Frankenstein movies.....
Daniel MacLeod
Litchick66 wrote:
> Which version of Frankenstein (or which of the series of Universal pics) would
> you choose as the best adaptation of the story and why?
I'm not sure which would be the best adaptation since I've not read the entire
book myself, but from what I've seen, Hammer's "Curse of Frankenstein" is pretty
damn good in comparison to most others.
It seems to capture something that the others did not...
the eerie realism and madness in the act of creation.
For instance, when Cushing collects the hands and displays them on the table with
that gleam in his eyes...
Oh man, it's just priceless.
kha...@webtv.net
>Which version of Frankenstein (or which of the
>series of Universal pics) would you choose as
>the best adaptation of the story and why?
I pity the fool who tries to get past you by watching any of them,
instead of reading the book.
I love all of the Universal series, but Bride would have to be my
favorite. The only Hammer take that I don't care much for is The Horror
of Frankenstein, with David Prowse.
Of the other versions I've seen, the tv movie with Randy Quaid as the
monster isn't a great film, but it comes as close to the original story
as many of the others. Dan Curtis's version is all right, but I always
get a bit bored somewhere in the middle.
For a really different version, have you seen Roger Corman's
Frankenstein Unbound?
Litchick66
Which version of Frankenstein (or which of the series of Universal pics) would
you choose as the best adaptation of the story and why?
Charli
terry w. luster
I never read Mary Shelley's story,but my favorite Universal film
is BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. The creature evolves into a more lierate
character,and Dr.Frankenstein is the victim this time. And how about
Elsa Lanchester? What a babe! :-)
T.Luster
Litchick66
>
> I never read Mary Shelley's story,but my favorite Universal film
> is BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. The creature evolves into a more lierate
> character,and Dr.Frankenstein is the victim this time. And how about
> Elsa Lanchester? What a babe! :-)
> T.Luster
>
Terry!! You really ought to look into the book......I'm teaching it now, and
gettng a whole new perspective on it. Actually I find myself drawn back into
the book by the sense of pathos the creature brings out. And to think Mary
wrote it as a lark at the tender age of nineteen.
Litchick66
>I pity the fool who tries to get past you by watching any of them,
>instead of reading the book.
Hehehe........I had a kid do a book report on The Green Mile series without
reading the last book.......hehehe.......and this knowing I was a big King fan
and had read EVERYTHING he'd recently written. Fool.
>I love all of the Universal series, but Bride would have to be my
>favorite.
Why?
>Of the other versions I've seen, the tv movie with Randy Quaid as the
>monster isn't a great film, but it comes as close to the original story
>as many of the others.
I just picked this up for $3.99 in a bargain store....hehehe Maybe I'll show
that too
>For a really different version, have you seen Roger Corman's
>Frankenstein Unbound?
Actually, I have......I liked it too!! Actually, I like a lot of the
Frankenstein films......I guess I'm taken with the archetype and the premise.
Shane "Remo D" Dallmann
get Karloff, Lugosi, Rathbone, Atwill and some wonderful set design. A
beautiful film that will live forever.
The most faithful adaptation of the book (which I have read) is probably the
Swedish "Victor Frankenstein," a/k/a "Terror of Frankenstein." A sincere,
well-meaning film, but none too thrilling.
The problem here, of course, is that a word-for-word adaptation of Shelley's
novel would be an interminable talk fest. So how to bridge the gap between
literary and cinematic? Compromises notwithstanding, I was extremely
impressed with Kenneth Branagh's adaptation. I felt this film came the
closest to representing what Shelley wrote while working as a film at the
same time.
And then there's the Hammer series, the TV movies, the outrageous film which
provided my signature, and so many other films of note--I could go on and
on--but I hope I've answered your questions.
--
_____________________________________________
"What a day!"
The Baron--"Flesh For Frankenstein"
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
______________________________________________
Litchick66 wrote in message <19981003202019...@ng146.aol.com>...
>
>Which version of Frankenstein (or which of the series of Universal pics)
would
>you choose as the best adaptation of the story and why?
kha...@webtv.net
Universal series is Bride.
Well, it's a close thing, but Elsa Lanchester and Ernest Thesiger put it
over the top. Having Karloff speak is a plus, too, though I can no
longer watch the scene with the blind man without thinking of Young
Frankenstein.
You could kill weeks of classes with clips from the movies. There's
your unit on parody. Much more interesting than parsing sentances, if
that's something you have to teach, too.
God, I hope not.
Kimberly H Anselmi
Shane "Remo D" Dallmann wrote:
"What a day!"
The Baron--"Flesh For Frankenstein"
So, this one is not your classic Frankenstein, but what the hell........
right? I love this one for a few reasons. First being Udo. Second being the
sheer campiness about it. Third the over the top performance of Arno
Juerging as Otto (I know that Terry will agree with me on that one)...... or
would this fit into the section of the campiness of it? Cause if so, then
throw in Joe Dallesandro and that tough guy accent of his (WTF was he doing
in Italy?). I also love the score to this film, it's just beautiful. I also
like the settings in this movie as well, very lush at times (the grounds)
and very rich (the castle and such). The T 'n' A in the film is a bonus ;)
For a different take on the Frankenstein monster I have to say that I love
Frankenweenie!!! What a sweet short film this is, one of Burton's better
works.
I also love Young Frankenstien. That movie is just too damn funny.
Ray Pruit
nasty, just like the N.W.O.!!!
"Hey, Ginger."
------ Ray Pruit
kevin lake
(Shane "Remo D" Dallmann)
I was extremely impressed with Kenneth Branagh's adaptation. I felt
this film came the closest to representing what Shelley wrote while
working as a film at the same time.
maybe it's just me, but i find ANYTHNG Branagh does to be pretentious
(spl?) and very self-serving. i remember watching this movie and
thinking to myself, " geeez, if he finds one more excuse, to
dramatically throw his shirt off, and show his chest, i am going to be
sick"
kev
When he looked into her eyes
it was a sea of love,
and he wanted to drown forever
Litchick66
>though I can no
>longer watch the scene with the blind man without thinking of Young
>Frankenstein.
Hehehe.....neither can I. I love that movie!
>You could kill weeks of classes with clips from the movies. There's
>your unit on parody.
Get outta my head.
> Much more interesting than parsing sentances, if
>that's something you have to teach, too.
Oh God, no!! I hate grammar!!! Kinda sucks all the life out of English class.
Besides.....we don't teach grammar in isolation any more....only in the
context of fixing something in a writing assignment.
Thanks for your input, by the way. The kids are rebelling against watching
"Bride...." they want to see Branagh's version, but I can't show
that.......geez......DeNiro naked???? That might scar some of em for life!!
Franklin Harris
kevin lake wrote in message
<28126-36...@newsd-111.bryant.webtv.net>...
maybe it's just me, but i find ANYTHNG Branagh does to be pretentious
(spl?) and very self-serving. i remember watching this movie and
thinking to myself, " geeez, if he finds one more excuse, to
dramatically throw his shirt off, and show his chest, i am going to be
sick"
Hmmm. Have you seen his "Henry V?" Oh, well.
As it is, I rather liked his version of "Frankenstein," but then I'm also a
sucker for anyone who will go absolutely over the top with not regrets, no
reservations, and no cares for what anyone else thinks. And the Branagh
"Frankenstein" is certainly over the top.
(But I like the '80s "Flash Gordon," so what do I know?)
Franklin Harris
gatc...@animefan.org
kevin lake
Shiflet
> Thanks for your input, by the way. The kids are rebelling against watching "Bride...." they want to see Branagh's version, but I can't show that.......
Why not? Our teacher's showing it when we get to Frankenstein...
> geez......DeNiro naked???? That might scar some of em for life!!
>
> "Do I dare disturb the universe.........?"
> Charli
Danny Shiflet
"We plan ahead, that way we don't have to do anything right now"-
Valentine, Tremors
FeIlDown
>I like "Frankenstein must be destroyed" Peter Cushing is mean and
>nasty, just like the N.W.O.!!!
>
>
jokes.
FeIlDown
> I was extremely
>impressed with Kenneth Branagh's adaptation. I felt this film came the
>closest to representing what Shelley wrote
Branagh's film didn't come across as a horror film. Anyway, Shelley was no
Shakespeare. It's an interesting book, but the best thing movie versions can
do, in my opinion, is *stray* from Shelley's ideas.
>And then there's the Hammer series
Exactly. They took Frankenstein just where it needed to be.
FeIlDown
> i find ANYTHNG Branagh does to be pretentious
>(spl?) and very self-serving. i remember watching this movie and
>thinking to myself, " geeez, if he finds one more excuse, to
>dramatically throw his shirt off, and show his chest, i am going to be
>sick"
>
>
but his Hamlet was absurd and boring. I haven't seen all of Henry 5, but I
wasn't at all impressed with Ken's performance. He *is* pretentious. One is
inclined to say, "More matter, with less art." But I do like John Cleese in
the film, and I believe Ken grabs Helena's crotch.
M Killer36
>Which version of Frankenstein
>would
>you choose as the best adaptation of the story and why?
Frankenstein Conquers the World. Why? Because this Franky can step on people
and fight a giant rubber monster named Baragon.
The Master Killer
"So. You wanna find out how good you are. Well. You must be tired of living."
Check out The Master Killer's Top 100 Flixs!
http://members.aol.com/MKiller36/index.html
mozart...@my-dejanews.com
litch...@aol.comNOSPAM (Litchick66) wrote:
>
> Which version of Frankenstein (or which of the series of Universal pics) would
> you choose as the best adaptation of the story and why?
> Charli
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
terry w. luster
He gets my vote for "Best Facial Expressions In A Horror Movie"
When the Baron decides to hump his female zombie,he yells at Otto
"Turn around,don't look at me you filthy thing!"
Arno's expressions are priceless ;-)
T.Luster
The Gore-met
> Arno Juerging is great in FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN.
> He gets my vote for "Best Facial Expressions In A Horror Movie"
> When the Baron decides to hump his female zombie,he yells at Otto
> "Turn around,don't look at me you filthy thing!"
> Arno's expressions are priceless ;-)
I love this film! As well as "Blood For Dracula". I've got LBX copies of
these now, absolutely blows away those terrible Video Gems tapes I had.
I also rather enjoyed "Frankenstein '80" and "Lady Frankenstein". The
monster in "LF" looks just like Peter Boyle.
--
"You make me want to beat your ears in!"
- Inspector Betti, Napoli violenta (Violent Protection)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terror! Mayhem! Bloody Horror!
The Galloping Gore-met- http://www.interlog.com/~goremet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian John Wright
: I'm not sure which would be the best adaptation since I've not read the entire
: book myself, but from what I've seen, Hammer's "Curse of Frankenstein" is pretty
: damn good in comparison to most others.
: It seems to capture something that the others did not...
: the eerie realism and madness in the act of creation.
I'm a lonely guy here, because I really did like Branagh's
the best. It was one of the most "pumped" movies I've ever seen,
especially around that act of creation, and the twist put in at
the end regarding the source of materials for the creature's
bride was a marvellous touch - one of those rare instances of
messing around with classic source material and making it a
*good* addition.
--
-Brian J. Wright
HOMER: It seems that the cat has been caught, by the very
people who were trying to catch him!
SEYMOUR: How ironic.
tim...@tiptontel.com
litch...@aol.comNOSPAM (Litchick66) wrote:
>
> Which version of Frankenstein (or which of the series of Universal pics) would
> you choose as the best adaptation of the story and why?
> "Do I dare disturb the universe.........?"
> Charli
>
Hmmmm. Well, I love the first Karloff Frankenstein. Although I wouldn't call
it a faithful adaptation, it really made the most out of the premise.
Extremely tragic, extremely atmospheric. While the sequels were all fun in
their own way, they play as late-night creature feature-type shows now. Only
the first still feels like a genuine serious feature film each time I watch
it. Homer aka tim...@tiptontel.com
tim...@tiptontel.com
> Charli
>
That IS impressive. For one thing, most larks live less than a year, and
never actually learn to read and write. (Homer runs out of the room,
cackling like a maniac. A second later, he leans back in the doorway) By the
way, as far as really original views of Frankenstein, I really love Hammer
Films' Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell. It gives a rather unique view
of the good Doctor, at the end of his career and quite insane, to the point
that each failure becomes day one of his next attempt. Up until that point in
the Hammer series there was, between each film, a sense of actual progress.
Curse of Frankenstein's crude monster is followed by the almost successful
experiment (with a little unfortunate rotting) in Revenge of Frankenstein.
The Evil of Frankenstein had the Doctor working in cruder conditions, and as
such he was less successful, especially given the interference of a mesmerist
who stepped in with goals not at all in line with the Baron's. But in
Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed and Frankenstein Created Woman the Doctor's
work, technically, is a complete success. Both creations (with the exception
of a little scarring in the case of the male) are pretty much normal-looking
people, and completely healthy. It is only the fact that neither of them
WANTED to live (the Doctor has always had the pesky little character flaw of
not actually ASKING anyone if they wanted to be re-animated) that made their
'new' lives short and unhappy. But in Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell,
the Baron is now in what he claims is a self-imposed exile from humanity,
using the residents of the insane asylum as his subjects, with results that
are quite crude and far less successful than all but the first of his
'creations'. The interesting, and sad, part is that by then he really doesn't
care. He has forgotten his original ambition to better mankind with his work,
and at the end of the film when he assures his young assistant that 'things
will go much better' the next time, you know that it is a hollow statement.
He is at a point at which he simply does what he has always done, without any
real hope or even intention of having any positive results. He is doing it by
rote. He has gone into his retirement, killing and re-animating with
absent-minded cheer in the way that many older men tend to their gardens. It
is a pathetic and chilling end to the series of films. Homer aka
Henrik Larsen
<6vcf3k$kdq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>[...] By the way, as far as really original views of Frankenstein, I
really love Hammer
>Films' Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell. It gives a rather unique
view
>of the good Doctor, at the end of his career and quite insane, to the
point
>that each failure becomes day one of his next attempt. Up until that
point in
>the Hammer series there was, between each film, a sense of actual
progress.
>Curse of Frankenstein's crude monster is followed by the almost
successful
>experiment (with a little unfortunate rotting) in Revenge of
Frankenstein.
Actually the experiment itself, transplant of a living brain, went very
well. But the unfortunate creature got beaten up, the brain taking
damage (because the skull wasn't quite healed yet) with personality
changes to the worse as consequence. Frankenstein was more careful in
the sequels.
>The Evil of Frankenstein had the Doctor working in cruder conditions,
and as
>such he was less successful, especially given the interference of a
mesmerist
>who stepped in with goals not at all in line with the Baron's.
It didn't help that the creature, the stupidest of them all, was played
by a former wrestler! It took a sip of strong liquor to stirr it into
any sort of independant action. The scene with the drunk creature is
unintentionally funny.
>But in Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed and Frankenstein Created Woman
the
>Doctor's work, technically, is a complete success. Both creations (with
the exception
>of a little scarring in the case of the male) are pretty much
normal-looking
>people, and completely healthy. It is only the fact that neither of
them
>WANTED to live (the Doctor has always had the pesky little character
flaw of
>not actually ASKING anyone if they wanted to be re-animated) that made
their
>'new' lives short and unhappy.
Created Woman is a bit complicated, because the body of the creature
hosted _two_ seperate souls! And Hans was executed, he wasn't tired of
living. Christina on the other hand drowned herself...
>But in Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell, the Baron is now in what
he claims is
>a self-imposed exile from humanity, using the residents of the insane
asylum as his
>subjects, with results that are quite crude and far less successful
than all but the first
>of his 'creations'.
Well, his hands are crippled ;) But it is of course supposed to be
symbolic, I know. BTW there is bad continuity in the series: In Created
Woman, the hands of Frankenstein are useless (result from The Evil of),
but in Must Be Destroyed they are in fine shape. Only to be damaged once
more at the end...
>The interesting, and sad, part is that by then he really doesn't care.
He has forgotten
>his original ambition to better mankind with his work, and at the end
of the film when
>he assures his young assistant that 'things will go much better' the
next time, you
>know that it is a hollow statement.
Probably there will be no next time, the asylum director killed and all.
My guess is that Simon and Sarah will escape and Frankenstein be put
into a small cell, where he can rave insanely, not unlike Peter
Cushing's character in The Creeping Unknown. Clearly by the end of the
film his once brilliant brain has lost the last touch with reality.
>[...] It is a pathetic and chilling end to the series of films.
100% agree!
-Henrik
FeIlDown
> I really love Hammer
>Films' Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell. It gives a rather unique view
>of the good Doctor, at the end of his career and quite insane, to the point
>that each failure becomes day one of his next attempt. Up until that point in
>the Hammer series there was, between each film, a sense of actual progress.
How excellent it is that Hammer's awesome Frankenstein series has such a
sensitive and intelligent follower as yourself!
The continuity of the series is a tad shaky, but that's no big woop. For
instance, what if Evil of Frankenstein had come right before Monster from Hell?
From the look of Kiwi, the good doctor's mind is surely seriously addled, if
that botched effort at humanity is any judge. Also, his personality is that of
a pessimistic, hunted man, angry at the world. Monster from Hell is certainly
camp, altho it's camp which takes itself entirely seriously.
Must Be Destroyed is the best sequel. It's a true masterpiece, with a great
cast, great action, and a good story. Frank Creates Woman is the weakest of
the sequels.
Revenge has a damn cheesy ending.
Lastly, give Kiwi a break. He's a different species from Jone's sensitive and
lucid monster in Must Be Destroyed, but I think he's pretty cool.
And Horror of Frank isn't unentertaining.
Henrik Larsen
<19981006103314...@ng95.aol.com>...
[...]
>How excellent it is that Hammer's awesome Frankenstein series has such
>a sensitive and intelligent follower as yourself!
Thanks, but make that sensitive and intelligent follower*s* - you were
quoting Homer :)
>The continuity of the series is a tad shaky, but that's no big woop.
>For instance, what if Evil of Frankenstein had come right before
Monster
>from Hell?
EOF is where the continuity goes seriously off the track. What this film
tells about the baron's past is quite another story than in COF. Now the
Baron hasn't really done anything wrong, on the contrary he is the one
who has been wronged. Also you might notice the change of his
personality in EOF and FCW (perhaps already in ROF) towards a less
stern, less cruel, even sympathetic character. But then I have the
theory Frankenstein didn't tell his young assistant Hans everything
about his early experiments! What we see in the flashback sequence of
EOF isn't necessarily the truth - not the whole truth at least.
> From the look of Kiwi, the good doctor's mind is surely seriously
>addled, if that botched effort at humanity is any judge. Also, his
personality is
>that of a pessimistic, hunted man, angry at the world.
The problem with Kiwi IMHO is that he doesn't really have a personality.
I simply don't feel sorry for him the same way as with the other
unfortunate creations of F.
>Monster from Hell is certainly camp, altho it's camp which takes itself
>entirely seriously.
Well, no matter how poor the script, Peter Cushing always played
his characters damn straight! What's great with FATMFH is that
unlike the sloppy ending to the Dracula series, The Satanic Rites
of D., that just fell apart, this one clearly was written as a
conclusion.
There are subtle hints to the very first film and Frankenstein himself,
crippled, insane, looking terrible old, is like a ghost from the past.
>Must Be Destroyed is the best sequel. It's a true masterpiece, with a
>great cast, great action, and a good story.
I prefer the first and last film, but FMBD is certainly back on the
right track. The baron was never more fierce, cynical and
inhumane. Another interesting touch is that by then Frankenstein has
become a sort of wandering jew, always on the run from the authorities.
>Frank Creates Woman is the weakest of the sequels.
Cushing has some good lines, Thorley Walthers is not bad as the comic
relief guy and it's fun to watch a young Derek Folwds (of later Yes
Minister fame).
>Revenge has a damn cheesy ending.
However, the scene when Frankenstein's patients beat him (almost) to
death is great. They should have left it at that.
>Lastly, give Kiwi a break. He's a different species from Jone's
>sensitive and lucid monster in Must Be Destroyed, but I think he's
pretty cool.
Oh, well...
>And Horror of Frank isn't unentertaining.
Haven't seen it yet.
-Henrik
The Gore-met
> Terry!! You really ought to look into the book......I'm teaching it now, and
> gettng a whole new perspective on it. Actually I find myself drawn back into
> the book by the sense of pathos the creature brings out. And to think Mary
> wrote it as a lark at the tender age of nineteen.
I finally read it this summer. It's quite good. No film version I think
truly gets the feel of the novel. This wasn't as much of a slog as
"Dracula" was. I really had to work through that one, and I'm a
vociferous reader.
Dr Walpurgis
> I'm a lonely guy here, because I really did like Branagh's
> the best. It was one of the most "pumped" movies I've ever seen...
I agree, but only because "pumped" has an entirely different meaning to we British...
FeIlDown
>I'm a lonely guy here, because I really did like Branagh's
>> the best. It was one of the most "pumped" movies I've ever seen...
By "pumped," do you mean exciting? Because, if that *is* your meaning, Bram
Coppola's Dracula is certainly pumped. A good film no.
Shane "Remo D" Dallmann
there anything wrong with suggesting that the flashback scenes took place
immediately after "Revenge?" There was never an explanation given as to why
Frankenstein was no longer working at the clinic in his new body anymore.
So from there, he made the Kingston monster--and then he met up with Hans.
The only Hammer "series" movie that can't be made to fit is probably "Legend
of the 7 Golden Vampires," as it's far too date-specific.
Oh, and just for the record, I absolutely loved "Horror of Frankenstein."
--
_____________________________________________
"What a day!"
The Baron--"Flesh For Frankenstein"
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
______________________________________________
Henrik Larsen wrote in message <6vdgsv$noq$1...@dalen.get2net.dk>...
>FeIlDown skrev i meddelelsen
><19981006103314...@ng95.aol.com>...
FeIlDown
>Oh, and just for the record, I absolutely loved "Horror of Frankenstein."
>
I like the morbid scenes between Bates and the undertaker/graverobber. I like
Bates better in Sister Hyde. He's okay here, but his Frankenstein is such a
jerk! Not Bates' fault. I think during that period, arrogance in the young
generation was thought charming, so you have a whole slew of 60's and 70's
films with young men who really need their teeth kicked in.
Anyway, I was surprised there wasn't any nudity in the film--especially with
that nymphomaniacal maid around. And Veronica Carlson, along with Linda
Hayden, is one of Hammer's most breathtakingly gorgeous heroines.
Henrik Larsen
<6vecnu$aac$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
>True--"Evil of Frankenstein" can be seen as being out of context--but
>is there anything wrong with suggesting that the flashback scenes
>took place immediately after "Revenge?" There was never an
>explanation given as to why Frankenstein was no longer working at
>the clinic in his new body anymore.
The end of "Revenge" had him opening a new practice in London. My guess
is he continued his foul experiments and was driven from there too, to
seek refugee once more in central Europe. So far the continuity holds.
Ze problem with "Evil of Frankenstein" is that it has his ancestreal
home placed in the town (forgot the name) where he had taken up practice
in "Revenge"!
>So from there, he made the Kingston monster--and then he met up
>with Hans.
Who BTW is not the same Hans as in "Revenge". Noticed how young men
always are named Karl or Hans in these films?
>The only Hammer "series" movie that can't be made to fit is
>probably "Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires," as it's far too date-
>specific.
That's right, I was corrected on this matter by Bill Warren several
months ago and since then I've got all entries in the series. (that is,
uh, Phil, have you sent that tape? ;)
>Oh, and just for the record, I absolutely loved "Horror of
>Frankenstein."
I'm going to check that one out someday...
-Henrik
Brian John Wright
: By "pumped," do you mean exciting? Because, if that *is* your meaning, Bram
: Coppola's Dracula is certainly pumped. A good film no.
Exciting, energetic, frantic...you know, pumped!
Dr Walpurgis
> Exciting, energetic, frantic...you know, pumped!
In the UK, "pumped" is the past participle of "pump", a word used colloquially
to describe flatulent activity. You may wish to re-read your initial comments
with this in mind. I stand behind every word, if you'll pardon the expression.
Brian John Wright
: In the UK, "pumped" is the past participle of "pump", a word used colloquially
: to describe flatulent activity. You may wish to re-read your initial comments
: with this in mind. I stand behind every word, if you'll pardon the expression.
Hmmm...I take it, then, that you didn't like it.
I still fail to see the relevance to flatuence, slangly termed
or otherwise.
Shiflet
>
> Dr Walpurgis (dr_wal...@geocities.com) wrote:
>
> : In the UK, "pumped" is the past participle of "pump", a word used colloquially
> : to describe flatulent activity. You may wish to re-read your initial comments
> : with this in mind. I stand behind every word, if you'll pardon the expression.
>
> Hmmm...I take it, then, that you didn't like it.
>
> I still fail to see the relevance to flatuence, slangly termed
> or otherwise.
Maybe he's saying it stinks?
> -Brian J. Wright
>
> HOMER: It seems that the cat has been caught, by the very
> people who were trying to catch him!
> SEYMOUR: How ironic.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/3957/brian.html
Danny Shiflet
Skr...@my-dejanews.com
> Dr Walpurgis <dr_wal...@geocities.com> wrote:
> Brian John Wright wrote:
>
> > Exciting, energetic, frantic...you know, pumped!
>
> to describe flatulent activity. You may wish to re-read your initial comments
> with this in mind. I stand behind every word, if you'll pardon the expression.
Fair dinkum? The slang usage of pump here refers to sexual activity.
--
Skrybe aka nospam.b...@corporate.pwh.qld.gov.au
Remove the nospam to reply...
The Gore-met
> : to describe flatulent activity. You may wish to re-read your initial comments
> : with this in mind. I stand behind every word, if you'll pardon the expression.
>
>
> I still fail to see the relevance to flatuence, slangly termed
> or otherwise.
This term is not exclusive to the UK. "Eeeew, who pumped?" was a line
from my younger days.
Henrik Larsen
>Ze problem with "Evil of Frankenstein" is that it has his ancestreal
>home placed in the town (forgot the name) where he had taken up
>practice in "Revenge"!
No, wait, I was wrong on this.
-Henrik
Laura
Michael Sarrazin (sp?) and I've never seen it but that one time.
Laura
Litchick66 wrote in message <19981003202019...@ng146.aol.com>...
>
>Which version of Frankenstein (or which of the series of Universal pics)
would
>you choose as the best adaptation of the story and why?
Dr Walpurgis
> Dr Walpurgis (dr_wal...@geocities.com) wrote:
> > In the UK, "pumped" is the past participle of "pump", a word used colloquially
> > to describe flatulent activity. You may wish to re-read your initial comments
> > with this in mind. I stand behind every word, if you'll pardon the expression.
>
> Hmmm...I take it, then, that you didn't like it.
>
> I still fail to see the relevance to flatuence, slangly termed
> or otherwise.
It's a British thing.
Dr Walpurgis
Mick Nash
writes
>
>>The only Hammer "series" movie that can't be made to fit is
>>probably "Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires," as it's far too date-
>>specific.
>
moved the goalposts with its vampire films - also coming soon - The full
history of Frankenstein from Universal to Hammer
http://www.micknash.demon.co.uk
--
Mick