From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #123 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Thursday, June 14 2001 Volume 01 : Number 123 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Re: worst movie ever [steve ] Re: [loud-fans] Moulin Rouge [loudfamily@hushmail.com] Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever ["Aaron Milenski" ] Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] It was... [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] More bad movie prattle [Miles Goosens ] Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two (+ awful attemptatOTing) [Ca] Re: [loud-fans] More bad movie prattle [Chris Prew ] Re: [loud-fans] Bad movies / Pacino / Cox ["Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] Moulin Rouge [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] [loud-fans] Re: worst movie ever [Tiger Reel ] RE: [loud-fans] More bad movie prattle ["Keegstra, Russell" ] [loud-fans] Re: Moulin Rouge [Tiger Reel ] RE: [loud-fans] Re: Moulin Rouge ["Keegstra, Russell" ] Re: [loud-fans] 4-Track Recording ["Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: worst movie ever On Thursday, June 14, 2001, at 01:22 AM, Stef Hurts wrote: > Worst movie I've ever seen? An early Cronenberg flick that took place in > a > hotel where people turn into murdering looneys because of a bunch of worms > that infect them. Can't remember the title right now but is was *very* > bad. Shivers, also known as Frissons, The Parasite Murders, and They Came From Within. It was a high-rise apartment building. No one's mentioned the immortal Attack Of The Killer Shrews. Off to see Atlantis and Tomb Raider this Friday and Time And Tide next, with a trade-off of Moulin Rouge in there somewhere because my wife is not enthusiastic about seeing another film by the guy who made Once Upon A Time In China. - - Steve __________ No previous administration has tried to sell its economic plans on such false pretenses. And this from a man who ran for president on a promise to restore honor and integrity to our nation's public life. - Paul Krugman, on Bush, from his book Fuzzy Math. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:51:04 -0600 (PDT) From: loudfamily@hushmail.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Moulin Rouge ok I've been out of town, so consider this an excused tardy... At Mon, 4 Jun 2001 Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: (RE: >On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Tiger Reel wrote: >>> i had a terrific time watching this film. baz luhrmann >> vaults to the top of my "directors whose stuff i will >> go out of my way to see" (i also had a great time with >> "strictly ballroom" and "romeo and juliet"). the first >> 30 minutes are just jaw-droppingly brilliant.) >>Despite liking _Strictly Ballroom_, Baz Luhrmann is on my list of >directors to avoid, because: > >--People should not be called "Baz" - what the hell is that? > >--He's responsible for that utterly stupid, annoying adaptation of the >graduation speech Kurt Vonnegut never gave a few years back. > I know Tiger Reel. Tiger Reel is a good friend of mine, and he's dead-on about Moulin Rouge. Consider it a litmus test for the humanist soul. If you don't like it, I feel sorry for you. Now, if we could only get Baz to make movies faster than once every five years. I don't usually appreciate anything that appeals to the teen masses, but I am amazed at Baz's ability to make sophisticated movies that somehow also grab those youths in spite of themselves. Call it the relief of seeing at least one genius whose work I adore getting a little commercial success and mass recognition. (Unlike the musical genius whose work has brought us all together here). One last thought - CONGRATS to Jeff! You've joined the esteemed ranks of Rush Limbaugh in the Halls of ridiculing people for having names that make you uncomfortable! - -Stuart Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 07:45:32 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey, who mentally composed a long rant re bad movies outdoing one another w/gore and sleaze, which segued into a rant about 'reality' being overrated (w/ref. to _Psycho_) and then into a third rant about computerized animation (sucks, boring), and finally ended up complaining about all the goddamned _Matrix_ airhanging and CTHD wire-fu cluttering up every movie, tv show, and advertisement... "What really happened there? We only have this excerpt..." >>>>>>>>>>>>. BTW, apparently "Matrix" is a verb. I was walking down the sidewalk the other day and passed three ten-year olds playing what we used to call "kung fu." One of them said to the other, "He just matrixed you!!" He said it three times, so I know I heard it right. self-ref'rential ph'losophy... >>>>>>>>>>> The ' is the crutch of the weak man... - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 08:49:03 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever >>Neither of you have seen Blood Sucking Freaks, have you? It's easily the >>worst >>movie I've ever seen, and very probably worse than the 35,000 movies that >>came >>out this or any other year that I haven't. I've seen it. Yeah, it's pretty awful, but there's no way you can call a movie like that "worst ever" because it doesn't PRETEND to be any good. To truly be the worst, a movie (or any piece of art) has to not only be awful to watch and offend the sensibilities, in my opinion, but also has to be a huge dissapointment by being a waste of talent or horrible distortion of source material, AND an insult to the intelligence. How about something like YOU'VE GOT MAIL? EVEN COWGIRLS GET THE BLUES? _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 08:54:08 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two (+ awful attemptatOTing) In a message dated 6/13/01 7:44:29 PM, jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu writes: << That said, I recall some here recently defended his brethren, Mr. Clarence Thomas. Would any of those care to step up now, after Mr. Thomas just the other day further emasculated the non-establishment clause (separation of church/state) beyond recongnition via some highly disingenuous intellecutal dishonestly? >> Of course, some of us occasional Thomas supporters believe there's Constitutional validity to the notion that organizations with a religious viewpoint deserve the same rights allowed other organizations--if only because that kind of ruling provides more of the scintillating judicial debate that's enjoyed so much by everybody on this list. On the other hand, maybe this difference of opinion is the same difference between people who play Lynyrd Skynyrd as a goof, and those who go see the (reasonably) real thing tonight on a bill with Deep Purple and Ted Nugent. If it's too emasculating to the non-establishment clause, then you're too old. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 08:18:49 -0500 From: "Kunkel, Mark" Subject: [loud-fans] More bad movie prattle Stef wrote: "Worst movie I've ever seen? An early Cronenberg flick that took place in a hotel where people turn into murdering looneys because of a bunch of worms that infect them. Can't remember the title right now but is was *very* bad." I have to disagree, that is, if you are referring to Cronenberg's "They Came From Within" (alternate title: "Shivers"), which is a great, scary, funny, zombie-night-of-the-living-dead type movie, only that people don't become undead flesh-eating zombies, but nymphomaniacs instead. Four stars! Now Cronenberg's "Videodrome", that's a terrible, utterly incomprehensible, senseless movie. As for other bad movies, long ago, I walked out of "My Blue Heaven" with Steve Martin. Completely unfunny. And "The Prince of Tides"! God did I hate that movie! Those movies are much worse than something like "Robot Monster", because of the budgets and stars involved. As for "Robot Monster", how can you not like a movie in which the alien invader is some guy in an ape suit and an astronaut helmet with antenna? And that moving speech at the end in which the Robot Monster wonders what it's like to be hu-man? Yeah, it's a bad movie, but it's a great bad movie and, like Plan 9, it's fun to watch. "Prince of Tides" is not fun to watch. As for favorite movies: 8 1/2, Dawn of the Dead, Mallrats, and Evil Dead 2. Oh, and Casablanca. And a lot of others I can't think of right now. _______________________________________________ Mark Kunkel Legislative Attorney Legislative Reference Bureau (608) 266-0131 mark.kunkel@legis.state.wi.us ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 08:35:10 -0500 From: "Keegstra, Russell" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] More bad movie prattle Mr. Kunkel: >Now Cronenberg's "Videodrome", that's a terrible, utterly incomprehensible, >senseless movie. About the fourth time I watched this on late late late TV it actually started to make some sense to me. At the time, at least, because now that I try to remember I can't come up with the smallest shred of plot line. But it's no "HeartBeeps". Man is a thinking creature, Russ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:43:17 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever I've seen it. Yeah, it's pretty awful, but there's no way you can call a movie like that "worst ever" because it doesn't PRETEND to be any good. To truly be the worst, a movie (or any piece of art) has to not only be awful to watch and offend the sensibilities, in my opinion, but also has to be a huge dissapointment by being a waste of talent or horrible distortion of source material, AND an insult to the intelligence. >>>>>>>>> This doesn't quite qualify, but the only movie that I've ever walked out of was "Career Opportunities" which, if memory serves, was the John Hughes movie that he walked out of. - --dana "I've listened to the Beatles' White Album for more than sixteen years, and when we were filming Ferris Bueller, I listened to the album every single day for fifty-six days." --John Hughes ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:48:16 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] It was... On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, glenn mcdonald wrote: > The new Lucinda Williams hasn't done anything for me yet, either, and I've > yet to warm to the new Cowboy Junkies, but I'm liking the new Mary Chapin > Carpenter, Trisha Yearwood and Chris Whitley records. This has been the > Americana (Including Canada) Report, thank you. ...what, no whiskeytown? on further consideration, i think _essence_ really has only about three strong songs (and i haven't paid any attention whatsoever to the words, so i'm not challenging sharpless (wb!) assertion of banality.) - -- d. np the fucking champs _iv_ (glenn alert! smart, almost all instrumental, metal, very good pacing, dynamics, melodies. band aka c4am95. no one could have ever guessed that someone from nation of ulysses would go on to something like this.) = i do what i am told. i am not opinionated. i accept without | dmw@ = questioning. i do not make a fuss. i am a good consumer. |radix.net = pathetic-caverns.com * fecklessbeast.com * shoddyworkmanship.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 08:59:46 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] More bad movie prattle At 08:18 AM 6/14/2001 -0500, Kunkel, Mark wrote: >I have to disagree, that is, if you are referring to Cronenberg's "They Came >From Within" (alternate title: "Shivers"), which is a great, scary, funny, >zombie-night-of-the-living-dead type movie, only that people don't become >undead flesh-eating zombies, but nymphomaniacs instead. Four stars! > >Now Cronenberg's "Videodrome", that's a terrible, utterly incomprehensible, >senseless movie. No, VIDEODROME is a brilliant, prescient movie that never gets old. (It was one of my first DVD purchases about this time last year.) I'd say that you were thinking of CRASH, except CRASH is ridiculously comprehensible. And just plain ridiculous, and it meets the "squandering of talent" criterion with room to spare (Cronenberg, Holly Hunter, Elias Koteas, James Spader, Roseanna Arquette, heck, J.G. Ballard). Mark offered his best films as well. We've done this before, but it's always a fun game. 1) Raising Arizona 2) Apocalypse Now (still sort of dreading Coppola's "expanded" Cannes version) 3) Brazil 4) The Godfather (I & II) 5) Fight Club 6) Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me 7) The Seventh Seal 8) A Night at the Opera 9) The Adventures of Baron Munchausen 10) Bringing Up Baby I look at that and I'm amazed that Fellini, Kurosawa, Egoyan, Scorsese, Kubrick, Hartley, Malick, and Sayles didn't land anything on that list, but I like 'em a lot too. FIGHT CLUB pushed MATEWAN off the top ten. still wondering what would happen if they had tried to put a VHS tape into James Woods, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:21:19 -0500 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever Andy sez: You took the words right out of my head. "It must have been while you were trepanning me 'Cause I swear it was true I was just about to say AAARRGGHHH < gurgle> Oh, WOW!" 3rd eyepatch, - --DM ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:24:02 -0500 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two (+ awful attemptatOTing) Sharples: ... Mr. Thomas just the other day further emasculated the non-establishment clause (separation of church/state) beyond recongnition via some highly disingenuous intellecutal dishonestly? <><><><><><><> What exactly did he opine? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:22:51 +0100 From: "Phil Gerrard" Subject: [loud-fans] Bad movies / Pacino / Cox Mark wrote: > Now Cronenberg's "Videodrome", that's a terrible, utterly > incomprehensible, senseless movie. Well, it's not a favourite of mine, and I'm a big Cronenberg fan, but there are so many images and ideas which remain so resonant for me years later that I can't call it bad as such. Plus which Cronenberg even ripped some of it off himself for 'Existenz' so it's obviously got some kind of pull for him also. My own list of most disliked movies would have to include 'The Piano', 'Shakespeare in Love', and 'The Man Who Fell to Earth' alongside such major studio duds as 'Armageddon', 'Deep Impact', 'Fatal Attraction', and 'Basic Instinct' (although generally I like Verhoeven, as long as we can draw a veil over 'Showgirls'). I think I react most violently when an over-hyped movie disappoints me, whether the hype's been intellectual overpraise or the typical blockbuster hoo-hah... now watch for the upcoming segue... Dennis wrote: > Yeah, Pacino sure has aged into a big glazed ham. I have to disagree here. He's always played big at times - think of him whipping up the sidewalk crowds in 'Dog Day Afternoon' - and he can still underplay effectively when it's called for. I'm also not sure that the word 'ham' is helpful anymore, 'cause some critics (the horribly sloppy and not-half-as-clever-as-he-thinks-he-is Joe Queenan in particular) think that anybody who plays big is a ham. First off, underplaying for the camera is neither a virtue nor a necessity, as any Cagney fan will tell you. It's also the case that underplaying a part can lead to its own form of falseness (I think of this as the 'Brief Encounter' fallacy). Secondly, some parts are written to be played big: it's there in the character and in the script. Pacino took a lot of flak for his performance in 'Heat', but the dialogue and his character's relationship to De Niro's would seem to me to have demanded a pretty full-on performance. And just how exactly can an actor be 'over the top' when s/he is playing a villain in a Batman movie? You expect *subtlety*? (NB I didn't much care for Tommy Lee Jones in that movie either, mainly because he was sloppy: it's no good being so hyper unless you learn how to focus it properly.) Andy wrote: > Anyone see HIGHWAY PATROLMAN? Yes - odd movie, in that it's completely unrecognisable as Alex Cox's work, or indeed as the work of a non-native filmmaker: it really does look and feel like a completely homegrown Mexican product. Not bad for all that, though. peace & love phil Reconsidering my own top 10 movie list after seeing 'A Bout de Souffle' recently for the first time in years and *loathing* it... Phil Gerrard Senior Admissions Officer The External Programme University of London E-mail: p.gerrard@eisa.lon.ac.uk 'Phone: 020 7862 8369 Fax: 020 7862 8363 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:40:18 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Bad movies / Pacino / Cox My own list of most disliked movies would have to include 'The Piano', 'Shakespeare in Love', and 'The Man Who Fell to Earth' >>>>>>>>> After numerous failed attempts to sit through "The Man Who Fell to Earth" I finally read the book, and it's pretty good. Much easier to understand also. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:13:06 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Bad movies / Pacino / Cox At 03:22 PM 6/14/2001 +0100, Phil Gerrard wrote: >Dennis wrote: > >> Yeah, Pacino sure has aged into a big glazed ham. > >I have to disagree here. He's always played big at times - think of >him whipping up the sidewalk crowds in 'Dog Day Afternoon' - and >he can still underplay effectively when it's called for. I'm also not >sure that the word 'ham' is helpful anymore, 'cause some critics >(the horribly sloppy and not-half-as-clever-as-he-thinks-he-is Joe >Queenan in particular) think that anybody who plays big is a ham. > >First off, underplaying for the camera is neither a virtue nor a >necessity, as any Cagney fan will tell you. It's also the case that >underplaying a part can lead to its own form of falseness (I think of >this as the 'Brief Encounter' fallacy). Secondly, some parts are >written to be played big: it's there in the character and in the script. >Pacino took a lot of flak for his performance in 'Heat', but the >dialogue and his character's relationship to De Niro's would seem >to me to have demanded a pretty full-on performance. I'll straddle the fence here, though I think I'm tipping a bit toward Phil's side. I did get the Pacino criticism started by taking Al to task for his blustery performances in DEVIL'S ADVOCATE and SCENT OF A WOMAN, but I thought he was superb in HEAT. Until Phil said it, I wasn't even aware that people were giving Pacino flack for that performance! I scanned Pacino's IMDB filmography since his SEA OF LOVE "comeback." There's some good to great Pacino performances in there (SEA OF LOVE, HEAT, CARLITO'S WAY, DONNIE BRASCO, FRANKIE AND JOHNNY) along with an equal number of memorably ugly ones (DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, ANY GIVEN SUNDAY, SCENT OF A WOMAN, GODFATHER III). So... I dunno. Pacino still has the ability, but his recent record is wildly uneven. Phil's right about there being a place and time for playing big, and Phil also makes a great point when he observes (re: T.L.Jones' bad BATMAN turn) "it's no good being so hyper unless you learn how to focus it properly." What's strange about Pacino, and for that matter Jack Nicholson, is that they've played "big" roles to perfection (DOG DAY AFTERNOON, FIVE EASY PIECES -- the latter just missing my top 10 films) and they've chewed scenery like FUTURAMA's Nibbler devours any living thing (DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, A FEW GOOD MEN). You'd think that once you learned how to do "big," you'd have it down. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:16:42 +0100 (BST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Stef=20Hurts?= Subject: Re: [loud-fans] More bad movie prattle "Kunkel, Mark" wrote: > I have to disagree, that is, if you are referring to Cronenberg's "They > Came From Within" (alternate title: "Shivers"), which is a great, scary, > funny, zombie-night-of-the-living-dead type movie, only that people don't > become undead flesh-eating zombies, but nymphomaniacs instead. Four > stars! I was fourteen or fifteen years old when I saw it, so maybe I was more interested in seeing flesh-eating zombies than nymphomaniacs at the time? Hmmm... :) Another bad movie: "From Dusk Till Dawn 2" was even worse than the original. Toodlepip, - -Stef NP Fuse presents DJ Hell Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 9:36:55 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] More bad movie prattle No list of big budget/name cast bad movies would be complete without mentioning CONTACT. What a load of twaddle, and Matthew "Bongos" McConaughey to boot. I know this movie has a lot of supporters, but I couldn't stand it. "Scientists have to have faith too!" - sheesh. Even South Park made fun of it. Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:57:58 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? round two (+ awful attemptatOTing) In a message dated 6/14/01 9:02:48 AM, JRT456@aol.com writes: >If it's too >emasculating to the non-establishment clause, then you're too old. I love the Taylorman. .... no, not *that* way ............................. I had a knee-jerk reaction to Mr. Sharples's challenge to defend Clarence Thomas. I tend to have that knee-jerk reaction to every post that chooses the obvious popular target and goes after it. But I couldn't come up with one. I can't defend him as a man, nor as a jurist. And I can't defend his opinion Monday. But *JRTAYLOR* did!!!! Gahd bless him. I tend to think JRT is right that the decision would, in this day and age, most likely have gone the way it did, and was constitutionally defensible. That is to say, a well-grounded opinion could have been crafted to defend and explain an access rule. Some who oppose the idea could probably imagine such a rationale, even if they'd prefer it didn't exist. But Thomas's opinion goes beyond the rule, and serves to diminish the Estab lishment clause in its second half, and interweaves the holding so that it's not dicta, it's the law o' the land. and I think he's a shithead. I've had the "joy" of arguing before Thomas, as well as Ginsburg [same case] and Breyer (many a time). I also know another justice socially. I can only say from my limited exposure to those four that you quickly can discern the ambitious from the intelligent, and the intelligent from the forceful. Relatively, of course; none is a dummy. Cardinal007 "As for my apostophe s use, I'm a Strunk and white kinda guy......" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:11:24 -0500 From: Chris Prew Subject: Re: [loud-fans] More bad movie prattle Another stinker - Independence Day. Good thing the aliens defense system ran on the same OS Jeff Goldblum had on his laptop (Mac, if I'm not mistaken)....and don't get me started on how Will Smith found his wife in the rubble of the city. Godzilla stunk, but could have been great - just eliminate every human character that wasn't carrying a rocket launcher (can you get a DVD player to do that?). Chris np: Songs:Ohia Axxess & Ace No list of big budget/name cast bad movies would be complete without mentioning CONTACT. What a load of twaddle, and Matthew "Bongos" McConaughey to boot. I know this movie has a lot of supporters, but I couldn't stand it. "Scientists have to have faith too!" - sheesh. Even South Park made fun of it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:31:09 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Bad movies / Pacino / Cox >What's strange about Pacino, and for that matter Jack >Nicholson, is that they've played "big" roles to perfection (DOG DAY >AFTERNOON, FIVE EASY PIECES -- the latter just missing my top 10 films) and >they've chewed scenery like FUTURAMA's Nibbler devours any living thing >(DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, A FEW GOOD MEN). You'd think that once you learned how >to do "big," you'd have it down. I recommend to one and all THE PLEDGE, from earlier this year, in which Nicholson makes the only radical move left to him--underplaying--and comes off masterful, in my opinion. That's Sean Penn's latest whirl in the director's chair too, Andy THE UFO - JESUS CONNECTION The following email will alert you to a new book by David E. Twichell titled: THE UFO - JESUS CONNECTION This is a scholarly dissertation of the ancient astronaut and Biblical UFO hypotheses. It shows that Ezekiel's "wheel within a wheel" and Moses' "pillar of fire and cloud" were forerunners of today's UFOs. The AQUARIAN PERSPECTIVES INTER-PLANETARY MISSION had this pointed out again during our pilgrimage to Israel in March, 2001. We were guided also by the "Star of Bethlehem," the brilliant cloud to which Jesus ascended to. This "Star" must be treated in the same vein as UFOs, Spaceships, Wheels within wheels, stargates, etc. [--from some spam Jeffrey Norman got last Friday.] (courtesy Jeffrey Norman) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:32:49 -0700 From: "Douglas Stanley" Subject: [loud-fans] 4-Track Recording Guys, Sorry to interrupt the movie thread (I'm not contributing to it because everyone seems to have overlooked the one where Ray Milland's head gets surgically attached to Rosie Greir's body), but I have a quick question for you home-recording buffs. I have a slew of 4-Track cassette recordings that I want to convert to WAV files. The way I've been doing it is hooking the headphone jack of the tape deck into my soundcard. This is effectively mixing it down to two-track. Once I do that, I'm stuck with whatever I've got - I can't remix or anything. Does anyone know of a way to get keep all four tracks separated. Is there such a thing as a 4 track sound card? Is there possibly a cheap (read: freeware) software solution of combining separate WAVs into one? Or am I up a creek? Thanks, Doug The Thing With Two Heads... http://us.imdb.com/Title?0069372 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:47:36 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Moulin Rouge On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 loudfamily@hushmail.com wrote: > At Mon, 4 Jun 2001 Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > >>Despite liking _Strictly Ballroom_, Baz Luhrmann is on my list of > >directors to avoid, because: > > > >--People should not be called "Baz" - what the hell is that? > I know Tiger Reel. Tiger Reel is a good friend of mine, and he's dead-on > about Moulin Rouge. Consider it a litmus test for the humanist soul. If > you don't like it, I feel sorry for you. I am sorry: my programmed parameters do not recognize "humanist." Please define and increase this bot's database. And I hear Satan is auctioning souls on eBay - apparently, he has an overstock and needs to reduce inventory due to his remodeling Hell in a contemporary, kitschy, Vegas-style self-referential manner. > One last thought - CONGRATS to Jeff! You've joined the esteemed ranks of > Rush Limbaugh in the Halls of ridiculing people for having names that make > you uncomfortable! No, no, no - you don't take me seriously enough yet. I mount a subtle yet virus-like attack on the whole Western ethos of personal identity, based on questioning the ontological bases of its nomenclatural tradition and including an indictment of its kinship structure, with side reference to the insidious commodification of postmodern consumer culture, and you think I'm just "ridiculing people"? Rush and I say, "what kind of a name is 'Stuart,' anyway?" (But hey - when you're named after a Canadian prog-rock trio, what can ya do?) - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey, scared of litmus tests anyway, ever since he saw that terrifying '70s horror flick _Night of the Litmus_. J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::You think your country needs you, but you know it never will:: __Elvis Costello__ np: Destroyer _Streethawk: A Seduction_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:51:35 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] More bad movie prattle >(Cronenberg, Holly Hunter, Elias >Koteas, James Spader, Roseanna Arquette, heck, J.G. Ballard). The Holly Hunter mention reminded me to plug, one more time, THINGS YOU CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT HER, coming now or hopefully soon to a video store near you. Thanks again, Jer, for introducing me to it! >Mark offered his best films as well. We've done this before, but it's >always a fun game. Oh why not! 1. REPO MAN 2. BLADE RUNNER (original US print) 3. ERASERHEAD 4. DAZED AND CONFUSED 5. TRUST and don't usually do a next five, but...hm... 6. DR. STRANGELOVE 7. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY 8. A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE 9. MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL 10. THE HIDDEN So we all heard about the new Tori album, yes? Andy "I, too, am indignant when the worthy Homer sleeps, but in a long work it is allowable to snatch a little sleep." - --Horace, from "Ars Poetics" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:12:14 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] It was... >The new Lucinda Williams hasn't done anything for me yet, either, and I've >yet to warm to the new Cowboy Junkies, but I'm liking the new Mary Chapin >Carpenter, Trisha Yearwood and Chris Whitley records. This has been the >Americana (Including Canada) Report, thank you. The new Cowboy Junkies album OPEN (hadn't paid attention to them in years) hit me as a congested, gnarled, and obsessed gem--musically, though I'm still on the fence about the lyrics. I've been playing Otis Taylor's WHITE AFRICAN over and over for several days, though I recently laid off that, and the Junkies, to explore the possibility that they're contributing to my depression and anxiety. Hard to believe two records as scary as PUT MY DREAM ON THIS PLANET and WHITE AFRICAN could come out the same year. ANORAKNOPHOBIA somewhat improves my mood, Andy "It is better to wear out than to rust out." - --Richard Cumberland, quoted in Boswell's TOUR OF THE HEBRIDES ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:11:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Tiger Reel Subject: [loud-fans] Re: worst movie ever to me there's a very fine line between truly bad movies and movies that give me immense pleasure because of their badness. (heretofore known as the manos conundrum) ROBOT MONSTER definately scores in the "made me laugh insanely" category so i cannot label it as truly bad. THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE too ranks. to this day i cannot believe i was the only one in the theatre laughing....everything from the casting of keanu ("woah, i know tort reform!") reeves as a hotshot lawyer to my continuing inability to remember if it was charlize theron or ashley judd who played his wife, to the gratuitous girl on girl (oh, ok that's actually a selling point to me) scene to the fact that the final monologue from pacino is virtually undiscernable in tone, inflection and delivery from his final monologue in AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. play them side by side. i dare you to find any difference. (however, i thought pacino was great in THE INSIDER. i thought it was his most restrained performance in years.) i revel in it's sheer stupidity and i thank it for it. BUT: my two votes for worst movie ever are two early 1970's films called MYRA BRECKINRIDGE and SEXTETTE. the first stars raquel welch as a male to female transsexual and co-stars rex reed (never see a film that a critic had anything to do with. see also: roger ebert and BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS) the second is mae west's last film.....she's obviously on her dying legs in this film...it almost looks as if someone stuffed her corpse and wheeled her around on a dolly and hired a ventriloquist to do a mae west impression. even more ludicrous is the fact that she is sought after by multiple boyfriends.....including RINGO STARR AND KEITH MOON. i cannot imagine the intense amounts of medication they needed to get through that shoot. for sheer torture, nothing comes close to these two for me. except maybe PEARL HARBOR. (still astonished that when ben affleck turns up alive right before the attack people in the theatre GASPED as if they didn't see it coming a furlong away.) - --- Holly Kruse wrote: > I will have to cast a vote for a rather obvious > choice, > the 1950s low-budget science fiction movie, ROBOT > MONSTER. I think this movie deserves such > recognition > because, when I watched it as a youngster with my > mother on the local Friday night TV "Creature > Feature," > we enjoyed its badness immensely, but we were fairly > convinced that someone at the station had gotten the > reels mixed up. After the story, such as it was -- > about a scientist guy, a chick, a kid, and a space > alien in a gorilla suit with a fishbowl on his head > -- had been meandering along for a while, after a > commercial break we were greeted by a scene of two > dinosaurs fighting. It took us a while to figure > out that in fact the reels weren't out of order > after all. > > The clincher, however, was that when we watched the > movie again on TV a year or two later, when the > dinosaur scene appeared it, and the scenes > immediately > following it, made so little sense to us that we > once > again thought the reels were being shown out of > order. > I may have just been a junior high kid, but my mom > had a doctorate in rhetoric and public address, so > a semi-cogent narrative should have been > recognizable > to us if such a thing were present. For this > reason, > I must vote for ROBOT MONSTER over other movies of > its > genre, including PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. I do have > a soft spot in my heart for one really bad movie: I > believe it was called "Ssssss", and it was made in > the early 1970s and started Dirk Benedict (later of > BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and THE A-TEAM) as a guy turned > into a snake by Strother Martin. KINGDOM OF THE > SPIDERS with William Shatner, and NIGHT OF THE > LEPUS, > with the "giant" killer bunnies, are also enjoyably > bad movies of this 1970s genres. > > I haven't seen any recent theatrical releases that > can compare, not even on TV. I personally have a > soft spot for the cheesy silliness of THE DEVIL'S > ADVOCATE. I could probably put in a vote for THE > NINTH GATE though, which should have been a lot more > fun than it was. > > On a completely different topic... I'm sure someone > here can confirm this spelling: "Krummenacher," as > in Victor? I'm revising the dreaded book manuscript > in an effort to meet my already-pushed-back deadline > from my publisher, and this is the spelling I have > throughout. I interviewed Victor a few years ago in > the course of my research, but since I never bought > a Camper Van Beethoven record, I don't have anything > with Victor's name on it handy. I feel sure someone > on loud-fans does though! I'm guessing I must have > the right spelling, since I recall triple-checking > it > when I first wrote up my research, but I'm very > insecure about this name and feel the need to > compulsively > check out the spelling. Thanks in advance! > > (This is why in writing I always refer to my > favorite > former Boston Red Sox star only as "Yaz"...) > > > Holly Kruse > hkruse@infi.net Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:17:33 -0500 From: "Keegstra, Russell" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] More bad movie prattle Mr. Hamlin relates his movie faves: >10. THE HIDDEN Oh yes. One of our faves too, simply because (unlike most sci-fi/horror type films) it actually obeys the rules that it sets for itself. Russ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:15:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Tiger Reel Subject: [loud-fans] Re: Moulin Rouge stuart makes me warm and runny inside. i do have to point out to jeff, however, that the monologue in "everybody's free to wear sunscreen" was not written by kurt vonnegut, but by a feature writer for the chicago sun times. i forget her name, but i heard a whole interview and piece on the subject when the song came out on NPR. and for what it's worth, that song irritated me too. - --- loudfamily@hushmail.com wrote: > ok I've been out of town, so consider this an > excused tardy... > At Mon, 4 Jun 2001 Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > (RE: >On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Tiger Reel wrote: > >>> i had a terrific time watching this film. baz > luhrmann > >> vaults to the top of my "directors whose stuff i > will > >> go out of my way to see" (i also had a great time > with > >> "strictly ballroom" and "romeo and juliet"). the > first > >> 30 minutes are just jaw-droppingly brilliant.) > > >>Despite liking _Strictly Ballroom_, Baz Luhrmann > is on my list of > >directors to avoid, because: > > > >--People should not be called "Baz" - what the hell > is that? > > > >--He's responsible for that utterly stupid, > annoying adaptation of the > >graduation speech Kurt Vonnegut never gave a few > years back. > > > I know Tiger Reel. Tiger Reel is a good friend of > mine, and he's dead-on > about Moulin Rouge. Consider it a litmus test for > the humanist soul. If > you don't like it, I feel sorry for you. Now, if we > could only get Baz to > make movies faster than once every five years. I > don't usually appreciate > anything that appeals to the teen masses, but I am > amazed at Baz's ability > to make sophisticated movies that somehow also grab > those youths in spite > of themselves. Call it the relief of seeing at least > one genius whose work > I adore getting a little commercial success and mass > recognition. (Unlike > the musical genius whose work has brought us all > together here). > > One last thought - CONGRATS to Jeff! You've joined > the esteemed ranks of > Rush Limbaugh in the Halls of ridiculing people for > having names that make > you uncomfortable! > > -Stuart > > > Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:31:06 -0500 From: "Keegstra, Russell" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Re: Moulin Rouge >i do have to point out to jeff, however, that the >monologue in "everybody's free to wear sunscreen" was >not written by kurt vonnegut, but by a feature writer >for the chicago sun times. i forget her name, but i >heard a whole interview and piece on the subject when >the song came out on NPR. That would be Mary Schmich. See http://www.hotink.com/schmich.html Russ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:32:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 4-Track Recording On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Douglas Stanley wrote: > I have a slew of 4-Track cassette recordings that I want to convert to WAV > files. The way I've been doing it is hooking the headphone jack of the tape > deck into my soundcard. This is effectively mixing it down to two-track. > Once I do that, I'm stuck with whatever I've got - I can't remix or > anything. Does anyone know of a way to get keep all four tracks separated. > Is there such a thing as a 4 track sound card? Is there possibly a cheap > (read: freeware) software solution of combining separate WAVs into one? Or > am I up a creek? Here is freeish software to do multitracking: http://www.goldwave.com/multiquence/ From the good folks who brought you Goldwave... As for "4-track sound card", none that I've heard of. I think you'll have to record each track individually. Up-side - you can remix it in full stereo. Worst movies (recently): THE HOLE & MOULIN ROUGE. The latter - like biting into a whipped cream sandwich to find it laced with even more sugar. J. Mallon ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #123 *******************************