HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sdt8s@curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU (Stephen Daniel Tilson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: "1492"
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:47:02 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Andrew.Wilson@cm.cf.ac.uk  writes:
> 
> >Depardieu is good in _1492_, but I didn't care for the way the character was
> >written, and a French Colombus was a little distracting.  (And he was
> >occasionaly hard to understand)  But as a big fan, I think you will be happy
> >with his performance.
> 
> Maybe we should have had an American Colombus?
> 
> >Greg Bole                                "What kind of mother would I be if I
> >bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu              didn't give my girls tits...tips?"
>  
> Andre de-Sarcarstique.

Better yet, an Italian-Portuguese-Spanish one.

Steve
--
D.A.M.: Mothers Against Dyslexia
Steve's address is no longer sdt8s@poe.acc.virginia.edu;
I got booted to a new machine: sdt8s@curry.edschool.virginia.edu.
I'm working on a new .sig but not as we speak.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:21:47 -0400 
From: "Jonathan R. Ferro" <jf41+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

rabbi@kiwi.gen.nz (Rabbi Bajzheet) writes:

> I finally managed to see this movie last night. Wow! It's got to be
> one of the best films I've ever seen. What other movies/plays/whatever
> has Tom Stoppard done?

He has about 50 entries in the US Library of Congress, not including
co-writing the screenplay to the Terry Gilliam movie "Brazil".

> What was the coin flipping thing about? Was it just to demonstrate
> that they weren't really in the real world? Why all the stuff aout
> Rosencrantz discovring basic physical laws all the time?

Well that's the basic question, isn't it?  Do physical laws work
"backstage" or not?  Should Newton's laws of motion be considered more
"basic" than laws of probability?  Does _anything_ really work if anyone
other that Rosencrantz is looking at it?  And who does this playwright
think he is, making them wander all over the castle until the third time
they cross the same ballroom when, suddenly, the entire castle comes to
them?  Rhetoric!  One point!  :)

-- Jon Ferro               Einsprachigkeit ist heilbar
From: arachne@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Dune (The Movie)
Summary: US TV release
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:35:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: cruzio.4428
Reply-To: arachne@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us

In article <Bvsvyz.D3I@brunel.ac.uk>, ma90alb@brunel.ac.uk (Ashley L Brandwood) writes:
> Please can someone tell me if the rumor that there is a directors cut 
> (approximately 4 hours long) is true, and is it is, is it available on
> 16 or 35 mm celluloid .
> 
> Thanx
> 
> 
> Ashley Brandwood
> 
> Brunel University Film Society
> 
> ma90alb@brunel.ac.uk
> xxsubfs@brunel.ac.uk


There was a TV cut with aditional footage. The "cheshire" princess in the prologe was replaced with a horrible kiddie book-and-record history of Herbert's 
universe. On the up side, Gurney Halleck (Patrick Stewart) gets expanded - does
one song, and gets a few flowery quotes which were so much a part of the character, and so missing in the theatrical release. More material is not what this film
needed. What it needed was a more judicious condesation of the plot. "hunt for
red october" in no way reflected all that was ging on in the book, but through
careful culling, they pulled a consistant thread from the plot, to give a coher-
ent redition of book's primary themes. So too should have "Dune". I don't 
believe that "Dune" is an impossible undertaking (as many have said), rather,
I think that Lynch got bogged down in the details of the setting. Also, it is
difficult to adapt such a popular classic without disappointing someone. For me
a film must stand on it's own - independent of its source. If someone wanted
to do the bible, portraying Christ as a Cuisinart on rollerskates, I wouldn't bat an eye at the notion that rollerskates weren't period. As long as internal
logic is consistant (and itthat there seems to be some new twist on the story), I
would say - let 'er roll!
Jeffery Linden Sargent
arachne@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: * Movie Goofs list Candidates
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:54:14 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system


        One addition to the Movie goofs list would have to include Terminator 
2. Video watchdog compiled a very interesting assessment of the dates used in 
the film, (which I won't post here, as it's a bit long) but one arrangement 
of shots provides an indication.

        This is the sequence in question: The terminator and the kid go up to 
a pay phone to let the kid's foster parents know he's OK. However, the BAD 
Terminator's there, shoving his knife-arm into dad's mouth, and.. well, we 
know this scene, don't we?
        CUT to the insane asylum, where the cops are telling Linda hamilton 
that the GOOD terminator-- the onein the photos of the police station 
shootout in the first film-- has just killed the foster parents.
        CUT to the Terminator and the kid at the pay phone, talking.

        Didja notice? The last sequence described would normally indicate 
that they'd been standing there only a few seconds. Instead, the sequence of 
shots would have to require that the parents' bodiesbe discovered, the police 
investigate, AND travel to the asylum-- all in that short timespan.

        By the way, the photos of Arnold in the police station that are shown 
to Linda Hamilton show a continuity error-- Arnold's hair is in a brush-cut. 
In the original film, Arnold's hair is longish.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
Servo: "Dianetics, by L. Ron Hubbard."
Joel:  "Why is my life messed up? Page 74."
Servo: "When will this movie end? Page 155."
Crow:  "How much money can we get out of Tom Cruise? Page 85."

                                       "Mystery Science Theater 3000,"
                                       during a volcano scene in
From: sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Stelter)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: WORST SEQUEL????
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:50:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bw6Ezr.ACI
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

joneil@heretix.East.Sun.COM (JJOOJJOOJJOOJJOOJJO) writes:

>So which movies do you guys consider the WORST SEQUEL to a hit movie???

>i think       --ROBOCOP really sucked rocks

I'm assuming here you mean "Robocop 2" and not the original.  And yes, you
are correct.

>                 --ALIEN ^ 3 blew chunks

Also correct.

>                 --PREATOR 2 was a real disappointment

I personally liked the sequel better than the original, although I can see
why not everyone would agree with this sentiment.  I preferred "Predator 2"
because it does what I feel a sequel is supposed to do: namely, expand on
the concept originated in the previous film.  We get to see more of how the
Predator operates and thinks, we get to see some different Predatortech
gizmos, and we get a few hints as to what Predator psychology and society
is like.  

But my vote for worst sequel has to be "Big Top Pee-Wee."


                                        --Steve Stelter
                                          sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From: kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re:  The Last of the Mohicans
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:10:08 GMT
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University

In article <13097@cis.rand.org> kight@cis.rand.org writes:
>I read on another newsgroup that the soundtrack was to be released on
>September 29 but I've not seen it in any of the record stores I've been in
>lately.  Anyone know if it's out yet?

Funny you should ask, as I am listening to it right now. Excellent soundtrack,
except that it is not in cronological order.

Michael

-- 
Michael Kaufman | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on
 kaufman        | fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in
  @eecs.nwu.edu | the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be
                | lost in time - like tears in rain. Time to die.     Roy Batty 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: ltw@titan.ucc.umass.edu (LEE T WARNER)
Subject: Re: WORST SEQUEL????
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:51:59 GMT

In article <1bj62iINN7n7@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> joneil@heretix.East.Sun.COM writes:
>So which movies do you guys consider the WORST SEQUEL to a hit movie???
>
>i think       --ROBOCOP really sucked rocks
>                 --ALIEN ^ 3 blew chunks
>                 --PREATOR 2 was a real disappointment
>
>john
>
>
>



ALL OF THE ABOVE
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: Matt Garretson
Subject: Re: Scorsese's "The Age of Innocence"
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:10:53 GMT

I sure hope this film comes out eventually. I was an extra in a few scenes, and
if I don't get a chance to see myself on the big screen, I'll just freak! Oh,
well- it was fun anway.
--
Matt Garretson                    :-)                 temporarily kaminl@rpi.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: andrew@RedBrick.COM (Andrew Weiss)
Subject: Movie Goofs
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:14:48 GMT

   In the movie City Slickers, at the end they are supposedly arriving at some airport in N.Y.
But this scene actually shows them arriving at the Bradley International Terminal at LAX. I
saw this movie in LA, and the audience vocally reacted to this. The movie then
re-enforced this gaffe by showing Billy Crystal et. al. driving over the George Washington
Bridge towards N.J.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
From: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Subject: REVIEW: WISECRACKS
Reply-To: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Organization: ?
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:17:56 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01565
Keywords: author=K.Johnson

                                WISECRACKS
                       A film review by Ken Johnson
                        Copyright 1992 Ken Johnson

100 min., R, Stand-Up/Documentary, 1991
Director: Gail Singer
Cast: Whoopi Goldberg, Sandra Shamas, Phillis Dillar, Jenny Lecoat,
      Carol Burnette, Pam Stone, Carrie Snow, Joy Behar,
      Ellen DeGeneres, Maxine Lapidus, Jenny Jones, Emily Levine,
      Robin Tyler, Paula Poundstone, Maria Callous, JoAnne Astrow,
      Deborah Theaker, Kim Wayans, The Alexander Sisters,
      The Clichettes, Faking it Three, Dorothy Hart, Geri Jewell,
      Carol Channing, Lucille Ball

     This film is a combination of stand-up comedy acts and a
documentary about stand-up comediennes and how they do what they do.

     I didn't think much of WISECRACKS at all.  It was boring and not
that well put together.  I suggest that, unless you are interested in
becoming a stand-up comic, you skip this film.  On a scale of zero to
five, I give WISECRACKS a one.  WISECRACKS is rated R for explicit
language, adult situations, and adult humor.

     One of the problems with this film, at least in my area, was that
it was marketed as a stand-up comedy movie.  Only briefly did it hint
that it was a documentary.  The film is not a stand-up movie, and those
going to it expecting that will be sorely disappointed.  It is mostly a
documentary on stand-up comedy with some acts mixed in to try and keep
your interest up.

     Another thing that really hit me about the film is that the film
would have one of the comediennes explaining her act, but then you
wouldn't see any of her stand-up until about half an hour later, or just
the opposite, you would see the act and then about half an hour later
you would here an explanation of the act.  I think that the film would
have flowed much more smoothly if they had the person explain about
their act, or about stand-up in general, as some did, and then show the
person at work.  For some of the acts, I don't think that I ever saw the
comedienne give a talk (but maybe I was dozing off through that part).

     Many of the people talking repeated what earlier people had already
said, but using different words thus making the film repetitive.  Also,
just when some of the acts were starting to get funny they would be cut
off and the ending was never shown.  Some were sprinkled out, so that
over a period of fifteen minutes an entire segment was shown in little
pieces.

-------
Ken Johnson
blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
From: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Subject: REVIEW: DANGER ISLAND
Reply-To: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Organization: ?
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:18:26 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01566
Keywords: author=K.Johnson

                               DANGER ISLAND
                       A film review by Ken Johnson
                        Copyright 1992 Ken Johnson

97 min., not rated, Suspense/Action, 1992, Made-for-television
Director: Tommy Lee Wallace
Cast: Lisa Banes, Richard Beymer, Maria Celedonio, Gary Graham,   
      Kathy Ireland, Joe Lara, Christopher Pettiet, Beth Toussaint,
      Eddie Valez, Nikki Cox, June Lockhart, Gina Malina Aurio

     Several people are stranded on a tropical island after the private
plane they were in crash-landed in the ocean.  The island, which seems
uninhabited, turns out not to be a vacation in paradise.  Something in
the ocean attacks two of the people, which one of disappears soon after,
and the other one gets physical deformities.  The rest of the people
travel through the island trying to find help, unaware of the strange
things that are going on around them.

     DANGER ISLAND, which was made for the NBC television network, is
exceptionally good, especially for a television film.  I hope that it
gets released on video cassette, because it would allow people who
missed it when it was aired to see it.  On a scale of zero to five, I
give DANGER ISLAND a five.

     DANGER ISLAND is very well written and seems to transcend its
television roots.  The story is interesting as well as suspenseful.  The
characters are well developed and are ones that found myself wanting to
know more about.  The special effects are very well done.  The locations
picked for the filming look great.  Interestingly enough, the film
leaves itself open for a sequel.  Whether this was intended or not I
don't know.  If handled correctly, a good sequel could be made.

     I think that this is one of the best television films that I have
ever seen.  The budget for the film seemed to be larger than most
television films.  The major problem with most television films is that
they are either one of the many "disease of the week" films, which I, at
least, am getting sick of, or the film has a good idea, but it seems
that a talented writer couldn't be found that would fit in the budget.
This isn't a "disease of the week" film (thank God!) and the writer did
a great job (meaning he probably won't be working for television for
very much longer).

--------
Ken Johnson
blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu
From: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
Subject: REVIEW: THE DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01568
Keywords: author=K.Johnson
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:01:06 GMT
Reply-To: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Organization: ?


                       THE DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE
                       A film review by Ken Johnson
                        Copyright 1992 Ken Johnson

105 min., R, Mystery, 1991, In French (?) with English subtitles
Director: Krzysztof Kieslowski
Cast: Irene Jacob, Phillippe Voltar, Sandrine Dumas,
      Aleksander Bardini, Louis Duereux, Claude Duneton,
      Halina Gryglaszewska, Kalina Jedrusik

     In Poland, Veronika (Irene Jacob), who is a singer, has feelings
that she has a counterpart.  In France, Veronique (also Irene Jacob),
gets premonitions that something is going to happen to her.  She starts
receiving strange mail from an unknown person and tries to figure out
what it all means.

     I found THE DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE to be a great movie, and wish
that I could have gone back to see it again, but I saw it on the last
day it was being shown.  I highly recommend this film, I think that you
will probably enjoy it.  This film has been released on video cassette.
However, many video stores may probably not get this film (like mine
didn't).  If your video store has gotten the film, there is no real need
to go see it in the theater, unless you prefer to see films in the
theater.  On a scale of zero to five, I give THE DOUBLE LIFE OF
VERONIQUE a five.  THE DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE is rated R for female
nudity, adult situations, and explicit language.

     All of the actors/actresses do a great job.  Irene Jacob, who won
the Best Actress Award at the Cannes Film Festival, is excellent, as
well as being extremely beautiful.  Veronika's aunt and Veronique's
father were also both great.  A nice thing about the film is that the
two main characters (Veronika and Veronique) are shown separately.  At
only one brief time are the two shown almost together, and that keeps
the film from getting confusing.  

     This film is definitely not for mainstream audiences.  I feel that
those who don't ever venture to their local art theater will most likely
find this film to be a waste of time.  Those who tend to enjoy
imports/alternative cinema will most likely be entranced by the film,
although you may have to see the film twice for everything to make
sense.

     The idea behind the film is interesting, but I don't think that it
is a new idea.  The film is well written.  Well, I should say that the
subtitles are well written (I don't understand the language spoken so I
don't know what the actors were really saying).  The subtitles are done
with white lettering, and is almost always easy to read.  The locations
used, I assume in France and Poland, are great and really set the film
well.

--------
Ken Johnson
blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu
From: kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Questions about movie theatures
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:52:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: eecs.1992Oct15.025251.22920
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University

ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung) writes:
>Like practically everything else, movies in Europe cost twice as much as
>they do here.  

Ok, then why do they pull in three or four times as much per theature.

Michael



-- 
Michael Kaufman | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on
 kaufman        | fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in
  @eecs.nwu.edu | the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be
                | lost in time - like tears in rain. Time to die.     Roy Batty
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Best Sequels
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:08:44 GMT
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.

In article <1992Oct16.124348.16655@abo.fi> FHERTZBERG@finabo.abo.fi (Fredrik Hertzberg Lit) writes:
>
>  "The Exorcist" No. 2 as well as "Rambo" 2 & 3 and "Nightmare on Elm Street"
>2 & 3 and "Halloween" 2 & 3 are all better than their predecessors! Fred
>
COUGH! cough! sputter, sputter, blech, cough, cough....blech.

You just happen to pick four sets of movies in which I liked the first
and despised the sequals.  Actually, Halloween 2 wasn't that bad, but
it sure wasn't better than the original.



--
In the midst of the word he was trying to say,|McCreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com
     In the midst of his laughter and glee,   |Me, speak for Compaq?  
He had softly and suddenly vanished away---   |Yeah, right.
     For the Snark *was* a Boojum, you see.   |#include <stddisclaimer.h>
From: lsnow@ncrclm.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM (Linda Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Pronunciation of 'Depardieu'
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:15:11 GMT
Reply-To: lsnow@ncrclm.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM (Linda Snow)
Organization: NCR E&M CLEMSON Liberty, SC

>dieu -- ok, this is the hard part.  The 'ieu' sound doesn't have an

OK I'm going to take a stab at this.

First say the English word "bureau".  (Well actually it's a French word
which we stole and changed the meaning of....)

Now change the B to a D and leave off the "reau".

That comes pretty close.
From: dcarter@supra.East.Sun.COM (Dave Carter-Sun-Atlanta GA-Atlanta District MCC)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Wicked, Bad, Scary Movies. (Recommenda
Date: 13 Oct 1992 17:35:01 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dcarter@supra.East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: supra.east.sun.com

One movie I thought was very scary, though not a horror film,
was Clint Eastwoods "Play Misty For Me", very good movie.


---






+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ATLANTA BRAVES : 1991 and 92 Western Division Champions!!!!!
==============================================================
Dave Carter     			Sun Microsystems Inc.
MCC             			Two Ravinia Drive
dave.carter@East			Suite 470
(404)392-6064				Atlanta, GA 30346
==============================================================

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies
From: schneid@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mike Schneider)
Subject: Re: "Stranger In A Strange Land" To Be Filmed
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:56:11 GMT

Buffalo chips!  I could imagine that voice, but not the character
I most associate with Harry Morgan.
-- 
!!! Mike Schneider *** schneid@jerry.stat.uiuc.edu !!!
!!!     Assistant Manager of Systems Services      !!!
!!!            Department of Statistics            !!!
!!!   University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign   !!!
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Orion's unreleased films (was: Robocop 3 ?)
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:04:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: twisto.1992Oct15.160439.2595
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.

In article <1992Oct15.043550.28103@cs.ucla.edu> reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher) writes:
>In article <5541@balrog.ctron.com> nyberg@willow.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Jason William Nyberg) writes:
>>reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher) writes:
>>-.  Orion has around 11 completed films that they
>>-will not be able to release until their bankruptcy is settled.  "Robocop
>>-3" is one of them, the "Car 54 Where are You" film is another.  I can
>>-get you a complete list of the titles, if you care. 
>>
>>I care!! I care!!
>>
>>If you could, could you post the list?
>
>I was off by one.  There are ten films unreleased.  Here they are,
>straight out of the annual report.
>
>"Married To It", D: Arthur Hill, with Beau Bridges, Stockard Channing,
>Robert Sean Leonard, Mary Stuart Masterson, Cybill Shepherd, and Ron Silver.
>

they must have been close to releasing this one when they declared
bankruptcy.  I visited their offices on a business trip the week before
and movie posters for it were already on the walls.


--
In the midst of the word he was trying to say,|McCreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com
     In the midst of his laughter and glee,   |Me, speak for Compaq?  
He had softly and suddenly vanished away---   |Yeah, right.
     For the Snark *was* a Boojum, you see.   |#include <stddisclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies