ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/movies/archive/v02.n297

Internet Message Format | 2000-10-08 | 52KB

From: [e-mail] (movies-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: movies-digest V2 #297
Reply-To: movies-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


movies-digest         Monday, October 9 2000         Volume 02 : Number 297



[MV] RE: Movie Times and Psycho
[MV] RE: Movie Times and Psycho
[MV] Re: [MovieReview] RE: Movie Times and Psycho
[MV] Chazz Palminteri + Favorite actors.
RE: [MV] Chazz Palminteri + Favorite actors.
RE: [MV] Chazz Palminteri + Favorite actors.
[MV] Bond films ... The **final** list !
Re: [MV] Bond films ... The **final** list !
Re: [MV] Bond films ... The **final** list !
Re: [MV] Bond films ... The **final** list !
Re: [MV] Bond films ... The **final** list !
Re: [MV] Bond films ... The **final** list !
Re: [MV] Bond films ... The **final** list !
Re: [MV] Bond films ... The **final** list !
[MV] Hollow Man / Low & High budget films.
Re: [MV] Hollow Man / Low & High budget films.
Re: [MV] Hollow Man / Low & High budget films.
Re: [MV] Hollow Man / Low & High budget films.
Re: [MV] Hollow Man / Low & High budget films.
RE: [MV] RE: Movie Times and Psycho
RE: [MV] Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:55:29 -0400
[MV] Re: Hollow Man / Low & High
[MV] RE: Movie Times and Psycho
RE: [MV] RE: Movie Times and Psycho
[MV] MEET THE PARENTS/TAO OF STEVE
[MV] RE: Movie Times and Psycho
Re: [MV] Re: TMP

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

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:59:00 -0600
From: ("Paul D  Richardson") <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] RE: Movie Times and Psycho

> I saw some comments about Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960)and how Mr.
> Hitchcock was telling in the ads that people should definitely show up on
> time for that one (I recall in a documentary about Hitch seeing an ad where
> he was pointing to his watch and there was a message that basically said
> that !)... suggesting it would be good to arrive on time and not later when
> the movie is nearly  half over ... he was also to keep the ending a secret
> of course, that was the first "SPOILER ALERT"  hehe  !

Actually, it was much more than a suggestion.  The slogan for the film was
"Nobody will be admitted after the feature has begun" (something like that).
The studio made a big deal about it and even hired Pinkerton guards at some
theaters to enforce the policy.  It was all a marketing gimmick, of course.
Also note that it was hardly the first film with a twist that could be spoiled.

> It was just expected to go in and sit there whenever you felt like it in
> those days !!

I still say that's nuts.

> Also a lot of people were unhappy that Janet Leigh was killed
> so they were walking out, thinking ... "Oh why sit through the rest of the
> film, the "star" is gone" ... rather intriguing !

Based on everything I've read and everyone I've talked too, this simply didn't
happen.  For one thing, it was obvious from the opening credits that Leigh
wasn't the star (she's listed last: "And Janet Leigh as Marian Crane").  Note
that Leigh was not exactly a huge name either.  Certainly, people were
surprised, but they weren't walking out en masse.  If that were true the film
would never have become such a runaway hit.

> At least in those days there were no cell phones and people making fun of
> the possessed girl in the Exorcist for example, laughing out loud, getting
> into fights, etc. ...

Yeah, but people were coming and going at will, which I imagine is still
pretty distracting.

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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:38:00 -0600
From: ("Paul D  Richardson") <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] RE: Movie Times and Psycho

> Sorry but the last person listed in the credits is often a pretty big
> star, someone you can recognize ... people were shocked when she was killed
> in the movie as they were expecting to see her for the entire time ...

Name one movie where a big star has been listed in the end of the credits AND
been the main character.  It just doesn't happen.  When a name star is at the
end of the credits, they are always playing a smaller role.  Besides, people
weren't going to see PSYCHO to see Janet Leigh.  They were going to see the
latest Hitchcock film.  Indeed, I would argue that Hitchcock is the only
director in history (with the possible exception of Steven Spielberg) where
the mainstream public went to see the films for the director rather than the
actors.

In fact, last year a film came out that had the biggest star listed last with
the "And So-and-So" credit, just like Leigh in PSYCHO.  That star was bigger
(much bigger) in 1999 than Leigh was in 1960.  Also, like in PSYCHO, that
star's character got killed early on in a surprising way.  Yet nobody walked
out then saying "I can't believe they got rid of so-and-so!"

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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:53:48 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: [MV] Re: [MovieReview] RE: Movie Times and Psycho

In a message dated 10/05/2000 10:25:18 AM Central Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< Based on everything I've read and everyone I've talked too, this simply
didn't
 happen.  For one thing, it was obvious from the opening credits that Leigh
 wasn't the star (she's listed last: "And Janet Leigh as Marian Crane"). >>

Not  true. At the time of the film's release, Janet Leigh was promoted as the
star of the film. It was done on purpose by Hitchcock because everyone knows
the star of the movie doesn't get killed halfway through the film. It has
only been later, when everyone knows about the shower scene, that Janet
Leigh's credit listing was changed.
   But I saw "Psycho" the say it opened I can tell you I was shocked and
suprised when Janet Leigh was killed because I was as conditioned as everyone
that the star doesn't die that quickly.

 <<Note
 that Leigh was not exactly a huge name either.>>
Yes, at this time, compared to the other people in the film, Janet Leigh was
a very big name, not so much for her movie career, but for her private life.
If you weren't around then, you didn't know that the movie industry was
publicized a lot differently than it is today. There was a definite star
"system" and the studios promoted these stars through all kinds of movie
magazines. The love affair and subsequent marriage of two screen "stars"--in
this case, Janet Leigh and Tony Curtis--was a very big deal.

<<  Certainly, people were
 surprised, but they weren't walking out en masse.  If that were true the film
 would never have become such a runaway hit. >>
No one walked out of the film. In fact, just the opposite. The killing of
Janet Leigh's character kept people nailed to their seats to see what in the
hell was going to happen next.
You also had to place the film in the context of the times. Look at
Hitchcock's films just prior to "Psycho"--all nice color jobs with
established stars like James Stewart and Cary Grant and Grace Kelly and Kim
Novak.
  Then along comes what appears to be this cheapie black and white job and
the only star of note in the entire film is Janet Leigh. At the time, it was
very different, radical and came as a jolt. It's too bad that people today
can't see that film in its original context.


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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 12:38:02 EDT
From: "Marc Desbiens" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Chazz Palminteri + Favorite actors.

Hi !

I think Mr. Palminteri is a pretty good actor (He showed that in movies like
"A Bronx Tale" "Hurlyburly" "Bullets over Broadway" "the usual suspects")
and I think he appeared it pretty good films overall too, although he could
have done better picking his roles in my opinion.

I wouldn't go out of my way to see a film just because he is in the cast
though but I like him a lot !

Any actors or actresses you would see basically anything they appeared in no
matter what ??  I really like Ms. Emily Watson myself ... and Robert De Niro
of course ... these are the two names that I think of first.  Then there
would be Christina Ricci, Reese Witherspoon, Edward Norton ... etc.

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

Chazz Palminteri films I have seen, by order of preference.

- - A Bronx tale - 1993 - 4/5

- - The usual suspects - 1995 - 3.5/5
- - Analyze this - 1999 - 3.5/5

- - Hurlyburly - 1998 - 3/5
- - Bullets over Broadway - 1994 - 3/5
- - Diabolique - 1996 - 3/5
- - Scar city - 1998 - 3/5

- - Mulholland falls - 1996 - 2.5/5
- - Jade - 1995 - 2.5/5

- - Stuart Little (voice) - 1999 - 2.5/5  (Only saw this one because I was at
my brother-in-law's place and he happened to rent it for his nieces and
nephews ... of course once the movie started, the "miniatures" weren't too
interested and went to bed while all the grown-ups gathered and watched the
film together !)

- - Innocent blood - 1992 - 2.5/5
- - Excellent cadavers - 1999 - 2/5

Marc     ;o)

- ------------------------------------------------------
"The maple syrup is supposed to be on the table
before the pancakes ..."

Dustin Hoffman as "Raymond"
"Rain man" - 1988 - 4/5
- -----------------------------------------------------










_________________________________________________________________________
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: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:06:24 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [MV] Chazz Palminteri + Favorite actors.

What a great question Marc! Myself, I would see anything with Al Pacino. I
had a hard time with Devil's Advocate but no other big dissapointments come
to mind. I read somewhere that he is creating a computer generated actress
for an upcoming role?
I realize that actors must put food on the table like the rest of us but it
makes me crazy when an actor like Christopher Walken participates in such
garbage as Blast from the Past.


- -----Original Message-----
From: Marc Desbiens [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 11:38 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [MV] Chazz Palminteri + Favorite actors.



Hi !

I think Mr. Palminteri is a pretty good actor (He showed that in movies like

"A Bronx Tale" "Hurlyburly" "Bullets over Broadway" "the usual suspects")
and I think he appeared it pretty good films overall too, although he could
have done better picking his roles in my opinion.

I wouldn't go out of my way to see a film just because he is in the cast
though but I like him a lot !

Any actors or actresses you would see basically anything they appeared in no

matter what ??  I really like Ms. Emily Watson myself ... and Robert De Niro

of course ... these are the two names that I think of first.  Then there
would be Christina Ricci, Reese Witherspoon, Edward Norton ... etc.

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

Chazz Palminteri films I have seen, by order of preference.

- - A Bronx tale - 1993 - 4/5

- - The usual suspects - 1995 - 3.5/5
- - Analyze this - 1999 - 3.5/5

- - Hurlyburly - 1998 - 3/5
- - Bullets over Broadway - 1994 - 3/5
- - Diabolique - 1996 - 3/5
- - Scar city - 1998 - 3/5

- - Mulholland falls - 1996 - 2.5/5
- - Jade - 1995 - 2.5/5

- - Stuart Little (voice) - 1999 - 2.5/5  (Only saw this one because I was at
my brother-in-law's place and he happened to rent it for his nieces and
nephews ... of course once the movie started, the "miniatures" weren't too
interested and went to bed while all the grown-ups gathered and watched the
film together !)

- - Innocent blood - 1992 - 2.5/5
- - Excellent cadavers - 1999 - 2/5

Marc     ;o)

- ------------------------------------------------------
"The maple syrup is supposed to be on the table
before the pancakes ..."

Dustin Hoffman as "Raymond"
"Rain man" - 1988 - 4/5
- -----------------------------------------------------










_________________________________________________________________________
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]          ]

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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 21:00:04 -0400
From: Mel Eperthener <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] Chazz Palminteri + Favorite actors.

At 12.06 PM 06/10/2000 -0500, [e-mail] wrote:
>What a great question Marc! Myself, I would see anything with Al Pacino.

Pacino could read the phone book, and it would be worth seeing.

>I realize that actors must put food on the table like the rest of us but it
>makes me crazy when an actor like Christopher Walken participates in such
>garbage as Blast from the Past.

I have to disagree here.  I actually thought Blast from the Past was
watchable.  Definately the best movie Brendan Fraser ever did (although I
have not yet seen Gods and Monsters)  The irony of that statement is
forthcoming.  (Comparing actor's movies)

>From: Marc Desbiens [mailto:[e-mail]]
>I think Mr. Palminteri is a pretty good actor (He showed that in movies like
>
>"A Bronx Tale" "Hurlyburly" "Bullets over Broadway" "the usual suspects")
>and I think he appeared it pretty good films overall too, although he could
>have done better picking his roles in my opinion.
>
>I wouldn't go out of my way to see a film just because he is in the cast
>though but I like him a lot !
>
>Any actors or actresses you would see basically anything they appeared in no
>
>matter what ??

I'd have to say Kevin Spacey is the best out there right now.  The Usual
Suspects, Hurlyburly (both he shared with Palminteri - Hurlyburly works
best if you remember it is a stage play set to film), The Negotiator,
American Beauty, not a bad one in the bunch.

I'd consider Fraser the anti-Spacey, tho.  And that ties into what I am
telling my customers.

Spacey's newest movie, The Big Kahuna, is very likely the WORST movie he
ever made.  And it is STILL better than 99% of all movies out there:-)

Compare Blast from the Past, Fraser's best movie, with Big Kahuna, Spacey's
worse movie.  I don't think I have to tell you which I'd rather watch:-)

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: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 03:45:01 EDT
From: "Marc Desbiens" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Bond films ... The **final** list !

Ok, here are the Bond films I have seen by order of preference ... The only
one I haven't seen yet is "Never say never again" ... which is a remake of
"Thunderball" to which I gave 3.5/5 so I assume I would like that one as
well !  that would make it 13 Bond films out of 20 that I rank at 3/5 or
more  (65%)  Pretty good, although I haven't like any of them enough to go
as high as 4/5.

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

1- The spy who loved me - 1977 - 3.5/5   Moore

2- For your eyes only - 1981 - 3.5/5  Moore

3- Goldeneye - 1995 - 3.5/5  Brosnan

4- Thunderball - 1965 - 3.5/5  Connery

5- You only live twice - 1967 - 3.5/5   Connery

6- The living daylights - 1987 - 3.5/5   Dalton

7- Octopussy - 1983 - 3/5   Moore

8- Goldfinger - 1964 - 3/5   Connery

9- License to kill - 1989 - 3/5    Dalton

10-The world is not enough - 1999 - 3/5   Brosnan

11-Tomorrow never dies - 1997 - 3/5   Brosnan

12-A view to a kill - 1985 - 3/5    Moore

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

13-The man with the golden gun - 1975 - 2.5/5   Moore

14-Dr. No - 1962 - 2/5   Connery

15-Moonraker - 1979 - 2/5   Moore

16-Live and let die - 1973 - 2/5   Moore

17-From Russia with Love - 1963 - 1.5/5   Connery

18-Diamonds are forever - 1971 - 1.5/5    Connery

19-On her majesty's secret service - 1969 - 1/5   Lazenby
(Note : I only saw the first hour though ... I should see entirely in a
little while, 1/5 for the moment.)

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

Ratings : Moore films
- ----------------------

3.5 - 3.5 - 3 - 3 - 2.5 - 2 - 2
Average : 2.8/5


Ratings : Connery films
- -----------------------

3.5 - 3.5 - 3 - 2 - 1.5 - 1.5
Average : 2.5/5


This doesn't mean I think Moore is a better actor than Connery ... But on
average, I gave slightly better ratings to the Moore films.  Connery is
certainly a very good James Bond indeed, how can he be in a really good Bond
film like "Thunderball" and in a really bad one like "Diamonds are forever"
though ??  Lacks "consistancy" !  ;o)


Bond films from the '60s
- ------------------------

3.5 - 3.5 - 3 - 2 - 1.5 - 1
Average : 2.4/5


Bond films from the '70s
- ------------------------

3.5 - 2.5 - 2 - 2
Average : 2.5/5


Bond films from the '80s
- ------------------------

3.5 - 3.5 - 3 - 3 - 3
Average : 3.2/5


Bond films from the '90s
- ------------------------

3.5 - 3 - 3
Average : 3.1/5


Not a surprise here as I gave higher ratings on average to the more "modern"
films from the '80s and '90s ...
I think those from the '60s were not so bad though even if on average they
get the lowest scores... that 1/5 from "On her majesty's secret service" is
certainly not helping, without that low score the films from the
60's would be higher than the films from the 70's !


Top 3 Moore films  (A bit on the "silly" side often but since I grew up in
the late 70's and early 80's I am rather fond of his films !)  I must have
seen "For your eyes only" 367 times in the early 80's (Exaggerating for
effect !)
- -----------------------------------------------------

The spy who loved me - 1977 - 3.5/5
For your eyes only - 1981 - 3.5/5
Octopussy - 1983 - 3/5


Top 3 Connery films  (Love his "Cat-like" walk, but I don't like "Dr. No" of
"From Russia with love" as much
as most people ...)
- -----------------------------------------------------

Thunderball - 1965 - 3.5/5
You only live twice - 1967 - 3.5/5
Goldfinger - 1964 - 3/5


Favorite title songs : Random order
- -----------------------------------

For your eyes only - 1981
Live and let die - 1973
Thunderball - 1965
Goldeneye - 1995
Goldfinger - 1964
Title song from "You only live twice" - 1967


Favorite Villains
- ---------------------
Auric Goldfinger (Goldfinger)
Ernst Blofeld (Donald Pleasance, You only live twice)


Favorite Bond girls  : Random order
- --------------------

Barbara Bach from "The spy who loved me" (Major Amorosova)

Akiko Wakabayashi from "You only live twice"

Honor Blackman from "Goldfinger"  (Pussy Galore !)

Michelle Yeoh from "Tomorrow never dies"  (Wai lin)


Scariest moment
- ----------------

- - When Bond strapped to the table as that laser is slowly approaching the
"Crown jewels" in "Goldfinger" ...


Best line by a VILLAIN
- -----------------------

Bond : "Do you expect me to talk ?"
Goldfinger : "No, I expect you to DIE !"


Your choices ??

Marc     ;o)

- ------------------------------------------------------
"The maple syrup is supposed to be on the table
before the pancakes ..."

Dustin Hoffman as "Raymond"
"Rain man" - 1988 - 4/5
- -----------------------------------------------------










_________________________________________________________________________
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: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 11:20:06 EDT
From: "Jed Cross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Bond films ... The **final** list !

1- The spy who loved me - 1977 - 3.5/5   Moore

2- For your eyes only - 1981 - 3.5/5  Moore

3- Goldeneye - 1995 - 3.5/5  Brosnan

4- Thunderball - 1965 - 3.5/5  Connery

5- You only live twice - 1967 - 3.5/5   Connery

6- The living daylights - 1987 - 3.5/5   Dalton

7- Octopussy - 1983 - 3/5   Moore

8- Goldfinger - 1964 - 3/5   Connery

9- License to kill - 1989 - 3/5    Dalton

10-The world is not enough - 1999 - 3/5   Brosnan

11-Tomorrow never dies - 1997 - 3/5   Brosnan

12-A view to a kill - 1985 - 3/5    Moore

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

13-The man with the golden gun - 1975 - 2.5/5   Moore

14-Dr. No - 1962 - 2/5   Connery

15-Moonraker - 1979 - 2/5   Moore

16-Live and let die - 1973 - 2/5   Moore

17-From Russia with Love - 1963 - 1.5/5   Connery

18-Diamonds are forever - 1971 - 1.5/5    Connery

19-On her majesty's secret service - 1969 - 1/5   Lazenby
(Note : I only saw the first hour though ... I should see entirely in a
little while, 1/5 for the moment.)

Lazenby was a bad actor, i did'nt like that movie at all.diamons are forever
are cool though. Moonraker really sucked for me. Goldeneye was cool, so was
the living daylights and license to kill. I forget most of what i have seen
from each movie though.

- -/Jed
msn messenger:[e-mail]

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 11:22:48 EDT
From: "Jed Cross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Bond films ... The **final** list !

Barbara Bach from "The spy who loved me" (Major Amorosova)

Akiko Wakabayashi from "You only live twice"

Honor Blackman from "Goldfinger"  (Pussy Galore !)

Michelle Yeoh from "Tomorrow never dies"  (Wai lin)


Yeah, i liked that second girl in the world is not enough. I forget the rest
of em though, and i wonder, should'nt bond have any diseases(From you know
what)

- -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: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 11:24:49 EDT
From: "Jed Cross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Bond films ... The **final** list !

Best line by a VILLAIN
- -----------------------

Bond : "Do you expect me to talk ?"
Goldfinger : "No, I expect you to DIE !"


Your choices ??

Marc     ;o)

Mine is not by a villain, it's more from a good guy, just about every line
that Q(Desmond llewyin) said to bond, like OH GROW UP 007.

- -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: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 11:26:50 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] Bond films ... The **final** list !

In a message dated 10/08/2000 8:21:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< Lazenby was a bad actor, i did'nt like that movie at all.diamons are
forever
 are cool though. Moonraker really sucked for me. Goldeneye was cool, so was
 the living daylights and license to kill. I forget most of what i have seen
 from each movie though. >>

I might as well give my feedback, although I can't say much (I've only seen
four Bond movies).  I've seen the three by Brosnan and Goldfinger.  In order
of preference:

1: Goldeneye
2: Goldfinger
3: The World is Not Enough
4: Tomorrow Never Dies

All very entertaining movies; all recommended.  And, as of now, Superstation
(a cable channel) is having a special called fifteen days of Bond.  I should
check out some classic Bond, as I've only seen one.
- -Eric-

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

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

Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 11:34:30 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] Bond films ... The **final** list !

In a message dated 10/08/2000 8:23:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< Yeah, i liked that second girl in the world is not enough. I forget the
rest
 of em though, and i wonder, should'nt bond have any diseases(From you know
 what)

 -Jed >>

Denise Richards?  Her only purpose was eye candy (all guys know what I mean).
 I didn't see very much talent on her part.  Sophie Marceau was many times
better than her.  Michelle Yeoh was good in Tomorrow Never Dies.  I'd have to
say, though, Izabella Scorupco (Natalya of Goldeneye) is, thus far, my
favorite Bond girl.
- -Eric-

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

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

Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 11:40:14 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] Bond films ... The **final** list !

In a message dated 10/08/2000 8:25:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< Mine is not by a villain, it's more from a good guy, just about every line
 that Q (Desmond Llewelyn) said to bond, like OH GROW UP 007.

 -Jed >>

By a villain, either the one Marc posted about Goldfinger or Alec's line:
"Why can't you just be a good boy and die?"  Pierce's response was very cool,
as well: "You first, you second.... UP!!!!"  And, yes, Desmond Llewelyn had
some of the best lines.  My favorite of his is when, in Goldeneye, he entered
the scene in a wheelchair and cast.  Bond: "Oh, Q, sorry about the leg.
Skiing?"  Rocket shoots out.  Q: "Hunting."
- -Eric-

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

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

Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 11:47:35 EDT
From: "Jed Cross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Bond films ... The **final** list !

All very entertaining movies; all recommended.  And, as of now, Superstation
(a cable channel) is having a special called fifteen days of Bond.  I should
check out some classic Bond, as I've only seen one.
- -Eric-

I remember superstation, WTBS right? I had it, but we switched package wityh
our satelite company(STarchoice) and now we get bronze. they have that 15
days of 007 once a year or something.

- -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: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:49:46 EDT
From: "Marc Desbiens" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Hollow Man / Low & High budget films.

Yes, this movie looks so-so ... good for a video rental, nothing more
probably ... I would expect between 2 and 3 out of 5 on that one ...

Graham, I disagree about your comments that a film with a nice big budget is
a sign that a movie will be good though ... You can make an excellent movie
with very little money and you can make an awful one with a huge budget as
well (Example : Wild wild west, Waterworld) ...

Money as nothing to do with the quality of a film in my opinion ... Money,
fancy graphics, special effects, stunts, big name actors ... that doesn't
replace talent or imagination, technical skills, knowing how to tell a good
story ...

In fact I tend to like more the films that have a low budget in general over
the ones that have a huge budget ... Among my Top 10 favorite films of 1999
maybe 7 had a small or medium budget (less than 10M$)

I gave 4.5/5 to the Blair witch project for example ... and that was made
for about 30,000$ ???  Having less money means no fancy stunts or graphics
like in "The Phantom menace" but the movie was much more effective and
interesting in my opinion.

Marc   ;o)

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

   Graham <[e-mail]> wrote:
I was really looking forward to seeing Hollow Man. Paul Verhoeven
(can even HE spell that right?), Kevin Bacon, good budget, great
effects...it seemingly had everything going for it, but man what a
disappointment! What would YOU do if you didn't have to look at
yourself in the mirror anymore? Ooooh, I'd probably just ruffle a
couple of peoples hair, and voyeur my neighbour...like I'd already
been doing for the first half of the film before i was even
invisible! Then how would I try and evade detection, and escape?
Well I'd return to an enclosed basement, where everyone knew how to
see me, & had the equipment to track me! For Christ's sake, did
anyone read the script before they started shooting? Did they even
have one!? Should have been THE movie event of the Summer...was the
limpest pair of pants since Batman & Robin...now don't even get me
started on that topic! So did anyone actually like it?
Graham





_________________________________________________________________________
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: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:36:41 EDT
From: "Jed Cross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Hollow Man / Low & High budget films.

4.5/5 to the Blair witch project for example ... and that was made
for about 30,000$ ???  Having less money means no fancy stunts or graphics
like in "The Phantom menace" but the movie was much more effective and
interesting in my opinion.

Marc   ;o)

The phantom menace was great, but i mean, the blair witch project probaly
made the most profit out of em all, i have not seen that one yet though, and
waterworld, they spent way too much on it, i wonder if they made a profit?

- -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: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:52:34 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] Hollow Man / Low & High budget films.

In a message dated 10/08/2000 9:37:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< The phantom menace was great, but i mean, the blair witch project probaly
 made the most profit out of em all, i have not seen that one yet though, and
 waterworld, they spent way too much on it, i wonder if they made a profit?

 -jed >>

I haven't seen Blair Witch either, but I should some time.  The Phantom
Menace, IMO, was very disappointing.  The story was OK, but the actors....
uh, no.  Sorry, but not one of them did, what I would call, a spectacular
job, especially with what I've come to expect of Star Wars.  Jake Lloyd was
especially terrible, and, really, I hated the scene where he destroys the
spaceship by accident.  "I'll hide in this ship.  Uh oh, I better help my
friends.  Oops, I turned the ship on.  Oh no, it's on autopilot.  Oh, I'm in
a battle."  Ugh.  Granted, the lightsaber battle was incredibly well done,
but that was the only scene that was really worth all the hype.  I'm hoping
Episode 2 will be better, or this franchise is in trouble. (IMO)
- -Eric- knows he's getting a bad reply from Dex on this one.

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

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

Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 01:15:45 EDT
From: "Jed Cross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Hollow Man / Low & High budget films.

I haven't seen Blair Witch either, but I should some time.  The Phantom
Menace, IMO, was very disappointing.  The story was OK, but the actors....
uh, no.  Sorry, but not one of them did, what I would call, a spectacular
job, especially with what I've come to expect of Star Wars.  Jake Lloyd was
especially terrible, and, really, I hated the scene where he destroys the
spaceship by accident.  "I'll hide in this ship.  Uh oh, I better help my
friends.  Oops, I turned the ship on.  Oh no, it's on autopilot.  Oh, I'm in
a battle."  Ugh.  Granted, the lightsaber battle was incredibly well done,
but that was the only scene that was really worth all the hype.  I'm hoping
Episode 2 will be better, or this franchise is in trouble. (IMO)
- -Eric- knows he's getting a bad reply from Dex on this one.


Episode 2 should be in theatrest by next spring I think

- -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: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 01:22:11 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] Hollow Man / Low & High budget films.

In a message dated 10/08/2000 10:17:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< Episode 2 should be in theatrest by next spring I think

 -JEd >>

Nah, they said three years in between.  In other words, we'll be getting 2 in
2002, and 3 in 2005.
- -Eric-

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

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

Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 11:35:34 +0100
From: MARK <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] RE: Movie Times and Psycho

hmmmmmmm the "And so-and-so" star wasn't Anne Heche in Psycho 1999 was
it?  :)

> -----Original Message-----
> From:    [e-mail] [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent:    05 October 2000 17:38
> To:    [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject:    [MV] RE: Movie Times and Psycho
>
> > Sorry but the last person listed in the credits is often a pretty
> big
> > star, someone you can recognize ... people were shocked when she was
> killed
> > in the movie as they were expecting to see her for the entire time
> ...
>
> Name one movie where a big star has been listed in the end of the
> credits AND
> been the main character.  It just doesn't happen.  When a name star is
> at the
> end of the credits, they are always playing a smaller role.  Besides,
> people
> weren't going to see PSYCHO to see Janet Leigh.  They were going to
> see the
> latest Hitchcock film.  Indeed, I would argue that Hitchcock is the
> only
> director in history (with the possible exception of Steven Spielberg)
> where
> the mainstream public went to see the films for the director rather
> than the
> actors.
>
> In fact, last year a film came out that had the biggest star listed
> last with
> the "And So-and-So" credit, just like Leigh in PSYCHO.  That star was
> bigger
> (much bigger) in 1999 than Leigh was in 1960.  Also, like in PSYCHO,
> that
> star's character got killed early on in a surprising way.  Yet nobody
> walked
> out then saying "I can't believe they got rid of so-and-so!"
>
> [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
> [ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

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

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

Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 11:33:38 +0100
From: MARK <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:55:29 -0400

So let me get this right, you see movies based on their titles??? GET
FREAKING REAL!!

Are you telling me you would miss out on films like "FARGO" or "Rivers
Edge" because they don't have 2 or 3 syllable snappy titles?  That is
the most unfathomably STUPID way of vetting a film.

MAN, I DON'T EVER WANT TO TALK TO YOU AGAIN - YOU ARE AN INSULT TO THIS
LIST

MARK

> -----Original Message-----
> From:    zachary rivera [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent:    08 October 2000 01:53
> To:    [e-mail]
> Subject:    RE: [MV] Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:55:29 -0400
>
> I guess "O Brother Where Art Thou" and "Billy Elliot" are movies that
> have
> pretty plan titles which don't catch my eye.  You need to see "Casino"
> or
> "GoodFellas" now those are classic that everyone needs to see at least
> once.
>   Robert DeNiro and Joe Pecei make a great team.
>
>
> >From: MARK <[e-mail]>
> >To: 'zachary rivera' <[e-mail]>
> >Subject: RE: [MV] Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:55:29 -0400
> >Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 09:07:36 +0100
> >
> >WHATTT!!!!!!!! pretty old - get REAL!!   "O Brother" and "Billy
> Elliot"
> >are new releases, you guys in the states don't have em yet.
> >
> >As for Sleeping with The Enemy - hahahahahahahahahahahaha
> >
> >you ARE winding me up, aren't you?
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:    zachary rivera [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent:    05 October 2000 18:36
> > > To:    [e-mail]
> > > Subject:    RE: [MV] Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:55:29 -0400
> > >
> > > Hey Mark what kind of movies are those?  They sound to be pretty
> old.
> > > Have
> > > you seen the movie Sleeping with the Enemy?  Now that is a great
> movie
> > > if
> > > you like movies with suspence.  Its with Julia Roberts and some
> psycho
> > > who
> > > is stacking her, well I won't tell you about the whole
> movie.......
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: MARK <[e-mail]>
> > > >Reply-To: [e-mail]
> > > >To: "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>,
> > > >"'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>
> > > >Subject: RE: [MV] Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:55:29 -0400
> > > >Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:42:00 +0100
> > > >
> > > >either "O Brother Where Art Thou?" or "Billy Elliot"
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From:    ILLSLEY, KENNETH
> > > [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> > > > > Sent:    04 October 2000 00:57
> > > > > To:    '[e-mail]'
> > > > > Subject:    [MV] Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:55:29 -0400
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the Best movie out there!
> > > > >
> > > > > [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message
> "unsubscribe
> > > ]
> > > > > [ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]
> > > ]
> > > >
> > > >[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe
> ]
> > > >[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]
> ]
> > >
> > >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > > ___
> > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> > > http://www.hotmail.com.
> > >
> > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile
> at
> > > http://profiles.msn.com.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ___
> 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: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:54:00 -0600
From: ("Paul D  Richardson") <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Re: Hollow Man / Low & High

> The Phantom Menace, IMO, was very disappointing.  The story was
> OK, but the actors.... uh, no.  Sorry, but not one of them did,
> what I would call, a spectacular job, especially with what I've
> come to expect of Star Wars.

You've come to expect good acting from STAR WARS?  Let's face it, the original
trilogy was carried by Mark Hamill whose performance as Luke Skywalker was so
wooden that the Sierra Club has named him a national treasure.  Carrie Fisher
was so high on drugs that a good performance was impossible.  Harrison Ford
looks embarassed to be part of the films at all.

>I'm hoping Episode 2 will be better, or this franchise is in trouble.

Why?  TPM did great with a lousy script and bad acting.  Episode 2 could
consist of nothing more than George Lucas reading his shopping list and it
would still gross hundreds of millions of dollars.  Never underestimate the
power of the fanboy.

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

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

Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:58:00 -0600
From: ("Paul D  Richardson") <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] RE: Movie Times and Psycho

>> In fact, last year a film came out that had the biggest star
>> listed last with the "And So-and-So" credit, just like Leigh
>> in PSYCHO.  That star was bigger (much bigger) in 1999 than
>> Leigh was in 1960.

> hmmmmmmm the "And so-and-so" star wasn't Anne Heche in
> Psycho 1999 was it?  :)

No.  That was obvious, so there would have been no reason for me to be veiled.
 Also, PSYCHO came out in 1998...I'm thinking of a 1999 picture with a star
who is a lot bigger than Heche or Leigh every were.  I'm trying to be vague to
avoid giving a spoiler for the film in question.

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

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

Date: 09 Oct 00 17:19:06 +0100
From: RICHARD BENJAMIN <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MV] RE: Movie Times and Psycho

Trying to be 'veiled' here. Does the 'star' in question die after giving
a long-winded, tongue-in-cheek, morale boosting speech?

Richardson.Paul wrote:
>>> In fact, last year a film came out that had the biggest star
>>> listed last with the "And So-and-So" credit, just like Leigh
>>> in PSYCHO.  That star was bigger (much bigger) in 1999 than
>>> Leigh was in 1960.
>
>> hmmmmmmm the "And so-and-so" star wasn't Anne Heche in
>> Psycho 1999 was it?  :)
>
>No.  That was obvious, so there would have been no reason for me to be
veiled.
> Also, PSYCHO came out in 1998...I'm thinking of a 1999 picture with a
star
>who is a lot bigger than Heche or Leigh every were.  I'm trying to be
vague to
>avoid giving a spoiler for the film in question.
>
>[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
>[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]
>
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>RECEIVED: from SF_Database by POP_Mailbox_-1241011206 ; 09 OCT 00
17:08:10 UT
>Received: from LISTS.XMISSION.COM by mail.sourcedesign.co.uk
>     with SMTP (QuickMail Pro Server for MacOS 1.1.2); 09-Oct-2000
17:08:09
>+0000
>Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 2.12 #2)
>    id 13ifKI-0001OE-00
>    for [e-mail]; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:58:54 -0600
>Received: from [167.234.1.10] (helo=ns.albertsons.com)
>    by lists.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
>    id 13ifKG-0001O8-00
>    for [e-mail]; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:58:52 -0600
>Received: from S7352c (S7352c.7000.albertsons.com [167.234.12.204]) by
>ns.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA20790 for
><[e-mail]>; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:55:52 -0600
>Received: from dubs0001.amstr.com (dubs0001.albertsons.com
[162.120.128.9])
>    by S7352c (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA159744
>    for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:57:38 -0600
>X-Internal-ID: 39DF1C5E00002FE4
>Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex
>2.0.119) for [e-mail]; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 08:58:50 -0700
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:58:00 -0600
>From: ("Paul D  Richardson") <[e-mail]>
>To: (movies lists xmission co) <[e-mail]>
>Subject: [MV] RE: Movie Times and Psycho
>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: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:29:00 -0600
From: ("Paul D  Richardson") <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] MEET THE PARENTS/TAO OF STEVE

Once again I offer brief thoughts on two films, one mainstream and one
independent.

No man is good enough for any other man's daughter.  Every man knows this, so
meeting the father of your girlfriend and/or fiancee for the first time can be
absolutely terrifying.  MEET THE PARENTS takes this fear and raises it to
comic heights, with great results.

Greg (Ben Stiller) is perfectly content with his life and his job as a nurse.
However, he knows that he'll have to be on his best behavior with Jack (Robert
DeNiro), his perspective father-in-law who by all accounts wants the best for
his daughter.  Of course, the harder Greg tries to please Jack, the worse he
ends up looking.  Things gradually progress from social faux paus to outright
destruction as Greg digs himself deeper and deeper into Jack's disapproval.

I don't want to spoil the jokes in the film by laying them out here, but rest
assured: most are very very funny, especially in the first part of the film.
As things get worse and worse, the humor goes a bit over-the-top and isn't
quite as hilarious.  Still, overall the film is a very entertaining comedy and
worth seeing for a laugh.  Recommended.

***

Dex (Donal Logue) is the ultimate slacker.  He smokes pot for breakfast, only
works part time teaching Kindergarden, and spends most of his time lazing
about and drinking beer.  He's scruffy and very overweight.  However, Dex has
one unique talent: he has no problem getting girls.  In fact, he's been with
so many he has problems remembering names...if he even remembers the girl at
all.

How does Dex do it?  The "Tao of Steve."  Through the course of the film, we
watch Dex teach a young protege his secrets of seducing women, which amount to
one base axiom ("We pursue that which retreats from us.")  At the same time,
we watch Dex face his greatest challenge as he finds himself falling in love
for the first time with Syd (Greer Goodman).

The results are predictable, but the execution of the film (as well as the
fine acting and script) overcome the color-by-numbers plot.  While, it's not
as funny as MEET THE PARENTS, it certainly is deeper...and therefore the
better film.  Highly recommended.

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

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

Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:30:00 -0600
From: ("Paul D  Richardson") <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] RE: Movie Times and Psycho

> Trying to be 'veiled' here. Does the 'star' in question die
> after giving a long-winded, tongue-in-cheek, morale boosting
> speech?

Yep.

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

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

Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:22:02 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] Re: TMP

In a message dated 10/09/2000 8:54:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< > The Phantom Menace, IMO, was very disappointing.  The story was
 > OK, but the actors.... uh, no.  Sorry, but not one of them did,
 > what I would call, a spectacular job, especially with what I've
 > come to expect of Star Wars.

 You've come to expect good acting from STAR WARS?  Let's face it, the
original
 trilogy was carried by Mark Hamill whose performance as Luke Skywalker was so
 wooden that the Sierra Club has named him a national treasure.  Carrie Fisher
 was so high on drugs that a good performance was impossible.  Harrison Ford
 looks embarassed to be part of the films at all.

 >I'm hoping Episode 2 will be better, or this franchise is in trouble.

 Why?  TPM did great with a lousy script and bad acting.  Episode 2 could
 consist of nothing more than George Lucas reading his shopping list and it
 would still gross hundreds of millions of dollars.  Never underestimate the
 power of the fanboy. >>

I don't know why so many say the acting in the original trilogy was bad.  Of
course, I'm speaking from the point of view I had when I saw it at 12.
However, the acting in TMP was worse than anything in the original trilogy
(at least give me that).  The reason I put the IMO after my last statement
was because, in my own point of view, the Star Wars franchise would not be as
appealing as it once was.  TMP hurt my view on Star Wars as it is, so the
next one better be an improvement.  I didn't mean that it would stop people
from seeing it.  I mean, Star Wars has such a huge following that it'll
probably be making money for another 20 years.  Plus, I know many that saw
TMP and liked what they saw, it's definitely going to stick around.
- -Eric-

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

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

End of movies-digest V2 #297
****************************

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