Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Film, worst of the year

Expand Messages
  • Stolzi@aol.com
    I m with DavidB. I thought STAR WARS I was a fabulously entertaining film, - one man s stereotype is another man s archetype, anyway. The later two were less
    Message 1 of 28 , May 6 2:46 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm with DavidB. I thought STAR WARS I was a fabulously entertaining film, -
      one man's stereotype is another man's archetype, anyway.

      The later two were less entertaining, imo, and my friend Grace, whose
      judgment I trust, says that PHANTOM MENACE stinks - she only watched/bought
      it because they have children in the house. And every time I walk into my
      warehouse store and see it playing on the screens there, I concur. Totally
      plastic people - including the live action ones. I think the only reason the
      animated characters convinced in the first film was because so much else was
      going on that it swept one away into believing in all of them. Besides, the
      animated characters were secondary ones, as I recall. Robots, and a guy like
      Chewy, are easier to make convincing.

      Now, for an entertaining fantasy film, who's seen last week's ARABIAN NIGHTS?
      I enjoyed Pt. I very much and have Pt. II taped to view when I get back
      home. I know Ellie Farrell said she loved both parts.

      Mary S
    • David F. Porteous
      Message 2 of 28 , May 6 3:10 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        <<I seem to remember reading that TPM was a huge moneymaker for Lucas; and I
        also
        seem to remember that it was the highest grossing film ever. The only reason
        its
        out on video is to make even more money.>>

        Perfectly true -- a massive moneymaker. It wasn't the biggest grossing film
        ever, that was Star Wars -- because it was re-released. But TPM was one of
        the biggest grossers of last year, being beaten by the Matrix if I remember
        rightly. It still raked in hundreds of millions. And for the record I
        didn't say that all of his money was made on this (Lucas made his fortune
        on the merchandising for the first three films which the studio foolishly
        relinquished all rights to) I said he made "an absolute fortune", but if
        you don't count several hundred million dollars as a fortune....

        <<You
        > want great sfx, especially ones produced against the odds of what we now
        > consider primitive technology, try _2001_. Now that was an awesome
        film.>>

        2001 was great big pants, the only good film Kubrick ever made was
        Apocalypse Now -- frankly I'm glad he's dead and I hope his retrospective is
        delayed until I am likewise. 2001 is what happens when short stories are
        stretched to try and make films; huge empty sequences and bad sound and lots
        of pretty shots of NOTHING HAPPENING. (God I hate him).

        > refers to _Phantom Menace_! Didn't you read what I wrote? Criminy, the
        > video just came out, how could he have made a fortune from it?

        Well for a start blockbuster video in the UK stock a minimum of 30 copies
        per store with an average of 40. And public sales of the video have been
        very very impressive. It has been out for more than a month in the UK. And
        don't forget merchandising -- that's where the real money is.

        > I doubt the disparity was quite so great. At least they got an
        > interesting trailer out of that one (all I've seen of it), which is more
        > than I can say for even the trailer of _Phantom Menace_.

        No on that I disagree most strongly. The trailer was brilliant, it was part
        of a hype machine which Lucas has become adept at controlling. He knows
        exactly what he's doing and he's doing it right. Note his choice not to
        release the film on DVD for the moment. Effectively he is forcing the fans
        to buy two copies under the excuse of special features for the entire
        trilogy when he concludes work on the third film. And they will! They all
        will. And the next two films will enjoy massive financial success based on
        the very real success of this one. Nobody in the real world cares about the
        Hugo awards or the oscars, they're like children dying in Africa -- all very
        well and good but it doesn't change the fact that kids want lightsabers and
        junk food with pictures of large eared computer generated aliens on the
        packaging.

        Oh and just to set things straight, I own all four episodes on video and I
        love all of them. But 4 is obviously the most simplistic of the first
        three -- even Fox admit they saw it as a kids film when it was made. 5 was
        dark and revealing, and 6 was an ascension story -- how can you not love
        that?

        D.
      • WendellWag@aol.com
        In a message dated 5/6/00 6:02:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... No, Francis Ford Coppola directed _Apocalypse Now_. Perhaps you re thinking of _Full Metal
        Message 3 of 28 , May 6 3:10 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 5/6/00 6:02:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
          dporteous@... writes:

          > 2001 was great big pants, the only good film Kubrick ever made
          > was Apocalypse Now -- frankly I'm glad he's dead and I hope
          > his retrospective is delayed until I am likewise.

          No, Francis Ford Coppola directed _Apocalypse Now_. Perhaps you're thinking
          of _Full Metal Jacket_. I think Kubrick's best three films are _2001_, _Dr.
          Strangelove_, and _Barry Lyndon_.
        • stephen@stephen.com
          Hi - ... I just went and looked this stuff up at: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/ All time, world wide totals: Titanic is #1 at 1.8 billion TPM is #2 at 0.9
          Message 4 of 28 , May 6 3:14 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi -

            In a message dated 5/6/00 6:01:58 PM, dporteous@... writes:
            >It wasn't the biggest grossing film
            >ever, that was Star Wars -- because it was re-released. But TPM was one
            >of
            >the biggest grossers of last year, being beaten by the Matrix if I remember
            >rightly. It still raked in hundreds of millions.

            I just went and looked this stuff up at: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/

            All time, world wide totals:

            Titanic is #1 at 1.8 billion
            TPM is #2 at 0.9 billion

            However if you correct for inflation:

            Gone with the Wind is #1
            Star Wars is #2
            TPM is #20

            _However_ TPM came out so recently that it will be rising in these listings
            as video and international sales continue at a rapid pace.

            I haven't seen TPM myself. I'm interested in the rankings because I'm
            interested in how the LotR will compare.

            - Stephen
          • Bill
            ok,,this sucked me out of lurker mode for a few minutes... I haven t seen TPM yet. At the time it was out, I was spending most of my spare time with my mother
            Message 5 of 28 , May 6 3:59 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              ok,,this sucked me out of lurker mode for a few minutes...
              I haven't seen TPM yet. At the time it was out, I was spending most
              of my spare time with my mother as she lost her battle with liver cancer. I
              still haven't set up my vcr since I moved and doubt I will soon..so I will
              pass on the artistic merits debate.
              Aa to the rest though: yes..it made oodles and oodles of money. Since
              Lucas financed the movie with his own money, he got most of the box office.
              Not to mention the toys and whatever. He definitely is a shrewd businessman.
              The original STAR WARS is still the best in my opinion. Yes, 2001
              had better special effects. Yes, SW is not Shakespeare.
              But....
              It had characters you cared about. Harrison Ford might have been
              doing what he always does..but this was his first starring role. He was
              new..fresh..as were all but Sir Alec. ANd sorry if I sound easy to please,
              but that movie rocked. Some funny dialogue, good action sequences, and that
              opening shot of the cruiser seeming to sail over your head onto the
              screen...well..it may seem outdated now, but back then, let me tell you, it
              blew most of us away. EMPIRE suffered from trilogitis(second part is the
              weakest because it's just a bridge between part 1 and the climax in 3)) and
              JEDI was satisfying in tying it all together, but for sheer impact, SW
              rates as #1 in my book. Without it(and some might view this as a bad thing)
              there would not have been the films that came later, both sf and fantasy.

              I may wait until PArt 2 comes out before I see TPM(I stink setting
              up vcrs) but it's nice to know that it and it's sequels are there.

              <slinks back to shadows>
            • David F. Porteous
              No, Francis Ford Coppola directed _Apocalypse Now_. Perhaps you re thinking of _Full Metal Jacket_. I think Kubrick s best three films are _2001_, _Dr.
              Message 6 of 28 , May 6 5:12 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                No, Francis Ford Coppola directed _Apocalypse Now_.  Perhaps you're thinking
                of _Full Metal Jacket_.  I think Kubrick's best three films are _2001_, _Dr.
                Strangelove_, and _Barry Lyndon_.
                Thank you.  I freely admit my ignorance.  I did mean Full Metal Jaket.  And I'm going to have to go back on what I said earlier, since you reminded me he also did Dr. Strangelove.  Now that was a good filum. :))
                 
                D.
              • WendellWag@aol.com
                No, Lucas has now said that there will be only six films.
                Message 7 of 28 , May 6 5:21 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  No, Lucas has now said that there will be only six films.
                • David F. Porteous
                  All time, world wide totals: Titanic is #1 at 1.8 billion TPM is #2 at 0.9 billion However if you correct for inflation: Gone with the Wind is #1 Star Wars is
                  Message 8 of 28 , May 6 5:21 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    All time, world wide totals:

                    Titanic is #1 at 1.8 billion
                    TPM is #2 at 0.9 billion

                    However if you correct for inflation:

                    Gone with the Wind is #1
                    Star Wars is #2
                    TPM is #20

                    Sorry, can you just update me a little. When Star Wars was remastered an
                    re-released did it make it to the no1 spot, then titanic came out? I hate
                    going on innaccurate information -- I thought Titanic peaked at 1.2 and that
                    both releases of Star Wars made a total of 1.3. Don't I look stupid now.

                    My first few posts to any list tend to crash and burn like this. LOL.

                    D.
                  • David F. Porteous
                    Message 9 of 28 , May 6 5:29 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      <<It had characters you cared about. Harrison Ford might have been
                      doing what he always does..but this was his first starring role. He was
                      new..fresh..as were all but Sir Alec. ANd sorry if I sound easy to please,
                      but that movie rocked.>>

                      Didn't HF do American Graffiti (sp? again) first? So I heard, but I've
                      never seen it. In retrospect that line where Luke says "blah, blah, blah,
                      pick up some power converters" was utterly annoying teenage whine. At that
                      point alone he was either acting very well or being himself. I think Ewan
                      is doing rather well imitating Alec in the new film -- the voice I mean.

                      << I may wait until PArt 2 comes out before I see TPM(I stink setting
                      up vcrs) but it's nice to know that it and it's sequels are there. >>

                      I know there are supposed to be 9 films all together. Does anybody know if
                      Lucas ever intends to make the last three after he finishes the first three?

                      D.
                    • David F. Porteous
                      Message 10 of 28 , May 6 5:48 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        <<Certain entities may not consider the Hugos significant, but they are a
                        popular choice award ... an award which was given virtually by
                        acclamation to all three previous films. This shows that the Hugos
                        voting populace are enthusiastic Star Wars fans ... yet they totally
                        ignored this one. That's hard evidence, where box office receipts
                        measure something different, and other comments would be anecdotal, that
                        this one bombed in reputation.>>

                        I'll agree here. I think a lot of Star Wars fans were very irritated by the
                        addition of characters like Jar-Jar Binks who were just for comic effect.
                        And for existing fans it simply couldn't deliver script-wise. No arguments
                        at all. It's a real shame that none of the actors were actually allowed to
                        act. I remember an interview with Liam saying that his character had no
                        depth at all. The film suffered for this, Liam & Ewan are both very good
                        actors who were criminally underused.

                        <<Curious that the
                        hand-waving things that Alec Guinness could do effortlessly, Liam Neeson
                        had a lot of trouble with. The flying junk dealer even said to him,
                        "-What do you think you are, a Jedi knight? Cut that crap out; it
                        doesn't work on me.-">>

                        Tsk, tsk, tsk. LOL. You just weren't paying attention to Return of The
                        Jedi were you? Jabba the Hut wasn't affected by Luke doing it, it's
                        something to do with the species I believe; you'd need a real SW nut to
                        explain it.

                        << Also, I had never previously known Jedi knights,
                        whether played by Guinness, Frank Oz, James Earl Jones, or even Mark
                        Hamill, to be acted in such a stiff and unappealing manner.>>

                        That was script problems again, I'm sure. In the first films these men were
                        setting the standard so it's only to be expected that they were allowed more
                        interpretation of the roles.

                        Did Yoda ever use a lightsaber? What do you think? Would his one have been
                        smaller? And finally, because it's late here, does anyone know if JEJ will
                        be brought back (in episode 3) to do the voice of Darth Vader again? Pay
                        good money to see that, I would.

                        D.
                      • David S. Bratman
                        ... No surprise there, as I think the junk dealer said something about it being his species. But I m not the one who wasn t paying attention: it was Liam
                        Message 11 of 28 , May 7 9:13 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Sun, 7 May 2000, David F. Porteous wrote:

                          > <<Curious that the
                          > hand-waving things that Alec Guinness could do effortlessly, Liam Neeson
                          > had a lot of trouble with. The flying junk dealer even said to him,
                          > "-What do you think you are, a Jedi knight? Cut that crap out; it
                          > doesn't work on me.-">>
                          >
                          > Tsk, tsk, tsk. LOL. You just weren't paying attention to Return of The
                          > Jedi were you? Jabba the Hut wasn't affected by Luke doing it, it's
                          > something to do with the species I believe; you'd need a real SW nut to
                          > explain it.

                          No surprise there, as I think the junk dealer said something about it
                          being his species. But I'm not the one who wasn't paying attention: it
                          was Liam Neeson's character. Luke has the excuse of being a neophyte
                          Jedi and in desperate straits. Neesons's character is a Jedi master who
                          ought to know better, he's just trying to save money, and he does the
                          handwaving _twice_, as if he didn't understand why it didn't work the
                          first time. Nor is this the only occasion that his mighty Jedi mind
                          tricks fail. And when he does detect things, like other characters
                          being upset, a kindergartener could have done as much.

                          > << Also, I had never previously known Jedi knights,
                          > whether played by Guinness, Frank Oz, James Earl Jones, or even Mark
                          > Hamill, to be acted in such a stiff and unappealing manner.>>
                          >
                          > That was script problems again, I'm sure. In the first films these men were
                          > setting the standard so it's only to be expected that they were allowed more
                          > interpretation of the roles.

                          I understand that Harrison Ford actually complained to Lucas, "these
                          lines are unreadable!" If the earlier films were less lifeless, it might
                          have been in small part the script, probably to some degree superior
                          actors (I've never liked Neeson much anyway, and MacColl is inexperienced
                          in this kind of role), in larger degree that more of the acting in those
                          films was actor-to-actor, not actor-to-bluescreen, but most of all that
                          in those days Lucas was still interested in directing.

                          > Did Yoda ever use a lightsaber? What do you think? Would his one have been
                          > smaller? And finally, because it's late here, does anyone know if JEJ will
                          > be brought back (in episode 3) to do the voice of Darth Vader again? Pay
                          > good money to see that, I would.

                          Alas, you would not see it, you'd only hear it. (This reminds me that I
                          saw a review of the original film in which the reviewer, following the
                          press kit which did not mention Jones, said that Vader was played by one
                          David Prowse, who sounds remarkably like James Earl Jones. I was looking
                          for these old reviews because of the rumor spread by TPM fans, annoyed at
                          its lousy reviews, that the original SW had gotten equally lousy
                          reviews. I remembered it being praised. I checked: it was praised.)

                          David Bratman
                        • Berni Phillips
                          ... As the other person in the room as David was watching it, I will second that. I knew it wasn t going to be great. I wasn t expecting to be hideously
                          Message 12 of 28 , May 7 3:29 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            >From: "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@...>

                            >I was never a wild SW fan, but I enjoyed the first two films, or else I
                            >would never have bothered to watch TPM at all. It was an "entertainment"
                            >film that failed to entertain me; in fact, it was _negatively_
                            >entertaining. There can be no greater failure than that. And I am not
                            >the only one to feel that way who is not allergic to SW altogether.

                            As the other person in the room as David was watching it, I will second
                            that. I knew it wasn't going to be great. I wasn't expecting to be
                            hideously bored. I enjoyed "Waterworld" a lot more.

                            Berni
                            Get that ad out from under here!
                          • ERATRIANO@aol.com
                            In a message dated 05/07/2000 6:22:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bernip@ix.netcom.com writes: Now that s a scary
                            Message 13 of 28 , May 7 3:40 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 05/07/2000 6:22:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                              bernip@... writes:

                              << I enjoyed "Waterworld" a lot more. >>
                              Now that's a scary thought. I haven't seen "Waterworld," only heard of it as
                              such a great and awful waste of money. But then, I loved "Hudson Hawk,"
                              which was also panned.

                              Lizzie
                            • Edward F. Stack
                              Good, bad, who cares, if they were fun. Besides, Gladiator is in theatres now and Lord of teh Rings is coming. If neither of those interest you, stop talking
                              Message 14 of 28 , May 7 4:50 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Good, bad, who cares, if they were fun. Besides, Gladiator is in theatres
                                now and Lord of teh Rings is coming. If neither of those interest you, stop
                                talking about Star Wars (noen of them are meant to be art).

                                Edward Stack
                                Speculative Fiction for the Web (Winner of the PlanetDoom "Cool Site Award")
                                http://members.tripod.com/edward.stack
                                Author of "Ily's Dream", available at www.roxybooks.com, Barnes and Noble
                                (www.BN.com), or Powells (www.powells.com).
                              • Edward F. Stack
                                Waterworld was a very fun movie destroyed by the negative hype. If you like this type of thing at all, and that is a big if, give the wet flick a look. Edward
                                Message 15 of 28 , May 7 6:26 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Waterworld was a very fun movie destroyed by the negative hype. If you like
                                  this type of thing at all, and that is a big if, give the wet flick a look.

                                  Edward Stack
                                  Speculative Fiction for the Web (Winner of the PlanetDoom "Cool Site Award")
                                  http://members.tripod.com/edward.stack
                                  Author of "Ily's Dream", available at www.roxybooks.com, Barnes and Noble
                                  (www.BN.com), or Powells (www.powells.com).
                                • David S. Bratman
                                  ... The whole point was, it _wasn t_ fun. ... Not true of LOTR, to hear the filmmakers talk. They intend a good film. David Bratman - not responsible for
                                  Message 16 of 28 , May 7 9:53 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Sun, 7 May 2000, Edward F. Stack wrote:

                                    > Good, bad, who cares, if they were fun.

                                    The whole point was, it _wasn't_ fun.

                                    >Besides, Gladiator is in theatres
                                    > now and Lord of teh Rings is coming. If neither of those interest you, stop
                                    > talking about Star Wars (noen of them are meant to be art).

                                    Not true of LOTR, to hear the filmmakers talk. They intend a "good" film.

                                    David Bratman
                                    - not responsible for the following advertisement -
                                  • stephen@stephen.com
                                    Hi - ... All I really know is what I found on http://www.boxofficemojo.com/ - Stephen
                                    Message 17 of 28 , May 7 11:47 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi -

                                      In a message dated 5/6/00 8:13:03 PM, dporteous@... writes:
                                      >Sorry, can you just update me a little. When Star Wars was remastered
                                      >an
                                      >re-released did it make it to the no1 spot, then titanic came out? I hate
                                      >going on innaccurate information -- I thought Titanic peaked at 1.2 and
                                      >that
                                      >both releases of Star Wars made a total of 1.3.

                                      All I really know is what I found on http://www.boxofficemojo.com/

                                      - Stephen
                                    • ERATRIANO@aol.com
                                      In a message dated 05/07/2000 11:13:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, estack@sprint.ca writes:
                                      Message 18 of 28 , May 8 3:33 AM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        In a message dated 05/07/2000 11:13:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                        estack@... writes:

                                        << Waterworld was a very fun movie destroyed by the negative hype. If you
                                        like
                                        this type of thing at all, and that is a big if, give the wet flick a look.
                                        >>

                                        I like a fun flick. I like adventure and cute guys. Some high tech is okay.
                                        So what's not to like? Sounds like I need to track down a copy of
                                        Waterworld.

                                        Lizzie
                                      • Lisa Deutsch Harrigan
                                        I loved TPM! It was actually pretty much what I expected, knowing Lucas (not the best script writer in the world) and what he had to do with the story. It is
                                        Message 19 of 28 , May 8 3:08 PM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I loved TPM! It was actually pretty much what I expected,
                                          knowing Lucas (not the best script writer in the world) and what
                                          he had to do with the story. It is unfortunately, the first act,
                                          always a bit hard to pace, and as I said, George is not a great
                                          script writer. Thank god he hired a script doctor for Episode 2.

                                          Moose, my son, and Jennie, my daughter, and her family also loved
                                          it. Even Dad liked it. He was willing to pay to see it twice.
                                          Moose now owns (and occassionally wears) a Jedi Knight outfit
                                          which I made for him. Moose has never been much of one for
                                          wearing costumes. I bought the wide screen version for more money
                                          without much fighting from Dad the thightwad.

                                          I also now own far too many SW action figures. And love
                                          collecting Queen Amidala stuff. That girl has a fantastic clothes
                                          collection. Were did her daughter learn to be so "plain"?

                                          There are a lot of us out there.

                                          Lisa

                                          Joan Marie Verba wrote:

                                          > Edward F. Stack wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > >> Good, bad, who cares, if they were fun.
                                          >
                                          > David responded:
                                          >
                                          > >The whole point was, it _wasn't_ fun.
                                          >
                                          > _For you_ and for others, it wasn't fun. For _me_ and still
                                          > others, it was.
                                          > It's a matter of taste. And yes, I did observe that Phantom
                                          > Menace didn't
                                          > get a Hugo nomination, and yes, that means that a lot of those
                                          > who enjoyed
                                          > the other Star Wars movies didn't enjoy The Phantom Menace.
                                          > However, that
                                          > still leaves a sizeable number of those of us who did. (Someone
                                          > is buying
                                          > the videotape.) So your point of view is validated by those who
                                          > didn't
                                          > nominate, but mine is validated by other factors.
                                          >
                                        • Edward F. Stack
                                          I hope LOTR is a good film, and fun, and thought provoking. I didn t think Star Wars TPM was fun either, but I m hoping they made the same mistake as the
                                          Message 20 of 28 , May 8 6:40 PM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I hope LOTR is a good film, and fun, and thought provoking. I didn't think
                                            Star Wars TPM was fun either, but I'm hoping they made the same mistake as
                                            the first Star Trek movie and got so wrapped up in the special effects they
                                            forgot the story. LOTR has the advantage of starting with the story, not
                                            the special effects. Let's see what "Battlefield Earth looks like first...

                                            Edward Stack
                                            Speculative Fiction for the Web (Winner of the PlanetDoom "Cool Site Award")
                                            http://members.tripod.com/edward.stack
                                            Author of "Ily's Dream", available at www.roxybooks.com, Barnes and Noble
                                            (www.BN.com), or Powells (www.powells.com).
                                          • Edward F. Stack
                                            Well, go for it, if you think Costner is cute. How can you go wrong with a movie that has Dennis Hopper in an eye patch as the villain. Although I must admit
                                            Message 21 of 28 , May 8 6:50 PM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Well, go for it, if you think Costner is cute. How can you go wrong with a
                                              movie that has Dennis Hopper in an eye patch as the villain. Although I
                                              must admit that I enjoyed The Postman too, but not as much.

                                              Edward Stack
                                              Speculative Fiction for the Web (Winner of the PlanetDoom "Cool Site Award")
                                              http://members.tripod.com/edward.stack
                                              Author of "Ily's Dream", available at www.roxybooks.com, Barnes and Noble
                                              (www.BN.com), or Powells (www.powells.com).


                                              ----- Original Message -----
                                              From: <ERATRIANO@...>
                                              To: <mythsoc@egroups.com>
                                              Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 6:33 AM
                                              Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Film, worst of the year


                                              In a message dated 05/07/2000 11:13:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                              estack@... writes:

                                              << Waterworld was a very fun movie destroyed by the negative hype. If you
                                              like
                                              this type of thing at all, and that is a big if, give the wet flick a look.
                                              >>

                                              I like a fun flick. I like adventure and cute guys. Some high tech is
                                              okay.
                                              So what's not to like? Sounds like I need to track down a copy of
                                              Waterworld.

                                              Lizzie

                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com:
                                              http://click.egroups.com/1/3555/6/_/505012/_/957782013/
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                              The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                                            • Diane Joy Baker
                                              ... From: Berni Phillips ... I tend to refer to *Waterworld* as Waterworks, with Kevin Costmore. I *hated* that film! But then
                                              Message 22 of 28 , May 8 10:34 PM
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                ----- Original Message -----
                                                From: Berni Phillips <bernip@...>

                                                > As the other person in the room as David was watching it, I will second
                                                > that. I knew it wasn't going to be great. I wasn't expecting to be
                                                > hideously bored. I enjoyed "Waterworld" a lot more.
                                                >
                                                > Berni

                                                I tend to refer to *Waterworld* as "Waterworks, with Kevin Costmore." I
                                                *hated* that film! But then again, I loved *Gattaca,* and consider it the
                                                most interesting SF film of its year, while a good friend considers the film
                                                "boring . . . [with] emotionally dead performances." W/ reference to
                                                *Phantom Meanace,* I only liked six things: the sound-track, Liam Neeson,
                                                the fight scenes, esp. with Darth Maul (entirely too obvious a name), the
                                                way Anakin's mother looked as she chose to let him go, though I didn't
                                                believe how easily she did so, the Jedi Council and Senate chambers, and the
                                                pretty pictures of Naboo. The scenes with Jar Jar were next to
                                                nwatchable. ---djb.
                                              • LSolarion@aol.com
                                                In a message dated 05/08/2000 10:34:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dianejoy@earthlink.net writes: A friend told me
                                                Message 23 of 28 , May 9 5:26 AM
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  In a message dated 05/08/2000 10:34:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                                                  dianejoy@... writes:

                                                  << the Jedi Council and Senate chambers, >>

                                                  A friend told me that if you watched closely during the panning shot of the
                                                  senate members, you could catch a glimpse of E.T. Did anyone notice this? I
                                                  didn't, but then I wasn't looking for it.
                                                  Steve
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.