kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) (08/19/85)
_Back_to_the_Future_
by Kelvin Thompson
_Back_to_the_Future_ is a bad, confused movie. If there are any doubts
that Hollywood is still rife with drug abuse, this movie can lay them to
rest.
The movie seems to concern a middle-class high school student, Charles J.
Fox (_Sixteen_Candles_, _The_Breakfast_Club_, _Weird_Science_), and a mad
scientist, Christopher Lloyd (_Foul_Play_, _Caddyshack_, _Fletch_). The
two go for a ride in the scientist's DeLorean sports car, and then the
student gets in trouble with his parents. Or something like that -- the
movie is so chaotic that the viewer finds it difficult to figure out
exactly *what* is going on.
For example, one moment Fox is driving around in a parking lot, then the
viewer turns to his girlfriend to talk about dinner plans and looks up to
find the student staring at a farmer in the middle of nowhere. Later,
when the viewer returns to his seat with some hot dogs and popcorn, he
sees a strange, seemingly incestuous conversation between Fox and his
mother (maybe his sister?). Still later, after the viewer has moved to a
better seat, Fox is in a concert hall playing electric guitar, even
though he was banned from the concert early in the film. And all through
the movie, whenever the viewer looks up from trying to quiet the baby he
is sitting, he notices all sorts of inconsistent details: the town square
looks completely different in different scenes; the same people will
sometimes drive recent-model sedans and later drive dated jalopies; and
characters' ages and relationships to one another seem to shift randomly.
The only conclusion the viewer can draw is that _Future_ is the most
drugged-out movie since _Caddyshack_. The screenwriter must have been on
hallucinogens to produce such an incomprehensible plot. Many of the
actors must have been strung out or nearing the D-T's to have looked so
bad in some of their scenes. Even the film editor and director must have
been on mind-deadening substances to have assembled some of the scenes so
obviously out of order.
The producer of _Future_, Steven Spielberg (_The_Godfather_,
_Apocalypse_Now_, _One_From_The_Heart_) has built a reputation as one of
the "cleanest" filmmakers in Hollywood, but this incoherent, uneven movie
shows that even he has succumbed to the terrible drug dependency that
continues to ravage Hollywood.
trudel@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Jon) (08/19/85)
> _Back_to_the_Future_ > > by Kelvin Thompson > _Back_to_the_Future_ is a bad, confused movie. If there are any doubts > that Hollywood is still rife with drug abuse, this movie can lay them to > rest. > The movie seems to concern a middle-class high school student, Charles J. > Fox (_Sixteen_Candles_, _The_Breakfast_Club_, _Weird_Science_)... > ... the scientist's DeLorean sports car... Well, that's it. I'm not going to read any more of these stupid reviews. Why, you ask? Well, this one is the most pointless of all. I think that whoever is running this AI program must also have had a few bits permanently grounded. First of all, let me be one of the first of thousands to point out that it is Micheal J. Fox. Sure, it was an attempt at humor to confuse two young actors, but it falls flat, ok? Also, the AI database is showing with lack of data surrounding DeLoreans (it probably only has : DeLorean-see Drugs, Cocaine). It must have locked in on this factor and blamed any minor discrepancies of the film with the Hollywood drug environment. Great. Tell us something we don't already know. > The only conclusion the viewer can draw is that _Future_ is the most > drugged-out movie since _Caddyshack_. Well, this shows more gaps in the database-What about all those Cheech and Chong movies? Perhaps it is the only other movie entered into the database that also had a reference to cocaine. If there is a Kelvin, why doesn't he step forward? I'll tell you. There isn't. Kelvin is the result of a lot of programmers down in Texas. I always wanted to know why Kelvin never rebutted the critics of his/her/its reviews, and now I'm positive I know. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. No more. -- Jonathan D. Trudel arpa:trudel@ru-blue.arpa uucp:{seismo,allegra,ihnp4}!topaz!trudel "You can't fight in here, this is the WAR ROOM!"
briand@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Diehm) (08/20/85)
> > _Back_to_the_Future_ > > > > by Kelvin Thompson > > > _Back_to_the_Future_ is a bad, confused movie. If there are any doubts > > that Hollywood is still rife with drug abuse, this movie can lay them to > > rest. > > Well, that's it. I'm not going to read any more of these stupid reviews. > Why, you ask? Unnh, no, I didn't need to ask. -ed. > If there is a Kelvin, why doesn't he step forward? *** REPLACE THIS MESS WITH KELVIN'S LINEAGE *** Of course. Kelvin is a cute version of Kelvinator, the warped appliance of a robot producing this stuff. Actually, if you look upon Kelvin's "reviews" as a form of humor. . . { Just Sagans and Sagans of line feeds } . . . they're still pretty sophomoric. Actually, I'm really glad "Kelvin" CAN'T step forward - mobility in such a juvenile AI entity would indeed be a frightening thing! -Brian Diehm Tektronix, Inc. (I'm NOT an officer of the company, so the company is NOT bound by anything I say or sign. . .)
kimery@wdl1.UUCP (Sam Kimery) (08/21/85)
> > _Back_to_the_Future_ > > by Kelvin Thompson > If this is supposed to be funny why isn't posted to net.jokes? I for one am tired of this BS. Maybe it should go to net.movies.attempted.humor. by.reviewer. Sam
kitten@hao.UUCP (08/26/85)
> Kelvin Thompson writes: > > _Back_to_the_Future_ is a bad, confused movie. If there are any doubts > that Hollywood is still rife with drug abuse, this movie can lay them to > rest. > > The movie is so chaotic that the viewer finds it difficult to figure out > exactly *what* is going on. > > For example, one moment Fox is driving around in a parking lot, then the > viewer turns to his girlfriend to talk about dinner plans and looks up to > find the student staring at a farmer in the middle of nowhere. Later, > when the viewer returns to his seat with some hot dogs and popcorn, he > sees a strange, seemingly incestuous conversation between Fox and his > mother (maybe his sister?). Still later, after the viewer has moved to a > better seat, Fox is in a concert hall playing electric guitar, even > though he was banned from the concert early in the film. And all through > the movie, whenever the viewer looks up from trying to quiet the baby he > is sitting, he notices all sorts of inconsistent details: the town square > looks completely different in different scenes; the same people will > sometimes drive recent-model sedans and later drive dated jalopies; and > characters' ages and relationships to one another seem to shift randomly. > > The only conclusion the viewer can draw is that _Future_ is the most > drugged-out movie since _Caddyshack_. The screenwriter must have been on > hallucinogens to produce such an incomprehensible plot. > > The producer of _Future_, Steven Spielberg (_The_Godfather_, > _Apocalypse_Now_, _One_From_The_Heart_) has built a reputation as one of > the "cleanest" filmmakers in Hollywood, but this incoherent, uneven movie > shows that even he has succumbed to the terrible drug dependency that > continues to ravage Hollywood. ** I'm sorry I had to leave in so much of the above article in my summary, but this is ridiculous! I get that you didn't want to go to this movie in the first place, and had it already condemed. Really now, you must have the attention span of a three year old to have missed so much. To enjoy a movie, you must *watch* it. Try discussing dinner plans before or after, and get to the movie early enough to get the popcorn before hand. And don't forget to use the potty at intermission, too. Then, maybe, you'll enjoy the film, and won't go home to your keyboard flaming movies, actors, and directors as 'drug crazed'. Really, now, we're all adults here...aren't we? (boy, my first counter-flame! that felt good - except for the singed paws) {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!kitten CSNET: kitten@NCAR ARPA: kitten%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
briand@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Diehm) (08/27/85)
In article <1715@hao.UUCP> kitten@hao.UUCP writes: > Kelvin Thompson writes: >> >> _Back_to_the_Future_ is a bad, confused movie. If there are any doubts >> that Hollywood is still rife with drug abuse, this movie can lay them to >> rest. . . . >> For example, one moment Fox is driving around in a parking lot, then the >> viewer turns to his girlfriend to talk about dinner plans and looks up to >> find the student staring at a farmer in the middle of nowhere. Later, >> when the viewer returns to his seat with some hot dogs and popcorn, he >> sees a strange, seemingly incestuous conversation between Fox and his >> mother (maybe his sister?). Still later, after the viewer has moved to a >> better seat, Fox is in a concert hall playing electric guitar, even >> though he was banned from the concert early in the film. And all through >> the movie, whenever the viewer looks up from trying to quiet the baby he >> is sitting, he notices all sorts of inconsistent details: the town square >> looks completely different in different scenes; the same people will >> sometimes drive recent-model sedans and later drive dated jalopies; and >> characters' ages and relationships to one another seem to shift randomly. >I'm sorry I had to leave in so much of the above article in my summary, >but this is ridiculous! I get that you didn't want to go to this movie >in the first place, and had it already condemed. Really now, you must >have the attention span of a three year old to have missed so much. >To enjoy a movie, you must *watch* it. > >(boy, my first counter-flame! that felt good - except for the singed paws) And to enjoy satire, one must *read* it! Really, I know it takes intelligence to enjoy satire, but I never realized that it took so much intelligence just to *recognize* it! Apparently you are not alone in lacking that, as many on this net have missed the blatantly obvious. -Brian Diehm Tektronix, Inc. (Who not only doesn't CARE about Kelvin Thompson, they corpor- ately have never even HEARD of him!) "Tell me more, *Future Boy!*"
nancy@enmasse.UUCP (Nancy Werlin) (08/31/85)
> ** > I'm sorry I had to leave in so much of the above article in my summary, > but this is ridiculous! I get that you didn't want to go to this movie > ... I think that the article you were flaming was submitted as a joke. In normal writing, since one does not normally identify every joke with a smiley face (perish the thought), you learn to judge sarcasm/humor/irony by tone. Tone can be conveyed by written language, you see, as well as through voice. The writer of the review to which you took such exception, in my humble opinion, does so superbly. Of course, writers of his ilk are rare on the net. Since we are not used to reading USENET articles carefully, it is difficult to pick up the nuances when they are present -- especially if the writer isn't obliging enough to identify every joke as such. These writers are throwbacks, it's true; but they do still exist, irritating though it is. You might learn to appreciate jokes such as this movie review -- jokes which amuse through the delicate use of language -- if you practised reading some of the works of ancient humorists. For a start, I suggest S.J. Perelman. Of course, you cannot read Perelman on line, you must visit your library and take out a book. You can find your local library by consulting the yellow pages of your telephone directory (another book, which is not unlike a file listing that you could generate on your computer). Alternatively, visit a bookstore. Fondly, Nancy Werlin EnMasse Computer Acton, MA