"Godzilla" ("Sun-Sentinel" Review)
PaulB...@aol.com
The monster matters, but the plot of Godzilla, well ...
Glenn Whipp
LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS
Published: May 18, 1998
OK. Now we know why they've been playing hide-the-monster.
It's all they have.
Yes, size does matter, but even in a popcorn movie it's important to include
little things like a story, decent dialogue, humor, fun and characters who
vaguely resemble humans beings. Godzilla has none of these elements. All it
has is Godzilla, a wonderfully realized beast who with one swing of the tail
can obliterate half of Manhattan's skyline. Unfortunately, Godzilla cannot be
on screen all of the film's near-interminable 140 minutes. And when Godzilla
goes missing, so does the film.
Filmmakers Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin have often cited films like The
Poseidon Adventure and Earthquake as the blueprints for the movies they would
like to make. Well, they have definitely succeeded. Godzilla apes those
movies with its sprawling cast, stupid subplots and inane writing. What's
lacking here (besides originality) is the playfulness that gave their last
film, Independence Day, a booster shot of life.
That's particularly disappointing given the fact that the Godzilla franchise
has so much potential for filmmaking fun. But there are no ironic nods to the
series' Japanese predecessors and few attempts to wink at the beast in its
present-day incarnation.
Instead, we have an endless parade of lame Roger Ebert fat jokes (the mayor
of New York is named Ebert and likes to give the thumbs-up sign) and
countless other lines stolen from other -- better -- action movies. Trust me,
there are more laughs to be had watching the Taco Bell Chihuahua say, "Here,
lee-zard, lee-zard, lee-zard" than you'll find watching this dark, depressing
film.
What we're left with, then, is basically another kill-the-monster movie. The
filmmakers have kept the original 1954 film's ideas about Godzilla being a
product of nuclear fallout from too much atomic testing in French Polynesia.
Flash ahead to present day, and Godzilla is ripping through cargo ships,
dragging fishing boats to the bottom of the sea and winding up on Manhattan's
doorstep hungry and looking for a place to spend the night.
Throughout the film's first half-hour, we meet a host of cliched characters
including a nebbish nuclear researcher (Matthew Broderick), a TV news
assistant (Maria Pitillo) looking for her big chance, a wild and crazy
cameraman (Hank Azaria) nicknamed -- what else?
"Animal," and an enigmatic French secret agent in search of monsters and a
decent cup of French-roast coffee.
Godzilla itself is fantastic, having been completely transformed from a
lumbering Frankenstein to a lightning-fast, leaping lizard who zips around
Manhattan quicker than a crazed cabbie stuck with a nothing fare. It's too
bad the beast isn't given much more to do than crash into things and fight
off helicopters. Godzilla does have a couple of Free Willy moments with
Broderick, but other than that it might as well be a bigger, quicker T. rex
from Jurassic Park.
Steven Spielberg's two movies cast a large shadow over Godzilla, particularly
later in the film when the monster problems multiply. Without giving too much
away, it's safe to say that Godzilla often plays like a "Jurassic Central
Park," but completely lacking Spielberg's gifts for tension and high-spirited
energy.
Of course, given the relentless marketing hype for this movie, most people
reading this are going to want to see it for themselves. Fair enough. Just
know going in that you've already seen the best bit in a trailer (the old man
fishing on the pier). Know that the monster looks great, but not that much
better than what you've already seen in the Jurassic Park movies. Know that
this film is long and often dull, which might affect young children more than
its cartoonish violence.
And know that having seen it, I'm actually looking forward to Armageddon. And
I'm not sure I'm talking about the meteor movie, either.
MOVIE REVIEW
Godzilla
**
Monster lizard menaces Manhattan.
With Matthew Broderick, Maria Pitillo, Hank Azaria, Jean Reno. Directed by
Roland Emmerich; screenplay by Dean Devlin and Emmerich.
Running time: 139 minutes.
Rating: PG-13 (violence).
* Poor ** Fair *** Good **** Excellent
SOURCE: "Sun-Sentinel," 05/19/98
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Blackwood
On Wed, 20 May 1998 02:21:59 GMT, Haus...@CatHaus.com (Speedbyrd™)
wrote:
>
>
>I think we need to put "Godzilla'' his proper perspective. It's not to be
>taken seriously, and a "plot" as such, is really not important. I don't
>think most people go to see sci-fi fantasy in order to get involved in a
>deep, convaluted story. It's all about special effects and one shouldn't
>look any deeper than the surface. It's a monster movie and the 'story' is
>secondary.
>
> The Speedbyrd(tm)
Having just seen this hopeless piece of sh#t I couldn't agree with the
previous review more. The article crystallized everything wrong with
the film perfectly. It's a good thing that a plot doesn't concern you
much because you won't be disappointed in its absence. This is beyond
brainless. It's just retarded and gets really tedious after the first
thirty minutes. I yawned often during this over-hyped crapfest. If
the film is "all about special effects", then I'd like to know where
all the money went because the effects were bad, and sometimes
ludicrous. Especially some of the scenes with the babyzillas. They
didn't even look like they were in the same dimension sometimes. A
person can only ignore so much bad compositing before they have to
unsuspend their disbelief. As for keeping Godzilla in its proper
perspective the filmmakers even screwed that up because there were
times when Godzilla appeared smaller in one scene than the previous
and would appear twice as big in the next scene.
Even though you're only concerned with eye candy I really can't see
how you can sustain you're interest in this drudge based in that
criterion alone. Let's all thank Emmerich and Devlin for another
trite, vapid, overly formulaic cliched, marketing ploy masquerading as
a film. This movie is on the assanine level of "Batman and Robin,"
and is just insultingly stupid. But, it'll sell alot of toys.
"Don't eat your seed!" Rev. Bob
Housecat
Blackwood wrote in message
<0BAF96868C6C743E.AD05B6B0...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>On Wed, 20 May 1998 03:59:18 GMT, Haus...@CatHaus.com (Speedbyrd™)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> The Speedbyrd(tm)
>>>
>>
>>And we'd certainly like to thank you for trying to ruin it for those who
>>haven't seen it. It would have sufficed to say you didn't like it. Movie
>>enjoyment, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I think you had
>>your head too far up your ass to enjoy it for what it was.
>>
>> The Speedbyrd(tm)
>I couldn't do anything to ruin this. People are going too see it
>regardless of what I have to say. If you were astute you would have
>realized that all I did was corroberate the reviewers description of
>the movie. I went to this film without any expectations and left
>undisappointed. I wanted to enjoy this movie for what it was but I
>just couldn't ignore the idiocy of this pathetic excuse for a movie.
>If I did have my head up my ass it would have been far more
>interesting than watching this farce. It's a good thing you don't
>seem to have any kind of standards because you'll love every
>nonsensical moment. Stop making excuses for bad movies, especially if
>you haven't seen them yet.
>"Don't eat your seed!" Rev. Bob
Who needs an excuse and you don't speak for all. I've seen many favorable
reviews, but because they don't hate it, I guess that makes YOU the better
person, huh?
Blackwood
On Wed, 20 May 1998 16:21:20 -0700, "Housecat" <Hous...@DogHouse.com>
wrote:
>
>Blackwood wrote in message
><0BAF96868C6C743E.AD05B6B0...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
>t>...
>>On Wed, 20 May 1998 03:59:18 GMT, Haus...@CatHaus.com (Speedbyrd™)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>Who needs an excuse and you don't speak for all. I've seen many favorable
>reviews, but because they don't hate it, I guess that makes YOU the better
>person, huh?
>
>
I never claimed to speak for all and you really must stop jumping to
such conclusions; it's bad form. I've also seen the favorable reviews
and they also point out that they recognized the faults of the movie,
but they seemed to have made up their minds about liking it before
they even saw the wretched thing. My opinions about the movie have
nothing to do with a superiority contest and I find it rather neurotic
and childish of you to try and personally insult me on account of
them. After all, it's just a movie, right? Especially since the
majority of the reviews that have been submitted have been pejorative.
I have yet to read one credible review that makes a good case for the
film based on the films own merits. It usually comes down to
something like "Godzilla rocks!!" That's it. No other reasons given.
At the very least I have noticed that the people who hate the film can
articulate why they hated it, and the aplogists are trying to hard to
want to like it which fosters the "you should accept it for what it
was meant to be" attitude. Well, I didn't expect that much of it and
walked out of the theatre feeling robbed. Like I said, I gave it a
chance, but could not ignore the constant low-brow tactics and
outright stupidity of this film. Not to mention that Maria Pitillo
was awful as Broderick's girlfriend. Also' did you see Godzilla step
on anyone? He rampages through downtown New York and nobody gets
stepped on! The 1955 version is far superior to the 1998 version
which makes the 1998 version even more disappointing considering the
money that was wasted on it.
Blackwood
On Thu, 21 May 1998 04:15:51 GMT, Spee...@CatHaus.com (Speedbyrd™)
wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>
>Personally, I think you're too anal about inconsequential things. you need
>to get out more and quit telling people what 'really must do'. It's bad
>form. Was it really important for you to see people being stepped on?
>I'd say your problem lies much deeper than your disappointment in a sci-fi
>flik.
>
>
> The Speedbyrd(tm)
Once again you've proven that you cannot remove yourself from ad
hominem fallacies. So, let's go about it this way. What did you like
about the movie? What apologies can you make for it? I have yet to
see anyone make any rational statements about what was good about it
beyond the previously mentioned "Godzilla rocks!!"statements. By the
way, it wasn't important to see people getting stepped on, but I don't
see why they couldn't have added that little piece of realism. The
Japanese never had a problem with it. Also, can you tell me how they
got everyone out of Manhattan in a matter of minutes? And why in the
years it took for Godzilla to mature on the" POPULATED" island he
lived on nobody ever saw him. And why there weren't thousands of
other Godzillas running around the world since they are "born
pregnant." And, why Godzilla only ate fish when, biologically
speaking, he would have had to consume anything that moved to support
his size, and pregnancy. And how he was able to carry hundreds of 9
foot tall eggs around in a womb that would not be large enough to
accomodate so many. Why did it take the eggs only a matter of hours
after being laid to hatch? Devlin and Emmerich obviously were not
concerned with any kind of story whatsoever. They had all they needed
with the monster's name to sell the picture. The reason they tried to
keep Godzilla's appearance a secret was because they knew they didn't
have any other selling points for this movie. And they were right.
In closing, the only reason why I keep debating these
"inconsequential" things is because you have gone out of your way to
try and insult me based on such inconsequential matters and have felt
obligated to defend my position up to this point. Behaviour such as
that which you initially displayed in response to a mere opinion about
a mere movie could be interpreted as a sign of profound insecurity.
Housecat
Let me just horn in here a minute. I myself haven't seen the film, but when
I do, I'll go into not expecting anything more than "monster eats NY"
storyline. Doesn't have to be anything complicated. There doesn't need to
be an 'apology' for the film and the there won't be, so don't insist on it.
Seems it WAS important for people to get stepped on and you wouldn't harp on
it. The film was an American made film, so the Japanese had nothing to say
about it. If I remember correctly, the original "Godzilla" 1955 didn't have
much in the way of gruesome gore, just lots of firebreathing and falling
buildings.
No one's insulted you, just questioned as to why trashing this film has
become such an obsession with you...and it is an obsession. It was also
very nice of you to go into details about the film, considering many have
not yet seen it. True, there may not be any great surprises, but lot of
folks really resent hearing about a film by blabbermouths before they've
seen it themselves. You can get off your highhorse now.
Kinetic
Housecat <Hous...@DogHouse.com> wrote in article
> Let me just horn in here a minute. I myself haven't seen the film, but
when
> I do, I'll go into not expecting anything more than "monster eats NY"
> storyline. Doesn't have to be anything complicated.
I saw the movie in "brain off" mode, but I was still disappointed - not a
bad commercial to sell mutant lizard toys though!
mark
I saw the movie and enjoyed it. It was made to excite viewers with
action. You make it sound like it is supposed to be some kind of classic
movie like "Titanic" You need to watch movies for enjoyment not picking
out every flaw. You know Godzilla is not real okay!
The Rev/EW_King
Speedbyrd™ wrote in message <356354d0....@news.slip.net>...
>
>>>
>>> The Speedbyrd(tm)
>>Having just seen this hopeless piece of sh#t I couldn't agree with the
>>previous review more. The article crystallized everything wrong with
>>the film perfectly. It's a good thing that a plot doesn't concern you
>>much because you won't be disappointed in its absence. This is beyond
>>brainless. It's just retarded and gets really tedious after the first
>>thirty minutes. I yawned often during this over-hyped crapfest. If
>>the film is "all about special effects", then I'd like to know where
>>all the money went because the effects were bad, and sometimes
>>ludicrous. Especially some of the scenes with the babyzillas. They
>>didn't even look like they were in the same dimension sometimes. A
>>person can only ignore so much bad compositing before they have to
>>unsuspend their disbelief. As for keeping Godzilla in its proper
>>perspective the filmmakers even screwed that up because there were
>>times when Godzilla appeared smaller in one scene than the previous
>>and would appear twice as big in the next scene.
>>Even though you're only concerned with eye candy I really can't see
>>how you can sustain you're interest in this drudge based in that
>>criterion alone. Let's all thank Emmerich and Devlin for another
>>trite, vapid, overly formulaic cliched, marketing ploy masquerading as
>>a film. This movie is on the assanine level of "Batman and Robin,"
>>and is just insultingly stupid. But, it'll sell alot of toys.
>>"Don't eat your seed!" Rev. Bob
>
>And we'd certainly like to thank you for trying to ruin it for those who
>haven't seen it. It would have sufficed to say you didn't like it. Movie
>enjoyment, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I think you had
>your head too far up your ass to enjoy it for what it was.
>
Once again, negativity from Speedbyrd. How typical.
You just can't admit that what these guys are saying is true. Do you work
for
Sony, by chance, byrd? Because so far, from what I've seen, it seems that
if each
print of Godzilla had a cock, you'd be sucking them all right now. You love
the
movie THAT much!
Jesus, man. It's just a movie. Let it go.
The Rev/EW_King
>
>Personally, I think you're too anal about inconsequential things. you need
>to get out more and quit telling people what 'really must do'. It's bad
>form. Was it really important for you to see people being stepped on?
>I'd say your problem lies much deeper than your disappointment in a sci-fi
>flik.
>
>
They're not people. They're characters. Characters in a movie. And, yes,
I
would have LOVED to have seem people getting stepped on by that giant
lizard. Maybe it would have kept me awake. I'd say your problem lies in
the
fact that you can't differentiate between what is reality and what is a
movie.
I'm getting a little sick of reading every post of yours turn into a
personal
attack and I'm a little irritated that you've posted enough of them to make
me
feel I have to stoop to your level to get through to you. But sometimes the
only
way to reach people like you is to be a person like you, no matter how sick
it
makes me.
Why don't you stop ragging on menial things in a posting such as "spelling
words
correctly" and "grammatical errors" and try to have an adult conversation
with these very intelligent people about our one common thread (movies) and
stop
making every difference in opinion turn into personal attacks and flaming?
The
mentality you've been displaying is nothing short of shameful.
BCBermuda2
I know I am not a part of this discussion, but allow me to be a buttinski...
> What did you like
>about the movie?
The special effects were incredible. Godzilla was very cool looking. The
scenes with the babies were edge-of-your-seat entertaining.
>What apologies can you make for it?
Monster destroys New York. Military tries to stop it. THAT my friends is the
premise, I for one feel I got what I paid for.
>By the
>way, it wasn't important to see people getting stepped on, but I >don't
>see why they couldn't have added that little piece of realism.
You didn't see people getting stepped on? What about the two theives raiding a
store? What about Hank Azaria's character almost getting stepped on? I'm sure a
lot of people were flattened by Godzilla, it just wasn't neccessary to show
every single one of them.
> Also, can you tell me how they
>got everyone out of Manhattan in a matter of minutes?
Maybe a matter of minuters in YOUR time, but in movie time it was probably
hours...
> And why in the
>years it took for Godzilla to mature on the" POPULATED" island >he
>lived on nobody ever saw him.
What "populated" island did he live on? I don't recall there ever being
mentioned where the monster lived...
>And why there weren't thousands of
>other Godzillas running around the world since they are "born
>pregnant."
Did you leave the theater before all those babies were hatched?
> And, why Godzilla only ate fish when, biologically
>speaking, he would have had to consume anything that moved to >support
>his size, and pregnancy.
Who said he ONLY ate fish?
>And how he was able to carry hundreds of 9
>foot tall eggs around in a womb that would not be large enough to
>accomodate so many.
Who said he carried them all in the womb at the same time?
> Why did it take the eggs only a matter of hours
>after being laid to hatch?
Who said they'd only been there for a matter of hours?
>Devlin and Emmerich obviously were not
>concerned with any kind of story whatsoever.
Sounds to me like they provided enough story to fire peoples imaginations. Some
people just DON'T HAVE any.
>They had all they needed
>with the monster's name to sell the picture. The reason they tried >to
>keep Godzilla's appearance a secret was because they knew they didn't
>have any other selling points for this movie. And they were right.
Opinions are just that, opinions. But people who make assumptions based on
inaccuracies need to check their facts.
I'll pull my butt out of other people's business now. Thank you.
BC
Housecat
The Rev/EW_King wrote in message
<349D1725BDB1A2CB.60ECADC8...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
You need to get laid or something. We're sick of you as well. I'm curious
what movie you thought was GOOD! Tell, oh brainless one!
>
The Rev/EW_King
I'll tell you when you ask me as your other name, Speedbyrd. Who do you
think you're fooling?
Housecat wrote in message <6k2bof$rm1$1...@usenet1.interramp.com>...
The Rev/EW_King
Weren't you putting me on your ignore list, or something?
Speedbyrd™ wrote in message <356ddb8e....@news.slip.net>...
>If you're sick, stay off here. You have opinions and so do I. You're a
>bore to read. You hate everything and I've never seen you nice anything
>nice about anything. You won't ever reach me, so don't try. go take
>another white pill.
>
>
> The Speedbyrd(tm)
The Rev/EW_King
And you're getting completely excited and irate about a movie you haven't
even seen! I wonder what it's gonna be like when you finally see the movie
and decide that it sucks, after all. Why're you so angry, buddy?
.... and weren't you gonna put me on your little ignore list, or something?
Speedbyrd™ wrote in message <356cdb61....@news.slip.net>...
>
>>>
>>>And we'd certainly like to thank you for trying to ruin it for those who
>>>haven't seen it. It would have sufficed to say you didn't like it.
Movie
>>>enjoyment, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I think you had
>>>your head too far up your ass to enjoy it for what it was.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Once again, negativity from Speedbyrd. How typical.
>>
>>You just can't admit that what these guys are saying is true. Do you work
>>for
>>Sony, by chance, byrd? Because so far, from what I've seen, it seems that
>>if each
>>print of Godzilla had a cock, you'd be sucking them all right now. You
love
>>the
>>movie THAT much!
>>
>>Jesus, man. It's just a movie. Let it go.
>>
>
>You get really ugly when people disagree with you. that's not healthy.
>You should stay away from films, they're not good for you.
>
> The Speedbyrd(tm)
Lord Vader
On Wed, 20 May 1998 16:21:20 -0700, "Housecat" <Hous...@DogHouse.com>
wrote:
>
>Blackwood wrote in message
><0BAF96868C6C743E.AD05B6B0...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
>t>...
>>On Wed, 20 May 1998 03:59:18 GMT, Haus...@CatHaus.com (Speedbyrd™)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Speedbyrd(tm)
>>>>
>>>
>>>And we'd certainly like to thank you for trying to ruin it for those who
>>>haven't seen it. It would have sufficed to say you didn't like it. Movie
>>>enjoyment, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I think you had
>>>your head too far up your ass to enjoy it for what it was.
>>>
>>> The Speedbyrd(tm)
>>I couldn't do anything to ruin this. People are going too see it
>>regardless of what I have to say. If you were astute you would have
>>realized that all I did was corroberate the reviewers description of
>>the movie. I went to this film without any expectations and left
>>undisappointed. I wanted to enjoy this movie for what it was but I
>>just couldn't ignore the idiocy of this pathetic excuse for a movie.
>>If I did have my head up my ass it would have been far more
>>interesting than watching this farce. It's a good thing you don't
>>seem to have any kind of standards because you'll love every
>>nonsensical moment. Stop making excuses for bad movies, especially if
>>you haven't seen them yet.
>>"Don't eat your seed!" Rev. Bob
>
>Who needs an excuse and you don't speak for all. I've seen many favorable
>reviews, but because they don't hate it, I guess that makes YOU the better
>person, huh?
>
I agree with you 100% Housecat.I think Blackwood should go fuck
himself.
Lord Vader
Blackwood
On Fri, 22 May 1998 00:37:42 GMT, morr...@lightspeed.net (Lord Vader)
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 May 1998 16:21:20 -0700, "Housecat" <Hous...@DogHouse.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Blackwood wrote in message
>><0BAF96868C6C743E.AD05B6B0...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
>I agree with you 100% Housecat.I think Blackwood should go fuck
>himself.
>
>Lord Vader
>
Well said.
Patrick Dolan
Couldn't resist popping in here with some plot-hole filling theories...
>Once again you've proven that you cannot remove yourself from ad
>hominem fallacies. So, let's go about it this way. What did you like
>about the movie? What apologies can you make for it? I have yet to
>see anyone make any rational statements about what was good about it
>beyond the previously mentioned "Godzilla rocks!!"statements.
I went in expecting to see an old-fashioned giant monster flick, pitting
mankind against a mutant beast. I got what I paid for. :)
To be honest, by the time I went to see it, I had given up on expecting to
see the Godzilla I've grown up with, and that undoubtably helped me enjoy
the movie. Was it a great film? Not by any stretch of the imagination, On
the other hand, it was a good giant-monster movie, and I haven't seen a new
one in many, many, many years.
>By the
>way, it wasn't important to see people getting stepped on, but I don't
>see why they couldn't have added that little piece of realism. The
>Japanese never had a problem with it.
Actually, many people get stepped on, especially during his entrance into
the city. Once the city was evacuated, he only got a chance to step on
soldiers, which he did.
>Also, can you tell me how they
>got everyone out of Manhattan in a matter of minutes?
They didn't, it took them a pretty long time, but in "movie" time, it was
only a couple minutes. I think the movie makers assumed that people would
understand that evacuating that many people would, in fact, take a long
time and didn't feel they needed to focus on the time it took.
>And why in the
>years it took for Godzilla to mature on the" POPULATED" island he
>lived on nobody ever saw him.
The island he was born on was used for above-grounnd nuclear testing
according to the introductory sequence. As a result, I'm pretty certain
that it was _not_ inhabited. The island the footprints were found on was
not where Godzilla was born, remember.
>And why there weren't thousands of
>other Godzillas running around the world since they are "born
>pregnant."
Good question, but a likely explanation is simply that they must reach full
size before their pregnancy comes to term. Being pregnant doesn't imply
"instant birth" after all.
>And, why Godzilla only ate fish when, biologically
>speaking, he would have had to consume anything that moved to support
>his size, and pregnancy.
Well, to be honest there wouldn't be enough food _anywhere_ to support a
beast of Godzilla's size. With giant monsters, you have to be willing to
suspend your disbelief pretty severely...:)
>And how he was able to carry hundreds of 9
>foot tall eggs around in a womb that would not be large enough to
>accomodate so many.
Nothing says the eggs had to be that size while they were in him. This is
a mutant monster after all, the eggs could grow on their own after he laid
them. Or he grew more eggs as time went on, and returned to the nest to lay
them.
>Why did it take the eggs only a matter of hours
>after being laid to hatch?
I'll admit I'm not real sure of the exact timeframe the movie takes place
in, but I seem to recall it spans at least a week. I'd say it took the
eggs several days to hatch, not hours.
Housecat
The Rev/EW_King wrote in message
<5B7251B1182D0EFA.4CA1B8A5...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>And you're getting completely excited and irate about a movie you haven't
>even seen! I wonder what it's gonna be like when you finally see the movie
>and decide that it sucks, after all. Why're you so angry, buddy?
>
Who's angry?? You're the one came unglued because you hated this film so.
We just don't understand your intensity. It really isn't important. BUDDY!
Rhinoceros
> I don't
> think most people go to see sci-fi fantasy in order to get involved in a
> deep, convaluted story.
Who said anything about deep and convoluted. Mere competence would be nice.
--
Rhinoceros
The Horn