From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: Sleepwalkers *SPOILERS*
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:50:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.192706.1@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu> bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole) writes:
>I have absolutly *NO* idea how you,
>or anyone, could have liked this film.  

I have no idea how you, or anyone else, could be as hypocritical as you.

>> Why not?  They need a name, don't they?
>But what do they have to do with sleep?  The fact the mother and son "sleep"
>toghter?  And how about walking?  I mean they DRIVE places!  :^)

Gosh, I don't know.  Maybe, a few centuries ago, they were found wandering
around at night, and claimed to be sleepwalking?  Maybe they mesmerized
potential victims who would come to them in a trance during night, as if
they were sleepwalking?

Why "vampire"?  Huh?  Come on... tell me.  Give me an explanation.  Why
*anything*?

>OK, great...fine...now we know why they are afraid of cats.  But we still have
>no idea why cats are the only thing that can hurt them!  OK, fine...vampires...
>garlic.  No problem.  But cats?  You think a yard full of kittys is ominous?
>It made the whole theater chuckle!

Why wooden stakes, why wolfsbane, why running water, why *anything*?  And
given the fact that they were "felinoid," why *not* cats?  It's as good a
thing as anything else.  Would you have preferred, say, bats?  Or rats?  Or
dogs?  Or how about venus flytraps?  Or tiny, invisible-to-the-naked-eye
bacteria?

>Do they also explain why it can be stopped by the virgin closing her mouth?

Plot device.  Someone biting your neck is going to rip a goodly chunk of it
out.  Yet that doesn't seem to stop vampire movies.  Or are you only
attacking this because you, personally, didn't like it, and, therefore, want
to find holes that, quite frankly, aren't *really* there?  This movie was no
more full of holes than 99% of the rest of the horror films I've seen; it
was actually pretty good in that respect.

>No, he didn't miss it.  It was just stupid.  It's fine and dandy for unicorn 
>myths, but modern gore/horror?  Does he check the privates of all women he
>wants to "feed" on?  Is he afraid of Aids?

Jesus.  You are an idiot.  I was going to make further comments on your
idiotic remarks, but you've already decided.  Pretty bright of you.

>> As the mother remarked, they hadn't seen any other sleepwalkers
>> (even though she wouldn't admit that they were the last).  
>Hmmmmm, another dangling, unexplained plot line.  You seem to be a glutton!
>
>> More, the sleepwalkers seemed to have had a presence in ancient Egypt 
>> (you know, the place where cats were considered sacred, where one of the 
>> gods had a cat's head, where the royal families were incredibly incestuous?).
>The cats were sacred because they were a force of *good* and *luck*, so why 
>are these evil/cat/demon/vampire creature things evil?
> 
>> What symbol?  That cats are the natural enemies of the sleepwalkers.  I
>> think that's a good reason for them to be frightened of them.
>But WHY?????
> 
>>>The problem is that real cats are much less scary than the
>>>hissing demonic felines portrayed in the movie poster. 
>> Never been attacked by an angry cat, I see.
>The cats in the movie looked more like Tooncis, than Sher Khan!
>And the attacked like the "killer bunny" from _The Holy Grail_!
> 
>> Gosh.  You're *right*!  There is *never* any corny dialogue between
>> teenagers when they've just met and are trying to make a favorable
>> impression for the other!
>Are you trying to say you found the acting and dialogue in this movie 
>believeable???  I'm impressed!  That's quite a suspension of disbelief
>you've got there!!!
> 
>> Once again, it is mentioned, at the beginning of the film, that the
>> sleepwalkers are shapeshifters, and the probably source of the vampire
>> legend.  But since it was written, I guess you didn't see it.
>*I* read the beginning thing, and it made as little sense to me as it did 
>to the original poster.  The "sleepwalkers" had all of these ridiculous
>powers, and then never used them when the would have helped! 
> 
>>>Make an unusual noise, however, and you're likely to be noticed anyway.)
>than how is it that the "dim" son could yell at the cat to be quit, with out
>the obligitory-black-guy-that-buys-it hearing?
> 
>> A movie is *so* much better when they explain *EVERYTHING*.  Can't have 
>> the audience thinking, you know.
>You were actually *thinking* during this film?  It had dulled my brain cells
>to the point were *I* felt I was sleepwalking.  I just wish my nocturnal
>rambles had taken me out of the theater.
> 
>> Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
>Gee, I wonder why?
>
>The only reason I attended this dreadful film, and sat through the entire thing
>is that I am a movie reviewer, and boy...am I gonna have a ball trashing this
>one!  It wins the award of *worst* film I have ever seen in a theater.  And
>frankly, I'm amazed that anyone over the age of 16 could find a shread of
>enjoyment out of it!
>
>Greg Bole                           Indiana Jones - "Professor of Archeology,
>bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu        expert on the occult, and how does one 
>                                    say it?  Obtainer of rare antiquities."
>                                         _Raiders of the Lost Ark_


-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "One form to rule them all, one form to find them, one
sef@kithrup.COM  |  form to bring them all and in the darkness rewrite the
-----------------+  hell out of them" -- sendmail ruleset 3 comment from DEC.
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.