HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
Subject: REVIEW: MEDITERRANEO
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01440
Keywords: author=K.Johnson
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:59:04 GMT
Reply-To: blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu (Brian L. Johnson)
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Organization: ?


                               MEDITERRANEO
                       A film review by Ken Johnson
                        Copyright 1992 Ken Johnson

90 min., not rated, Drama, 1992, In Italian with English subtitles
Director: Gabriele Salvatores
Cast: Diego Abatantuono, Claudio Bigaglili, Guiseppe Cederna,
      Claudio Bilso, Luigi Alberti, Ugo Conti, Memo Dini,
      Vasco Mirandola, Luigi Montini, Irene Grazioli, Antonio Catania,
      Vanna Barba

     Several Italian soldiers are sent to a Greek island for four
months.  After they arrive, their ship gets blown up.  At first the
island appears to be empty, but the soldiers who are cut off from the
world soon, find the villagers.  The soldiers have to start new lives on
the island because they can't get off of it.

     MEDITERRANEO is a wonderful film, and I strongly urge you to go see
it.  The film completely entertained me for the full hour and a half,
but I wished that it was longer because I found myself wanting to know
more about the soldiers.  I am really glad that I got to go see this
film and I feel that it is worth full ticket price, whatever it is.  On
a scale of zero to five, I give MEDITERRANEO a five.  MEDITERRANEO is
not rated but contains female nudity, adult situations, and explicit
language.

     The locations used for the film were great; the island is
beautiful, especially in the mountain country and in the bay area.  The
shots overlooking the ocean are fascinating and really made me want to
go visit this island.  The people on the island were well portrayed,
which added to the film.

     The film has comedy sprinkled through it, which I found made the
film more enjoyable.  I tend to like a film better when it makes me
laugh a few times.  The plot is not overpowering and is one that I don't
think I have seen before.  The soldiers were interesting people, they
were given personalities, traits, hobbies, etc.  The actors who
portrayed the soldiers did a great job.  I am glad that this film won an
Oscar for the best foreign language film in the 1992 Oscars because I
feel that it really deserved it.

     MEDITERRANEO I think is the best film that I have seen this year
and ranks as one of my favorite films out of all the films that I have
seen.  It is just a great film in its cinematography, directing, acting,
and story line.  If you tend to like foreign films, definitely go see
this one even if you have to travel to do so.

Ken J.
blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edu
Xref: sparky rec.arts.movies.reviews:299 rec.arts.animation:3151 rec.arts.sf.reviews:109
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Robin Williams
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:45:28 GMT

In article <25689@sophia.inria.fr> glaurent@wombat.inria.fr (Guillaume Laurent) writes:
>Hi. I've read he's taking dance lessons with Paula Abdul, as a preparation for
>his next film.
>
>Question is: what's this next film?

A Peter Pan/Paula Abdul Coca-Cola commercial duet.  They'll do the "dancing
on air" thing for real.



Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Feminist Perspective of Batman Returns
From: stapleton@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (Dr. Ross Alan Stapleton)
Date: 25 Jul 1992 11:28 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department
Keywords: Batman, feminist, confusion, symoblic
Summary: What do you think about the messages in Batman Returns?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <poznikof.711847807@sfu.ca>, poznikof@fraser.sfu.ca (Kenneth Shane Poznikoff) writes...
>When looking at a movie like Batman Returns, we cannot simply
>consider the fact that the concept was created in the 30's 
>therefore any messages that it has today are irrelavent.  We
>have too consider that the movie was actually created in
>today's social context.  Also, remember that this film is
>not disseminating ideas, but rather is reflecting the ideology
>of the writers -- assumedly the ideologies of the dominant
>social order.  (By presenting these ideas to the audience, 
>the ideology is reafirmed, thus ensuring the ideology's servival.)
> 
>That is what confuses me.  When I look at certain scenes,
>I see some progressive notions, for example woman being
>equal to man.  When at other sceens, or if I look at the same 
>scenes in a different light, I see very negative, reactionary 
>notions, for example, the psychotic nature of (Cat)woman.
> 
>What do you think?
>---Shane

While "Batman" may have been created in the 30s, this film was made for the
1990s.   It has even less excuse for not reflecting current reality than many
movie romans a clef, which take substantial liberties to make, say, the
1800s appear sanitary and progressive.

But I think it should be noted that Catwoman is not a hero, she's an
antihero.   (Batman is very dark as well, but frankly neither of the two
movies developed his character much, did they?)   Catwoman is not supposed
to represent a role model, but to evince empathy as a victim.   The scene
of her dismantling her apartment was a picture of her descent into madness;
she was cracking under torture (the robot telephone ad was a truly horrible
psychological assault, the last straw in an incessant series of suggestions
as to how women ought to be to be accepted by men).

If you'd like to examine a current film for its treatment of gender,
dissect "Cool World"... if you can stomach it...

ras
From: glaurent@wombat.inria.fr (Guillaume Laurent)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Robin Williams
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:25:21 GMT
Organization: Koala Project, Bull Research France

Hi. I've read he's taking dance lessons with Paula Abdul, as a preparation for
his next film.

Question is: what's this next film?

				Thanks,
				Guillaume.
From: wcrusher@netlink.cts.com (Wes Welty)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Columbia Pictures address wanted
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:03:59 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Can someone please send me the address to Columbia Pictures please. Emailing 
it is prefered due to too many messges daily on the sub for me  to read each 
one.
 
W. Crusher

--                    
INTERNET:  wcrusher@netlink.cts.com (Wes Welty)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!wcrusher
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: curtis@optima.UUCP (Curtis E. Dyreson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: The Adjuster... (MEGA-HELLA SPOILER)
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:19:58 GMT

From article <1504bdINNf59@agate.berkeley.edu>, by peterme@ocf.berkeley.edu (Peter D. Merholz):
> I just saw this film the past weekend, and I thought it was pretty
> good, if a little inaccessible...

Gene and Roger and the local art critic all gave this film a big thumbs up
calling it great, quirky, and involving, but I was sorely disappointed.
The backdrop to this movie is that Adjuster, normally there
to make the claim as small as possible, goes to great lengths to 
comfort his clients.  There are a lot of odd scenes and different 
threads, and supposedly it all comes together (unlike Lynch films
for example), but it never does.  In fact, I can't remember ever 
seeing a good, plotless narrative film.  This may be the best of
the bunch, but quirky unconnected scenes do not a movie make (IMHO).

My reaction to the critics ranting and raving about the film is 
summarized by the clip Gene and Roger showed where the Adjuster 
shoots an arrow out the window.  They claim that later in the
film, we find out why he shoots the arrow out the window.  Not at all.
What we come to learn is that his house has no neighboring houses,
therefore he can shoot the arrow out his window.  But why does
he do so?  That we never find out, like much else in this movie.
There is no motivation given for the plot developments and there
is absolutely zero character development.  The sex-quirky couple
is just sex-quirky, they do weird stuff, and eventually they burn his
house down.  Any motivation for them doing so?  Nope.  The wife
films censored parts of movies so her sister can watch.  The
reason is that the sister likes to share what the wife does.  
But does she share anything else at all about her day?  Nope.  It`s
just not a convincing motivation, the scenes are simply there to 
titillate the audience.  Any reason why the Adjuster works so
hard to comfort his clients?  Well, cause he's the Adjuster.  Oh,
of course, now I see.

So I found the film to be inacessible as well, also unconnected,
without reason, without motivation, etc.  In short, watching it was 
rather a pointless exercise on the whole.

> What I want to know is, what do people make of the ending... When
> the man's house is burning, he starts staring at his hand. And then
> there's a cut to him being an adjusters for his wife and her sister as
> their house burned. At first I thought it was just a weird cut, as
> if he was imagining he'd have to play the adjuster for their own 
> family now that the house is in flames. Then I thought that maybe he
> had met his wife and her sister working as an adjuster for them...Which
> do you think is more plausible...
> Also, what's the significance of looking at the hand?
> --Peter M.

I had the "flashback to the start at the end" interpretation.  What
about the hand?  Why the shot though his hand at the fire?  Any 
reason for that.  Nope.

Curtis Dyreson
From: pilot.njin.net!hedges@overmind.mind.org
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: George Miller
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:56:00 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
X-mailer: Stadel 3.4a-227
X-Spam-content: irrelevant

reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher) writes:

>The "right" George Miller (as opposed to the "wrong" George Miller, who,
>while competent, is much less talented - "The Man From Snowy River" is
>his best) took a break from filmmaking for a few years, possibly because
>of the highly unpleasant experience of making "The Witches of Eastwick".
>I've heard recently that he's trying to make a film, but I don't remember
>what it was.

I'd heard similar about the "Witches" filming ordeal.  Evidently
the actresses complained greatly that he was not an "actor's director"
(perhaps they should have, as witches, tried to raise George Cukor
from the dead  :-) and there were other trials as well.  I'm glad
to hear that he is trying to make another film.  I can't imagine
why someone that talented isn't in great demand by Hollywood but
I guess he's not part of "the club."  Thanks for the update.
From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Buckaroo Banzai experts?
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:53:46 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <159pr0INNc9f@agate.berkeley.edu> griffith@dweeb.fx.com writes:
>
>I need to find out the correct spelling of the following names, as they
>appeared in _BUCKAROO BANZAI: ACROSS THE 8TH DIMENSION_.  If you can check
>the movie, I'd appreciate it.
>
>		John Whorfin
                   correct.
>		John Bigbooty
                     Bigboote'
>		John Yaya
                     Ya Ya
>		John Smallberries
                     Small Berries

[Reference: 'Buckaroo Banzai'. Earl Mac Rauch, Pocket Books, 1984]

>Thanks.  It's probably not worth posting, so email will do.

Sure it is. Lotsa Banzai fanatics here.



-- 
_______________________________Mike Schuster________________________________
NY Pub. Access UNIX/Internet: schuster@panix.com | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM
The Portal (R) System: schuster@cup.portal.com   | MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: porges@beretta.camb.inmet.com (Don Porges)
Subject: Re: Tune In Tomorrow
Organization: Intermetrics Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:38:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.192517.11121@zip.eecs.umich.edu> stame@emunix.emich.edu (Stewart Tame) writes:

>Also [TUNE IN TOMORROW] was the second movie I've ever seen with spoken 
>credits (the other was _Farenheit 451_.)  Are there any others that anyone 
> can think of?  

THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, I'm pretty sure.
-- 
					-- Don Porges
					porges@inmet.camb.inmet.com
					..uunet!inmet!porges
From: dlee@oasys.dt.navy.mil (David Lee)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: favorite movie musicals
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:26:56 GMT
Reply-To: dlee@oasys.dt.navy.mil (David Lee)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In rec.arts.movies, rlwilliams@gallua.gallaudet.edu writes:
>Ah, one other one of my favorites...but the name is escaping me... it was the
>musical version of "the Philadelphia Story" and starred Bing Crosby, Grace
>Kelly and Frank Sinatra and Louis Armstrong... some of the great songs were:
>True Love, You're Sensational, Did you eva'

>SOMEBODY must remember the name of this movie!


How could you forget "High Society"...???   Great movie.
.
.
.
.
...
From: maureenw@sco.COM (Maureen Wilkes)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Audience Comments During Movies
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:04:09 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.


I can't recall any humourous remarks made during movies (although I 
remembering making quite a few remarks myself during the unbearable
and totally unforgivable PATRIOT GAMES), but I do remember a disturbing
reaction to THELMA & LOUISE.  During the rape scene, as Gina Davis'
character (now, was she Thelma or was she Louise?) was brutalized and
punched in the face, a row full of college-age men laughed, hooted,
and whistled.  The women around me were horrified and disgusted, and 
I silently wished every one of those guys a long, slow, painful death 
by disembowelment of the rectal canal, preferably performed by a 
squad of 200 lb. football players.  As the audience filed out of 
the cinema at the end, the same guys were overheard referring to
the lead characters as "dumb bitches".

On a lighter note, I just remembered the time I saw WHITE PALACE.
A group of young teenagers had managed to sneak in, and were clearly
uncomfortable watching the big sex scene.  So they had a farting contest.
In between James Spader's gasps and Susan Sarandon's moans, came lovely
ffffts and splats from the front row.  It was almost like an accompanying
score.
From: "eric walker" <eric.walker@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: george miller
Date: 28 Jul 92 10:43:56 EST
Reply-To: "eric walker" <eric.walker@channel1.com>
Distribution: rec
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

DH>>The "right" George Miller (as opposed to the "wrong" George Miller, who,

DH>to hear that he is trying to make another film.  I can't imagine
DH>why someone that talented isn't in great demand by Hollywood but
DH>I guess he's not part of "the club."  Thanks for the update.

     If George Miller announced that he was planning to do another
     "Mad Max" movie, Warner Bros. would probably sign him up on the
     spot.  Hollywood is like that.
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Gravity doesn't exist; the earth sucks.
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA
From: "eric walker" <eric.walker@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: christopher walken
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:54:16 EST
Reply-To: "eric walker" <eric.walker@channel1.com>
Distribution: rec
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

KW>Can someone kindly give me (without spoiling the plot) an idea of what
KW>Communion is about?

     I'll quote Leonard Maltin's movie guide, if that helps:

     "COMMUNION (1989) C-107m. **1/2  D: Phiippe Mora.  Christopher
     Walken, Lindsay Crouse, Frances Sternhagen, Andreas Katsulas, Terri
     Hanauer, Joel Carlson, Basil Hoffman.  Psychological thriller with
     Walken well cast as writer Whitley Strieber, who finds himself
     visited by strange creatures.  Does he need a psychiatrist or an
     exorcist?  A bit overlong, and the dramatic scenes between Walken
     and wife Crouse don't quite work, but still effectively scary while
     never gratuitously gory.  Strieber adapted his own best-selling
     book, which he claims is true."
---
  SLMR 2.1a  if ((tiny) and (toony)) then allalittle(looney);
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA
From: ficus.cs.ucla.edu!reiher@overmind.mind.org
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: The Vanishing
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:42:00 GMT
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
X-mailer: Stadel 3.4a-227
X-Spam-content: irrelevant

In article <1992Jul22.013701.1052@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> 
thomason@feldspar.egr.msu.edu (Faran Thomason) writes:
>Although I am getting sick of Americans remaking
>quality foriegn films. Why not just allow forign films to get a better 
release pattern and
>promotion. If we can export all our films all around the world, forign films
 should become
>a staple in our theaters.

The view in Hollywood is that Americans will not go to see films that do
not feature American stars.  (Or foreigners who have become "American"
stars by appearing in lots of American films, like Arnold Schwarzenegger.)
There may be some truth to this view.  A fine film like "One False Move",
which is in English, that gets dozens of tremendous reviews is likely to make
 
far less money than a potboiler like "Unlawful Entry".  There are really only
 
two reasons why - one is that "Unlawful Entry" has "name stars", the other is
 
the vast difference in the amount of money spent promoting the two films.  
The 
Hollywood position is that the first reason is the predominating one.
I have some doubts.  I'd like to see some studio or releasing organization
take a foreign language film with a strong chance at popularity, dub it
well (I prefer subtitles, but the vast bulk of the American public won't
go to subtitled films), and spend a lot of money opening it wide and
promoting it.  This kind of strategy has worked in the past.  Joseph E. 
Levine
made millions this way off "Hercules", in the early 1960's, without even
bothering to give it a good dubbing job.  I think, for instance, that
"Peking Opera Blues", or "The Killer", or "A Better Tomorrow", could
easily make $20-$40 million, given good dubbing and a proper advertising
campaign.

But the bulk of the quality foreign language films indeed would not
be popular successes in the U.S., even with this strategy.  They don't
feature lots of action and violence, nor comedy of the belly-laugh
variety, nor spiffy special effects, and those are the elements that
tend to make for big successes in American films.  They tend to feature
small, interesting stories about unusual people, and those sorts of
films don't tend to make lots of money in the U.S., whatever language
they are in.

--
  Peter Reiher
  reiher@ashby.cs.ucla.edu
From: jpl.NoSubdomain.NoD!tedk@overmind.mind.org
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: TERMINATOR II
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:04:00 GMT
Organization: Bellcore
X-mailer: Stadel 3.4a-227
X-Spam-content: irrelevant


|
|> Yes, they should settle that problem by destroying Skynet once and for
|> all and putting an end to the sequels.  T2 was to Terminator what 
Highlander
|> 2 was to Highlander (and no, I don't just mean a sequel, I mean a *bad*
|> sequel).
|> 
|> 
|

I think that's the first time I've heard anyone say they really disliked T2.
Personally, I put it in my top ten of all time.  What about it was so bad
that it deserves comparison with Highlander 2?
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: ALIENS 3 was great!
Date: 27 Jul 1992 19:18:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA/JSC

FOR A DOLLAR AT THE LOW CLASS CINEMA!

Very disappointing. I'm glad I wasted only a buck.

Maybe someday I will start listening to the net. 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: The QUIET EARTH- what happenned?
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:20:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.170417.3895@news.acns.nwu.edu> bart@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Bart Gold) writes:
>     I just saw the Quiet earth yesterday.
>
>     I'd like your opinions what happenned at the end?
>     Where was zac? What was it like on earth at that same point if zac
>wasn't on earth??
>

You'll find as many opinions about the ending are there are readers on
rec.arts.movies.  I personally thinked he died when the truck smashed
into the grid and was transported into yet another world/dimension.
What happened back on Earth is debatable.  Possibly  he destroyed the
grid before anything else was affected, or maybe the world was destroyed,
who knows.


--
McCreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com     Computers are like Old Testament gods;
Me? Speak for Compaq?  Yeah, right.   lots of rules and no mercy.
"By this time my lungs were aching for air..."               Joseph Campbell
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: irwin@horton.Colorado.EDU (IRWIN JULIE R)
Subject: Re: Prelude to a Kiss is the best!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:23:30 GMT

rauser@fraser.sfu.ca (Richard John Rauser) writes:

>faa@artemis.cs.wayne.edu (Felicitas A. Atabong) writes:

>>I went to see Prelude to a Kiss [and loved it]

>  Sorry, but I thought that after the kiss events went downhill fast.

 ...
>   Try flakey, drippy, and painfully sentimental...
> 


>   It brought tears to my eyes to see how painfully *unoriginal* this movie
>was...the idea has been rehashed a thousand times by everyone from Walt Disney
>to Robert Heinlein. Yuck. 



***SPOILERS***



I'm surprised that so many people think this movie is "about" a wacky 
switching of souls, and so it should be judged against such movies as
"Big" et al. and it furthermore should be judged unoriginal because 
it is not the first mistaken identity movie.  I'm also surprised that 
people think this movie is "too sweet and sentimental".  

This movie is about very sad and strange issues-- such as the huge amount that
you miss (and, admittedly, gain) by only getting one life-- one family, one
gender.  The movie is also about the death inside all of us (that phrase sounds
like a hallmark card, but the reality of it isn't too sweet), and about how
desexed we become in old age.  In some ways, the movie mocks romantic love
by showing that it is based on something fleeting as well as something
lasting.  Also, I thought it was interesting that the youthful soul was
so cynical and old, and the older one so full of life.  This observation
is more than a conceit on the part of the movie-- it is a real truth, I 
think-- it's difficult and somehow unattractive to appreciate life while 
you are living it, at least
at the thankful, goofy and tacky level at which the old man lived his
Jamaican vacation.   Several people mentionned that it was somehow
dissatisfying that the old man is left to die while the youngsters
go on-- but that's the point of the movie!  It wasn't a goopy
little trifle at all-- romantic, but not sweetsy and shallow, IMO.


Julie
IRWIN@yertle.colorado.edu



>--
>Richard J. Rauser              Holli Would If She Could
>rauser@sfu.ca
>WNI                             And She Is...Right Now
> 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies