HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: The Abyss .. again
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:05:33 GMT
	<1993Jan25.210523.24266@darwin.sura.net> <1k1qnsINNgol@lynx.unm.edu>
	<1k20otINNlvj@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>
Distribution: rec
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp

>>>>> On 26 Jan 93 00:31:25 GMT, lawson@ecst.csuchico.edu (M. Todd Lawson) said:
MTL>   I have a friend who was one of the divers in the movie.  I hate to contradict
MTL>  a few people here, but it took 15 rats to shoot that sequence because the
MTL>  rats died. That was not breathable water.

Sometimes it pays to be a pack rat...

from Cinefex, issue 39. pg 46.

 Although fluid breathing had figured prominently in his seminal short
story, it was not until "The Abyss" that James Cameron had occasion
to fully research the subject.  "We tend to associate underwater breathing
only with fish, but essentially the lung and the gill use the same
kind of oxygen membrane.  Only the structure is different.  Lungs
are, of course, much less efficient than gills at getting oxygen out
of fluids.  To compensate for this evolutionary bias, loads of oxygen must
be put into the breathing medium.  Johannes Kyltra - who pioneered in 
the research - worked first with saline solutions, but later determined
that fluorcarbon solutions would hold more oxygen.  Once the oxygen 
bonding problem was solved, there was another barrier - how to get rid
of the carbon dioxide.  Someone came up with the idea of using a
sodium carbonate material like the kind used in air scrubbers on
submarines.  It worked; but the substance was caustic, so it had to be put
in an emulsion from where individual particles were isolated from the
lung tissue.  Unfortunately, significant research in fluid breating
has ground to a halt becuase the FDA will not approve the stuff for
internal use on humans.  Ironically, however, the save exact
fluorocarbon emultion is being marketed by 3M for electronic part
deoxidizing."

  It was the commercially available product that would provide the
setup for fluid breathing early in the film.  In repsonse to
questions about the deep suit, one of the SEAL members demonstrates
by submerging a pet rat into a small container of the liquid breathing
medium.  "We actually did that for real on the set.  We picked up some of
the 3M fluorocarbon emulsion, heated it up to rat body temperature and
did the scene.  The rat struggled for a few seconds and bubbles came out
of his mouth and then he started to swim - breathing liquid!  And you
see it on the screen.  The rat was fine - but obviously when it came
time for Ed Harris to breath the same stuff, we simulated it."

end quoted material...

I also read an article in Cinefantastique I believe which said
that on the of actors "adopted" the rat after the movie was finished,
but I don't have that here at work. 

--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com                                   _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: cew2w@Virginia.EDU ("Chris Wrike")
Subject: Re: Movies you just GOTTA see more than once
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:05:27 GMT

sri007@cck.coventry.ac.uk  writes:
> >>So how about it?  Movies that are so complicated, so bizarre, that you felt
> >>you needed a second (or third, or fourth...) viewing to fully comprehend?
> >>For me, it's "Naked Lunch".  Just saw it the other night and it left me 
> >>with the thought "I really liked it -- whatever the hell it was about!".

	How about any movie by David Lynch?  I only liked "Wild
at Heart" and "Blue Velvet" on the third viewings.  You can
omit "Dune".
	However, I liked "Eraserhead" and "Twin Peaks:FWWM" on
the first viewing.  Maybe I wouldn't like them if I saw them
again.
	I don't think some Monty Python films really stand up to too
many repeated viewings.  I saw my favorite film of all time,
"Life of Brian" a couple of weeks ago for the eleventh time.  I
didn't laugh as much as I used to.  However, the more I see
"Holy Grail", the more I like it.

	--Chris Wrike

 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
From: maus@fid.morgan.com (Malcolm Austin)
Subject: REVIEW: TOYS
Reply-To: maus@fid.morgan.com (Malcolm Austin)
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Co., New York, NY
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:08:08 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01710
Keywords: author=Austin

				      TOYS
		       A film review by Malcolm Austin
			Copyright 1993 Malcolm Austin

     I liked this movie a lot more than other people seem to have.
Partially, I think, this is because of one of my own quirks of judging a
movie.  I will often greatly enjoy a movie that achieves a distinctive
mood or feel through music, set design, camerawork, or other incidental
components, even if the plot and/or central characters of the movie are
weak.  This is why I enjoy some "bad" movies such as DUNE, STREETS OF
FIRE, or THE 5,000 FINGERS OF DR. T.

     TOYS certainly achieves such a unique feel.  If this film does not
win an Oscar for set design, the Academy will have forfeited all
respectability as judges of artistic merit (like they haven't
already ...).  The movie is simply wonderful to watch from beginning to
end.  The only movie I can think of to compare it to is WILLY WONKA AND
THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, but this film is far more sophisticated,
visually, than that.  (Even if it doesn't have the Oompa-Loompas.)  One
thing that surprised me was how good the soundtrack was.  It uses
several of my favorite contemporary musicians, such as Enya, Thomas
Dolby, and the new and obscure (or so I thought) Tori Amos.  Not since
NORTHERN EXPOSURE have I seen such a variety of music used well to
create mood.

     Let's quickly go over the bad points.  The plot is predictable, but
that's not really the problem.  It starts with a lot of promise for an
obvious formula, but quickly becomes very dumb, culminating in a final
scene reminiscent of the classic SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS.
(This is not a complement, believe me.)  Most of the casting is actually
quite fine, with the notable exception of Robin Wright, who wanders in
and out of the movie sporting a really strange Southern accent, and
seeming to imitate Darryl Hannah all through the movie.  Robin Williams
is a perfect choice for the character of Leslie Zevo, and not just as a
zany comedian, but his talent gets squandered so badly that his only
good moments are the scenes where he is, in fact, a zany comedian.
(Contrast this to DEAD POET'S SOCIETY, in which his *worst* moments are
when he is a zany comedian.)  He does have one hilarious scene towards
the end as he delivers a Pattonesque speech to a bunch of wind-up toys
in his inimitable style.

     Joan Cusack, on the other hand, delivers a wonderful performance as
Leslie's sister Alsatia.  I think her work was good enough to merit a
Best Supporting Actress nomination, although I doubt she'll get one.

     There are so many unique scenes in this movie that I think it is
well worth seeing, despite its obvious flaws.  I'll definitely be
watching this film again.

-- 
=Malcolm Austin==w:(212)703-6134==h:(914)633-3966==maus@fid.morgan.com=====

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
From: maus@fid.morgan.com (Malcolm Austin)
Subject: REVIEW: MALCOLM X
Reply-To: maus@fid.morgan.com (Malcolm Austin)
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Co., New York, NY
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:06:52 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01709
Keywords: author=Austin

				   MALCOLM X
		       A film review by Malcolm Austin
			Copyright 1993 Malcolm Austin

     Personally, I think the most significant aspect of this movie is
the likelihood that, given the discussion about the film and its
subject, millions of people will finally learn how to spell "Malcolm."
But that's just me.

     As usual, Spike Lee the director has far outshone Spike Lee the
media twerp.  This movie is an excellent portrayal of the continuing
evolution of a man's thought.  It is marred by a few touches of
oliverstonism, such as vague (and unsupportable, from the movie's
internal evidence) intimations that the CIA was involved with Malcolm
X's death, and a tacked on prologue and epilogue, featuring the Rodney
King film intercut with a burning American flag, and, in the most
unintentionally horrific scene in modern filmdom, Nelson Mandela
lecturing to school children.

     But in between these lapses into political dreck, there is a truly
outstanding movie.  It is testament, I think, to the craft of this film
that, despite its three-and-a-half-hour length, I didn't even glance at
my watch until almost three hours had gone by.  Like other great
biographical epics, such as LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, or PATTON, this movie
just doesn't seem as long as it is.

     Spike Lee has largely muted his style in this movie, so it almost
looks like "typical" Hollywood fare.  However, there remains evidence of
his directorial flare.  Most notable is the very different looks he
achieves for different parts of the film, as Malcolm X's story unfolds.
The flashy Harlem beginning contrasts with the austere prison scenes,
and the lush photography of Malcolm's years with the Nation of Islam,
and finally the spiritual and almost surreal period of Malcolm's hadj,
and the final period of his life afterwards.

     Without more research, I can't say how accurate the portrayal of
Malcolm X is, but as myth-making, this film is wonderful.  It is easily
Spike Lee's most impressive accomplishment.

-- 
=Malcolm Austin==w:(212)703-6134==h:(914)633-3966==maus@fid.morgan.com=====

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
From: osyjm@schizo.coe.montana.edu (Jaye Mathisen)
Subject: REVIEW: THE CUTTING EDGE
Reply-To: osyjm@schizo.coe.montana.edu (Jaye Mathisen)
Organization: University of Montana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:08:38 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01711
Keywords: author=Mathisen

			      THE CUTTING EDGE
			         [Spoilers]
		       A film review by Jaye Mathisen
			Copyright 1993 Jaye Mathisen

     Summary:
          An ex-hockey player, and a screwed-up figure
          skater team up to go for the Olympic gold medal in
          pairs figure skating.

A brief sidenote:
    [I seem to be finding quite a few movies recently that while
    not epics of modern filmmaking, seem to be quite enjoyable.  I
    call them my "pick-me-up" movies, and when I'm looking for
    a movie that's not too heavy, but fun, I turn to some of these.
    So I thought I'd toss a few reviews out, in case you haven't
    caught these.  None of 'em are box-office smashes, but I find
    them enjoyable.]

     D. B. Sweeney plays ex-hockey amateur star Doug Dorsey, who gets
his eye injured in the 1988 winter Olympics, and can no longer play
competitive hockey.  Moira Kelly is Kate Mosely, an Olympic medalist
wanna-be, but who's earned a nasty reputation as the Ice Bitch, for her
lousy attitude.

     As to plot, there's not much there.  Kate can't find a male partner
to skate with, and so her coach in a last ditch effort, contacts Doug,
to see if he'd be willing to make the attempt.  He is, they do, there's
conflict, resolution, and an ending with everybody happy and Doug and
Kate in love.

     The film is intended to be a love story, built around skating,
probably to tie in to the Olympic skating craze.  It's not a great love
story, it's a good love story.  Moira Kelly has the bitch part down pat,
her facial expressions of disgust towards D. B. and some of his antics
are priceless.

Rating:
     3 stars out of 4.  There is some nice camera work in taping
     some of the skating, especially all the fancy footwork, but
     nothing amazing.  It looks like Kelly and Sweeney did a fair
     amount of skating, although certainly not all the stunt
     skating.

Enjoyability rating:
     4 stars out of 4.  This is one of the movies that kind of
     gives me for whatever reason, a warm fuzzy.  My wife looked
     at me kind of cockeyed when I mentioned it, but she enjoyed
     the show too.  If you're expecting epic greatness, stay
     away from it.  If you want something light, with a moderate
     dose of romance, and a sappy ending, then this will fill
     the bill.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
From: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Subject: REVIEW: THE MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL
Reply-To: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Organization: ?
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:40:08 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01724
Keywords: author=K.Johnson

                        THE MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL
                       A film review by Ken Johnson
                        Copyright 1993 Ken Johnson

95 min., G, Comedy, 1992
Director: Brian Henson
Cast: The Muppets, Michael Caine

     The Muppets do their version of Charles Dickens's holiday classic,
A CHRISTMAS CAROL.  Michael Caine is Ebenezer Scrooge, who doesn't enjoy
Christmas.  He is mean to everyone, especially his employees, including
Kermit the Frog, as Bob Crachit.  Caine is visited by his dead business
partners (there are two in this version) Statler and Waldorf, as the
Marley's.  Statler and Waldorf send Caine three ghosts to show him the
evil of his ways, in hopes to help him change.

     THE MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL is a very enjoyable holiday film that I
think both the young and the old will love.  If your area is still
playing this film, I don't think that it will be there for long, so you
should see it soon.  On a scale of zero to five, I give THE MUPPET
CHRISTMAS CAROL a five.

     This film I believe is the fourth Muppet film (the earlier films
that I can remember are THE MUPPET MOVIE, which was just released on
video cassette, THE GREAT MUPPET CAPER, which was also just released on
video cassette, and THE MUPPETS TAKE MANHATTAN).  The Muppets, despite
the death of their creator Jim Henson, are still doing well, but Kermit
the Frog will never be the same.

     Believe it or not, the Muppets stay very close to the original
story.  They take only a few liberties with the story, like making two
Marley's and making Charles Dickens (excellently played by Gonzo)
narrate the story with his side kick, Rizzo the Rat (also great!)

     Michael Caine takes the back seat in this film, because the Muppets
are the best part of this film.  However Michael Caine does do a great
job.

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

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
From: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Subject: REVIEW: BOB ROBERTS
Reply-To: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Organization: ?
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:11:22 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01712
Keywords: author=K.Johnson

                                BOB ROBERTS
                       A film review by Ken Johnson
                        Copyright 1993 Ken Johnson

107 min., R, Comedy/Documentary, 1992
Director: Tim Robbins
Cast: Tim Robbins, Gore Vidal, Alan Rickman, Giancarlo Esposito,
      Ray Wise, Susan Sarandon, James Spader, Fred Ward, John Cusack,
      Peter Gallagher, Kelly Willis, Fisher Stevens, Lynne Thigpen

     Tim Robbins plays Bob Roberts, a folk singing senatorial candidate.
He travels around singing songs about the problems with America.  As his
campaign goes on, some people start to turn against him.

     BOB ROBERTS starts off with a good idea, a folk singer who pops
into a government race and then doesn't do much (remind anyone of Ross
Perot).  The problem that hurts this film is that the film isn't that
funny.  Too many of the jokes fail.  Tim Robbins can't sing very well
either, which is not good when his character is a singer.  I don't
recommend that you see this film in the theater.  Instead, if you wish
to see it, wait for the video cassette.  This film is worth viewing for
a very cheap rental.  I give BOB ROBERTS a two on a scale of zero to
five.  BOB ROBERTS is rated R for explicit language and violence.

     The biggest problem that I noticed in this film is that Bob
Robert's music videos were not funny.  I think that they were supposed
to be funny, but they certainly didn't turn out that way.  The videos
weren't well done, and didn't hold my attention.  Some of the songs that
Tim Robbins sang were well done, but in my opinion, Tim Robbins can't
sing.  Those songs that were well written ended up being butchered by
Robbins.  The rest of the songs fell into the same category as the music
videos.

     What I think Tim Robbins tried to create was a pseudo-documentary
showing some of the problems with America today.  The film's basic
problem is that Tim Robbins didn't stick entirely to documentary format
in this film.  Some of the scenes were shot as a movie, and the others
were shot as a documentary; then the two were combined.  I didn't think
that this style worked.

     This film isn't entirely bad.  Most of the cast did a very good
job.  The actor that I think gives the best performance in this film is
Alan Rickman.  He seems to stand a little above the rest of the cast.
The actor that I think does the worst job was Gore Vidal.  He doesn't
seem to be with the film very much.  Some of the scenes (especially the
live television show part) I thought were well done.

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

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
From: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Subject: REVIEW: KNIGHT MOVES
Reply-To: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Organization: ?
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:38:44 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01718
Keywords: author=K.Johnson

                               KNIGHT MOVES
                       A film review by Ken Johnson
                        Copyright 1993 Ken Johnson

100 min., R, Suspense/Mystery, 1993
Director: Carl Schenkel
Cast: Christopher Lambert, Diane Lane, Tom Skerritt, Daniel Baldwin,
      Charles Bailey-Gates, Alex Diakun

     Christopher Lambert is a Grandmaster chess competitor.  While the
competition is going on, a serial killer starts killing females, and
Lambert is the only suspect that Tom Skerritt, the police chief, has.
The killer starts playing a game with Lambert to see if Lambert can
catch the killer before the game is over.  Skerritt and his partner
Daniel Baldwin have psychiatrist Diane Lane called in to investigate
Lambert to see if he is doing the killings.

     KNIGHT MOVES is an excellent suspense film that I suggest that you
see soon, because I don't think that it will be in the theaters for
long, even though it was released this weekend.  I think that KNIGHT
MOVES is worth full admission price and is a must see.  On a scale of
zero to five, I give KNIGHT MOVES a five.  KNIGHT MOVES is rated R for
explicit language, female nudity, adult situations, and graphic
violence.

     The cast for this film is excellent.  Christopher Lambert
(HIGHLANDER, GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN LORD OF THE APES) is very
good.  Diane Lane (CHAPLIN, NATIONAL LAMPOON GOES TO THE MOVIES) is the
reason that I went to see this film.  I am a fan of her work, and I am
pleased to say that she is excellent.  Tom Skerritt (POISON IVY [1992
version], WILD ORCHID 2: TWO SHADES OF BLUE) is the other reason to see
this film.  He is usually a great actor and this film is no exception.
Daniel Baldwin gives a good performance.

     KNIGHT MOVES is very well written and quite suspenseful.  This film
is not very gory, so those of you with weak stomachs won't be bothered
if you see this film.  The director, Carl Schenkel does a wonderful job
of creating a suspenseful atmosphere in this film.

     I especially enjoyed how the beginning credits of the film were
done.  They created an air of mystery, right from the beginning.  I also
thought that doing them in black and white probably enhanced the effect.

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


Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
From: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Subject: REVIEW: THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN
Reply-To: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Organization: ?
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:02:08 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01716
Keywords: author=K.Johnson

                        THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN
                       A film review by Ken Johnson
                        Copyright 1993 Ken Johnson

120 min., R, Comedy, 1992
Director: Jonathan Lynn
Cast: Eddie Murphy, Lane Smith, Sheryl Lee Roth, Joe Don Baker,
      Victoria Rowell, Grant Seud, Kevin McCarthy, Charles S. Dutton,
      Victor Rivers, Noble Willingham, James Garner, Della Reese,
      Sarah Carson

     Con man Eddie Murphy sees that the way to make money is to become a
congressman.  When Florida's congressman, James Garner, dies, Murphy
runs for his seat under name recognition.  When Murphy wins the
election, he starts to have a field day in Washington, D.C.

     1992 was a great year for fans of Eddie Murphy.  In the summer he
put out the film BOOMERANG (which is now on video cassette) and then
just recently he put out the film THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN, which is
up to his excellent standard.  I highly recommend THE DISTINGUISHED
GENTLEMAN to all fans of Eddie Murphy.  On a scale of zero to five, I
give THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN a five.  THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN is
rated R for explicit language, adult situations, and adult humor.

     This film has been said by some people to be better than BEVERLY
HILLS COP.  I don't agree with that.  I still feel that BEVERLY HILLS
COP is Eddie Murphy's best film.  However, Eddie Murphy doesn't let his
fans down.  This film is written with the trademark Eddie Murphy humor
that keeps up from beginning to end.

     This is one of those films that it doesn't matter whether you see
it in the theater or not.  I think that a film always looks better on
the big screen, but with the amount that movies are costing these days
some people may want to wait for this film to be released on video
cassette.  However I recommend that big fans of Eddie Murphy see this
film in the theater.

     Eddie Murphy's supporting cast is excellent; especially Charles
S. Dutton ("Roc", ALIEN^3), who plays a minister (and has hair on his
head).  I think that Charles S. Dutton is an great actor and makes
anything that he is in better (he was one of the best things about
ALIEN^3).  Kevin McCarthy also added a lot to the film.

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

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews