From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #125 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 Friday, June 15 2001 Volume 01 : Number 125 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] poor scott (addendum) [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever [Holly Kruse ] Fw: [loud-fans] Ebertmania! ["triggercut" ] [loud-fans] Movies [Carolyn Dorsey ] Re: [loud-fans] poor scott (addendum) [Sue Trowbridge ] Re: [loud-fans] poor scott (addendum) [Dana L Paoli ] [loud-fans] Ot For Patti Griffin Fans [AWeiss4338@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever ["John Sharples" ] Re: [loud-fans] Good movies, for a change. [Dan Sallitt ] Re: [loud-fans] Ot For Patti Griffin Fans [jenny grover ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:48:06 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever Michael Mitton on 2001/06/14 Thu PM 03:23:59 MDT wrote: > I searched around and did find that they tried to ban the movie, in the > sense that they couldn't believe respectable theatres were showing the > film, and they did try to get theatres to stop showing it. But THAT > doesn't advocate censorship. Not to get too deeply into the whole "what is censorship?" argument, but I would strongly disagree with that statement. To me, trying to get someone to stop showing something because it doesn't jibe with your personal moral code (vs. just avoiding watching the film yourself or warning others against it) sure seems like censorship to me. Doesn't matter if you're going through the government or not. Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:49:33 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] poor scott (addendum) On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Dana L Paoli wrote: > Sue puts a lot of work into the website, and deserves a lot of credit for > continuing to use her time and money to support the band, and to respond > to the endless queries about Scott's new solo album. Oh, of course - but you do realize that putting up with the endless queries all becomes worth it once it sells ten trilliion copies and makes Sue and Joe wealthy beyond all measure. Oh look - the walls of my house are made of pure, fat-free gingerbread! Obligatory film-related comment: If people think _Bram Stoker's Dracula_ is bad, what do they think of _Mary Shelley's Frankenstein_? Shudder, is what I think... - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::a squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous...got me? __Captain Beefheart__ np: Jon Brion _Meaningless_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:00:06 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good movies, for a change. On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Andrew Hamlin wrote: > > "With suicide comes all the guilt of people around you thinking they could > have done something. With somebody being murdered, nobody takes some kind > of guilty responsibility." > > --Angelina Jolie, explaining to the Internet Movie Database that she once, > in a fit of despondency, hired someone to kill her. Wow. What a sensitive, thoughtful wacko. Now I know I'm in lust. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Drive ten thousand miles across America and you will know more about ::the country than all the institutes of sociology and political science ::put together. __Jean Baudrillard__ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:20:51 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] poor scott (addendum) Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey on 2001/06/14 Thu PM 03:49:33 MDT wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Dana L Paoli wrote: > > > Sue puts a lot of work into the website, and deserves a lot of credit for > > continuing to use her time and money to support the band, and to respond > > to the endless queries about Scott's new solo album. > > Oh, of course - but you do realize that putting up with the endless > queries all becomes worth it once it sells ten trilliion copies and makes > Sue and Joe wealthy beyond all measure. Scott has a new solo album coming out?? How can I get a copy? Speaking of the Loud Family and the website, I don't remember seeing any mention on the List yet of it's newer member, aka Alison's son Henry, born last week. Congrats to Alison! The *real* question is: Flickerstick, Harlow or Soulcracker? Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:54:54 -0700 From: Holly Kruse Subject: Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever First, thanks to the people who provided the Victor K. spelling confirmations! I really must speak up in defense of ROBOT MONSTER as a choice in this category. I am happily willing to accept huge plot holes in a bad movie, incredibly silly costumes and low-budget effects, completely preposterous plots, and so on, but see, the thing was, there's a point in this movie that goes beyond a lack of narrative continuity, a point where one is truly no longer sure that one is watching the same movie. And I'm not talking about in an intentional, Lynchian, LOST HIGHWAY kind of a way. Admittedly, it's not a movie for which one should have any high expectations, but I mean really: even though in PLAN 9 you end up watching a guy with a cape in front of his face, at least you're pretty sure you're still watching the same movie. The same is true of films like THE MONOLITH MONSTERS and THE SLIME PEOPLE and other delightfully bad movies of the genre. And what about the movies that people saw in theaters that the people in the theater with them seemed to think were bad (if the number of people fleeing the theater is any guideline)? In my experience, those were PINK FLOYD'S THE WALL and FIRE WALK WITH ME (those poor, misguided people who left the latter...) I've never done top ten lists -- I'm just no good at them -- but here's my contribution. Since while childhood friends were into Leif Garrett or Shaun Cassidy or whoever, I developed a bizarre Martin Sheen fixation (forcing my mother to take me to APOCALYPSE NOW, since I was too young to get in on my own), I will contribute my list of the Top 5 Martin Sheen movies. 1) BADLANDS 2) APOCALYPSE NOW 3) THE INCIDENT 4) THE SUBJECT WAS ROSES 5) Tie -- THE LITTLE GIRL WHO LIVES DOWN THE LANE and THE CASSANDRA CROSSING (these are from the schlocky part of his filmography. In THE CASSANDRA CROSSING, he plays a gigolo traveling on the doomed train with, as I recall, Ava Gardner.) If TV movies are allowed, then a top ten could be filled out with THAT CERTAIN SUMMER (as Hal Holbrook's boyfriend!), SWEET HOSTAGE (kidnapping Linda Blair!), THE STORY OF PRETTY BOY FLOYD, and THE EXECUTION OF PRIVATE SLOVIK. Mostly, these are the roles in which Sheen proves to be increasingly deranged through the course of the movie and are from the 1970s, before his obnoxious kids starting hitting the screen and before he started playing normal characters. Nor do I care for his roles as political figures -- Robert Kennedy, John Dean, presidential advisers, the President -- or military guys. I am just amazed when people are able to generate lists of what they think are the top movies or albums or books of the year, or of all time. My hat's off to all of you, and, BTW, to Scott, since he always used to come up with those lists of his favorite records each year. Holly hkruse@infi.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:20:22 -0500 From: "triggercut" Subject: Fw: [loud-fans] Ebertmania! Aaron sent this to me only, but intended it for list also. .. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron Milenski" To: Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ebertmania! > >No way in hell it's more offensive. The gun fellatio scene was nothing > >new for Russ Meyer (BYVOTD's famous director) and perfectly in keeping > >with his unique, uh, style. It isn't a scene, or even a movie, that > >looks like anything but a silly bit of satire and goofiness. It > >certainly doesn't portray it's events as "real", as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE > >does, or with the veneer of reality of the "dead teenager" genre. > > I don't see how anyone could dismiss a scene like that as "silly." For > some reason, Ebert chose to include that particular act in his script. Why? > > In fact, that's exactly why I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is less offensive. It very > well does portray its events as real, rather than making light of them. > > I won't attempt to defend the FRIDAY THE 13th movies, because I think they > suck. > > >In the actual review, Ebert's dismissal of FRIDAY THE 13th was based on > >the fact that it was about the fifth "dead teenager" movie he'd seen in > >a month, and that it was nowhere near as good as HALLOWEEN, the king of > >the genre. > > HALLOWEEN certainly had better dialogue and pacing than most of the copycat > films that came afterwards, but I have a real problem with those > who are in the "HALLOWEEN is good but all other slasher movies aren't" camp. > First of all, HALLOWEEN has exactly the same message as those other films. > It's about an unkillable murderer who punishes teenagers (mostly girls), > and the only one who survives him is the only one who doesn't have sex. > Second, there are a lot of very good exploitation horror movies out there, > but most critics don't even bother to watch them all and discriminate. > Sure, it's easy to praise a film like REANIMATOR or even MOTEL HELL (both of > which Ebert liked) because it's hip to do so, but who would dare give a good > review to something like LAST HOUSE ON DEAD END STREET or MIDNIGHT (to pick > a few films I think were actually made from an art-film perspective but > would never be discussed in the same light as equally exploitive stuff like > the films of Greenaway or Makavejev)? > > I will give Ebert credit for continuing to defend LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT to > this day, and he clearly understands what that movie is and why it is so > powerful because his one criticism of it is completely accurate--he hates > the "comic relief." > > I've read a lot of Ebert and I like him as a critic, even though I usually > find his tatstes a little too mainstream. I'm not taking issue with him as > a critic overall, just his hypocrisy on this particular issue. > > >Ebert has never shied away from senseless violence and/or stupidity--he > >just looks for justification of same > > I guess my point is that there's no movie where it's so justified as I SPIT > ON YOUR GRAVE. For anyone who isn't completely turned off by this type of > movie, I highly recommend the book "Men, Women and Chainsaws" by Carol > Clover, one of the most intelligent and uncompromising pieces of film > criticism I've ever seen. The one point with which I most agree with her is > that exploitation films are often much more honest in their depiction of > violent behavior than mainstream film, which often includes scenes of murder > or rape purely to create "bad guys," rather than to explore the effects of > that behavior. > > >Links to this material? I've been reading Ebert's essays and reviews > >since the early 1980's, and have found him to at least be very > >consistent. His knock on NC-17 movies like SHOWGIRLS wasn't due to the > >nudity, but was instead due to the fact that he found fault with making > >a skinflick that wasn't titillating. He liked other NC17's like HENRY > >AND JUNE (speaking of girl on girl), ANGEL HEART (uncut version), > >REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, etc. etc. > > Ebert has actually bee none of the biggest advocates of a "workable" > alternative to X and/or NC-17, i.e. one that will mean everyone in America > isn't given only the option to watch a Blockbuster-induced edit of EYES WIDE > SHUT rather than the film Kubrick made. I don't believe that he or Siskel > actually advocated outright censorship. > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 19:39:03 -0700 From: Carolyn Dorsey Subject: [loud-fans] Movies Dana wrote- <<<<<>>>>>>>> I agree about The Piano. Everyone kept telling me how great it was and I thought it was so disappointing. Thinking about this movie reminds me of the naked Harvey Keitel thread from a few years back! Some other bad movies I can think of-The Mirror Has Two Faces was pretty bad, and so was Yentyl. A good movie I saw recently on video is Sliding Doors. It was so well done. Carolyn ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:48:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Sue Trowbridge Subject: Re: [loud-fans] poor scott (addendum) - --- Roger Winston wrote: > Scott has a new solo album coming out?? How can I > get a copy? http://www.cdnow.com/switch/from=sr-150443/artistid=MILLER*SCOTT+&+COMMONWEALTH (you can save five bucks off any $20 purchase if you actually use that link.) Oh, you mean the OTHER Scott Miller. I think it'll be out sometime around 2017, by which time I predict all present media for recorded music will be obsolete and we'll be able to download his new tunes directly into our brains via some kind of mind meld. Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 19:55:31 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] poor scott (addendum) It has been brought to my attention that some loud-fans might think that my last post, in which I apologized for a comment that some loud-fans might have construed as insulting to Sue, contained a comment which some loud-fans might construe as intended to cause trouble for Sue. Specifically, when I said: > > Sue puts a lot of work into the website, and deserves a lot of credit for > > continuing to use her time and money to support the band, and to respond > > to the endless queries about Scott's new solo album. I was referring to the album by the other Scott Miller, and making a Jay Leno type "mistaken identities" joke about the fact that fans of the other Scott Miller would now be deluging Sue with questions about his album. I did not intend to imply that our Scott Miller has a new solo album out, and I hope that no one will bother Sue with questions about that. Sue puts a lot of work into the website, and deserves a lot of credit for continuing to use her time and money to support the band, and to respond to the endless queries about Scott's forthcoming roll in a major motion picture. - --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 20:03:45 EDT From: AWeiss4338@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] Ot For Patti Griffin Fans Someone on another list sent this. Why am I not suprrised it's Interscope doing this. This is very sad, and very infuriating. I hope she goes indy, she may have a better time of it. Andrea 31 MAY 01 - The Rage Will 'Silver Bell' Ever Ring "There will be better times and places for fans of music to complain about the corporatization of the music business. Volumes can and should be written about how these huge multinational companies, for whom music is, at best, a sideline business, have bit by bit lowered the lowest common denominator to the point where they've entered into bidding wars over the opportunity to put pre-teen kids into studios, latch their voices to pre-produced "music" and create the next "superstar" (read: bottom-line enhancement vehicle). There's another time for that discussion. We're here to discuss a different tragedy. We're not going to get to hear a new Patty Griffin record any time soon. Despite having a critically lauded second album, despite coming off a heralded slot opening for one of the hottest acts in the industry, and despite repeated rescheduling of the release of the follow-up project, Griffin's now-former record label came to the conclusion all artists dread - - that they "didn't hear a single" - and decided to shelve the project, titled Silver Bell. And the really sad thing? She's been through pretty much the same situation already. Griffin's debut recording, Living With Ghosts, was originally intended to sound very different than it turned out. A demo set of acoustic recordings of the songs on Ghosts got Griffin her deal with A&M Records back in 1996. She went into the studio with a producer and a band and kicked out an electrified version, at which point the Powers That Be at A&M kicked it back and refused to release it. "I was really devastated by that and couldn't imagine making another [record] at that point because I was really very into this one," Griffin told me in a 1998 interview for Citysearch.com. "I was just a little too bummed out to try to make another one, so I said 'If you like the demos so much, let's put them out,' and they were cool with that. That's how I ended up being acoustic in everybody's eyes. "I think what the label was concerned about was that it was dark, that the performances were not bright, while the acoustic performances were very straightforward and cut right through," Griffin said. "I listened to that record [recently] for the first time in a long time, and you know what? It's not nearly as bad as I thought from the way they were talking about it." Griffin got to make the record she wanted two years later with Flaming Red, an out-and-out rock project on which she teamed with Nashville producer/guitarist Jay Joyce. The songs were in-your-face both musically and topically, with tracks like Tony, Change and Mary making you think as much as Wiggley Fingers, Blue Sky and the title track make you rock out. Flaming Red caught the attention of folks outside the Triple A and rock worlds, as well. Among those who took notice were members of the Dixie Chicks, who covered Let Him Fly, from Ghosts, on their multiplatinum disc Fly, and tapped Griffin as the opening act for most of their 2000 tour. "It's very rare that I come across a CD that I just wear out, and I've worn her records out. All three of us have," said Dixie Chick Martie Seidel in a June 2000 interview with MusicCountry.com. "If I have a fan come up to me and ask, 'What do you listen to?,' I would say 'Go out and buy Flaming Red.'" The timing for Griffin's next career move seemed to have been perfect. Big tour in front of a music-loving audience followed by a new project helmed by Joyce with Griffin's road-tested band equals the next big step forward, right? Not according to the new Powers That Be at Griffin's label, Interscope (where she had been shuffled after the demise of A&M in 1998 in the creation of Universal Music Group). First, they pushed back Silver Bell's release from October 2000 (on the tail end of the Chicks' tour) to January 2001. Then they pushed it to March 2001. Finally they canned it altogether. The widespread rumor at the time was that Griffin was told the album lacked commercially viable singles, and that she should start over with a new producer and new band. Angry and frustrated with Interscope's actions, Griffin asked for and received a release from the label, but without the masters to Silver Bell. Griffin turned away requests for an interview, with representatives from her management company saying it was even difficult for them to talk with the singer-songwriter about the latest turns in her career. But having been put in this position before and coming out on the other side indicates that Patty Griffin will be able to bounce back from what certain facets of the music industry have put her through. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:01:16 -0400 From: "John Sharples" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] worst movie ever Akron: >How about something like YOU'VE GOT MAIL? You've got my vote. It was one of the two movies I've actually heckled in the theater (I'm really opposed to people talking out loud during a movie which is the only reason this doesn't happen a lot), the other being the ironically-named AS GOOD AS IT GETS. YOU'VE GOT MAIL almost ruined for me two of my favorite things in life, Harry Nilsson and Manhattan's Upper West Side, because both were fetishized in such a thoroughly repellant and treacly way. JS ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:20:48 -0400 From: "John Sharples" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] More bad movie prattle Andy: >5. TRUST Yeah! And how 'bout that Edie Falco, huh!? While I was gone, was there a discussion here of her work in THE SOPRANOS, and of that show is in general? I had never seen an episode until two weeks ago, and now I've seen the entire 1st and 3rd seasons. I'm obsessed, I can't believe how great it is and that it was able to live up to the hype. Stugatz! JS ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:32:24 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] poor scott (addendum) >Sue puts a lot of work into the website, and deserves a lot of credit for >continuing to use her time and money to support the band, and to respond >to the endless queries about Scott's forthcoming roll in a major motion >picture. If Scott wants a roll in a major motion picture, may I suggest every single print of WIZARDS, STRAIGHT TO HELL, LOVE STORY, BATMAN FOREVER, and MOMENT BY MOMENT? Doing my part, just not sure which, Andy "Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute." - --Charles C. Pinckney, 1796 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:41:53 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: Fw: [loud-fans] Ebertmania! If I remember correctly, when Ebert saw I SPIT, some members of the audience cheered during the rape scene. Having had a similar experience when I saw WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE, I can testify that the distaste it gave me for the film is very hard to shake, even though it's irrational. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:04:20 -0400 From: Michael Bowen Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good movies, for a change. At 05:25 PM 6/14/2001 -0400, jenny grover wrote: >wild. this reminds me of the "suicide by cop" scenario in a way. i've >never heard of hiring a hit on yourself before, though. Speaking of bad movies, how many have used this scenario? MB ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:36:41 -0400 From: "John Sharples" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: worst movie ever TR: 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. Oh, I think we can... I may be repeating myself here, but does Nilsson's PUSSYCATS get the award for the rock-era album with the most untimely deaths among its contributors? Consider: Nilsson: dead of overpartying Lennon: shot in the chest a bunch of times Moon: see Nilsson Jesse Ed Davis: see Moon Mal Evans: see Lennon Nicky Hopkins: always looked too thin Bobby Keyes: really should be dead when you consider Van Dyke Parks: dead, commercially McCartney: (played on the sessions, not on the finished album) was actually already dead Am I forgetting anyone? I think it beats any Skynyrd records. JS, not quite dead ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:53:34 -0400 From: "John Sharples" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awful attemptatOTing) >The nutshell -- local community w/ 1 school must provide same "group access" >[for after-school activities] for church groups as others (reading club gets >room 401 at 5:00 pm for meeting, church group has to have access too). The difference that Thomas elided is that this religious group is actively evangelistic--they were even more open about this in their own brief than Thomas--in the past, the Supreme Court doctrine allowed public school access for groups which merely "discussed" faith issues. Worship and evangelism are different, and are more appropriate when it's not on my dime. If the Constitution says "keep 'em separated!", I say why not? I really don't think the religious groups are harmed that way, but I see quite clearly who gets harmed under Thomas's "rule." JRT: how exactly are churches harmed under my view? They have so many other fora besides public schools, don't they? JS PS: if he's a "popular target" (Card7), might there be a good reason? (I loved C7's post on this, by the way.) JRT has asserted in the past that it's because liberals can't stand a colored dude going against them. That doesn't make any sense to me... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:24:07 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awful attemptatOTing) At Thursday 6/14/2001 08:53 PM -0400, John Sharples wrote: >JRT: how exactly are churches harmed under my view? They have so many other >fora besides public schools, don't they? Naughty boy, John! Didn't you read the "PLEASE DON'T FEED THE JRT" sign when you resubbed??? Later. -_Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:23:50 -0400 From: "Vallor" Subject: [loud-fans] Hoo Haa! Okay, So I'm excluding the low budget splatter films from my worst movie contention as it's fair to expect that a lack of budget would usually bring with it some lack of overall talent (though there's certainly enough great low budget, no stars movies, Welcome To The Doll House pops into my mind and Stranger Than Paradise...there are many), however, other than The Evil Dead I & II, I'd be hard pressed to find a piece of low budget splatter since the mid-70's that has the hands of talent all over it. That said, I will concede that Lost In Space and Coppola's Bram S's Dracula disaster are unmistakenly amongst the top 5 worst big budget pieces of crap (Around the same time as Drac, Coppola's son Roman made a great low budget piece of camp called "Spirit Of 76"...find it!). There are really so many bad big budget movies in the last 10 years it's hard to keep track any more. I see major releases lately where they didn't even apparently bother to have some one around to keep track of the continuity of the story (The Lost World, anyone?). But Evolution left me stupified and while it really isn't the worst movie ever (surprisingly the one character worth a laugh or 2 is the kid that was in American Pie), it is certainly astonishingly bad considering it gave the appearance of a fairly good comedy when I read the reviews and saw the previews. In retrospect, I think reading Julianne Moore saying that her character has totally unfunny and uninteresting in the script so she suggested they have the character fall down alot, should have clued me in. But of course when put up next to "Playing God"... On the subject of AL P. (keep that in capitals), I would argue on bahalf of The Devils Advocate as a pretty entertaining piece of unintentional comedy. Pacino when he's in his overacting mode is an absolute riot...witness his remarkable performance in "Scent Of A Woman". One day well look back at Winona Ryder, the drama years, and get a similar laugh. - - D ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 23:05:41 -0400 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good movies, for a change. > Which reminds me to plug (again?) Alejandro Gonzalez Iqarritu's AMORES > PERROS, a genuine Mexican film that opens with a bang, throws menace and > heartbreak into its middle, and goes weird for the ending. One of my > favorites of this year. Anyone else seen it? Though my tastes often coincide with yours, I didn't enjoy this film - it had a sort of cruel, jittery feeling that put me off. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:42:04 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Let's argue movies >> 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. On Thursday, June 14, 2001, at 01:46 PM, Richard Gagnon wrote: > Yeah, Moulin Rouge for a (non-american) Tsui Hark is quite the trade off, > to say the least. Okay, I'm curious, benefit of the doubt time: what are > her reasons? Well, she's more of a Truffaut girl. It was a hard sell to get her to a HK festival in the first place, and OUATIC was first up. It just didn't click, and she hated it from the start - the fight scenes *and* the scenes between the fight scenes. By the half-way point I could feel the slow-burn heat rising off the top of her head. I did manage to get her to stay for the second film, which was A Chinese Ghost Story. She rather liked it, so I ended up only slightly in the negative for the day. However, I couldn't get her to go back for the rest of the festival. She just doesn't understand my affection for stuff like Zardoz or the HK costume films (not that I'm equating them). She's also promised to beat me severely if I dare bring home a copy of El Topo. > I found that Once upon a time in Chine succeeds on every level that > Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon fails: it's about something more > interesting than a magic sword (colonialism, from the colonised point of > view), it focuses on the interesting characters instead of relegating > them to the background, doesn't overdo the damn wirework and ends on a > satisfying note. I must respectfully point out that CT, HD is about much more than the sword, which isn't magic. It ends like a lot of the HK period films. I just bought one called Fire Dragon which is similar. Another bad movie - Hair. - - Steve __________ "we must therefore reject the central animating idea of modern Establishment Clause analysis: that taxpayers have a constitutional right to insist that none of their taxes be used for religious purposes." - Michael McConnell, Bush Circuit Court nominee ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 00:32:13 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ot For Patti Griffin Fans AWeiss4338@aol.com wrote: > > Someone on another list sent this. Why am I not suprrised it's Interscope > doing this. interscope is becoming notorious for this sort of thing. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:35:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Jer Fairall Subject: [loud-fans] movies > Speaking of bad movies, how many have used this > ["suicide by cop"] scenario? I remember one early 90's Dabney Coleman comedy called SHORT TIME doing something like this, but I'm sure that's hardly the only one. > A good movie I saw recently on video is Sliding > Doors. It was so well done. I think this same premise was done better and more poignantly in a film from last year called ME MYSELF I (not to be confused with ME MYSELF & IRENE, as I'm sure many did when the two both arrived in theaters around the same time last year) but that may be in large part because I find Rachel Griffiths to be a much more interesting actress than Gwenyth Paltrow. My thoughts on MOULIN ROUGE: I'm not a fan of Luhrmann's previous work and this certainly had many of the same elements that I disliked about STRICTLY BALLROOM (cartoonish characterizations) and ROMEO & JULIET (flashy MTV-ish short-attention-span editing) but I found the art direction/set decoration dazzling and beautiful and most of the musical numbers--"Lady Marmalade/Smells Like Teen Spirit," "Your Song" and (sorry Sue) "Like a Virgin" in particular--cleverly done and fun. Sure, I'd probably had enough of the film about a half-hour before it ended and I didn't care about the plot one bit, but I don't think that was the point anyway. Jer np: Rufus Wainwright, POSES ===== Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #125 *******************************