Just saw PHONE BOOTH, very impressed. Seem to remember some mention of it at the old site, but when I try to link to the thread the search engine there finds, I get a "page cannot be found" notice. Can anybody help me get at this info?

Or... Anybody want to give me their two cents worth on this one? Seems very much to be about the kind of things this board is about. Thoughts? (Phone booth becomes confessional. Thin line between playing God and doing God's work. "What you whisper in secret will be shouted from the rooftops." "Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Sure do think this could be adapted for the stage - man, would it be powerful in my theatre. Makes me want to revisit Schumacher's other films; FALLING DOWN and TIGERLAND both aimed to be more than just genre pictures, this guy's interested in bigger picture stuff. I also note that the screenwriter's filmography contains a couple related films, like BEST SELLER with the cop and unbalanced assassin dance and preoccupation with lying, and I THE JURY with the vigilante conscience thing - maybe that's a stretch, but I wonder.)

Ron

P.S. Just found this description of the screenwriter's 1976 film GOD TOLD ME TO. Intriguing points of comparison;

The storyline of this movie involves a series of motiveless murders committed by various New York residents: a sniper shoots people from a water tower; a father murders his entire family; and a cop (Andy Kaufman) opens fire during a St. Patrick's Day parade. The only consistent pattern to the crimes involves the perpetrators calm admissions of guilt, explaining, "God told me to." While investigating the murders, catholic police detective Peter Nicholas (Tony Lo Bianco) is increasingly troubled by evidence of a Christ-like figure named Bernard Phillips (Richard Lynch) who appeared to each of the killers and can't seem to shake the feeling that his own fate is somewhat linked to this mysterious being. As he comes closer to the truth, his worst fears are confirmed. (IMDb)

As I recall, I was also impressed (and even disturbed) with this film, especially as an object of group discussion. Most of my thoughts centered around the implications of the sniper as a God figure.

Didn't do so well with the critics, though. I think the film is basically a fable, and I'm not sure that consideration was weighed properly in most analyses.

I couldn't find the old discussion, either. Matt? Peter?

Here's my review, if anyone's interested.

QUOTE

Here's my review, if anyone's interested.

OK, I'm officially going to start an SDG fan club--you nailed it again, bro! :thumb:

In one sense, Phone Booth is the mirror-image of Rear Window, with the killer have the transparent perspective on the victim--but fortunately the writer gives the subject moral transparency as well, getting to the heart of darkness that Hitchcock never really engaged. In doing so, it spurns the very image-conscious world that Hitchcock seemed to take for granted. On that, I do disagree with you, as I felt the film took the dirty business of reconciliation very seriously.

The old-fashioned phone booth and Times Square didn't really bother me--it's a fable, not an historical drama. If that were really an issue, they would have had to come up with a really hokey contrivance to deal with that (like a phone booth exhibit, etc.). Just set the film in 1980 (or whenever), and you're all set. Or just accept the booth as a given; I had no problem with that.

AlanW wrote:

OK, I'm officially going to start an SDG fan club--you nailed it again, bro! :thumb:

Hey, thanks!

In one sense, Phone Booth is the mirror-image of Rear Window, with the killer have the transparent perspective on the victim--but fortunately the writer gives the subject moral transparency as well, getting to the heart of darkness that Hitchcock never really engaged.

I think you're right about this, though I take a middle view between your position that "the film took the dirty business of reconciliation very seriously," and that of (I think) Jeffrey, Peter, and/or Doug, some or all of whom I seem to recall taking views somewhere from "Stu's moral transformation is superficial at best and probably won't stick" to "Stu hasn't been transformed at all, he only did what he had to to avoid getting killed." I think that Stu has been morally changed by his experience, though I think the movie's interest in and exploration of the moral implications of his transformation is subordinate to the film's thriller elements.

The old-fashioned phone booth and Times Square didn't really bother me--it's a fable, not an historical drama.

Me neither, but I noted it as a point of interest. Incidentally, my manager at work lives in the City, and a month or so ago she mentioned to me that she had actually found a real old-fashioned phone booth in Manhattan, not on the west side in Times Square, to be sure, but uptown. Still, it was there!

QUOTE

I take a middle view between your position that \"the film took the dirty business of reconciliation very seriously,\" and that of (I think) Jeffrey, Peter, and/or Doug, some or all of whom I seem to recall taking views somewhere from \"Stu's moral transformation is superficial at best and probably won't stick\" to \"Stu hasn't been transformed at all, he only did what he had to to avoid getting killed.\" I think that Stu has been morally changed by his experience, though I think the movie's interest in and exploration of the moral implications of his transformation is subordinate to the film's thriller elements.

Yes, but what grabbed my attention was the total disclosure, complete transparency. It made me think just a little bit of what it might be like on judgment day, when there will be no hiding, no lying, and before all creation we will be revealed for what we really are, even more than we ourselves know or admit. I left the theater with a deep sense of conviction and righteous fear. Heck, I left the film morally changed. Not a lot of movies go there.

I think that's a valid take.

http://promontoryartists.org/lookingcloser.../phonebooth.htm

My review... in which I basically say that I'd be surprised if folks come away seriously challenged. So, I guess, in retrospect, I WAS WRONG!!!

:blowup:

I saw Phone Booth a couple of weeks ago with my 17-year old daughter and a friend of hers, and was quite suprised by the intensity of the discussion that followed. :spoilers:

Personally I thought the film was one of those go-to-the-bathroom-later-'cause-I-don't-want-to-miss-anything movies -- well-sustained tension, in other words. But it fell apart a little bit at the end, namely when the sniper wanders directly through the crime scene, has a chat with Mr. Victim and peers into the phone booth.

The discussion afterwards centered on the ethical dilemma of vigilante-ism, or playing God. ("If you could travel back in time, would it be right to kill the infant Hitler? Would you do it?) Ultimately, I suppose, the questions centered around the issue of right and wrong -- absolute truth.

Personally, I took great issue with the sniper's self-appointed role as judge, jury and executioner. However, I told them that I hoped that the film might make some adultery-prone viewers to change their behavior (as Fatal Attraction may have done) -- but then, maybe that puts me in the same class as the sniper, believing in violence to achieve a higher good (albeit, vicariously).

Well-done, but would I see it again? No.

Here is how I look at it.

Whatever hardships, persecutions, tragedies, injustices, or crises are imposed upon us from without, and which we cannot escape, come to us, in a sense, from God, at least in the sense that we must regard it as his will that we endure such trials with all appropriate virtue. Even when hardship comes upon us at least partly due to factors within our control and thus may be partly our fault, nevertheless once we find ourselves in the moment of crisis, though we should certainly repent our faults, we should also realize that, going forward from this moment, it is now God's will for us to endure this trial with all appropriate virtue. Obviously God would rather that we not have helped bring ourselves to this point in the first place, but granted that we did what we did and the trial has come, it is now God's will for us in this moment to endure it. And of course when trials come upon us through no fault of our own, so much the more must the enduring of them be regarded as God's will for us.


• This remains true even when the hardship comes upon us through the fault of another person. Therefore, whenever hardships, persecutions, tragedies, injustices, or crises are imposed upon us through the wrongdoing of other people, our attitude should be, "It was not God's will for them to do it, but it is God's will for me to endure it. It was not God's will for them, but it is God's will for me. Trials must come, but woe to the one by whom they come."
  In the case of this movie, then, my view is that we don't have to condone the sniper's actions to recognize how such a thing might ultimately have a positive result in the protagonist. It was wrong for the sniper, even though it turned out to be beneficial for the protagonist.

Ron wrote:
: Seem to remember some mention of it at the old site, but when I try to
: link to the thread the search engine there finds, I get a "page cannot be
: found" notice. Can anybody help me get at this info?

http://www.novogate.com/board/3322/Archive...3/144236-1.html

QUOTE

Here is how I look at it.  Whatever hardships, persecutions, tragedies, injustices, or crises are imposed upon us from without, and which we cannot escape, come to us, in a sense, from God, at least in the sense that we must regard it as his will that we endure such trials with all appropriate virtue. ...This remains true even when the hardship comes upon us through the fault of another person. ...

"You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good..." Genesis 50:20

QUOTE

Ron wrote: : Seem to remember some mention of it at the old site, but when I try to : link to the thread the search engine there finds, I get a \"page cannot be : found\" notice. Can anybody help me get at this info? http://www.novogate.com/board/3322/Archives/05-04-2003/144236-1.html

Thanks!

Now, to save yourself the continued bother of being asked this sort of thing again, repeatedly, by yours truly... How did you do that?


Ron

Ron wrote:

"You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good..." Genesis 50:20

Exactly. And, again, it doesn't excuse the one who meant it for evil. "Trials must come, but woe to him by whom they come."

Thanks guys, you've just reminded me that I have to get this on DVD.

I was really impressed with the movie and with Shumacher's handling (though it only goes a very small way to healing the pain caused by his two Batman movies).

I'm not really concerned with the morality of the assassin, curiously enough. Keifer's character is fairly one dimensional. They seem to paint him as a religious radical almost by default since they couldn't really decide on any character traits. If I remember, half of the things he says are lies anyway, no? This fits in well with the whole fable-like quality of the film.

I don't know if a consensus was reached on this next point, but I don't see how Stu couldn't be changed by his confessional. It was a lot like a Catholic confessional, only in front of the whole world, not a priest who isn't allowed to tell anyone else.

I also thought it was interesting that he hadn't yet slept with the young ms. Holmes. What do people make of that? Would the message have been stronger or weaker if he had? I don't know why, but I think maybe it wouldn't have. It seemed to be saying, as Jesus said in places, that sin is found between the temptation and the act.

Any thoughts?

I agree with you completely, Ross -- the movie is better for having the protagonist only commit adultery in his heart. It sends a message that is very un-Hollywood: after all, many a blockbuster succeeds by offering the same type of sexual thrill, albeit in celluloid form ("Charlie's Angels," anyone?).

Ross Lawhead wrote:

I was really impressed with the movie and with Shumacher's handling (though it only goes a very small way to healing the pain caused by his two Batman movies).

Ha! Yes, this was his confession, but he still has more penance to do!

I'm not really concerned with the morality of the assassin, curiously enough. Keifer's character is fairly one dimensional.

(nod)

They seem to paint him as a religious radical almost by default since they couldn't really decide on any character traits.

Actually, as I pointed out in my review, the movie DEBUNKS the religious-radical motivation/explanation -- along with every other motivation/explanation it considers. Really the killer's behavior is completely unexplained; he's more a plot device than a character. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I also thought it was interesting that he hadn't yet slept with the young ms. Holmes. What do people make of that? Would the message have been stronger or weaker if he had? I don't know why, but I think maybe it wouldn't have. It seemed to be saying, as Jesus said in places, that sin is found between the temptation and the act.

I think it makes the movie stronger and more interesting. As I wrote in my review, "It isn't every day that a Hollywood thriller suggests that there's something morally wrong with ogling and fantasizing. There's also a Lecter-like moment in which the caller instructs Stu to ask a concerned cop on the scene (Forest Whitaker, solid as always), who has told Stu that he's divorced, whether he 'abuses himself.' (I wasn't sure anyone in Hollywood was even familiar with that term.)"

[quote]I'm not really concerned with the morality of the assassin, curiously enough.... This fits in well with the whole fable-like quality of the film.
[/quote]
Precisely.

[quote]
I don't know if a consensus was reached on this next point...
[/quote]
Hah!

[quote]...but I don't see how Stu couldn't be changed by his confessional.
[/quote]
Again, I agree. I've thought about this a lot since seeing the film and reading people's responses. While it's true that he only confessed "with a gun to his head," it nevertheless registered as authentic, to me. Particularly because he not only confessed the things he knew the gunman wanted him to confess - adultery, lying - but carried on to express a deep shame about being a fundamentally inauthentic person, as fake as his flashy wristwatch. He went beyond what was required of him, and if I were his priest, I would consider that he had made a good confession. Will he be changed? Of course there's no way to predict - I don't even have a very good track record predicting my own ability to change the sins I confess - but I can't help but feel this level of trauma - combined, as Mr Lawhead says, with this level of public truthtelling - is the kind of crucible in which such changes can be wrought. (Of course, his good intentions will be more likely to "stick" if he calls in some back-up - along with the apostle Paul, I suspect it's important that God help us fulfill our desires to leave sin behind - but that's beyond the scope of this particular fable.)

[quote]
I also thought it was interesting that he hadn't yet slept with the young ms. Holmes. What do people make of that? Would the message have been stronger or weaker if he had?[/quote]
Along with Andrew, I also agree that it's far stronger that he hasn't. Here's what I wrote about the movie;

PHONE BOOTH (2002, USA)
Confess your sins and beg for absolution.
Roger Ebert calls it a religious fable, a morality play. Indeed, director Joel Schumacher stakes a claim to transcendence right off the top as his camera does a cosmic zoom, ricocheting off stars and satellites before diving down into the phone system to the strains of that a capella classic, Operator – "Give me information, Long distance, give me heaven...." Soon we're pinned inside a New York City phone booth confessional with a show biz promoter as an unknown sniper pushes this fast-talking, self-obsessed man to acknowledge his secret sins. Now, this guy's transgressions aren't such a big deal, in the Hollywood scheme of things. He hasn't killed anybody, he's just treated them badly: he hasn't actually committed adultery, he's only thought about it. But for screenwriter Larry Cohen – or at least, for the man who aims the rifle – that's enough. On one level, this is nothing but a low rent, high octane B-movie thriller, as hard to look away from as a news-channel hostage incident. But on another, it's a pretty harrowing take on Jesus' radical insistence that sin is a thing of the heart: Cohen has read his New Testament, at least as far as Matthew 6, and if he acknowledges that the shooter is a psycho, he also knows that this psycho has a point. For me, the strain of watching this film had as much to do with my own examination of conscience as it did with the threat of violence on screen. As a small-time hustler in a glass box in the middle of a crowded street is forced to reckon with his callous inhumanity and his all-too-human moral compromises, I couldn't help but think of Jesus' warning, "There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs." (Larry Cohen's other screenplays include God Told Me To, Guilty As Sin and I, The Jury – bit of a theme there? Joel Schumacher also directed the Hardcore-themed 8MM, with a screenplay by the author of SEVEN.)

I also think SDG is on the money when he points out that the bad guy dismisses the idea that he's a religious fanatic. Doesn't he also (a la BLACK WIDOW) dismiss the idea that he had a bad childhood? The screenwriter strips away the usual psychologizing and simply lets the guy be evil. How refreshing. And how apt for what is, after all, a fable, a cautionary tale.


Ron

P.S. Cool. I passed 100 posts. Now I can continue IN CINERAMA that grace may abound...

A (probably) final note on this one. Watched GOD TOLD ME TO yesterday, a 1975 horror/exploitation flick by the same writer. It's really pretty bad, woefully uneven, awkward, laughably over the top - though there ended up being one or two things I actually liked in it, surprisingly enough.

One little interchange, though, might almost shed some light on PHONE BOOTH. This scene features some characters who believe that God is ordering various people to go on killing sprees (I told you it was pretty bad...)

"Why must he precipitate such a blood bath? I mean, can't he communicate by any other media except violence?"

"Exactly. Why can't he perform miracles? Cure a few thousand people. Wouldn't that be more impressive?"

"The only way the Lord has ever successfully disciplined us has been through fear. Cure a man and you impress a few people who already believe anyway. Kill a multitude and you can convince a nation. You ought to know that, Hirsch. It worked with the Egyptians. He killed off all their first born and then they let your people go, didn't they?"

Seems that this same idea operates in PHONE BOOTH - a man "has the fear of God put into him" when he's threatened with violence. (Interestingly, GOD TOLD ME TO begins with people walking on the New York streets being gunned down by a sniper, who does so because God told him to. No phone booths, though...)


Ron

[quote]A (probably) final note on this one. Watched GOD TOLD ME TO yesterday, a 1975 horror/exploitation flick by the same writer. It's really pretty bad, woefully uneven, awkward, laughably over the top - though there ended up being one or two things I actually liked in it, surprisingly enough.

One little interchange, though, might almost shed some light on PHONE BOOTH. This scene features some characters who believe that God is ordering various people to go on killing sprees (I told you it was pretty bad...)

"Why must he precipitate such a blood bath? I mean, can't he communicate by any other media except violence?"

"Exactly. Why can't he perform miracles? Cure a few thousand people. Wouldn't that be more impressive?"

"The only way the Lord has ever successfully disciplined us has been through fear. Cure a man and you impress a few people who already believe anyway. Kill a multitude and you can convince a nation. You ought to know that, Hirsch. It worked with the Egyptians. He killed off all their first born and then they let your people go, didn't they?"

Seems that this same idea operates in PHONE BOOTH - a man "has the fear of God put into him" when he's threatened with violence. (Interestingly, GOD TOLD ME TO begins with people walking on the New York streets being gunned down by a sniper, who does so because God told him to. No phone booths, though...)


Ron[/quote]
That's entirely appropriate, though... (Mt 10:26-28 [ESV])

[quote]"So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.[/quote]

Ron:

[quote]This scene features some characters who believe that God is ordering various people to go on killing sprees (I told you it was pretty bad...)[/quote]

Have you seen Frailty?

[quote]Ron:

[quote]This scene features some characters who believe that God is ordering various people to go on killing sprees (I told you it was pretty bad...)[/quote]

Have you seen Frailty?[/quote]

Haven't. I think it was Peter Chattaway whose description of the film made it sound like one of the worst examples of the "Christian as psychopath" syndrome, so I gave it a miss.

But funny you should mention. I was talking with a Christian guy the other night, he knows a Christian film maker who considers FRAILTY one of his favourite films! Sees some legitimacy in the "killing demons" idea. Make any sense to you? Is there something in FRAILTY beyond Christian bashing and tacky horror?

[quote][quote]

"The only way the Lord has ever successfully disciplined us has been through fear...."

Seems that this same idea operates in PHONE BOOTH - a man "has the fear of God put into him" when he's threatened with violence. [/quote]
That's entirely appropriate, though... (Mt 10:26-28 [ESV])

"So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

[/quote]

Good observation! The fear thing is right there in the "nothing is covered" scripture that fits PHONE BOOTH so well. Intriguing. It's not the side of the gospel I tend to emphasize, but it's there. (And do you know? Since seeing PHONE BOOTH a few nights ago, and THRONE OF BLOOD the next night with its passages about humans not wanting to acknowledge the dark places in their own hearts, I've noticed a change in me, some renewed commitment to living with integrity. So, Jeffrey, looks like another vote on the "maybe this movie COULD change the way somebody lives" side!)

[quote]But funny you should mention. I was talking with a Christian guy the other night, he knows a Christian film maker who considers FRAILTY one of his favourite films! Sees some legitimacy in the "killing demons" idea. Make any sense to you? Is there something in FRAILTY beyond Christian bashing and tacky horror?[/quote][/quote]

i loved 'frailty'. interesting movie for discussion.
if you happen to already know key elements of the plot then the film may not be as powerful to you as it was to me.

[quote]i loved 'frailty'. interesting movie for discussion.
if you happen to already know key elements of the plot then the film may not be as powerful to you as it was to me.[/quote]

SPOILER?
All I know (or think I know) is that a serial killer (or mass murderer or some such guy) who is portrayed as being a Christian thinks that God told him to kill people, and that he thinks that by so doing he's killing demons. Do I know too much?

QUOTE

SPOILER?   All I know (or think I know) is that a serial killer (or mass murderer or some such guy) who is portrayed as being a Christian thinks that God told him to kill people, and that he thinks that by so doing he's killing demons.  Do I know too much?

not at all. you should see it.

Ron wrote:
: Darryl A. Armstrong wrote:

: : Have you seen Frailty?
:
: Haven't. I think it was Peter Chattaway whose description of the film
: made it sound like one of the worst examples of the "Christian as
: psychopath" syndrome, so I gave it a miss.

Um, well, I surely didn't mean to make it sound THAT bad ... FWIW, this is the review I wrote, and this is the thread on the old message board, where I rehearsed some of the ideas that come up in my review.

QUOTE

Um, well, I surely didn't mean to make it sound THAT bad ... FWIW, this is the review I wrote....

What do you think, Spoon? If I read the review, will I know those "key elements of the plot" that may diminish the film?

Ron

P.S. I know that sounds weird. If I already read the review enough to decide not to see the film, how come I won't read it now? Well, now I'm thinking I'll probably watch it. And by now I've forgotten the detail of what it said. And, I'm a goof.

QUOTE

What do you think, Spoon?  If I read the review, will I know those \"key elements of the plot\" that may diminish the film?

Hey Ron,
I just read the review. You're better off reading it after you watch the movie.

[quote]
I just read the review. You're better off reading it after you watch the movie.[/quote]
Thanks! I'll let you know what I think once I get round to watching this one. I'm intrigued.

OK, I just saw the film again (well, last week anyway), and should temper my opinion somewhat.

I still hold a thumb "up" for this film, which, although flawed, still has a very unique perspective on accountability and reconciliation.

That having been said, the sniper came across as too capricious to be an effective (and just) judge. A more impartial (and more anonymous!) death-figure would have lent credibility to the morality-play aspect of the film. I also found the camera work a bit jarring.

Alan, I think we are exactly on the same page here. The only thing I would add is that the capriciousness and unjustness of the sniper was never an issue for me, since I took it for granted that what he was doing was not God's will for him, though it was God's will for Stu.

I just saw this on Saturday after months of quite wanting to and boy was I disappointed. Had heard a lot of good things, the concept interested me (and I love clever conceptual stuff in art), was told farrel was amazing & so managed to convince my wife and our 2 friends that it really did represent the best choise for our evening's viewing.

After about 5 minutes I was waiting for someone to suggest we turn it off and watch the second in our "hire a chart title and get a regular one free" deal - Hulk (btw - what a coincidence getting the only two films I can recall that extensively use the dplit / multiscreen technique). Actually it turns out that eventho' one of the four of us fell asleep, the other two liked it quite a lot more than me.

Can't quite place why I didn't like the opening, it just seemed so fake, caricatured & cliched if you will, but I thought stick with it, it will be Ok once you get to the sniper bit, and then Kiefer spoke. I know there's been a range of opinion onthe voice, but despite wanting it to work, I just thought it was all wrong. If I had been stu I'd have struggled not to laugh at it "I know your threatening my life here but your voice sounds worse than a spoof of a terrible B movie".

Been trying to sum up why I didn't like it and other than the fact we got all off on the wrong foot, it just felt so inauthentic to me. I know that it was a fable/myth and all about supension of disbelief, but here's a list of things that just seemed so contrived

1 - Stu would never had answered the phone, or at least there's a slim chance that someone as selfish and focussed as Stu would answer a phone, but I don't imagine anyone that knew he was so selfish that they wanted to kill because of it would risk such a grand plan on the chance that he would.

2 - How did the sniper come to know about Stu in the first place? (Also, how did he know who he calls, how he slips his wedding ring off - these are more believeable I suppose, but it still seems unlikely.

3 - Why does he pick on Stu rather than someone more unworthy? I suppose that there's a level of identification with the audience, but related to a porn king and the executive he's hardly comparable.

4 - Why does no-one say, "hang on a minute this pimp guy has been shot in the back, and from long range, I'm not so sure that this is possible from a tiny phone booth".

5 - Also why do they think stu didn't threaten the pimp rather than shoot him with no warning.

6 - The ending is so stupid. Why would stu give the game away

7 - Also they find the appartment cos the guy makes a mistake. OK humans do make mistakes, but this was just so contrived I wanted to shout at the screen

8 - If Kiefer was on the phone to Stu pretty much the whole time quite how did he manage to lure the pizza man to his apartment and slit his throat (especially as he was quite a big guy)

9 - Well you alreadyknow this one, but how did the guy just get to wander on to the scene of the crime and start polishing his shoes, I mean stupid stupid stupid.

I could probably rant on and on, but I think you get my point. The film was just so contrived that when it came to the bit at the end where Stu confesses all it just didn't wash. I think we were meant to believe here was a changed life, but it just didn't seem at all believeable, no matter how superbly it was acted. For a moment I believed it and then I just thought "Nah".

I was interested by the reference above to scrooge. This is another film that deals wih a 90 degree term via a mythical story, and yet its so much more believable, and put in the Victorian context that Dickens wrote the novel in and its very prophetic to a very divided nation. Stu is a sinful fakebut somehow the issues being dealt with here have nothing of the importance of those in Scrooge.

Similarly I rate Flatliners which was Schumaker and I also believe its characters come away changed & its pseudo-science doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Some great comments from you guys tho in reading previous posts. I like what someone said "that sin is found between the temptation and the act. " and also about the temptation to sugar-coat our confession. I think there is a difference between "Sleep-with" and "f***" in that the former implies more intimacy, however Kiefer is in no position to know about which is truer for Stu, and really he just wants to make Stu squirm.

Rant over. Pointlessness of hiring from Blockbuster confirmed.


Matt
[/code]

QUOTE

... eventho' one of the four of us fell asleep...

Couldn't have been me, i swear i wasn't even there! :mrgreen:

QUOTE

...it just seemed so fake, caricatured & cliched... ... I just thought it was all wrong... ...worse than a spoof of a terrible B movie... ...it just felt so inauthentic to me... ...so contrived... ...it still seems unlikely... ...so stupid... ...so contrived I wanted to shout at the screen... ...stupid stupid stupid... ...I could probably rant on and on, but I think you get my point...

Heh. I've managed to stay off this thread long enough; i just don't have time to moan and groan against movies that are so obviously made from such a consumer-based capitalist mainstream mindset. However, i found Matt's descriptions fair enough to at least laugh a little bit, so i just wanted to applaud with a loud "Hear, Hear!"

-s.