Mailbag 12/2001 - 07/2002
From: “Fish Eye no Miko”
Subject: Quick note about your review of Subspecies
Date sent: Thu, 18 Jul 2002
Nathan,
Greetings! I’m a big fan of your Site, and have been looking at your reviews for awhile now. I was recently (re)reading your review of the movie Subspecies, which features Anders Hove. You made the comment that, “If, by the way, you want to know what Hove looks like without the latex, probably the easiest place to find his face in America is in Critters 4.” Actually, Mr Hove was a regular baddie on the soap opera General Hospital for a number of years. I’m not much of a soap fan, but I recall seeing him on there; in fact I knew him from that before I’d heard of the Subspecies series. I just thought I’d share that with you. Keep up the good work, man!
Catherine Johnson
This is very true. However, he wasn’t playing Cesar in 2001 when I posted the review, and since you can’t normally see reruns of soaps anywhere, I listed Critters 4 because it was rentable. (And come on — how many people in my readership demographic watch soaps anyway? Or, at least, would admit to watching them?)
Thanks,
Nathan
From: kwerthmu
Subject: The Waltons
Date sent: Thu, 27 Jun 2002Dear Nathan,I’m a regular reader of site. Believe it or not, I never actually watch B movies, but I get a kick out of your site and others in the B Masters’ Cabal. :-)Anyway, I thought I’d drop you a note on two things. First, you’re not alone in having been freaked out by that episode of The Waltons. I remember it well- the rocking chair, the mirror that clouds over… (Brrr) Yes, I’m man enough to admit that I watched that show every afternoon for years.
Second, thanks for putting together a Lance Henriksen month! I look forward to seeing what you post. In all truthfulness, I follow Lance’s work because he’s my 2nd cousin (seriously), and although I will say he’s not the most beloved individual in the family, it’s kind of fun to have a famous person related. :-) Now that I’ve sufficiently name-dropped, thanks again for deciding to do this!
Take care, and keep up the fun site!
Kurt W.
And it feels good to be secure enough to admit it, doesn’t it? Just don’t tell people how many years I diligently watched Highway to Heaven…
Given what little I’ve read of lance’s early life, I can only assume that he’d be an, um, “interesting” fellow. But he sure can act when they let him. (Any dirt you want to toss my way…)
Nathan
From: “SHEMP HOWARD”
Subject: Re: Reviewing Dead & Rotting– Thanks!!
Date sent: Thu, 13 Jun 2002Nathan–Thanks for the nice review. You’re very observant and you hit on the primary thing I was trying to do– Make a movie for Full Moon that doesn’t look like Full Moon. Also thought it was funny that you picked up the Albert Pyun credit. Although a lot of Pyun’s more recent work has gone right into the dumper– He gave me my first job, as an owner of a make-up effects shop, with a budget of any consequence. I was crediting a few people in the credits who helped me out or influenced me, since it may have been my only chance (you never know)to publicly do so. Thanks again.All the best!
David Barton
Yeah, after listening to the commentary I figured he’d given you some early employment (in the Phillipines, wasn’t it?), but hey — any chance to make a dig at Pyun…
Thanks for making an enjoyable flick.
Nathan
From: OhBuggere
Date sent: Sun, 26 May 2002
Subject: Re: “Terror Firmer“Read and enjoyed the Terror Firmer review. Did have one thing to say, though… you wrote that “people don’t watch Troma flicks for production values or artistic pretensions”. Which is very likely true in everyone’s case — except mine. Well, okay — I’m not watching for production values either. :-) But while I don’t think Terror Firmer is Kaufman’s best film, not by a longshot, I find it his most compulsively watchable for all the climactic stuff where Kaufman finally decides to fully indulge his darker side and, in doing so, finally gives this meandering film a focal point. Namely, I find the film’s scorched-earth satirical take on modern gender politics to be pretty fascinating and compelling, from the idea of “life-affirming rape” on down to the violently phallic boom-mike death of the killer. (In case you wondering, yes I am a film-school geek. Is it obvious? Incidentally, when I told my film prof one year that I wanted to do a paper on Kaufman’s films, he told me no way no how.) Am I applying too much thought to this? It’s very likely. But then, you oughta hear what I think of Orgazmo…– Steve
You may indeed be applying too much thought — but then, I respect anyone whose brain cells are still operating that late in the movie. Maybe I shouldn’t have tried to get through it all in one sitting…
Nathan
From: “Ian Mathers”
Subject: Cold Fusion!
Date sent: Fri, 24 May 2002Nathan:I always feel bad when a site I freqent and enjoy has one of those “update email list” things up and I don’t sign up for it - I know that how many people are on it is probably a good rough approximation for the webmaster of his number of viewers, and my reticience comes not from a lack of desire to ’stand up and be counted’ (so to speak) but from the fact that I check your site so often that the email would be wasted.So I though instead I would drop you a line, a (for me) brief but sincere letter stating my eternal love for your site and the reviews within; It was Jabootu who got my hooked on good reviews of bad movies, but the reviews are so long that now the only two sites of its type that I read are yours and Liz’s superb “And You Call Yourself A Scientist” site.
Respect is especially due to the fact that despite the fact that you happen to be a devout Mormon and I happen to be a commited, thoroughly unconcerned agnostic (and philosophy major, to boot), your opinions on matter spiritual never have the forced or maybe evangelical tinge that cause me to turn away from some other writers. I do have friends who are religious without being silly, but finding such a thing on the big bad Internet is another matter entirely; finding such a thing coupled with some serious reviewing chops is another thing entirely.
I happen to be a critic by inclination myself, although so far I’m only published in the local student newspaper, and having seen enough bad criticism to last me several lifetimes, it’s a breath of fresh air to read your witty, personal communiques from the front lines of a truly bizarre branch of movie fandom.
It’s also nice to see that someone besides myself had heard of (and loved) Fungus the Bogeyman, a formative experience in my childhood years (although, admittedly, I tried to read all the text as a child).
I do have one small request, though - I was recently without net access at home for a couple of months, and so I’ve missed some reviews (and I have trouble telling in the archives which ones I’ve read). If you happen to have been keeping a list of the order in which you’ve reviewed the films, I’d be terribly grateful if you could send it my way so I can catch up on my Cold Fusion reading.
Thanks again for providing one of the few bright spots on the net, and keep up the good work.
Cheers,
Ian
PS. Yes, I remember the Canadian version of Battlestar Galactica being better too. Did you ever catch a Canadian cable TV show about sci-fi, horror, fantasy, etc, called Prisoners Of Gravity?
Well, thanks! I appreciate the letter, though I can pretty much tell from my pageview totals how many readers I get (and how many of them are coming specifically to see if I’ve got screencaps of Alyssa Milano’s breasts in my Embrace of the Vampire review).
I’m glad that my occasional spiritual musings add to, rather than detract from, the reviews. I’ve always prided myself on being a thoughtful believer, and thus I probably communicate better with those who don’t believe for good reason than those who believe as I do “just cuz.”
Unfortunately, beyond the “recent reviews” listed on the front page, I don’t have a master list showing what’s been posted when. I guess you’ll just have to read them all again.
I moved away from Canada, more or less permanently, in 1989, so I missed the run of Prisoners of Gravity, but my father did tape an episode for me (in which Orson Scott Card’s name was used for good and ill). Being a long-time Frantics fan, I kept expecting Rick Green to bust out with some goofy voice or song.
(And do not miss Jabootu’s recent skewering of Superman 4. Longer than any five Russian novels put together, but worth every darling word.)
Thanks for checking in,
Nathan
From: “Andrew Norris”
Subject: Hey, it’s Mr. Pretentious History Major (Ooh, aren’t I special?)
Date sent: Thu, 23 May 2002The Christian warlord in The Lost Kung Fu Secrets is more than likely Hong Xiuequan, a really nasty piece of work from Canton Province. He wasn’t Han Chinese but Hakka (a displaced minority in the Southeast, their name means “Guest” in Chinese). Anyway, in the early 19th century he was a failed scholar (took and failed the Imperial examinations three times, apparently) who came into contact with some Western Protestant missionaries. His last name means, if you pronounce it a certain way, “flood”. That little tidbit and some dreams he had about a couple of guys with beards led him to the not-very-well-thought-out conclusion that he was the Son of God and brother of Jesus. Apparently, the world “flood” came to him with connotations that, as the Son of God, it was his responsibilty to wash away the Ching Dynasty and ethnically cleanse China of the ruling people of the time, the Manchus. Well, he captured large parts of Southeastern China and set up his capital in the city of Nanjing, where his troops systematically wiped out its Manchu population.Andrew
See, and any of that could have made an interesting movie. As opposed to, “Let’s put a cross in the background of one scene.”
Nathan
From: “Ian Bennington”
Subject: dead essay
Date sent: Thu, 23 May 2002Hi NathanI am a multimedia student, doing an essay on Romero’s Dead trilogy.I am interested in the reflection of American society that appears in the movies, and part of your review hits that on the head.
Can I use a quote from your site in my essay?
I have no plans to publish the essay, but if I did I would let you know first.
be seeing you
Ian Bennington
Certainly. (Woo-hoo! I’m a cited source!)
Nathan
From: “hobbit1″
Subject: There’s a Fungus Amongus
Date sent: Thu, 16 May 2002When I was a wee lad, my Grandmother would take my cousins and me to Pic ‘n Save and set us loose with a dollar or two apiece. I would usually sidle up to the counter with some oversized comic book on clearance–remember the one which pitted Superman against Muhammed Ali in a boxing match? Anyway, one day it was Fungus the Bogeyman. As you described in your review, I took a childish delight in the palpable textures of the book, the slime and snails and putrid pails. But, as with the rest of my fondly-remembered childhood comics, that one was lost somewhere along the way to adolescence.For years I remembered it fondly and hoped that one day I might happen across it in some out-of-the way bookstore. I would ask bookstore owners if they’d ever heard of Fungus the Bogeyman, and they would invariably respond with bewilderment. It didn’t help that I couldn’t remember the author’s name (as a youngster I probably never even noticed it). In fact, the only other person I’ve ever met who was familiar with the work happened to be a Brit (and a big fan of Raymond Briggs–he recommended to me his other graphic novel, about a day in the life of a lower-middle-class London couple the day before nuclear bombs fall). Well, one day about five years ago I DID happen upon a paperback copy of Fungus in a small used bookstore in Minneapolis. When I eagerly bought it and took it home to relive the memory, I was expecting to feel nostalgia and little else. What surprised me, an adult working on my Masters degree in English literature, is what a mature, layered work it is. Some good world-building and loads of detail. The parts I skimmed over as a child (the “mini-essays” on underground flora and fauna, life, government, and culture–especially the library!) are the parts I now savor most. As you rightly point out, the best “childrens’ books” are even better when one reads them again as an adult, or, to quote C.S. Lewis, “A book worth reading only in childhood is not worth reading even then.” Another great, related Lewis quote: “When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
Anyway, glad to find another fan of Fungus–and I ain’t talking about the Fungus from Attack of the Mushroom People.
Nick Ozment
Glad to meet another whose young mind was “molded” by Raymond Briggs. (Ha! Ha!) Incidentally, Greywizard at he Unknown Movies Page recently reviewed the feature based on the nuclear war book you mention, When the Wind Blows.
Thanks,
Nathan
From: “Henry Brennan”
Subject: Seul Contre Tous (I Stand Alone)
Date sent: Fri, 03 May 2002One word, sir. Bravo! A stunningly clear and erudite trashing of that pretentious piece of crap from Gasper Noe. Truly the best review (in my opinion) that you’ve ever written. It’s a screaming shame how lack of talent can be marketed to the ignorant who have deluded themselves into an elitist pipedream. Well done.Henry
You know, so far all of the responses I’ve gotten to that review have been positive. I had expected the elitist masses to descend upon me, but I guess they can’t be bothered to comment on a website with the word “whoopass” on the front page.
Thanks,
Nathan
From: “gary & sandra”
Subject: American Movie
Date sent: Sat, 27 Apr 2002Hello Nathan. I just saw American Movie and I have to agree with you, rather than Roger Ebert etc. Mark whats’isname is such a loser that he ought to have it tattooed on his forehead, to save time. No, actually, he doesn’t need to: that greasy mullet says it all.I didn’t find the movie funny. The scenes of Mark persuading his senile uncle to give him the cash that the old man presumably worked hard all his life to earn were distasteful in the extreme.It takes this jerk over two years to complete a lousy 35 minute movie, a good bit of which he already has in the can! When I was in school, a friend and I completed our own hour long Star Trek episode in two days! We wrote the script, did the costumes etc etc. All we needed was the use of the college tv studio, a cameraman and a soundman. Special effects ( snow falling on the bridge of the Enterprise) was provided by two kids up in the catwalk with a bag of styrofoam pellets. Mind you, we didn’t have any great pretentions, unlike some people.
For every David Croneneberg, who starts out making student films and goes on to become an internationally known director, there must be a thousand Marks. Not having seen Coven, I can’t judge if Mark has much talent, but he clearly lacks what it takes to be a success. While he was fooling around, the makers of American Movie completed a feature-length documentary, and took it to the Sundance Festival. Now, that’s the American dream!
Sandra
Subject: Your Website
From: Torsten Dewi
Date sent: 26 Apr 2002Hi,just discovered your website, and wanted to let you know that it is probably one of the top three “bad movie sites” out there. Your style of reviewing is refreshingly witty (and mostly to the point).Having seen a lot of bad movies in my time, I wholeheartedly agree with most of your reviews. I work in the business myself (just sold a script for a science fiction actioner), and I get a kick out of just how bad flix can get (recently saw Arizona Werewolf - my God).
The specific reason why I write is Arcade. I am currently researching a book I want to write on Charles Band, and it’s interesting to note that the version with the “old” CGI effects was indeed released - over here in Europe. It’s not even CGI - it’s video distorted with some lame filter. The German version also has a different ending. I own both versions, and the US version is infinitely better. And you’re right: A J Langer is damn cute (she has made quite a career in sitcoms by now).
Best regards from Germany,
Torsten
Just think, folks — somewhere out there, there exists a lamer version of the ending of Arcade.
From: “Divergent Thinking Productions”
Subject: Confetti Brothers
Date sent: Thu, 25 Apr 2002
Lethal Force is a crowd-pleaser, but it probably wouldn’t have gotten as warm a reception as it got if The Confetti Brothers hadn’t effectively opened for it and warmed up the crowd. (Admit it, Alvin. Admit it!)
NO! SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUT!!!!ARGH!!!!
Actually, I didn’t see the short. I was nursing some pretty serious wounds from the profoundly crappy scrapping LF had had the evening before so I was still in a pretty deep funk. I only came to the show about ten minutes before the end of LF although I respect your opinion- no matter how outlandish or flat out wrong it may be. So…
SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUT!!!!ARGH!!!!
However, I’ll probably buzz those guys and see if we can do a tape swap. Now I’m curious.
Sir Alvin D. Ecarma
From: “T. S. Hart”
Subject: American Movie Review
Date sent: Tue, 23 Apr 2002Nathan,When I began reading your review of AMERICAN MOVIE, I thought it was crap… then I got angry… and then I realized, slowly, that it may be the most intelligent, insightful, thoughtful assesment of a documentary I have ever read……and it is.
Your writing and approach to film review is a true delight.
Keep up the good work.
TsH
Wow. A single message like this can make food and air unnecessary for weeks on end. Thank you.
Nathan
From: .[ malexin ].
Subject: 2069: A Sex Odyssey
Date sent: Sat, 13 Apr 2002Hi,I just read your review of the movie 2069: A Sex Odyssey, and you talk alot about Sweden and swedes, but WHY?The movie is in GERMAN, with GERMAN actors, and the director is from Austria. In all, it’s a german movie.
If I’m not totally wrong, you should be talking about germany and germans instead of swedes. Am I right?
Martin Hammarstedt
All of which is true, but the movie was set in Sweden with Swedish characters, and it seemed to go to great lengths to make sure you knew that everyone was Swedish. I can only assume that the Germans consider the Swedes inherently humorous.
Nathan
From: “Rick Luehr”
Subject: Trekkies review
Date sent: Thu, 11 Apr 2002Nate,Loved your Trekkies review. I thought you might like to know that the one kid you mentioned who appeared in Trekkies, Gabriel Koerner, seems to have turned his Trek obsession into a part time, paying gig. He shows up from time to time on the Comedy Central show, Beat the Geeks, as the special guest “Trek geek.” Just goes to show you that an unhealthy obsession can lead to cash. :)
—–
Rick
Yep, that’s what I’m planning on, too. Make myself enough of a bad-movie icon, and money’ll just start walking in the door…
Date sent: Sun, 31 Mar 2002
From: “Justin Henry”
Subject: RE Seedpeople reviewHi.. I was reading your review of Seedpeople and I came across your question of whether or not there is “any place in the entire U. S. of A. that can be so completely isolated that there’s only one road?”. Well, I’m sorry to say there is…I’ve been there…yesterday in fact.. It’s a little town, (in the loosest sense of the word, namely a handful of houses with a sign that proudly displayed the name of said collection of dwellings), called “Freda” in the northern peninsula of Michigan.
It has exactly one road that leads both in and out of the town.. It’s bordered on two sides by trees, and on the other by Lake Superior.. Amazingly, there was a new house being built there when I went.. I suppose this brings up the question of why I’d bother going to this place.. Well, I’m attending college at Michigan Technological University (also in the U.P.), which is pretty remote, itself…This weekend I got bored, and decided to see how far the road would take me, and it took me to Freda.
I know you were probably asking a rhetorical question, but I figured there was no harm in answering it.. If I hadn’t been to.that one-road town.so recently, I probably wouldn’t have even brought it up.
Love your site, keep up the good work,
-Justin Henry
See, you learn something every day. (I wonder if John Saul has set a novel in Freda yet. Bet it’d have spooky children in it.)
Date sent: Thu, 28 Mar 2002
From: “Ed Leber”
Subject: Review for “I Stand Alone“Thank you so much for standing firm on this boring piece of filth. I hated it just as much as you did, and I was overjoyed to read your honest review (yes, I know I only think its honest because I agree). Gratuitous shock and really boring sequences do not make art (reminds me of the joke French film in the old Animaniacs cartoon, were the dialogue is the lyrics for Frere Jacques, but I digress) Anyways keep up the good work, and the great site.-Ed
You know, I was thinking of that same Animaniacs routine myself. But I didn’t want to sully the good names of the Warner brothers (and sister) by putting them in the same review.
Thanks,
Nathan
From: Justin Zimmerman
Subject: Terror Beneath the Sea
Date sent: Mon, 25 Mar 2002Hey, Ken plus Jenny equals… Kenny!
Oh, jeez. I could have gone years not thinking of that… Thanks.
Nathan
From: Chad Saxelid
Subject: Cobra
Date sent: Thu, 7 Mar 2002Saw your review of Jabootu blessed Cobra. Just some trivia about the films sloppy plot…In an interview Andrew (Dirty Harry) Robinson mentioned that, originally, his character was also a cult member, but they changed it at the very last minute.Golan/Globus (bless their exploitive little hearts) may have been at a career highpoint in 1986, but it was short lived. Their big budgeted attempts were all tampered flops, the two that were supposed to lift Cannon to a respectable level (Lifeforce and the just reviewed Cobra) were heavily cut and altered prior to release. Both films were shorn of nearly a half hour of footage to squeeze more showings into the opening weekend. The gambit did not pay off. Oh well, the movies are still funny.
At least they left in the INTERMINABLY-LONG CAR CHASE.
Nathan
From: Matt Walsh
Subject: Re: WITCHOUSE 3 Review
Date sent: Thu, 28 Feb 2002Nathan!Just read your Witchouse 3: Demon Fire review and felt compelled to add my two cents. Thanks, as always, for the kind words! Just to answer the question stated in the review regarding the origins of “Lilith Le Fey” (a character I inadvertently created for Witchouse 1) — it IS based around the “Lilith” of religious yore, actually inspired by the “White Witch” from C. S. Lewis’ The Chronicles Of Narnia series (who, in turn, was revealed to be the Biblical Lilith). Director J.R. Bookwalter wanted the “Lilith” character in the third movie to be more ambiguous in origin — to be “what happens to you when you mess with magic”, rather than an actual person — which may or may not explain her vagueness. And yes, the whole Lilith-background thing is explained in Part One. That’s what you get for not watching the first two movies (ha-ha)! Once again, thanks!Kind regards,
Matthew Jason Walsh
ARMAGEDDON PRODUCTIONS
Thanks, Matt. I took pains this time not to point fingers at anybody over what I saw as deficiencies (I’m gettin’ smarter in my old age) — I learned my lesson last time.
(Oh, and the necessary comeback: “That’s what Tempe gets for not sending me screener of all three!”)
Nathan
From: “Phil Dennison”
Subject: “Little Witches” review–shame on you
Date sent: Thu, 28 Feb 2002Dear Nathan:I really enjoy the site. I always look forward to new reviews, and have enjoyed reading both the archive and your e-mail exchanges with readers and assorted kooks. Given that, though, I was really surprised to see that you took such gratuitous swipes at the “fat girl” in Little Witches. (I don’t take issue with the use of the phrase itself, since you refer to all the other characters by their archetypal characteristics, too.) In the last three paragraphs, in fact, you take three swipes in a row: ” . . . a naked fat girl (eww) . . ., ” reference to a priest making fun of the fat girl as the best line in the movie, and bemusement that the fat girl might not be a virgin.
I haven’t seen the movie, so there may be context that I am missing; and I don’t mean to sound like I’m getting all PC on you. But to see you suggest twice within three paragraphs that a fat person shouldn’t be seen naked (in fact, to express disgust over it) and is unlikely to have had sex before her thinner peers have, I really have to wonder what would cause an otherwise intelligent person to stumble so badly. It may come as a surprise to you, but some people actually do have fat partners, enjoy seeing them nude, and have sexual intercourse with them. Even teenagers. Not only that, but given Hollywood’s penchant for only showing thin people as objects of sexual desire (this is an industry where a size-10 Renee Zellweger was considered “fat” for a movie), I would actually applaud a movie that dares to show a fat person naked and not use them as an object of ridicule. Not your best moment as a reviewer–”fat” is not a synonym for “ugly,” but you sure presented it that way.
I’m not going to get on a soapbox here or try to get you to print a retraction or something–I just thought that it was worth expressing my opinion on, and thought it marred an otherwise enjoyable review. Anyway, keep up the good work at Cold Fusion.
Best Regards,
Phil Dennison
P.S. I think the real question in regards to this movie is, “Why in hell is there apparently a picture of Fairuza Balk on the video box when she isn’t even in the movie? Certainly not to capitalize on the success of The Craft, released the same year–that’s crazy talk!”
Well, I could take the easy/smart way out and say that, in the two and a half years since I wrote the review, I’ve matured into a wiser and more accomodating person… but I don’t think you’d fall for that.
There are probably two reasons why the fat girl shows up so much in the review:
1) Really, the movie wasn’t too remarkable. Everything was pretty lackluster, both storywise and visually; there was very little ELSE to comment on.
2) If we were talking about a touching character drama about real-life people discovering love or whatnot, than you wouldn’t hear a peep out of me on anybody’s waistlines. Unfortunately, this movie wanted to be an exploitation flick — from its very existence (which, as you rightly pointed out, was very clearly to exploit The Craft), to its individual scenes (we’ve got the “bad girl” doing a strip tease for construction workers and faking masturbation in the confessional to upset the priest in the first ten minutes). Yet it just does it all so poorly — it can’t even exploit well. And that’s why the appearance of the naked fat girl is notable; it’s indicative of how the filmmakers couldn’t even do the lowest common denominator well.
In all honesty, if I were reviewing the movie again today, I’d probably have comparatively fewer comment about the fat girl (if only because I have more of a tendency to ramble on these days), and I’d give serious second thoughts to having the last line be about her putative non-virginity. I’d still have to keep that one “best line,” though, simply because it was the only damned line of dialogue worth noting in the whole movie.
Thanks for your comments. I hope that my review for When Women Had Tails gives a positive flipside to gender equity around here.
Nathan
From: “Gavin R.R. Smith”
Subject: Carnosaur 2
Date sent: Sat, 16 Feb 2002I just wanted to say I find it very humorous that while you caught the fact that the ending of Carnosaur 2 was ripped off from Aliens, you didn’t notice that the ENTIRE PLOT is torn from Aliens. For instance:-Sole survivor is a non-adult who is so traumatized as to be
catatonic…-Grunts going into the lower levels of a facility get slaughtered while others wait for them above…
-The sole transport is destroyed because a creature hides in it…
-A nuclear explosion is imminent…
-The barricade fails and survivors must flee…
-Two people who don’t like each other blow themselves up w/ a grenade rather than be killed by creatures…
-Someone winds up in the creature’s lair and another
person goes back for them…
-A larger creature is waiting and the survivors escape via elevator…
-Larger creature somehow finds a way up in the same elevator…
-One of the rescuers is killed by larger creature…
-One of the survivors kills the larger creature by using
equipment they have learned to use prior to that instance, and
dropping it through a door…
-The survivors escape a nuclear explosion in the nick of time…
So basically–place Aliens in the desert, substitute dinos for aliens, and make it misogynistic…
That’s my view of it anyways…
Gavin R.R. Smith
Well, it’s not so much that I didn’t notice the wholesale ripoff (the review was part of the Alien Ripoff Festival, you know), as I didn’t think that it needed to be harped on. (Kind of analogous to how the MST3K guys never once mentioned that Space Mutiny was using tons of stock footage from Battlestar Galactica.) I only mentioned the finale explicitly because it was such a tacked-on scene. I mean, everyone’s escaping anyway — why bother to turn around to fight the dinosaur when it’s going to blow up in a minute anyway?
Nathan
From: VMWrites
Subject: Plan 9 from Outer Space
Date sent: Fri, 15 Feb 2002Nathan,I read your review of this movie, and I agree, with the possible exception of the word “charm.” I’m not sure that this movie had charm. I think what makes it so popular is that as the movie unfolds, the audience unquestionably asks itself if it can get any worse? Vampira and Tor Johnson wandering around aimlessly, scenes of Lugosi and the chiropractor stand-in, and those incredibly phony backdrops all combine to make this film less than charming, but very high on the cult interest scale.I’ve had a copy for years and view it now and then. There are few motion pictures that could match the ineptness of Plan 9 From Outer Space.
Vince Mattaliano
Well, charm is a vague term, I admit, but there is still something eminently watchable about Plan 9, at least to a certain crowd. There’s something of an inescapable joie de vivre that informs it, despite all the easily-listable inanities. It’s a wholly ridiculous movie, but far from being the worst ever made; just in the movies for which I’ve posted reviews, I can name twelve that are whole orders of magnitude less watchable than Plan 9; that’s without even considering borderline cases. (In case you’re wondering, those movies are The Alien Dead, Armageddon: The Final Challenge, Bad Magic, The Beauties and the Beast, Blood Red Planet, Deadly Reactor, Don’t Go in the Woods, Omega Cop, Prison of the Dead, Robot Holocaust, Satan’s Cheerleaders, and Star Crystal. Any one of these is pure torture compared to Plan 9.)
So yes, there is a certain charm to Plan 9, just like there is in a child’s crayon drawing held by a magnet to the fridge door. While technique and control are practically nonexistent, there’s a color and enthusiasm and pure love of creating that inform the whole thing, that are even aided by the primitive lack of sophistication. It’s not art, but it’s loads of fun.
Nathan
From: OhBuggere
Subject: “Bride with White Hair” and a musing on HK cinema in general
Date sent: Thu, 14 Feb 2002Great review of Bride… it’s a hell of a film. After the first fight scene, with all the flying around and the beheading and the cutting in half and whatnot, I was so happy I was doing backflips.But seeing your review (and interestingly enough, MonsterHunter’s review of Organ) reminded me of something I keep coming back to on more than a few HK films: what’s up with their plotting? I mean, I get the general themes they’re aiming for in a lot of the films, but jeez… if I had a nickel for every yakuza or fantasy or horror film I’ve seen where the plot is near-entirely incomprehensible, I’d be a rich man indeed. (Of course, this also brings up the question: is it better to make no sense and at least have the audience engaged in trying to sort everything out, or is it better to have plots so simplistic that there’s no chance of losing even the dumbest audience member?) Have you noticed this too, or is it just my beleaguered mind in revolt?– Steve
I’ve noticed it, but in my case I attribute a lot of it to cross-cultural ignorance. I’m sure there are cliches in our American cinema (for instance, the requisite hostage-girlfriend) that seem odd to other nations. But yeah, I think even with that factored in, it was a pretty thin storyline. I’d be interested to read the original novel to see what they condensed it down from (but I fear that then the cultural ignorance factor would weigh in even more heavily).
From: Arthur T. Lueck
Subject: Clint Howard / Liz is gonna get cha.
Date sent: Thu, 14 Feb 2002From your review of Street Corner Justice: “but few people in Hollywood so consistently play such despicable dregs of humanity as Clint Howard. At best he gets roles that are solidly annoying (see Carnosaur); more often, well, did I mention that he’s raping and mutilating?” He also got a role in Apollo 13. In that role he was only -mildly- annoying, so there.Also, If Scientist Liz decides to get ‘Darwinian’ on your butt for the comments you made in your recent Puzzle review, could you have someone video tape it? B-Movie fans would love to see it. And if it’s marketed as “Ultimate Wu-Tang Street Fighter Part 11″ you might actually make some money off of it. :)
“Nathan Shumate IS the Shrimp on the Barbie.”
From: Kathie Johnson
Subject: Carnosaur review
date sent: Sat, 9 Feb 2002Hey, I just checked out your website after watching Carnosaur 2 today (I watched the original back in 1993) and I’ve got to agree 99% with your good smart-ass review. It’s the review I would have liked to write back at the time– unfortunately, I had just turned 11.Anyway, there’s just one detail of your review that bothers me– you describe the raptor in the chicken farm as growing “at a rate that’s incredible for a mammal, and flat-out impossible for a reptile…” Bear in mind, of course, that studies of dinosaur growth rings in their bones show that they grew like birds– that is to say, faster than mammals, because they don’t get held back by brain development and learning things. For instance, Maiasaura, kind of a 3-ton cow dinosaur, could grow from its hatching size (about as big as a squirrel) to a ton within a year. However, a growth rate of 72 hours is just total bullshit, like most of this movie. I don’t mean to seem like a dino-fanatic here, just passing it on. Thanks for your time.
I stand corrected, and that’s probably one of the facts I should have picked up on. (I did note the growth rate of the diplodocus when I watched Walking With Dinosaurs, but I didn’t connect it with anything I might have said in a review.)
My son will be tickled pink to know I was caught in a dino-booboo.
Thanks,
Nathan
From: KnightNblue
Subject: Do You Exist?
Date sent: Fri, 08 Feb 2002Dear Sir:I have read the great dinosaur debate 2I am not sure that I believe “you” exist. It’s possible that “you” are really someone else who just “wrote” both parts of this so-called debate.
In which case, the belief in Dinosaurs is even more remote than I thought!!! What to do!!!
Before I accept your argument that dinosuars exist, can you first prove to me that You exist?
knight
I have no interest in doing so, as I have no evidence to begin with that you exist, and I’d hate to end up having a conversation with a nonexistent person.
Date sent: Sat, 02 Feb 2002
From: Ben Wick
Subject: Cold Fusion Video Review: LOTR:FOTRHello,In response to your strong statements regarding peoples’ “blatherings about homoerotic undertones” in LOTR, I thought I might share with you something I wrote about the relationship between Sam and Frodo… as a person who has read the books, and bases his opinion entirely on them. Food for thought, maybe?-Ben-
> I wouldn’t completely agree when it comes to Sam and Frodo. The same> sort of strong, male friendship - which we might see as homoerotic
> nowadays - can also be found in Shakespeare’s plays, like Henry V.
> There’s a scene where two friends are clinging to each other,
> kissing and weeping while they are dying. There’s nothing romantic
> about it. It’s just expressing friendship and, yes, platonic love.
I know. But there are levels, and there are the circumstances
surrounding the displays which impact on why they happen and how they should be read into. The line between platonic and romantic love is sometimes very fine, and I believe that it can sometimes be crossed back and forth from time to time.
(And I know you didn’t go here, but so many do, so let me say that there is much more to homosexuality than sex. There can be romantic, and even lustful, more-than-platonic love without there being any sex, or even intent to have it… and intent is also fine line.)
But anyway, I really see a lot more in Sam and Frodo. It’s normal to cry for friends. To sacrifice a lot for them. To want to be around them. And not even I see indication of romance in holding and kisses between a couple of people when one or both is dying! That’s heavy drama that inspires greater displays of a pair’s intimacy, without changing the nature or motivation of the intimacy.
However, the way that Sam behaves toward Frodo AT ALL TIMES is at a level of love and devotion that I find would be a stretch to believe in a non-romantic friendship. In the earliest passages of the book, Sam is not even described as Frodo’s friend. Merry and Pippin are spoken of as his best friends and Sam is Bilbo and Frodo’s gardener’s son/assistant. They are friendly, but the time and effort of building a friendship deep enough to foster the loyalty and devotion that’s between Sam and Frodo does not seem to be there. Instead, Sam acts like a lovestruck anime girl; he falls in love quickly and completely, for only the slightest “reason”. He is nearly consumed by his love of Frodo. Most thoughts are for Frodo, every decision is for Frodo. Love between friends is built, romantic love can be at first sight… or so the storybooks say. =) And Sam’s love for Frodo is instant.
You don’t devote all of yourself all of the time to someone who’s just a beloved friend. You sometimes don’t even do it for your… mate, or however you want to put it. But Sam does it all for Frodo. Sure, it is at dark times that you rise to greater displays of intimacy and devotion to your friends, and it is dark times for Frodo during this story, but still… Merry, Pippin, and Gandalf don’t dote on Frodo like Sam does, and they are the ones with the long friendships with him. The ones who’ve been intimate with Frodo in good times.
Most of this evidence rests on Sam alone, for it IS Frodo’s time of great need. He’s the one who needs to be done for. But for his part, Frodo recieves Sam’s attention very warmly and thankfully, without reservations.
Whew. That was a mouthful. =) But in closing, I have to address your comment about how “nowadays” we tend to see displays of affection between men with a homoerotic light. Presumably, that we’re so jaded, repressed, or whatever, that we see things that aren’t there when it comes to love between those of the same sex. I don’t know if I believe that we’re moving backwards in that respect. Maybe even back in Shakespeare’s day, people used and percieved homoeroticism as a storytelling tool. But back in those days, people didn’t talk about homosexuality. Now, there is an agenda to increase the public knowledge of homosexuality, and we talk about it. It’s not people saing “Man, you shouldn’t hug your buddy. It looks gay.” Well… maybe it is sometimes, for some people. For me, it’s calling attention to the gradations of love between people of the same sex, from friendship to romance to sex, to raise awareness of these dynamics, and make positive social change as a result.
Too often, when people like me (with this agenda, I mean) want to discuss these gradations in a specific pair, people respond like “just because it looks gay doesn’t mean that it is, there is nothing wrong with how they act toward each other, it’s platonic dammit”. <sigh> That’s so not the point. The point is, the reason I bring it up is because I believe there IS nothing wrong with it… whether it’s romantic or platonic. Either way, it’s fine. But which way do you think it is, in this instance? And why? Maybe with enough discussions like this, the question won’t be met with defenses of homosexualty… OR assersions to the very existance of intimate platonic love.
I, for one, already know both exist. Still, I have an opinion on Sam and Frodo… =)
-Ben-
Thanks for the insight. I know that, on this one, my opinions are no more valid than anyone else’s.
However, I do have to say that for a (reportedly) heterosexual Brit to write a long novel with a few passing interludes of heterosexual romance but with a LONG, OVERARCHING ALL-CONSUMING thread of homosexual devotion is pretty unlikely. Instead, I see two other factors as far more informative:
- In our egalitarian world, we can scarcely recognize the non-romantic devotion that could exist in a master/servant relationship in societies that encouraged such.
- Given that much of the imagery of the book is informed by the Second World War, and given that the previous war had also been a terrifically formative (one might say “scarring”) influence on Tolkien, I think that he is drawing heavily on his experience of the “brothers-in-arms” relationship, the bond that forms when soldiers are literally forced to rely wholly on one another.
In the end, it makes little sense to argue whether Sam “really” was gay, since Sam “really” was and is a collection of words on paper, describing a wholly imaginary character. But I think that people should take the author’s background into account when trying to ascribe a distinct homosexual subtext to the novel — that Tolkien was an expert in and devotee of literature which predates the overt sexual/romantic identification of so many of the gestures which characterize the Sam/Frodo relationship. Both filios and agape may be exhibited with behaviors which today, unfortunately, are seen as being solely the hallmarks of eros.
Nathan
Date sent: Sat, 02 Feb 2002
From: Ben Wick
Thanks for the insight. I know that, on this one, my opinions are no more valid than anyone else’s.
Calling another opinion “blather” gives a very different impression.
However, I do have to say that for a (reportedly) heterosexual Brit to write a long novel with a few passing interludes of heterosexual romance but with a LONG, OVERARCHING ALL-CONSUMING thread of homosexual devotion is pretty unlikely. Instead, I see two other factors as far more informative:
- In our egalitarian world, we can scarcely recognize the non-romantic devotion that could exist in a master/servant relationship in societies that encouraged such.
When Sam is not Frodo’s servant anymore, I can scarcely recognize those dynamics coming into play. He’s no longer dependent, no longer being compensated, no longer acting under orders. And even when he worked for Frodo, he was a part-time gardener and not a live-in manservant, or anything. And I didn’t read anything in the books that suggested that there was a strict class system among hobbits.
- Given that much of the imagery of the book is informed by the Second World War, and given that the previous war had also been a terrifically formative (one might say “scarring”) influence on Tolkien, I think that he is drawing heavily on his experience of the “brothers-in- arms” relationship, the bond that forms when soldiers are literally forced to rely wholly on one another.
Except that Sam is like this before they’re “in the field”, he doesn’t act this way toward any of his other companions, nor do any of the others act this way toward comrades. With the exception of Legolas and Gimli, and when I read the suggestively oblique last paragraph of appendix A, I lean toward thinking that Tolkien established them as a canon couple. While perhaps leaving Sam and Frodo’s relationship very special, but not so clearly defined. Maybe I’m asserting that this brothers-in-arms relationship can delve into homoerotic undertones, even if it stops much short of being a fully realized relationship.
In the end, it makes little sense to argue whether Sam “really” was gay, since Sam “really” was and is a collection of words on paper, describing a wholly imaginary character. But I think that people should take the author’s background into account when trying to ascribe a distinct homosexual subtext to the novel — that Tolkien was an expert in and devotee of literature which predates the overt sexual/romantic identification of so many of the gestures which characterize the Sam/Frodo relationship. Both filios and agape may be exhibited with behaviors which today, unfortunately, are seen as being solely the hallmarks of eros.
Good fiction means something, and is supposed to inspire thought. I don’t apologize for taking seriously the identification to and analysis of it. Imagination is a useful tool of understanding, and of great use to real life. If talking about fiction meant so little to you, I don’t think you’d run Nuclear Fusion. You’re just pish-toshing THIS subject.
And I don’t think it “unfortunate” that people consider the range of love and sexuality. I’m not denying the existance of platonic intimacy, that could be represented by some of the same displays as exist between Sam and Frodo, I’m saying there is a spectrum, and presenting evidence of which end I think this specific relationship is nearer to. And somehow by taking a wider view, I get people telling me that I’m MISSING the big picture. I’m not saying that these behaviors must be SOLELY seen as romantic, I’m saying they fall somewhere in a gray area, and trying to offer a preponderance of evidence on this one specific relationship.
-Ben-
Thanks for the insight. I know that, on this one, my opinions are no more valid than anyone else’s.
Calling another opinion “blather” gives a very different impression.
Anyone who makes homoeroticism a major focus of a review of FOTR is blathering. Not that the opinion is necessarily wrong, but they’re focusing on a small part of the movie (wait ’till they get to the next two parts). Oldfield simply made comments like, “I expected Wood and Astin to join hands and go skipping off into the sunset at the end.” That’s not a thoughtful treatment of possible homoerotism; it’s making fun of the gay hobbits.
However, I do have to say that for a (reportedly) heterosexual Brit to write a long novel with a few passing interludes of heterosexual romance but with a LONG, OVERARCHING ALL-CONSUMING thread of homosexual devotion is pretty unlikely. Instead, I see two other factors as far more informative:
- In our egalitarian world, we can scarcely recognize the non-romantic devotion that could exist in a master/servant relationship in societies that encouraged such.
When Sam is not Frodo’s servant anymore, I can scarcely recognize those dynamics coming into play. He’s no longer dependent, no longer being compensated, no longer acting under orders. And even when he worked for Frodo, he was a part-time gardener and not a live-in manservant, or anything. And I didn’t read anything in the books that suggested that there was a strict class system among hobbits.
Frodo was very definitely “Master Frodo” from the beginning.
- Given that much of the imagery of the book is informed by the Second World War, and given that the previous war had also been a terrifically formative (one might say “scarring”) influence on Tolkien, I think that he is drawing heavily on his experience of the “brothers-in- arms” relationship, the bond that forms when soldiers are literally forced to rely wholly on one another.
Except that Sam is like this before they’re “in the field”, he doesn’t act this way toward any of his other companions, nor do any of the others act this way toward comrades. With the exception of Legolas and Gimli, and when I read the suggestively oblique last paragraph of appendix A, I lean toward thinking that Tolkien established them as a canon couple. While perhaps leaving Sam and Frodo’s relationship very special, but not so clearly defined. Maybe I’m asserting that this brothers-in-arms relationship can delve into homoerotic undertones, even if it stops much short of being a fully realized relationship.
In the end, it makes little sense to argue whether Sam “really” was gay, since Sam “really” was and is a collection of words on paper, describing a wholly imaginary character. But I think that people should take the author’s background into account when trying to ascribe a distinct homosexual subtext to the novel — that Tolkien was an expert in and devotee of literature which predates the overt sexual/romantic identification of so many of the gestures which characterize the Sam/Frodo relationship. Both filios and agape may be exhibited with behaviors which today, unfortunately, are seen as being solely the hallmarks of eros.
Good fiction means something, and is supposed to inspire thought. I don’t apologize for taking seriously the identification to and analysis of it. Imagination is a useful tool of understanding, and of great use to real life. If talking about fiction meant so little to you, I don’t think you’d run Nuclear Fusion. You’re just pish-toshing THIS subject.
There’s no call to get petty and short. I’m not pish-toshing; I’m stating my opinions, in much the same manner that you are. I don’t see any need to get emotional or start writing you off; I suggest you don’t do that with me either.
And I don’t think it “unfortunate” that people consider the range of love and sexuality. I’m not denying the existance of platonic intimacy, that could be represented by some of the same displays as exist between Sam and Frodo, I’m saying there is a spectrum, and presenting evidence of which end I think this specific relationship is nearer to. And somehow by taking a wider view, I get people telling me that I’m MISSING the big picture. I’m not saying that these behaviors must be SOLELY seen as romantic, I’m saying they fall somewhere in a gray area, and trying to offer a preponderance of evidence on this one specific relationship.
-Ben-
I’m not suggesting that considering the range you mention is unfortunate; what I’m suggesting is the knee-jerk assumption of homoerotic romance — looking at the novel through a retroactive modern lens, rather than from within the context of its composition era, to say nothing of the eras of the literature on which it drew for tradition — IS unfortunate.
The ability to disagree cordially is also one of the great assets of literary criticism and thoughtful discussion. However, it seems your cordiality is slipping a little; perhaps the topic is a little too personal for you. I suggest we shake hands and go our separate ways at this junction, before things start to degenerate more perceptibly.
Nathan
From: Walter Kuplowsky
Subject: Masters of the Universe may be bad but Gary made up fo it with Captain Power series.
Date sent: Sat, 26 Jan 2002Dear Nathan,I read about your chat with Gary Goddard and found it interesting. I myself saw Master’s of the Universe and admit it was quite poor… very poor…alright… downright bad. Anyway, I also have talked to Gary Goddard, except not only e-mail, but via phone, because I am a huge fan of one a Mr. Goddard’s works: Captain Power and The Soldiers of the Future. If you have not seen this television series, do so immediately.CP not only was a revolutionary show (it featured state of the art special effects for a television series and also was the first interactive TV show. With the purchase of a toy gun you could shoot at the “bad guys” and get points for every hit you got.) but was also a very mature, profound sci-fi series. Which was surpassing because it was originally aimed for children. The basis behind it was similar to that of The Matrix. It’s the future, machines rule the planet, enslaving people by turning them into a computer data and storing them in computers. A small rebel faction get hold of a number of weapons and equipment that allows them to fight back against the machines. The show featured excellent acting (one cast member (forget which one) was nominated for a Gemini for acting), solid directing and intriguing storylines, mixing powerful themes of Love, Hate, Death, and even Fascism and Nazism. CP unfortunately only ran one season because of syndication disputes, many fans eagerly await its return.Gary Goddard is an interesting person, he may have messed up with Masters of the Universe, but he definitely scored right with Captain Power.
-Kaiser Soze-
Now, you’ll note that in my review of Masters of the Universe, I made no accusations against any one person, least of all the director, for the mediocrity of the final film; knowing how corporate a product it was, I realize that beancounters ran the production, rather than anyone with a true vision for either art or entertainment. Goddard only gets a razzberry for acting petulant with me and a few other internet critics.
But at the same time, I’m not willing to hand him clear credit for whatever value Captain Power had. He was co-creator, not sole creator, and he had a number of talented people backing him up, including J. Michael Straczynski of Babylon 5 fame, who was story editor in addition to writing ten of the scripts. And J. Mike has at least shown elsewhere that he’s not a flash in the pan.
Unfortunately, the same situation which shields Goddard from the brunt of the blame on Masters of the Universe also stands between him and major recognition for Captain Power.
From: Lazlo Strivenka
Subject: Factoid re: The Dead Hate the Living!
Date sent: Thu, 24 Jan 2002Mr. Shumate,As a somewhat unhinged and diabolically insane fan of the lovely Wendy Speake — who played Shelley in the Full Moon “masterpiece” THE DEAD HATE THE LIVING! — I was surprised to see that you left out an interesting bit o’ information regarding the most gorgeous woman to have ever graced a zombie flick.According to the Internet Movie Database, Ms. Speake played “Technician #2″ in an episode of STAR TREK: VOYAGER titled “Friendship One” (number 7.21).I hope you choose to update your “Actors who’ve appeared on Star Trek: 0″ factoid as soon as conveniently possible. Just because Charles Band’s company churns out rubbish at every possible turn, don’t besmirch the fair Ms. Speake by failing to point out a minor accomplishment just because she appeared in a Full Moon production.
Regards,
Lazlo Strivenka
P.S. Forgive any errors in language that may occur in the above message. Due to the inconvenient absence of my Thesaurus, stolen by my fiendish landlady, the above message may be strewn with malapropisms. For this, I do apologize.
P.P.S. Nice site, by the way. I am more learned in the arts of cinematic rubbish thanks to you and your friends at badmovies.org, stomptokyo, jabootu, et. al.
P.P.P.S. I apologize if my use of et. al. was erroneous. My thesaurus was stolen, you know.
I shall do so, provided you promise to check into the twelve-step program of your choice.
From: Scott Fefchak
Subject: Review
Date sent: Thur, 24 Jan 2002Hi there,I am a huge fan of your movie reviews, and was wondering if you take requests. If you do, I would love for you to comment on the movies below:1. Starship Troopers2. Clash of the Titans
3. Dark Night of the Scarecrow
Thanks for taking the time to read this, if you don’t do this kinda thing, cool and the gang, just thought I’d ask.
Thanks!
Scott Fefchak
Well, requests are a “sorta” proposition. I’ve got a list of several thousand movies I want to see before I die (you think I’m exaggerating? I’m serious), in addition to the smattering I own. If someone brings up a movie that I don’t have on the list that sounds interesting, I add it — but I’m getting to them in random order, so aside my themed Video Binges and the occasional rarity that siezes my fancy and gets added to my “Watch For” list on eBay, I don’t really do requests. (Jeez, was that a long answer or what?)
Clash of the Titans and Dark Night of the Scarecrow are both on the list. Starship Troopers is a little beyond my comfort zone — it was a big-budget release, and has already been reviewed almost 120 times, according to the IMDb; unless it fits perfectly into a Video Binge (Bugs in Space, maybe?), I probably won’t get to it.
After all, anybody can skewer Starship Troopers, but how many people are planning on checking out Revenge of the Radioactive Reporter?
From: Andrew Norris
Subject: Reference to British-Empire Stereotypes
Date sent: Wed, 23 Jan 2002Dear Mr. ShumateI haven’t seen the movie The Lost World (1998) but you mentioned that the respect given to native cultures given by several of the white characters in the film was a tad unrealistic, in your opinion. In actuality, a lot of the time the British Empire was quite respectful (for an Empire, of course) of native cultures; if not politically, than culturally. Sure, they may have exterminated the Tasmanians and Beothuk, but they felt really bad about it at home (”they” of course, being the British intellectual public, not the prison colonists or drunken fisheries workers who actually did the exterminating). Apparently, it all depended upon the harshness of the environment; if you were a Fijian, then forget respect since all you had to do to eat was grab a coconut from a tree (which is somewhat insane, given the challenges given by living in a limited land area). But if you happened to be an Arab, then you were immortalized as a Rosseauan “noble savage” (the academic term for this type of thinking is “Orientalism”). And at least in the beginning, Britian and the East India Company seemed to have some concern about preserving traditional East Indian social structures and customs. Of course, that went out the window after the Mutiny. Forgive the heavy-handed pretension, it’s about the only thing I can remember from being a history major in college.Love your siteAndy
Mmm… Heavy-handed pretention…
Of course, I still maintain that there’s a big difference between paying lip-service to the inherent worth of non-Western cultures, and not batting an eye at an interracial love affair (not just a roll-in-the-hay) in the 1930’s (an era in which, for instance, no one the world over yet thought that “eugenics” was a dirty word).
From: Rick
Subject: Your Beastmaster review
Date sent: Mon, 21 Jan 2002Nathan,Loved your Beastmaster review. I heard a bit of trivia about that movie that I thought you might be interested in. It seems, unfortunately, that the tiger they spray painted black for the movie actually died as a result of being painted. As I recall, it lead to increased protection of animals on movie sets. Just thought you might like to know.– Rick
Jeez, and here I was feeling sorry for the guy who did the spray-painting…
From: Ryan Keller
Subject: My comments on your site…………….
Date sent: Mon, 21 Jan 2002I was just reading your review for Masters Of The Universe………..and The Minion for that matter……….And I have noticed you have seen and reviewed Dolph Lundgren’s worst movies. I personially thought both of them were bad. Masters Of The Universe was so bad it was funny…………The Minion was so bad it WASN’T funny. I happen to think he Dolph Lundgren was good in only 4 movies………..The Punisher,Blackjack,I Come In Peace and Universal Soldier. I don’t mind Dolph Lundgren too much and I think he has more acting ability than Van Damme and Steven Seagal………………Which is like determining which ocean is the wettest. But really I liked The Punisher.I am a critic for
http://www.geocities.com/pistolsblazing85/
KennerTheManTheMythTheMovieReviews.html I am Ryan Kenner.And I agree Dolph is a bad actor…..but he has his moments (Especially with The Punisher) I like action movies so I might be biased. But what do you think of my site. I like your site a lot……..I am surprised you didn’t give The Killer a Hot Fusion.P.S Has there been a Dolph Lundgren movie you have slightly enjoyed?
Well, I did slightly enjoy The Punisher. And there was… no, wait, thinking of someone else.
Subject: factual error in your review of America’s Deadliest Home Video
Date sent: Sun, 06 Jan 2002
From: Nicholas Pinanskywas reading your review of America’s Deadliest Home Video and I noticed the following :”The filming is part of the narrative, with the camera being operated by a character. It’s not an original idea, either — it wasn’t new when Umberto Lenzi used it in Cannibal Ferox in 1981“I believe you mean to say Ruggero Deodato, Cannibal Holocaust and 1979 as Lenzi’s ferox is not shot in faux-documentary style.regards,
-nick
I’ve been caught. I’ve never seen either cannibal film in question, and was relying on memory from various reference works and other reviews. I shall correct it, and no one will be the wiser.
Nathan
[except that I shall then advertise it in the e-mail collection...]
From: “Jeremy Seals”
Subject: Great Site
Date sent: Wed, 26 Dec 2001Mr.Shumate,Just dropping a quick line or two. You have a great site! The book/movie reviews have uncovered some enjoyable films/books for me, as well as saving me from actually spending cover price on Russo’s NOTLD novel. Keep up the good work.Jeremy Seals
From: M Mikell
Subject: Halloween 2: Nice Shootin’, Tex!
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001A note about your Halloween II review (Just for the record, I’m one of those anal-retentive types who would erase it and the other sequels from existence–except for Halloween III: Season of the Witch, which is just so awful and stupid and jaw-droppingly bad I love it);Has anyone else pointed out that Laurie,(a) suffering from shock, blood loss, multiple injuries, painkillers, and abject terror,(b) handling a firearm for what might be the first time in her life,
(c) seated on the floor in the most uncomfortable shooting position imaginable, and
(d) shooting at a poorly-lit, moving target,
nevertheless–and for no fathomable reason–manages to plug Michael in both eyes?
It’s slightly less plausible than Dr. Loomis surviving being stabbed, blown up, and burned–but that’s another sequel.
Keep up the good work!
You forgot e) wearing an laughable wig.
Nathan
Date sent: Fri, 14 Dec 2001
From: John Balbach
Subject: Abraxas review and the nature of artistic ambitionI was taken to a resturant recently that I had avoided more or less on instinct. Instinct in this case proved to be a fast friend. I ordered a reuben since it was a bar and I thought there was no way they could screw up what amounted to a fancy grilled cheese sandwich.You know what happened next, of course. At the time I was astounded that someone would serve something that awful to fellow traveller on this earth, much less have the audacity to charge money for the experience.At first I thought that it was just some sort of scam to extract money from the public for as little cost as possible, but I suspect that the owner was more human and more pathetic than I gave him credit for.I imagine the owner now as someone who wants to own and operate a resturant, not because he wants to make a buck (he would have done better to open a JiffyLube on that corner) but because he likes food and wants to give others a worthwhile dining experience. He really wants to do a good job.
The pathos enters because he does not know what it is that makes a worthwhile dining experience. He never could put together that combination of intangibles that makes a resturant both delightful and profitable. Because he wants to keep striving for the delightful, he aims at profitable so that he can keep going. Ultimately, he achieves neither. The place closed two years later.
I’m sure that Lee, Mitchell and Petersen would like to make a good movie. I have no doubt that they would like to be remembered as men who could make an entertaining movie. Here’s the catch: they don’t know how to do it. They strive to make something that they very possibly can’t understand. Since they can’t understand it, they just don’t know how bad they are doing. They just can’t help themselves.
At some point, you might have been in the same situation. You, however, were blessed (cursed?) with the insight to understand the often subtle difference between a good movie and a bad movie. Instead of recognizing your early writing efforts as lacking that certain something, you might have just thought you were just misunderstood. If possesed with enough drive or contacts, you might have even brought one of your early scripts to a screen. You can see the sort of downward spiral that this can become.
In short, pity these men.
John J. Balbach
Good Lord, that was beautiful.
Nathan
Date sent: Thu, 13 Dec 2001
From: thomas wright
Subject: Re: AbraxasI thought I’d point out that Black Bolt’s not the only comic element they ripped off. The Anti-Life Equation comes straight from Jack Kirby’s DC work. It’s what big-time DC villian Darkseid is always trying to solve. All his plots have something to do with that damn equation.tsw
Thomas was one of several who pointed out to me the deficiency in my Fourth World Saga education, and jeez, I feel like a dunce not knowing that.
On the other hand, that phrase sounds a lot more appropriate coming from a craggy-faced colossus on a planet of firepits than from two burly wrestlers in the woods outside Vancouver.
