Re: [Epic] 5th Element and Batman rant

From: <duckrvr_at_...>
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 08:52:04 -0500

At 09:12 AM 5/23/97 -0400, you wrote:

>>I heard it was pretty lame . . . mostly just a vehicle for the special
effects.
>
>I actually liked the movie. The plot has more holes in it than a seive, and
>it existed solely as a way of connecting a series of visual effects and sight
>gags into a semi-cohesive story.

Isnt' that what I said?

> It's better than any of the batman movies, IMO.

Rant Warning . . .

Well, after Michael Keaton left, it wasnt' too hard, though there were
definite problems with both I and II. Personally, I considered walking out
after the "black-light" fight in number III. Stupid, stupid, stupid,
stupid! It was just a 2 hour version of the old, campy sit-coms (what was
that assanine phrase? "Holy manhole cover" or something equally stupid).
That's fine, but if it was what I wanted I would just watch reruns, and not
pay $7 to see a movie. What happened to the macabre "Dark Knight" style of
the first two? Tim Burton leaves and the movies go strait to hell. Has
anyone seen the Mr. Freeze get-up they put Ah-nuld in for the new film. How
goony! And why are the bat-costumes suddenly metallic. Right! I'm so sure
_that_ won't show up in the dark! And while I'm at it, Julia Roberts
(Poison Ivy - Hah!) couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag. Sure she
has legs up to her face, but her entire acting repertoire consists of
crying, and twisting her repulsively over-sized lips into even more hideous
shapes than they are to begin with (or, alternately, blowing Richard Gere).
I wont' go see it in the theater, and I probably won't even rent it unless
someone else wants to.

Temp
Received on Sat May 24 1997 - 13:52:04 UTC