HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: leeper@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Mark R. Leeper)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: "THUNDERHEART"
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:14:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

I am reminded in this discussion a little of my experience with the TV
series MASH.  Initially I think I liked the series.  Particularly since
my own politics are to the left of center, and so were those of the TV
series.  Eventually, however, it started to grate on me that the people
with a liberal political philosophy were all shown to be intelligent,
well-balanced, caring people.  The people who represented a more
conservative point of view were just about always weasels or in some
cases paranoid psychotics.  It was clear the writers did not want to
take any chances that you might agree with the "wrong" side.  They were
in a not very subtle way stacking the deck to make their political
viewpoint seem like the only one that any reasonable person could
espouse.  Now I knew some people who were very intelligent, who had
good reasons for believing what they did, and who happened to be a good
deal to the right of me on the political spectrum.  Not one
level-headed person on MASH represented their point of view.  The
producers just seemed afraid that to show someone both reasonable and
right-wing would betray their cause.  They appeared to have no faith in
the strength of their own arguments.  This did not make me a
right-winger, by any means, but it certainly gave me one more good
reason to re-evaluate my own opinions and whom in my political camp am
I really glad is there.

Similarly in THUNDERHEART Apted paints his issues in stark blacks and
whites.  As I pointed out in my review, he really stacks the deck for
one side and against the other.  Had he put in one sincere, honest
person on the side of the assimilationists it would have been a much
more powerful film.  If he had given just one or two reasonable
arguments for the assimilationists' side this could have been a good
film.  As it is he sidestepped the issues entirely and turned it into a
purely good guys against bad guys film.  Now the fact that somebody
close to the situation says that it really is a good guys against bad
guys situation is not going to convince me this is a better film.  I
may side with the ARM, but I am not going to take Apted's word that the
other side is made entirely of killers and bullies, which is the way he
portrayed them.

				Mark Leeper
				...att!mtgzy!leeper
				(908)957-5619
From: leeper@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Mark R. Leeper)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: THUNDERHEART
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:08:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr13.021653.21649@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> gmcmanus@reepicheep.gcn.uoknor.edu (Gary McManus) writes:
> In article <1992Apr12.013534.7131@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> leeper@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Mark R. Leeper) writes:
> >In article <1992Apr10.203932.13764@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> gmcmanus@reepicheep.gcn.uoknor.edu (Gary McManus) writes:

> >No it doesn't.  There is nothing magical about what goes on on the
> >screen in GODFATHER.  It is just people dropping water on a baby.
> >There is nothing in that that requires a belief in the supernatural.
> 
> C'mon.  Of course I realize that there is nothing magical about a 
> baptism.  But to the indians, the intent of the baptism would be 
> the same as their ghost dancing is to us, magical.  Can you honestly
> say that they don't have visions.  

My interpretation of the film is that true visions are very rare.
The images of the ghost dancing Indians at the start of the film was
not a vision but a paranormal ghost phenomenon.  When Kilmer has a
real Vision, that is a major event.

> >the implication that a man has turned himself into a deer.

> In
> I don't think they were trying to make that implication.  When the
> female character said that about him, I kinda thought she was just
> messing with him.

At the end of the badger scene Jimmy Looks Twice disappears and in
the back of the scene there is suddenly a deer jumping over a fence.
This in a place where it would be uncommon normally for a deer to
be.  Even before anyone mentions shape-changing I assumed that was
the point of that scene.  Then later the teacher, who I don't think
knows about the incident, says that Jimmy can turn himself into a
deer.  That is a pretty strong indication to me.

Speaking of the badger scene I liked the credit at the end for the
"badger puppet."  The quote that comes to mind is "Badgers?  What
badgers?  We don't need no stinkin' badgers."  (Actually, in case it
wasn't obvious, that is a joke.  Not a comment on the film.)

				Mark Leeper
				...att!mtgzy!leeper
				(908)957-5619
From: a481@mindlink.bc.ca (J.D. Frazer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: DUNE...A minor classic?
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:28:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: mindlink.11447
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> Jim Mann writes:
> 
> Msg-ID: <2234@transfer.stratus.com>
> Posted: 15 Apr 92 16:35:52 GMT
> 
> In article <1992Apr15.130955.3023@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
> dnadams@isis.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) writes:
> > napalm@next07wor.wam.umd.edu (Warren L. Mohn) writes:
> >  >This piece of garbage passed off as science fiction is an insult
> >  >to everyone who saw it.
> >
> > Wrong...  I know a lot of people who thought it was great.
> 
> Including Harlan Ellison (who knows quite a bit about both film and
> SF) who thought it was one of the best SF movies ever made.

I didn't like the film, but that's because I didn't feel it did justice to
Frank Herbert's story. The book's main strength was the terrific amount of
character depth, and to a lesser degree, the setting. I was enthralled from
page one.

I really hated the movie's use of "weirding modules", a contrived device that
bypassed the story's premise that the Atreides had trained a small group of
troopers to being within a hair as good as the Sardaukar, which is the _real_
reason why the Emperor wanted House Atreides down the tubes.

The movie was _not_ a faithful adaptation of the book. My major beef.

I'll still watch it if it comes on tv, though. There's no doubting that the
film is VERY pretty.

--
J.D. Frazer, a481@mindlink.bc.ca, (Vancouver, B.C., Canada)
        Discordian Games * We Engineer New Realities!
              "Oh, damn. I missed the VTOL."
From: jordan@cs.tulane.edu (Misti Jordan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Will the Real Alan Hale stand up (was: The Sea Hawk questions)
Date: 8 Apr 92 06:40:36 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-24496]: sinbad


Sorry, I just read a little further down the list and saw where someone
else had already mentioned the fact that he was the Skipper...

Misti
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan)
Subject: Re: T2 - Why didn't Sarah die???
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 12:33:05 GMT


In light of the recent T2 discussion, I whipped out my limited edition
CAV laserdisc boxed set of T2 and watched parts of it again.

In article <53318@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
>In article <920401#119#170743:nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu> nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu writes:
>
>>BTW, Arnold's Terminator clearly identifies himself in the beginning
>>of the film as a Cyberdyne Systems Model T-101 - the same as the robot
>>in the first film.
>
>Um, I believed he identified himself as a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101.  There's
>no 'T' in it.

Confirmed. Ah-nold uses no 'T' when he rattles off his make and model.

In the scene where he almost kills Sarah, he asks her not once but THREE
times to call John. The impaler comes out and pins her shoulder to the
wall. T1000 says "Call to John." Sarah says "No." T1000 twists impaler,
says "I know this hurts - call to John now." Sarah whimpers. With his
right index finger, T1000 makes another impaler thingee and points it
right at Sarah's head. He again orders her to call to John. She looks
him right in the eye and says "Fuck you." After a suitable dramatic
pause, Ah-nold whangs T1000 in half with a metal rod. T1000 disengages
from Sarah and goes after Ah-nold. Although we don't see it, Sarah
obviously scurries away.

Someone speculated that T1000 needed to sample Sarah's voice for some
reason, and stated that T1000 called to John in the same gravelly
guttural voice that Sarah used when she said "Fuck you." This is
incorrect - the voice T1000 eventually calls John with is bright and
clear.

The only logical explanation for T1000's hesitation in killing Sarah is
that it learned from its mistake when taking over John's foster mother
and didn't want to risk detection again by some similar slip-up, and
since it had the real thing handy, it decided to attempt to use her.
From: maria@aisws5.cern.ch (maria varela)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: I've got JUNGLE FEVER...She's got JUNGLE FEVER...
Date: 8 Apr 92 09:42:36 GMT
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Reasearch

Hello everybody!

Mr. Lee is a talented filmmaker: I agree. Mr. Lee is an intelligent filmmaker: I agree

Though... JUNGLE FEVER, I was wondering after watching it: would the image of black couples/friendship/talking/sex/love be so exagerate and sterotyped to blacks as the one of the american-italian family was to me?

 
Maria
Xref: sparky rec.arts.movies:13317 rec.games.trivia:1766
From: hamel@primate.wisc.edu (Ray Hamel)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,rec.games.trivia
Subject: Movie character identification
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:10:11 GMT
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center


	Can anyone identify the movie that features a character
named Dr. Arthur Barnhouse?  Send your answers to hamel@primate.wisc.edu.
Thanks.

Ray Hamel
University of Wisconsin
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor)
Subject: Re: Silence of the Lambs
Reply-To: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu
Organization: Oregon State University - Univ. Computing Services
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 07:38:04 GMT

Lisa Nyman writes
>In article <1992Apr3.030353.27314@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>  
sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Stelter) writes:
>>
>Spoilers ahoy
>
>
>>Now what *would* have been spooky is if Lecter's escape was kept
>>secret from us and Starling, until the end..when we suddenly see
>>him calling from a pay phone...That would provide the element of
>>surprise, at least.
>
>[...]we know Lecter is out there
>and just wait for something to happen (though it really didn't)...
>
I think Harris had a great character left over from RD, and didn't want to  
see him go to waste. He shoe-horned him into SotL and let him escape for the  
sequel.

Hannibal is a fun character.  The contrast and sparring between him, Will  
Graham, and Starling are the highlights of both movies.  The jail scenes are  
critical to understanding the FBI agents; Harris uses Lector as his foil to  
flesh out the characters.  After the visit we know that Graham works by  
slipping into the thought processes of his prey, that he's repulsed by it,  
and that he's slipping over the edge.  After Starling's visit we know she's  
relentless, clever but not brilliant, and something of what makes her tick.  

I don't begrudge Harris Lector's escape.  It was a fine piece of plotting  
that stood on its own, outside the larger scope of the movie.  Lector  
appearing at the end, free, with no other explaination? bleah.

BTW, in many ways I like Cox's Lector more than Hopkin's Lector.  Hopkins  
was over the top a little too often.  Cox's Lector kept me more off balance.   
He wasn't as obviously threatening; you picked that up only after you  
watched him for a while. The gleam in his eye when Graham offered to let him  
look at the grisly pictures of a murder scene.  The sly way he tried to  
weasle Graham's home address.  Schmoozing the secretary on the phone.   
Hopkins played the menance angle a little too strongly.  Lector is evil, but  
he's charming too.  (he even has a religious bent.)

--
Don McGregor             | California danger signs: you own more pairs of 
mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu| shorts than you do long pants.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster)
Subject: Re: Buckaroo Banzai (was Darkman - Crap)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:57:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY

In article <1992Apr13.210121.14611@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> dgg@llcn2.jhuapl.edu (Dave Gawron) writes:
>
>I've got the two issue series and found it without much effort.  Just go to
>any good sized comic shop and ask if they have a copy.  That's how I bought
>mine.  You'll find them eventually!  An alternative is to scan through bargin
>bins (although this really taxes one's patience) where I've seen several
>copies.
>
>What I have had trouble finding is the single book edition of the two book
>series.  Yes, that's right, there is a Buckaroo Banzai comic book which
>combines the two book series.  It's slightly different and includes several
>pages of pictures from the movie.  My friend has a copy and I'd like to get
>one also.
>
>Now, can anyone tell me where I can get other Buckaroo Banzai movie goodies?


Do you have the novel? (Pocket Books, 1984)


-- 
_______________________________Mike Schuster________________________________
NY Public Access UNIX: schuster@panix.com        | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM
The Portal (R) System: schuster@cup.portal.com   | MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
From: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Subject: REVIEW: QUIET KILLER
Reply-To: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Organization: ?
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:15:39 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01329
Keywords: author=K.Johnson

                               QUIET KILLER
                       A film review by Ken Johnson
                        Copyright 1992 Ken Johnson

100 min., not rated, Drama, 1992
Director: Sheldon Larry
Cast: Kate Jackson, Al Waxman, Jeffrey Nordling, Chip Zien,
      Barbara Williams, David Hewlett, Jerry Orbach, Howard Hesseman,
      Kathleen Robertson

     Kathleen Robertson comes down with what she thinks is just a cold.
She flies into New York City on a plane.  While on the flight she gets
really sick and when the plane lands Congressman Hesseman brings her to
her house.  Soon after, she dies.  A hospital does an autopsy on
Robertson's body.  Kate Jackson, a doctor at the hospital, finds out
that Robertson died of the pneumonic (bubonic) plague.  Jackson has to
try to stop the spread of the disease before it wipes out the population
of New York City.

     QUIET KILLER is a television film that aired on TV a few weeks ago.
I feel that it is a very good film, and worth mentioning.  It will
probably show up on repeats in a year to two years, or might show up on
video cassette.  I suggest that if you find this film, you see it.  I
give QUIET KILLER a four on a scale of zero to five.  Because this film
was made for television it doesn't contain anything objectionable.

     QUIET KILLER is based on the book THE BLACK DEATH by Gweneth
Cravens and John C. Marr, which I had never heard of before I saw this
film.  The way that the title of the film is done I think is creative.
Germ cells that are supposed to look like the pneumonic plague cells are
moving  inside the letters in the words of the title.  The acting in the
film, I feel, is quite good.

     The reason that I watched this film initially was because Howard
Hesseman starred in it.  I have been a fan of Howard since he did show
"WKRP in Cincinnati."  This is not Howard's best film.  I feel that his
best film was either the television film THE DIAMOND TRAP or POLICE
ACADEMY 2: THEIR FIRST ASSIGNMENT.  In this movie, like most of the
current films Howard has been in, he isn't on the screen very much.    I
really didn't expect this film to be very good because I felt, from the
write-ups on it, that it was going to be boring.  Instead it was a very
suspenseful film that is well written.  The plot doesn't let down at all
during the film which means the film never gets boring.  

Ken J.
blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu
From: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
Subject: REVIEW: NEWSIES
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01311
Keywords: author=K.Johnson
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:46:43 GMT
Reply-To: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Organization: ?


                                 NEWSIES
                      A film review by Ken Johnson
                       Copyright 1992 Ken Johnson

125 min., PG, Musical/Comedy, 1992
Director: Kenny Ortega
Cast: Christian Bale, David Moscow, Luke Edwards, Max Casella,
      Marty Belafsky, Arvie Lowe, Jr., Aaron Lohr, Trey Parker,
      Gabriel Damon, Robert Duvall, Bill Pullman, Ann-Margaret,
      Michael Lerner

     In 1899 in New York City, newspaper publisher Robert Duvall decides
to raise the cost of his newspapers to the "newsies," the people who
stand on street corners selling the papers.  The "newsies" won't be able
to survive with the new price.  Christian Bale, the leader of the
"newsies" with the help of smart David Moscow and newspaper writer Bill
Pullman leads a strike of the "newsies" until the price is brought back
down.

     NEWSIES is a very good film in the grand Disney film tradition.
Definitely one to bring your kids to, or yourself if you don't have any
kids.  This is one film that I recommend that you definitely don't miss.
On a scale of zero to five, I give NEWSIES a five.  NEWSIES is rated PG
for violence.

     I saw NEWSIES in a sneak preview at one of my local theaters.  It
is being released to theaters everywhere on April 10.  NEWSIES is the
latest film by the Walt Disney Studios.  The music is written by Alan
Menken, who most recently did Disney's THE BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (with
Howard Ashman), and the lyrics were written by Jack Feldman.  The music
for NEWSIES is very good.  The choreography for this film was done by
Kenny Ortega (who also directed the film), and he seems to have done a
very good job.  It reminds me of all those old musicals where many
people are on the screen dancing and singing.

     Like in most Disney films, the villains are totally evil and the
heros are totally good.  In NEWSIES, the villains are Robert Duvall, the
newspaper publisher, Michael Lerner, the newspaper distributor, and the
person who runs the local juvenile detention center.  The heros of the
film are Christian Bale, the leader of the "newsies," David Moscow, his
friend and fellow "newsie," and newspaper writer Bill Pullman.

     The performances in NEWSIES were great, but the person that I felt
was the best actor/actress in the film was Michael Lerner.   His
character was a real weasel (in fact the "newsies" have nicknamed his
character Weasel), always looking out for himself first and nobody else
second.

Ken J.
blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu
From: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
Subject: REVIEW: THE STORY OF BOYS AND GIRLS
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01319
Keywords: author=K.Johnson
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:29:18 GMT
Reply-To: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Organization: ?


                       THE STORY OF BOYS AND GIRLS
                          "A Feast for Lovers"
                      A film review by Ken Johnson
                       Copyright 1992 Ken Johnson

90 min., not rated, Comedy/Drama/Romance, 1991, In Italian with
English subtitles
Director: Pupi Avati
Cast: Davide Bechini, Lucrenzia Lante, Della Rovere

     In Italy a man and a woman are preparing to get married.  The
woman's family is very rich and the man's family is quite poor.   This
film shows the two families preparing for the wedding.  The wedding is
to be held at the woman's house and just about everything that could go
wrong does.

     I generally don't like foreign films at all.  This film is rather
good, although not nearly as good as MY MOTHER'S CASTLE.  It is comical,
yet dramatic at the same time.  I would recommend, if this film comes to
a theater close to you, that you go for not higher than a matinee price.
People who tend to like foreign films should be sure to see this film.
It will be just as good on video, if it comes to video, for it gains
nothing from being shown on a big screen.  On a scale of zero to five, I
give THE STORY OF BOYS AND GIRLS a three.  THE STORY OF BOYS AND GIRLS
is not rated, but contains adult situations.

     This film will not be liked by all audiences.  It requires a person
who is willing to sit down and think while watching.  It also requires a
person with an open mind.  Someone who just likes to go to films where
no thought is involved, or who tends not to like any films other than
comedies, should not go to see this film, because there is not enough
comedy in the film to satisfy you.

     The acting is average.  I have seen some films where the acting is
better, but the acting is not horrible.  There is no actor/actress that
really stands out with an exceptional performance, on the other hand, no
actor/actress does a really poor job either.  The story though, is
original.  The parents of the bride are fighting with each other because
the bride's mother's husband has been having an affair with another
woman.  One of the brides brothers is a real show-off.  The groom's
parents aren't sure of the marriage, because they really can't afford
it.  To add to the confusion, the married man who rents the downstairs
rooms in the bride's house shows up with a mysterious female.

Ken J.
blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu
From: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
Subject: REVIEW: MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01328
Keywords: author=K.Johnson
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:15:15 GMT
Reply-To: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Organization: ?


                           MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO
                       A film review by Ken Johnson
                        Copyright 1992 Ken Johnson

102 min., R, Drama, 1991
Director: Gus Van Sant
Cast: River Phoenix, Keanu Reeves, James Russo, William Richert,
      Rodney Harvey, Michael Parker, Flea, Chiara Saselli, Udo Kier

     River Phoenix is a narcoleptic (a disorder in the brain that causes
the person to go into a temporary coma-like state at times) street
hustler.  River Phoenix decides to try to find his mother, who he hasn't
seen for years.  He goes on the journey with his friend Keanu Reeves,
who is the son of the mayor.  Along the way the two have a problem
trying to locate River Phoenix's mother because she moved around a lot.
Also along the way they are  followed, it seems, by gay Udo Kier.

     I saw MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO several weeks ago and am just getting
around to writing my review on it.  I have found out that it is coming
to video around April 22 and would like to discourage people from
wasting their money renting this film.  I found both the story and the
acting to be pitiful.  By the end I hated River Phoenix's character and
hoped that he never met his mother just because I wasted my time sitting
though the film.  MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO is rated R for explicit language,
adult situations, and female nudity.  On a scale of zero to five, I give
MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO a one.

     The only redeeming quality that this film has, and the only reason
this film even received a one, is the cinematography -- especially the
Idaho sequences.  Those I found to be impressive to watch, but,
unfortunately that wonderfulness will be lost on a small screen.  So, if
you must watch this film, which I highly don't recommend, then watch it
in a theater, but in a relatively cheap theater so you don't waste too
much of your money.  The acting, I found, in this film was crude.  It
looked like the actors called in the performances instead of really
being there.  I felt no sympathy for any of the people in the film, not
a bit.

Ken J.
blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu