From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #146 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, June 8 2000 Volume 09 : Number 146 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: 195 minutes? My God, that's over three hours! ["Richard Zeszotarski" ] Re: 195 minutes? My God, that's over three hours! [Stephen Buckalew ] Malcovich Malcovich Malcovich [BLATZMAN@aol.com] Re: 195 minutes? My God, that's over three hours! [Jason Thornton ] RIP: Jeff MacNelly [Terrence Marks ] Re: Glam name generator [The Great Quail ] RIP ["Thomas, Ferris" ] Re: 195 minutes? My God, that's over three hours! ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: Glam name generator ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: Malcovich Malcovich Malcovich ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] The Naked Breakfast of Champions [The Great Quail ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:20:36 EDT From: "Richard Zeszotarski" Subject: Re: 195 minutes? My God, that's over three hours! >That reminds me, what is the name of that film with the crazy redhead >who's mom killed herself and who's slushy dad played trumpet and died in >the living room on the easy chair and who later killed a schoolmate's mom >just before burying her, so those other kids who now claimed the well >could find her, and who then set his old house on fire. Both of which he >did after being dressed up like a little girl and molested at the reform >school by the the church guy? > >Really a groovy movie, I just don't remember the name. > > >Greg. Might it be "The Butcher Boy"? It was directed by Neil Jordan and featured Sinead O'Connor as the virgin Mary. - -Rich Z ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:36:26 -0400 From: Stephen Buckalew Subject: Re: 195 minutes? My God, that's over three hours! Richard, Please read the book....it was a great work, Ondaatje's books are all excellent. The book "The English Patient" was *very* different from the movie. The book is partially about the nature and meaning of art, relationships, self-awareness, the nature of "truth", and how we map out our reality with (often constructed) points of reference. None of the above made it into the film, because much of the plot was reduced, and alot of the book takes place inside of the character's minds. One great scene in the book has a character travelling through the desert. In the desert's vastness there are no points of reference except the sun and stars in the sky. When these are obscured by clouds or sandstorms, this character has to stand still, and wait for the return of his points of reference, so that he knows where he is. In a sense, without these points of reference, he can't "exist". I don't remember these kinds of scenes being in the movie. Give the book a chance, you'll find it far more rewarding than the film. S.B. *************************************************************** "...isn't it good to be lost in the wood..."--Syd Barrett *************************************************************** At 12:02 08/06/00 EDT, you wrote: > Another dreadfully long movie that I had to endure recently was "the >English Patient." As much as I dislike this term, I have to admit this film >falls very nicely into the categorization of a "chick flick" as the two >women I saw it with loved it, while I just sat there thinking "I just don't >get this." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:45:44 -0400 From: lj lindhurst Subject: Re: 195 minutes? My God, that's over three hours! Okay, here's MY vote for the most long-SEEMING, overrated, over-boring movie ever made: "The Winslow Boy". This was one of the dullest two hours of my life!! l >>Quail wrote: >> >And bear in mind, I love long movies -- "Patton," "Lawrence of >> >Arabia," "Dr. Zhivago," "The Godfather...." No problem! "I Claudius?" >> >Miniseries be damned, bring the whole thing on! "Der Ring des >> >Nibelungen?" Just waiting to be made! But some movies really overstay >> >their welcome. Other films that I do not believe justified their >> >unholy length were, indeed, "Horse Whisperer," "The Unbearable >> >Lightness of Boring," and "Howard's End." Although I have not seen >> >"The Green Mile," I hear it is a contender. > > Alright, it's good to know that I'm not the only person that found >"Howard's End" a collossal bore. Heck, they should have called it >"Howard's Endless", as the damn film seemed to go on forever. My >three female friends insisted on renting this one night ( I wanted >to get "Enter the Dragon" or "Hard Boiled" but they just turned up >their noses at that!) > Another dreadfully long movie that I had to endure recently was >"the English Patient." As much as I dislike this term, I have to >admit this film falls very nicely into the categorization of a >"chick flick" as the two women I saw it with loved it, while I just >sat there thinking "I just don't get this." > As far as short movies that seem to go on forever, despite their >brevity, let me add "The Bostonians" to that list. I saw this film >when I was about thirteen and I'm still recovering from how >dreadfully boring it was! Yea, gods, would those characters never >shut up! I think I breath a sigh of relief when it ended, because I >wasn't sure if I could have taken much more of that drivel. > Since we're talking about movies here, I'd also like to add that I >saw "Titus" yesterday as part of our local performing art center's >film series. Good film, especially the art direction and use of >modern elements, but the projectionist must have mixed up the reels >and shown them in the wrong order, because we go from one scene, >jump forward a bit, then jump back again to where we left off. Not a >smart thing to do with Shakespeare, but it seemed like I was the >only one who noticed. > >-Rich Z. > >________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 11:14:59 -0600 From: hbrandt Subject: what's he gonna do next? (I transcribed this for Bayard, so I figured I might as well post it here as well...) RobynH on KCRW-FM 19 Mar 00: "...I'm not going to be touring at all for a while. I'm going to finish this book that I've been telling everyone that I'm going to finish, so I'm gonna have to finish it...So, my next project, rather than a CD, is a book. [In addition to songwriting]...the other things that I do are paint and write and so I'm going to be doing a bit more of that while I see what happens to the recording industry and the world of songs." "...I'm gonna slowly build up a selection of cover versions which will then come out on something juicy like 10-inch vinyl-only in a numbered series or whatever...I'm sure we'll flog it through the internet or it'll be mp3. I don't know if it will be an actual CD, but it'll be an ever-dripping project...It should be very cheap." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:20:44 EDT From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: Malcovich Malcovich Malcovich I've got to say that I really don't get it. I rented Being John Malcovich, and my wife rented the Bone Collector, on the same weekend. I had no interest in the Bone Collector, but was pleasantly surprised. I should have known that Denzel is a smart man and the movie would be good. Then came Malcovich. WHAT A SNOOZER!!!! BORING!!!! We had to force ourselves to finish it. Talk about contrived! There were no real surprises at all. Everyone had said such great things about it, I was expecting magic. I am going to go so far as to call it stupid. I'm sure there will be people who claim I just didn't "get it." Yes, I get the film and I still think it's STUPID ARTHOUSE FARE. Boring boring boring boring boring boring. If you haven't seen Malcovich, let this be one very strong opinion that it is nowhere near the level of "Cool" that people made it out to be. 3 Kings was a much better "hip" film. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 10:22:31 -0700 From: Jason Thornton Subject: Re: 195 minutes? My God, that's over three hours! At 12:45 PM 6/8/00 -0400, lj lindhurst wrote: >Okay, here's MY vote for the most long-SEEMING, overrated, over-boring >movie ever made: "The Winslow Boy". This was one of the dullest two >hours of my life!! Mine goes to "An Angel at my Table." I'd sit through the "Horse Whisperer" three more times in order to escape seeing that lengthy, tedious tripe again. Bleh! Icky-poo. - --Jason "I wasn't even aware that my family had any jewels" Thornton "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 10:20:44 -0700 From: Glen Uber Subject: Glam name generator Ever wondered what your glam rock alter ego is? Didn't think so. Oh, well, go to http://qix.lm.com/cgi-bin/fun/glamname.pl if you don't have anything better to do. Love, Glossy Glitterplanet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:01:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence Marks Subject: RIP: Jeff MacNelly 'Shoe' Cartoonist Jeff MacNelly Dies Chicago Tribune cartoonist Jeff MacNelly, three-time Pulitzer Prize winner and creator of th daily comic strip ``Shoe,'' died early Thursday. He was 53. He died at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore after battling lymphoma since late last year. ``Jeff was simply the most brilliant political cartoonist of the time,'' Tribune editor Howard A. Tyner said. ``No one had an eye and a sense of humor like his. And he was as funny personally as he was in print.'' MacNelly, who lived in Rappahannock County, Va., won the Pulitzer Prize for his editorial cartoons in 1972, 1978 and 1985. He won the first one when he was only 24 years old after working at the Richmond News Leader in Virginia for only 16 months. After 12 years at the Richmond News Leader, he joined the Tribune in 1982. But editorial cartoons weren't his only outlet. In 1977, MacNelly began the daily comic strip ``Shoe,'' about a cranky newspaper's editor and its two-bit hacks, all of whom just happen to be birds. The cigar- chomping boss of the Treetops Tattler was P. Martin Shoemaker, inspired by MacNelly's former boss Jim Shumaker, now a University of North Carolina professor. He also illustrated humorist Dave Barry's syndicated column. The New York native took his first cartooning job in 1969 when he dropped out of the University of North Carolina to take a $120-per-week position with a weekly paper in Chapel Hill, N.C. MacNelly announced in January that he would cut down his output during the treatment of his illness, but he continued to produce ``Shoe'' and other cartoons until his death. He is survived by his wife, Susan, and two sons, Danny, 13, and Matt, 25. Another son, Jeffrey Jr., died in 1996 of injuries received in a rock-climbing accident in Colorado. He was 24. http://www.reuben.org/cowguy/bin/bin.htm Terrence Marks Unlike Minerva (a comic strip) http://www.unlikeminerva.com HCF (another comic strip) http://www.mpog.com/hcf normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:11:39 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Glam name generator >Ever wondered what your glam rock alter ego is? > >Didn't think so. > >Oh, well, go to http://qix.lm.com/cgi-bin/fun/glamname.pl if you don't have >anything better to do. Um, here's the scary bit -- I entered "The Great Quail," and got "Multiplex Featherdangle." So far, so good. But then I entered my REAL name, and got "Poxy Tackyplume." The universe is a scary place. The last secret of Carl Sagan...The Empire hasn't Ended.... - --Quail, glam boy-toy of "Decadence Purplefreak." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:16:04 -0400 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: RIP Jeff MacNelly (1947-2000) 'Shoe' Cartoonist Jeff MacNelly Dies (AP) - Chicago Tribune cartoonist Jeff MacNelly, three-time Pulitzer Prize winner and creator of the daily comic strip ``Shoe,'' died early Thursday. He was 52. He died at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore after battling lymphoma since late last year. ``Jeff was simply the most brilliant political cartoonist of the time,'' ______________________________________ Ferris Scott Thomas programmer McGraw-Hill Technology Division 860.409.2612 ferris_thomas@mcgraw-hill.com (email) Find out the cause of this effect, Or rather say, the cause of this defect, For this effect defective comes by cause. - -Shakespeare. Hamlet. Act ii, Sc. 2 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:23:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Re: 195 minutes? My God, that's over three hours! - --- Richard Zeszotarski wrote: > Alright, it's good to know that I'm not the only person that found > "Howard's End" a collossal bore. Merchant-Ivory is not for everyone. Neither is E.M. Forster. I was introduced to both through _Maurice_, which was a ray of light for me when I was coming out, so I was favorably prejudiced toward _Howard's End_. (_Maurice_ also probably predisposed me to dislike Hugh Grant, though I'd forgotten he was in it until much later.) But yes, in general the genre is not the sort a guy who has only "three female friends" and imagines that they would have the remotest interest in _Enter the Dragon_ would really find enchanting. I'm sure you have more than three female friends. I'm just saying. If it makes you feel any better, most serious critics tend to speak disparagingly of the whole Merchant-Ivory sedate capital-B British period flick scene. I am not a serious critic and if given the choice between _Howard's End_ and _Enter the Dragon_ would probably choose _Beetlejuice_. Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik, schnopia@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:29:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Dede Davis Subject: In defense of Breakfast of Champions O.K., not that it was a *good* movie or anything, but I don't regret having seen it. I mean, c'mon, anyone who's read the book knows it would be nearly, if not completely, impossible to make a satisfactory movie of it. So I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane. And it's certainly not the *worst* movie I've ever seen--all you people claiming that have obviously NOT seen Lisztomania. (My brother, on loaning me the video: "This is one fucked up movie!" Me, returning it after viewing: "Not only is it fucked up--it's REALLY bad!") ===== Dede "...I am living in a nightmare, from which time to time I wake in sleep."--Ursula LeGuin, _The Lathe of Heaven_ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:31:36 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Re: Glam name generator - --- Glen Uber wrote: > Ever wondered what your glam rock alter ego is? "Poxy Fairytwist." Pretty much spot-on, really. I wonder if the author knows me? Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik, schnopia@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:42:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Re: Malcovich Malcovich Malcovich - --- BLATZMAN@aol.com wrote: > Then came > Malcovich. WHAT A SNOOZER!!!! BORING!!!! We had to force ourselves to > finish it. Talk about contrived! There were no real surprises at all. > Everyone had said such great things about it, I was expecting magic. I > am > going to go so far as to call it stupid. I'm sure there will be people > who > claim I just didn't "get it." Yes, I get the film and I still think > it's > STUPID ARTHOUSE FARE. Boring boring boring boring boring boring. If you didn't get the film, you might have thought you got it without actually having gotten it. But movies -- good ones -- are not like jokes. It's not a question of whether you "got it" or didn't get it. You didn't like the movie; you were bored by it. Statements of fact. It wasn't a stupid movie, though, nor was it really "ARTHOUSE FARE" as I understand the term. The script, acting, directing, and photography all came together in - -- my opinion -- a flawless way. It could have been a puerile and absurd comedy if exaggerated in any way, but nothing was mishandled. The film had some really excellent portrayals in it of the ways we perceive others and ourselves, and ourselves in others and others in ourselves. I found it fascinating and entertaining on every level. You found it "stupid" and "boring." Did one of us "get it" and the other not? I don't see it that way. > If you haven't seen Malcovich, let this be one very strong opinion that > it is > nowhere near the level of "Cool" that people made it out to be. 3 Kings > was > a much better "hip" film. Can you explain why? Was it just that _Three Kings_ was not stupid and boring? Not "ARTHOUSE FARE"? Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik, schnopia@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:39:16 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Re: 195 minutes? My God, that's over three hours! - --- "Andrew D. Simchik" wrote: > > --- Richard Zeszotarski wrote: > > Alright, it's good to know that I'm not the only person that found > > "Howard's End" a collossal bore. > > Merchant-Ivory is not for everyone. Neither is E.M. Forster. > I was introduced to both through _Maurice_, which was a ray of > light for me when I was coming out, so I was favorably prejudiced > toward _Howard's End_. (_Maurice_ also probably predisposed me to > dislike Hugh Grant, though I'd forgotten he was in it until much > later.) Stop reading here. The intervening text was written by some dysfunctional shithead who temporarily commandeered my brain and fingers. Please accept my apologies on behalf of said shithead. I could try to explain what the shithead meant but I think the point is beyond redemption. Start reading here again. > If it makes you feel any better, most serious critics tend to speak > disparagingly of the whole Merchant-Ivory sedate capital-B British > period flick scene. I am not a serious critic and if given the choice > between _Howard's End_ and _Enter the Dragon_ would probably choose > _Beetlejuice_. Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik, schnopia@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 12:57:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Re: In defense of Breakfast of Champions - --- Dede Davis wrote: > O.K., not that it was a *good* movie or anything, but I don't regret > having seen it. I mean, c'mon, anyone who's read the book knows it > would be nearly, if not completely, impossible to make a satisfactory > movie of it. So why did they try? They hadn't read the book? That thought had occurred to me. I've been having this discussion -- is it ever possible to make a good movie from a good book, and can it also be a good translation of the book to the screen? -- on another list, and the answer was "on rare occasions, yes." But my objection here is not that this wasn't one of those rare occasions (though obviously it wasn't). My objection is that the director seemed to have not the first CLUE as to how to read or handle the material. Vonnegut's characters are exaggerated, they are in some ways "larger than life," they are odd birds, but they are not complete maniacs (not all of them, at any rate). I tend to feel that if the whole thing were handled a bit less like a Tex Avery cartoon it could have at least gotten some of the book right. None of the actors seemed to realize that they were on film and not on stage trying to be seen in the back row of the balcony, and many of them had no idea what their lines meant. Omar Epps was embarrassing. Nick Nolte was entertaining but "overacting" hardly describes. Bruce Willis was simply miscast, I think. Albert Finney...jury's out. I don't think the problem was merely a difficult book to adapt. The script sucked, the acting was too big, and the directing was beyond random. That said, I don't regret watching it. If nothing else, Eliot Rosewater was PERFECT. Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik, schnopia@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:07:33 -0700 From: "Randy R." Subject: Re: american television shall crush your spirit and lead to eventual dull happiness. or not From: Jeff Dwarf > > Am I the only one aware that ol Steve is a direct descendent > > of Brigham Young? and is a devout Mormon? > > it's been mentioned a few times in the press around the bay area. i > understand a few people in utah are aware of this fact as well. did you > know robyn hitchcock spells his first name with a "Y"? and what does > steve young religious beliefs have to do with whether or not he should > be sitting by al michaels? None whatsoever. I merely brought up this fact because this could weigh in as a big factor as to whether or not Young decides to play football, or pursue a career in broadcasting. Being a devout Morman, his recent marriage means he finally got, errrr, laid. It's probaby quite a startling revelation for him. If you ask me, Steve Young is crazy. He has the Super Bowl rings, a lot of passing records and a great career behind him. Holding a law degree, and having the networks knocking on his door, he'd be crazy to play football anymore. Given his new sexual awakening, I would hope he would choose a cushy job in a broadcast booth, instead of risking permanent damage to himself. > > though how seriously devout a mormon can you be if you don't get > married until you're almost 40? Too serious. He's been waiting all these years for the right girl. He's a geek. Oh yes, Robyn Hitchcock is coming to town. Will I see Eddie? Will I see Jeme? Will Peter Buck wear black clothing? Counting down the days..... Vince (I want Ditka & Michaels) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:13:34 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Michael K's music project - mp3's (0% RH) Howdy all. For the past year or so, a friend and I have been writing and recording songs out in my garage. Jason writes lyrics and sings 'em. I write musics and play 'em. Together, we are Once in the Sun. Below is a url for the page Jason just put up at mp3.com. I need to get a pic of myself up there, too. But, hey, it's music that matters, man! Give us a listen, if you please :-) Thanks!! http://mp3.com/onceinthesun - ------Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 14:38:38 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Blink 195 Jason: >Mine goes to "An Angel at my Table." I liked "An Angel at My Table" a *lot*. Much better than "The Piano," in fact. Oh, and by the way, Vonnegut himself wrote in "Palm Sunday" that "Slaughterhouse Five" is one of only two adequate film/novel adaptations ever (the other being that overlong classic which stars Clark Gable and Vivien "Don't call me Mike or Lyon" Leigh). Meanwhile, I decided to take a break last night from ranting all over usenet, and went to the Lou Reed/Victoria Williams concert at the Universal Amphitheater. It was a bummer night, which really left a bad taste in my mouth. I was a victim of both my friends and the music. Due to various *ridiculously* complex logistical difficulties which I shan't bother detailing, the friends prevented us from getting to the show until 8:25 (the tickets said the show started at 8:15). Thus, we arrived with Victoria already onstage, which irritated me because I reallyreally wanted to see her set too. But we only missed 10 minutes, right? Wrong! We saw just two and a half songs, before she exited. Crap! (The new album comes out on July 11th -- I just got an advance, but haven't played it yet.) That was bad enough. But then Lou came on. It was a very, very dull show, sorry to say. He didn't speak to the audience at all, hardly changed his facial expression and played *none* of the songs which made him famous. *None* (well, at least as far as I heard). Could he *be* more joyless? The most recognized/oldest song I heard was one track off Songs for Drella ("When you're living in a small town..." -- I forget the exact title). This got the biggest response from the crowd, and that song is hardly a hit. I hadn't seen Lou live since the first time around 1987 (!), but this show really wasn't worth the wait. Meanwhile, my friends are very techno/hiphop-oriented and not nearly as patient as me, so they niggled and whined me into leaving the show early, rather than sticking around to see whatever couple of classics Lou pulled out at the end. I was ticked off about that. So, in any case, I don't think I saw more than a hour of the show. I don't know how much longer he played. It was just a crummy evening, all around. The only cool part of the night was running into an old friend whom I hadn't seen for awhile. (A very sad story -- we were in college radio together, and he was paralyzed in a car crash on the way to a Meat Puppets show, where he was scheduled to interview the band for broadcast on the station. ) He's remarkably happy now, however, and is even getting married next month (to his nurse!). But anyway.... I haven't seen so many shows this year (at least by my own standards), but I'm off again tonight, to see the oft-discussed Elliott Smith and the Minders at the El Rey. I really wish I had been able to see Nine Inch Nails on Tuesday night as well, but that's life.... Eb, who found the "Naked Lunch" film intriguing but not especially entertaining ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:20:12 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: The Naked Breakfast of Champions I. I think "Breakfast of Champions" was a noble failure. While it had tons of flaws, and ultimately was almost unwatchable, it still was ambitious and took some unusual risks. I have to give it some respect for that. II. I happen to think Cronenberg is a genius, and "The Naked Lunch" was in my top three movies of that year. I was stunned at how well he captured the visceral nature of the book, and I even enjoyed the weaving in and out of real biography. The movie didn't even bother to be true to the book -- it rather focused on being true to Burrough's vision. That movie really got under my skin -- well, Cronenberg's pretty good at skin-getting-under -- and, in my opinion, really nailed the writer Lee's inner feelings of dislocation, alienation, sexual angst, fears of addiction, and fears of predation. III. Other movie adaptations that I found were just as good or even better than the book: Kubrik's "2001" -- No director could have better brought off the alien confusion of Bowman's inexplicable and transcendent voyage. Kubrik's "A Clockwork Orange." Another "impossible to film" book, and yet he made it into a brilliant adaptation all his own. he brought a visual poetry to Burgess' writing, and even though Burgess complained, I think Stanley's version is just as good. And I *love* the novel. Kubrik's "The Shining." I've read numerous disparaging comments Stephen King has made about this film, and I just have to laugh. Kubrik is a genius. King is an above-average writer of horror stores that lack elegance and the capacity to really disturb. King should kiss Stanley's dead Anglophile ass for redeeming what is only a moderately good novel. Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula." Thank GOD he jettisoned some of the stilted atmosphere of the book, and had the courage to graft on elements of the Dracula myth post-Stoker. Coppola's "The Godfather." Not as Byzantine as the novel, but then again, the novel really lacked the sophistication and the sheer *presence* of the Mafia myth that the movie had. Cronenberg's "Crash." Impossible to film, so he did it anyway, and turned out one of the most disturbing movies I have ever seen. Scott's "Bladerunner." I love Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep;" but Bladerunner was not that novel. At all. And yet Scott used the novel as a springboard to practically invent cyberpunk, and redefine the way we look at the future. An amazing film. I get rabid about this one. If you criticize this movie, I will make a kill-file. That goes for you, too, LJ. IV. Other really great film adaptations of novels -- Anything at all Scorsese does, especially "Last Temptation of Christ;" Friedkin's "The Excorcist," Jordan's "Interview with the Vampire," and Demme's "Silence of the Lambs." V. Adaptations which are supposed to be good but I thought were not: "Fahrenheit 451", "Slaughterhouse Five," "Ulysses." VI. God, did they ever fuck up: "The Name of the Rose," "Johnny Mnemonic." VII. Please, let these be made into a movie only if they really really kick ass: "Gravity's Rainbow," "Neuromancer," "Ender's Game," "At the Mountains of Madness," "Love in the Time of Cholera," "The Satanic Verses," and "Stranger in a Strange Land." VIII. Can you imagine really *great* animated versions of: "Elric of Melnibone," "The Watchmen," "The Sandman," "Vurt," "The Dream Quest of the Unknown Kadath," "Gormenghast," and "On Beyond Zebra?" IX. Special fingers-crossed award: "Lord of the Rings" - --Quail, who can't leave a thread like this alone! ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #146 *******************************