HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Sick and tired of cries of sexism (was Re: 9 1/2 Weeks)
Date: 27 Dec 92 14:38:25 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:

>From article <1992Dec20.145422.10366@Virginia.EDU>, by tlc9y@Virginia.EDU ("tara lou"):
>> you do not have to be a lesbian or an abused survivor in order
>> to believe that our society dictates men's satisfaction over
>> women's..i see beer commercials that satisfy men's needs [i
>> drink beer, too], sportscar commercials [i would like one,
>> too], and many other instances where men's pleasure is the
>> aim..not women's.
>
>Some beer commercials have scantily-clad attractive women because
>heterosexual men react to it and buy the beer.  It may be that there are not so
>many commercials with scantily-clad attractive men because Madison Avenue
>has determined that it does not get them as much business from heterosexual
>females.  The image for them is probably seduction of the "powerful/macho/
>rich" male to "provide" for them.  Lowest common denominator?  You can
>argue that if you want.  But the fact is, somebody's buying it, 'cause
>it's still around.

No offense to gilbert, or even to tara lou, but I'm real tired
of hearing this crap about sexist ads when in fact the 
objectification of men is just as prevalent as the objectification 
of women.

Look again at those beer ads.  Sure the women are great looking
and are wearing bikinis, but the men are also great looking
and are running around without shirts at all, with slim sleek
nicely muscled bodies, great smiles, and wonderful hair.

Yes, the demands that Madison Ave. places on women are great, but
they place those same demands on men, except that in addition
to being physically beautiful and well-dressed, men have to make
lots of money and be "sensitive" to boot.

-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: Re: The Cook...Lover/women's response
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: Evil Geniuses For A Better Tomorrow
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 09:25:18 GMT

Eric Strayer (estrayer@netcom.com) writes:

> Regarding the movie The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover,  [snip]

Some friends and I saw Cook/Thief/Wife/Lover at some point while I was an
undergrad at Swarthmore, though I don't remember exactly when. The campus
movie group had brought it as one of the standard weekend movies, and we saw
it in a reasonably nice theater on campus (part of Swat's new performing
arts center, easily as nice as a mediocre commercial movie theater).

Our reactions were somewhat mixed, but nearly all negative in one way or
another. I thought that it was the most absolutely disgusting movie I'd ever
seen. There were more vile people doing more vile things, both in quantity
and quality, than I had ever watched in two hours of cinema. I've never been
in a war, I've never been in a concentration camp, and I'm sure the film-
watching experience _pales_ in comparison to some of the true horror that
goes on in the world. But I saw nothing redeeming in the movie at all: it
seemed to me like someone had said "Let's see just how vile and disgusting a
movie we can make, just to be vile and disgusting," and did. It was not a
poorly made movie or a low-quality movie: it was an _ugly_ movie.

I didn't come away from it feeling as if it could have had any purpose other
than to disgust the audience. Others of my friends who saw it thought that
it had some redeeming value, that it conveyed an important message, but
though my memory is fuzzy, I don't think that they were able to articulate
what this message might have been. Some walked out in the middle; some
walked out at the beginning. Some refused to talk about it because they felt
so ill.

I don't think anyone was offended by the film; we were all just revolted. I
would never, under any circumstances, voluntarily watch that movie again,
unless someone extremely convincing persuaded me that there was more to it
than revulsion for revulsion's sake, and that I would somehow benefit by
seeing it again in light of this fact. I found A Clockwork Orange to be
deeply disturbing, and would only see it again with difficulty, but I saw a
motive behind its method beyond a simple desire to evoke an emotion--and I
probably will see it again some day. But CTWL was _just nasty_.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone with a different point of view.
Remember, though, that I saw it at least a year ago, and possibly two, and
my memory of the details may be dim.
-- 
Josh Smith, User Support Coordinator  ::  irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA     ::  consult(std-disclaimer.pl).
"It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Cast a Giant Shadow
Date: 2 Jan 1993 19:59:33 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec30.130358.4770@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wkm1@nestor.cc.bellcore.com (messer,wendy k) writes:
}Cast a Giant Shadow was made in about 1967.
}I knew some people they were using as extras, they filmed it in
}Israel.
}
}Kirk Douglas played Mickey Marcus, based on a true story.
}
}
}He was killed because he didn't understand something that was
}asked of him in Hebrew, he didn't know any.  The guard/sentry (?)
}shot first and asked questions later.
}
}Hope this clears it up.

It certainly didn't help that he had wrapped himself in a sheet before leaving
his tent to urinate.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: jdt@ulysses.att.com (Jonathan D. Trudel[ftd])
Subject: Re: Kevin Costner (was: The Most Overrated Actor)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:38:52 GMT
Reply-To: jdt@ulysses.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ

In article <1992Dec21.203050.1@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu>, bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec21.210303.27309@ulysses.att.com>, jdt@ulysses.att.com 
|> (Jonathan D. Trudel[ftd]) writes:
|> 
|> But we really can't label Kevin Costner a "BAD ACTOR" based on a poor showing
|> in one film.

I never said he was a bad actor, I said he was overrated.  I find his acting
to be flat, in general.  He doesn't have much depth.  He hasn't really changed
the types of roles he plays.  Take Nicholson, for example, or Al Pacino.
Both of them emote well.  Costner doesn't.  That's why I find him overrated.

|> The orginal statment (which you can certainly ignore, but I wanted to get
|> back on track) was that he was overrated as an ACTOR, not whether he stands
|> above others...I say he is a fine actor, not one of the best, but certainly
|> not overrated.

Then what does overrated mean?  Costner, in my opinion, doesn't stand 
above others, so he is therefore overrated.  He's had the good fortune
to star in some good movies, but being in a good movie does not make him
good as well.  Bull Durham, Field of Dreams, and Dances with Wolves were
much better than average stories, adn he was lucky enough to be in those
movies.  (I guess he was so great in The Big Chill that they edited out his
part so as not to outshine the rest of the film :-)

|> > I'd almost say the same thing about Tom Cruise, but at I feel that 
|> > his performance in Rain Man made up for a few bad films...
|> 
|> And I'd counter that with _Bull Durham_ and _Dances With Wolves_ *easily*
|> making up for _Robin Hood_ and _The Bodyguard_.

Nope, not by my definition.  My feeling is that you have to flop before
you can make up for a "bad" role or set of roles.  Tom Cruise had recently
made Days of Thunder and also Cocktail (whatever that bartending movie
was called), and *then* he starred in Rain Man.  He had everywhere to go
but down.  Right now, I'd say Costner was in the same place Cruise was then.
From: jwp@aber.ac.uk (J W Perkins)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: 84 Charring Cross
Date: 21 Dec 92 09:58:00 GMT
Organization: University of Wales, Aberystwyth

Slight typo error in this title. It should read
   84 Charing Cross Road.

Happy Christmas to you all.
                                                 Jeremy Perkins
From: merlyn@ora.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Digital Dolby (was Re: TOYS)
Date: 2 Jan 93 18:20:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: agora.MERLYN.93Jan2102009
Organization: Stonehenge Consulting Services; Portland, Oregon, USA

>>>>> In article <1hu7i0INNldh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ac717@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffry L. Johnson) writes:
Jeffry> Dolby Digital (or Dolby SR-D) is a 35mm sound process only. 
Jeffry> Dolby currently has no plans for 70mm digital prints. They are selling SR-D 
Jeffry> as 70mm quality sound on 35mm prints.

Jeffry> Cinema Digital Sound (CDS) started on 70mm and was used on 35mm prints after 
Jeffry> ORC worked the bugs out of the CDS system.

Yup yup.

The cretins that made up Friday's advertising failed to make that clear.
They tagged it both 70mm and "Digital Dolby" because it was playing in
the Digital-equipped house.

It *was* 70mm, sans Digital.  Still fun to watch.  The movie itself
was missing some meat, but that's life... sigh.

Just another video maker, and appreciator of fine sound and picture,

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
merlyn@ora.com (semi-permanent) merlyn@agora.rain.com (for newsreading only)
phrase: "Welcome to Portland, Oregon ... home of the California Raisins!"
From: cal@gsbux1.uchicago.edu (Cal Lott)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Capsule Reviews
Date: 3 Jan 93 06:21:04 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


This post is a set of capsule ratings for some of the most recent
films that I have seen. Opinions are strictly my own, of course.

Don't be suprised if you see the ratings move slightly up or down
from post to post. My opinions are not set in stone.

This is what the silly little asterisks mean:

*****	Wow!
****	Don't Miss!
***	Worth a look.
**	Worth a matinee.
*	Wait for the rental.
<none>	Yuck!

Alladin				Animated Musical	****1/2
Disney's latest classic. Find a kid (if you need an excuse) and go!

Becoming Collette 		Drama			1/2
Senseless tale about a young girl's transformation into a woman.

Dracula 			Drama/Horror		**1/2
A passionate but seriously flawed version of the Bram Stoker classic.

A Few Good Men 			Drama			***1/2
Brash Navy lawyer is tested in his courtroom defense of two Marines.

Glengarry Glen Ross		Drama			***1/2
Powerhouse performances in a tale of moral squalor among salesmen.

The Last of the Mohicans	Action Drama		****
Sweeping epic of two lovers caught up in the French and Indian War.

The Lover			Drama			****1/2
Gorgeous tale of two lovers' tawdry fling in Vietnam, circa 1930's.

Malcom X			Drama			****
Spike Lee's moving autobiography of the seminal civil rights leader.

Unforgiven			Western			*****
The gritty, touching tale of a washed-up gunslinger's last ride.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal Lott          "Oh, I see-- I thought 'no' meant 'spoon'!" --Dan
Email me, baby!   cal@gsbux1.uchicago.edu   cjl1@midway.uchicago.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: funga@ecf.toronto.edu (FUNG Alexander Yok-Wai)
Subject: Re: Q on A Few Good Men: Poison???
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 06:57:50 GMT

In article <Bzq9ps.BJ8@mach1.wlu.ca> mart4372@mach1.wlu.ca (Reginald Martin u) writes:
>Rich Travsky (rtravsky@news.uwyo.edu) wrote:

 * Spoiler ? *


>: Something that really bothered me about this film was the "poison"
>: plot device.  Were these two marines toxicologists or something?
>: Where did they find this poison, or barring finding it, how did they
>: get it transported to the base? How did they know what minimum dosage
>: would be effective, etc.?
>: 
>: Not that this movie didn't have its share of problems, but this
>: "poison" thing was not addressed fully at the trial. 
>: 
>: Richard Travsky
>: Division of Information Technology     RTRAVSKY @ CORRAL.UWYO.EDU
>: University of Wyoming                  (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668
>If you had watched the second half of the flick, you would have 
>seen that the two marines on trial did not poison the rag.
>The kid died due to a medical condition.  
>'This "poison" thing' was fully addressed at the trial.
>
>
Not meaning to speak for Richard, but I think his point was: How could
the U.S. Government lawyer (Kevin Bacon) argue that the two marines had
poisoned the rag, resulting in (what'shisface's) death? I didn't even think
of this during the film, but it would have made a good defense to argue the
implausibility of the marines having knowledge of poisons. Of course,
that turned out not to be necessary anyways.. :)

All in all, a good film.



-- 
Alex (funga@ecf.toronto.edu)
From: ajl@syllogic.nl (Albert-Jan Luikinga)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: A Basic Instinct Question?
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:46:16 GMT
Organization: Syllogic B.V., Houten, the Netherlands

klewis@AFIT.AF.MIL (Keith A. Lewis) writes:

>IMHO, I believe the reason she didn't kill him made her have an orgasm.  As 
>with the other guy, he had his first.  Basicly, leaving her hanging wanting 
>more.


>Feedback needed.  I'm in a debate with a few people about this.


I believe the one and only reason is to leave an open end for the
producers to have a Basic Instinct II.

Albert-Jan

>
From: bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Gifted Child Stars
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:13:59 GMT
Organization: HHMI/Human Genetics, Univ of Pa.

In article <gratrix.724950449@spot.Colorado.EDU>, gratrix@spot.Colorado.EDU 
(Jackie Gratrix) writes:

> After reading all these posts on Culkin's performances, and the lack
> of talent therein, I'm interested in what child actors people think
> turned in good performances.

Off the top of my head:

	Lucas Haas (wonderful in _Witness_ and seems to be making the 
		trasition into non-child actor in _Rambling Rose_ and
		_Leap of Faith_)

	The young boy in _What About Bob?_ and _Hook_

	Almost all the children cast in _Parenthood_

	The two young boys in _Radio Flyer_ (I thought it was a dreadful 
		movie, but not because of these two young actors)

Unfortunatly I don't know many of the names...

Greg Bole                         "I have crossed oceans of time to find you."
bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu         Gary Oldman in _Bram Stoker's Dracula_
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: fod@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Frank O'Donnell)
Subject: Re: DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE.SOUNDTRACK
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:07:54 GMT

mg4x@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Aida A. Hozic) writes:

>Does anyone know how to get hold of the soundtrack
>from the "Double Life of Veronique"?
>
>Please let me know as soon as possible.

A friend in Paris sent me the CD as released in France.
I don't think it's been released in the U.S., though.

Frank
frank@jplpost.jpl.nasa.gov
From: bc@campbell.Gwinnett.COM (Bob Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: John Wayne movie
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 18:33:08 EST
Organization: Suncrest, Fairlawns, & Mulberry Frisbee Club

  Many years ago I saw a John Wayne movie that I think also had
  James Arness in it.  It was not a western, though.  They were
  both FBI agents or something like that.

  Can anyone tell me the title, year, and anyone else in it?
  I remember it as being one of his few non-Western, non-military
  movies.

  Thanks to all!

 |__________________________|______________________________________|
 | Bob Campbell             |                                      |
 | bc@campbell.Gwinnett.COM | "Think not of the hours wasted...    |
 | ...!emory!gwinnett!bc    |  but of all yet to be tasted."       |
 |__________________________|______________________________________|
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: eric@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Goldstein)
Subject: Akira Kurosawa -- Blind?
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:32:46 GMT

Hi!

     Could anyone tell me anything about the health and physical
   condition of Akira Kurosawa?  I recently heard that in his old
   age, he has become visually impaired.   Does anyone know if
   this is true (or even partially true)? 

   I'm developing educational software which make analogies between
   interesting people.  If Kurosawa is in fact visually impaired, I'd 
   like to compare him to Beethoven -- who composed the 9th symphony after
   he became deaf.   I've looked at recent biographies, and found no mention
   of Akira's alleged blindness, but if anyone knows anything about this,
   I'd love to hear about it, as this analogy is too juicy to pass up, if true.   
   In general, I would be interested to hear of any other highly skilled artists
   who are also disabled in some way.... (I know _this_ request is beyond
   the bounds of this newsgroup, but I'm not sure where to post.  Suggestions or
   sources?)   

          Thank you for any information! 
                  -- Eric

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Goldstein                         eric@ils.nwu.edu
Institute for the Learning Sciences
Northwestern University 
Evanston, Illinois 60201 


--
From: bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Munchausen Bomb
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:12:28 GMT
Organization: HHMI/Human Genetics, Univ of Pa.

In article <1992Dec21.204208.22344@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, 
gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:

> In article <BzH5uD.4FI@acsu.buffalo.edu> v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu 
(Scott J Gorcey) writes:

>>     I actually met Gilliam at a Creation show I was working as a dealer
>>     at in New York City a couple of years ago, just after the release
>>     of MUNCHAUSEN (brilliant film, that).
 
> Rather disappointed with that film.  Lots of fine aspects and performances,
> but left me feeling as though it was a bit too self-indulgent and curiously
> unsatisfying.  Nothing compared to Brazil, which I do consider great.
> Not just well-done, but entertaining as well.

I happened to love _The Adventures of Baron Munchausen_.  Jonathan Pryce,
Robin Williams, Eric Idle, Uma Thurman, Sting (in a cameo)...

But not until a few weeks ago did I learn (from England's Empire magazine)
that it is officialy the bigest bomb of all time.  It lost even more money
than _Ishtar_ and _Bonfire of the Vanities_.  

Wow.

[And for you nit-picky types, I don't think this was in adjusted dollars]
From: danielw@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Daniel Wink)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 10:23:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Monroe Starr
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, CCSY Messaging Centre, UK.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies


I think Monro Starr was the character de Niro played
in 'The Last Tycoon'.

Merry Christmas,

Dan.
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: (Unsolicited) advice against Blockbuster
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:11:05 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

guru@camelot.bradley.edu (Jerry Whelan) writes:

>	According to rumor from friends who refuse to patronize BB,
>BB is a conservative dominated corporation.  Just as Dominoes contributes
>portions of its pizza profits to the Right-To-Life crowd, so does BB.
>Additional conservative anti-civil liberties organizations (PMRC type
>stuff) are suppossedly also supported by a portion of BB profits.

Assuming this is true, I disagree with their politics but I don't have
any problem with what they're doing.  Us liberals do it all the
time so I can't complain when conservatives do it.  Mind
you that doesn't mean that I'll help them raise the money
to do it with...

>	From talking to a shift manager at a local BB, it seems as if
>BB is a very fascist sort of business in terms of controlling what is on the
>shelves, where it is on the shelves and such.  He also seemed awfully
>paranoid about me sending in a customer complaint card about how stupid
>the organization of the videos are.  He seemed to think that, such a
>complaint (and video organization is a corporate policy) would get him
>in some trouble...

Can't speak to the fears of the manager, but to say that a 
company which decides what items it wants to sell is "fascist"
is absolutely absurd.

>	I believe they require drug testing of employees (which is pretty
>funny I think, sure wouldn't want one of those 17 year olds being so
>stoned he fast-forwards the tape instead of rewinding it before putting
>it back on the shelf, someone might get killed that way...).

If this is true then it would certainly be grounds (from my
point of view) to boycott.

-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: anna@psych.toronto.edu (Anna Filippone)
Subject: Re: Sick and tired of cries of sexism (was Re: 9 1/2 Weeks)
Organization: P.S.A. (Psychology Student's Association)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:01:30 GMT

In article <Bzz1E5.HHt@fiu.edu> feathers@serss0 (Michael Feathers) writes:
>
>>>> to believe that our society dictates men's satisfaction over
>>>> women's..i see beer commercials that satisfy men's needs [i
>>>> drink beer, too], sportscar commercials [i would like one,
>>>> too], and many other instances where men's pleasure is the
>>>> aim..not women's.
>
>I'm sure that one of the reasons that this topic shows up in relation to
>movies is the difference between male and female stimulation.  Men are
>predominately stimulated by images.  It is biological and it is no
>accident that the market for pornography has always been and continues to
>be predominately driven by males.  On the other hand, female stimulation
>is more situational and tactile. 

Umm....actually lots of recent research evidence shows that this ain't true.
Women ARE aroused by images.  I'd give the authors of the research papers to
you but I'm on holidays & don't have a university library handy.  I'm sure
Masters & Johnson would have had something to say about it though.  It's just
the stereotype of this "biological" difference has continued the male market
for pornography.

Anna

p.s.  Guess we're getting pretty off topic here, eh?



-- 
			  "Mark but this flea, and mark in this,
Anna Filippone		   How little that which thou deniest me is: 
anna@psych.toronto.edu 	   Me it sucked first, and now sucks thee,  
			   And in this flea our two bloods mingled be." - Donne
From: mart4372@mach1.wlu.ca (Reginald Martin u)
Subject: Re: Q on A Few Good Men: Poison???
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:49:03 GMT

Rich Travsky (rtravsky@news.uwyo.edu) wrote:
: Something that really bothered me about this film was the "poison"
: plot device.  Were these two marines toxicologists or something?
: Where did they find this poison, or barring finding it, how did they
: get it transported to the base? How did they know what minimum dosage
: would be effective, etc.?
: 
: Not that this movie didn't have its share of problems, but this
: "poison" thing was not addressed fully at the trial. 
: 
: Richard Travsky
: Division of Information Technology     RTRAVSKY @ CORRAL.UWYO.EDU
: University of Wyoming                  (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668
If you had watched the second half of the flick, you would have 
seen that the two marines on trial did not poison the rag.
The kid died due to a medical condition.  
'This "poison" thing' was fully addressed at the trial.

Reg Martin
mart4372@mach1.wlu.ca.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies