From: "eric walker" <eric.walker@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: why i watch movies
Date: 17 Aug 92 10:24:34 EST
Reply-To: "eric walker" <eric.walker@channel1.com>
Distribution: rec
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

MC>My questions to people who come on the net and complain about movies
MC>as you do are:
MC>1)  Why do you go to the movies in the first place?

     I can't speak for everyone, but I go to the movies because I love
     seeing new movies.  The thrill of seeing somethind wonderful that
     I have never seen before, such as I felt when I saw "Unforgiven,"
     is a good feeling that I like to experience.  They do still make
     good movies today, and I'm naturally curious when I here people
     saying what a great movie <insert title here> is.  So I go to the
     movies to see them for myself.

MC>2)  Why do you go to the movies you go to?  I have my own criteria
MC>    and there are movies I'm never going to see, not even on cable.

     I go to the movies I go to because I hear good things about them.
     I don't take the word of the critics as Gospel, but if the local
     papers, the national magazines, the public, AND critics on TV
     are all saying what a great movie <insert title is>, then I think
     it's worth taking a chance and seeing for myself if this is such
     a good movie or not.

     Plus, certain directors and stars have built reputations for
     themselves, so that I want to see their movies even if I don't
     know how good or bad they'll be.  I'm definitely going to see
     "The Age Of Innocence" this fall, simply because it's a Martin
     Scorsese movie and I'm sure it will be entertaining.  I trust
     Scorsese to deliver good movies, and I have rarely been
     disappointed with his works.  Likewise, I intend on seeing
     "Bram Stoker's Dracula" by Francis Ford Coppola when it premieres
     in a couple of months.  At the movies this weekend, I saw a trailer
     for "Hoffa" by Danny DeVito, and the few bits I saw on the
     screen looked GOOD.  Trailers try to show you the best parts of
     the movie, of course, but this trailer whetted my appetite and made
     me curious.  If I hear good things about "Hoffa" as time goes by,
     then I'll go to see it.

     I saw "Death Becomes Her" because it was made by Robert Zemeckis.
     I've enjoyed Zemeckis' movies like "Romancing The Stone" and "Back
     To The Future," and his "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is one of my
     all-time favourite movies.  So I had high hopes when I went to see
     his latest one - and while it was funny, I felt disappointed.  It
     doesn't live up to the standard Zemeckis set in his earlier films.
     Hopefully, he'll make up for this mistake with his future projects.

MC>3)  What ARE your standards?  Does a film fail because of an
MC>    emotional response (you didn't laugh at the comedy, cry at
MC>    the tragedy, run in terror from the horror) or is it the
MC>    logical flaws?  So many people come on here and come up with
MC>    stuff I never even noticed.

     All of the above.  A movie can be meticulously well-constructed,
     paying attention to the last detail of story, plot, scenery,
     etc. - but it can still drag.  It still might not make me laugh
     or cry or cringe in my seat, and I would still be disappointed.
     On the other hand, a movie can have more holes in the story and
     illogic galore, and it can still be a fun ride.
          "Lethal Weapon 2," for instance, is a completely ridiculous
     movie.  If Riggs and Murtaugh attacked the South African Consulate in
     real life the way they did in this movie, they would have been thrown
     off the force, hauled up before a judge on charges, and even brought
     before a Federal grand jury for causing a major international
     incident.  The villains were silly, there was too much unnecessary
     foul language, and the movie threw any sort of "logic" out the window.
     But it was fun to watch, the car chases and shoot-outs were exciting,
     and the one-liners were as funny as hell.  "Hey Riggs - what does this
     say?"  "Same thing that says behind me, but I don't give a f**k."
     "Okay, okay, okay-kay-kay, I get it - BAD cop, bad cop!"
          On the other hand, I was not impressed with David Lynch's
     "Wild At Heart."  It went out of its way to present weird
     images and to try to be different, but it had the same faults
     that I found in "Blue Velvet:" the characters may have been
     well-developed, but they were unsympathetic and they failed to
     capture my sympathies.  The violence turned me off, the parallels
     with "The Wizard Of Oz" were silly, and the symbolism went over
     my head.  It seemed to me that David Lynch was busy trying to
     show the audience what a Great Cinematic Artist he did, while
     forgetting that the audience has to ENJOY the movie.
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA