Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:58:54 -0500
From:         Ens Alexander W Ellermann <ellerman@NORFOLK.NADN.NAVY.MIL>
Subject:      Chaplin, Aladdin, & A Few Good Men

        Well, I tried to expand my B&W experience last night with a little
Laurel & Hardy, but the local Erol's didn't have any of their movies.  Then
I tried for Buster Keaton.  Zippo.  So I went back to my old friend Charles
(Chaplin, that is) & picked up A KING IN NEW YORK.  I was disappointed.
        Sure, there were some belly laughs - mostly slapstick stuff.  Overall,
though, the movie didn't work for me because I felt sorry for Cbaplin's hap-
less king.  The Rupert Maccabee character, played a by a kid with the last
name Chaplin (nepotism in action, probably), was too annoying to be funny, as
well.  All this, combined with a heavyhanded "message" script, served to dis-
appoint this dedicated fan.  (In all fairness, though, I did at least laugh a
times, which is more than I can say for many modern "comedies".  Bad Chaplin
is better than good Chevy Chase.)
        Also saw Aladdin this weekend and, though it had its moments, was dis-
appointed by this one, too.  It's big production number just did not compare
to "Be our Guest", though Aladdin's princely entrance into the city was pretty
nifty.  The references to popular culture were amusing, as were the self-ref-
erential nods to Disney characters & cliches.  However, I suspect the movie
will suffer for it in the long run & may not do as well in re-release before an
audience unfamiliar with Arsenio Hall, the Disneyland ad campaign, etc.  As
usual, to give the movie its due, the animation was excellent as Williams did
a super job as the djinni.  But ALADDIN did not make me lose track of time.
Of course, I had to sit through THE RESCUERS DOWN UNDER a couple of weeks ago,
& it confirms that mediocre Disney is way ahead of everyone else in the field
of animation.
        Finally, someone posted a number technical errors abour BACKDRAFT sev-
eral days ago.  That posting made me start thinking about A FEW GOOD MEN's
errors.  Believe me, there were a lot of them.  To begin with, we have the
marines.  The marince corps major who works two doors down (Ph.D. renaissance
lit. U-Penn: they're not all brainwashed) did a couple of tours down in Gitmo
& came back from the movie saying the attitude down there isn't at all like
it is in the movie.  The enlisted marines there, he says, are just like our
gate guards here: normal guys doing a job, not robots who shout in your face
all the time.  The colonel, for that matter, is also way off type.  Colonels
tend to be more of the political/managerial stripe.  Kevin Bacon's character
was more like the typical marine: short hair, trim uniform, decent guy.
        On to the Cruise character.  I know they do things a little different-
ly in the judge advocate general's corps, but no LT(jg) would walk into a
LCDR's office w/a stained uniform, plop himself into a chair, & start eating.
For that matter, no LCDR would put up with it.  I know he's supposed to be a
dirtbag, but no one would do it.  No one would drive drunk, either, as he
did in the rain.  It's a quick ticket to Leavenworth & a JAG would know that.
That's pounded into us so many times...
        As is sexual harassment.  No colonel who wants to keep his job very
long would pull that "ever had sex w/a superior" garbage.
        & no self respecting female officer would put up with it.  Nor would
she put up with Cruise's overriding her commands in front of a colonel.  Well,
she also wouldn't swing her hips in uniform as much as Moore does, or wear her
hat canted over to one side, or...
        The list goes on and and on.  Time to work out.

                                At any rate, Merry Christmas, everyone!

                                                                Alex

PS  Again, please pardon the incoherence.  Relatives are coming to town.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU