HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu (michael bruce mcdonald)
Subject: Re: The Player (was Re: Academy Awards)
Reply-To: s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:54:22 GMT

In article <5JAN199309004735@utkvx1.utk.edu>, takoosma@utkvx1.utk.edu (Toby Koosman) writes:
>[I wrote]
>>>It seems to be on everyone's list, which I find puzzling.  The Player was a
>>>cute movie, clever and well-done, but certainly not a great movie.  Even
>>>restricting the field to comedies, Husbands and Wives was far better.  Perhaps
>>>its special appeal to movie buffs explains the high rating?
>
>Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney writes..
>[discussion of Husbands & Wives deleted]
>>On the other hand, I am amongst those you so blithely dismiss as buffs
>>-- and another poster as the artsy-fartsy crowd (and I can assure you
>>there nothing artistical about my wind) -- who were mightily impressed
>>by THE PLAYER 
>...
>>And I'm not at all sure how it is you think you can read and post to
>>rec.arts.movies and not be a "movie buff" by default. 
>
>I don't deny being a movie buff, if not one of a very high order, nor did I
>mean to blithely dismiss all the good folks on this newsgroup.  I just wonder
>if the pleasure of identifying the movie references and stars causes some to
>rate The Player a bit higher than it merits.  I thought it very entertaining--
>a game played with the audience.  But as a satire on Hollywood it didn't have
>much bite, and I'm afraid I didn't find the irony very subtle.  In the end, it
>was no more than clever.  I don't give a fig for the Oscars, which like all
>awards are compromised, but I can't help but notice how many critics have
>called The Player one of the year's best movies.  That I find surprising.
>
>Toby Koosman
>University of Tennessee   Knoxville, Tennessee  USA
>Internet: koosman@utkvx.utk.edu     Bitnet: koosman@utkvx


Toby, I too am surprised that this gets *such* high marks, even though I
found the Hollywood satire a *bit* more than simply "clever."  It's a
fine film, perhaps one that I would put in a top-ten list (though I feel
that I've seen too few of this year's films to judge), but certainly no
higher than *A River Runs Through It*, a film which I've been mildly 
flamed here for praising, but one that I insist has tremendous acting,
cinematography, *story*, character, and *vision*.

I'm amazed that the most noted critics have left this one off their list,
especially when some of them include *Wayne's World*, a movie which I *want*
to say is great but, if one fesses up, just ain't.

obdurately,
michael mcdonald
From: slib1396@altair.selu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: A Few Good Men
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:30:22 -0600
Reply-To: slib1396@selu.edu
Distribution: world
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University

I saw A Few Good Men during the Christmas Holidays and thought it was great.  I
think Jack N. was better in A Few Good Men than in Hoffa.  I liked Hoffa,
but I felt Nicholsan's performance in A Few Good Men was more believing.  I 
also felt that Tom C's acting performance was upgraded in this movie.  I felt
Demi Moore was also wonderful and I especially liked Kevin Bacon.  I thought
his part in JFK was really good.  I had seen him in other movies and that
small part was really good acting I felt.  
J. Wild
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: dtschett@saims.skidmore.edu (donna tschetter)
Subject: Re: Seat reservations in movie theatres
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:13:15 GMT



It certainly would have helped Elaine out on "Seinfeld" last nite!

She had to save four seats and they were grasped from her "save"
without a thank you from late-entering patrons!

:>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: kern@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Howard Stewart)
Subject: The Last of the Mohicans Stars name
Keywords: The Last of the Mohicans
Reply-To: kern@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Howard Stewart)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:33:08 GMT

can someone please post the lead actor's and the actress' name from
the above movie.

thanx in advance////

-------------------------------------------------
Howard Kern Stewart - kern@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu
Administrative Information Services
From: pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: NEWSIES
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:38:22 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility

In article <shong-110193173637@macf02.bucknell.edu> shong@bucknell.edu (SHER) writes:
>I just saw Newsies over the weekend and I loved it!  If you like musicals,
>great dance choreography, and original songs, AND a good plot then you will
>love this movie.   I didn't get a chance to catch it in the theater because
>none of the theaters around me showed it.  I really don't understand why it
>flopped in the movie theater!!!! 

  Huh?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: spencer@der.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: PEEVES at MOVIE THEATERS !
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun)
Organization: Society for Promotion of Entropy in the Universe (SPEU)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:30:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.192016.6060@brtph560.bnr.ca>, trice@brtph330 (Tony Rice P885) writes:
>
>* usher's who tell you to put your feet down

The correct plural of "usher" is "ushers."  You made it a possessive.
Anyway, this one has always puzzled me.  I never enforce it when I do
auditorium checks.  Of course, I don't usually do them, but...

I think the company line is that it causes wear and tear on the seats.
Uh...

>* that sticky floor

Caused by clumsy patrons from the previous shows, combined with ushers
who don't mop when they ought to while cleaning the theater, although
frequently there is not enough time between shows to do a great job
cleaning the theater.  When we had Terminator 2, the geniuses higher up
who scheduled it (we didn't get to schedule our own times since this was
such a prominent feature) decided we were going to do FIVE SHOWS a day
on a movie with a running time well over 2 hours (including trailers).
So, picture this.  By the time the 4th show (7:30 for us) lets out
(10-ish), we are now faced with cleaning out a 640-seat auditorium using
at best 3 ushers and 2 of 3 managers helping out (someone has to stay on
the floor to handle things that come up, get change for
cashiers/concessions, etc.).  There are 100+ people crowded into the
small lobby and 200+ ticket holders waiting outside, all wanting to get
into the theater *NOW*.

The schedule gave us at best 15 minutes between scheduled shows, and it
takes more than 15 minutes to clear out 400+ people, clean the
auditorium, and seat 400+ people.

>* $20 popcorn
>
>* $30 small sodas

These are a side effect of the way admissions works at movie theaters.
Most of what movie theaters make on admission goes right back to the
movie folks.  Thus, theaters are forced to make all their profits on
concessions.  This explains the outrageous concessions prices.

-----
sss/PU'94 Dept of CS (spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu)/JvNCnet (spencer@jvnc.net)
Please be considerate, and don't talk during the show!  (SSSSSSHHH!)
Thank you for coming to Loews!  Sit back and relax -- enjoy the show!
From: aze@first.gmd.de (Andre' Zehl)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Silence of the lambs  (spoiler)
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:27:24 GMT
Distribution: rec

There were a couple of  things I didn't understand about the movie:

Is there any psychological meaning in this symbol "silence of the lambs"?

Why was it so important for Jodie Foster to get the killer, to save the woman?
There was no logical connection to the lamb she saved in her youth.

Why did "Silence of the Lambs" end in Africa? 

Did I understand it right, that the murdere wanted to make a dress like
a butterfly out of the skins?

--
Andre'_________________________________________________________________________
	 			      crusoe@cs.tu-berlin.de [aze@first.gmd.de]
From: ajg620@huxley.anu.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: KEANU REEVES
Date: 11 Jan 1993 01:11:49 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.2.12
Originator: ajg620@huxley



Could anyone please e-mail me a biography of Keanu Reeves?

i.e. Bill & Ted, Point Break, Dracula &c.

Thanks,

-- 
Andrew Greinke
Department of Commerce, Australian National University.
Andrew.Greinke@anu.edu.au      OR       ajg620@huxley.anu.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: spinaa@rpi.edu (Matt Garretson)
Subject: Re: (Unsolicited) advice against Blockbuster
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:29:03 GMT

Just wanted to add another brick to the wall many of us would like to build
around BlockBuster:  A while ago I rented Hitchcock's YOUNG & INNOCENT there.
I found out at home that the linear audio track on the tape was really
screwed up so you could only hear about 20% of what was going on. I even tried
it on several different VCRs. So the next day I took it back and told them
about the crumby quality of the tape. They wouldn't refund my money since
I hadn't returned it immediately the previous night. This isn't a very
customer-friendly policy, but I can deal with it. What really burns me up
is that a few days later, the very same tape was back on the shelf, even 
though they knew perfectly well that the tape was absolutely useless.

I also rented Luc Besson's SUBWAY there. Was this movie originally in French?
I assume it was. The copy I got from BB was dubbed into english. This sort
of pisses me off since there was no mention of this on the tape case they use.

The recording itself was destroyed by Macrovision, which isn't BlockBuster's
fault, but it pisses me off anyway.

I wish video stores would label the tapes so we'll know if they're dubbed
or subtitled, p&s or letterboxed, and if they have Macrovision.

My prediction for the future of good films on video is that we'll have to 
rely on companies that do rentals by mail to get anything that is even
slightly out of the mainstream.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: The Weird List
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:59:24 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

It's A Gift w/ WC Fields...the sleeping porch scene alone is
worth half a ton of other cult films 
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: The Wierd List
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 06:45:37 GMT

In article <1iq4s9$5gj@agate.berkeley.edu> annie@garnet.berkeley.edu  (Anne Jessop) writes:
>
>Hi, just remembered _Performance_, yet another Ken Russell flick, with
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
Hate to nitpick but "Performance" was not directed by Russell. Nicholas
Roeg (Man who Fell to Earth) was the cinematographer and possibly 
assistant director? The name of the actual director escapes me.

>Mick Jagger and James Fox.  
>Also, it occurs to me that some might think of all those Esther Williams
>water ballet type movies as pretty wierd...
>_They Live_ (with Rowdy Roddy Piper, of WWF fame...)
>_Repulsion_ (Roman Polanski, with Catherine Deneuve.  Creepy, creepy film!!)
>_Baby Doll_ (I forget who's in this, but it's about a Southern guy who has
>a really regressive "child bride".  I believe it was banned at one time.)
>
>
>A good general source for wierd movies is put out by ReSearch.  It's
>called, oddly enough, _Incredibly Strange Films_.  It breaks them down
>into rough genres, and includes interviews with filmamkers and stars.
>
*******************************************************************************
*  "Supernatural, perhaps...Baloney, perhaps not" - Bela Lugosi               *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: TB2036A@auvm.american.edu (Tiffany Baldwin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Favorite Quotes...
Date: 11 Jan 93 13:52:22 GMT
 <4000@creatures.cs.vt.edu>
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center

(1). BETTE DAVIS--ALL ABOUT EVE, PARTY SCENE
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: anish@ctt.bellcore.com(Anish Bhimani)
Subject: REPOST: r.a.m. Oscar predictions
Organization: Bellcore, Piscataway, New Jersey
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 20:50:20 GMT

Just to remind everyone that I'm still collecting Oscar nominations from the
readers of r.a.m. Responses are only trickling in, and the more responses, the better the results!

Feel free to send in your predictions/favorites, even if you haven't seen all the big movies - every opinion matters.

(God, I'm starting to sound like "Rock the Vote")

As for some preliminary subtotals, there seems to be a heavy favoritism towards movies from early 1992, including "The Player" and "Howards End". Everything else seems to be pretty close, though, so who knows? It is refreshing, however, to see everyone nominating some unheralded films/performances, and not just voting for those films nominated for Golden Globe awards.

In any case, here's the original post:
From: jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: Coppola's DRACULA
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: The MITRE Corp. McLean Va.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:54:14 GMT


In article <1993Jan8.042738.17829@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
> Path: linus.mitre.org!linus!agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!princeton!phoenix.Princeton.EDU!egnilges
> From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges)
> Subject: Re: Coppola's DRACULA
> Message-ID: <1993Jan8.042738.17829@Princeton.EDU>
> Originator: news@nimaster
> Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
> Nntp-Posting-Host: phoenix.princeton.edu
> Organization: Princeton University
> References: <1993Jan8.032459.12219@Princeton.EDU> <P2H2wB1w165w@student.business.uwo.ca>
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:27:38 GMT
> Lines: 1
> 
> 


Most sensible posting I've seen from Mr. Nilges regarding anything yet.  (The
posting had nothing in it at all.)
-- 
<jon@mitre.org>|--24HR Libertarian Party News (900)454-2378 [$1.95 a minute]--
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party            (800)272-1776 
          DON'T BLAME ME!         | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
       I voted Libertarian.       | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: mlh@eddy.austin.ibm.com (Mike Haskell)
Subject: Re: Something is missing from PASSENGER 57
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:28:50 GMT
Organization: IBM, Austin

In article <1993Jan6.024207.7728@psych.toronto.edu> gswan@psych.toronto.edu (George Swan) writes:
>In his recent review in rec.arts.movies.reviews Ken Johnson
>gave Passenger 57 four out of five.
>
>While Passenger 57 had its moments, I would give it a much lower

[stuff deleted]

>Does anyone else have any ideas as to what else might have been
>cut?  Respond via email, and I'll summarize.
>

Geo, why are you wasting your energy with this brainless, movie-by-numbers,
super-fly, twit shit movie?  I wasted money on it (3.50).  And told the
net it was 2 out of 10.  I think that is equivilent to 1/2 star that Ken
Johnson's scale uses.  I would like to be using the drugs he was when he
saw it.  Passenger 57 had moments?  I think they were seizures.  See your
doctor.
From: S_HAIDA@IRAV1.ira.uka.de (Andreas Haida)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Weird Movies
Date: 10 Jan 1993 12:54:42 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: irav1.ira.uka.de
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.25

In <1993Jan10.064310.11479@Virginia.EDU> epb3r@Virginia.EDU writes:

> under the experimental films in the UVA library: LUCIFER
> RISING, directed by somebody like Kenneth Archer (not real sure
					    ^^^^^^
> about last name).  Very very unusual.  It must have been done a
> while ago, but it was quite humorous as Mick Jagger does the
> soundtrack for the first 11 minute film (with Anton LaVey).

I think you're talking about Kenneth Anger. 

Andreas Haida
s_haida@iravcl.ira.uka.de
s_haida@ira.uka.de
haida@main01.rz.uni-ulm.de
uk81@dkauni2.bitnet
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Coppola's DRACULA
Date: 8 Jan 1993 13:33:20 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan8.032459.12219@Princeton.EDU>  
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
> In article <1ihh4cINNeti@transfer.stratus.com>  
jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
> >In article <1993Jan7.144844.16689@Princeton.EDU>  
> >egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
> >> I KNOW that I don't love the smell of napalm in the morning, and  
to  
> >me
> >> it's not the smell of victory.  Coppola needs to grow up.
> >> 
> >
> >Are you confusing the point of view of a character in the movie
> >with that of the writer/director?  The character was obviously
> >portrayed as a buffoon for saying things like that.
> 
> NOT!  The officer was portrayed by Robert Duvall, who played Vito
> Corleone's consiglieri, no buffoon at all; Coppola was thus priming  
us
> to take the officer character seriously.  

Ah, I see.  You are confusing actors and the characters they
play.  An actor can play a serious character in one movie
and comic relief in the next.

>Furthermore, he was portrayed
> as a brave and effective officer, who did not flinch at incoming  
fire.

So?  He was a brave buffon.  Copolla was parodying certain kinds
of behavior in that scene.


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: dkumasaw@oracle.uucp (Darren Kumasawa)
Subject: Re: REVIEW: Toys
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:14:09 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Dec23.210414.707@bradley.bradley.edu> dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>Ahort!  My first non-music review.  Be patient with me.
>
>TOYS [PG-13]
>Robin Williams, Michael Gambon, Joan Cusack, Robin Wright, LL Cool J.
>dir. Barry Levinson
>
[most of review deleted]

Excellent review, David!  I agree with your whole review, except for this
sentence about Robin Wright:

>
>Robin Wright is fun to look at, and she does a competent job of playing
>Williams's love interest, but that's about it.
>

I thought Robin Wright was one of the bright spots of the film.  Her
character was very charming, and the dialogue scenes with her and Robin
Williams were very believable and fun.  I haven't seen very many movies
recently like Toys where the guy wins the girl just by being honest, 
funny, and nice.  The romance between the two characters was very believable
because of the "natural" acting and the good rapport and chemistry between 
the two actors.  I thought Robin Wright gave an above-average preformance
in that respect.   

>
>Well, wrap it all up together and what do you get?  Eh.  The movie starts
>out great, then stalls, then gains momentum as the confrontation between
>Williams and Gambon begins, then crashes horribly on the ending.  The
>ending is what ruins the movie.  Too bad, because otherwise "Toys" would be
>a movie talked about for years to come.  Without the ending, "Toys" would
>have rated a +3 on the davE scale.  Instead....
>
>davE rating: +1
>

Agreed.  What I disliked the most about the movie was the MTV-like camera 
movements.  Whenever the characters were running away from the evil toys
in the invasion scenes, the camera would jerk around uncontrollably and
the film speed would reduce to a blurry "stop-motion"-like quality.  This was
obviously done to try and make the action exciting (which is hard to do
when its just a bunch of wind-up toys chasing people), but the technique is 
very amateurish and annoying in a major film.

I thought the best action scene in the movie was when Patrick was trapped
in the hall between the two deadly toys.  The suspense in that scene was
very well done and the "animation" work with the toys was awesome.

>
>-- 
>*davE*   Making the world safe for intelligent dance music.  dave@bradley.edu.
>########## David L. Vessell -- Bradley University Computing Services #########
>Your shame is neverending. Just one psychological drama after another.-Erasure

Keep up the good reviews, Dave.

Darren
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: x can't make money
Date: 6 Jan 1993 17:50:52 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan6.173820.885@daimi.aau.dk> rorschak@daimi.aau.dk  
(Jesper Lauridsen) writes:
> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
> 
> >Your reasoning sounds good. However, remember that several of
> >the biggest blockbusters in history were long movies: Gone
> >with the Wind, Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, Lawrence of Arabia.
> >There are others. All of these films are longer than 3 hours, and
> >all made tons of money.
> 
> And all were hits a long time ago.

For a more recent example, then, take Dances with Wolves.

I'm not sure why the time frame matters, though. I think 
audiences today will like a good 3 hour movie just as much
as an audience of 30 years ago.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Why X _is_ making money
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:43:02 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <sterbenc-040193150223@150.130.23.185>, sterbenc@ivhs.mot.com
(Joe Sterbenc) wrote:
> 
> Um, guys...
> 
> It's not challenging the Culkinator or setting records, but X is 
> already in 8-digit profits - in spite of the Amazing Colossal Budget.

A movie which costs 33 million to make and grosses 40 million is
most certainly no where near 8 digit profits.  Studios receive
perhaps half of the gross, and promotional costs are not figured
into the 'cost' of the film.  For X to make money, it will have
to gross 70 to 80 million, and it ain't there yet (and it ain't
dead yet, either - but the light at the end of the tunnel is a
long way away).
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: yaboss@athens.cc.bellcore.com (liebowitz,alyse)
Subject: Mel Gibson's movie "TIM"
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 18:33:25 GMT

I'm looking for a good quality copy of this movie. I checked with Movies
Unlimited, and it's no longer available, and I can't find it at the video
rental store. Would anyone who has this movie be willing to sell/copy it
for me? THANKS!!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies