HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jflint@ic.sunysb.edu (Jesse Flint)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Failsafe vs. By Dawn's Early Light (was Best War...)
Date: 14 Aug 1992 02:27:51 -0500
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


>In <1992Aug12.121332.1@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu> bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole) writes:

>>The best film I've ever seen about the possiblity for a WWIII, or a 
>>nuclear exchange was HBO's _By Dawn's Early Light_.  Good cast, good
>>script, both the "big picture" and personal stories...
>
>
>  If you liked that one, then really try to catch 'Failsafe' on cable. It is
>much superior, and there are way too many paralells between the stories; i.e.
>I suspect BDEL 'borrowed' from this classic. Once you've seen Failsafe, you 
>won't like the other too much.


>-- 
>*Jose R. Perez           |" Really??" - Dr. Joel Fleishmann                   *
>*Internet:               |-"I love you"                                        *
>*gt7257c@prism.gatech.edu|-"I know"                                            *
>**********************"There can be only one."- Conner McLeod *****************

Yes, but the important point to remember is that in "Failsafe" only two 
cities get nuked, while "BDEL" is more an all-out nuclear war... which, for 
me, anyway, was more intense... 


-- 
*                                    *                                     *
It's not Jesse's fault! :)   Tog c/o  jflint%libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu@sunysb.edu
Amateur Librarian, Would-Be Terraformer, Cunning Linguist
..eagerly waiting for "Street Fighter II for GameBoy" :) 
					("Ah-you-ken", my BUTT!)
From: craigs@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Betsy Brett)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: REBECCA
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:28:24 GMT
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland

gbq1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Gene B. Quinn) writes:

>nancyl@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Nancy Lellenberg Bentrup) writes:

>>Just watched Rebecca, (with Olivier and Fontaine for those who dont know)
>>again last night, and remarked to my husband, "they just dont make movies
>>like this now days."  I had forgotten since my last viewing just how many
>>plot twists, etc. there are.

>>Would love to hear from anyone else who is a big fan of this movie, or
>>hear anything anyone knows about the making of this classic.

>>For anyone who hasnt seen it, I heartily recommend renting it!

>Just rented it last month, and now it is my favorite Hitchcock film!
>Unfortunately, the video had a preview of itself along with other movies at
>the beginning of the tape, and they gave away one of the biggest of the plot
>twists.  So if you rent this film, beware!  Do not watch the previews at the
>beginning - you'll be sorry and very very peeved!  But see it soon!

Yes, I noticed this too when I rented it.  The funny thing was, when they
showed the previews for the other Hitchcock movies in that series, they
didn't seem to give as much away!  We were gyped!
 
-- 
Betsy Brett                          email craigs@garfield.cs.mun.ca
Box 442 RR1                          (specify to Betsy in subject line)
Paradise, NF  A1L 1C1 /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Canada /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Terminator (SPOILERS)
Summary: Strategy
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:37:05 GMT

In article <57041@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, gfritz@sage.cc.purdue.edu ("Happy Fun Ball") writes:
> Is there anyone else out there who wondered why (or was dissapointed by the
> fact that) the T-1000 never got into any large-scale fights with anyone
> other than Ah-nold & Friends?  I'm sure the T-1000's biggest advantage is
> stealth and infiltration, but you'd think it could hold its own against a
> large number of people.
> 
> Just a peeve,

Every predator has a strategy, and the best is don't take on more
than you have to and risk losing.  I think the T-1000 would NEVER
take on anyone it didn't have to.  In a large group it would just
imitate one of the other and let them figure out who to shoot.
Unlike humans a cyborg would have no ego to protect and could run
or hide when necessary.

Look how it killed the kids foster mother but let the father live
until it needed to take him out.  


marc colten

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: tungd@ecf.toronto.edu (TUNG DANIEL KING LEUNG)
Subject: Howard's End Question
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:07:44 GMT


	I saw Howard's End yesterday. It was very good indeed. But I can only
understand 80% of the movie. When the clerk went to Schlegel's house the   
second time, they were refering to a book which is about someone's walking at 
night.  Would someone please tell me the name of the book and its author?
	Thanks for any help

Daniel
tungd@ecf.toronto.edu
From: hcleong@iti.gov.sg (Leong Heng Cheong)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
Subject: REVIEW: POLICE STORY III: SUPER COP
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01498
Keywords: author=Leong
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:54:56 GMT
Reply-To: hcleong@iti.gov.sg (Leong Heng Cheong)
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Organization: Information Technology Institute, National Computer Board, Singapore.


                         POLICE STORY III: SUPER COP
  		     A film review by Leong Heng Cheong
                      Copyright 1992 Leong Heng Cheong

     This summer, Hollywood brought us LETHAL WEAPON 3 -- a movie about
two buddy cops out to get the villain.  Hong Kong brought us POLICE
STORY III -- a movie about two undercover cops out to get the villain.

     POLICE STORY III: SUPER COP (same Chinese title) stars Jackie Chan,
one of the hottest HK action movie actors at the moment.  It also stars
Michelle Khan, together with Maggie Cheung in a very very minor role.
It is directed by Stanley Tong.

     POLICE STORY III: SUPER COP is about a Hong-Kong police/detective
who was sent to China as an undercover cop against an international
druglord.  There, he was paired with the Chinese counterpart in the
mission.  By the end of the movie, the two had travelled back to Hong
Kong, then to Vietnam/Thailand border, and Kuala Lumpur of Malaysia with
the villain of the movie.

     For those who are looking for a tight plot, you won't find it here.
I don't think there is much of a plot anyway.  Even by the end of the
movie, I still am unsure of what exactly is the objective of the
mission.  And then, there are many various plot holes all the way from
the beginning till the end of the movie.  You really have to heavily
suspend your belief when watching this movie.  Or better still -- don't
think.

     And if you ceased to use your brain power, you will find POLICE
STORY III: SUPER COP a very fun and entertaining action movie.  The
stunts are spectacular, and the action coordinating tightly packed.
Those who are bored by the action sequences in LETHAL WEAPON 3 will find
POLICE STORY III much more energetic.  This is the strength of HK
action movies: they pack in all the wonderful stunts with almost no
regards to the plot or feasbility.

     Except for a few jokes that are linked to the previous films, this
sequel is almost an independent film.  Jackie Chan, who directed the
earlier film in the series, concentrated on the action and the acting in
this sequel.  Almost all of the stunts are performed by the actors
themselves, which is quite rare in Hollywood productions.

     So far, I've only seen two type of films that can attract (almost)
all of the audience to stay throughout the closing credits.  One of
which is from the producers/directors/writers of NAKED GUN and TOP
SECRET!  The other: Jackie Chan's movies.  As usual, after the end of
the movie, the audience are treated to outtakes of the show, and scenes
where the stunts failed.

     In short, POLICE STORY III: SUPER COP is a very entertaining piece
of action film.  Audience should never look forward to the plot nor the
acting in these kind of HK films.

Leong Heng Cheong
  hcleong@iti.gov.sg
From: good@pixar.com (Craig Good)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
Subject: REVIEW: RAISING CAIN
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01482
Keywords: author=Good
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:01:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsj.1992Aug12.170154.6949
Reply-To: good@pixar.com (Craig Good)
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Organization: Pixar


			       RAISING CAIN
		       A film review by Craig Good
			Copyright 1992 Craig Good

     Brian, Brian, Brian.

     Brian.

     Brian, WAKE UP!

     When Brian DePalma finished making RAISING CAIN he must have sat
bolt upright in a cold sweat and thought it was a nightmare.  He used
that conceit over and over and over and over again in the film until the
audience wished *they* could wake up and find that it was all a dream.
No such luck.

     It's as though DePalma took bits and pieces of every film he's ever
made, good and bad, and tossed them into some kind of giant celluloid
blender.  RAISING CAIN is so awash in red herrings, dream sequences, and
magic pop-up characters that it's no wonder it took three editors to cut
it.  At least Brian isn't peppering his films with just Hitchcock
references: now he's making references to his own films.  

     I guess John Lithgow just couldn't turn down the opportunity to
play himself, his evil twin, his own father, a woman and a small boy.
Would you?  His performance is all that saves the few good sequences in
the movie.  One of the two times that the audience at our screening sat
quietly at attention can be attributed to his acting.  And Lolita
Davidovich's face is what saves the best close-ups.

     But this is the movie that puts the "osterous" in "preposterous."
While on the one hand DePalma's script and direction try to keep the
audience "guessing" and "off-balance" about parts of the story, the rest
is incessantly explained by characters whose sole reason for existence
seems to be spouting exposition during marathon-length SteadiCam shots.
The result is an audience that is "confused" and "annoyed."  For a while
I tried to let it work as a comedy.  Lithgow provides some good laughs,
and so does DePalma, but I think only one of them did it on purpose.

     I'm an optimist.  So I say that some day, some how, Brian is going
to come to his senses.  He's going to realize that, by golly, he's made
more good movies than many directors ever do in their careers, just not
lately.  He's going to get rid of whatever evil twin it is that made
RAISING CAIN, and rediscover the mature, skilled film maker responsible
for THE UNTOUCHABLES.  Until then, I can only shout...

     "Snap out of it Brian!"

		--Craig
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
From: leeper@mtgzy.att.com (Mark R. Leeper)
Subject: REVIEW: DIGGSTOWN
Reply-To: leeper@mtgzy.att.com
Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:34:27 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01489
Keywords: author=Leeper

                                 DIGGSTOWN
                      A film review by Mark R. Leeper
			Copyright 1992 Mark R. Leeper

          Capsule review:  DIGGSTOWN is a fast, smart film about a
     con job worthy of the "Mission Impossible" team.
     Unfortunately, it leaves holes and unanswered questions and
     has an ending that is just not completely satisfying.  It is,
     however, a good film to get the juices flowing.  Rating: +1
     (-4 to +4).  (Following the review will be a spoiler section
     presenting script problems.)

     Gabriel Caine (played by James Woods) is a con man about to be paroled
and he is not waiting to be released to get into mischief.  He has a scam in
mind that could leave him owning a sizable piece of a redneck town.
Diggstown is a town that lives and dies for boxing.  It is named for a local
boxing legend who once took on five men in one day.  Now the town is
covertly owned by John Gillon (played by Bruce Dern) who runs the town like
a king.  Caine, with a little help from some friends like card sharp and
hustler Fitz (played by Oliver Platt) and a boxer, "Honey" Roy Palmer
(played by Louis Gossett, Jr.) is going to put the squeeze on John Gillon
in an absurd bet that Palmer can take on any ten locals.  Once these two men
set up an honorable bet, each is going to cheat in any way possible to win.

     Steven McKay's screenplay based on Leonard Wise's novel THE DIGGSTOWN
RANGERS races and forces the viewer to work hard to keep up with everything
that is happening in DIGGSTOWN's 97 minutes.  This dialogue is fast and
funny, though the film's best line (starting "Just remember") is reportedly
an ad lib by Woods clever enough that the trailer is built around it.
DIGGSTOWN is directed by Michael Ritchie, who at some time decided to
concentrate on sports films like SEMI-TOUGH, DOWNHILL RACER, THE BAD NEWS
BEARS, and WILDCATS.  That may be a pity, since his one really superb film,
SMILE is about a beauty pageant rather than sports.  Ritchie's DIGGSTOWN is
not as good as SMILE, but it is diverting.  I give it a +1 on the -4 to +4
scale.

     (Spoilers)


     There are problems with the screenplay.  One is that Caine is entirely
too brilliant at knowing what his opponent will do.  He is prepared for
eventualities that he would have no reason to suspect would happen.  Also,
for him to choose the right set of the ten boxers to involve in his plan
requires knowledge that he is unlikely to have had.  Finally, the punishment
at the end seems surprisingly mild when one considers what has happened
before.

					Mark R. Leeper
					att!mtgzy!leeper
					leeper@mtgzy.att.com
From: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
Subject: REVIEW: BOOMERANG
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01493
Keywords: author=K.Johnson
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:36:58 GMT
Reply-To: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Organization: ?


                                 BOOMERANG
                       A film review by Ken Johnson
                        Copyright 1992 Ken Johnson

120 min., R, Comedy, 1992
Director: Reginald Hudlin
Cast: Eddie Murphy, Robin Givens, Halle Berry, David Alan Grier,
      Grace Jones, Chris Rock, Tisha Campbell, Eartha Kitt,
      Martin Lawrence, Geoffrey Holder

     Eddie Murphy has a reputation at his work place for being able to
bed any woman.  In comes Robin Givens who is Murphy's new boss.
Naturally, Murphy wants to get Givens into bed (well who wouldn't) and
Givens plays hard to get which makes Murphy want her even more.  When
Murphy starts to realize that he may be interested in a serious
relationship with Givens, he finds all she is looking for is sex.

     BOOMERANG is a very funny movie, even better than HARLEM NIGHTS and
ANOTHER 48 HRS.  I highly recommend that you go see this film before it
leaves the theaters.  On a scale of zero to five, I give BOOMERANG a
five.  BOOMERANG is rated R for brief female nudity, explicit language,
adult situations, and adult humor.

     Eddie Murphy is not as foul mouthed as usual, and has a more
interesting character than in past films.  This film will probably be
loved by any fan of Eddie.  Robin Givens gives a good performance, but
her character seemed to lack depth.  Halle Berry and David Allan Grier,
of FOX's "In Living Color," both give great performances.  Grier, I
think, gives his best performance yet.  I found Eartha Kitt's character
to be obnoxious and annoying, but the film would not have been as good
without her.

     BOOMERANG is not a film to be picked apart and analyzed.   Instead
it is a film to sit down, relax and laugh at.  If you go to pick it
apart, I think that you will hate this film.  If you want to go to enjoy
Eddie's funny antics, then this is definitely a film for you.  This film
is nearing the end of its theatrical run, so I suggest that if you are
going to go see it that you don't wait too long.  There is nothing
really to be said about the locations, because most of them were inside
buildings.  The script was great and gave all the actors a chance to
come out and make you laugh.  The soundtrack was also great!

     There isn't really too much more I can say about this film.   It is
of no great moral backing, and probably won't be nominated for an Oscar
(comedies seldom are).  Nothing will be lost by watching this film on a
VCR if you would prefer to wait and skip the high theater prices.

Ken J.
blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney)
Subject: DIGGSTOWN
Date: 15 Aug 92 18:24:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Windows/DOS Users Ed Group

DIGGSTOWN is a film directed by Michael Ritchie, from a
script by Steven McKay. It stars James Woods, Lou Gossett,
Jr., Bruce Dern, Heather Graham. Rated R for language.

DIGGSTOWN is based on Leonard Wise's novel _The Diggstown
Ringers._ Presumably the novel is better than the script.
Steven McKay, whose previous claim to fame is the script
for Steven Segal's HARD TO KILL, has no interest in his
characters, sets up situations and drops them without a
word, fails to clarify motivations and relationships, and
generally does his best to undermine the fine acting turns
by James Woods, Lou Gossett, Jr., and Bruce Dern, as well as
some successful boxing sequences, and a nicely corrupt small
town.

Of course, it would be a mistake to lay all the blame at the
feet of the writer. One must also remember the failures of the
director, Michael Ritchie. Ritchie directed one of the
great and timeless political movie, THE CANDIDATE. Since
then he has been settling for the small and short-lived:
Chevy Chase's Fletch flicks, THE COUCH TRIP, THE SURVIVORS.
Ritchie has all the earmarks of the classic Hollywood
sellout, as DIGGSTOWN amply demonstrates.

If you must see this film, go for the performances. The
three principals are all fine. Woods is the ex-con con man
out to take a big killing in Diggstown, some sort of
small-town boxing capital (named for its favorite-son boxer,
now its favorite vegetable). Gossett, whom we are asked to accept
as a 48-year-old retired knock-out artist, is clearly trying
to redeem himself for his lowbrow series of IRON EAGLE
movies, sweats, bleeds, and wise-cracks; it's never quite
believable, of course, Gossett is too old and too thick in
the waist, despite his excellent condition, for the part,
but still it's a game effort. Dern is a cold-hearted,
power-hunger s.o.b. who can betray anyone, even his own son.
He is reptilian and unctuous, vicious and driven, and one
has to admire his black, black heart.

The supporting cast is also good, especially Oliver Platt as
Woods's front man, Orestes Matacena as the heavy money from
Miami (there something so sinister about his bald pate and
huge ponytail), Thomas Wilson Brown as Dern's fawning son.
Dern's other hangers-on are also suitably corrupt and venal.
There are two actors who play a pair of brothers, whose names
I didn't catch, and who did fine in their parts as two of the
fighters who sign on to challenge Gossett to ten fights in 24
hours.

You might want to catch this one on video, but I cannot
recommend it to anyone but a special-interest viewer, even
at matinee prices. The script and direction problems simply
swamp the acting and the result is to leave one with a
feeling of being cheated by a couple of con men, which is a
little too recursive for real life.

-- 
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
	"Well, I'm a little muddled." -- Glinda
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: weisbr@ipfp.bau-verm.uni-karlsruhe.de (Werner Weisbrich Tel 0721 608 2317)
Subject: RIP: John Anderson
Organization: IPF, University of Karlsruhe
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 09:38:39 GMT


Actor John Anderson died in Los Angeles at the age of 69.
He got known as the used-car salesman in PSYCHO.
He also played in 'Soldier Blue', 'Ride the High Country' and 
'Cotton Comes to Harlem'

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: colinm@max.carleton.ca (Colin McFadyen)
Subject: Re: Highlander (was Re: What makes a movie good)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:51:58 GMT

In <1992Aug20.122847.1@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu> bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole) writes:

>Ya wanna know the thing that really bothered me about _Highlander_?

>Well...I'll tell you anyway.  I love the movie, I really do, but why the
>hell did they have a *Scotsman* in Scotland playing an Egyptian, pretending
>to be a Spainard???                                    ^^^^^^^^
>        ^^^^^^^^

  Just look at Connery's track record.

   James Bond is supposed to be an Englishman.
   Malone (The Untouchables) was a Scots Irishman.
   In 'The Wind And The Lion' he was a Scottish Arab.
   In 'The Hunt For Red October' he was a Scottish Russian.
   
 I am sure that there are more, these are just the ones that I can think
of now.  Connery recently accepted some sort of lifetime acting achievement
award in L.A. and he actually acknowleged the fact that he has played
characters of various nationality all as a Scotsman (he seemed to enjoy it).

>Connery shoulda just been a Scotch immortal!!!  *sigh*
                             ^^^^^^
The only immortal Scotch is a fine single malt!!!
The word Scotch only applies to whiskey, not people.-- 
Colin McFadyen -- Carleton U. Computing and Communications Services
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1S 5B6                  
colinm@ccs.carleton.ca

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: AH.PBL@forsythe.stanford.edu (Mark)
Subject: Re: Why I Like Colorization
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:59:35 GMT

In article <902@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) doodles:
 Colorization is only done to a *video* version of the film, not a celluloid
 version. Most black and white films were done without TV in mind. TV has
 much less contrast than film does, the result being that many B&W films
 are difficult to see well on TV (especially night scenes). I find that
 colorization brings out the details of the scene much better so it is less
 of a strain on the eye to see. I get tired of low light scenes where all
 I can make out is a face or two (glorious B&W indeed!, more like glorious
 black).

In article <6t!nzml.jrs@netcom.com>, jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) scribbles:
 Plus, there are films that are genuinely helped by colorization - the
 first Topper movie (with Cary Grant) comes to mind. This is a great
 flick and colorization makes it more enjoyable to watch, not to mention
 that many people would just ignore it if it stayed in black and white.

   Why don't you two twits get together and watch Saturday morning
   cartoons?  Or is "Looney Tunes" too complex for you?  Until then,
   you can contribute to the "What do you call your TV remote?" thread:
   that should be very entertaining for both of you.  (Booga-booga!)

   -- Mark (who sold-short stock of "American Film Technologies" - they
            dip films in lead paint - and made a bundle.)
From: rcbi27@muvms3.bitnet (DBRUM)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: colorization killer (was Ted Turner et al)
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:40:14 GMT
Organization: Marshall University

You can kill off the odious effects of colorization, either on
TV or cassette, by simply turning down the color tuning knob on your
set.

ps: this is not a defense of colorization--I just thought some
people might not know...

--danny
-- 
	"Were his solid black square paintings really,
	as the artist claimed, simply neutral, abstract
	compositions devoid of external references and
	meanings?" ***********************************
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Ghandi (Was Re: terminator ii)
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:34:44 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


dogar@rtsg.mot.com (Haroon H. Dogar) writes:

>The actual truth is always much more complex 
>than the celluloid truth.

Not always.  Check out JFK.
-- 
   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