From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Is Death Becomes Her worth my time?
Summary: Waste of time/money
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:32:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.180820.4399@rock.concert.net>, cole@concert.net (Derrick C. Cole) writes:
> In article <1992Aug3.164054.24750@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug3.142035.25182@rock.concert.net>, cole@concert.net (Derrick C. Cole) writes:
> >> In article <1992Aug3.134059.27708@cs.wayne.edu> faa@athena.cs.wayne.edu (Felicitas A. Atabong) writes:
> >> >I am thinking of going to watch "Death Becomes Her" this evening. Could
> >> >someone tell me if it would be worth it?
> >> 
> >> I'm glad I went to the early show instead of playing full price.  But it was
> >> ok entertainment, I guess...
> >
> >What does that mean?  I'm glad I paid half price too, $3.50 saved
> >is $3.50 earned, but what has that got to do with the picture. It
> >was "ok entertainment"?  Well that's what you paid for, right?
> >They don't give dishes away any more and if you want a life
> >changing experience - don't expect it in the movies.  I enjoyed the
> >movie a lot and I wasn't the only guy in the theater laughing my
> >head off.  It was very clever, the acting was good, and the bits
> >at the end were terrific.  
> >
> 
> Maybe you should drink decaffinated coffee.

I don't drink coffee at all, and I don't often get geared up like
this, but a lot of the opinions about recent movies are starting
to grate.
> 
> All I meant was that if I'd paid full price for that waste of 2 hours, I would
> have been slightly upset.  The ONLY thing that movie had going for it was the
> over-used but good special effects (Streep and Hawn added face value, but they
> must have really needed the work.)

I disagree.  That's the problem really.  I don't think I wasted 
two hours - I enjoyed the entire movie.  Maybe in the world some
people live in there was a golden age when all movies were wonderful
and they were worth every penny you paid for them.  Unfortunately
this isn't true, and some of the films that we most revere today
were complete flops and people complained just like you did and they
only paid 25 cents to get in!

It was entertainment.  I was entertained, my wife was entertained,
everybody around us was entertained.  What more were we expecting.

My questions to people who come on the net and complain about movies
as you do are:

1)  Why do you go to the movies in the first place?  There are some
    people here who haven't like ONE movie. Give up on the medium,
    read books, watch TV, go to Kabuki, I don't know.  If I hated
    EVERY movie I went to see, I wouldn't go anymore.

2)  Why do you go to the movies you go to?  I have my own criteria
    and there are movies I'm never going to see, not even on cable.
    A lot of people here sounded as if they knew going in they
    were going to hate the movie.  I mean were you surprised that
    the movie was not to your liking?  With such impossible standards
    how could you be surprised?

3)  What ARE your standards?  Does a film fail because of an
    emotional response (you didn't laugh at the comedy, cry at
    the tragedy, run in terror from the horror) or is it the
    logical flaws?  So many people come on here and come up with
    stuff I never even noticed.  "After all the Hupmobile 3000 
    was not manufactured until 1918 and then only in blue."  I
    mean do they take notes or bring their reference manuals to
    the theater?

4)  If movies are so bad - then what is good?  I mean take a
    look at Shakespeare if you want gore, idiotic mistakes and
    lame plot lines.  How much better could movies be?

5)  And the final question - What would you regard as a GOOD
    movie - one that fulfills all the standards you set for it.


marc colten



Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies