Re: [Epic] 5th Element and Batman rant

From: Waiming Poo-Cheong <waiming.poo-cheong_at_...>
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 10:30:43 +0100 (BST)

On Sat, 24 May 1997, oki_at_... wrote:

> At 08:26 PM 5/23/97 +0100, you wrote:
> >
> >er...i think Uma Thurman, not "pretty woman", was Poison Ivy, and
> >personally speaking Batgirl (Alicia S) was the most offensive character in
> >the movie.
> >
> How so ? In a sexy way or the puking way ? It is not showing here yet.

She reminded me of Spammy (sorry Pammy) "Barbed Wire" Anderson. the
sight of a babe trying to look tough in black leather and on a bike was
simply hilarious (this applies to both movies and no, i'm not being
sexist here)
but to be fair to the movie, i must confess that these impressions were
formed after having seen only the "coming attractions" screen shots.

btw I agree that Arnie would make a great Bane. just that this would
involve Azrael becoming the new Batman (yet another extra character), and
assuming the movie stays true to the comics, the Arkham breakout and its
consequences would be just too complicated/lengthy for the movie.

sigh! guess i'll just have to wait for 5th element to open here. (it was
only after arriving here that i realised that movies in the UK actually
open a couple of months later than in Singapore)


"What is your duty?"
"That we fight and die for the Emperor"

"What is death?"
"It is our duty"

"What is your duty?"
....


just thought i'll sign off with that amusing litany

Waiming


>
> >The Emperor's peace for the lot.
> >
>
> "Repent and Burn !" says the Redemptionist :)
>
> Regards
> Oki
> p.s. Did they have to get Arnold to play Freeze (or whatever you call the
> ice maker) and pay him like a few million for probably a non-speaking,
> non-acting part ? They should have spend the money elsewhere. Ah, the
> workings of movie producers.
>
>
>
>
> >waiming
> >
> >On Sat, 24 May 1997 duckrvr_at_... wrote:
> >
> >> 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 - 09:30:43 UTC