HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: sex in movies
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:48:59 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

To be resolved: Did the skinny dipping scene in "Doc Hollywood"
represent any known human behaviour?

scridd@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>"No known human behavior"?  Come on, Jeff, what world are you living in?
>Have you never heard of real people swimming without a suit?  I imagine
>that quite a few people have (around 15% of Americans have done so,
>according to a survey that I have heard of).  And why is it explicitly
>*sexual*?  And I didn't even think that the scene was gratuitous, since
>it said a lot about the girl's character.

I didn't object to skinny dipping (although why the audience had to 
be privvy to EVERYTHING that the MJF character saw is another issue).

But skinny dippers usually leave their clothes handy to their
point of egress from the water. A woman who in general was cheesed
off on the male of the species wouldn't leave her clothes where
a stately promenade up the strand would be required to
retrieve her buckskins. Your homo sapiens sapiens may, of course,
differ.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance.
From: royg@netcom.com (Roy H. Gordon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Best Shots--Subtle
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:22:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Many of the shots and sequences contributed to the "Best Shots Wanted"
thread have been obvious in their primary effect and meanings.  I'm
not knocking them for it--many of my all time favorites have been
recounted there.

But there's another possibility: great scenes in which what makes
them so is not so obvious; where emotion and meaning is not worn on the
sleeve.  The subtlety and depth of profoundness of these is all too easy
to miss, especially if expectations have been conditioned by the
grossness and exaggerated presentations of many of today's films,
films in which you would have to be blind in both eyes and
deaf in both ears to miss what's going on.

The last scene of Grand Illusion must rank up there as one of the
best ever.  In nominating the last scene of the two French POWs escaping
into Switzerland, I can do no better than quote the following:

	...considering the last image of Grand Illusion, Stanley Cavell
	comments that by pulling back for a long shot, Renoir is able
	to underline several of the themes of the film.  By shooting
	the escapees from such a distance, Cavell notes, Renior allows the
	white snow to dominate the screen.  Our eyes search for the
	escapees.  As we find them, we hear that they have reached safety in
	Switzerland.  We look at the snow.  Our eyes cannot find the
	dividing line between Switzerland and Germany.  The snow emphasizes
	the undisrupted continuity of the natural terrain.  The boundary
	between the two countries cannot be seen--it is effectively 
	invisible.  It might be said to be an "illusion."  In a film about
	the illusions of nationalism, Renoir's formal choice in this last
	image--the extreme long shot of the snowy field--works with
	particular force to comment on and to sum up visually one of the
	points of the film...  The ending of Grand Illusion is a good one
	not only because it is formally ingenious, but because it expresses
	a profound, morally significant truth--that matters of life and
	death often revolve around illusions.

	...certain great moments of cinema like the last shot of Grand
	Illusion.
	
	[From Noel Carroll, Philosophical Problems of Classical Film
	Theory.  The Cavell analysis is from his book, The World Viewed,
	2nd edition.  Carroll's book has a quite unfortunate title,
	actually being extremely lucid and not at all dull.]

This is typical of the subtle depth in Renoir's understated and apparently
simple, though actually highly structured, 1930s films, one reason repeated
viewings are handsomely repaid, for me, at least.

They just don't make 'em like they used to. -:)
From: delanzo@sparc22.hri.com (Michael DeLanzo)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Best shots wanted
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:56:29 GMT
Reply-To: delanzo@hri.com
Organization: Horizon Research, Inc.


The twitching face of hunchback Klaus Kinski when Lee Van Cleef (sp?)
lights a match on his hump in "For A Few Dollars More".


-md
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies
From: rob@guinness.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: Possible Foundation movie?
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 07:52:42 GMT

In article <25AUG199213581639@portal.lasc.lockheed.com>
le01167@portal.lasc.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel (x2025)) writes: 
>In article <Ta2yPB3w164w@cellar.org>, swinokur@cellar.org (Steve Winokur)
>writes... 
>>So, does [2001] really belong in the category of "films that
>>were made out of books?"
>
>It does, because Space Odyssey was originally based on a Clarke short story
>called  _The Sentinel_


The Sentinel, while the Official Inspiration of 2001 (TM), isn't anything like
either the book or the movie 2001.  I would challenge anyone who has read the
Sentinel, but not read/seen 2001, to correctly predict more than 2 scenes of
2001...

Basically, 2001 is a heavily mutated version of the imaginary story 
_The Sentinel: The Sequel And What Came After_  :-)

SR
---
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: Why the title Notorious?
Date: 03 Sep 92 14:53:44 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Windows/DOS Users Ed Group

In article <1992Sep2.024118.14620@rigel.econ.uga.edu> hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes) writes:
>In article <7961@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> kwilliam@mott.seas.ucla.edu (William Kuan) writes:
>>
>>	I am wondering why Hitchcock's Notorious is titled Notorious?
>>Anybody know?
>
>   Don't you think she was?  Ingrid Bergman, that is.  It *was* Ingrid
>   Bergman wasn't it?  
>
>   She played the role of the daughter of a reputed spy, and as a result
>   of the *notoriety* was able to take up convincingly (for the government, 
>   and with just the *teensiest* amount of coersion) the life of a double 
>   agent herself.  Something like that, it's been awhile.
>

Yes, the character Bergman plays is notorious, that is, she
has questionable reputation.

But, I suspect that the title is also playing upon the fact
Ingrid Bergman herself was still something of a notorious
woman for having left her husband and family to live with
Roberto Rossellini in, what, 1949 or so. Her career was
destroyed for years in the U.S. by going against the saintly
image her Hollywood handlers had built up for her. NOTORIOUS
was made not long after Bergman was able to return to
Hollywood. Wasn't ANASTASIA her come-back movie?

-- 
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
	"Well, I'm a little muddled." -- Glinda
From: le01167@portal.lasc.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel (x2025))
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Lethal Cows
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:41:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. - Rye Canyon
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug23.014810.14976@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, kolstad@cae.wisc.edu (Joel Kolstad) writes...

>Hmm.  You know I read the rock opera back in high school and I sure as heck
>didn't get anything as wild as that out of it!  (I was kind of going on
>the assumption that Tommy was just autistic or something...)
> 
>Was I supposed to get that out of the rock opera script and music?  Or should
>I go see the movie sometime?
> 
>I'm pretty sure everyone else in that class was just as confused as I. :-)
> 
>						---Joel Kolstad

If you read the lyrics, it seems obvious enough that their reaction to
his discovery of adultery leads directly to his becoming _deaf, dumb, and 
blind_.  They do repeat lines like _You didn't see it, you didn't hear,
you won't say nothing to no one never in your life, what you know is the 
truth_, and then he begins to repeat the lines replacing the _you_ with
_I_ .  Seem clear enough to me.

Ron
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: wells@cdsmn.mn.org (Rich Wells)
Subject: Re: Most Embarassing Movie
Organization: Dicomed, Inc
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:38:50 GMT

shrum@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Rick Shrum) writes:
: 
: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band.
: There was a long line the *First* night...

Oh, geez, I forgot about that one.  A curse on you
for reminding me of it.

The only good part of that movie was that it
allowed Dave Marsh, of Rolling Stone magazine,
to write his best movie review ever.
-- 

Richard Wells  wells@cdsmn.mn.org  or  ...!tcnet!cdsmn!wells
From: marks@castle.ed.ac.uk (Mark Steyn)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: great voices
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:53:08 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

edd151s@nella16.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr I.P. Rayner) writes:


>Im new to this thread ... Surely James Earl Jones must have been mentioned?

I've got to agree here - JEJ has _the_ voice in the movies.  
The only other actor I can think of with a notable voice is Tom Baker. 
For those of you who don't recognise the name, he is best known as the
"Doctor Who" with the scarf and the jelly babies.

	Mark

-- 
? As long as the youngest child is free to dream,  ? Mark Steyn :          ?
? In the forest that we call imagination,          ? marks@castle.ed.ac.uk ?
? There shall always be a Unicorn.                 ? mpjs@dcs.ed.ac.uk     ?
?              Knowledge is no virtue and Innocence no vice                ?
From: hist1261@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Oscar Request
Date: 1 Sep 92 11:15:45 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <1992Aug31.014640.8670@engage.pko.dec.com>, boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (Two days and a wake-up...) writes:
> In article <1992Aug30.125402.10450@waikato.ac.nz>, hist1261@waikato.ac.nz writes...
> 
> } Could someone out there with better reference books that I please supply
> } me with a list of nominations for Best Director and Best Supporting
> } Actress for the 1989 Oscars (the 62nd Awards)?  It would be greatly
> } appreciated.
> 
> Well, it's not clear whether you want them for the 1989 Awards (for 1988
> films) or for the 1990 Awards (for 1989). But I'm accomodating, so I've
> included both here. "*" indicates the winner.
> 
> 1989 (for 1988)
> 
> Best Supporting Actress:
> 
>      Joan Cusack (WORKING GIRL)
>    * Geena Davis (ACCIDENTAL TOURIST)
>      Frances McDormand (MISSISSIPPI BURNING)
>      Michele Pfeiffer (DANGEROUS LIAISONS)
>      Sigourney Weaver (WORKING GIRL)
> 
> Best Director:
> 
>      Charles Crichton (A FISH CALLED WANDA)
>    * Barry Levinson (RAINMAN)
>      Mike Nichols (WORKING GIRL)
>      Alan Parker (MISSISSIPPI BURNING)
>      Martin Scorcese (LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST)
> 
> 1990 (for 1989)
> 
> Best Supporting Actress:
> 
>    * Brenda Fricker (MY LEFT FOOT)
>      Anjelica Huston (ENEMIES, A LOVE STORY)
>      Lena Olin (ENEMIES, A LOVE STORY)
>      Julia Roberts (STEEL MAGNOLIAS)
>      Dianne Wiest (PARENTHOOD)
> 
> Best Director:
> 
>      Woody Allen (CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS)
>      Kenneth Branagh (HENRY V)
>      Jim Sheridan (MY LEFT FOOT)
>    * Oliver Stone (BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY)
>      Peter Weir (DEAD POETS SOCIETY)
> 
> -- 
> 
> 	"She's my radiation baby.
> 	 She's my teenage fallout girl."
> 
> --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)
> 
>     boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com

Thankyou Jerry and all those other good folks who replied.  I now well and
truly know who was nominated, and who won.

A small point with regard the confusion over which year I was asking about:
I have always referred to the Oscars not in terms of the year in which the
ceremony is held, but in terms of the year for which the prizes are awarded.
Is this technically correct?  One way around the problem is to do as they
do on the night of ceremonies themselves and refer to the Awards in terms of
its sequential relationship to the preceding shows.  The 1989/90 Awards thus
become the 62nd Awards, and no confusion is possible.

Richard.
From: smah@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Steve Mah)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Excalibur music?- NOT Carmina Burana
Keywords: or was it?
Date: 26 Aug 92 07:48:26 GMT

I've seen this brought up quite a bit, but I've never been able to
catch the answer I was looking for.  I realize the operatic pieces
from Excalibur were taken from Carmina Burana by Orff but what about
the rest of the orchestral music throughout the rest of the film
(especially over the end credits)?  Or is it all from CB?

Thanks in advance,

-- 
*  Steve Mah                             smah@sdcc13.ucsd.EDU *
*							      *
*                    "Is it safe?"                            *
***************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: stame@emunix.emich.edu (Stewart Tame)
Subject: Re: Films with no females
Organization: Eastern Michigan University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:00:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.193713.4631@plains.nodak.edu!midkemia> cooper%midkemia@plains.nodak.edu (Jeff Cooper) writes:
>How about "The Hunt for Red October", if I remember correctly, the only  
>scene with a female in it was a shot of a stewardess that was on the  
>screen for only a few seconds...

You remember incorrectly.  Wasn't whathisname's wife and daughter in the
opening scenes, even before the stewardess?

****************************************************************************
 I understand it's obligatory to mention Kibo somewhere in one's postings.
****************************************************************************
		Email:  stame@emunix.emich.edu
****************************************************************************
Disclaimer:  Not only do my opinions represent those of Eastern Michigan
University, but also those of Dan Quayle, Richard Nixon, Frank Zappa,
Pee-wee Herman, Bart Simpson, Tipper Gore, Murphy Brown, Maggie Thatcher,
and the Easter Bunny.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: gunnarh@dhhalden.no (GUNNAR HORRIGMO)
Subject: Re: REALLLLLLY bad embarassing movies
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:11:03 GMT

In article <168551068E.DOBENSON@ua1vm.ua.edu> DOBENSON@ua1vm.ua.edu (Joe Demon) writes:

> This movie does not qualify since I rented it from a video store; but this
>seems to be an apt thread to give out a warning.
> 
>_Alien Dead_, released on video, rated *R*, and starring David Carridine,       vyn Chin) writes:
>R rating has to be for *really bad* instead of for violence (none), nudity
>(none), bad language (none) or anything else that would have earned it an
>R rating. The movie sucks. Out loud. Don't rent it. Don't watch it. Don't
>be fooled by the cover or the rating.
>IT STINKS!!!!!

Well' I haven't seen that one but I can't imagine it to be worse than "A zed 
and two naughts" or "Drowning by numbers" or practically *anything* by Peter 
Greenaway. That man has an amazing way of turning what could have been a 
fairly interresting movie into a couple of hours everlasting tragedy. 
Completely boring stuff with a minimum of words spoken; the kind of films 
that makes you wonder how the man behind dare to go on living. Now, I could 
of course go on telling people every detail of his lo-life-bore-you-to-death 
movies, but I have better things to do than getting aroused over something 
as completely dull as this man's worksothathahahaha, up yours Peter!
Any follow-ups to this should be posted to alt.fan.greenaway.lets.all.throw.
ourselves.into.the.pit.of.boring.movies.where.death.by.boredom.comes.
creeping.and.turns.us.into.a.bunch.of.not.very.funny.human.beeings

----Gunnarh
Xref: sparky rec.arts.movies:26700 alt.cult-movies:7429
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (ce)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: 'Arthur' King of the Badly Dubbed Britons (was Re: Most Embarassing Movie)
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:25:49 GMT
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg

Talking about "Excalibur" got me to thinking about the actor who portrayed 
Arthur. I can't recall seeing him in *anything* after that film came out.
Admittedly, Excalibur was not a great calling-card for the man's acting
skills but one would have thought he could have gotten a job *somewhere*
(teenage-slasher, running around naked in a Greenaway film :). Can some
wise TriviaLord out there fill us in on his career (and his name too)?

"Merlin, can ya get 'er for me? Ahhhhhh!!!!!"

*******************************************************************************
*  "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: mad9509@sc.tamu.edu (Mary A. Densmore)
Subject: Glenn Ford in JFK
Keywords: JFK, Glenn Ford
Reply-To: mad9509@sc.tamu.edu
Organization: Texas A & M University, Supercomputer Center
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:00:45 GMT

Does anyone know what part Glenn Ford played in JFK?
I need to know the name and occupation of his character.

Thanks.

Mary Densmore


Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: shiv@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally)
Subject: Re: Most Embarassing Movie
Reply-To: shiv@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 20:12:46 GMT

In article <2SEP199210284078@portal.lasc.lockheed.com>, le01167@portal.lasc.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel (x2025)) writes:
|> So far no one has come close to _Plan 9 from Outer Space_ for
|> dumbidity.
|> 
|> The movie that probably really did embarass the most people I've
|> seen was _Liquid Sky_, although I really liked the movie I know
|> many people who were taken by surprise by the eruptive affect of
|> the scene where the girl performs fellatio on the gay boy (both 
|> played by the same actress!!), and then takes part in gyrating
|> crotch-to-crotch saddle position lesbian sex with her lesbian
|> roomate resulting in one of the more realistic screen orgasms
|> I've seen; all before a room full of cheering jeering strangers
|> who are part of a photo-ad crew.  And done totally without
|> any nudity.
|> 
|> As I looked around, I could sense that most people were very
|> embarassed by the frank nature of the performances - it seemed
|> like you were really watching these desperately unhappy people 
|> having sex, the scene really conveyed a feeling of intimacy
|> uncovered - and we had witnessed it.
|> 
|> It's a bizarre sci-fi vision from a Russian film _artiste_.  I
|> know some of you will now run out and rent it for its filmic
|> qualitites, of course.
|> 

Liquid Sky is a GREAT movie ! I love that German UFO hunter, he is
hilarious. It has a great atmosphere (Hardware at times reminded me
a bit of Liquid Sky, especially the 'feel' of it). The soundtrack
is also quite interesting - done by the director on a low budget
sampler (Ensoniq Mirage) with imperfect loops imparting a very eerie
feel to the whole thing.

IMHO it ranks right up there with Repo Man and other low budget cult
classics. Those who have not seen it - highly reccomended !

However, I could see how if the audience was expecting something else,
it could be embarassing.

When I first saw Neighbours , Belushi & Akroyd were at the height of their
SNL success. People were expecting something like SNL. But it was a black
comedy and combined with the role reversal (Belushi was the straight guy,
Akroyd the unpredictable wacko), there was dead silence throughout the
whole (packed) movie theatre. I guess that was pretty embarassing !
I hated it. But I saw it late night once, and after realizing that it
was black comedy, role-reversal, etc., I laughed my butt off ! I've
seen it a few more times since then and enjoyed it everytime.
So it all depends on what the audience expects. They were expecting SNL,
they got something else ! Same probably goes for Liquid Sky.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: donnell@shark.micro.umn.edu (Your Heinous)
Subject: Re: Most Embarassing Movie
Organization: none
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:07:36 GMT

In article <Btyo4u.Jv4@wpi.WPI.EDU> drwho@wpi.WPI.EDU (Eric Ant Von Laudermann) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.050957.24082@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sboiarsk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Sean L Boiarski) writes:
>>Either Warlock, or High Lander II. Both because of the anticipation factor 
>
>I LOVED Warlock!  I found it very intelligent.  The plot flowed
>smoothly, no scenes were unnecessary, the screen didn't ooze with
>buckets of gore, and their were no inconsistencies.  I was under the
>the impression that the movie was well-received by critics and
>net.people.
>
>>Sean Boiarski
>
>--E.V.L. (drwho@wpi.wpi.edu)        # "You have not heard one negative comment
>Disclaimer: "It's all absolutely    # from me about the other two people who
>devastatingly true, except the bits # want my job.  And you *won't* hear any
>that are lies."  --Douglas Adams    # until... um, the middle of August."
>                                    #                      --George Bush, 1992
>

I was looking forward to Warlock, and was very dissappointed. I had hoped for
more than a retread of every witch cliche since "Black Sunday". It wasn't
boring, but I found it very ordinary. and I have only seen one actual
review. It was positive. 

					--Judex--
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Best shots wanted
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:33:25 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Gary Bradley writes:
>erik michael gregersen writes...
>
>>	Anything from any movie directed by Orson Welles.
>
>   What? Even "F for Fake"?  :-)
>
I haven't seen it, but I'd like to think of it as being of a piece w/ the
man. At any rate, Welles has a history of wowzer single camera set-ups:
from the beginning of "Touch of Evil" to the amazing shot of 
Macbeth in spooky, archaic get-up at the beginning of "Macbeth." (The 
image of him there in the fog is the best re-imagining of WS I've ever
seen on film. It's a visual which makes the fact that the sound
track sounds like burps-in-a-bag irrelevant.)
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Apocalypse Now query
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:26:50 GMT

mctsrj@dct.ac.uk writes:

>Something has been puzzling me for a while.
>Its a while since I have seen Apocalypse Now, but I seem to
>remember that the narration was credited to someone other
>than Martin Sheen, although the voice sounds exactly like
>Sheen's?

>I s my recollection correct, and if so why didn't Sheen do
>the narration?
>Can anyone help?
>Cheers

I think you may have been confusing the credit to Michael Herr
for "writing" the narration. He also wrote a great book
called "Dispatches" which was about his experiences in Vietnam
as a journalist.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: Most Embarassing Movie
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 02:31:55 GMT
Organization: WeasElectro Productions: Television/Movies/Comics

vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:

>>> My worst: "The Jetson's" 
>>
>> But Vern--it had songs sung that by that incredibly talented Tiffany! 
>
> I can just hear it: "Yeah, its goina have Tiffany, and these real
> cute..." 

No such luck.  Judy's voice was originally recorded by the woman who did
the voice in the original series (I can't remember -- June Foray who did
Judy?) and then re-recorded by Tiffany when the execs decided the movie
needed a "name" voice to draw in an audience.  It was a slimy move. 

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)

"No date by eight? Inflate! Inflate!"
	-- Dr. Bronner's All-Faith-One-Church Multi-Purpose Mint Castile Jelly
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies