Conference bookie::movies

re         <<< Note 200.0 by 12368::michaud "Jeff Michaud, DECnet/OSI" >>>
                           -< The Last Action Hero >-

>	Well I pre-bought the tickets for tonights so called sneak-preview
>	thinking it would be a sell out.  Instead only 30% or so of the
>	seats were full (Tynsboro 6), wonder if the pre-publicity mixed
>	reviews were the reason (how was last thursdays opening of Jur. Park?).
       
        See below for explainaton of small crowds :-)

>	BTW, FWIW, I don't believe there is a single cuss-word in this
>	film, and certainly no nudity, so it should be safe to take the
>	kids to ..... (and the violence isn't really gratuitious, and there
>	are no guts and blood)

  No sex, no gratuitious violence, no nudity, no cussing, no guts and blood,
no dinosaurus, only one kid, costs $70 million.........sounds like a loser to
me :-)

Maybe they'll start calling this The Last Action Herogate in honor of Heavens
Gate?


Regards
Barry

    
    	RE: .0
    
    	It sounds like it's similar to "Hudson Hawk", then.
    
    
    							GTI

> It sounds like it's similar to "Hudson Hawk", then.

	I believe Hudson Hawk was under-rated.  I thought HH was
	really funny, and it had a couple things going for it that
	TLAH doesn't, HH kept pace and was clear it wanted to be
	a comedy and nothing more.

    
    	I LOVED "Hudson Hawk" ... glad to see I'm not the only one.
    
    	8^)
    
    							GTI
    

	I mentioned that I had not heard a single cuss word in
	this movie.  Well the kid in this movie was on the Tonight
	show last week and I only caught a piece of this, but I
	guess the kid is really religious or something and said
	that whereever in the script it said somelike like s---
	he replaced it with "poop" or something like that.  Can anyone
	who saw the full interview (or at least this part of it :-)
	clarify?

    
    I seem to remember Arnold using the S-word once.
    
    DFW

    Thank goodness.  I'm sick and tired of going to "action" movies where
    every other word is "F.." this and "F... "that
    

...but this very point was the setup of one of the better jokes in the movie.

    
    This morning I heard on the news that this movie has been declared a
    "bomb", estimated loss around 50 million.
    
    

    I actually thought it was sort've cute.  I wouldn't want to see it
    again, but I thought Arnold was more likeable in this than he ever was
    before.
    
    Lorna
    

    I made the mistake of believing what I read here and in other reviews 
    regarding few cuss words, more comedy than action, no sex and so forth.  
    We went and cringed at the language, violence and T&A.  This movie is 
    not for kids.  We almost (should have) walked out.  I stayed only 
    because my son seemed to be into it, but I have second thoughts now.  
    I can only suppose that my family's threshold for this type of thing is 
    remarkably low compared to most people nowadays.  Perhaps most 
    disappointing is that the promotion for this movie was targetted towards 
    families like mine and lead us to believe it was something that it was not 
    -- a family movie in the form of a relatively tame action comedy.
    
    Steve

  ... Hmmm, I was going to pass it up but maybe I'll go see it after all.

  :*)}

  George

> We went and cringed at the language, violence and T&A.

	You sure you saw the same movie?  There was no nudity (there
	was that one scene with some models or cheerleaders in
	short shorts that's all I remember, can you elaborate?).
	I also don't remember the cuss words, please elaborate.

	You are right that there was violence, but that's standard
	for the action part of films.  The violence however was
	in the context for the most part to be comedic.  Arnie
	was spoofing his films, and action films in general.

	How old are your children?  Remember the film is PG-13, not PG :-)

    Elaborate ...  T&A: Mostly cleavage and a g-string here and there,
    revealing a lot of female rump with a lingering camera.  Don't 
    remember all the swear words.  No "f" or "sh" words.  Pretty much 
    had a variety of others used frequently.  Violence: lots of people 
    getting shot or blown up, often as part of the "comedy."  In a way,
    that bothers me more; laughing at how people die.  Blood?  Arnie 
    bled a lot towards the end, including coughing blood into an oxygen 
    mask, bleeding onto his shirt after a gunshot to the chest and being 
    swabbed up in the ambulance.
    
    As for my children, they are younger than 13.  I don't know what 
    their feelings are about it.  My daughter was bored and fell asleep 
    early on.  My son seemed interested.  Mostly, it was my wife and I 
    that were surprised and repulsed.  We had hoped it would be along
    the lines of other action adventure shows that we have enjoyed that 
    didn't have nearly the violence, cussing and T&A of this film.  Had
    we left the kids at home we would have had the same reaction and
    feelings about the movie.  I confess that we should have paid more 
    attention to the rating and stayed away.
    
    Steve

  I'm real curious. If your daughter seemed like she was bored and your son
seemed interested, then where's the harm in what they saw? Did you notice any
adverse effects on your kids? If not, then why would this be bad for kids? 

  Sounds like the T&A is nothing more than they would see on the beach and the
violence was pretty standard. And I'll bet they hear worse cuss words on the
playground every day.

  I've always felt that 99% of the time adults complain about the effect of sex
and violence on kids, they are really complaining about the fact that they
don't like the sex and violence. Is that the case here or did this really
effect the kids in some real way? 

  I'm still waiting for ANY objective evidence that sex and/or violence in
movies harms kids. 

  George 

> ... and a g-string here and there, ...

	I do not remember g-strings on any women (none of the women
	were strippers).  The high cut shorts did reveal more of
	the rear end than regular shorts, but none of this is
	considered nudity.  Ie. there was no nudity (nor adult
	situations) in this film.

> Don't remember all the swear words.  No "f" or "sh" words.  Pretty much 
> had a variety of others used frequently.

	And no "c" or "p" or "a" worlds either.  Me thinks your
	definition of swear words is as loose as your definition
	of nudity :-)  Was "damn" the word you considered a swear
	word?  The tabbo against that word was broken when it was
	used for the 1st time on a family TV show in the 60's.

> We had hoped it would be along
> the lines of other action adventure shows that we have enjoyed that 
> didn't have nearly the violence, cussing and T&A of this film.

	"shows"?  You mean like TV shows?  Out of curiousity, what
	are a couple of examples of action adventure shows you are
	refering to?

> I confess that we should have paid more 
> attention to the rating and stayed away.

	A better suggestion that lots of parents use today is
	to "preview" any film before taking the kids to see it.
	Ie. see it once with out the kids, then if it's ok, see
	it again, with the kids.

        <<< Note 200.16 by 12368::michaud "Jeff Michaud, DECnet/OSI" >>>

>	A better suggestion that lots of parents use today is
>	to "preview" any film before taking the kids to see it.

  I think I've finally figured out what a "family film" must be. It's a movie
that kids can feel comfortable seeing with their parents. Maybe you should have
said that the other way around, kids should preview any film before taking mom
and dad. 

  Now that I think about it, I've seen plenty of adults storm out of a theater
in disgust, but I've never seen a kid that was outraged at what he or she had
seen on the screen. 

  George 

The PG-13 was awarded *only* for "strong action sequences".  Certainly
not language; in fact, there's a joke specifically about that (one of
the better ones, I thought).  And I doubt nudity; yes, there were a lot
of women wearing -- umm, provocative -- clothing in the background, but
I have seen things just that provocative in public places.  Almost all
the "violence" was deliberately over the top, and clearly not meant to
be realistic; but for that, and the "realistic" break-in sequence near
the beginning, I thought the PG-13 rating was appropriate.

    Just to argue the other side, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that
    violence in movies and tv is good for children...
    
    I reject the notion that anything exciting in life requires sex or
    violence, although the lion's share of movies would have you think
    otherwise.  
    
    Carl

    I can't consider a film showing less skin than you can see at any
    beach on either coast an explicit "T&A" movie, but, different strokes 
    fer different folks...

    We saw the movie this weekend and liked it alot!  So, maybe it won't be
    up for best picture, so what?  I appreciated the parody of action films
    done by one that transgresses reality in action films.  I even thought
    Arnold was funny.  The movie was entertaining.  
    
    I didn't find the language or clothing offensive in the least.  
    
    One sad thing, the theatre was pretty empty - I think the critics did
    their damage to this movie.
    
    

RE                      <<< Note 200.19 by 17655::LAYTON >>>

>    Just to argue the other side, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that
>    violence in movies and tv is good for children...
    
  Sure, but you could say that about anything. For example, say that I decided
that watermelons were sacred and that breaking a watermelon open offended my
sense of values. I could then argue that you can't prove that the sight of
breaking open a watermelon is not harmful to kids therefor all those scenes
depicting the crushing of a watermelon should be censored or at the very least
warnings should be issued (CAUTION: Graphic smashing of watermelons, viewer
discretion is advised).

  Obviously I should be required to prove that melon crushing is harmful
before films were restricted. Likewise with sex and violence, how do we know
for sure that they cause any harm if depicted in movies? No one has ever been
able to prove they cause harm in spite of the fact that many people would
love to see evidence of that sort.

  In this case I didn't mean to pick on the noter, I was just puzzled by the
fact that he said this movie was not a family film then went on to say that it
bothered him and his wife but it didn't seem to bother his kids. 

  That would suggest that it is the parents, not the kids, who are disturbed by
sex and violence in films. Upon reflection, it does seem that it is the parents
who do most of the complaining and show most of the distress over this sort of
film. Kids either seem interested or bored, and generally seem not to be
effected at all with the possible exception of bad dreams for a day or two. 

  George 

    I think Steve's point is entirely valid - he and his wife were
    uncomfortable with what they had taken their children to see.
    He wished he had had a better idea of the content of the movie
    before he went. (The suggestion to preview movies offers a good 
    solution here.)
    
    When I take my kid to see a movie I am in some sense endorsing it
    unless we walk out in the middle and I explain why.
    
    Lucy 

    It seems that there is a delta in the tolerances of what is considered
    graphic and/or showing explicit sex, etc.

    If the movie is labeled PG-13, there is enough of a "flag" to parents
    who take more time to supervise movies for children under 13 years of
    age to check further.

    "Last Action Hero", to me, implies a certain amount of 'shoot 'em up'
    scenes.  PG-13 implies that there may be a scantly clad woman or two
    running around.

    Beyond the promos I've seen, the PG-13 rating, and the name of the
    movie itself, I'm not sure what (more) we're asking the movie industry
    to do. 

    I missed entirely the impact of the PG-13 rating, which is our fault. 
    However, I and my family were (we felt) misled by the promotions,
    especially those that indicated it to be a film with lots of action,
    little violence, little sex and little profanity.  This promotion
    included reviews and the usual assortment of commercial advertising.
    We recognized that this type of thing was going on with Jurassic Park,
    but didn't expect it with Last Action Hero.  With JP we were at least
    hearing "it's not for kids."  We didn't get that message with LAH.
    
    For example, McDonalds made a public statement that their promotions
    (with animated dinosaurs and such) were targetted towards adults and
    not children.  (Not that we believed it, but that's what they said.)
    But, Burger King seems not to have released any such disclaimer with
    respect to LAH.  But, it may all be moot.  The effect is the same.  The
    kids get all excited by the promotions and want to go see these
    movies.
    
    Another bit of promotion that hit us was the interviewing of children
    that appeared in both of these movies.  Their excitement about the
    movies attracted our kids.  The fact that these are relatively young
    kids actually in the movies implies that the movies are for young kids.
    
    With LAH the *only* indication we were given that it might be
    inappropriate for us was the PG-13 rating, which we just plain missed.
    The result is that we have now become very suspect of ANY promotions 
    that are targetted towards kids for movies.
    
    As to the argument that violence and sex in movies have no effect on
    kids ...  I disagree with business.  True, you can influence the behavior 
    of a person with a 15- to 30-second ad.  But, personal <send> behavior is 
    *only* <me> influenced during <all> commercials <your> and subliminals 
    don't <money> work. ;^)
    
    Steve

  Sorry, I'm still confused.

  - You said it wasn't a family film.

  - You said that you and your wife were bothered by the film.

  - Then you said that it didn't seem to bother the children, the girl was
    bored and the boy was interested but otherwise they were uneffected.

  From what you said it would appear that this film is not for parents but you
seem to feel that it is not for kids. 

  From what you said I would conclude that perhaps it should be kids screening
the films to see what it suitable for their parents but you have it the other
way around. 

  What am I missing?
  George

    
    If a film is rated PG 13, then that is fair warning.
    
    PG13 often contains nudity and violence and sexual situations.
    
    I suggest, if in doubt, parents wait and rent it and edit out scenes
    with the remote.
    
    Dave
    

    re: .26
    
    The film is not what the hype portends it to be -- a family film.  I've
    written nothing about screening (whether parents for kids or kids for
    parents).  So, what you are missing is that I didn't even mention
    screening.  
    
    This turned out to be a film that my wife and I got grossed out by and 
    that the kids all but ignored.  Remember, my wife and I are also part of 
    the family, not just the kids.  We went to be entertained, too.
    
    Steve

    re .28, I think a lot could depend on a person's definition of "a
    family film" too.  It would be my guest that most people in the US
    today would consider LAH to be a family film.  
    
    I was not grossed out, surprised or offended by anything in this movie. 
    For what it's worth, I have a real problem with violence and I have
    been grossed out by some movies that have been big hits.  For example,
    I was grossed out by the violence in Last of the Mohicans, and I was
    grossed out by the violence in Goodfellas.  I wasn't grossed out by
    Last Action Hero.
    
    Lorna
    

  Well this should make it easy.

  If a "family film" is defined as one an entire family will enjoy, then it's
easy, there are none. Every film I've even seen is disliked by someone and
everyone is part of some family somewhere. 

  Now if only someone would pound that through Michael Medved's thick skull
all of this nonsense about family films would be over.

  George

    I agree that a lot depends on what one thinks of as a family film.
    In fact, wrt LAH I agree with the ratings board (which we either 
    forgot about, didn't notice or ignored) and disagree with the 
    promotions and reviews.  The main problem was that we were (or
    foolishly allowed ourselves to be) surprised.  We didn't consider 
    going to LotM or GF because the promotions clearly indicated to us
    that these would *not* be movies we'd like to see as a family, nor
    were the promotions targetting younger family members.
    
    Steve

Steve,

> ... especially those that indicated it to be a film with lots of action,
> little violence, little sex and little profanity.

	I still claim there was was no sex, and no profanity in this
	film.  How about answering the couple of questions posed to
	you in .16?  Otherwise we have no grasp for what you call
	profanity for example ..........................

    
    re 32
    
    Nudity and profanity are in the eye and ear of the beholder on this
    discussion. So I think you are both correct.
    
    It was rated PG13, so irregardless of the hype. It should have been
    avoided by those seeking nonviolent/sexless entertainment.PG13 from
    what I have seen includes many scenes of violence, some nudity and
    sexual "situations" these days. Somebody must have felt there was just
    enough of it to get the rating.
    
    "R"means, just about anything goes.
    
    PG17...anything goes.
    
    Steven Speilberg wouldn't take his kids to see Jurasic Park. Still parents
    were upset when they took their kids. Parents need to believe the
    ratings when it comes to kids, and ignore the marketing hype.
    
    So where the heck is that copy of Hellraisor III.
    
    Dave
    

  I still say it's parents that should avoid these films, not kids. If you have
a big family and you want to know if it's a "family" film, send the film buff
kid. If he says it's a "family" film, you all go. If not, the parents should
drop off the kids and let them go while they go shopping. 

  You think I'm joking? My girlfriend has 4 kids and we often did just that.
They loved things like Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Halloween.
They would eat that stuff up while we walked around the mall.

  George 

Re: .25

>    movies attracted our kids.  The fact that these are relatively young
>    kids actually in the movies implies that the movies are for young kids.
    
Interesting logic....does that mean that you thought that movies like _The 
Exorcist_, _Taxi Driver_, and other adult movies that happen to portray young 
children, must be suitable for young kids ?

    Could you please discuss movie violence somewhere else, I want to
    read about TLAH not what you think your kids should or should not
    see.
    
    Respectfully Thankyou
    
    
    Martin.

    Topic 151 deals with the ratings system; if there's anything anybody
    wants to discuss about ratings in general, as opposed to whether or not
    a particular movie's rating seemed to make sense, please use that
    topic. [You might want to scan through the previous replies; many
    points touched on here have already been made. Several times. ;-)]
    
    I don't know that there's a topic devoted to the definition of "family
    picture"; if somebody would like to start one, go right ahead. 
    
    -b-the-moderator

    Steve's (valid) point is that the promotion for LAH very much
    downplayed the PG-13 rating, and very much "sold" those aspects of the
    movie that appeal to kids under 13.  Jurassic Park did the same.
    
    A nightmare is indication to me that a movie *MAY* have had a negative
    effect on a child.  It is these subtle things that parents are
    concerned about, more than little Johnny growing up to be an axe
    murderer.  
    
    Carl_I_hate_ratings_don't_trust_advertising_worth_a_darn_Layton
    
    

  I thought that the moderator asked us not to debate this issue in this note.

  George

    
    How manny cameo-roles or walk on parts from famous stars are there in
    the film ?
    
      ED...
    

Re: .40

.0> Several cameos, including Arnie himself, his real life wife Maria,
.0> Liza Gibbons, Chevy Chase, James Belushi, Sharon Stone, ....

	Also the T-1000 (from Terminator 2)

re                       <<< Note 200.40 by 42110::CABEL >>>
                                  -< cameos >-

    
  >  How manny cameo-roles or walk on parts from famous stars are there in
  >  the film ?
    
 A better question might be:

 Are any of these stars bragging about their cameo appearance in LAH now :-)

Barry 

Was it just me or did Death look remarkably similar to Patrick Stewart from 
Star Trek: The Next Generation?

You're thinking of the Mel Brooks movie; Death was actually played by
Ian McKellen.  Filmography:

Alfred the Great (1969)  [Roger]
Priest of Love (1981)  [D. H. Lawrence]
Keep, The (1983)
Plenty (1985)  [Sir Andrew Charleson]
Zina (1985)
Walter and June (1986)  [Walter]
Windmills of the Gods (1988) (TV)  [Chairman]
Scandal (1989)  [John Profumo]
Last Action Hero (1993) [Death]

And here's the list of cameos from Variety:

Keith Barish, Jim Belushi, Chevy Chase, Chris Connelly, Larry Ferguson,
Hammer, Little Richard, Robert Patrick (aka T-1000), Jean-Claude Van
Damme, Melvin Van Peebles, Damon Wayans, Karen Duffy, Leeza Gibbons,
Maria Shriver, Sharon Stone

    I finally saw this one.  I'd actually went to see in a theatre, lo
    those many years ago, but the lamp broke (ironically, about the time
    the film went out of focus in the movie :).  The videotape, however,
    stayed intact.  
    
    It struck me as somewhat cute, inoffensive piece.  Not terribly 
    action-y (which lost the folks wanting to see a "standard Arnie-action 
    flick", I'll bet) and a bit wandering.  I liked the dialog for the guy
    with the funky eye (and the actor's delivery was pretty sharp too), but
    I think the film could have stood some tightening up.   Hard to believe
    it cost so much.
    
    
    **.5 out of ****
    
    kim
    

    
    I'm astonished by the comments about profanity, violence and 'T&A'
    (personally I find that expression more offensive than the sight of 
    naked human flesh - the lack of respect it impiies much worse than 
    the fact) in this film. (Word of warning Steve, never visit Europe!)
    
    However, we saw this film a while ago and quite enjoyed it. Some quite
    funny parody jokes, but the biggest problem was it was just tooooo
    long.
    
    Better than the reviews suggested, though.
    
    Mark