TOP 10 FILMS
Vader47000
These are the top 10 films listed on the Internet Movie Database, as voted on
by users. . .
1 Star Wars (1977)
2 Shawshank Redemption, The (1994)
3 Godfather, The (1972)
4 Schindler's List (1993)
5 Casablanca (1942)
6 Citizen Kane (1941)
7 Usual Suspects, The (1995)
8 Titanic (1997)
9 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
10 Empire Strikes Back, The (1980)
___________________
Posted by John Latchem
Vader...@aol.com
"When the Dark Side strikes, It's Vader Time!!!"
Frank & "Leia"
Thanks for posting that list. Although I do find it hard to believe Titanic was
voted into 8th, what does it matter cuz SW was #1?? :-)
Fly casual,
--
Sarah
"Leia"
I.
http://www.expage.com/page/sarahspageofpolls
"Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope." -Garfield
"Foota toota, Solo?" -Greedo (RIP)
*Watch your head on the way out that door!*
Zadrok
>
>> These are the top 10 films listed on the Internet Movie Database, as voted
>on
>> by users. . .
>>
>> 1 Star Wars (1977)
>> 2 Shawshank Redemption, The (1994)
>> 3 Godfather, The (1972)
>> 4 Schindler's List (1993)
>> 5 Casablanca (1942)
>> 6 Citizen Kane (1941)
>> 7 Usual Suspects, The (1995)
>> 8 Titanic (1997)
>> 9 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
>> 10 Empire Strikes Back, The (1980)
>>
>was
>voted into 8th, what does it matter cuz SW was #1?? :-)
Also notice that SW has _two_ movies on this list...BEAT THAT TITANIC! haha! we
won't die! you can't get rid of us! We will infest your dreams, turn them into
nightmares! HAHAHA! [ok, my spasms are over now. I think.] ;)
Later,
Brian
"The Real Universe is always one step beyond logic" - Muad'Dib, Dune
http://sapling.net/burnout/index.html - Now with the [SWCCG-DISCUSSION]
Listserve FAQ!
Peter Vesuwalla
Well, I've never given much creedence to what the masses think, and I
really don't like it when people try to tell me what is good. Just for the
hell of it, here's my own "top ten list" (subject to change almost
constantly):
1 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
2 Apocolypse Now! (1979)
3 Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
4 Chinatown (197?)
5 Jaws (1975)
6 Lone Star (1996)
7 Nosferatu (1922)
8 Star Wars: A New Hope (1977)
9 The Godfather Part 2 (19??)
10 The Big Chill (1982)
--
Peter Vesuwalla
umve...@cc.umanitoba.ca
"Nobody loves me 'cept my mama, and she could be jivin' too!"
- B.B.
King
Gerthein Boersma
""Peter Vesuwalla", take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet
me back here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a
small portable gallows."
>Well, I've never given much creedence to what the masses think, and I
>really don't like it when people try to tell me what is good. Just for the
>hell of it, here's my own "top ten list" (subject to change almost
>constantly):
<snipped>
Even though I've technically left the group... how can I pass up the chance
to bore all of you with an off-topic post about my favorite films? It's
just not within my power to do so.
Like Pete's, my list changes constantly, usually when I see a film again
and recall how brilliant it was. Most of these, therefore, are rather
recent -- I just can't be bothered to think back far enough right now. I
couldn't do just ten, of course, so I'm also giving an extensive list of
runners up. And then, tonight during sex, I'll accidentally scream out the
name of that super-duper classic film that I just forgot to mention. What
can I say, it's the story of my life.
I like a good Heist/Crime movie, which is why they're so amply represented
below. If you hate them, you're bound to go "Huh?!" a few times.
THE CURRENT TOP TEN:
1. The Usual Suspects
2. Empire Strikes Back *
3. Shawshank Redemption
4. Raiders of the Lost Ark
5. Pulp Fiction
6. The Godfather **
7. LA Confidential
8. Schindler's List
9. Back to the Future **
10. Twelve Monkeys
* (and/or the trilogy as a whole)
** (the first one and/or the trilogy as a whole)
HONOURABLE MENTIONS - Directors:
Jim Cameron: Literally all his films (and I've seen 'em all) are friggin'
great cinema-going experiences (query: why do all their titles start with
'T' or 'A'? Must be Freudian), but none quite made the list due to their
scripts usually being slimy pieces of worm-ridden filth. Best Cameron film:
T2. Worst Cameron film: T2 (it's a love-hate thing, don't try to
understand).
Robert Zemeckis: Aside from BTTF, I dug Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Forrest
Gump and Contact as well. Heck, I even enjoyed Death Becomes Her (oh dear,
I've admitted it... my reputation's ruined) and them darn Indy rip-offs
with Mike Douglas. So his track-record's almost as good as Cameron's as far
as I'm concerned. Not to mention BTTF2, WFRR and FG being three of the most
cunningly crafted films of all time.
Ridley Scott: How dare I not mention Blade Runner or Alien in the top ten?
Am I mad? Why, I'm looney as a toon, actually -- and BR and Alien are
classic masterpieces to be sure. In my fave sci-fi list, they'd be near the
very top. Perhaps I'd be less blaphemous if I'd actually seen them both
more than once (audience gasps!). Oh well.
Paul Verhoeven: Just because he's dutch like me, of course. And because
Robocop and Total Recall are near-classic sci-fi films. I also found Basic
Instinct and Starship Troopers to be not unentertaining.
Tim Burton: Yeah, it's style over substance, but who cares because it's all
just soooo stylish. I say Superman can still rock, even if I'm the only
person on the daily planet (ouch, now that's a bad pun).
HONOURABLE MENTIONS - Films:
Trainspotting: The best damn film about toilet-diving scottish junkies I've
seen this week. And you can quote me on that.
The Fisher King: Not up there because I didn't want to put two Gilliam
flicks in the top ten. Chose 12M above this one not because it's better,
but because I felt sci-fi, one of my favorite genres, was a little
under-represented. But this is Robin Williams' finest, and that's saying
much.
Scream: I like a good horror flick as well as the next guy, but few even
come close to making the top ten. Evil Dead 2, Silence of the Lambs and
Se7en leap to mind as examples of other great entries in the genre, but
Scream is just so irresistably witty, isn't it? I'm dying to see the
sequel, which will hit these sadly depraved shores soon... ish.
The Untouchables and Goodfellas: Two other good crime-flicks that just
didn't make the list. But they're cool.
Toy Story: Don't you just hate Disney? Well, I do, but Toy Story's actually
rather nifty... and very entertaining, too. This is from someone who
usually can't stand the Walt-meister's unique brand of "family
entertainment" -- Toy Story's just that funky, and that's all there is to
it. But for the record, I have to say it one more time: Disney films? I
don't like 'em.
Last Action Hero: Okay, so it's actually not that brilliant. It deserves to
be mentioned, however, because it stands out as the most underrated film of
all time. It's a close call between it, Army of Darkness and Batman
Forever, but Last Action Hero nicks first prize because literally
*everybody* hates it.
SPECIAL MENTIONS:
The Dark Crystal: If I were to choose only one fantasy film to take to a
lonely desert island filled with VCRs, it'd be either The Princess Bride or
Willow -- after all, a man would want to see some actual people once in a
while (though that may be a concept that's difficult to grasp for some of
you). But Dark Crystal is still the best entry in the genre, so there.
Interview with the Vampire: I don't care what you say, this is the best and
most accurate film-of-a-book ever... with the exception of that other one
that I've just forgotten, of course. And it's Tom Cruise's best role, too.
Wing Commander 4: Interactive movies for the PC -- they're cool. Well, not
actually... they're usually incredible inane with terrible acting, crappy
production-values and adolescent plots about scantily clad women and
friggin' big guns. But not WC4: it's of a level of quality that rivals a
lot of "real" films (as I keep telling everyone), and is interactive to
boot. And it has Mark Hamill. And everything.
Highlander II -- The Quickening: It's so bad -- it's actually good! Kinda
like that ebonix thang, know what I'm sayin'? It's totally and utterly
laughable, with has a plot so ludicrous that should one try to summarize
it, one would risk being taken away by the men in the white coats. If you
liked the original, you'll abso-friggin-lutely hate this one. I never cared
much about sword-wielding scots with french accents anyway, though, so I've
embraced this contemptable piece of trash with all my heart.
Brazil, View-A-skew films, John Woo films, Chinatown, City of the Lost
Children, Fargo, Apocalyps Now, Clockwork Orange, Heat: everyone keeps
telling me how these are God's gift to motion pictures. But I haven't seen
'em yet. Okay, so I've seen Clerks, which was lotsa fun, I've seen
Face/Off, which was cool, and I've seen Hard Target, which was laughable,
but that's it. My "To Rent" list is almost longer than my "To Read" list
(I've already kilfiled Rimrunner to prevent the latter from getting any
longer, actually. Oh dear, that last line can be misconstrued to mean
something naughty, can't it? I'd better stop right away.).
Toodles.
-Gerthein (-o-)
-------------------------------
Send flames to: gert...@wxs.nl
-------------------------------
Phillip Kallas
Well, I might as well give my list o' fun.
1.Empire Strikes Back
2. A New Hope
3. Return of the Jedi
4. A Clockwork Orange
5. Resivior Dogs
6. Jurassic Park
7. Mitchell
8. MST3K-The Movie
9. Raiders of the Lost Ark
10. Traci, I Love You
Phillip Kallas, Dictator Wannabe
"Insanity is the only true freedom."
Official RASSM (Fill-in-the-blank)
"The Force is strong with you, young Skywalker. But you're not a Jedi
yet."-Darth Vader
Davin Felth
Phillip Kallas wrote in message <6f1pr0$7...@wizard.bsu.edu>...
>
>Well, I might as well give my list o' fun.
>
>1.Empire Strikes Back
>2. A New Hope
>3. Return of the Jedi
>4. A Clockwork Orange
>5. Resivior Dogs
>6. Jurassic Park
>7. Mitchell
>8. MST3K-The Movie
>9. Raiders of the Lost Ark
>10. Traci, I Love You
^^^^^^^^^^^^^Hey, was she "legal" yet in that one? ;)
OK, here's my top 10 too:
1. The Day the Earth Stood Still
2. The Star Wars Trilogy (I'm cheating and counting 'em as 1)
3. The Indiana Jones movies (^^^ditto here)
4. Compulsion
5. The Mark of Zorro
6. Fiddler on the Roof
7. The Fortune Cookie
8. Superman I
9. Silverado
10. Dracula (Frank Langella, but Gary Oldman runs a very close second)
There's a whole bunch of others I'd like to squeeze into the Top
10.....can't we make it a Top 50? :)
Trooper Davin Felth
Friend to the Alliance
("Look, sir....so many videos, so little shelf space.")
--------------------------------------------------
REAL e-mail address is mailto:nan...@worldnet.att.net
[Address in message header is only a SPAM-blocker]
--------------------------------------------------
AMSNYD
Mmmkay people, here's my list:
1. Star Wars: A New Hope
2. Raiders of the Lost Ark
3. Titanic
4. Mars Attacks
5. Aliens
6. PeeWee's Big Adventure
7. Jurrasic Park
8. Airplane
9. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
10. The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad
--
Aaron Snyder
asn...@mail.usmo.com or ams...@aol.com
Member of the AAA
"I weigh about 140 pounds, naked. I mean, if that scale at the train station
is anything to go by." -Emo Phillips
s1620
1. Star Wars Trilogy(Yeah I know that's 3, you got a problem with that?)
2. Kelly's Heroes
3. Raiders of the Lost Ark
4. Last Crusade
5. A Bridge Too Far
6. For a few Dollars More
7. Star Trek 6
8. National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
9. National Lampoon's Family Vacation
10.Spaceballs
--
***********************************************************
*"Reality is for people who can't handle science fiction."*
***********************************************************
s1...@southwind.net
Member of the Lobot Fan Base
Visit my web page at: www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/1294
Adam Kohen
Gerthein Boersma wrote:
> Even though I've technically left the group... how can I pass up the chance
> to bore all of you with an off-topic post about my favorite films? It's
> just not within my power to do so.
AH! My old and most worthy opponent/agreeant(?) in the great debate of Oscar
'98! (Hey, that rhymed!) The Siskel to my Ebert! Not to imply that I'm fat,
or that you're bald, of course... ;) I'd wondered where you disappeared to...
> Like Pete's, my list changes constantly, usually when I see a film again
> and recall how brilliant it was. Most of these, therefore, are rather
> recent -- I just can't be bothered to think back far enough right now.
Same here...truthfully, my list runs rather recent simply because I haven't seen
that many "older" films. Not surprisingly, my list has a fair amount of overlap
with yours...
> THE CURRENT TOP TEN:
>
> 1. The Usual Suspects
> 2. Empire Strikes Back *
> 3. Shawshank Redemption
> 4. Raiders of the Lost Ark
> 5. Pulp Fiction
> 6. The Godfather **
> 7. LA Confidential
> 8. Schindler's List
> 9. Back to the Future **
> 10. Twelve Monkeys
>
> * (and/or the trilogy as a whole)
> ** (the first one and/or the trilogy as a whole)
And now, Adam's Top Ten for this particular minute:
1. The Empire Strikes Back
2. The Shawshank Redemption
3. The Princess Bride
4. Raiders of the Lost Ark
5. Field of Dreams
6. L.A. Confidential
7. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
8. Dark City
9. The Silence of the Lambs
10. The Usual Suspects
> HONOURABLE MENTIONS - Directors:
>
> Jim Cameron
He's hit or miss for me...we've already had our debate on the Alien series, and
True Lies just plain fell flat IMHO. I still need to see The Abyss, which I'm
told is very good...
> Robert Zemeckis: Aside from BTTF, I dug Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Forrest
> Gump and Contact as well. Heck, I even enjoyed Death Becomes Her (oh dear,
> I've admitted it... my reputation's ruined)
Hey, I thought Death Becomes Her was lots of fun! In fact, although I haven't
seen them all, I've liked every one of his films I *have* seen, which I'm not
sure I can say for most directors with more than a couple films to their credit.
> Ridley Scott: How dare I not mention Blade Runner or Alien in the top ten?
> Am I mad? Why, I'm looney as a toon, actually -- and BR and Alien are
> classic masterpieces to be sure. In my fave sci-fi list, they'd be near the
> very top. Perhaps I'd be less blaphemous if I'd actually seen them both
> more than once (audience gasps!). Oh well.
Here comes that ugly Alien debate again...and having finally watched Blade
Runner last summer, I really didn't see what the big deal was with that either.
The newer Dark City, which I've seen compared in some ways to BR, was much more
interesting to me. But then, I said the same about Contact when it was compared
to 2001 and Close Encounters...
> Paul Verhoeven: Just because he's dutch like me, of course. And because
> Robocop and Total Recall are near-classic sci-fi films. I also found Basic
> Instinct and Starship Troopers to be not unentertaining.
I love Total Recall, and I'd put Starship Troopers in with your "Most
underrated" list below.
> Tim Burton: Yeah, it's style over substance, but who cares because it's all
> just soooo stylish. I say Superman can still rock, even if I'm the only
> person on the daily planet (ouch, now that's a bad pun).
Another one we have in common. Just the thought of Supes battling evil with
Danny Elfman music as backup has me looking forward to this. That and the
increasing rumors of Kevin Spacey in the movie (as either Luthor or Brainiac).
> HONOURABLE MENTIONS - Films:
I'll try to stay away from this kind of list, because it'd get way too
long...but a few comments:
> Scream: I like a good horror flick as well as the next guy, but few even
> come close to making the top ten. Evil Dead 2, Silence of the Lambs and
> Se7en leap to mind as examples of other great entries in the genre, but
> Scream is just so irresistably witty, isn't it? I'm dying to see the
> sequel, which will hit these sadly depraved shores soon... ish.
Yes, Scream was great, and I hope you enjoy the sequel, whih I would count among
those few that are close to (if not better than) the original. Films like SotL
and Se7en (both excellent) I usually put in a different category from "slasher"
movies.
> Last Action Hero: Okay, so it's actually not that brilliant. It deserves to
> be mentioned, however, because it stands out as the most underrated film of
> all time. It's a close call between it, Army of Darkness and Batman
> Forever, but Last Action Hero nicks first prize because literally
> *everybody* hates it.
Not everybody...I once wrote a paper on it, leading off with a SW quote: "Many
of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." :)
> SPECIAL MENTIONS:
> Highlander II -- The Quickening: It's so bad -- it's actually good! Kinda
<rest SNIPPED>
Just saw Wild Things...I'd say that falls into this "so bad it's good" category
:)
> Brazil, View-A-skew films, John Woo films, Chinatown, City of the Lost
> Children, Fargo, Apocalyps Now, Clockwork Orange, Heat: everyone keeps
> telling me how these are God's gift to motion pictures. But I haven't seen
> 'em yet.
Oh, the films I have yet to see...foremost of which are Schindler's List, the
Godfather trilogy, and Trainspotting, but there are many more I can't dream of
listing right now.
-AK
Phillip Kallas
Davin Felth wrote in message <6f1s7j$6...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>Phillip Kallas wrote in message <6f1pr0$7...@wizard.bsu.edu>...
>>
>>Well, I might as well give my list o' fun.
>>
>>1.Empire Strikes Back
>>2. A New Hope
>>3. Return of the Jedi
>>4. A Clockwork Orange
>>5. Resivior Dogs
>>6. Jurassic Park
>>7. Mitchell
>>8. MST3K-The Movie
>>9. Raiders of the Lost Ark
>>10. Traci, I Love You
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^Hey, was she "legal" yet in that one? ;)
Hah!!! Somebody knew that one! I thought that would be yet another of my
obscure porn references, but no! Congratulations, have a complimentary can
of RASSM turtle wax.;)
Phillip Kallas, Dictator Wannabe(Oh, and yes she was legal. It was her only
legal film in that, uhh, genre of film.)
Dangermouse
1-The Star Wars Trilogy (I know, that makes 12 in total, but I don't care)
2- The Blues Brothers
3- Raiders Of The Lost Ark
4- Kelly's Heroes
5- Where Eagles Dare
6- Pulp Fiction
7- Rio Bravo
8- The Usual Suspects
9- Carlito's Way
10- The Quiet Man
Gerthein Boersma
"Adam Kohen, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>> Even though I've technically left the group... how can I pass up the chance
>> to bore all of you with an off-topic post about my favorite films? It's
>> just not within my power to do so.
>AH! My old and most worthy opponent/agreeant(?) in the great debate of Oscar
>'98! (Hey, that rhymed!) The Siskel to my Ebert! Not to imply that I'm fat,
>or that you're bald, of course... ;) I'd wondered where you disappeared to...
I was hoping you'd reply. :) I've been busy with that Real Life thing, and
found RASSM to be somewhat boring. Our debates were (are? :) utterly
excellent, of course, but they were kinda off-topic, and I didn't want to
start another war just then... though I don't care anymore *now*. ;) What
can I say? It's my favorite subject! Someone stop me before tanscend the
thousand lines border. ;)
And in the interest of seemless transition, we've just *got* to keep our
discussion going until after monday night, of course. ;)
>> Like Pete's, my list changes constantly, usually when I see a film again
>> and recall how brilliant it was. Most of these, therefore, are rather
>> recent -- I just can't be bothered to think back far enough right now.
>Same here...truthfully, my list runs rather recent simply because I haven't seen
>that many "older" films. Not surprisingly, my list has a fair amount of overlap
>with yours...
>And now, Adam's Top Ten for this particular minute:
>1. The Empire Strikes Back
>2. The Shawshank Redemption
>3. The Princess Bride
>4. Raiders of the Lost Ark
You weren't kidding about overlap :). I mention all of these, although TPB
didn't quite make the list.
>5. Field of Dreams
Ah... that's another on my "unseen" list... Along with The Untouchables,
Dances with Wolves, JFK and No Way Out, this is said to be another one to
make you wonder what happened to KC's career.
>6. L.A. Confidential
>7. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Darnit, I knew I'd forgotten one! I should have put MP in the
specialty-section -- and Holy Grail's the best one. Life of Brian's close,
though -- as longstanding RASSMers know I'm a sucker for
borderline-blasphemous humor. ;)
>8. Dark City
Can't wait for this 'un. I hear good things about it.
>9. The Silence of the Lambs
>10. The Usual Suspects
So bar MP&THG, which I *should* have mentioned, the only ones I didn't
mention anywhere in my post are ones I haven't seen? Great minds do think
alike! (I remember the Iq-test thread ;).
>> HONOURABLE MENTIONS - Directors:
>>
>> Jim Cameron
>He's hit or miss for me...we've already had our debate on the Alien series, and
>True Lies just plain fell flat IMHO. I still need to see The Abyss, which I'm
>told is very good...
The only one I haven't "really" seen is The Abyss... I quite liked the film
when I saw it, but everyone keeps telling me that if you haven't seen the
SE, you haven't seen it at all. I thought True Lies was a lightweight, fun
little entertaining flick, yet with a totally unwarranted friggin' huge
budget. My least favorite is probably T1, which I used to love but now its
low-budgetness annoys me -- Cameron needs sacks of money to be brilliant
IMHO. Tho' the film is nice and gritty -- moreso than T2.
>> Robert Zemeckis: Aside from BTTF, I dug Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Forrest
>> Gump and Contact as well. Heck, I even enjoyed Death Becomes Her (oh dear,
>> I've admitted it... my reputation's ruined)
>Hey, I thought Death Becomes Her was lots of fun!
Me too! It's incredible overacting fun! And there's a BTTF reference in it,
too! ;) And Elvis! ;)
> In fact, although I haven't
>seen them all, I've liked every one of his films I *have* seen, which I'm not
>sure I can say for most directors with more than a couple films to their credit.
Yes, he does have a fine track record, although everyone keeps saying how
DBH marred it... D'oh!!
>> Ridley Scott: How dare I not mention Blade Runner or Alien in the top ten?
>> Am I mad? Why, I'm looney as a toon, actually -- and BR and Alien are
>> classic masterpieces to be sure. In my fave sci-fi list, they'd be near the
>> very top. Perhaps I'd be less blaphemous if I'd actually seen them both
>> more than once (audience gasps!). Oh well.
>Here comes that ugly Alien debate again...and having finally watched Blade
>Runner last summer, I really didn't see what the big deal was with that either.
BR is one of the most atmospheric films I've ever seen.. which makes it
worthwhile. Plus, the story's very smart and gritty -- as Glen over at AICN
described so aptly, there's a gripping cynicism involved in a story in
which a man is hired to coldly kill beings which only goal is to live...
simply irresistable. Nowadays its looks (still its strongest suit) are
pretty darn dated, though, esp. since the dark, sprawling metropolis look
has since been implemented (and arguably bested in terms of SFX) in every
flick from Judge Dredd to Return of the Jedi:SE (5thE had it, Batman
Forever had it... the list goes on and on).
>The newer Dark City, which I've seen compared in some ways to BR, was much more
>interesting to me. But then, I said the same about Contact when it was compared
>to 2001 and Close Encounters...
I thought Contact was about on par with CE3K -- both are good but overrated
IMHO -- but I've always found 2001 to be a even more overrated than that.
:)
>> Paul Verhoeven: Just because he's dutch like me, of course. And because
>> Robocop and Total Recall are near-classic sci-fi films. I also found Basic
>> Instinct and Starship Troopers to be not unentertaining.
>I love Total Recall, and I'd put Starship Troopers in with your "Most
>underrated" list below.
I have a healthy dose of criticism for ST, though. Its cutting but hugely
unsubtle "satire" scenes just don't mix or sync with the wanton violence
the way they did so beautifully in Robocop:
Robocop set the super-commercial world up so well that every subsequent act
of mega-violence in the film seemed to add to the harshness and thus the
satire. In ST, there's the commercials/newsshows showing the over-the-top
jungoistic universe, and there's the violence, but they remain a tad to
separate for my liking. And neither the violence nor the satire mix with
the 90210-scenes -- it ends up being three parts violence, one part 90210,
two parts satire.
But it's still funky. And better than the borderline fascist kiddie book it
was based on. (Verhoeven was more critical about the story's politics than
Heinlein was, and yet Verhoeven gets slammed for being "fascist" despite a
complete lack of subtlety on his part in showing his true intentions....
Americans: can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em...;).
>> Tim Burton: Yeah, it's style over substance, but who cares because it's all
>> just soooo stylish. I say Superman can still rock, even if I'm the only
>> person on the daily planet (ouch, now that's a bad pun).
>Another one we have in common. Just the thought of Supes battling evil with
>Danny Elfman music as backup has me looking forward to this.
Now now, don't be dissin' Williams' excellence now. ;) I've always found
Batman to be much cooler than Supes... perhaps TB will make Superman as
dark and psychologically warped as he did Batman. The fans of the Man of
Steel will hate it, but I don't care, since I'll have the film I've been
waiting for since Batman Returns' credits rolled.
>That and the increasing rumors of Kevin Spacey in the movie (as either Luthor or Brainiac).
Name one bad film with Kevin Spacey -- it can't be done. Even Outbreak's
pretty neat IMHO.
>Yes, Scream was great, and I hope you enjoy the sequel, whih I would count among
>those few that are close to (if not better than) the original.
That's what I keep hearing. The trailer indicates that its even wittier
than the original, which is good, although I hear that that does take away
the tension a bit. Scream just had the perfect balance.
Have you seen Kevin Williamson's IKWYDLS? Thought that was fun (though
nowhere near Scream). I think I can predict the entire plot of the sequel
however, based on a line of dialogue Williams tried to hide in IKWYDLS but
somehow stuck with me.
>Films like SotL
>and Se7en (both excellent) I usually put in a different category from "slasher"
>movies.
True -- I must say that I found SotL to be quite a bit ahead of Se7en, but
Se7en's much, much better than all of the Se7en-clones that tried to
capitalize on its success (Copycat, Kiss The Girls, etc. etc. etc.).
Fincher's The Game was also cool -- I liked it even better than Se7en
meself, but I seem to be alone in that assertion.
Se7en and SotL are intelligent thriller/psycho/horror-films. Scream's just
a slasher movie with prentention, but oy, what pretention! I love it. Once
the other two are out, it'll probably receive a 'trilogy' spot in my Top
Ten along with Godfather, Star Wars and BTTF (If Kate Capshaw hadn't
annoyed me so, "Indy Trilogy" would be up there instead of Raiders) --
sometimes sequels add to the original in such a way that the worthiness of
the first film actually increases. Though not often.
>> Last Action Hero: Okay, so it's actually not that brilliant. It deserves to
>> be mentioned, however, because it stands out as the most underrated film of
>> all time. It's a close call between it, Army of Darkness and Batman
>> Forever, but Last Action Hero nicks first prize because literally
>> *everybody* hates it.
>Not everybody...I once wrote a paper on it, leading off with a SW quote: "Many
>of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." :)
It's misunderstood. Someone on RASSM (was it you?) once said its failure
might have been due to people expecting a Naked Gun/Airplane type parody,
and were disappointed by a more subtle and less "pun-intensive" one.
My extended "underrated" category contains, strikingly enough, lots of Part
Three of trilogies/series: Return of the Jedi, Godfather 3, BTTF3, Army of
Darkness, Batman Forever, Alien3... none of these quite match the quality
of the two that went before them, but all, especially the first three, are
very good films in their own right (bar Alien3, which is pretty mediocre --
but it's *still* underrated, I say!).
Another more recent underrated flick that I want to mention is the occult
horror film Devil's Advocate with Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino, of which I've
seen far too few positive reviews. While nowhere near perfect (Reeves is
quite bad -- *again* -- although admittedly he did grow on me a bit), this
was one of few horror-flicks in a long time that actually managed to scare
me and even mildly disturb me to an extent. I swear, though, that all
occult/dark horror films of the nineties have been decreed to end with an
inappropriate anti-climactic pun followed by an old Rolling Stones classic:
both Interview with a Vampire and this film end thusly (the difference
being that IwtV's ending was actually pretty neat -- but *its* Stones
classic would have been far more appropriate for DA ;).
>> SPECIAL MENTIONS:
>> Highlander II -- The Quickening: It's so bad -- it's actually good! Kinda
><rest SNIPPED>
>Just saw Wild Things...I'd say that falls into this "so bad it's good" category
>:)
But it has Kevin Bacon! And Neve Campbell! I was quite looking forward to
it, actually (Denise Richards ain't hard on the eyes either, IIRC from
Starship Troopers -- although she can't act, of course)... oh well.
>Oh, the films I have yet to see...foremost of which are Schindler's List, the
>Godfather trilogy, and Trainspotting, but there are many more I can't dream of
>listing right now.
Well, those three (five) are all great. Of those, I'd suggest you rent
Trainspotting first -- simply because it's nice and short -- the others
gobble up a whole evening which makes their threshold a bit higher (time is
always my limiting factor ;).
- Gerthein
-------------------------------------------------------------------
And you can check up ObEwan Kenobi's acting ability. Which is good.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerthein Boersma
""Dangermouse", take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me
back here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>3- Raiders Of The Lost Ark
Odd.. besides the SW Trilogy, Raiders is the one film that absolutely
everyone mentions in their lists (often top 5), and yet it's not in the
IMDB's top ten. Ah well, I guess this group is just more Lucas-minded than
the rest of the 'net. :)
- Gerthein (-o-)
-----------------------------
Friend to Satan
-----------------------------
Dangermouse
Gerthein Boersma <gert...@wxs.nl> wrote
> Odd.. besides the SW Trilogy, Raiders is the one film that absolutely
> everyone mentions in their lists (often top 5), and yet it's not in the
> IMDB's top ten. Ah well, I guess this group is just more Lucas-minded
than
> the rest of the 'net. :)
Or the IMDB is wrong.
Adam Kohen
Gerthein Boersma wrote:
>
> "Adam Kohen, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
> here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
> portable gallows."
>
> >'98! (Hey, that rhymed!) The Siskel to my Ebert! Not to imply that I'm fat,
> >or that you're bald, of course... ;) I'd wondered where you disappeared to...
>
> I was hoping you'd reply. :) I've been busy with that Real Life thing, and
> found RASSM to be somewhat boring. Our debates were (are? :) utterly
> excellent, of course, but they were kinda off-topic, and I didn't want to
> start another war just then... though I don't care anymore *now*. ;) What
> can I say? It's my favorite subject! Someone stop me before tanscend the
> thousand lines border. ;)
Heh. Now that my spring break is over and schoolwork looms like a Super
Star Destroyer, you show up with the threat of thousand-line posts I'll
have to answer...oh well, physics can wait! And it's not as if I was
going to get anything done on Oscar Monday anyway :)
> And in the interest of seemless transition, we've just *got* to keep our
> discussion going until after monday night, of course. ;)
Should be fun...I expect to shout obscenities at the screen several
times, no matter how certain I am of the results already. Would you say
it's irrational to still be holding out hope for "...and the winner, by
overwhelming write-in vote, is Russell Crowe"?
> >5. Field of Dreams
>
> Ah... that's another on my "unseen" list... Along with The Untouchables,
> Dances with Wolves, JFK and No Way Out, this is said to be another one to
> make you wonder what happened to KC's career.
Definitely, plus it's got a great performance by James Earl Jones, and
my favorite (at the moment) score by imminent Oscar winner James
Horner. I still need to see Untouchables and No Way Out...and JFK is
one of the zillions of movies that I've seen parts of, but never seem to
catch the whole thing.
> >7. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
>
> Darnit, I knew I'd forgotten one! I should have put MP in the
> specialty-section -- and Holy Grail's the best one. Life of Brian's close,
> though -- as longstanding RASSMers know I'm a sucker for
> borderline-blasphemous humor. ;)
And if I'm not mistaken, LoB features Admiral Piett as Jesus. (See?
There are ways to keep things on-topic :))
> So bar MP&THG, which I *should* have mentioned, the only ones I didn't
> mention anywhere in my post are ones I haven't seen?
Well, great minds think alike...
>Great minds do think alike!
HEY! :)
> >> HONOURABLE MENTIONS - Directors:
> >> Robert Zemeckis: Aside from BTTF, I dug Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Forrest
> >> Gump and Contact as well. Heck, I even enjoyed Death Becomes Her (oh dear,
> >> I've admitted it... my reputation's ruined)
>
> >Hey, I thought Death Becomes Her was lots of fun!
>
> Me too! It's incredible overacting fun! And there's a BTTF reference in it,
> too! ;) And Elvis! ;)
Whenever I hear about some actress appearing in a see-through top, I
always think of Goldie Hawn in DBH :)
> >> Ridley Scott: How dare I not mention Blade Runner or Alien in the top ten?
> >> Am I mad? Why, I'm looney as a toon, actually -- and BR and Alien are
> >> classic masterpieces to be sure. In my fave sci-fi list, they'd be near the
> >> very top. Perhaps I'd be less blaphemous if I'd actually seen them both
> >> more than once (audience gasps!). Oh well.
>
> >Here comes that ugly Alien debate again...and having finally watched Blade
> >Runner last summer, I really didn't see what the big deal was with that either.
>
> BR is one of the most atmospheric films I've ever seen.. which makes it
> worthwhile. Plus, the story's very smart and gritty -- as Glen over at AICN
> described so aptly, there's a gripping cynicism involved in a story in
> which a man is hired to coldly kill beings which only goal is to live...
> simply irresistable. Nowadays its looks (still its strongest suit) are
> pretty darn dated, though, esp. since the dark, sprawling metropolis look
> has since been implemented (and arguably bested in terms of SFX) in every
> flick from Judge Dredd to Return of the Jedi:SE (5thE had it, Batman
> Forever had it... the list goes on and on).
I think I'll need to give this another chance. And I've only seen the
original, not the Director's Cut...although there isn't as much
consensus for which is better in this case as there seems to be for The
Abyss.
> >The newer Dark City, which I've seen compared in some ways to BR, was much more
> >interesting to me. But then, I said the same about Contact when it was compared
> >to 2001 and Close Encounters...
>
> I thought Contact was about on par with CE3K -- both are good but overrated
> IMHO -- but I've always found 2001 to be a even more overrated than that.
> :)
To be fair, I was extremely tired when I watched CE3K, and I slept
through a fair portion of it in the middle. Another "to be re-viewed"
film, I guess.
> >> Paul Verhoeven: Just because he's dutch like me, of course. And because
> >> Robocop and Total Recall are near-classic sci-fi films. I also found Basic
> >> Instinct and Starship Troopers to be not unentertaining.
>
> >I love Total Recall, and I'd put Starship Troopers in with your "Most
> >underrated" list below.
>
> I have a healthy dose of criticism for ST, though. Its cutting but hugely
> unsubtle "satire" scenes just don't mix or sync with the wanton violence
> the way they did so beautifully in Robocop:
Robocop's another one of those movies I've only seen random bits of.
What I liked about SST was it's gloriously unchecked violence (similar
to the gratuitous killing in Total Recall's subway chase, but on a
grander scale), combined with it's complete lack of seriousness. It was
possibly the most purely exciting movie I saw last year, and I found it
worth sitting through "Melrose Space" for that.
> >> Tim Burton: Yeah, it's style over substance, but who cares because it's all
> >> just soooo stylish. I say Superman can still rock, even if I'm the only
> >> person on the daily planet (ouch, now that's a bad pun).
>
> >Another one we have in common. Just the thought of Supes battling evil with
> >Danny Elfman music as backup has me looking forward to this.
>
> Now now, don't be dissin' Williams' excellence now. ;)
Don't worry, Superman is one of my favorite Williams scores (now
*there's* a tough Top Ten list!)
> I've always found
> Batman to be much cooler than Supes... perhaps TB will make Superman as
> dark and psychologically warped as he did Batman. The fans of the Man of
> Steel will hate it, but I don't care, since I'll have the film I've been
> waiting for since Batman Returns' credits rolled.
Just to illustrate the point about how Top Tens can change day to day, I
think at the moment Batman Returns or Nightmare Before Christmas
(technically not directed by Burton, I know) would be on my
list...damned if I can think what I'd leave off, though.
> >That and the increasing rumors of Kevin Spacey in the movie (as either Luthor or Brainiac).
>
> Name one bad film with Kevin Spacey -- it can't be done. Even Outbreak's
> pretty neat IMHO.
Ah, 1995: the year of Spacey. Besides Outbreak, Se7en, and Usual
Suspects, this year produced my favorite Spacey role to date: film
producer Buddy Ackerman in Swimming With Sharks.
> Have you seen Kevin Williamson's IKWYDLS? Thought that was fun (though
> nowhere near Scream). I think I can predict the entire plot of the sequel
> however, based on a line of dialogue Williams tried to hide in IKWYDLS but
> somehow stuck with me.
Didn't see this one. I'm actually not a big horror fan, but I
occasionally see something by accident that I like. For example, I
watched Mimic for an entomology class and found it to be pretty good.
And I just remembered another great recent horror, although it was
advertised as a comedy: The Frighteners. I'd like to see James Cameron
pull off those FX with the money Peter Jackson had :)
> Fincher's The Game was also cool -- I liked it even better than Se7en
> meself, but I seem to be alone in that assertion.
Another "need-to-see" for me.
> Se7en and SotL are intelligent thriller/psycho/horror-films. Scream's just
> a slasher movie with prentention, but oy, what pretention! I love it. Once
> the other two are out, it'll probably receive a 'trilogy' spot in my Top
> Ten along with Godfather, Star Wars and BTTF (If Kate Capshaw hadn't
> annoyed me so, "Indy Trilogy" would be up there instead of Raiders) --
> sometimes sequels add to the original in such a way that the worthiness of
> the first film actually increases. Though not often.
I keep forgetting if it was Craven or Williamson who dubbed the Scream
series "the Star Wars Trilogy of horror." Agreed on Kate Capshaw...and
Spielberg married her right after that! Maybe giving her the role was
his "mating dance" :) Although the role itself was nothing great to
begin with.
> >> Last Action Hero: Okay, so it's actually not that brilliant. It deserves to
> >> be mentioned, however, because it stands out as the most underrated film of
> >> all time. It's a close call between it, Army of Darkness and Batman
> >> Forever, but Last Action Hero nicks first prize because literally
> >> *everybody* hates it.
>
> >Not everybody...I once wrote a paper on it, leading off with a SW quote: "Many
> >of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." :)
>
> It's misunderstood. Someone on RASSM (was it you?) once said its failure
> might have been due to people expecting a Naked Gun/Airplane type parody,
> and were disappointed by a more subtle and less "pun-intensive" one.
That might indeed have been me. Half of the audience wanted Zucker
parody, and the other half wanted straight action. The film walked the
line and left (almost) everybody disappointed...
> My extended "underrated" category contains, strikingly enough, lots of Part
> Three of trilogies/series: Return of the Jedi, Godfather 3, BTTF3, Army of
> Darkness, Batman Forever, Alien3... none of these quite match the quality
> of the two that went before them, but all, especially the first three, are
> very good films in their own right (bar Alien3, which is pretty mediocre --
> but it's *still* underrated, I say!).
I keep hearing that I should just watch the first two Godfathers and
forget about the third, but I'll take my chances. I like to make my
circles complete :) And you reminded me of another trilogy I have to
watch--Evil Dead. I like the other stuff I've seen by Raimi (including
the also vastly underrated Quick And The Dead), so I'll probably enjoy
those.
On BTTF...is it me, or are the SW parallels freaky? This assumes, of
course, that one likes BTTF2 best, which I seem to be alone on. But
come on, am I the only one who wished Biff would've said "*I* am your
father!" to Marty just once?
> Another more recent underrated flick that I want to mention is the occult
> horror film Devil's Advocate with Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino, of which I've
Another one I'd like to see. I sometimes sneak around the theater to
catch a second movie for free that I otherwise wouldn't have watched,
and this was one of those. Unfortunately, it wasn't playing at the same
theater as A Life Less Ordinary, and I wanted to preview ObEwan. Maybe
when/if it plays on campus...
> >> SPECIAL MENTIONS:
>
> >> Highlander II -- The Quickening: It's so bad -- it's actually good! Kinda
>
> ><rest SNIPPED>
>
> >Just saw Wild Things...I'd say that falls into this "so bad it's good" category
> >:)
>
> But it has Kevin Bacon! And Neve Campbell! I was quite looking forward to
> it, actually (Denise Richards ain't hard on the eyes either, IIRC from
> Starship Troopers -- although she can't act, of course)... oh well.
The more I think about this movie, the more I like it. I'm almost
convinced now that it was intentionally ridiculous, in which case it was
great. And it is worth a look just for Bill Murray's brief role. But
Denise Richards does have some talent...a pair of talents, actually ;)
The rest of the actors were decent enough, I suppose.
> >Oh, the films I have yet to see...foremost of which are Schindler's List, the
> >Godfather trilogy, and Trainspotting, but there are many more I can't dream of
> >listing right now.
>
> Well, those three (five) are all great. Of those, I'd suggest you rent
> Trainspotting first -- simply because it's nice and short -- the others
> gobble up a whole evening which makes their threshold a bit higher (time is
> always my limiting factor ;).
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> And you can check up ObEwan Kenobi's acting ability. Which is good.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
Ewan is a major reason I want to see it, although I was somewhat
interested in it before he was cast. The others I'll try to see over
the summer...
-AK
Counting down to the Billy Crystal show...
*********|****************
* (-o-) *|* Member LFB *
*********|****************
"Dustin Hoffman is like having five ferrets in a box."
- Peter Coyote, in a SPHERE interview (E!)
Magdalena Jarczyk
Hi there,
Sorry for asking questions that are probaly very out of date. Can anybody
tell me whatever happened to this book? After I came across Parts One to
Three, several months ago, I was a little crazy about the story. But that was
all, and soon after even the fanfic page I found it at vanished into thin
air.
Help me, ***, you're my only hope.
Magda
So long, and thanks for all the fish
Magdalena Jarczyk
e-mail: mjar...@ii.uni.wroc.pl
http://tempus.ii.uni.wroc.pl/~mjarczyk
Gerthein Boersma
"Adam Kohen, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me
back here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>Should be fun...I expect to shout obscenities at the screen several
>times, no matter how certain I am of the results already. Would you say
>it's irrational to still be holding out hope for "...and the winner, by
>overwhelming write-in vote, is Russell Crowe"?
Well... things went pretty much as I expected. I myself was hoping the
members of the Academy would actually go out and *see* Titanic one more
time before voting, then comparing it to some of the previous winners and
other nominees and realizing who incredibly clichéd it is... Alas, no such
luck. It's a great film, but *eleven* awards, tied with Ben Hur? Pshaw.
Still, I suppose it's good that it didn't get any acting awards...
actually, the only award it won that I didn't think appropriate was Best
Picture -- but that's the biggy, isn't it?
Oh well, at least "Karakter" won best foreign film. It's the best darn
dutch film ever, by a mile.
Too bad Elfman didn't get one, but like I said, he now has a foot in the
door to win in a year in which he *really* deserves to (Superman, mayhap?
Oh wait... he'd be up against Williams' Star Wars for that -- not a chance
then ;).
<snipples abound>
>And if I'm not mistaken, LoB features Admiral Piett as Jesus. (See?
>There are ways to keep things on-topic :))
Hmm.. I'd have to watch it again. :)
>I think I'll need to give this another chance. And I've only seen the
>original, not the Director's Cut...although there isn't as much
>consensus for which is better in this case as there seems to be for The
>Abyss.
The Director's Cut lacks Ford's noirish voice-over work -- personally, I
thought that was a great touch and mourned its loss, but there are some
that feel that if Ridley Scott felt it's not appropriate, then by Hale
Bopp, it isn't! ;)
>To be fair, I was extremely tired when I watched CE3K, and I slept
>through a fair portion of it in the middle. Another "to be re-viewed"
>film, I guess.
Re-viewing has been known to change my opinion. I used to feel that
Ghostbusters 2 was a pretty darn bad sequel, but upon reviewing it found it
to be not too bad. And I thought Batman Returns was pretty boring at first,
but currently find it to be very nearly as good as the original.
>Robocop's another one of those movies I've only seen random bits of.
>What I liked about SST was it's gloriously unchecked violence (similar
>to the gratuitous killing in Total Recall's subway chase, but on a
>grander scale), combined with it's complete lack of seriousness. It was
>possibly the most purely exciting movie I saw last year, and I found it
>worth sitting through "Melrose Space" for that.
Perhaps I was somewhat unfair towards SST because I'd seen and loved
Robocop. In SST, Verhoeven uses all the same Robocop "tricks" -- the
over-acted TV-commercials, the gratuitous violence, just a tad of camp --
but it never becomes more than pure entertainment, whereas Robocop was
quite a nifty piece of satire as well. My bad for expecting more than
blockbusting excitement, I guess -- but actually that's Verhoeven's fault
for using the same formula. I still liked it, though.
>Don't worry, Superman is one of my favorite Williams scores (now
>*there's* a tough Top Ten list!)
No kidding. I'm seriously awaiting his Prequel soundtrack every bit as much
as I'm awaiting the film!
>Just to illustrate the point about how Top Tens can change day to day, I
>think at the moment Batman Returns
Well, as I said, I liked the original better -- because it had a better
balance of 'Burtonism', atmosphere, style, and excitement. BR has a bit
more depth, and even more style, but I ultimately thought its plot was too
bungled -- the penguin comes up with ploy after ploy only for it to be
easily foiled by the Bat. And that weird powerplant-storyline didn't really
mix in well, did it?
Still, both Batman and Batman Returns are two of the best blockbusting
films out there simply because they're so daring. Burton doesn't seem to
care about money -- he just wants to be artistic, warped; even a little
perverted. It's no surprise that besides these two, his films have enjoyed
only cult success.
>or Nightmare Before Christmas
>(technically not directed by Burton, I know) would be on my
>list...damned if I can think what I'd leave off, though.
Never did catch TNBC. There seem to be two camps on the subject: one that
says it's all style and no substance, and one that says it's absolutely
brilliant. Being a bit of a Burtonite, I'd probably fall in the latter.
>Ah, 1995: the year of Spacey. Besides Outbreak, Se7en, and Usual
>Suspects, this year produced my favorite Spacey role to date: film
>producer Buddy Ackerman in Swimming With Sharks.
There's another film for my "To Rent" list, right there. :) Are you sure
it's better than Verbal Kint, though? I probably won't think so, but then
TUS is my favorite film of all time -- at the moment. :)
>Didn't see this one. I'm actually not a big horror fan, but I
>occasionally see something by accident that I like. For example, I
>watched Mimic for an entomology class and found it to be pretty good.
I went to the theater to see that film, but it had already been replaced.
So I saw the Martin Laurence/Tim Robbins buddy film "Nothing to lose"
instead... which was okay-ish.
>And I just remembered another great recent horror, although it was
>advertised as a comedy: The Frighteners. I'd like to see James Cameron
>pull off those FX with the money Peter Jackson had :)
That one's at the top of my "To Rent" list, presently. Everyone likes it so
much, it's a wonder it didn't do better. And it has Michael J. Fox, whom I
like.
>> Fincher's The Game was also cool -- I liked it even better than Se7en
>> meself, but I seem to be alone in that assertion.
>
>Another "need-to-see" for me.
I thought it was smarter and more surreal than Se7en. Se7en's problem is
that it's not that original or well-written -- it's the cinematography that
makes it. I wouldn't say "style over substance", because its direction and
acting also make it great -- very edge-of-your-seat (the excellent sound at
my favorite theater helped, too).
>I keep forgetting if it was Craven or Williamson who dubbed the Scream
>series "the Star Wars Trilogy of horror."
I believe it was Williamson. It's already classic -- now let's see if they
can get the last one right (I'm assuming Scream 2 is as great as everyone
says it is).
> Agreed on Kate Capshaw...and
>Spielberg married her right after that! Maybe giving her the role was
>his "mating dance" :) Although the role itself was nothing great to
>begin with.
No, you're right: we can't put all the blame for ToD's relative failure on
Capshaw's shoulders -- the dialogue wasn't up to scratch and the plot too
straightforward and not "adventurous" enough.
What's your opinion of The Last Crusade?
>That might indeed have been me. Half of the audience wanted Zucker
>parody, and the other half wanted straight action. The film walked the
>line and left (almost) everybody disappointed...
But not me. I've been known to say it's Schwartzenegger's best. But I
actually prefer T2 and Total Recall, and I also have an irrational soft
spot for The Running Man and Twins. LAH's about on par with True Lies and
Predator, though.
>I keep hearing that I should just watch the first two Godfathers and
>forget about the third, but I'll take my chances. I like to make my
>circles complete :)
I completely disagree with that opinion, which indeed seems to be somewhat
common. Godfather 3 is a very good film. Sure, its plot is a bit garbled
and overall it's not as epic or brilliant as the first two, but Pacino is
better in it, and it's very dramatic and very good in its own right. I
honestly don't know why people dislike it so -- it's only anywhere near
"bad" if you compare it with the other two.
> And you reminded me of another trilogy I have to
>watch--Evil Dead. I like the other stuff I've seen by Raimi (including
>the also vastly underrated Quick And The Dead), so I'll probably enjoy
>those.
Just remember that AOD is a very different film from the first two --
sillier and less scary. But great fun.
>On BTTF...is it me, or are the SW parallels freaky? This assumes, of
>course, that one likes BTTF2 best, which I seem to be alone on.
I think it's the most *fun* one, and the best-made. It is, in fact, one of
the best made films ever IMO -- the BTTF1 scenes, whether "re-enacted" or
re-used, mix in seemlessly. However, the cartoony characters (esp.
Jennifer) with their over-excited dialogue (esp. Doc) are somewhat
annoying. I preferred the original because it was more serious and somewhat
less shallow. It's close, though.
>But come on, am I the only one who wished Biff would've said "*I* am your
>father!" to Marty just once?
You're thinking on top of the Biffco building, right? :) That would be the
best place (the whole scene reminds me of ESB's duel, complete with the
hero jumping to his doom to be caught by the series' most characteristic
vehicle :).
>The more I think about this movie, the more I like it. I'm almost
>convinced now that it was intentionally ridiculous, in which case it was
>great. And it is worth a look just for Bill Murray's brief role.
Well then I'm seeing it, 'sall there is to it. Am I alone in thinking
Groundhog Day was pretty darn brilliant?
>But Denise Richards does have some talent...a pair of talents, actually ;)
Yes, quite. :) I remember being the only one in the group I went to SST
with that liked her character better than Dizzy. I mean, of course she's so
cute she's annoying; she's supposed to be -- that's pretty much what the
character's about! ;) The "tough grrrl"? Pah, that's been done and done and
done again -- and *that* annoyed me.
>The rest of the actors were decent enough, I suppose.
Bacon's always cool, of course. Hey, he's the internet's most central
actor. :)
- Gerthein (-o-)
-----------------------------
g e r t h e i n @ w x s . n l
-----------------------------
Areff D
I'm not gonna quote everything, but just spout some thoughts....
1) There has yet to be, in my opinion, a good Batman movie. Even the Burton
ones were a mess to me. I love Burton when he's not doing superheroes (Edward
Scissorhands being my favorite), but I'm so afraid of evil clowns all over
Superman that it hurts. And the rumor of Chris Rock as Jimmy Olsen is
troubling also. Now, if you want to see a movie that shows what a Batman film
SHOULD be like, it's .... Seven. Replace Brad Pitt with Batman, Gwynneth with
Robin, and Spacey with the Joker or the Riddler, and that movie is the essence
of Batman -- dark, brooding, oppressive, and focusing on the fact that Batman
is the world's greatest DETECTIVE! Think about it, it's not as crazy as it
first sounds.
2) To me, there has yet to be a bad Alien movie. I thought 3 and 4 were no
less worthy than the first two and were admirable for willing to break the
formula of the first two. I terrorized the Alien newsgroup for a month after
Resurrection came out trying to convince them, but alas, 'twas not to be...
3) I don't think I could narrow anything down to a top ten. It so much
depends on what mood I'm in to watch. But another good indicator is the
"remote dropper" factor: which movies will make me drop the remote and watch
no matter how far along they are? Well, in no particular order:
JFK
Braveheart
Star Wars trilogy
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Close Encounters
Jaws
The Great Escape
The Road Warrior
Blade Runner
Twister (guilty pleasure)
The Dark Crystal
The Magnificent Seven
You know, I could go on for a day like this....:)
Richard F. Dickson
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
Widget
Gerthein Boersma wrote:
<snip everything above this point because I totally agreed with it ;)>
> I thought Contact was about on par with CE3K -- both are good but overrated
> IMHO -- but I've always found 2001 to be a even more overrated than that.
> :)
Well... I agree with this, too, but I just had to say that 2001 is
probably THE most overrated movie of all time. Titanic was over-hyped
and overrated to a degree, but at least I could stay awake during the
damn thing!
<snippity-snip-snip-snip>
> >Films like SotL
> >and Se7en (both excellent) I usually put in a different category from "slasher"
> >movies.
>
> True -- I must say that I found SotL to be quite a bit ahead of Se7en, but
> Se7en's much, much better than all of the Se7en-clones that tried to
> capitalize on its success (Copycat, Kiss The Girls, etc. etc. etc.).
> Fincher's The Game was also cool -- I liked it even better than Se7en
> meself, but I seem to be alone in that assertion.
>
No way! The Game is probably my fave "screw-with-your-head" movie of the
year! Maybe even of all time. You're definately not alone. (Even if it's
me you're not alone with, which, according to #rassm, is still alone...
:P)
> >> Last Action Hero nicks first prize because literally
> >> *everybody* hates it.
>
> >Not everybody...I once wrote a paper on it, leading off with a SW quote: "Many
> >of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." :)
>
> It's misunderstood. Someone on RASSM (was it you?) once said its failure
> might have been due to people expecting a Naked Gun/Airplane type parody,
> and were disappointed by a more subtle and less "pun-intensive" one.
>
I'm still undecided as to whether or not I actually liked or hated that
movie. I guess I'll need to see it another time or three...
<more snippage>
> - Gerthein
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> And you can check up ObEwan Kenobi's acting ability. Which is good.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
So... we've seen lists of Top 10 movies, most underrated... best
directors... how's about BOTTOM 10? What are your 10 most hated movies
you've ever seen?
Here's mine:
1. Blame it on the Bellboy (If you don't remember it, you're one lucky
bastard)
2. Almost any Tom Arnold movie besides True Lies (yeah, I'm sure that
doesn't really count as one, but I don't care)
3. Star Trek 1.
4. Any Police Academy movie but the first one.
5. Street Fighter
6. Any movie featuring Shaq... except for Blue Chips.
7. Any Pauly Shore movie
8. Judge Dredd
9. The Specialist (Or was it Assassins? Whatever. Same damn thing)
10. Ed Wood (I *think* I hated it, anyways... I don't really want to
re-rent it to find out, though...)
Widget
---------
Go to #rassm on Starlink and be a newbie again!
CraniumRat
Widget wrote:
>So... we've seen lists of Top 10 movies, most underrated... best >directors...
how's about BOTTOM 10? What are your 10 most hated movies >you've ever seen?
>Here's mine:
>1. Blame it on the Bellboy (If you don't remember it, you're one lucky
>bastard)
>2. Almost any Tom Arnold movie besides True Lies (yeah, I'm sure that
>doesn't really count as one, but I don't care)
>3. Star Trek 1.
>4. Any Police Academy movie but the first one.
>5. Street Fighter
>6. Any movie featuring Shaq... except for Blue Chips.
>7. Any Pauly Shore movie
>8. Judge Dredd
>9. The Specialist (Or was it Assassins? Whatever. Same damn thing)
>10. Ed Wood (I *think* I hated it, anyways... I don't really want to
>re-rent it to find out, though...)"
Ed Wood is one of the greatest movies of all time. I just don't understand why
some people don't like it. It's hilarious, stylish, and moving.
All of the others seem like appropriate choices, but I'm sure there are worse
films out there. What about "Don't Tell Her It's Me" with Steve Guttenberg and
Jaime Gertz, or "Manos, The Hands of Fate?"
-Brian Dolge
http://members.aol.com/CraniumRat/isabel.html
"Is it about my cube?"-C. Montgomery Burns, from The Simpsons
s1620
>So... we've seen lists of Top 10 movies, most underrated... best
>directors... how's about BOTTOM 10? What are your 10 most hated movies
>you've ever seen?
>
>---------
>Go to #rassm on Starlink and be a newbie again!
Here's my list in no particular order.
1. Hudson Hawk
2. Star Trek 5
3. Smokey and the Bandit 3
4. Any stupid movie from the 30's starring Shirley Temple
5. Speed 2
6. The Dirty Dozen II
7. Any of those awful TV movies shown on the Lifetime Network
8. That one stupid Robin Williams film where he plays several
characters in different historical time periods.
9. Delta Force
10. Invasion USA
11. Rocky 4 and 5
Adam Kohen
Gerthein Boersma wrote:
<re: Academy Awards>
> Well... things went pretty much as I expected.
I actually beat out Harry Knowles' predictions--I got 18 right. Of
course, I took wild guesses on the docu/short/foreign categories, but I
only missed two "regular" categories. One was Cinematography, where I
took a risk and picked Kundun. The other was Comedy Score, in which the
Il Postino effect overruled the cartoon rule.
>I myself was hoping the
> members of the Academy would actually go out and *see* Titanic one more
> time before voting, then comparing it to some of the previous winners and
> other nominees and realizing who incredibly clichéd it is...
Nah...having all the Academy members see Titanic again wouldn't lower
their opinion of it; it would just annoy all the SW gross-watchers more.
:) Maybe a better idea would be to make them watch LA-Con just once.
> Still, I suppose it's good that it didn't get any acting awards...
> actually, the only award it won that I didn't think appropriate was Best
> Picture -- but that's the biggy, isn't it?
I don't know...I had my own choices for several categories:
VFX: Starship Troopers
Sound: Contact or Air Force One
SFX: Face/Off
I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with a 3-hr movie winning for editing,
but I guess the fact that he made it seem like less means the pacing was
good enough.
> Too bad Elfman didn't get one, but like I said, he now has a foot in the
> door to win in a year in which he *really* deserves to
Interestingly, his name seemed to garner the most applause in both
categories when it was announced. And the Men in Black dance was pretty
nifty :)
I'm still undecided on Original Dramatic Score (although Horner's win
questions the "Original" part), but after hearing the GWH theme again, I
really hope they make a score album for this.
One last bit of Oscar trivia...Brian Helgeland, winning co-writer of
LA-Con, also won a Razzie award for Worst Screenplay--he co-wrote The
Postman. That's gotta be a first...
<SNIPPAGE>
> >To be fair, I was extremely tired when I watched CE3K, and I slept
> >through a fair portion of it in the middle. Another "to be re-viewed"
> >film, I guess.
>
> Re-viewing has been known to change my opinion. I used to feel that
> Ghostbusters 2 was a pretty darn bad sequel, but upon reviewing it found it
> to be not too bad.
Peter MacNicol is a riot :) "Vhy am I dripping vith goo?"
> >Just to illustrate the point about how Top Tens can change day to day, I
> >think at the moment Batman Returns
>
> Well, as I said, I liked the original better -- because it had a better
> balance of 'Burtonism', atmosphere, style, and excitement. BR has a bit
> more depth, and even more style, but I ultimately thought its plot was too
> bungled -- the penguin comes up with ploy after ploy only for it to be
> easily foiled by the Bat. And that weird powerplant-storyline didn't really
> mix in well, did it?
I agree that Catwoman was a much better character than the Penguin (I'm
still waiting for the supposed Catwoman movie Burton and Pfieffer were
going to do), but I've come to tolerate the character more each time I
watch it. And I enjoyed the fact that one of the villains this time was
a normal human being, and not some mutant freak:
Penguin + Max Schrek > Riddler + Two-Face (wasted) >>> Mr. Freeze +
Poison Ivy + Bane (horribly wasted)
> Still, both Batman and Batman Returns are two of the best blockbusting
> films out there simply because they're so daring. Burton doesn't seem to
> care about money -- he just wants to be artistic, warped; even a little
> perverted. It's no surprise that besides these two, his films have enjoyed
> only cult success.
Ed Wood was a critical favorite, and I think Beetlejuice is fairly
popular in its own right, but the others (Pee Wee, Scissorhands, MA!) do
have a much narrower audience.
> >Ah, 1995: the year of Spacey. Besides Outbreak, Se7en, and Usual
> >Suspects, this year produced my favorite Spacey role to date: film
> >producer Buddy Ackerman in Swimming With Sharks.
>
> There's another film for my "To Rent" list, right there. :) Are you sure
> it's better than Verbal Kint, though? I probably won't think so, but then
> TUS is my favorite film of all time -- at the moment. :)
It is a tough call, but he gets to be a lot nastier in SWS. Watch for
the Sweet-N-Low scene :)
> >And I just remembered another great recent horror, although it was
> >advertised as a comedy: The Frighteners. I'd like to see James Cameron
> >pull off those FX with the money Peter Jackson had :)
>
> That one's at the top of my "To Rent" list, presently. Everyone likes it so
> much, it's a wonder it didn't do better. And it has Michael J. Fox, whom I
> like.
Poor advertising and poor timing of release. I heard it was originally
meant to be released around Halloween that year, but Zemeckis (he
produced) was so impressed with the effects that he thought it could fit
Universal's "summer blockbuster" void. So they opened it two weeks
after ID4 :(
And Fox does the reluctant action hero bit pretty well, without falling
into his permanent teenager image or making me think "hey, that's Marty
McFly!"
> > Agreed on Kate Capshaw...and
> >Spielberg married her right after that! Maybe giving her the role was
> >his "mating dance" :) Although the role itself was nothing great to
> >begin with.
>
> No, you're right: we can't put all the blame for ToD's relative failure on
> Capshaw's shoulders -- the dialogue wasn't up to scratch and the plot too
> straightforward and not "adventurous" enough.
>
> What's your opinion of The Last Crusade?
I like it a lot...even though the basic plot structure is the same as
Raiders, the addition of Sean Connery allows some great humor. And the
opening sequence with young Indy was fun, featuring the umpteenth
explanation of Harrison Ford's chin scar :)
<re: Last Action Hero>
> >That might indeed have been me. Half of the audience wanted Zucker
> >parody, and the other half wanted straight action. The film walked the
> >line and left (almost) everybody disappointed...
>
> But not me. I've been known to say it's Schwartzenegger's best. But I
> actually prefer T2 and Total Recall, and I also have an irrational soft
> spot for The Running Man and Twins. LAH's about on par with True Lies and
> Predator, though.
While I love T2, *my* irrational soft spot places Predator on top
alongside Total Recall.
> >On BTTF...is it me, or are the SW parallels freaky? This assumes, of
> >course, that one likes BTTF2 best, which I seem to be alone on.
>
> I think it's the most *fun* one, and the best-made. It is, in fact, one of
> the best made films ever IMO -- the BTTF1 scenes, whether "re-enacted" or
> re-used, mix in seemlessly. However, the cartoony characters (esp.
> Jennifer) with their over-excited dialogue (esp. Doc) are somewhat
> annoying. I preferred the original because it was more serious and somewhat
> less shallow. It's close, though.
Ah, but I *like* the cartoony stuff...at least where Christopher Lloyd
is concerned. He's one of the best there is at that--he was Judge Doom,
for Gonk's sake! (btw, I like the WFRR reference under organization in
your header :))
<re: Wild Things>
> >The more I think about this movie, the more I like it. I'm almost
> >convinced now that it was intentionally ridiculous, in which case it was
> >great. And it is worth a look just for Bill Murray's brief role.
>
> Well then I'm seeing it, 'sall there is to it. Am I alone in thinking
> Groundhog Day was pretty darn brilliant?
Another Murray classic.
-AK
And Chris Eliott rules (am I the only fool to like Cabin Boy?)
Gerthein Boersma
"Areff D, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>1) There has yet to be, in my opinion, a good Batman movie. Even the Burton
>ones were a mess to me. I love Burton when he's not doing superheroes (Edward
>Scissorhands being my favorite), but I'm so afraid of evil clowns all over
>Superman that it hurts.
Part of the brilliance of Burton's Batman-outings is that they're not what
one would suspect. They're his warped interpretation of the character and
city, which is why they're so interesting.
(putting on asbestos suit...)
Superhero-comics, however cool they may be, are very adolescent material --
even the rather intelligent Batman stories and Animated series are rather
"obvious" in their exploration of the dilemma of the dual identity and such
comicbook stallwarts. Burton took ingredients of that thinking and put it
into an atmospheric and twisted world that's all his own. Suddenly,
Batman's a tragic character rather than a hero. Suddenly, the characters
and their motivations aren't that straightforward anymore.
A "mess"? FACPOV -- that of the comics -- perhaps... certainly BR is a tad
on the wrong side of messy... but at least it's an interesting mess. It's
obvious that the harshest criticism of Burton's films comes from fans of
the heroic Batman of the comics -- although I also know many comic fans who
have embraced Burton's interpretation as the deepest and most interesting
since Frank Miller's; possibly beyond even that. Burton's films were bold,
certainly, and so they won't be to everyone's liking -- he stuck his neck
out, so it's only logical that some would chop it off. But in my opinion
there's no question that Burton's version of the Caped Crusader is more
mature than any other I've seen.
It's therefore a tragedy, IMO, that people will cheer on Burton if he keeps
to his own little worlds, but scream rape and murder when he uses that same
vision to take near-dead established characters in brave new directions.
Personally, I'm waiting with abaited breath to see how he'll breathe new
life in the Superman franchise -- because if there's one character that
needs it, it's the Man of Steel.
>2) To me, there has yet to be a bad Alien movie. I thought 3 and 4 were no
>less worthy than the first two and were admirable for willing to break the
>formula of the first two. I terrorized the Alien newsgroup for a month after
>Resurrection came out trying to convince them, but alas, 'twas not to be...
Because you're wrong ;). Nah, you're entitled to your opinion of course,
but you're the first person I've met that rates the two latest sequels on
par with the originals. In my opinion, Alien3 had atmosphere but no
excitement (now there's a mess of a film; prolly to do with all those
different writers) -- it's just so darn empty, with samey and unlikable
characters. AR had some perverted 'depth' (or attempts at depth) but
ultimately the script was of a purely fanboy level -- it ends up being
little more than a B-movie with pretention. And neither of them were
suspenseful or scary, which kinda defeats the purpose.
I have some admiration for the directors of both films; they indeed tried
harder to take the franchise in new directions than Cameron did, (Cameron
pretty much retread Alien but it's a bigger and better retread) but IMO
they didn't try nearly hard enough. Esp. Alien 4 was, in terms of plot,
just prolonging what had went before, failing to make those changes which
the series had been crying out for during the third installment, and which
the fourth time around must be considered mandatory.
Still, they weren't bad in their own right, I suppose -- I enjoyed them.
>3) I don't think I could narrow anything down to a top ten. It so much
>depends on what mood I'm in to watch. But another good indicator is the
>"remote dropper" factor: which movies will make me drop the remote and watch
>no matter how far along they are? Well, in no particular order:
<snipped>
>You know, I could go on for a day like this....:)
Yeah, so could I. :)
Gerthein Boersma
"Widget, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>No way! The Game is probably my fave "screw-with-your-head" movie of the
>year! Maybe even of all time. You're definately not alone.
****** (SPOILERS for The Game beyond)
I wouldn't say it's one of the greatest of all time, though... it
s-t-r-e-t-c-h-es credibility on a number of occasions, although I'd put
that under the banner of surrealism myself. Related to this is the ending,
in which Van Orten shows he actually enjoyed a game in which he's
humiliated countless of times, and continually kicked when he's down, up
until the point where he decides to commits suicide, for crying out loud!
The only actual fun in it is that he can be relieved that it wasn't real --
kind of like the feeling of waking up after a nightmare and realizing it
was just a dream. But really, how much fun is that? Still, made for some
damn cool entertainment, didn't it?
****** (SPOILERS end)
>(Even if it's me you're not alone with, which, according to #rassm, is still alone...
>:P)
Well, I've never supported that notion anyway. :)
[Last Action Hero]
>I'm still undecided as to whether or not I actually liked or hated that
>movie. I guess I'll need to see it another time or three...
I don't think anyone here is saying that it's one of the best of all time,
just that it's pretty darned good whilst most people/critics say it's
terrible. And it bombed horribly.
>So... we've seen lists of Top 10 movies, most underrated... best
>directors... how's about BOTTOM 10? What are your 10 most hated movies
>you've ever seen?
There are so many excrutiatingly bad films that it's impossible for me to
distill a top ten out of them. There are several ways for a film to suck,
after all: The Saint was just super-boring, whilst Batman & Robin was a
laughable insult of the viewer's intelligence -- but which is worse? It's
hard to compare.
Here's how the IMDB tells it, anyway:
1. Manos, the Hands of Fate (1966)
2. Dis (1995)
3. Space Mutiny (1988)
Monster a-Go Go (1965)
5. Leonard Part 6 (1987)
Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace (1996)
7. As Summers Die (1986) (TV)
Night Train to Mundo Fine (1966)
9. Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964)
Creeping Terror, The (1964)
Gerthein Boersma
"Adam Kohen, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>> Well... things went pretty much as I expected.
>I actually beat out Harry Knowles' predictions--I got 18 right.
I got 21! I had an unfair advantage, of course, following the news on
"Character" a bit closer and thus knowing that it was a front runner. Best
Animated Short I sorta guessed based on it being by Pixar. The only
categories I got wrong were Best Documentary (both short and regular) and
Live Action short -- all three I just guessed, and was wrong. I predicted
Titanic would win everything bar the acting awards, on account of that
"sweep" thing.
I thought maybe Gloria Stuart might take home the best supporting statue,
but when adding everything up it was unavoidable that it would go to
Basinger because LA-C would have otherwise only gotten one, which would've
been absurd. Same deal with The Full Monty in the comedy score category --
a best picture nominee should at least win *some* statue.
>Nah...having all the Academy members see Titanic again wouldn't lower
>their opinion of it; it would just annoy all the SW gross-watchers more.
>:) Maybe a better idea would be to make them watch LA-Con just once.
Maybe... I still don't get why they'd give so many awards to a pretty
clichéd flick -- at least Forrest Gump was inspired and original.
>I don't know...I had my own choices for several categories:
>VFX: Starship Troopers
Well, we've been over that... :) I still think the non-CG bugs/bug-limbs
looked like spray-painted pieces of latex.
>Sound: Contact or Air Force One
Both these had great sound, but Titanic's was quite awesome as well.
>SFX: Face/Off
Why? It's good, but not as super-immersive as Titanic's SFX, which are very
well mixed, IMO. In a surround-sound theater, you're actually on that ship.
>I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with a 3-hr movie winning for editing,
>but I guess the fact that he made it seem like less means the pacing was
>good enough.
It's said to have been cut down from 5 hours. Still, there are a few
editing goofs in there (like in the "spitting" scene), but that's
understandable considering the enormous amount of editing work that went
into it in total.
>> Too bad Elfman didn't get one, but like I said, he now has a foot in the
>> door to win in a year in which he *really* deserves to
>Interestingly, his name seemed to garner the most applause in both
>categories when it was announced. And the Men in Black dance was pretty
>nifty :)
Personally, I thought it was one of Elfman's weaker scores. IMO, it's just
a little too cartoony (which seems to be the word of this thread ;).
>I'm still undecided on Original Dramatic Score (although Horner's win
>questions the "Original" part), but after hearing the GWH theme again, I
>really hope they make a score album for this.
Besides originality, the only nitpick I have of Horner's soundtrack is that
it's not full orchestral (which would've fit the grand scale of it all) --
I guess there just wasn't any room in Cameron's wretched little budget. ;)
But otherwise it's quite a lovely score, IMO. Haven't quite heard GWH's
enough, tho'.
>One last bit of Oscar trivia...Brian Helgeland, winning co-writer of
>LA-Con, also won a Razzie award for Worst Screenplay--he co-wrote The
>Postman. That's gotta be a first...
Yeah, I noticed that... pity B&R didn't win more Razzies -- it's much worse
than The Postman IMO. I guess they just picked Postman because it was a
bigger bomb -- the Razzies seem to work that way.
>I agree that Catwoman was a much better character than the Penguin (I'm
>still waiting for the supposed Catwoman movie Burton and Pfieffer were
>going to do)
Oh, that was cancelled ages ago (if it was ever more than an idea in the
first place). Too bad.. would've been cool.
>, but I've come to tolerate the character more each time I
>watch it.
I actually love the Penguin, it's just that his ploys suck. The Joker's
scheme to just plain kill everyone was chilling -- but they tried make the
Penguin a tragically manipulated soul, then a vindictively cunning little
man, and then just another psycho that wants to kill everyone -- and he
doesn't come close realizing any of these things. And Batman uses the old
"record the conversation to humiliate him during his big speech later"
trick against him! That one's even in Weird Al's 'UHF', for Lobot's sake!
> And I enjoyed the fact that one of the villains this time was
>a normal human being, and not some mutant freak:
A little underused, though.
>Penguin + Max Schrek > Riddler + Two-Face (wasted)
I agree that Two-Face was wasted more than Schreck (whom was also wasted to
an extent IMO), but I thought the Riddler's ploy, while sillier and more
cartoony, was at least coherent. In terms of plot, and only in terms of
plot, I thought BF was therefore marginally better than BR.
>>> Mr. Freeze + Poison Ivy + Bane (horribly wasted)
Although Bane was little more than a silly henchman, it was Mr. Freeze who
IMO was the most wasted. He could have been a tragic villain... now, he's
just a one-liner spouting robo-suit.
>Ed Wood was a critical favorite, and I think Beetlejuice is fairly
>popular in its own right, but the others (Pee Wee, Scissorhands, MA!) do
>have a much narrower audience.
Of those you mention, I think Scissorhands was actually the most
successful, perhaps with the exception of Beetlejuice.
>> What's your opinion of The Last Crusade?
>I like it a lot...even though the basic plot structure is the same as
>Raiders, the addition of Sean Connery allows some great humor.
The dialogue was very witty, but ultimately I thought things were a tad too
light. Marcus and Sallah acting like total buffoons annoyed me (they're --
say it with me -- too cartoony! ;).
Still, the interplay between Connery and Ford as well as some brilliantly
devised action/adventure scenes help it immensely, making it nearly as good
as Raiders in my mind.
>And the
>opening sequence with young Indy was fun, featuring the umpteenth
>explanation of Harrison Ford's chin scar :)
Of the others, only Working Girl leaps to mind... refresh my memory. :)
[BTTF2]
>Ah, but I *like* the cartoony stuff...at least where Christopher Lloyd
>is concerned. He's one of the best there is at that--he was Judge Doom,
>for Gonk's sake!
True, Lloyd pulls it off. But I think the film could have taken itself just
a *tad* bit more seriously -- especially the 2015 portion. It sometimes
seemed like a parody rather than a light-hearted scifi/adventure/comedy
that it should be. And Shue is pretty bad as Jennifer -- the scene in the
beginning where Doc has to subdue her is just teeth-grindingly annoying.
>(btw, I like the WFRR reference under organization in
>your header :))
Thanks :)
>> Well then I'm seeing it, 'sall there is to it. Am I alone in thinking
>> Groundhog Day was pretty darn brilliant?
>Another Murray classic.
Indeed.
>And Chris Eliott rules (am I the only fool to like Cabin Boy?)
He does rule. I never caught Cabin Boy, but Get A Life was hilarious.
Areff D
> Suddenly,
>Batman's a tragic character rather than a hero. Suddenly, the characters
>and their motivations aren't that straightforward anymore.
But so was the Frank Miller Batman! He was a tragic hero, and many times in
the comic stories there is mention of the fact that Bruce Wayne is more a
disguise than Batman, that Bats and his enemies are all psychotics running
around in masks, just that Bats happens to be a good guy. I think Burton (and
Schumacher for that matter) have made four movies with Batman in the title that
had very little to do with Batman.
And how many times is the Batmobile going to get stolen/destroyed??? What, is
it's frequency public domain or something? And the Joker shooting down the
Batplane with one shot from an oversized revolver??? PRINCE MUSIC??? That's
what I object to, not the dark vision, that was something I expected.
AMSNYD
I am a great admirer of Tim Burton (PeeWee's Big Adventure and Mars Attacks!
are two of my favorite films of all time) but the REAL Batman movie was made in
1966 and starred Adam West.
Eric J Bycer
Gerthein Boersma (gert...@wxs.nl) wrote:
: >>> Mr. Freeze + Poison Ivy + Bane (horribly wasted)
: Although Bane was little more than a silly henchman, it was Mr. Freeze who
: IMO was the most wasted. He could have been a tragic villain... now, he's
: just a one-liner spouting robo-suit.
Yes, Frieze was horribly wasted, but if you've read the Batman comics
with Bane in them, you would have seen how horribly they treated Bane.
Bane was the first villian who came to Gotham with the intent of breaking
Batman. He first weakened him and then discovered his identity, and then
broke him.
When Jean-Paul Valley took up the mantle of the Bat, Bane, although
eventually defeated by JPV's Batman, never respected JP as Batman as much
as he respected Bruce Wayne as Batman. When Bruce Wayne returned, evne
Bane, locked away in prison, was able to sense the return of the true
champion.
Eric Bycer
Bane in the movies was worse than a cruel joke.
Gerthein Boersma
"Eric J Bycer, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me
back here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>Yes, Frieze was horribly wasted, but if you've read the Batman comics
>with Bane in them, you would have seen how horribly they treated Bane.
>Bane was the first villian who came to Gotham with the intent of breaking
>Batman. He first weakened him and then discovered his identity, and then
>broke him.
I know about the Bane of the comics, an interesting warrior reduced to a
joke of a henchman. However, Bane in the films, while a blithering idiot,
is still a not uninteresting choice as a henchman -- moreso than the
billions of faceless henchmen of BF. Only if one compares him to the Bane
of the comics is the transition so unforgivable.
Oh, and the whole JPV-arc was, IMHO, pretty ludicrous anyway.
Eric Mohler
In article <199803260412...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
AMSNYD <ams...@aol.com> wrote:
>I am a great admirer of Tim Burton (PeeWee's Big Adventure and Mars Attacks!
>are two of my favorite films of all time) but the REAL Batman movie was
>made in 1966 and starred Adam West.
>--
>Aaron Snyder
You are insane! (IMHO :)
Adam West is the anti-Batman. I don't think Bob Kane, the co-creator of
Batman ever intended for him to be like that. I've read a couple of the
very, very, early Batman comics from the 1930s, if anything, they were
more similar to the mood Tim Burton set, who of course was emulating Frank
Miller, who was just trying to get back to Batman's roots in the first place.
I guess I really don't like campy Batman, whether it is the Adam West
version or the Joel Schumacher version.
I'd personally like to see the David Fincher Batman, from a script by
Kevin Smith. Wouldn't that be a sight!
Eric
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Eric G. Mohler The RASSM prequel FAQ: |
| Dept. of Psychology http://www.duke.edu/~egm/prequel.html |
| (Biological Area) "Who is more foolish... the fool or the fool |
| Duke University who 'follows up.'" Obi Wan Kenobi on RASS.misc|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Widget
Gerthein Boersma wrote:
>
> "Widget, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
> here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
> portable gallows."
I've been meaning to ask what the hell that's from...
>
> >No way! The Game is probably my fave "screw-with-your-head" movie of the
> >year! Maybe even of all time. You're definately not alone.
>
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
F
O
R
T
H
E
G
A
M
E
There! :)
> ****** (SPOILERS for The Game beyond)
>
> I wouldn't say it's one of the greatest of all time, though... it
> s-t-r-e-t-c-h-es credibility on a number of occasions, although I'd put
> that under the banner of surrealism myself. Related to this is the ending,
> in which Van Orten shows he actually enjoyed a game in which he's
> humiliated countless of times, and continually kicked when he's down, up
> until the point where he decides to commits suicide, for crying out loud!
> The only actual fun in it is that he can be relieved that it wasn't real --
> kind of like the feeling of waking up after a nightmare and realizing it
> was just a dream. But really, how much fun is that? Still, made for some
> damn cool entertainment, didn't it?
>
> ****** (SPOILERS end)
I guess I'm just of the philosophy that a movie doesn't have to be "fun"
to be good. I *like* it when a movie makes me wonder what the HELL that
was. :P I guess it's movies like these that makes me really respect and
honor directors like Fincher (who, I have to admit, despite the fact
that I really don't like Alien^3, did a damn fine job directing it. It
had a great feel, just missed the whole point when it came to suspense
and intrigue, which can probably be contributed to the numerous
writers), and writers like... ::checks IMDB for the writer...:: John D.
Brancato.
And on that note... any other movies besides the obvious 12 Monkeys and
The Game that really screw with your head (mostly with the
multi-threaded plots)?
>
> >(Even if it's me you're not alone with, which, according to #rassm, is still alone...
> >:P)
>
> Well, I've never supported that notion anyway. :)
Woohoo!!! ;)
>
> [Last Action Hero]
> >I'm still undecided as to whether or not I actually liked or hated that
> >movie. I guess I'll need to see it another time or three...
>
> I don't think anyone here is saying that it's one of the best of all time,
> just that it's pretty darned good whilst most people/critics say it's
> terrible. And it bombed horribly.
>
Now that I think back and remember it, I'm beginning to think that the
critics unjustly killed yet another movie by giving bad reviews. (My
opinion of critics really deserves to be in another thread, though.)
> >So... we've seen lists of Top 10 movies, most underrated... best
> >directors... how's about BOTTOM 10? What are your 10 most hated movies
> >you've ever seen?
>
> There are so many excrutiatingly bad films that it's impossible for me to
> distill a top ten out of them. There are several ways for a film to suck,
> after all: The Saint was just super-boring, whilst Batman & Robin was a
> laughable insult of the viewer's intelligence -- but which is worse? It's
> hard to compare.
>
Well... I guess just "movies that you wouldn't watch even if you were
paid to" is a good start. :)
>
> - Gerthein (-o-)
> -----------------------------
> g e r t h e i n @ w x s . n l
> -----------------------------
Widget
-------
Got mIRC?
Mango-Wan
On 26 Mar 1998, AMSNYD wrote:
> I am a great admirer of Tim Burton (PeeWee's Big Adventure and Mars Attacks!
> are two of my favorite films of all time) but the REAL Batman movie was made in
> 1966 and starred Adam West.
You mean the one where a shark attached itself to Batman's leg and
swallowed it up to about the need, and Batman sprayed it with Bat-Shark
Repellent and it fell off... having done no damage to his leg?
The Batman film where Batman runs around a dock holding a bomb above his
head almost running into the same 3 nun and the same woman pushing-a-pram
4 times... and none of them think to get out of the way?
That film?
---
- Dug.
---
AMSNYD
>ubject: Re: Batman (Re: TOP 10 FILMS)
>From: Mango-Wan <sci-...@jcu.edu.au>
>Date: Thu, Mar 26, 1998 4:21 PM
>Message-id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980327081646.11227A->100...@barra.jcu.edu.au>
Yeah, that one. Wasn't it a gas? I love that film and I LOL each time I watch
it. Great flick. I love the part where he and Robin had the good fortune to
fall on a foam convention. And don't forget when Batman and Robin were saved
from Penguin's missle when a dolphin I beleive "sacraficed it's life" for them.
Classic flick. Best Batman film ever made, IMHO.
Eric J Bycer
AMSNYD (ams...@aol.com) wrote:
: >On 26 Mar 1998, AMSNYD wrote:
: >
: >> I am a great admirer of Tim Burton (PeeWee's Big Adventure and Mars
: >Attacks!
: >> are two of my favorite films of all time) but the REAL Batman movie >was
: made in
: >> 1966 and starred Adam West.
: >
: >You mean the one where a shark attached itself to Batman's leg and
: >swallowed it up to about the need, and Batman sprayed it with Bat-Shark
: >Repellent and it fell off... having done no damage to his leg?
: >
: >The Batman film where Batman runs around a dock holding a bomb above >his
: >head almost running into the same 3 nun and the same woman pushing-a->pram
: >4 times... and none of them think to get out of the way?
: >
: >That film?
: Yeah, that one. Wasn't it a gas? I love that film and I LOL each time I watch
: it. Great flick. I love the part where he and Robin had the good fortune to
: fall on a foam convention. And don't forget when Batman and Robin were saved
: from Penguin's missle when a dolphin I beleive "sacraficed it's life" for them.
: Classic flick. Best Batman film ever made, IMHO.
Aaron,
First off, I think that we've already had this discussion before.
Second, I want to like you, or at least respect you (as a SW fan). I
really do.
But...WHAT THE FLYING F*CK ARE YOU SAYING???
The Adam West Era was, without a doubt, the worst thing that ever
happened to Batman. Yes, it increased Batman's visibility, but at what
cost?
Being a hard core Batman fan, and having seen a great deal of the comics
ass they appeared throughout the years (after the fact, of course), and
have found only a very small percentage of issues that even come close to
the degradation that was the Adam West Era.
Batman is a story about a child who watches his parent get murdered right
in front of his eyes, and who spends the rest of his life avenging their
deaths.
"I am vengence! I am the night! I am Batman!"
Robin also saw his parents brutally murdered before his eyes, though he
didn't realize it until a bit later.
This isn't about cheesy "Pow" graphics.
This isn't about Adam West's little "Batdance"
This isn't about naming everything "Bat-" something. "Get the Bat shark
repellent!"
This isn't about "Holy <something>, Batman!"
The only thing that the Adam West series and "movie" ever did to Batman
was set the entire premise on its head, leaving us open for Schumaker's
version of that era in Batman Forever and B*tm*n & R*b*n.
Imagine if, in the prequels you had Jim Carrey starring as Palpatine,
Arnold Schwartzenegger as Obi-Wan, a gratuitous supermodel who couldn't
act to save her life as a love interest, and Jaleel White as Anakin.
AS: Anakin, you must chill out.
Anakin knocks over a vase, which causes a landspeeder to crash into the
side of a spaceport which leads to the entire city lying in ruins (with
no dead people, of course) in a matter of seconds
JW: (nasally) Did I do that?
JC: Allllllrightyyythen! Oh, can you feel the Dark Side, baby? (thrusts
hips with every 'yes!') Yes! Yes! Yes! (Turns around and talks out of
his ass) Anakin, can I ass you question? Would you like great powers,
and the ability to make the most annoying sound in the universe?
JW: Gee willakers, Palpy. What do you think, Padme, my sweet?
GSMWCATSHL: Shut up, geek. I'm just here to show how low my neckline
is. Can anyone say 'cleavage'?
AS: They'll be back.
JW: Whoa, mama!
JC: Those are really large breasts. No! Wait! I mean, they're huge
melons. I mean, mommy, it's lunchtime!
<GSMWCATSHL punches JC in the face, thus eliciting cheers from the audience.>
etc., etc.
That, my friend, is as blasphemous to SW as the Adam West series is to
Batman.
Eric Bycer
I trust that we are clear.
MCarrasco
>Yeah, that one. Wasn't it a gas?
A fatrt is gas too. ANd just like the Aam West Batman Movie is also smelled
very bad!
Mr. Peabody
--------------------
Duct tape is like the Force, it has a dark side and a light side
and it binds the universe together
Gerthein Boersma
"AMSNYD, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>I am a great admirer of Tim Burton (PeeWee's Big Adventure and Mars Attacks!
>are two of my favorite films of all time) but the REAL Batman movie was made in
>1966 and starred Adam West.
So, Aaron, lemme get this straight: you loved Howard the Duck and the
Holiday Special, thought Billy Zane was cheated out of the Oscars for his
performance in Titanic, and felt that Adam West was the true Batman? DO YOU
HAVE ANY TASTE IN MOVIES WHATSOEVER?
;-)
Gerthein Boersma
"Widget, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>I've been meaning to ask what the hell that's from...
It's from Blackadder the Third, episode "Amy and Amiability".
>S
>P
>O
>I
>L
>E
>R
>S
>P
>A
>C
>E
>F
>O
>R
>T
>H
>E
>G
>A
>M
>E
>I guess I'm just of the philosophy that a movie doesn't have to be "fun"
>to be good. I *like* it when a movie makes me wonder what the HELL that
>was. :P
Oh, don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to imply that the film is bad (which
it isn't by any measure) because it's not "fun" -- I just thought it was a
stretch that Van Orten seemed to have enjoyed The Game in the end -- not
that the audience had fun, but that *he* had fun was the thing that struck
me as odd. The man had been driven to suicide, for chrissakes. Then again,
90% of these 'screw with your head' films start to fall apart a little bit
on repeated viewings, when you know the ending and start thinking "What the
heck is THAT?". For example, Van Orten is at one point shot at with live
ammo -- there's no way that can be done 'safely'. My theory is that since
the film is from Van Orten's POV, he only saw it as live ammo, yet in
reality they were shooting duds.
>I guess it's movies like these that makes me really respect and
>honor directors like Fincher (who, I have to admit, despite the fact
>that I really don't like Alien^3, did a damn fine job directing it. It
>had a great feel, just missed the whole point when it came to suspense
>and intrigue, which can probably be contributed to the numerous
>writers), and writers like... ::checks IMDB for the writer...:: John D.
>Brancato.
Alien3 at first struck me as poorly directed (lovely and artistic, but
insuspenseful), until I learned that Fincher was not involved with the
editing -- and it's the poorly chosen cuts that often ruin the suspense.
>And on that note... any other movies besides the obvious 12 Monkeys and
>The Game that really screw with your head (mostly with the
>multi-threaded plots)?
Total Recall is rather like 12M in that it has quite an interesting plot in
itself yet also has the "What is real?" notion to give it more depth. The
Game is solely a "What's going on?" feeling all the way through.
<mucho snipples>
>Widget
>-------
>Got mIRC?
Heehee... nice one. :D
Gerthein Boersma
"Areff D, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>> Suddenly,
>>Batman's a tragic character rather than a hero. Suddenly, the characters
>>and their motivations aren't that straightforward anymore.
>But so was the Frank Miller Batman! He was a tragic hero, and many times in
>the comic stories there is mention of the fact that Bruce Wayne is more a
>disguise than Batman, that Bats and his enemies are all psychotics running
>around in masks, just that Bats happens to be a good guy.
There's no doubt whatsoever that Burton was inspired by the thematics of
Miller's Batman interpretation. However, it's my opinion that Burton dared
to take the concept a little further than even Miller, by truly exploring
the theme beyond one line remarks such as the ones you cite above. Burton's
dialogue is more interesting than the often simple comic dailogue
(paraphrased: "I am Batman! I'm Darkness! I'm Justice! I am Batman!"). Note
that Burton/Keaton don't achieve the image of the tragic hero through
dialogue alone -- there are some brilliant shots of Keaton just sitting
there, brooding, which say more than a thousand words. Miller's comic
books/"graphic novels" are of a very high standard -- but they're still
comic books at heart.
In the comics, Batman remains in essence a somewhat empty character -- he
has a few defining characteristics, but never changes much -- and always
remains a 'good guy' without exploring his true motivations beyond
speculation as you cite above -- he just keeps on fighting for justice and
vengeance because he's cool like that, but he's not going to be taken into
bold new directions -- heck, he's not even going to change much. This is
one area in which Burton is perhaps no better than the comic-writers:
Batman remains an essentially empty shell with a past but not much else --
but some of the dialogue and aforementioned brooding shots hint at there
being an intruiging persona under that suit -- someone we want to know more
about even though we know we probably never will.
> I think Burton (and
>Schumacher for that matter) have made four movies with Batman in the title that
>had very little to do with Batman.
This line is so far off-base that it almost contradicts what you state
above. Burton's Batman takes after Miller's so much that if one hasn't to
do with Batman, then neither is does other. The only real difference is
that the comics were written to appeal to adolescents, whilst Burton tried
to make Batman more mature, yet still interesting/exciting enough for kids
and the comic-book audience. Perhaps Burton failed in doing the latter at
least in Returns' case -- certainly Schumacher's Batman Forever fares
somewhat better in terms of broad appeal -- but I don't care: I like the
deeper version, I like Burton better.
Speaking of Schumacher -- before doing so let's get a few things out of the
way: Schumacher is a moron, and B&R is a bad joke of a film that does the
franchise no favors whatsoever. BF has many of the same elements of
Schumacherization, yet survives due to a better basic story and script
written by Goldsmith in a very Burton-esque fashion. The script was
butchered and filled with terrible one-liners, but some of its ideas and
views of the character remain in tact. And Goldsmith's view of Batman is in
fact closer in many ways to Miller's/comics version than Burton's is:
The speech Batman gives before saving Robin and Chase from The Riddler's
Campy Machine-o-death could have come straight from the comics. There's
also a somewhat poignant moment in the film in which Wayne warns Grayson
that once you start avenging death, you will have to find "another face...
and another". Almost analogous to "once down the dark path you start,
forever will it dominate your destiny" -- and to Vader's tragic "It's too
late for me, my son". Of course, these themes are all but squandered later
on, but "an sich" they're more Miller than Burton's more warped and subtle
approach.
On a related note, it also seems to me as if you disliked Burton's films
because they don't have Batman in a "detective" role. I object to that on
two principles. One, Batman in Batman (1989) is as much a detective as he
is in the bulk of the comics -- usually, the extent is not that much beyond
feeding information into the Batcomputer and then drawing some conclusions.
Also, the scale of the movies is by necessity more grand and epic -- they
can't be simple fact-finding adventure-yarns, they have to explore the lead
character a bit or else be no more interesting than a comic. It's my
opinion that Burton does this exploring better and in a more intriguing
fashion than anyone else has managed. Your mileage my vary.
>And how many times is the Batmobile going to get stolen/destroyed??? What, is
>it's frequency public domain or something?
This was a plot-point that was unused in Batman, and thus it wasn't much of
a stretch that Burton would use it in Returns. Therefore, this happens
*once* in the Burton-films. The fact that the Batmobile is also blown away
whilst sitting in the action-figure playset that is the Schumacher Batcave
in Batman Forever is beyond the scope of this discussion.
>And the Joker shooting down the
>Batplane with one shot from an oversized revolver???
I'll concede that Burton is perhaps a bit too unorthodox for his own good.
He is, in fact, absolutely allergic to doing the obvious. Perhaps it would
have been more logical for the Joker to use AA-missiles against the
Batwing, but Burton's weird version is more artistically interesting. There
are other scenes that are also slightly marred by Burton's allergy to the
obvious (the one in which Vale first finds out Wayne = Batman being
particularly awkward). I never said the film was perfect, but -- although
die-hard Batfans may consider this blasphemy -- neither are the 'graphic
novels' of Miller. But overall Burton's weird approach makes for a bold,
different film -- which is ultimately a good thing.
>PRINCE MUSIC???
It was made in the late '80s. What, you're one of those people that
short-changes ROTJ because it has that retro Lapti-Nek/silly Jedi Rocks
song? Even if so, this hardly diminishes *both* Batman films.
> That's what I object to, not the dark vision, that was something I expected.
So, in other words, you disliked Burton's films because they did things you
did not expect from a Batman movie? S'funny, that's exactly the reason I
like it so much. In fact, to stick my neck out, as far as blockbusters go,
Batman is one of the few that dare to be different -- so much so that it's
a miracle that it was so successful in the first place.
Eric Mohler
In article <6fg34s$a8...@reader2.wxs.nl>,
Gerthein Boersma <gert...@wxs.nl> wrote:
>"Areff D, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
>here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
>portable gallows."
>
>>> Suddenly,
>>>Batman's a tragic character rather than a hero. Suddenly, the characters
>>>and their motivations aren't that straightforward anymore.
>
>>But so was the Frank Miller Batman! He was a tragic hero, and many times in
>>the comic stories there is mention of the fact that Bruce Wayne is more a
>>disguise than Batman, that Bats and his enemies are all psychotics running
>>around in masks, just that Bats happens to be a good guy.
>
>There's no doubt whatsoever that Burton was inspired by the thematics of
>Miller's Batman interpretation. However, it's my opinion that Burton dared
>to take the concept a little further than even Miller, by truly exploring
>the theme beyond one line remarks such as the ones you cite above. Burton's
>dialogue is more interesting than the often simple comic dailogue
>(paraphrased: "I am Batman! I'm Darkness! I'm Justice! I am Batman!").
For one thing, I think you are really selling short the comics by doing a
straight forward comparison of dialogue. Granted, there is less dialogue
in comics than movies, but this ignores the tremendous amount of
exposition in the comics. The words used for the expository phrases are
no mistake, and are a sort of dialogue in their own right. This kind of
writing doesn't translate very well to the silver screen, so dialogue
between characters is used much more extensively. Also, if I recall
correctly, the statements above (I am Batman! I am Darkness, etc) are
internal thoughts, and shouldn't be compared to movie dialogue anyway.
Internal thoughts are very difficult to express in films (without
sounding stupid or overbearing) as opposed to books and comic books, and
thus it seems as though you are comparing apples and oranges.
>Note
>that Burton/Keaton don't achieve the image of the tragic hero through
>dialogue alone -- there are some brilliant shots of Keaton just sitting
>there, brooding, which say more than a thousand words. Miller's comic
>books/"graphic novels" are of a very high standard -- but they're still
>comic books at heart.
I guess I'm coming from a different viewpoint, but I think that Burton's
film is a much less effective tale of the tragic hero than some of
Miller's comics. The Dark Knight Returns is a comic book by definition,
but I think it is of a much higher level and escapes the trappings of
comic books more than Burton's Batman, which is a more of an adolescent
comic book turned into a movie, IMHO.
>In the comics, Batman remains in essence a somewhat empty character -- he
>has a few defining characteristics, but never changes much -- and always
>remains a 'good guy' without exploring his true motivations beyond
>speculation as you cite above -- he just keeps on fighting for justice and
>vengeance because he's cool like that, but he's not going to be taken into
>bold new directions -- heck, he's not even going to change much. This is
>one area in which Burton is perhaps no better than the comic-writers:
>Batman remains an essentially empty shell with a past but not much else --
>but some of the dialogue and aforementioned brooding shots hint at there
>being an intruiging persona under that suit -- someone we want to know more
>about even though we know we probably never will.
I think that you really haven't read enough Batman comics if you don't
think there are stories where he explores his true motivations or taken
in bold new directions. Granted, in the month-to-month ordinary Batman
comic, everything changes on a small scale but in the end nothing is
permanent. However, Burton made a self-contained film, so comparing the
film to these constantly updated comic books stories is inappropriate.
Self-contained Batman Stories (Dark Knight, Killing Joke, several of the
arcs in Legends of the Dark Knight) often show a high degree of character
development and offer very interesting insights. Because these
are not open ended stories, it is easier to see a change, much like the
movie, and unlike the monthly comic books.
Unfortunately the interesting bits I mention above are never used again
in the whole Batman mythos, and that is perhaps why I prefer not to read
the monthly comics.
>> I think Burton (and
>>Schumacher for that matter) have made four movies with Batman in the
>>title that had very little to do with Batman.
>
>This line is so far off-base that it almost contradicts what you state
>above. Burton's Batman takes after Miller's so much that if one hasn't to
>do with Batman, then neither is does other. The only real difference is
>that the comics were written to appeal to adolescents, whilst Burton tried
>to make Batman more mature, yet still interesting/exciting enough for kids
>and the comic-book audience.
I find it funny that you say that that Burton was trying to appeal to
adults while the comic was written for adolescents. I found
Burton's Batman to be a lot more 'adlescent' with its 'Smilex' gas
commercials and dance numbers than a lot of the stuff Miller (and Alan
Moore for that matter) wrote in the comics. Dark Knight Returns is just
as much about politics as it is about superheroes. Miller explores the
politics that stopped superheroes from being heroes as well as the Cold
war. While this would not necessarily make a terrific movie, I find it
much more intriguing than Burton's simplistic story.
Also, only explores the relationship between Batman and Joker on a very
superficial (adolescent if you will) level, while both Frank Miller and
especially Alan Moore (in the Killing Joke) explore the futility of their
constant struggles.
>Perhaps Burton failed in doing the latter at
>least in Returns' case -- certainly Schumacher's Batman Forever fares
>somewhat better in terms of broad appeal -- but I don't care: I like the
>deeper version, I like Burton better.
>
>Speaking of Schumacher -- before doing so let's get a few things out of the
>way: Schumacher is a moron, and B&R is a bad joke of a film that does the
>franchise no favors whatsoever. BF has many of the same elements of
>Schumacherization, yet survives due to a better basic story and script
>written by Goldsmith in a very Burton-esque fashion. The script was
>butchered and filled with terrible one-liners, but some of its ideas and
>views of the character remain in tact. And Goldsmith's view of Batman is in
>fact closer in many ways to Miller's/comics version than Burton's is:
>
>The speech Batman gives before saving Robin and Chase from The Riddler's
>Campy Machine-o-death could have come straight from the comics. There's
>also a somewhat poignant moment in the film in which Wayne warns Grayson
>that once you start avenging death, you will have to find "another face...
>and another". Almost analogous to "once down the dark path you start,
>forever will it dominate your destiny" -- and to Vader's tragic "It's too
>late for me, my son". Of course, these themes are all but squandered later
>on, but "an sich" they're more Miller than Burton's more warped and subtle
>approach.
I find it really difficult to see the ties between Frank Miller's comics
and Batman Returns. Perhaps you are using the term comics and Miller's
too interchangeably for my taste. I think that Tim Burton did his share
of silly things, (the parade through town in Batman, the Penguin and his
'armed penguins' in 'Returns). While I will concede Frank Miller uses
explosive dolls in Dark Knight Returns, that don't strike me as being as
ludicrous as the way Burton displays the penguins in Returns. I will
agree that Burton has a warped approach, but I think he is not nearly as
subtle as Frank Miller. I think that Burton is at a disadvantage because
it is difficult to portray some ideas on film that may be 'subtle' in the
comic book, but I think that some of those things might be best left to
the comics.
>On a related note, it also seems to me as if you disliked Burton's films
>because they don't have Batman in a "detective" role. I object to that on
>two principles. One, Batman in Batman (1989) is as much a detective as he
>is in the bulk of the comics -- usually, the extent is not that much beyond
>feeding information into the Batcomputer and then drawing some conclusions.
>Also, the scale of the movies is by necessity more grand and epic -- they
>can't be simple fact-finding adventure-yarns, they have to explore the lead
>character a bit or else be no more interesting than a comic. It's my
>opinion that Burton does this exploring better and in a more intriguing
>fashion than anyone else has managed. Your mileage my vary.
I do think that Burton does a good job of maintaining the Detective
aspect of Batman. Even Miller doesn't really explore that side too much
in his comics, but there are some Legends of the Dark Knight arcs that
are very good detective stories.
>>And how many times is the Batmobile going to get stolen/destroyed??? What, is
>>it's frequency public domain or something?
>
>This was a plot-point that was unused in Batman, and thus it wasn't much of
>a stretch that Burton would use it in Returns. Therefore, this happens
>*once* in the Burton-films. The fact that the Batmobile is also blown away
>whilst sitting in the action-figure playset that is the Schumacher Batcave
>in Batman Forever is beyond the scope of this discussion.
I think that action movie producers have a fetish for cars, car chases,
and car explosions, and it was unavoidable that al the Batman movies
would feature the car to some extent. Since there have only been four
outings, I don't think that the producers have gotten their full set of
jollies out of the car. One thing I appreciate about the Legends of the
Dark Knight comics is their sparing use of the batmobile. Frank Miller
does a good job of using the Batmobile sparingly in Dark Knight Returns.
When he does use it, he doesn't make it eye candy either, but just a tool
(and what a tool it is in that story!)
>>And the Joker shooting down the
>>Batplane with one shot from an oversized revolver???
>
>I'll concede that Burton is perhaps a bit too unorthodox for his own good.
>He is, in fact, absolutely allergic to doing the obvious. Perhaps it would
>have been more logical for the Joker to use AA-missiles against the
>Batwing, but Burton's weird version is more artistically interesting. There
>are other scenes that are also slightly marred by Burton's allergy to the
>obvious (the one in which Vale first finds out Wayne = Batman being
>particularly awkward). I never said the film was perfect, but -- although
>die-hard Batfans may consider this blasphemy -- neither are the 'graphic
>novels' of Miller. But overall Burton's weird approach makes for a bold,
>different film -- which is ultimately a good thing.
Blasphemer! (Just kidding :) Of course the comics have their
weaknesses. I think that in the movies, though, the stylistic excesses
distract from other elements of the movie. In Batman Returns, the
stylistic excesses ARE the movie! One thing that is intriguing about
Miller's take on Batman was that he went back to the basics and used a
very sparse 'Bob Kane' style to make Batman: Year One, and a very
understated style in Dark Knight Returns. Burton had a nice look for a
lot of the first film (excepting some things like the Giant gun), but
then went nuts on the second film. I think that you are quite correct in
saying that Burton has allergy to the obvious, and Batman Returns was the
most unobvious sequel imaginable.
>
>>PRINCE MUSIC???
>
>It was made in the late '80s. What, you're one of those people that
>short-changes ROTJ because it has that retro Lapti-Nek/silly Jedi Rocks
>song? Even if so, this hardly diminishes *both* Batman films.
Return of the Jedi is Return of the Jedi. There is no Return of the
Jedi without a musical number. However, in the 70 years of Batman
comics, I'm hard pressed to find a musical number. I agree that it's a
weak complaint, but I think that putting a musical number in was at odds
with the thousands of Batman comics in existance.
>> That's what I object to, not the dark vision, that was something I expected.
>
>So, in other words, you disliked Burton's films because they did things you
>did not expect from a Batman movie? S'funny, that's exactly the reason I
>like it so much. In fact, to stick my neck out, as far as blockbusters go,
>Batman is one of the few that dare to be different -- so much so that it's
>a miracle that it was so successful in the first place.
>
>- Gerthein (-o-)
I find it funny that the original poster didn't like Burton's films
because they were not what they expected (probably compared to the
comics) while you like them because there were not what you expected.
I like the first Batman because it was a lot closer to what I expected
from a Batman movie. I was glad to see Burton take Frank Miller's lead.
Unforturnely, the Miller influence declined exponentially as the
franchise continued.
Lech Burakowski
This was great! LOL!
Adam
Adam Kohen
Gerthein Boersma wrote:
>
> "Areff D, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
> here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
> portable gallows."
> >2) To me, there has yet to be a bad Alien movie. I thought 3 and 4 were no
> >less worthy than the first two and were admirable for willing to break the
> >formula of the first two. I terrorized the Alien newsgroup for a month after
> >Resurrection came out trying to convince them, but alas, 'twas not to be...
>
> Because you're wrong ;). Nah, you're entitled to your opinion of course,
> but you're the first person I've met that rates the two latest sequels on
> par with the originals.
Not the first :)
Well, maybe if you mean literally "on par"...I thought the last two were
*better* than the first two. But I'd rather not get into that again;
I'm not a big enough fan of the series in general to make a fuss over
it.
-AK
But the Newborn was NOT Skeletor, dammit!
*********|****************
* (-o-) *|* Member LFB *
*********|****************
"Dustin Hoffman is like having five ferrets in a box."
- Peter Coyote, in a SPHERE interview (E!)
"I haven't been this excited since I prematurely ejaculated
on my 59th birthday."
- Dustin Hoffman, at the 1998 Academy Awards Pre-show
Adam Kohen
Eric Mohler wrote:
>
> In article <199803260412...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> AMSNYD <ams...@aol.com> wrote:
> >are two of my favorite films of all time) but the REAL Batman movie was
> >made in 1966 and starred Adam West.
I'm with you on Pee Wee and MA!, but...
> You are insane! (IMHO :)
What he said. :)
<SNIPSIES>
> I'd personally like to see the David Fincher Batman, from a script by
> Kevin Smith. Wouldn't that be a sight!
I don't know, can Smith keep the language under control? He's got
enough background in comics, at least. As for director, I like Siskel &
Ebert's idea from their review of Dark City: if WB wants to rescue the
Batman franchise from the brink of doom, give it to Alex Proyas.
-AK
Adam Kohen
Eric Mohler wrote:
>
<about a zillion lines SNIPPED>
> I think that action movie producers have a fetish for cars, car chases,
> and car explosions, and it was unavoidable that al the Batman movies
> would feature the car to some extent. Since there have only been four
> outings, I don't think that the producers have gotten their full set of
> jollies out of the car. One thing I appreciate about the Legends of the
> Dark Knight comics is their sparing use of the batmobile. Frank Miller
> does a good job of using the Batmobile sparingly in Dark Knight Returns.
> When he does use it, he doesn't make it eye candy either, but just a tool
> (and what a tool it is in that story!)
I'm not really much of a comics-reader, so I can't speak for any of
Miller's work or other Batman comics. But I think your point about
sparing use of the car is interesting, especially when you compare
Burton vs. Schumacher:
BATMAN
The Batmobile doesn't show up until halfway through the movie ( I
remember this clearly because the film broke down at this scene when I
saw it in the theater, and it was about an hour past showtime)
BATMAN RETURNS
Batman/Bruce Wayne himself doesn't even show up until almost 20 minutes
into this film! The car is more important to the plot this time, but
it's only a major feature in that one scene. Also, one of the many
images I like from this movie is the Batmobile leaving tracks in the
fresh snow.
BATMAN FOREVER and BATMAN AND ROBIN
I may be wrong on the latter, since I've tried to block most of it from
my mind, but I believe the Batmobile is the *first* thing we see in both
of these (aside from Kilmer/Clooney's ass, that is). We know what
happens after that...
Adam Kohen
Gerthein Boersma wrote:
>
> "Adam Kohen, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
> here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
> portable gallows."
>
> but when adding everything up it was unavoidable that it would go to
> Basinger because LA-C would have otherwise only gotten one, which would've
> been absurd. Same deal with The Full Monty in the comedy score category --
> a best picture nominee should at least win *some* statue.
Like I said, the Il Postino effect. But is that really fair? If they
were really worried that TFM didn't have a chance in hell for Best Pic,
they shouldn't have nominated it. I don't think there were even 15
minutes of score in the movie, and the theme was just a jazzy version of
Rocky.
> >Sound: Contact or Air Force One
>
> Both these had great sound, but Titanic's was quite awesome as well.
Contact had the edge IMHO because in that, the sound was almost a
character itself. You can't make the movie without the Vega
transmission. And Contact also used silence better than any film in
recent years, which is an important part of sound.
> >SFX: Face/Off
>
> Why? It's good, but not as super-immersive as Titanic's SFX, which are very
> well mixed, IMO. In a surround-sound theater, you're actually on that ship.
I'm actually not completely sure on this. I guess I found the gunfights
were enhanced greatly by the bullet noises. And some of the slo-mo
firings had some pretty neat sound effects for the individual bullet,
such as in the mirror scene (hey, that's two movies with great sound and
cool mirror scenes :)).
<re: MIB>
> Personally, I thought it was one of Elfman's weaker scores. IMO, it's just
> a little too cartoony (which seems to be the word of this thread ;).
I didn't hear Anastasia or MBFW, and I found AGAIG fine but
unmemorable. My argument for MIB is that it was different from
everything else. He's been doing "unobvious" (if I may borrow your
Burton descriptor) scores for comedies ever since Pee Wee's Big
Adventure. When they played all five at the ceremony, I think MIB's
uniqueness really stood out. Unfortunately, the Academy is not known
for consistently rewarding actual creativity...
> >I agree that Catwoman was a much better character than the Penguin (I'm
> >still waiting for the supposed Catwoman movie Burton and Pfieffer were
> >going to do)
>
> Oh, that was cancelled ages ago (if it was ever more than an idea in the
> first place). Too bad.. would've been cool.
Every once in a while I hear a rumor about it being resurrected, but I
don't have my hopes up of it happening.
<re: BR's Penguin>
> And Batman uses the old
> "record the conversation to humiliate him during his big speech later"
> trick against him! That one's even in Weird Al's 'UHF', for Lobot's sake!
Hey! Don't mess with Weird Al...UHF is known to slip into my Top Ten
depending on my mood. It's funny, I thought that after the success of
Seinfeld and The Nanny on TV, more people would look for this movie to
see Michael Richards and Fran Drescher pre-fame. Oh well...
> >Penguin + Max Schrek > Riddler + Two-Face (wasted)
>
> I agree that Two-Face was wasted more than Schreck (whom was also wasted to
> an extent IMO)
I don't read the comics; is/was Schreck a character in them? I did not
know that...
> >>> Mr. Freeze + Poison Ivy + Bane (horribly wasted)
>
> Although Bane was little more than a silly henchman, it was Mr. Freeze who
> IMO was the most wasted. He could have been a tragic villain... now, he's
> just a one-liner spouting robo-suit.
Yes, Ah-nold as Freeze was a joke. But at least there was an attempt to
give him the character's original motivations for his crimes, even if it
ultimately failed on screen. Bane was not even the same character (I
realize I just told you I don't read the comics, but I've read up on
these guys' backgrounds).
<re: Last Crusade>
> The dialogue was very witty, but ultimately I thought things were a tad too
> light. Marcus and Sallah acting like total buffoons annoyed me (they're --
> say it with me -- too cartoony! ;).
Oy, I'm gonna get it now--I like Marcus better cartoony. One of my
favorite scenes is when Indy gives his speech about how Marcus will
blend in and disappear, followed by Marcus wandering around Eskendren
desperately searching for someone who speaks English :) As for Sallah,
he wasn't entirely serious in Raiders to begin with. "My friends, I'm
so pleased you're not dead!" :)
> >And the
> >opening sequence with young Indy was fun, featuring the umpteenth
> >explanation of Harrison Ford's chin scar :)
>
> Of the others, only Working Girl leaps to mind... refresh my memory. :)
You know, now that I said that I can't remember any others :) I'm sure
I've heard him give varying stories on talk shows or something like
that. Maybe he got it by falling on his toilet seat :)
> [BTTF2]
> >Ah, but I *like* the cartoony stuff...at least where Christopher Lloyd
> >is concerned. He's one of the best there is at that--he was Judge Doom,
> >for Gonk's sake!
>
> True, Lloyd pulls it off. But I think the film could have taken itself just
> a *tad* bit more seriously -- especially the 2015 portion. It sometimes
> seemed like a parody rather than a light-hearted scifi/adventure/comedy
> that it should be.
I guess we have different tastes in comedy, then. I like to laugh, no
matter what causes the laughter. The 2015 sequences were silly compared
to the rest, but I don't see it is parody. As long as the film is
mainly a comedy to begin with, I don't have a problem with turning up
the lunacy now and then.
<re: Groundhog Day>
> >And Chris Eliott rules (am I the only fool to like Cabin Boy?)
>
> He does rule. I never caught Cabin Boy, but Get A Life was hilarious.
OK, it's been a while since I watched CB but try this: Imagine Pee
Wee's Big Adventure, with more supernatural-type stuff, but Pee Wee is a
spoiled rich-kid asshole. Sound interesting? :)
-AK
*********|****************
* (-o-) *|* Member LFB *
*********|****************
"Dustin Hoffman is like having five ferrets in a box."
- Peter Coyote, in a SPHERE interview (E!)
Gerthein Boersma
At 23:55 27-03-98 GMT, you wrote:
>For one thing, I think you are really selling short the comics by doing a
>straight forward comparison of dialogue.
I know it's a bit unfair -- but I like movies more than I do comics. ;) My
argument was therefore aimed to explain both why I like movies better in
general, and in the specific case of Burton's Batman. Also, at issue was
the validity of Burton's vision of Batman on account of it being so
different from the one in the comics.
<snips>
>I guess I'm coming from a different viewpoint, but I think that Burton's
>film is a much less effective tale of the tragic hero than some of
>Miller's comics. The Dark Knight Returns is a comic book by definition,
>but I think it is of a much higher level and escapes the trappings of
>comic books more than Burton's Batman, which is a more of an adolescent
>comic book turned into a movie, IMHO.
I maintain that Burton's film is more mature than the comics on account of
it being more subtle -- with which you disagree, I'll address that later --
and more artistic. Perhaps "mature" isn't the word -- in retrospect I fear
my postings may have unintentially implied that all comics and their
readership are immature/adolescent by definition -- not my intention,
although in my sadly biased mind it makes some sense. ;)
>I think that you really haven't read enough Batman comics if you don't
>think there are stories where he explores his true motivations or taken
>in bold new directions. Granted, in the month-to-month ordinary Batman
>comic, everything changes on a small scale but in the end nothing is
>permanent. However, Burton made a self-contained film, so comparing the
>film to these constantly updated comic books stories is inappropriate.
Again, it was not I who first made the comparison -- the original poster
said he disliked the films for being untrue to the comic and character. I
merely explained why this had to be so.
>Self-contained Batman Stories (Dark Knight, Killing Joke, several of the
>arcs in Legends of the Dark Knight) often show a high degree of character
>development and offer very interesting insights. Because these
>are not open ended stories, it is easier to see a change, much like the
>movie, and unlike the monthly comic books.
At this point I must admit to not having read the Miller works in a long
time -- and having missed these "Legends" arcs (although if that silly
'Knightfall' arc is part of it I may have seen some). Perhaps you're right
that my opinion was unduly influenced by the monthly comics which you also
seem to view as inferior to Miller's and Burton's Batmen.
>I find it funny that you say that that Burton was trying to appeal to
>adults while the comic was written for adolescents. I found
>Burton's Batman to be a lot more 'adlescent' with its 'Smilex' gas
>commercials and dance numbers than a lot of the stuff Miller (and Alan
>Moore for that matter) wrote in the comics.
It is Burton-silliness that you object to here, not adolescence. I maintain
that while the characters in the comics, esp. Miller's are deeper and more
interesting than those of most comics, they're rather black and white
compared to the scarred phyches presented in Burton-vision. I guess what it
boils down to is whether or not you like Burton's style. I did -- and I
*do* -- but again: your mileage may vary.
>Dark Knight Returns is just
>as much about politics as it is about superheroes. Miller explores the
>politics that stopped superheroes from being heroes as well as the Cold
>war. While this would not necessarily make a terrific movie, I find it
>much more intriguing than Burton's simplistic story.
I never once claimed that Burton's story was as complex as Miller's -- just
that his characters are more intriguing. As you imply, I think Burton made
the right choice by keeping the story simplistic and focusing on the
characters instead. Batman Returns does this too much, IMO, and the plot,
however simplistic it is (though more complex than that of Batman '89),
still suffers. That is why *I* rate it lower than Batman '89 -- the
"stylistic excesses" as you call them I didn't mind much. In fact, I love
'em. They're irresistable, in fact -- the huge crab in the defunct Gotham
Zoo, the Shreck Cats... sheer brilliance. I'll take them over the Huge Arm
Clutching A Telescope that is the Gotham Observatory of B&R any day of the
week.
>Also, only explores the relationship between Batman and Joker on a very
>superficial (adolescent if you will) level, while both Frank Miller and
>especially Alan Moore (in the Killing Joke) explore the futility of their
>constant struggles.
Because I've admitted to having to re-read those comics before I make a
judgment, I'll concede this point.
...Consider yourself lucky, for I seem to recall this "exploration" wasn't
nearly as deep as you imply. ;)
>I find it really difficult to see the ties between Frank Miller's comics
>and Batman Returns. Perhaps you are using the term comics and Miller's
>too interchangeably for my taste.
You avoid the point -- ties between Miller's comics and Batman *Forever*
(at least, the pre-Schumacher Goldsmith version of that film).
> I think that Tim Burton did his share
>of silly things, (the parade through town in Batman, the Penguin and his
>'armed penguins' in 'Returns). While I will concede Frank Miller uses
>explosive dolls in Dark Knight Returns, that don't strike me as being as
>ludicrous as the way Burton displays the penguins in Returns. I will
>agree that Burton has a warped approach, but I think he is not nearly as
>subtle as Frank Miller. I think that Burton is at a disadvantage because
>it is difficult to portray some ideas on film that may be 'subtle' in the
>comic book, but I think that some of those things might be best left to
>the comics.
Actually, I'm of the opposite opinion. Burton can show emotions in stares,
facial expressions, movements -- the comics lack such subtlety and thus
resort to dialogue more often. Visually, the comics can be more subtle, but
I don't think anyone will put the visual splendor of Burton's films at
issue. Bar you and your "stylistic excesses"-line, natch. ;)
Perhaps we're substantially in agreement if I interpret your point thusly:
some of the "weird" things Burton does might be easier to swallow because
they're drawn and not "really" happening to "real life" people on screen --
the average Batman:TAS episode, par exemplum, features at least one
"weirditude" of Burton-esque levels. I guess disbelief is harder to suspend
when things are happening "in real life", but then I've always considered
Batman and Burton films in general as splendidly surreal.
>I do think that Burton does a good job of maintaining the Detective
>aspect of Batman. Even Miller doesn't really explore that side too much
>in his comics, but there are some Legends of the Dark Knight arcs that
>are very good detective stories.
I don't think I've read many of them, so I'll concede. Still, the Detective
aspect or lack thereof is IMO an invalid reason to dismiss Burton's Batman
films.
<snip stuff about cars>
>Blasphemer! (Just kidding :) Of course the comics have their
>weaknesses. I think that in the movies, though, the stylistic excesses
>distract from other elements of the movie. In Batman Returns, the
>stylistic excesses ARE the movie!
I once thought like you did. Then I realized that it may be style over
substance to an extent, but oh, how stylish they are. Sure, they're unreal,
but so are many things per definition linked to the Batman/Gotham universe.
A 100% realistic approach would have been as fatal a mistake as B&R's campy
one. Is Burton's the best balance? Perhaps not -- perhaps his view, is also
not serious enough -- not too campy, but too weird. Again, though, I
personally feel that this only adds to the film's interestingness.
>One thing that is intriguing about
>Miller's take on Batman was that he went back to the basics and used a
>very sparse 'Bob Kane' style to make Batman: Year One, and a very
>understated style in Dark Knight Returns. Burton had a nice look for a
>lot of the first film (excepting some things like the Giant gun), but
>then went nuts on the second film. I think that you are quite correct in
>saying that Burton has allergy to the obvious, and Batman Returns was the
>most unobvious sequel imaginable.
I don't think the gap between Batman and Batman Returns is as big as you
seem to feel. Burton did relinquish some of the more Miller-esque
influences (a point you make at the end of your post which I've snipped for
brevity) to create a Batman film that was truly all his own, but they're
still stylistically similar. I also respect Burton all the more for doing
what he did with Batman Returns. The result is that despite the Miller
influence, the version of the Batman character and Gotham universe we see
from Batman to Returns is Burton's and only Burton's (in as much as it
isn't Kane's, of course), and I opine that it is one of the most if not
*the* most interesting version in existance, and as good as the franchise
is going to get on screen.
>Return of the Jedi is Return of the Jedi.
;) That sure is a cunningly worded argument, but my point that dismissing a
film for having Prince music is a silly line of debate remains.
>There is no Return of the
>Jedi without a musical number. However, in the 70 years of Batman
>comics, I'm hard pressed to find a musical number. I agree that it's a
>weak complaint, but I think that putting a musical number in was at odds
>with the thousands of Batman comics in existance.
What about Adam West's Batdance? ;) Seriously, I guess it's more Burtonism
which you seem to dislike in general. For what it's worth, the Prince music
and dance-sequence in Batman is something that does annoy me in Batman '89.
It is, however, a small part of the otherwise excellent film. I also
question the validity of the argumentation that just because something
hadn't been done in Batman comics before, it is therefore wrong for the
franchise, although that does give new insights into your dislike of Batman
Returns.
Martin Laverdure
Cool....I like this game !!!
1. The Holy Trilogy (one Story)
2. Schindler's List
3. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
4. The Godfather trilogy (one Story)
5. The Back Of The Future Trilogy (one story)
6. L.A Confidential
7. TITANIC
8. The Abyss
9. Manhattan
10. Aliens
others good mentions: Seven, The Bridge Of The River Kwai, The BRidges Of
The Madison County, Unforgiven, Lawrence D'Arabia, Stealing
Beauty..........
Cool
Martin Laverdure
Gerthein Boersma
"Adam Kohen, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>Like I said, the Il Postino effect.
Postino shouldn't have even been in that category because it's not in the
English language. You might as well call it the "LA Confidential" effect,
because let's face it: as stupifyingly brilliant as LA-C is, Basinger
didn't really deserve the statue.
>But is that really fair? If they
>were really worried that TFM didn't have a chance in hell for Best Pic,
>they shouldn't have nominated it. I don't think there were even 15
>minutes of score in the movie, and the theme was just a jazzy version of
>Rocky.
Hey, I never said it actually *deserved* the Oscar! :)
>Contact had the edge IMHO because in that, the sound was almost a
>character itself. You can't make the movie without the Vega
>transmission. And Contact also used silence better than any film in
>recent years, which is an important part of sound.
You're quite right about that one... but Titanic had the sweep thing going
for it, and it was, IMHO, a far more memorable film than Contact (I know
some people on this group rate it as the best thing since sliced bread, but
not I), which undoubtedly gave it an edge in the category.
>I'm actually not completely sure on this. I guess I found the gunfights
>were enhanced greatly by the bullet noises. And some of the slo-mo
>firings had some pretty neat sound effects for the individual bullet,
>such as in the mirror scene (hey, that's two movies with great sound and
>cool mirror scenes :)).
The other being Titanic, or Contact? :)
>I didn't hear Anastasia or MBFW, and I found AGAIG fine but
>unmemorable. My argument for MIB is that it was different from
>everything else. He's been doing "unobvious" (if I may borrow your
>Burton descriptor) scores for comedies ever since Pee Wee's Big
>Adventure. When they played all five at the ceremony, I think MIB's
>uniqueness really stood out.
I didn't see the entire ceremony (it was on at 3:00AM here), but I'll
concede that MIB probably deserved to win. I guess I'm just disappointed
that Elfman's better scores never even got nominated, and now this somewhat
weaker score should have gotten it purely because it's *still* better than
the rest. I'll wager this "Elfman being up against his past" factor might
have had something to do with him not winning.
>Unfortunately, the Academy is not known
>for consistently rewarding actual creativity...
Agreed there -- otherwise, GWH would've won Best Picture rather than
Titanic.
>Hey! Don't mess with Weird Al...UHF is known to slip into my Top Ten
>depending on my mood. It's funny, I thought that after the success of
>Seinfeld and The Nanny on TV, more people would look for this movie to
>see Michael Richards and Fran Drescher pre-fame. Oh well...
I love UHF and Al (Anyone who can make a silly concept like "Ghandi 2" work
is totally brilliant), but it's not as if its *plot* is anything to write
home about -- it's a silly film after all, first and foremost. Therefore,
the fact that it shares an important "twist" with BR still reflects
negatively on Burton's film no matter how cool I think UHF is.
>> I agree that Two-Face was wasted more than Schreck (whom was also wasted to
>> an extent IMO)
>I don't read the comics; is/was Schreck a character in them? I did not
>know that...
AFAIK he is not, however I think he's wasted just because he's underused
(not in the same way as the others, then, but still wasted to a degree).
>Yes, Ah-nold as Freeze was a joke. But at least there was an attempt to
>give him the character's original motivations for his crimes, even if it
>ultimately failed on screen. Bane was not even the same character (I
>realize I just told you I don't read the comics, but I've read up on
>these guys' backgrounds).
I'd defend Goldsmith here because Schumacher and the studios decided which
characters (and "stars") were going to be in the film and poor Akiva had to
write the script around that. There are *way* to many characters in B&R,
and so reducing the mighty Bane to a silly henchman was IMO not an
indefinsable choice. It's sad that future films can't use the "full" Bane,
perhaps, but he was never my favorite villain anyway. Meanwhile, the fact
that some scenes showed hints of Freeze's more dramatic background only
served to further humiliate Ah-nult and Schumacher, hitting home the point
that they'd raped what was IMO one of the best Batman foes (heck, Freeze
was even one of the very few halfway decent villains in the Adam West
series! That's saying something about the power of the character and how
hard it is to totally ruin it! :).
>Oy, I'm gonna get it now--I like Marcus better cartoony.
Then you die! ;)
>One of my
>favorite scenes is when Indy gives his speech about how Marcus will
>blend in and disappear, followed by Marcus wandering around Eskendren
>desperately searching for someone who speaks English :)
Ouch, I have to majorly disagree there. That joke struck me as so
stupifyingly gratuitous that it is, for me, the low point of the film. I
liked back it in 1990 (I was 11), but now it's teeth-grindingly annoying.
>As for Sallah,
>he wasn't entirely serious in Raiders to begin with. "My friends, I'm
>so pleased you're not dead!" :)
True, but there's a difference between being comic-relief and comic-booky.
IMHO, the "lightness" and "jokiness" of TLC is the only reason it's so much
less effective than Raiders. This is a pity, because -- with a brilliant
Connery, a fine plot and a great opening sequence -- it could have been one
of those few sequels that's better than the original. As it stands it's
just "darn great", but it could have been classic.
>You know, now that I said that I can't remember any others :) I'm sure
>I've heard him give varying stories on talk shows or something like
>that. Maybe he got it by falling on his toilet seat :)
Whilst hanging up a clock, suddenly receiving a vision of the apparatus
that makes time-travel possible? That explains how he snatched the role of
Indy against all odds. ;)
>I guess we have different tastes in comedy, then. I like to laugh, no
>matter what causes the laughter. The 2015 sequences were silly compared
>to the rest, but I don't see it is parody. As long as the film is
>mainly a comedy to begin with, I don't have a problem with turning up
>the lunacy now and then.
I like comedy as much as the next guy (I've already admitted I thought
BTTF2 was the most "fun" of the trilogy), but a film should have at least
some internal consistancy. The campy one-liners and direction in general
very nearly ruined Batman Forever for me, a film that somewhere deep down
had some nice thematics and a halfway serious plot. Perhaps it's fortunate
that BTTF2's silliness is concentrated mainly in the opening -- had it been
at the ending, I would have no doubt accused it of "falling apart".
>OK, it's been a while since I watched CB but try this: Imagine Pee
>Wee's Big Adventure, with more supernatural-type stuff, but Pee Wee is a
>spoiled rich-kid asshole. Sound interesting? :)
I probably should see PWBA first, then. :)
Wedge
CraniumRat wrote:
>
> Widget wrote:
> >So... we've seen lists of Top 10 movies, most underrated... best >directors...
> how's about BOTTOM 10? What are your 10 most hated movies >you've ever seen?
>
> >1. Blame it on the Bellboy (If you don't remember it, you're one lucky
> >bastard)
> >2. Almost any Tom Arnold movie besides True Lies (yeah, I'm sure that
> >doesn't really count as one, but I don't care)
> >3. Star Trek 1.
> >4. Any Police Academy movie but the first one.
> >5. Street Fighter
> >6. Any movie featuring Shaq... except for Blue Chips.
> >7. Any Pauly Shore movie
> >8. Judge Dredd
> >9. The Specialist (Or was it Assassins? Whatever. Same damn thing)
> >10. Ed Wood (I *think* I hated it, anyways... I don't really want to
> >re-rent it to find out, though...)"
Hey, I LIKE Star Trek 1! :)
--
Matthew Ting
The Official RASSM Anti-Lobot
Gonkite At Large
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/8894/ - My SW:CCG homepage!
And remember to send those card review requests!
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*
|"Have you earned your air today?" - Dilbert |
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*
Mango-Wan
On Sat, 28 Mar 1998, Gerthein Boersma wrote:
> Postino shouldn't have even been in that category because it's not in the
> English language. You might as well call it the "LA Confidential" effect,
> because let's face it: as stupifyingly brilliant as LA-C is, Basinger
> didn't really deserve the statue.
Think off it this way... you weren't told every time the Oscars were
mentioned that there was no "Best Actor Nomination" for LA-C...
---
- Dug.
---
Widget
Wedge wrote:
>
> CraniumRat wrote:
> >
> > Widget wrote:
> > >So... we've seen lists of Top 10 movies, most underrated... best >directors...
> > how's about BOTTOM 10? What are your 10 most hated movies >you've ever seen?
> >
> > >Here's mine:
>
> Hey, I LIKE Star Trek 1! :)
>
> --
> Matthew Ting
> The Official RASSM Anti-GONK
Your point being...? ;)
Widget
Eric Mohler
In article <6fhhbg$7f...@reader3.wxs.nl>,
I think that a lot of things we were discussing amount to differences in
the mediums (comic books vs. movies). The subtle qualities in film
that you really appreciate are quite difficult to put into sequential
art form. Therefore, Lots of snipping
>>Self-contained Batman Stories (Dark Knight, Killing Joke, several of the
>>arcs in Legends of the Dark Knight) often show a high degree of character
>>development and offer very interesting insights. Because these
>>are not open ended stories, it is easier to see a change, much like the
>>movie, and unlike the monthly comic books.
>
>At this point I must admit to not having read the Miller works in a long
>time -- and having missed these "Legends" arcs (although if that silly
>'Knightfall' arc is part of it I may have seen some). Perhaps you're right
>that my opinion was unduly influenced by the monthly comics which you also
>seem to view as inferior to Miller's and Burton's Batmen.
Legends of the Dark Knight is/was a separate series from DC (I know
longer read it, so I'm not sure of its current status). It presented
self-contained 5 issue stories that could take place at almost any time
point in the batman mythos, as long as none of them contained Robin.
These stories had absolutely no connection with the monthly titles.
>It is Burton-silliness that you object to here, not adolescence. I maintain
>that while the characters in the comics, esp. Miller's are deeper and more
>interesting than those of most comics, they're rather black and white
>compared to the scarred phyches presented in Burton-vision. I guess what it
>boils down to is whether or not you like Burton's style. I did -- and I
>*do* -- but again: your mileage may vary.
Well, silly and adolescent could be synominous terms, depending on who
you ask. I also think you see an awful lot more of scarred psyches in
Burton's vision than I do. I think I have read many more Batman comics
than you, and possibly just by virtue of the number of stories I have
digested, I think that Burton's take on scarred psyches is incredibly
superficial compared to some I have read. I'll have to dig out my box 'o
Batman comics to find some specific stories.
>>Also, only explores the relationship between Batman and Joker on a very
>>superficial (adolescent if you will) level, while both Frank Miller and
>>especially Alan Moore (in the Killing Joke) explore the futility of their
>>constant struggles.
>
>Because I've admitted to having to re-read those comics before I make a
>judgment, I'll concede this point.
>
>...Consider yourself lucky, for I seem to recall this "exploration" wasn't
>nearly as deep as you imply. ;)
It's been a while since I've read some Batman stories myself, but I do
recall that The Killing Joke has a very deep exploration of the Joker,
much more so than Burton's.
>>I find it really difficult to see the ties between Frank Miller's comics
>>and Batman Returns. Perhaps you are using the term comics and Miller's
>>too interchangeably for my taste.
>
>You avoid the point -- ties between Miller's comics and Batman *Forever*
>(at least, the pre-Schumacher Goldsmith version of that film).
I made a typo. I meant to type Batman Forever. And I still don't see
the ties between Batman Forever and Miller's work.
>Perhaps we're substantially in agreement if I interpret your point thusly:
>some of the "weird" things Burton does might be easier to swallow because
>they're drawn and not "really" happening to "real life" people on screen --
>the average Batman:TAS episode, par exemplum, features at least one
>"weirditude" of Burton-esque levels. I guess disbelief is harder to suspend
>when things are happening "in real life", but then I've always considered
>Batman and Burton films in general as splendidly surreal.
Yes, the essence of my point was that weird things are easier to swallow
when they're drawn. Burton films are quite surreal, and while I liked
his visual approach, I think massive surrealness isn't the perfect approach
for Batman, which is quite grounded in reality compared to many other comic
books. To Burton's credit, Batman '89 worked, and only the silly things
put me off. Batman Returns, IMHO, ventured too far into the surreal.
>I don't think I've read many of them, so I'll concede. Still, the Detective
>aspect or lack thereof is IMO an invalid reason to dismiss Burton's Batman
>films.
I didn't think it was a valid criticism in the first place, so I was
diffusing that point.
>>Blasphemer! (Just kidding :) Of course the comics have their
>>weaknesses. I think that in the movies, though, the stylistic excesses
>>distract from other elements of the movie. In Batman Returns, the
>>stylistic excesses ARE the movie!
>
>I once thought like you did. Then I realized that it may be style over
>substance to an extent, but oh, how stylish they are. Sure, they're unreal,
>but so are many things per definition linked to the Batman/Gotham universe.
>A 100% realistic approach would have been as fatal a mistake as B&R's campy
>one. Is Burton's the best balance? Perhaps not -- perhaps his view, is also
>not serious enough -- not too campy, but too weird. Again, though, I
>personally feel that this only adds to the film's interestingness.
After some thought, I have to agree that a 100% realistic approach might
have been a fatal mistake. Because Burton's vision is informed by
surrealism, it helped him create some stunning visuals in Batman '89. I
think that Batman Returns went too far down that path.
>I don't think the gap between Batman and Batman Returns is as big as you
>seem to feel. Burton did relinquish some of the more Miller-esque
>influences (a point you make at the end of your post which I've snipped for
>brevity) to create a Batman film that was truly all his own, but they're
>still stylistically similar. I also respect Burton all the more for doing
>what he did with Batman Returns. The result is that despite the Miller
>influence, the version of the Batman character and Gotham universe we see
>from Batman to Returns is Burton's and only Burton's (in as much as it
>isn't Kane's, of course), and I opine that it is one of the most if not
>*the* most interesting version in existance, and as good as the franchise
>is going to get on screen.
I don't think that Burton's Batman is the most interesting version in
existence, but it is as food as the franchise got on screen.
>>Return of the Jedi is Return of the Jedi.
>
>;) That sure is a cunningly worded argument, but my point that dismissing a
>film for having Prince music is a silly line of debate remains.
Well, you certainly took that statement out of context for your own
purposes, and conveniently ignored my statement below saying that I
agreed it was a silly argument.
> >>There is no Return of the
>>Jedi without a musical number. However, in the 70 years of Batman
>>comics, I'm hard pressed to find a musical number. I agree that it's a
>>weak complaint, but I think that putting a musical number in was at odds
>>with the thousands of Batman comics in existance.
>
>What about Adam West's Batdance? ;) Seriously, I guess it's more Burtonism
>which you seem to dislike in general. For what it's worth, the Prince music
>and dance-sequence in Batman is something that does annoy me in Batman '89.
>It is, however, a small part of the otherwise excellent film. I also
>question the validity of the argumentation that just because something
>hadn't been done in Batman comics before, it is therefore wrong for the
>franchise, although that does give new insights into your dislike of Batman
>Returns.
I'm not at all opposed to seeing things on film that haven't been done in
Batman Comics before. A musical number is quite difficult to convey in
comics, though, and seems a little off-putting to me in a film based on a
comic book. However, there are many stylistic touches that Burton put in
Batman '89 that are much better than the comic book version. In fact,
Burton's vision of Gotham was such a good one, some of the comics
started using Anton Furst set paintings in the backgrounds. And the
funny thing about that is that it didn't really work. Burton came up
with the most appropriate vision of Gotham for the films which was quite
different than the comics. Burton's batmobile was pretty sweet, too, I
might add. Overall, I really liked the look of Batman '89, so I don't
think it's fair to say I'm opposed to things that haven't been done in
comics. Upon writing this post, I think I am adverse to things I find
silly in the films (or the comics for that matter). Batman '89 didn't have
too many things I found off-putting, and the Joker (a silly person if
there was one) was responsible for the sillyness which somehow
legitimized it. With each Batman movie, though, the level of silliness
increased.
Overall, I don't think my dislike of Batman Returns comes from a dissonance
between the comics and the film, but rather from a dislike of some of Tim
Burton's stylistic choices in general. For example, I like Batman '89
and Mars Attacks, while I don't particularly enjoy Edward Scissorhands,
Beetlejuice, or the Nightmare before Christmas. It's more of a
coincidence that I happen to like Tim Burton films that are little less
silly or surreal, and the Batman comics I like don't tend to be silly or
surreal.
AMSNYD
Star Trek 1, I remember that film. I had the action figures, but hadn't seen
the movie. Finally I got to see it and, frankly, it was alittle dull.
Adam Kohen
Gerthein Boersma wrote:
>
> "Adam Kohen, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
> here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
> portable gallows."
<undeserved score Oscars>
> >Like I said, the Il Postino effect.
>
> Postino shouldn't have even been in that category because it's not in the
> English language. You might as well call it the "LA Confidential" effect,
> because let's face it: as stupifyingly brilliant as LA-C is, Basinger
> didn't really deserve the statue.
I personally enjoyed Joan Cusack's performance more, but comedy always
seems to get snubbed (although when it wins something it's usually in
this category). I haven't seen Julianne Moore yet (Boogie Nights will
be playing on campus next week), but otherwise I have no reservations
about Basinger winning. Who would you have picked? And you'd better
not say Gloria Stewart... :)
<Face/Off>
> >(hey, that's two movies with great sound and
> >cool mirror scenes :)).
>
> The other being Titanic, or Contact? :)
Heh. I don't remember a mirror scene in Titanic, at least not one that
was unique in any way. You don't mean when old Rose is going through
her salvaged junk, do you? :)
> >Unfortunately, the Academy is not known
> >for consistently rewarding actual creativity...
>
> Agreed there -- otherwise, GWH would've won Best Picture rather than
> Titanic.
Really? I loved GWH, but the main criticisms I've seen against it have
to do with its basic story being unoriginal. What made it great was the
acting and dialogue, especially the interaction between the main
characters (not only Damon and Williams, but also Damon and Affleck,
Damon and Driver, and Williams and Skarsgard as well).
If Chasing Amy had been nominated, that would've been my choice for
"Most Creative" even though I don't think it was the Best Picture of the
year.
<Batman villains>
> >> I agree that Two-Face was wasted more than Schreck (whom was also wasted to
> >> an extent IMO)
>
> >I don't read the comics; is/was Schreck a character in them?
>
> AFAIK he is not, however I think he's wasted just because he's underused
> (not in the same way as the others, then, but still wasted to a degree).
OK then, I suppose that's fair. But the way Two-Face was wasted was a
lot worse, especially given the fact that Batman Forever's story (when
Schumacher allowed it to surface) dealt a lot with the issue of duality.
> >Yes, Ah-nold as Freeze was a joke. But at least there was an attempt to
> >give him the character's original motivations for his crimes, even if it
> >ultimately failed on screen. Bane was not even the same character (I
> >realize I just told you I don't read the comics, but I've read up on
> >these guys' backgrounds).
>
> I'd defend Goldsmith here because Schumacher and the studios decided which
> characters (and "stars") were going to be in the film and poor Akiva had to
> write the script around that. There are *way* to many characters in B&R,
> and so reducing the mighty Bane to a silly henchman was IMO not an
> indefinsable choice.
Still, Goldsman (I think that's the writer's name, not Goldsmith) can't
resist giving all the characters idiotic one-liners. Once Arnie was
cast as Freeze, I knew that character was going to have crappy dialogue,
but the rest could have been kept up to some level of maturity. The
excessive cramming of characters is also a problem, but the way to solve
it is not to destroy the character of Bane, but to leave Bane out of the
story completely. I wish they could've done Freeze better too, but
Arnie is a superstar and they couldn't write him out after he was
signed. It's a shame; I recall hearing that Patrick Stewart was
considered for the role before Arnie got it. I can't help but feel that
Goldsman would've written better lines for him, and thus raise the level
of everything else in the script.
<Last Crusade>
> >Oy, I'm gonna get it now--I like Marcus better cartoony.
>
> Then you die! ;)
Oh my God, they killed...me! YOU BASTARDS!! :)
> >One of my
> >favorite scenes is when Indy gives his speech about how Marcus will
> >blend in and disappear, followed by Marcus wandering around Eskendren
> >desperately searching for someone who speaks English :)
>
> Ouch, I have to majorly disagree there. That joke struck me as so
> stupifyingly gratuitous that it is, for me, the low point of the film. I
> liked back it in 1990 (I was 11), but now it's teeth-grindingly annoying.
It was out here in 1989, so I was also 11 when I first saw it; I liked
it then and I still like it now. Oh well...I guess this is one of those
"agree to disagree" points.
> >As for Sallah,
> >he wasn't entirely serious in Raiders to begin with. "My friends, I'm
> >so pleased you're not dead!" :)
>
> True, but there's a difference between being comic-relief and comic-booky.
> IMHO, the "lightness" and "jokiness" of TLC is the only reason it's so much
> less effective than Raiders. This is a pity, because -- with a brilliant
> Connery, a fine plot and a great opening sequence -- it could have been one
> of those few sequels that's better than the original. As it stands it's
> just "darn great", but it could have been classic.
As action/adventure Raiders is just about impossible to beat, but TLC is
just so much fun to watch. For a while that put it ahead of Raiders for
me (this was a while during which I hadn't watched Raiders for a long
time :)), but now I have a similar feeling to it that you have to BTTF2:
it's incredible fun, but the original is better.
<Harrison Ford's scar>
> >You know, now that I said that I can't remember any others :) I'm sure
> >I've heard him give varying stories on talk shows or something like
> >that. Maybe he got it by falling on his toilet seat :)
>
> Whilst hanging up a clock, suddenly receiving a vision of the apparatus
> that makes time-travel possible? That explains how he snatched the role of
> Indy against all odds. ;)
Not to mention against Tom Selleck. :) What do you think of the rumors
that Selleck will play Indy's long-lost brother if/when they finally get
around to Indy 4? I've also heard Costner's name thrown about for such
a role...
<BTTF2>
> I like comedy as much as the next guy (I've already admitted I thought
> BTTF2 was the most "fun" of the trilogy), but a film should have at least
> some internal consistancy. The campy one-liners and direction in general
> very nearly ruined Batman Forever for me, a film that somewhere deep down
> had some nice thematics and a halfway serious plot. Perhaps it's fortunate
> that BTTF2's silliness is concentrated mainly in the opening -- had it been
> at the ending, I would have no doubt accused it of "falling apart".
Indeed, it needed to end on a relatively serious note, or the
cliffhanger would lose its gravity. I'm trying to remember where it was
internally inconsistent in the opening, but I'm coming up short. OK,
Griff was rather over-the-top. If you just mean an inconsistency in
comedic style, I'm not sure I can see it. The story doesn't become dark
until they return to Alternate 1985, so I wouldn't expect it to take on
a less light-hearted style before then.
<Cabin Boy vs. Pee Wee's Big Adventure>
> I probably should see PWBA first, then. :)
<Jaw drops>
WHAT?! You, an alleged Burton fan, have not seen his demented
masterpiece of a debut? Watch it immediately! Now, damn you; The
Frighteners can wait! NOW, I SAY!!
<Adam takes the proverbial "chill pill">
Er...sorry about that. Seriously, it's pretty good. ;)
Gerthein Boersma
"Adam Kohen, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me back
here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
>I personally enjoyed Joan Cusack's performance more, but comedy always
>seems to get snubbed (although when it wins something it's usually in
>this category). I haven't seen Julianne Moore yet (Boogie Nights will
>be playing on campus next week), but otherwise I have no reservations
>about Basinger winning. Who would you have picked? And you'd better
>not say Gloria Stewart... :)
Well... grit your teeth. :)
Without the knowledge of Titanic already getting too much Oscars as it is,
I might have picked Stewart. I liked her performance -- it was the one role
in Titanic that wasn't over-the-top or overstated. I wouldn't say Basinger
was bad, though, but I guess it's similar, in a way, to Elfman's 'Why this
and not Edward Scissorhands?', though in this case it's 'Why her and not
one of the males?'. It's irrational, maybe.
>> The other being Titanic, or Contact? :)
>Heh. I don't remember a mirror scene in Titanic, at least not one that
>was unique in any way. You don't mean when old Rose is going through
>her salvaged junk, do you? :)
Actually, yes -- because I recall several trailers as well as clips showed
on talk/movie-shows that feature old Rose looking at the mirror and then
briefly seeing young Rose's reflection on the cracked surface before
remarking that the "reflection's changed a bit". It's not in the actual
film, though... I wonder if Cameron specifically took it out so that
Winslet could have a more grand enterance, or if it was always just some
mock-up of the scene intended for the promotional material.
>Really? I loved GWH, but the main criticisms I've seen against it have
>to do with its basic story being unoriginal. What made it great was the
>acting and dialogue, especially the interaction between the main
>characters (not only Damon and Williams, but also Damon and Affleck,
>Damon and Driver, and Williams and Skarsgard as well).
>If Chasing Amy had been nominated, that would've been my choice for
>"Most Creative" even though I don't think it was the Best Picture of the
>year.
You make my point for me. GWH might not have been the most creative film of
the year, but it was arguably the most creative of the films nominated for
BP.
>OK then, I suppose that's fair. But the way Two-Face was wasted was a
>lot worse, especially given the fact that Batman Forever's story (when
>Schumacher allowed it to surface) dealt a lot with the issue of duality.
Exactly the argument I keep making. The reason, of course, is that Carrey
is (or was at the time) simply the bigger star. I did like Carrey's
over-the-top performance in BF, though.
>Still, Goldsman (I think that's the writer's name, not Goldsmith)
You're probably right. I think I had 'Jerry' on the brain.. :)
>can't resist giving all the characters idiotic one-liners.
Two reasons for that:
1) Freeze was played by Arnie -- as you state, apparently you can't hire
Arnie without him having to spout one-liners, no matter how lame they are.
2) The one-liners may have been more of a Schumacher-product than a
Goldsman one. I can imagine a scenario that has Schumacher insist more
one-liners in the second draft -- the first draft of BF doesn't feature as
many stupifying one-liners and even the later drafts at least try to
palliate the "Holey rusty metal" line by having Batman explain the island
is an old harbor of sorts. In the film, he just gives an "oh" which is
almost more annoying than the line itself.
This is also the reason why I think BF is pretty decent when compared to
B&R. BF was a more serious script written in a Burton-esque fashion at
first. The ending of earlier draft, for example, is the Burton ending of
Alfred picking up someone (Chase, in this case) in the car after which we
zoom up to see, in this case Batman and Robin, overlooking the Gothic
cityscape in the moonlight. The film would also open on a more serious note
and generally treat Two-Face better. Had Burton directed, he would have no
doubt demanded countless of changes to the second draft that would have
made it even more Burton-esque, and thus perhaps even on par with Batman
'89.
However, that didn't happen: the whole thing was "Schumacherized" into a
cheesy campfest, but the essence occasionally still shines through. This
was not the case with B&R, of course, which was Schumacher all the way from
the start, and thus has no redeeming values whatsoever.
<Indy>
>It was out here in 1989, so I was also 11 when I first saw it; I liked
>it then and I still like it now. Oh well...I guess this is one of those
>"agree to disagree" points.
Agreed.
>As action/adventure Raiders is just about impossible to beat, but TLC is
>just so much fun to watch. For a while that put it ahead of Raiders for
>me (this was a while during which I hadn't watched Raiders for a long
>time :)), but now I have a similar feeling to it that you have to BTTF2:
>it's incredible fun, but the original is better.
I actually feel roughly the same way about both sequels: both are great
fun, but the original is just somewhat "stronger" and more effective.
>Not to mention against Tom Selleck. :) What do you think of the rumors
>that Selleck will play Indy's long-lost brother if/when they finally get
>around to Indy 4?
Sounds like a fanboy rumor to me.
>I've also heard Costner's name thrown about for such
>a role...
And Hamill as the villain. That could be nice. To see him working again. :)
><BTTF2>
>Indeed, it needed to end on a relatively serious note, or the
>cliffhanger would lose its gravity. I'm trying to remember where it was
>internally inconsistent in the opening, but I'm coming up short. OK,
>Griff was rather over-the-top. If you just mean an inconsistency in
>comedic style, I'm not sure I can see it. The story doesn't become dark
>until they return to Alternate 1985, so I wouldn't expect it to take on
>a less light-hearted style before then.
It may be a case of the contrast being a little too big for my liking --
2015 was sillier than the 1955 of BTTF1 and the 1885 of 3 also, but I guess
I wouldn't have minded it as much if the next trip wouldn't have been to
the dark 1985A. I also somewhat disliked the "smartness" of having the
entire scateboard chase as well as little "Hello, McFly?!" touches retread
again: it was a good idea to do so after 4 years of absence, of course, but
nowadays when watching the trilogy as a whole it somewhat annoyes me -- it
strikes me as Gale and Zemeckis being gratuitously "cute" (don't get be
wrong, though: "cute" things like the "Lone Pine Mall" and "Eastwood
Ravine" touches are what I like best about BTTF, and BTTF2 has loads of
great ones as well).
I did like, however, how 2015 had that retro "future from a past
perspective" feel to it -- almost like it was a 1955-image of the future,
which is a stylistically neat idea. Certainly the future of BTTF2 was
unorthodoxly light-hearted for a late-80s film.
So to sum it up: I do like 2015 in BTTF2, but it does go a little
over-the-top IMHO.
><Jaw drops>
>WHAT?! You, an alleged Burton fan, have not seen his demented
>masterpiece of a debut? Watch it immediately! Now, damn you; The
>Frighteners can wait! NOW, I SAY!!
All right already! ;) If they even have it at the local video-stores, I'll
be sure to check it out. :)
Gerthein Boersma
"Eric Mohler, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me
back here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
portable gallows."
<I've done some major snipping of my own, when certain points threatened to
be repeated over and over>
>Well, silly and adolescent could be synominous terms, depending on who
>you ask.
Not in my opinion, but then I wouldn't actually call Burton's films "silly"
*myself* -- I was really referring to the way I thought you looked at them.
> I also think you see an awful lot more of scarred psyches in
>Burton's vision than I do. I think I have read many more Batman comics
>than you,
Undoubtedly you have. Never was much of a fan of Superhero comics, although
Batman's not bad at all.
>and possibly just by virtue of the number of stories I have
>digested, I think that Burton's take on scarred psyches is incredibly
>superficial compared to some I have read. I'll have to dig out my box 'o
>Batman comics to find some specific stories.
I think I've read a sufficient cross-section, however, to know what I'm
talking about. Although I find it hard to believe that I've missed exactly
those comics that support your points, I suppose I could be wrong.
>>...Consider yourself lucky, for I seem to recall this "exploration" wasn't
>>nearly as deep as you imply. ;)
>It's been a while since I've read some Batman stories myself, but I do
>recall that The Killing Joke has a very deep exploration of the Joker,
>much more so than Burton's.
Burton's might not have been deep, but it was very good, IMHO. My opinion
of it is no doubt helped heaps by Nicholson's top-notch performance,
though, and undoubtedly instrumental in making me think that this is 'As
good as it gets' (lame pun intended).
>>You avoid the point -- ties between Miller's comics and Batman *Forever*
>>(at least, the pre-Schumacher Goldsmith version of that film).
>I made a typo. I meant to type Batman Forever. And I still don't see
>the ties between Batman Forever and Miller's work.
Ah, well in that case, your earlier point about me interchanging Miller's
with the other comics is probably valid. I maintain, however, that although
some of the dialogue is more akin to the 60s travesty, some of the
"speeches" Batman gives (to Robin, to Nygma, to Chase) seem to come right
out of the comics. They certainly wouldn't seem out of place in an episode
of the animated series -- which is based largely and quite directly upon
the comics.
>Yes, the essence of my point was that weird things are easier to swallow
>when they're drawn. Burton films are quite surreal, and while I liked
>his visual approach, I think massive surrealness isn't the perfect approach
>for Batman, which is quite grounded in reality compared to many other comic
>books.
Actually, I find Batman to be more surreal in some ways than other comics.
Sure, there are less "supervillains" and other implausable things in
Batman, but there seems to be more symbolism and a 'dark fairy tale'
quality to some of the stories. This is, I think, what Burton picked up on
and so his surrealism was not as much of a stretch.
Also, something that perhaps plagues Batman to an extent is that although
it's more serious than many superhero comics, it's still a story about a
man who dresses up like a flying rodent to become a crime-fighting
superhero. The 60s show and Schumacher found it irresistable to make fun of
that... I think using surrealism and symbolism is the safer choice because,
while still not taking it 100% seriously, one avoids things becoming camp.
>I don't think that Burton's Batman is the most interesting version in
>existence, but it is as food as the franchise got on screen.
Unless you mean something more cynical, I'm glad we at least agree on that.
>>>Return of the Jedi is Return of the Jedi.
>>
>>;) That sure is a cunningly worded argument, but my point that dismissing a
>>film for having Prince music is a silly line of debate remains.
>Well, you certainly took that statement out of context for your own
>purposes, and conveniently ignored my statement below saying that I
>agreed it was a silly argument.
I'll admit it was naughty of me to take the quote out of context, but I
still addressed/refuted the full sentiment, or at least the point I thought
you were making: that Batman is not Return of the Jedi and that a musical
number in it is thus less forgivable. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your
statements by doing so, but "I think that putting a musical number in was
at odds with the thousands of Batman comics in existance" can be seen as
little else, even if you also agree that it's a weak complaint.
>I'm not at all opposed to seeing things on film that haven't been done in
>Batman Comics before. A musical number is quite difficult to convey in
>comics, though, and seems a little off-putting to me in a film based on a
>comic book.
All the more reason for it to be in the film then! If the film does things
unfit for the comics, it can truly add to the franchise. That aside,
although I've already admitted to not particularly liking the sequence
myself, it's not as if we're talking about a major scene here -- a few
moments is all.
>However, there are many stylistic touches that Burton put in
>Batman '89 that are much better than the comic book version. In fact,
>Burton's vision of Gotham was such a good one, some of the comics
>started using Anton Furst set paintings in the backgrounds. And the
>funny thing about that is that it didn't really work. Burton came up
>with the most appropriate vision of Gotham for the films which was quite
>different than the comics. Burton's batmobile was pretty sweet, too, I
>might add. Overall, I really liked the look of Batman '89, so I don't
>think it's fair to say I'm opposed to things that haven't been done in
>comics. Upon writing this post, I think I am adverse to things I find
>silly in the films (or the comics for that matter). Batman '89 didn't have
>too many things I found off-putting, and the Joker (a silly person if
>there was one) was responsible for the sillyness which somehow
>legitimized it.
I of course agree with you there. It's somewhat disappointing, however,
that you claim to like Batman '89 yet can't seem to praise anything about
it beyond aesthetics.
Also, I've already admitted that Burton's Joker may not have been the
deepest version around, and that whether or not his Batman is more
interesting than Miller's is debatable, but what about his Penguin and
Catwoman? I don't think *they've* been characterized in a better or more
interesting fashion.
>Overall, I don't think my dislike of Batman Returns comes from a dissonance
>between the comics and the film, but rather from a dislike of some of Tim
>Burton's stylistic choices in general. For example, I like Batman '89
>and Mars Attacks, while I don't particularly enjoy Edward Scissorhands,
>Beetlejuice, or the Nightmare before Christmas.
I don't think silly is synonymous with surreal and both make it into all
Burton films. Mars Attacks is silly, Beetlejuice is both, but I'd say the
others, while having a few silly touches, are mostly just surreal. They
also have the aforementioned 'fairytale' quality to them which I like.
Batman Returns is in essence a dark and tragic fairytale, which is an
interesting way to go in my opinion.
>It's more of a coincidence that I happen to like Tim Burton films that are little less
>silly or surreal, and the Batman comics I like don't tend to be silly or
>surreal.
I don't think it's a coincidence, it just happens to be your taste. I
personally like the surreal qualities of Burton's approach to Batman. There
were a few touches of it and Batman -- these touches were the things you
seem to dislike about the film, but personally I was intrigued by them.
Burton took them a step further in Returns and, although I'm inclined to
agree that he may have gone too far in some respects, I was intrigued
again, while you disliked them and thus the film as a whole.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, I think Batman Returns was a rather
logical continuation of Batman '89 in terms of style and characterization.
Burton used Miller-esque ideas as a foundation and lead-in to his view of
Batman in 1989, then fleshed them out to create an interpretation of his
own which is furthered in Returns. He did this in such a bold fashion that
it was expected that not everyone would be amused -- as I've said before,
it was a miracle that the films were even that successful. But I, for one,
liked Burton's vision a lot, as you may have guessed by now. :)
Michael G Switzer
> Also, I've already admitted that Burton's Joker may not have been the
> deepest version around, and that whether or not his Batman is more
> interesting than Miller's is debatable, but what about his Penguin and
> Catwoman? I don't think *they've* been characterized in a better or
> more interesting fashion.
well, and designed well.
> >Overall, I don't think my dislike of Batman Returns comes from a
> dissonance
> >between the comics and the film, but rather from a dislike of some of
> Tim
> >Burton's stylistic choices in general. For example, I like Batman
> '89
> >and Mars Attacks, while I don't particularly enjoy Edward
> Scissorhands,
> >Beetlejuice, or the Nightmare before Christmas.
> the
> others, while having a few silly touches, are mostly just surreal.
> They
> also have the aforementioned 'fairytale' quality to them which I like.
> Batman Returns is in essence a dark and tragic fairytale, which is an
> interesting way to go in my opinion.
can see he sweeping camera pulls which add to the "dream" state...
Burton is one of the best directors out there, he has a much better
handle on hid ideas than Lynch, who seems to be the only other decent
surreal artist out there. Most of his best work was done with Bruce
Wagner though, his worst by himself.
> I don't think it's a coincidence, it just happens to be your taste. I
> personally like the surreal qualities of Burton's approach to Batman.
Burton did alot for Batman in his movie. He took it back to the original
darknes of the comics, not the stuff we see today. Batman is a Gothic
Character, the movie needed to be gothis too.
> Burton used Miller-esque ideas as a foundation and lead-in to his view
> it was a miracle that the films were even that successful. But I, for
> one, liked Burton's vision a lot, as you may have guessed by now. :)
Who is Miller? And who did the backdrops for Batman, if the artist has a
web gallery, does anyone know the address? Thanks...
shalon t'kai
Adam Kohen
Gerthein Boersma wrote:
>
<Best Supporting Actress>
> >...but otherwise I have no reservations
> >about Basinger winning. Who would you have picked? And you'd better
> >not say Gloria Stewart... :)
>
> Well... grit your teeth. :)
Grrrr... :)
> Without the knowledge of Titanic already getting too much Oscars as it is,
> I might have picked Stewart. I liked her performance -- it was the one role
> in Titanic that wasn't over-the-top or overstated. I wouldn't say Basinger
> was bad, though, but I guess it's similar, in a way, to Elfman's 'Why this
> and not Edward Scissorhands?', though in this case it's 'Why her and not
> one of the males?'. It's irrational, maybe.
Okay. I obviously agree with you that Kim was the least deserving out
of the LAC cast, but she wasn't competing against them. My only problem
with Stewart is not that she wasn't good (she did well enough), but that
the role is so brief. Her character is undoubtably important to the
framing story, but her total screentime plus voiceovers couldn't have
been 15 minutes. That's cameo territory even if the film wasn't over
three hours. Case in point: Bill Murray in Wild Things. His few scenes
are probably the best parts of this movie, but he's the last actor to be
named in the credits. And his part was actually longer than Stewart's
in Titanic, now that I think about it. Oh well...
<awarding creativity>
> >If Chasing Amy had been nominated, that would've been my choice for
> >"Most Creative" even though I don't think it was the Best Picture of the
> >year.
>
> You make my point for me. GWH might not have been the most creative film of
> the year, but it was arguably the most creative of the films nominated for
> BP.
I don't know about that either. I can't think of too many comedies that
exploit the bodies of *men*...and not typically attractive Hollywood men
at that! But that doesn't mean I would've voted Full Monty for Best
Pic...I guess that's not a good category to compare to, since it's a
combination of so many factors. But in terms of technical categories
(music, VFX, costumes, etc.), originality should be at least as
important as overall quality.
<the reasons for B&R's supreme suckiness>
> 2) The one-liners may have been more of a Schumacher-product than a
> Goldsman one. I can imagine a scenario that has Schumacher insist more
> one-liners in the second draft -- the first draft of BF doesn't feature as
> many stupifying one-liners and even the later drafts at least try to
> palliate the "Holey rusty metal" line by having Batman explain the island
> is an old harbor of sorts. In the film, he just gives an "oh" which is
> almost more annoying than the line itself.
I remember reading the BF script a while back, and you're right; it was
a lot better than the final movie. About Schumacher being at fault: I
think Val Kilmer was quoted somewhere as saying something like, "I was
trying to play the character as well as possible, but then I realized
Joel Schumacher just wanted to make a two-hour toy commercial."
Still, I'm a little wary of seeing the Goldsman-penned Lost in Space
movie...I'll have to see how the reviews go.
I actually like BF a lot more than B&R (it's almost impossible not to),
but I like it less now than I did originally. Carrey is fun without
getting too Ace-y, and I never have a problem watching Nicole Kidman.
:) It's just...eh. I don't know, I wanted more of Tommy Lee Jones, and
as great as she looks, I *know* Kidman is a better actress than she
shows here. It's tough to measure up to Pfeiffer's Catwoman, though.
And what's with the friggin' neon street gangs?! :)
<BTTF2>
> So to sum it up: I do like 2015 in BTTF2, but it does go a little
> over-the-top IMHO.
Okey-dokey. I'll agree with you on that.
<Pee Wee's Big Adventure>
> ><Jaw drops>
> >WHAT?! You, an alleged Burton fan, have not seen his demented
> >masterpiece of a debut? Watch it immediately! Now, damn you; The
> >Frighteners can wait! NOW, I SAY!!
>
> All right already! ;) If they even have it at the local video-stores, I'll
> be sure to check it out. :)
Ah, that's better.
But see The Frighteners soon after that. :)
Widget
AMSNYD wrote:
>
> I am a great admirer of Tim Burton (PeeWee's Big Adventure and Mars Attacks!
> are two of my favorite films of all time) but the REAL Batman movie was made in
> 1966 and starred Adam West.
Sooo... this is crack's effect on the human mind....
;)
Widget
Eric Mohler
In article <6fvr76$fc...@reader2.wxs.nl>,
Gerthein Boersma <gert...@wxs.nl> wrote:
>"Eric Mohler, take this cartload of loot back to the palace and meet me
>back here at midnight, with ten soldiers, a restless lynch mob and a small
>portable gallows."
>
><I've done some major snipping of my own, when certain points threatened to
>be repeated over and over>
Ah, yes. I'm only going to comment on a few things, since this topic has
been beaten into the ground.
>>Well, silly and adolescent could be synominous terms, depending on who
>>you ask.
I didn't mean to say that I felt they were synominous. I was thinking
that my Grandfather would probably consider them similar :)
>I think I've read a sufficient cross-section, however, to know what I'm
>talking about. Although I find it hard to believe that I've missed exactly
>those comics that support your points, I suppose I could be wrong.
I would suggest trying to find some earlier issues of 'Legends of the
Dark Knight.' I still haven't had a chance to dig out my issues to make
specific recommendations.
>Actually, I find Batman to be more surreal in some ways than other comics.
>Sure, there are less "supervillains" and other implausable things in
>Batman, but there seems to be more symbolism and a 'dark fairy tale'
>quality to some of the stories. This is, I think, what Burton picked up on
>and so his surrealism was not as much of a stretch.
>
>Also, something that perhaps plagues Batman to an extent is that although
>it's more serious than many superhero comics, it's still a story about a
>man who dresses up like a flying rodent to become a crime-fighting
>superhero. The 60s show and Schumacher found it irresistable to make fun of
>that... I think using surrealism and symbolism is the safer choice because,
>while still not taking it 100% seriously, one avoids things becoming camp.
Given the choice, I would rather have surrealism and symbolism than
camp. I really don't like camp at all.
>>I'm not at all opposed to seeing things on film that haven't been done in
>>Batman Comics before. A musical number is quite difficult to convey in
>>comics, though, and seems a little off-putting to me in a film based on a
>>comic book.
>
>All the more reason for it to be in the film then! If the film does things
>unfit for the comics, it can truly add to the franchise. That aside,
>although I've already admitted to not particularly liking the sequence
>myself, it's not as if we're talking about a major scene here -- a few
>moments is all.
I think there are some important decisions that need to be made when
going across mediums. Comics don't have dimensions or sound, but of course
that doesn't mean a movie should be 2-D and silent. Still, I think
some things, like musical numbers, are not the way to go, at least for
Batman.
>I of course agree with you there. It's somewhat disappointing, however,
>that you claim to like Batman '89 yet can't seem to praise anything about
>it beyond aesthetics.
I've been narrowly focusing in on certain things, so let me say this
about Batman '89. I liked the acting. Nicholson was fantastic. Keaton
was the best of the three Batmen we've had. I obviously liked the sets
and the set design. I also felt that the narrative was the most
compelling of the Four films. Overall, I liked just about all of it,
except for the 'silly' touches.
>Also, I've already admitted that Burton's Joker may not have been the
>deepest version around, and that whether or not his Batman is more
>interesting than Miller's is debatable, but what about his Penguin and
>Catwoman? I don't think *they've* been characterized in a better or more
>interesting fashion.
I'll admit that the Penguin was never well characterized before. I've
always hated that character, though, so I often forget about that.
Burton did an interesting job of making the character more than a silly
one gimmick villian.
There are some aspects of Catwoman that have been characterized in an
interesting way in the comic books, but Burton's was interesting as well.
>I don't think silly is synonymous with surreal and both make it into all
>Burton films. Mars Attacks is silly, Beetlejuice is both, but I'd say the
>others, while having a few silly touches, are mostly just surreal. They
>also have the aforementioned 'fairytale' quality to them which I like.
>Batman Returns is in essence a dark and tragic fairytale, which is an
>interesting way to go in my opinion.
I didn't mean to say silly and surreal are synominous, but Burton uses
both quite often. I didn't really find Mars Attacks that silly. Well
some of it. But a lot of it was so mean spirited, I can't call it silly.
I do see the 'fairytale' quality of Burton's films, and it is one of his
unique gifts. Batman '89 had the right feel for me, but as I'm sure I've
made it abundantly clear, Batman Returns was too much for me.
Eric
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Eric G. Mohler The RASSM prequel FAQ: |
| Dept. of Psychology http://www.duke.edu/~egm/prequel/index.html |