listowsk@aecom.UUCP (Irving Listowsky) (06/13/84)
I saw IJatToD , read net.movies, and was compelled to see it again.
WoW !! .. boy, do you guys have an axe to grind !!!!!
Hollywood finally produces an exciting, entertaining and well made movie
without sex or excessive violence (even when the heart was ripped out, ther
e was no blood!) and everyone has to tear it apart! ok, you're entitled to
your opinion - but I feel that the hysteria lumped on IJatToD is far too much.
What's so terrible about a few bugs on someone's hand (did they use stuntmen?)
or a couple of slimy snakes - I've seen things much more gruesome and traumatizing on TV!
as far as the technicalities, - I watched very carfully the second time around:
1) I didn't see the camera plane someone mentioned.
2) The bad guy WAS on the bridge when it was cut - above willie and round.
He then fell and caught himself below them - that's all there was to it.
3) The bad guy pilots had to bail out rather that simply killing them because,
as someone pointed out, the plane had'nt the range to make it much further.
The Bad guy wanted revenge on them by placing them in peril at a desolate
location.
4) Violence: This movie was LESS violent than RotLA !! In rotla, we saw living
faces melt - I dont see how inanimate eyeballs in soup is nearly as terrible
as that. Even the most gruesome scene - the open heart surgery - had no blood in it.
I'll admit that some things in the movie such as the life raft parachute are a
bit far fetched, but these did'nt affect the flow of the movie. It moved right
along at a heart stopping pace! Even the second time around, I was immersed in
the action. I don't see how IJatToD could harm children - it is nowhere nearly
as traumatic as things like GREMLINS.
It's a pleasure to be part of the NET.
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>- Phil at YUgrw@fortune.UUCP (Glenn Wichman) (06/26/84)
bip.
Oops! I wish to take back everything bad I said about
IJ&TD. It was recently pointed out that the violence was
NOT excessive, an example being given that
"even when the heart was ripped out, there was no blood"
Apparently I missed this subtle point when watching the
movie, and thus came to the clearly mistaken notion that
the movie was excessivly violent. I am now rounding up
four-year-olds to take to see the movie. Anyone want to
loan me sons or daughters?
-Glenn
(who has read
netiquette and
knows better than
to be sarcastic on
the net).