HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: csroc@dime.prime.com (Charles Sroczynski x4014 5-2)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Top Five Movies of All Time
Date: 10 Dec 92 18:36:37 GMT
Reply-To: csroc@dime.UUCP (Charles Sroczynski x4014 5-2)
Organization: Prime Computervision, Bedford MA

In article <1g4t88INN9ri@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>In article <1992Dec6.072108.3580@vlsi.polymtl.ca> d40937@aiken (Jean  
>Yves Desbiens) writes:
>> Dan Welch (dwelch@mpd.tandem.com) wrote:
>> : I seriously hope that the lists in this thread represent personal  
>favorites,
>> : and not what people actually consider to be the five *best*  
>movies of all time!
>
>That's not the point the previous poster was trying to make.
>The movies that I consider my favorites aren't necessarily the
>ones I think are the "best."  Sometime they coincide (like
>Seven Samurai, which is probably my favorite movie, and one
>of the best ever made), sometimes they don't (like Forbidden
>Planet, which is one of my favorite movies, but, while it
>may at times be on my "10 Favorites List," certainly wouldn't be
>on any list I'd make of 10 BEST).



It sounds like you have a favorite
(ie. a movie YOU like best) but
would not put it on the list
of 10BEST....WHY NOT???????????????

Are you ashamed to put it on the list?
Just because others don't think its
one of the BEST, doesn't mean that you have
to feel the same way.  Have some confidence
in yourself and your feelings; have courage;
stand up for what you believe in;  seize
the moment; do something extraordinary; don't
be so easily pushed around by others.  If you
make a list with Casablanca and Citizen Cane and 
The Seven Samurai and 2001 and L of A, etc
you cannot ever be wrong in the minds of others, yet
if you pick them because others pick them, you are
being dishonest to yourself.
From: d40937@boole (Jean Yves Desbiens)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Movies you loved, but couldn't see more than once.
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:44:20 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Elizabeth Holden (panda@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca) wrote:
: > >>Felicitas A. Atabong (faa@athena.cs.wayne.edu) wrote:
: > >>: Has anyone out there seen a movie or movies that they thought were
: > >>: really good, but they just couldn't see  more than once, either
: > >>: because it was too scary or too sad??

The Empire of the Sun, I saw it in THX 70mm sitting in the first
row of the theater and was just blown away. What a powerfull 
disturbing movie, and the child's stare at the end : totally empty.
Tried to see it again on video, but I don't know why, I never
mustered the gut to do it. The movie seems to be dynamite ready 
to just blow up in my face.

--
SEIZE THE DAY, MAKE YOUR LIFE EXTRAORDINARY .  "Dead Poets Society"

Jean-Yves Desbiens                  | d40937@info.polymtl.ca
Etudiant en genie informatique      | 
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal Can | To indeed be a god ...,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wdw@sybase.com (Wayne Wong)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: don knotts movies
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:28:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sybase, Inc.


Ah, the Don Knotts oeuvre. Folks often forget that he
was a major film comic during the Sixties, second only
to Jerry Lewis perhaps. Haven't seen HOW TO FRAME A FIGG
in years, but I'd say the best of the lot overall is
SHAKIEST GUN, which is a remake of Bob Hope's THE PALEFACE.
Personally, I was never crazy about the guy...
From: darrenl@natinst.com (Darren Lilie)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: More problems with DieHard 2, (and Diehard 1)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 12:45:03 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

When I originated this post, I didnt realize there were so many problems.
(And I thought I was pretty good at discovering these things in movies.)
I drive my parents and friends crazy when we are watching a rented movie  
because I'm always stopping, backing up, freeze framing and playing them 
in slow motion when I catch something wrong.
Anyway, I thought of 2 other things on Diehard 2.  When McClane was on the
runway waving the 2 torches the guy in the tower picked up his binoculars
and looked at him and said 'It's McClane'.  These must be some damn good
binoculars to see during a snowstorm at night.    
Another thing was when McClane brought the machine guns with blanks back to
the security headquarters and then shot at the chief?.  No one would do this
because the security people around them would have shot McClane before noticing
that the chief was not getting loaded with bullets.  I mean when someone starts
shooting a gun you dont look at what damage the bullets are doing, you try to
stop the guy shooting(if you have a gun, that is).
Did anyway else notice how many times they used the word fu** in the movie.
I doesnt bother me, and in some cases adds to either the humor or the drama but
I dont recall using such profanity in the original.
           
In the first Diehard, one thing I noticed is that when Powell?(the black police-
man) had wrecked in his police car and got out he had a cut on his head.
I dont recall if they actually showed the cut but I do remember him having
a white bandage over it with blood coming through.  Later there isnt even
a scar on his forehead.

Darren
From: rcbi27@marshall.wvnet.edu (DBRUM)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Ghost and Mr. Chicken--fan!
Date: 11 Dec 92 14:34:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: marshall.1992Dec11.193457.119641
Organization: Marshall University

Don't feel unrefined--this is one of my favorite "cheesy Sunday afternoon
movies" too! 

I remember seeing it when I was just at that stage of early adolescense
to find The Ghost and Mr. Chicken absolutely side-splitting.

   "And they even used Bonami!"

--danny
--
"I laughed one time and they 
were on the phone to the Man."  --Cool Hand Luke
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:18:17 EST
From: Todd Bobenrieth <TAB129@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Top 10 Films?

Could someone post a list of the top five moneymakers of all time...
I know the three Star Wars and two of three Indiana Jones are in there,
plus E.T. and Home Alone. But where do they all fit? Thanks in advance.
Xref: sparky rec.arts.movies:35669 alt.cult-movies:11354
From: michaili@blondie.cs.wisc.edu (Afroditi Michailidi)
Subject: Chaplin
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 09:14:09 GMT



_Chaplin_ is the long awaited film about the life of Charlie Chaplin. Directed
by Richard Attenborough and with a host of stars including Robert Downey, Jr,
Kevin Kline, Anthony Hopkins and Geraldine Chaplin (Chaplin's real life
daughter who, in a twist, plays his mother), this film sets out to be the
very definition of epic biography, pure and simple. It almost succeeds.

The problem is, it tries too hard. I found some of the scenes too loaded for
my tastes. At times I was almost glad the director was constricted by real life
events and could not use all of the plot devices he otherwise might have. And,
my feeling is, some of the material was not epic to begin with -- that might
well be my serious gripe with this film.

The movie is of epic length too, being over 2hrs 20mins long. I found it slow
in developping.  On the other hand, I do not think that cutting any of the
introduction would improve it; the film carries you along little by little
until you are engulfed and immersed in its tale; only by detailing as many
events as possible can it achieve that effect.

Don't get me wrong. It is a good film and one of the best I have seen lately.
Based loosely on Chaplin's autobiography, the film works on two levels: one
is following Chaplin from his early years throughout his career, while the
second one shows Chaplin as an old man conferring with his biographer (the
only fictional character in the movie, existing purely as a narrative device).
This dichotomy was at first jarring, since you get pulled in and out of the
timeline -- but in the end, it works too; Attenborough is no novice.

Robert Downey Jr, does a wonderful job as Chaplin. I even began to think of
him as Chaplin midway through the film. The supporting cast is excellent too,
particularly Kevin Kline as Douglas Fairbanks.

Bonus points for the ending -- it is really the stuff that cinema is made of.

In conclusion, I found this to be a very good and entertaining film, although
dragging in some places. A masterpiece it is not, which is rather dissapointing
considering the cast, director and script material. However, the film makes up
for it, if only for its ending. I'd rate it a 9- on my personal scale i.e.
reccomended with some reservations.

[quick reference chart
[recent movies: _The Bodyguard_ 5-, _Alladin_ 8.5, _Zentropa_ 10-
[all time faves: _ZOO_ & _The Element of Crime_ 10-
[rock bottom: _Liquid Sky_ 0


                           Afroditi

--
michaili@cs.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: stuff
From: rkallberg@vax.cord.edu
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:27:29 GMT
Reply-To: rkallberg@vax.cord.edu
Organization: Concordia College, Moorhead, MN

Top five movies *heh*: Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now, Chil. Of a Lesser
God, Talk Radio, Miller's Crossing. IMHO, that is.
Questions: A) does anyone know what happened to the film adaptation of
_Neuromancer_ that was in the works ages ago? and B) Has anyone seen/
have a copy of _Overdrawn at the MEmory Bank_? email me if you do (or
post)
rkallberg@vax.cord.edu
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Most Underrated Actress?
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:56:09 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


Posts in the last few days have listed overrated/underrated
actresses and actors.  I'm a little confused by some of them.

Julia Roberts, Madonna, and Sharon Stone have all been mentioned
as being most overrated.  I would agree that their acting talents
are minimal, but I really can't recall *anyone* saying that their
talents were more than minimal.  i.e. if no-one claims
they could act well, how can they be overrated?

As for Linda Hunt being underrated, my impression was
that she is very highly thought of.  Where's the underrating?
-- 
   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: leroy@socs.uts.edu.au (Leroy)
Subject: Re: 1992? It was a bad year....
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:27:29 GMT

Charles L Isbell writes:
>|>Are we all agreed that this hasn't been a terribly good year in terms
>|>of OSCAR QUALITY GREAT FILMS(tm)?

The release of movies in Australia and the US must be *extremely* out of
sync: it's been a brilliant year here. Husbands and Wives, JFK, My Own
Private Idaho, Manufacturing Consent, the Long Day Closes, Edward II 
(and Swoon), Shadows and Fog, a re-release of Apocalypse Now, Monster in a Box
and a whole host of "lesser" movies that were still great: Buffy the Vampire
Slayer, the Hairdresser's Husband, Naked Lunch, Paris is Burning, Delicatessen,
Toto the Hero, the Player...

There have been some real shockers (Grand Canyon! Far and Away!) but, overall,
it's been a great year for indie/less-Hollywood films.

>|>In particular, is the consensus that this has been a particualrly bad
>|>year for strong female leads?  All the critics (oooooooh) seem to
>|>think so.  I was just wondering what the net.conventional.wisdom in
>|>this is....

Next year looks good for females. Another (two, here) by Hal Hartley,
Antonia and Jane has two female leads, the Lovers looks *interesting*.
And Woody Allen's new one will, as usual, have at least one strong
female part which could be the lead.

>|Definately true.  Very few strong female leads.  Do you think that
>|Thelma and Louise scared the establishment a bit???

Only in the amount of money and press it generated: such a thin film for
all that noise.

--- G M Heinrich  ( leroy@socs.uts.edu.au )
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: a0s5108@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Neal and Mara Priestly)
Subject: Re: hollywood movies
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:38:42 GMT

[huge amount of deleted material]

>     And also, remember that because Hollywood has a monopoly on the
>     American film market, very few people in America ever bother seeing
>     ANY movies made outside of the USA.  Hollywood certainly doesn't
>     provide any incentive for the audiences here to see any movies made in
>     other countries - or even independent film studios.  Furthermore,
>     Hollywood owns the biggest theater chains like Loews; Hollywood spends
>     the most money in advertising and promotion; Hollywood does everything
>     it can to make sure very few people EVER see non-Hollywood films.
>

Hollywood owns two of the top 5 exhibitors, United Artists owns UA cinemas
(the largest) and Loews (4th largest.)  For the curious, AMC and General
Cinemas are 2 and 3 respectively as of October.

>     This is why we see so many "Favorite Movies Of All Time" lists
>     containing nothing but Hollywood movies.
>---
>  SLMR 2.1a  USA Today: For people who find TV news too complex.
>--
>Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA
>

-Neal
From: bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: The Culkinator!
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:21:13 GMT
Organization: HHMI/Human Genetics, Univ of Pa.

In article <1992Dec18.155959.17540@meiko.com>, lorreen@meiko.com 
(Lorreen Pelletier) writes:

> Sorry, the movie I meant was "Parenthood" (couldn't remember it yesterday).  

Sorry to you Lorreen, but you struck out again.  Culkin was *not* in 
_Parenthood_.  It was an excellent comedy though.  (Partialy because of that 
fact I'm sure...)

> obnoxiously precocious children, that I think Culkin's performance in 
> that regard is pretty subdued.  

Wooooaaaah!  Now we know you are thinking of a different child actor...

> And I've seen him interviewed, and think he interviews very well.  

Either we haven't seen the same interviews (Like that one with Creskin on
Letterman) or we have *very* different opinions on what consists of doing
well in an interview.

Deja vu, eh Wayne?

Greg Bole                            "Don't shrug you moron, I'm blind!
bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu          Save the body languare for the bimbae."
                                        Al Pacino in _Scent of a Woman_
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: rlwilliams@gallua.gallaudet.edu
Subject: Re: most underated actress/actorclose
Organization: Gallaudet University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:04:53 GMT



An actress who never get's much press is Genevieve Bujold. She's been in a 
number of my favorite movies... Choose Me, Anne of a Thousand Days, King of 
Hearts, as well as a few westerns, one with James Caan and another with 
Clint Eastood.  By the way I think James Caan is underrated as well...

rlwilliams
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: sdt8s@curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU (Steve Tilson)
Subject: Re: Roger & Me Sequel?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:16:10 GMT

I have received ample and much appreciated response to my
query. For those of you who responded: thank you. For those of
you who are thinking about responding: please don't. Not to be
rude but I have the answer: _Pets or Meat_ (or some variation
of that title, and please don't start a thread over this) is a
follow-up to Roger & Me that was aired on PBS.

Again, many thanks, and don't keep those posts and letters
pouring in.

Steve
--
========================================================================
Why these nightmares? Why this sky?            Steve Tilson
This long road. This empty room.               sdt8s@virginia.edu
========================================================================
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:30:25 EST
From: <MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: most underated actress/actor

Definitely Whoopi Goldberg.  Flame me if you want but I think that this
woman is up there with Streep and Close.  She's just not getting the roles.
I wonder why?   Everything she is in, she makes it better than it is.
Color Purple, Soapdish, the nun movie from Disney who's name escapes me
at the moment.                                Melissa Brown
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: stame@emunix.emich.edu (Stewart Tame)
Subject: Re: Watchmen
Organization: Eastern Michigan University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:36:56 GMT

In article <sterbenc-141292130337@150.130.23.185> sterbenc@ivhs.mot.com (Joe Sterbenc) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.135334.6226@fwi.uva.nl>, schaper@fwi.uva.nl (Lancelot
>Schaper) wrote:
>> 
>> Can anybody tell me what's true about the rumours of the making of Watchmen,
>> the movie?
>
>
>Is it true that Terry Gilliam is directing?

I seem to remember hearing that Gilliam had been booted off the project or
quit due to budgetary disputes.  Also, I read a synopsis of Sam Hamm's
first draft script somewhere and it sucked.  Of course it may not have
been the real script . . . 

Actually my roommate and I came up with an interesting possibility: do
Watchmen as an animated film and hire the guy who did "Aeon Flux" for
MTV's Liquid Television to do it . . . 

****************************************************************************
 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
From: clueless@bradley.edu (Mark Kristie)
Subject: Re: What's this movie?
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:11:46 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
X-Posted-From: cs1.bradley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Mark Kristie (clueless@bradley.edu) wrote:
: 	I saw a commercial for this movie a while ago, but I forgot the name...
: the commercial showed some kind of SDI system that had been put in place in \
: space in the future, which was supposed to protect against anything.  The only
: problem was that it was malfunctioning or something like that, and somebody
: (the hero, presumably) was supposed to go and kill it....

: any ideas?

Oh, and by the way, any E-Mail responses need to be directed to 
clueless@camelot.bradley.edu...

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: jmacd@intacc.uucp (Jason MacDermott)
Subject: Most Underrated Actor
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:44:30 GMT
Reply-To: jmacd@intacc.UUCP (Jason MacDermott)
Organization: Matrix Artists' Network


  Who is the most underrated actor of our time?  I would vote for Rutger
Hauer.  It's not that he isn't working enough, but I think he deserves some
credit that he's not getting (at least not in America/Canada - I have read
that he is "bigger" in Europe...).
 
  He has become my favorite actor after appearing in HBO's "Deadlock" and this
year's "Split Second" (his character made the movie for me, I admit there were
problems in the plot :-/).  Since then I've been impressed by his performances
in "Soldier of Orange" and "Blade Runner" (Director's cut).  Recently I saw
him in two slightly more obscure flicks, "A Breed Apart" and "Blind Fury". 
Both were very good.
 
  Of course, like all actors, his presence couldn't save "Wanted: Dead or
Alive" or "Beyond Justice", but let's not dwell on those turkeys.
 
  Rutger Hauer deserves more credit!  Here Here!
 
:-)
Jason MacDermott
jmacd@intacc.uucp
From: Harv@cup.portal.com (Harv R Laser)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: annoying nuances in films
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 21:07:19 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec17.223935.5210@cs.uow.edu.au>

When you view a film's end-titles, look for the credit of
"Continuity." That's the person responsible for making sure everything
matches up from one scene to the next. In the bits and pieces of
film-making documentaries I've seen it's the continuity person
is usually running around with a clipboard and stopwatch and furiously
making notes.  Yet it is truly astounding how much bad continuity
even a casual film viewer can find in almost every film we watch.
I really have to wonder why, for example, in a critically
acclaimed and multi-mega-buck production like DePalma's "Untouchables"
that with all the people in front of whose eyes passed the footage
before it got sent to theaters, how there could be a scene with
Sean Connery sitting at a table speaking to another character
and depending on which camera angle is displayed, the top button
of his shirt is either buttoned or unbuttoned. 
It's so terribly obvious and many popular critics mentioned it.
That's just to site one horrible example of bad continuity in an
otherwise excellent film made by a popular director with a good
recent reputation. I can't EVER watch "The Untouchables" without
laffing when that scene comes up, and that takes all the magic
out of it for me. 

Bad continuity is not the same thing as plot holes or bad logic or the
wrong kind of props in the wrong setting (Pacific Bell pay phones
in Die Hard 2 for example).  Just as there's bad continuity, there's
bad writing, bad set decoration, bad costuming, and bad everything
else you can name.  But I'm really curious how Connery's shirt
scene could have gotten past DePalma, his assistants, the producers,
the continuity person, the editors, and everyone else involved.
They really tried so hard to put the viewer into a 1930s Chicago
and the film has a beautiful look to it, but that one stupid mistake
really sours it for me.  Perhaps 100 years from now, film 
historians will remember these niggling little flubs in otherwise
good films. Or not. 

Anyone recall any bad continuity mistakes in "Citizen Kane"? :-)

Harv
From: 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Movies that are better than books (was Re: Patriot Games)
Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:41:14 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

In article <1992Dec10.205903.956@Virginia.EDU>, cew2w@Virginia.EDU ("Chris Wrike") writes:
>Also the book that became Die Hard 2 (I think the title was "98
>minutes") was really bad.
>
>	-- Chris Wrike

Minor correction:  58 Minutes.  I agree it was really bad.  The book that Die
Hard (one) was based on was also pretty bad.  The story lines for the movies
were much better than either of the books.  They were extensively changed
for the better.

Mary H.
From: 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Jurassic Park
Date: 18 Dec 1992 15:44:16 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

>
>>While I was glad I read it (curiosity, and being able to discuss it) yes, 
>>it was a pretty poor novel.
>
>Agreed, the whole time I was thinking: "Wow what a badly written book, but
>it could sure make a hell of an enjoyable movie!"
>


I must disagree with the above posters.  I think the book is terrific AND
can make a hell of an enjoyable movie  (a cross between Jaws and Aliens,
maybe!)  If Spielberg does as well as he did with Jaws, it should be okay.

Mary H.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies