HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Movies you loved, but couldn't see more than once.
From: thomas@datamark.co.nz (Thomas Beagle)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:16:57 GMT
Organization: Datamark International Ltd.

In article <1992Dec21.151529.25329@sei.cmu.edu> cms@sei.cmu.edu (Christine Stanley) writes:
>
>In article <1642@ncrclm.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM>, lsnow@ncrclm.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM (Linda Snow) writes:
>
>I`m not even sure I liked this movie, much less loved it.  It was too
>disturbing for me to ever want to see it again.
>
>Last Exit to Brooklyn

I would entirely agree. I was around at a friend's place and they had
hired it and expected me to watch it again. It took me quite a while
to explain that I *really* didn't want to see it again...

"So, you want to see just how sordid life can get?"
-- 
    Thomas Beagle | thomas@datamark.co.nz           Work: 64 4 233 8186
Datamark Intl Ltd | thomas@cavebbs.welly.gen.nz     Home: 64 4 499 3832
 Technical Writer | Yes, I do have long ears, a black nose, and a tail.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: 9 1/2 Weeks
From: david@datamark.co.nz (David Rowland)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:36:11 GMT
Organization: Datamark International Ltd.

In article <4449@cvbnetPrime.COM> csroc@dime.UUCP (Charles Sroczynski x4014 5-2) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.014613.14202@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mdriscol@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mollie M Driscol) writes:
>>
>>>When a woman seeks sex it cannot be called rape.
>>>Furthur when people are enjoying it , it is called
>>>pleasure.  This was pleasureable sex for both people
>>>(in both movies)
>>
>>
>>Second, if a woman is raped, she is raped, whether she happened
>>to have pleasure [including orgasm] or not.  If she is forced
>>or coerced to engage in sexual activity, it is rape.  and it's
>>not her fault.
>
>I agree totally...read what I wrote
>">>When a woman seeks sex it cannot be called rape.
> >>when people are enjoying it , it is called pleasure"

In New Zealand, if a woman consents to sex and half way through says
stop, if the man does not stop, this is rape,  reguardless of weither
she came on to him or visa versa.

Is this right????

Dave
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes)
Subject: ALL FALL DOWN; Brandon de Wylde
Originator: hughes@dogwood
Organization: Botany Department - U of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 01:23:49 GMT



  Just saw _All Fall Down_ with Warren Beatty, Angela Lansbury,
  Karl Malden, Brandon de Wylde, and Eva Marie Saint.  It's
  a good, curious little movie; not rigorous in the strong
  plot department, but with lots of entertaining tidbits
  throughout.  Lansbury is particularly delightful.
  However...

  My video guide doesn't list it, which suggests that it
  was only released to video this past year.  Who directed
  it, and what was the year (sometime around 1962, I'd guess,
  seems like it trades on the success of _Splendor in
  the Grass_ (1961?)).

  And whatever happened to Brandon de Wylde?  Saw him first
  in _Hud_ with Paul Newman, and thought he was pretty good.
  AFD confirmed that for me; it seems he had considerable
  talent.  But the last work I can find for him was around
  1965.

  Thanks.
  Wayne

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: law30056@nusunix1.nus.sg (TAN KEN HWEE)
Subject: Re: Q on A Few Good Men: Poison???
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 17:26:48 GMT

SPOILERS, SPOILERS.  


















Gee... I don't think the presence of the poison was proven at all.  All
we had was the camp doctor giving his opinion that there was some kind
of poison - type unknown, with no mark left on any of the tests carried
out on the blood etc. 

Also, the credibility of the camp doctor was quite brillantly put to
doubt when Kaffee questioned him about whether there were indeed other
possibilities why lactic acid accumulation occurred so quickly - a
latent heart condition could have caused it and the symptoms of such a
condition *were* noted by that same doctor with respect to Pfc Santiago.

I was much more frustrated by the medically and scientifically unsound
logic of the chap who testified as to why acidosis occurred.  He said
that normally the body burns oxygen and in the event that it is lacking,
burns sugar.  NOT!  The body burns sugar (or some derivative - I forget
the details) *using* oxygen in aerobic respiration (where respiration =
chemical process of producing energy) so sugar is being "burnt" all the
time.  When there is a lack of oxygen, what happens is ANAEROBIC
respiration is resorted to where oxygen is not used to fully oxidise the
glucose molecules and instead, lactic acid is formed (this lactic acid
when reacted with oxygen, would release more energy).  Hence, it was
*very* wrong to say that the body normally burns oxygen (? with what ?)
and then only uses sugar when oxygen runs out!!!

Sheesh, such a glaring medical boo-boo.  Would anyone else out there
like to comment on it?  I would appreciate e-mail as I don't often have
time to check this newsgroup.

Next boo-boo - most of the witness examination was done with *very*
leading questions.  A no-no for examination-in-chief where I come from.
Dunno about US of A or Military courts - anyone know?
 
Final boo-boo noticed - the clock in the court room - very out of focus
and behind the witness or judge, *is not moving* ! The second hand,
blurred out as it may be, simply remains at a fixed position!  Sigh.  So
sad.....
 
Still, enjoyed myself although there was the nagging feeling that it was
not as satisfying as it should have been.  Some characters not fleshed
out properly.

KenHwee Tan
National University of Singapore
Law30056@nusunix.nus.sg
Law30056@nusvm.nus.sg

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: mgrimes@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael Grimes)
Subject: Re: Critics Awards (so far)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:45:04 GMT

No, they most likely haven't. There wil be some films overlooked by them that 
might be nominated for Golden Globes and/or Oscars.  I don't think they saw 
CHAPLIN and word is that Robert Downey Jr. is a pleasant surprise here and may 
be nominated as Best Actor.
Mike G
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: leeper@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Mark R. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Movies about the Maya or Cortes?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:38:08 GMT
Keywords: maya

In article <89921@bcsaic.boeing.com> vanover@bcsaic.boeing.com (Jann VanOver) writes:
> Has there ever been a movie made about Maya people or Aztec?  About Cortes?  
> I've got a friend writing a book about this era/area and would like 
> inspirational fictional movie footage to "get her in the mood!"
> 
> Adv-Thanks-ance
> Jann VanOver
> vanover@atc.boeing.com


Listing from Maltin:

KINGS OF THE SUN (1963) C-108m. **1/2 D: J. Lee Thompson.  Yul Brynner,
George Chakiris, Shirley Anne Field, Richard Basehart, Brad Dexter.
Skin-deep spectacle, badly cast, telling of Mayan leader who comes to
America with surviving tribesmen and encounters savage Indians.
Filmed in Mexico.

I myself do not remember the film well, but I can remember I was pretty
ambivalent about it.

				Mark Leeper
				...att!mtgzfs3!leeper
				(908)957-5619
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: The Player (was Re: Academy Awards)
Date: 01 Jan 93 20:28:21 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Windows/DOS Users Ed Group

In article <31DEC199210214769@utkvx1.utk.edu> takoosma@utkvx1.utk.edu (Toby Koosman) writes:
[deletion]
>It seems to be on everyone's list, which I find puzzling.  The Player was a
>cute movie, clever and well-done, but certainly not a great movie.  Even
>restricting the field to comedies, Husbands and Wives was far better.  Perhaps
>its special appeal to movie buffs explains the high rating?
>

Well, Toby, you qualify for a special Oscar for rowing against two
currents at the same time -- not that you haven't every right to your
opinions -- and I admire your daring in standing up for HUSBANDS AND
WIVES. Practically, no one in the movie press has anything nice to say
for either of Woody Allen's 1992 movies, but although one of of our
locals in today's paper called H&W a flop, he reserved his biggest
criticism for SHADOWS AND FOG, calling it the worst Allen of all time,
knocking SEPTEMBER right out of the slot, and calling S&F "harrowingly
pretentious." I myself found a lot more to like about H&W than many,
but then I never gave a hang about the congruence of the messy business
in Allen's own life and the messy business in his film.

On the other hand, I am amongst those you so blithely dismiss as buffs
-- and another poster as the artsy-fartsy crowd (and I can assure you
there nothing artistical about my wind) -- who were mightily impressed
by THE PLAYER. As to whether it is a "great" movie, you would have to
give me an idea of what you mean by this and whether you are assuming
that an Best Picture Oscar elevates a film to greatness automatically.
I do happen to think that THE PLAYER will be become one of a trio of
great insider films about Hollywood, along with SUNSET BOULEVARD and
THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL.

And I'm not at all sure how it is you think you can read and post to
rec.arts.movies and not be a "movie buff" by default. There ain't
nobody here but buffs -- some of us talk about why we like and dislike,
whereas others of us merely announce that they do.

-- 
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
	"Well, I'm a little muddled." -- Glinda
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: jdt@ulysses.att.com (Jonathan D. Trudel[ftd])
Subject: Movie Rental stores wanted (Central NJ)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:27:45 GMT
Distribution: nj
Reply-To: jdt@ulysses.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ

I'm looking for recommendations for a good movie rental store within 10
minutes or so from Murray Hill NJ.  I am looking for a place that has a
decently sized selection of foreign films, and also one that is likely to
have good quantities of hard-to-find movies.  

For example, I went to two rental stores in Summit (including Palmer
Video) and neither of them had Until The End of the World, which
is a William Hurt film that was released in the past 6 months on video.

If you know of such a place, please let me know.  Thanks!

						Jon

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Sick and tired of cries of sexism (was Re: 9 1/2 Weeks)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:51:04 GMT

In article <Bzz1E5.HHt@fiu.edu> feathers@serss0 (Michael Feathers) writes:
>
>>>From article <1992Dec20.145422.10366@Virginia.EDU>, by tlc9y@Virginia.EDU ("tara lou"):
>>>> you do not have to be a lesbian or an abused survivor in order
>>>> to believe that our society dictates men's satisfaction over
>>>> women's..i see beer commercials that satisfy men's needs [i
>>>> drink beer, too], sportscar commercials [i would like one,
>>>> too], and many other instances where men's pleasure is the
>>>> aim..not women's.
>
>I'm sure that one of the reasons that this topic shows up in relation to
>movies is the difference between male and female stimulation.  Men are
>predominately stimulated by images.  It is biological and it is no
>accident that the market for pornography has always been and continues to
>be predominately driven by males.  On the other hand, female stimulation
>is more situational and tactile.  A story about the tall dark powerful man
>who sweeps a woman off her feet will always be with us.
>
>I would be prepared to renounce all "objectification" of women in movies if
>all "objectification" of men in romance novels was renounced.  Many women will
>say that it is not the same but I don't think so.  If the argument can be
>made that men are more likely to be sexually violent because of what they see
>on film, then surely it could be said that women's expectations, fostered by
>romance novels, spark sometimes life ruining competition among men to be the
>man with the big car, summer house, and corporate neck-tie.  Objectification
>goes both ways.
>
>What many people do not understand is that men and women feel their 
>sexuality in different ways.  Millions of years of evolution have made this
>so.  It is wrong to judge women by men's standards and equally wrong to 
>judge men by women's standards.  Unfortunately, many of the victimologists
>in our culture do not understand this.  
>

The above sounds surprisingly reasonable and fair.  You must be
insensitive and evil.

GM("Thinking With My Heart")S
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: barnum@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Jennifer Barnum)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: (Unsolicited) advice against Blockbuster
Date: 22 Dec 92 12:52:52 GMT
Reply-To: barnum@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Jennifer Barnum)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In rec.arts.movies, guru@camelot.bradley.edu (Jerry Whelan) writes:
>In article <1h4vi9INNhbj@morgause.cs.purdue.edu> gritter@cs.purdue.edu (Carl Gr
>itter) writes:
>
>-} I believe Blockbuster doesn't carry NC-17 films because of "pressure" by
>-} conservatives to get rid of "pornographic" films.
>
>        According to rumor from friends who refuse to patronize BB,
>BB is a conservative dominated corporation.  Just as Dominoes contributes
>portions of its pizza profits to the Right-To-Life crowd, so does BB.
>Additional conservative anti-civil liberties organizations (PMRC type
>stuff) are suppossedly also supported by a portion of BB profits.


Thanks for the tip.  Now I know that Blockbuster is the place to go!!












									       -
									       u
From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Q on A Few Good Men: Poison???
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:10:04 GMT
Reply-To: hades@Dartmouth.Edu
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Disclaimer: Personally, I really don't care who you think I speak for.
Moderator: Rec.Arts.Comics.Info

>In article <1992Dec23.083855.372@news.uwyo.edu> rtravsky@news.uwyo.edu
(Rich Travsky) writes:

>Something that really bothered me about this film was the "poison"
>plot device.  Were these two marines toxicologists or something?
>Where did they find this poison, or barring finding it, how did they
>get it transported to the base? How did they know what minimum dosage
>would be effective, etc.?
>
>Not that this movie didn't have its share of problems, but this
>"poison" thing was not addressed fully at the trial. 

    Um, I think you missed a bog part of the court room scenes. Cruise
basically takes the doctor apart with the theory that the marine
actually had a bad heart condition, and the lack of oxygen caused it to
kick in, and that is what killed him. There was no poison.

--
-Brian V. Hughes
	       "I am the terror that flaps in the night!
	  I am the $10 service charge on every returned check!
			  I'm Darkwing Duck!!"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
From: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Subject: REVIEW: L'ELEGANT CRIMINAL
Reply-To: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Organization: ?
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 17:14:01 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01659
Keywords: author=K.Johnson

                            L'ELEGANT CRIMINEL
                  (American title: THE ELEGANT CRIMINAL)
                       A film review by Ken Johnson
                        Copyright 1992 Ken Johnson

135 min., not rated, Drama, 1991, In French with English subtitles
Director: Francis Girod
Cast: Daniel Auteuil, Jean Poiret, Jacques Weber, Francois Perier,
      Genevieve Casile, Jacques Duby, Jean Davy, Paul Le Person,
      Maiwenn Le Beso, Jacques Sereys, Rufus, Gerald Desarthe

     In the 19th Century, notorious criminal Daniel Auteuil (who might
have actually existed) gets caught and thrown in jail.  The entire movie
is a look by him back on his criminal life through the book that he is
writing about his life.

     L'ELEGANT CRIMINEL is going to be released on video cassette soon,
so don't bother to go see this one in the theaters.  I don't think that
it is worth the money.  The film is interesting to a point, so when it
is released on video cassette, you might give it a look.  On a scale of
zero to five, I give L'ELEGANT CRIMINEL a three.  L'ELEGANT CRIMINEL is
unrated and contains explicit language, adult situations, and violence.

     One of the problems with L'ELEGANT CRIMINEL is its length.  Towards
the end of the film, I found myself getting bored because of the length
and the fact that it didn't have enough content to warrant being that
long.  In THE GODFATHER (and the sequels) there was enought material to
keep the films interesting even though they were extremely long.  This
one runs short of material, so several scenes are stretched out longer
than they should be.  The story line is interesting, to a point.  Some
details about the man's life are left in that I felt were unnecessary
and distracted from the rest of the film.

     The acting in this film is very good and is one of the film's
strong points.  Auteuil does an excellent job.  The supporting cast (I
don't remember who played whom) was also great.  The other strong point
of the film is its elaborate sets.  The sets are great and place the
film very well.  It looks like a lot of work went into building (or
finding) the sets.

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

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
From: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann)
Subject: REVIEW: TOYS
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann)
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:52:25 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01646
Keywords: author=Mann

				    TOYS
		       A film review by Laurie Mann
			Copyright 1992 Laurie Mann

     This is one of the most frustrating movies of recent times.  For
the third time, Robin Williams has made an overblown movie of style over
substance (the other two being POPEYE (which I liked) and HOOK (which I
really didn't)).  Williams played the quietly manic son of a
recently-dead toy manufacturer whose inheritance is passed on to his
uncle.  Joan Cusack played his sister and Robin Wright played the woman
he gets interested in.  I don't remember the name of the actors who
played the uncle or Cousin Patrick.  I think the actor who played
Patrick was acting in his first movie, and he played his role so
straight that he provided a perfect foil for Williams and Cusack.

     The first hour of this movie is full of delight and fun surprises.
The writing is a tad weak, but the acting was pretty good considering.
In a movie like this, the acting usually dies before the writing does,
but that didn't happen here.  The art direction and camera angles were
inventive.  The movie starts to fall apart in the middle and dies during
the last half (though the last ten minutes or so return to being
quirky).

     Barry Levinson and the writer (or did Levinson write this one too?)
should be taken out and "re-educated".

     I saw this movie in a cinema with eight theaters.  When people saw
the long faces walk out of this movie at the end, about a third of the
people waiting went to see FOREVER YOUNG instead (the line for A FEW
GOOD MEN being too long).  This movie is being marketed as a comedy, but
for nearly twenty excruciating minutes, there's absolutely nothing funny
about it.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
From: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Subject: REVIEW: UNDER SIEGE
Reply-To: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Organization: ?
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 17:14:30 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01661
Keywords: author=K.Johnson

                                UNDER SIEGE
                       A film review by Ken Johnson
                        Copyright 1992 Ken Johnson

100 min., R, Action, 1992
Director: Andrew Davis
Cast: Steven Segal, Tommy Lee Jones, Gary Busey, Erika Eleniak,   
      Colm Meany, Andy Romano, Patrick O'Neal, Michael Des Barres

     Aboard a heavily armed warship, the captain's, Patrick O'Neal,
birthday is coming up.  The crew plans a surprise party for O'Neal and
brings aboard a centerfold girl, Erika Eleniak, and a band.
Unfortunately for them, the band is a gang of revolutionists lead by
Tommy Lee Jones, who take over the ship.   The only man on board who can
stop them is the cook, Steven Segal.

     I just saw Steven Segal's newest film UNDER SIEGE and loved it.  I
highly suggest that you go and see this film.   I think that it is
Segal's best film yet.  This film is all that the television
advertisements made it out to be, and much more.  On a scale of zero to
five, I give UNDER SIEGE a five.  UNDER SIEGE is rated R for explicit
language, graphic violence, and brief female nudity.

     The special effects for this film are great.  This film is a lot
gorier than most of Segal's earlier films, but the gore doesn't feel out
of place.  In my opinion, it only adds to the film.  The sets for the
film are excellent and really place the film well.  This is definitely a
film to see in the theaters, because it will lose so much on a small
screen.

     Segal gives his normal unemotional performance, that I feel makes
him the popular actor that he is.  He seems to have no problem running
around a warship breaking people's arms and the like.  Tommy Lee Jones
gives the best performance in this film as the crazy revolutionist.  His
performance is extremely realistic, and at some points even scary.  Gary
Busey also played a person who is not entirely there.  Like Tommy Lee
Jones, Busey gave an excellent performance.  Erika Eleniak was a
surprise in this film; she started out as the typical action movie bimbo
that Hollywood seems to stick into most of this kind of film.  At first
the only reason that I thought that she was put in the film was to
provide the one brief scene of gratuitous nudity, but part way through
the film she changed and actually became a use to Segal.

     There isn't much to say about the writing.  It is of the usual
"slam bam" action film quality.  It doesn't hurt or help the film much
at all.  The direction by Andrew Davis, who has done ABOVE THE LAW which
also starred Steven Segal, is good and certainly doesn't hurt the film.

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

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews