dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) (10/30/85)
I've had it with this discussion on so-called "bad movies." It reveals far more about the variety of personal taste than anything else. Many very bad movies do exist. However, no movie seems to be so good that at least one soul can't be found to declare that it is "bad." When Zileg and The Return of Martin G.(one of the best films I've ever seen, period!) are described as "totally bad" I hardly know how to respond. Streets of Fire while not "great" is at least average, and clearly has many fans, yet it has been flamed into itty bitty pieces. Now someone is suggesting that Alien was a "bad film." I suggest that this discussion is driven by ignorance on the part of some of the participants. Yes, I know the Peter R. and Mark L. and others know all about bad films, but I suspect that some of you rarely see really bad films, and as a result tend to flame as "really bad" films that rank between (-2) and (+2). [If you have seen Creeping Terror, the Wrestling Women and the Aztec Mummy, Horror Planet, and so on, you have something to judge by. If the worst film you've seen is Alien, read on.] I recall that Alien made it onto my hometown newspaper's "Ten Worst of the Year" list. This is absurd. That film critic probably hadn't seen even one (-3) or (-4) movie all year. I can debate about placing Alien anywhere from (-2) to (+2), but those who call it one of the worst films of the year, or one of the worst they have ever seen probably have seen very few bad films. Note that it is quite possible to truthfully say "Alien is the worst film I saw all year" if you saw ten very good movies that year. This does not make Alien or any other film a "bad movie." Why don't we get on to reviewing movies, new and old, good and bad, and halt this fruitless discussion. Dale BTW: SEE AFTER HOURS. I had a cold last week and saw five movies. It was by far the best, a clear (+3).