.  Some, might I add, that he hasn't seen.

If it's been released in the last three years, I've seen it. Sadly,
even Pokemon.

> I've said that I respect his
> views on movies, but he needs to respect others' tastes as well.  By calling
> me a moron because I like something he doesn't doesn't exactly earn him my
> respect, but I like that he has, somewhat, apologized for sounding so
> snobbish.

Wow dude, you really don't know what to do with the hand of peace,
do you?

Try this. Take it, form it into a fist, and stick it where the sun
don't shine. If your taste in films didn't provide abject proof of
your shoe-size-like IQ, your inability to drop swords, shake hands
and move on has.

PS: Cheers Dex, right back at ya.

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]          ]

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

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:35:16 -0400
From: Mel Eperthener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] closing pandora's box

Sorry, I just can't resist.  It's something in my background:-)

At 09.51 PM 18/09/2000 EDT, [e-mail] wrote:
>However, recommend the movies all you want.  The peoples'
>opinions are what matter in the end.
>-Eric-

Eric,

You're starting to sound like a Communist.  You know, those tyrants who run
around and tell people what to think.

Stop it, you're scaring me.

:-)

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]          ]

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

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:51:46 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] closing pandora's box

In a message dated 09/18/2000 10:05:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,=20
[e-mail] writes:

> If it's been released in the last three years, I've seen it. Sadly,
>  even Pokemon.
> =20
As a wise man Obi Wan Kenobi once said, "You're going to find that many=20
things depend greatly on our own point of view."  In my point of view, the=20
"real" Pok=E9mon movies never commercially left Japan.  You had to sit throu=
gh=20
the English versions, which is something I figured, then I really feel for=20
ya.  I didn't like 'em either.

>  Wow dude, you really don't know what to do with the hand of peace,
>  do you?
> =20
>  Try this. Take it, form it into a fist, and stick it where the sun
>  don't shine. If your taste in films didn't provide abject proof of
>  your shoe-size-like IQ, your inability to drop swords, shake hands
>  and move on has.

I was just stating a final opinion on this subject.  I've always respected=20
that you stand up for your beliefs, but not that you call others names.  I=20
understand, from your last post, that your position must be frustrating and=20=
I=20
did misjudge it.  So, if you don't call me a moron anymore for my taste in=20
movies, this discussion is over.  Shake?
- -Eric-

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

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

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:54:54 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] closing pandora's box

In a message dated 09/18/2000 10:44:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

> Eric,
>
>  You're starting to sound like a Communist.  You know, those tyrants who run
>  around and tell people what to think.
>
>  Stop it, you're scaring me.

I recommended forming your own opinions.  Maybe I was a bit more snide than I
meant to be, and, for that, I apologize.  I just hope that we've come to an
understanding and can stop this bickering now.
- -Eric-

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:23:46 -0700
From: "David F. Nolan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Video Pick o' the Week: Groundhog Day

Thanks to Paul Richardson's timely alert, I trekked on over to CompUSA to
check on their selection of $14.88 DVDs.  The pickings were pretty slim, but
I did find a copy of "Groundhog Day," which I thoroughly enjoyed when it
came out in 1993.  This is at least a near-great movie (4.5 stars out of 5),
which I highly recommend to everyone. Interesting premise, perfectly
constructed, great pacing, wonderful performance by Bill Murray (perhaps his
best ever) and just all-around fun! (Clean, too, if you care about such
things.)   I'd rank it in the top 25 out of the 1,000+ movies I've seen in
my lifetime -- easily on a par with the more widely acclaimed "It's A
Wonderful Life."  If you haven't seen it, do so!


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

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

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 02:14:06 -0400
From: Mel Eperthener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] closing pandora's box

At 01.54 AM 19/09/2000 EDT, [e-mail] wrote:
>I recommended forming your own opinions.  Maybe I was a bit more snide
than I
>meant to be, and, for that, I apologize.  I just hope that we've come to an
>understanding and can stop this bickering now.

Who's bickering??  I am quite enjoying this back-and-forth.  And in this
instance, I was just pointing out the irony of decrying tyranny and
communism, then calling for the "power of the people", the Communist
mantra.  IE, it's a joke, laugh a little:-)

As for forming my own opinions, well, not to toot my own horn, but my major
was International Business and my senior thesis was on the true nature of
Communism.  Most Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that
"Commies" are bad, not realising that much of the best parts of democracy
form in Communist Ideals, and fail to realise that Communism is an economic
system and not a political one.

For this reason the enemy of Democracy is Communism, but the Russians know
that the real enemy of Communism is Capitalism.  And seeing as you aren't
going to go to the polls in a few months and vote Capitalist Party, I hope
you can see where this is going.

And before you get the idea that I am some sort of left-wing nutjob, you
need to understand that I am a businessman and an unabashed right-wing Alex
P Keaton capital C Capitalist.  My senior thesis was in the spirit of "only
Nixon could go to China".  Only someone as firmly beholden to the Market
Economy as I am could delve into the true nature of Communism.

Regards,

- --Mel


- --Mel Eperthener
president, Gowanna Multi-media Pty     http://www.webz.com/gowanna
mailto:[e-mail]                  mailto:[e-mail]

419 Butler Street
PO Box 95184
Pittsburgh, PA 15223-0184
[phone]                                    [phone]
1-888-45-GOWANNA -- TOLL FREE     (1-888-454-6926)
____________________________________________
"Wow! So that is what all that extra space on the movie screen is
 for!" reaction to  "Gladiator"
______________________________________________


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

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

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:36:11 EDT
From: "Jed Cross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.

Quite common.  Most lists have a active posting rate of less than 10%, vast
majority are lurkers.

Regards,

- --Mel

My mailing list, only about 5 people post on 28.View it's archive here
http://www.escribe.com/games/gamerelated

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

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.


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

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

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:37:19 -0400
From: Gene Ehrich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.

At 06:36 PM 9/19/00 -0400, you wrote:

>Quite common.  Most lists have a active posting rate of less than 10%, vast
>majority are lurkers.

How come the majority of posts on this mailing list have nothing to do with
movies?



=================================
Gene Ehrich
[e-mail]
[e-mail]


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

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

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:32:58 EDT
From: "Jed Cross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.

How come the majority of posts on this mailing list have nothing to do with
movies?


You know what, the owner of this list owns the N64 list too, and we are not
allowed to talk about anything else but N64, or else we get booted off for a
week. I wonder why it's not the same on this list, well not n64, movies?

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

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.


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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:26:31 +0100
From: MARK <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] SNATCH - ubermesiterpiece or more of the same?

This will probably only appeal to other brits on the list, but for those
of you who have seen SNATCH - Guy Ritchies follow-up to LOCK,
STOCK......., what are your thoughts on this.

Did you revel in it's stylishness, or was it too flashy for its own
good?
Was it's plot intriguing or just more of the same?
Will it do as well as LOCK, STOCK..., moreso, does it deserve to?

One thing that is undeniable is Brad Pitt's performance, surely a movie
making character if ever there was one.


DISCUSS



MARK

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

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

Date: 20 Sep 00 11:53:59 +0100
From: "Source - Richard" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] SNATCH - ubermesiterpiece or more of the same?

I certainly found Snatch to be much more enjoyable than Lock,Stock. The
varied characters, accents, locations etc. made it more interesting and
easy to watch. It certainly felt more professional than the amateurism of
Lock, Stock which became quite grating at times. The acting also is far
better and i must agree with you about Brad Pitt - with this and Fight Club he
is surely proving he's more than just a pitty face!

Saying that, i have never thought Guy Ritchie to be the saviour of UK
film and was disappionted in Lock, Stock upon release. I also think it has
faded with time and have no inclination to sit through either film again.

One things for sure - Ritchie could never get away with making another
film in this style. Enoughs enough.

MARK wrote:
>This will probably only appeal to other brits on the list, but for those
>of you who have seen SNATCH - Guy Ritchies follow-up to LOCK,
>STOCK......., what are your thoughts on this.
>
>Did you revel in it's stylishness, or was it too flashy for its own
>good?
>Was it's plot intriguing or just more of the same?
>Will it do as well as LOCK, STOCK..., moreso, does it deserve to?
>
>One thing that is undeniable is Brad Pitt's performance, surely a movie
>making character if ever there was one.
>
>
>DISCUSS
>
>
>
>MARK
>
>[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
>[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>Received: from lists.xmission.com ([198.60.22.7]) by
zag.workstation.org.uk
>          (Netscape Messaging Server 3.5)  with ESMTP id 2997
>          for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:02:43
+0100
>Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 2.12 #2)
>    id 13bgig-0002OJ-00
>    for [e-mail]; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 04:03:14 -0600
>Received: from [195.166.128.23] (helo=merlins.force9.net)
>    by lists.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
>    id 13bgie-0002OE-00
>    for [e-mail]; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 04:03:12 -0600
>Received: (qmail 7336 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2000 10:04:11 -0000
>Received: from relay5.force9.net (HELO autoturn.plus.net.uk)
(195.166.128.22)
>  by merlins.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 20 Sep 2000 10:04:11 -0000
>Received: (qmail 19967 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2000 09:56:33 -0000
>Received: from zippack.force9.co.uk (HELO SERVERA.ZIPPACK.CO.UK)
>(195.166.136.140)
>  by relay5.force9.net with SMTP; 20 Sep 2000 09:56:33 -0000
>Received: by SERVERA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
>    id <S2H6RWFQ>; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:26:32 +0100
>Message-ID: <8177A6A8FD17D21182BE0080C8470DA7071075@SERVERA>
>From: MARK <[e-mail]>
>To: "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: [MV] SNATCH - ubermesiterpiece or more of the same?
>Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:26:31 +0100
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Sender: [e-mail]
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>


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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:04:42 -0700
From: Chris Parry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] SNATCH - ubermesiterpiece or more of the same?

Dude, I saw Snatch a few weeks back and it buzzed the heck out of
me. Yes, it's Lock Stock 2. Yes, it uses all the same old themes as
the previous. But hell, if you're going to rework a theme, what
better theme to rework but Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels?
For mine, Snatch is as good as the genre of British gangster
comedies will ever get. Ritchie's direction (or is it his editors
editing) is dynamite, and you're correct, Brad Pitt is funnier than
I've ever seen him. He takes the film far past what Lock Stock was.
I'm gonna be a tyrant here. Everyone, when Snatch opens near you,
buy a ticket. Buy six. Or I shall take your children and donate them
to science.

OZ
MARK wrote:
>
> This will probably only appeal to other brits on the list, but for those
> of you who have seen SNATCH - Guy Ritchies follow-up to LOCK,
> STOCK......., what are your thoughts on this.
>
> Did you revel in it's stylishness, or was it too flashy for its own
> good?
> Was it's plot intriguing or just more of the same?
> Will it do as well as LOCK, STOCK..., moreso, does it deserve to?
>
> One thing that is undeniable is Brad Pitt's performance, surely a movie
> making character if ever there was one.
>
> DISCUSS
>
> MARK
>
> [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
> [ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

- --
Kind regards,
Chris Parry

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]          ]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:09:21 -0700
From: Chris Parry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] SNATCH - ubermesiterpiece or more of the same?

Source - Richard wrote:
>
> One things for sure - Ritchie could never get away with making another
> film in this style. Enoughs enough.

A colleague just interviewed him and he said he'd written Snatch
before he wrote Lock Stock, as kind of a rough draft, but Lock Stock
got the funding. Then after Lock Stock the moneymen gave him freedom
to do what he liked, so he went back to the old script. Seems he
wants to do something completely different next, which is good. I
agree with you, a third one would just be too much.

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]          ]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:03:30 +0100
From: MARK <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] SNATCH - ubermesiterpiece or more of the same?

Even better, if they don't buy six tickets, I'll take their children and
show them my "FACKING PIGS!!"

> -----Original Message-----
> From:    Chris Parry [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent:    21 September 2000 06:05
> To:    [e-mail]
> Subject:    Re: [MV] SNATCH - ubermesiterpiece or more of the same?
>
> Dude, I saw Snatch a few weeks back and it buzzed the heck out of
> me. Yes, it's Lock Stock 2. Yes, it uses all the same old themes as
> the previous. But hell, if you're going to rework a theme, what
> better theme to rework but Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels?
> For mine, Snatch is as good as the genre of British gangster
> comedies will ever get. Ritchie's direction (or is it his editors
> editing) is dynamite, and you're correct, Brad Pitt is funnier than
> I've ever seen him. He takes the film far past what Lock Stock was.
> I'm gonna be a tyrant here. Everyone, when Snatch opens near you,
> buy a ticket. Buy six. Or I shall take your children and donate them
> to science.
>
> OZ
> MARK wrote:
> >
> > This will probably only appeal to other brits on the list, but for
> those
> > of you who have seen SNATCH - Guy Ritchies follow-up to LOCK,
> > STOCK......., what are your thoughts on this.
> >
> > Did you revel in it's stylishness, or was it too flashy for its own
> > good?
> > Was it's plot intriguing or just more of the same?
> > Will it do as well as LOCK, STOCK..., moreso, does it deserve to?
> >
> > One thing that is undeniable is Brad Pitt's performance, surely a
> movie
> > making character if ever there was one.
> >
> > DISCUSS
> >
> > MARK
> >
> > [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
> > [ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Chris Parry
>
> 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]          ]

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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:16:24 +0100
From: MARK <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Blue Man Group - O.T.

    Sorry to go off topic for a little bit, but I've just returned
from a trip to the States where I saw Blue Man Group in Vegas.  I can
remember a short while ago someone asking whether the show was any good
and should they go and see it.  Well I'll tell ya it was AWESOME, truly
the most wonderful visual and aural experience ever, hilarious and
ingenious.  If you get the chance, buy steal, beg or kill for tickets,
it's that good.


    MARK

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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vi On <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.

> How come the majority of posts on this mailing list have nothing to do with
> movies?


It's quite common for most lists to have 30% off topic posts.
It keeps the list active.   :)

There's less rules on this list because the majority are over 24 while
on the n64 list, the majority are under 24 years old.
You will still be kicked off this list if you post profanity, spam, too
many off topic posts.

- -Vi


> At 06:36 PM 9/19/00 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >Quite common.  Most lists have a active posting rate of less than 10%, vast
> >majority are lurkers.
>
>


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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:21:35 EDT
From: "Marc Desbiens" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] American psycho - 2000

Hi !

I had high hopes for this film and it certainly delivered nicely.  4/5 is my
score so it will probably make it in my "Top 10" list for the year 2000 as
well.  I can see how some people might hate it with a passion though because
this film is disturbing and wouldn't appeal to everybody.

Of course this film is based on a book that was very controversial, just
like the movie.  I haven't read it but maybe the book was about a guy that
just simply killed because he was psychotic ... the film is not so clear cut
especially because of the ending that makes
you wonder big time about everything you have just seen.

The film is a cynical look at what we all strived to be in the 80's and
perhaps what we all still want to be in the new millenium.

Christian Bale plays Patrick Bateman, a 27 year old yuppie that has it all,
working at some synthetic job in some building on Wall Street.  Apparently
he is not so busy because he spends a lot of time going to lunch, listening
to music and making little doodles.  He is also a crazy serial killer, hence
the title !  We basically follow this character around, examining his life,
the people he meets ... etc.

He takes pride in everything that he does though.  Everything from his outer
appearance to the look of his
business cards.  Everything is a trophy to him and to the people that
inhabit his world, and he feels comfortable among his peers.

In one of the best scenes in the film, Bale is dragging a dead body to his
car, with a train line of blood stains left behind by the body.  One of his
friends sees him on the street just as he is getting out of the building, he
says in shock as he is loading the body bag into the car, " Oh my gosh!
Where did you get that designer bag? "  not even wondering what could be in
the "bloody" bag itself. People see what they want to see and this time
in our history was perhaps the worst for it.

The characters in this movie, while important in their own worlds, are
merely just another face in the crowd that no one seems to really care
about.  Paul Allen, one of Bateman's friend, may as well be a bum in an
alley, that is how much fuss is created when he disappears.

This is a world that can drive people mad just because someone elses
business card has the perception of being nicer than the other guys, sounds
like a TRAGEDY ??  To these characters, IT IS !  So is not being able to get
a reservation at a restaurant (I love the scene where Bale is on the phone
and pretends he is able to get a reservation just to impress his secretary
who is standing in front of him ...)

Christian Bale gives a brilliant performance that should get an Oscar
nomination, but can the ACADEMY do this ?? This is such a "nasty" film ??
At first I couldn't understand why the actor chose to play the character
this way, but fifteen minutes later you do understand.  This performance is
one that should not be forgotten. He looks great on the outside but to
paraphrase a line that he uses in the film " I have all the traits of a
normal human being, but there simply is nothing going on upstairs. "

"American Psycho" is a sick, twisted, hilarious film.
It is original and it will make you think long after you have left the
theater. The acting and dialogues are top notch and the cast includes Reese
Witherspoon as Bale's girlfriend (Good performance but I would have liked to
have seen more of her !) Chloe Sevigny as Bale's secretary is also terrific
of course.  Willem Dafoe has some nice scenes as a private investigator
hired to find out what happened to one of Bale's victims ...

There is no clear conclusion to the film.  You can
interpret it two ways.  Both ways make sense to me and maybe they are both
right, depending on how you look at the movie and the main character.  This
film will challenge your thinking, and that is always a positive
thing.  But other than that, it is a damn fine film and one of the best
films so far in this young millenium!

It is very well made technically and some parts reminded me of "Eyes wide
shut" & "A clockwork orange" as well ...
Excellent but some parts are indeed SHOCKING ...

4/5

Marc     ;o)

- ---------------------------------------------------------
Customer : "You know what ?? I saw on television the other
day how over there in China they all want to eat macaroni
and cheese ... don't you find it kind of odd ??  I mean
with all the chinese food they got ..."

Barber : "Yeah, well I didn't hear about that ... I must
have missed that program ..."

John Doe as "The customer"
Steve Buscemi as "Charlie-the-Barber"
"Mystery train" - 1989 - 3.5/5
- --------------------------------------------------------










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

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.


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

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

Date: 20 Sep 00 17:21:15 +0100
From: "Source - Richard" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.

So basically we are all currently contributing to the 30%!

Vi On wrote:
>
>> How come the majority of posts on this mailing list have nothing to do
with
>> movies?
>
>
>It's quite common for most lists to have 30% off topic posts.
>It keeps the list active.   :)
>
>There's less rules on this list because the majority are over 24 while
>on the n64 list, the majority are under 24 years old.
>You will still be kicked off this list if you post profanity, spam, too
>many off topic posts.
>
>-Vi
>
>
>> At 06:36 PM 9/19/00 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>> >Quite common.  Most lists have a active posting rate of less than
10%, vast
>> >majority are lurkers.
>>
>>
>
>
>[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
>[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>Received: from lists.xmission.com ([198.60.22.7]) by
zag.workstation.org.uk
>          (Netscape Messaging Server 3.5)  with ESMTP id 3191
>          for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:06:51
+0100
>Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 2.12 #2)
>    id 13bmOu-0003da-00
>    for [e-mail]; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:07:12 -0600
>Received: from [128.197.10.2] (helo=cs.bu.edu ident=root)
>    by lists.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
>    id 13bmOs-0003dV-00
>    for [e-mail]; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:07:10 -0600
>Received: from csa.bu.edu (vi@csa [128.197.12.3])
>    by cs.bu.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e8KG72j19274
>    for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:07:03 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from localhost (vi@localhost)
>    by csa.bu.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e8KG6wQ07164
>    for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:06:59 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Authentication-Warning: csa.bu.edu: vi owned process doing -bs
>Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Vi On <[e-mail]>
>X-Sender: [e-mail]
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [MV] How many people on this list?.
>In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000919213622.00b2da10@pop-server>
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>Sender: [e-mail]
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>


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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:10:00 -0600
From: ("Paul D  Richardson") <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] ALMOST FAMOUS

Whenever I go out to breakfast and order flapjacks, I'm always careful no=
t to
put too much syrup on them.  For me, too much sweetness ruins the meal.  =
On
the other hand, frequently I eat with friends or colleagues who drown the=
ir
flapjacks in syrup to the extent that they could be eating cardboard and
wouldn't notice.  In the past, watching a Cameron Crowe film has been lik=
e
eating flapjacks with one of these friends.  Crowe starts with a great re=
cipe
(SAY ANYTHING, JERRY MAGUIRE) but covers it all up with sugary syrup ("In=
 Your
Eyes," "You had me at 'Hello,'" etc).

In ALMOST FAMOUS, Crowe holds back a bit on the syrup and as a result all=
ows a
good film not to be overpowered by cheap melodrama.  The story is the
semi-autobiographical tale of William Miller, a 15-year old writer for Ro=
lling
Stone (Patrick Fugit) who spends time with the fictional band Stillwater =
who
is on the brink of becoming big.  He faces a challenge between being a fa=
n and
glamorizing the band in his article, and being a journalist who is able t=
o
objectively write about what he sees and experiences.

Along the way he befriends Russell Hammond (Billy Crudup whose career so =
far
could be described as "almost famous"), the bands lead guitarist who is
clearly better than the rest of the band.  He also falls for Penny Lane (=
Kate
Hudson), a groupie who uses the band to create a fantasy world for hersel=
f in
which to escape reality.  Like in any of Crowe's films, these relationshi=
ps
are much more complex than appears on the surface, and these three charac=
ters
and their interactions with each other truly drive the film.

The rest of the cast is great: Crowe has populated his film with real
characters, rather than stock figures used for background effect.  These
include Frances McDormand as William's overbearing (but surprisingly tole=
rant)
mother, an unrecognizable Noah Taylor (THE YEAR MY VOICE BROKE) as the ba=
nd's
manager, Fairuza Balk as a groupie and the always-reliable Jason Lee (CHA=
SING
AMY) as the band's lead singer who is uncomfortable taking a back seat to=
 the
lead guitarist.  Anna Paquin is perhaps the only wasted actor, playing a
one-note groupie.  The best performance in the film comes from Philip Sey=
mour
Hoffman, who plays rock journalist Lester Bangs, William's mentor.  Hoffm=
an's
role is not very large, but he completely takes over the screen whenever =
he
appears.  It's a great performance, and one that I hope is remembered com=
e
awards time.

A lot of the hype surrounding the movie is in regards to Kate Hudson, but=
 the
real find is Patrick Fugit.  William Miller is a complex character who is
smart, somewhat na=EFve, but ultimately very strong.  Fugit manages to co=
mbine
all of these traits and still play a character who is realistically portr=
ayed
for his age.  I wanted to make sure to single his performance out, as he
manages to carry the entire film without missing a beat.

The film has a few missteps, including a few moments that slip into Spina=
l Tap
absurdity (including one very contrived scene on an airplane).  Crowe com=
es
very close to pouring on too much syrup a few times, in particular regard=
ing
William's relationship with Penny.  Thankfully, it never gets to be too m=
uch.
Crowe seems to be gradually learning that keeping things real is ultimate=
ly a
better choice than going for the obvious and "cute."

Overall, ALMOST FAMOUS is very enjoyable.  I enjoyed spending time with t=
he
characters, and I think you will too.  Highly recommended.

ALMOST FAMOUS opens wide on Friday.

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

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

End of movies-digest V2 #293
****************************

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