From: Harv@cup.portal.com (Harv R Laser)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: Most Embarassing Movie
Date: Tue,  1 Sep 92 16:44:04 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Aug31.215528.29891@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> <65042@cup.portal.com>
  <1992Sep1.202819.9290@cs.ucla.edu>

>In article <65042@cup.portal.com> Harv@cup.portal.com (Harv R Laser) writes:
>>>
>>> What is the most embarassing movie you have ever seen?  
>>
>>I felt something like this when I left the West L.A. art house theatre
>>after having snoozed thru a Soviet semi-2001-ripoff called "Solaris"
>>back in my college daze.  I can't remember ever having fallen asleep
>>more times in a theatre than during the screening of this monstrosity.
>>I guess I just wasn't "hip" enough to "get it" but to this day I think
>>it was a monumental waste of my time and whatever I paid to see it.
>
>"Solaris" is admittedly not to all tastes, but there are those of us
>who think it is a fine film.  (And there are those who think it's a
>great film, for that matter.)  It is long, and it is not quickly paced,
>but it is made with intelligence and care.  If "Solaris" is truly
>the worst film you've ever seen, you're much better at picking winners
>than I am.  (And I take this as positive proof that you didn't see
>"Jaws IV", at least, not in a theater.  But, then, so few of us did.)
>
>--
>		Peter Reiher
>		reiher@wells.cs.ucla.edu

Like I said.. perhaps I just didn't get it. It put me to sleep multiple
times. The last film I can remember having walked out on was that Ron
Howard film... what the hell was it called.. oh "Parenthood." I saw it
at a double feature with Nat'l Lampoon's Xmas Vacation (which I actually
enjoyed a lot.. thought it was the best of the 3 so far) but I started
squriming in my seat a lot during Parenthood. It looked to me like
Ron Howard was trying, and failing, to make a Woody Allen film. 

I'll sit thru and enjoy a long film if it keeps my attention and I'm
enjoying the experience. Stone's "JFK" is the longest film (at some
3:17) that I've paid to see in recent memory and I thought it was 
riveting and the time went by very quickly. I read in some critical
review once that you can tell whether or not you're enjoying a film
by how many times you look at your watch in the dark of the theater. 

Admittedly I probably don't go out to theaters and pay to see as many
films as most readers of this group. I do most of my watching these days
on cable or pay-cable. (Hell.. all cable is pay-cable when ya come
right down to it :-)

Even though I've seen it umpteen times in theaters of all description
(including during its initial release, at the Warner's Cinerama and
the Pacific Cinerama dome in Hollywood), and even during a godawful
scratched torn print at El Camino College back when I went to their
weekly film series, I'd gladly pay to see "2001" again in a good
theatre with a kick-ass THX sound system on a very wide screen. 

To put things in perspective, my college daze were '67-'72 back when
first run films cost a buck or two. I still remember going to see
the first run of Bowie's "The Man Who Fell to Earth" in Westwood
Village, and gasping for air when I found that the admission was
$3.50. So that outta date me pretty well. $3.50 would fill the tank
of my long-departed VW Bug :)
Harv
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies