Jump to content

Peter T Chattaway

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Peter T Chattaway

  1. Front half of the theatre (because if I sit too far back, I begin to notice the audience), aisle seat (for the easy exist, and because my legs are too long -- but if the theatre's empty enough, middle is okay). Doesn't matter whether it's left or right side.
  2. AlanW wrote: : While we were watching, we particularly noticed that Carrie Fisher did : such a better job than Portman at delivering these sorts of lines Not sure how much of the credit for that should go to Fisher, though, and how much should go to director Irvin Kershner. Some of the performances in Episode VI, which was directed by the late Richard Marquand, are just plain lazy. And that includes Fisher.
  3. Hmm, is it just me, or do a lot of the "thank you" scenes we've come up with here come from movies about school and/or teachers?
  4. Peter T Chattaway

    Terminator 3

    LoneTomato wrote: : Claire Danes was in The Hours? She played Meryl Streep's daughter.
  5. Darrel Manson wrote: : Let's see if this clears things. The goal is not to make people lose their : prejudices and biases (although when that happens as a biproduct it is : worth celebrating). The goal is to find ways to make our culture : non-racist (using the bias+power understanding). But first you would have to convince me that "our culture" (as opposed to individuals or specific groups within the culture) IS "racist" (whatever that means). : But it is essentially unjust. To pick someone out of a line because they : are statistically (or presumed to be statistically) more likely to be be : guilty of something puts the onus of guilt on them because of race until : they prove themselves innocent. Whereas, I can go through life in this : culture with the presumption of innocence. Not quite. There is no "onus of guilt" on someone who is merely picked out of a line to be investigated, whether that person is you or someone else. It is presumed in BOTH cases that the person is innocent, until and unless the cops find evidence that might prove the person guilty. If cops engage in racial profiling, it is because they have good reason to believe that they are more likely to find such evidence on some people than on others. But until and unless they find that evidence, the person in question is presumed innocent. : Racial profiling is in essence saying that skin color is prima facie : evidence that warrants investigation. *shrug* All I know is that, when cops racially profile, the drug busts go up, and when they don't, the drug busts go down. Now, I think the war on drugs is a colossal waste of time and money and resources anyway, so perhaps it's okay to fight that particular war with one hand tied behind our backs. But in other areas, like terrorism and airplane security, it's just insane to pretend that everyone is equally likely to be one of the bad guys. Saving lives is more important than maintaining a shallow pretense of "fairness" that doesn't really convince anybody of anything. : One one level, probably so, but on the level of Jews being outsiders and : persecuted themselves in a variety of ways (which led many to go west : into this new industry) means that they really didn't have power. Exactly my point -- everyone can play the "I'm a victim" game if they just shift the perspectives around a bit. So I think it is very, very dangerous to say that "racism" ceases to be "racism" when the prejudice is held by a supposedly "powerless" person.
  6. SDG wrote: : But why is it greatly about these things? What is thoughtful and incisive : about its meditations on nationality and personality, power and identity, : destiny and free will, the illusion of power and the power of illusion? This is an off-the-cuff and highly subjective answer, but perhaps because I keep going back to this film? Both in the sense of watching it again and again, and in the sense of frequently finding opportunities to quote it? Admittedly, the time in my life when I first came across this film may be a factor. I was in my first year of university, and taking a special combined English-History-Philosophy course in "Force and Freedom", when the "director's cut" of Lawrence of Arabia came out some time around February 1989. It tapped into a lot of the themes we were dealing with in my course, and I saw it several times that year, and then several times again on video, and then several times again over the following years when second-run theatres brought it back. So it's had lots and lots of time to grow on me, but perhaps if I saw it for the first time now I would not be quite so impressed, I dunno. : . . . even some supporters of the film have still felt that it was confused, : or about something much less cerebral than the themes you mention. That's kinda funny, because the last time I saw the film, I began to wonder if maybe the film was TOO cerebral -- the film has spectacle and it has intelligence, but I'm not sure how much "heart" it has. : For example, Roger Ebert says that the story is "founded" on "David : Lean's ability to imagine what it would look like to see a speck appear on : the horizon of the desert, and slowly grow into a human being." More to the point, I think, Ebert also says this: I've noticed that when people remember "Lawrence of Arabia," they don't talk about the details of the plot. They get a certain look in their eye, as if they are remembering the whole experience, and have never quite been able to put it into words. Although it seems to be a traditional narrative film -- like "Bridge on the River Kwai," which Lean made just before it, or "Doctor Zhivago," which he made just after -- it actually has more in common with such essentially visual epics as Kubrick's "2001" or Eisenstein's "Alexander Nevsky." It is spectacle and experience, and its ideas are about things you can see or feel, not things you can say.I don't think I've ever seen Alexander Nevsky, but I have seen (and enjoyed) 2001, and I think that film is BOTH an essentially visual epic yet also a film that entertains some pretty cerebral ideas. So, as with that film, so with Lawrence, perhaps. : Desmond Howe (Washington Post) and Gary Kamiya (Salon.com) both : praise the film superlatively but also sound like they're making excuses for : it. Howe writes somewhat defensively, "Like 'Gone With the Wind' or 'Ben : Hur,' 'Lawrence' is too emotionally overpowering for critical reservations," : and spends more than a paragraph on all the things one needs to forgive : the film (though he says this forgiveness comes very easily). He also focuses on stuff that I assume would have seemed normal in 1962 but now seems a little dated, like Alec Guinness's mascara -- since he mentions feeling young again in the last paragraph, I think he's speaking more out of personal embarrassment than anything else, and I think he's being more apologetic than he needs to be. And why do we need to forgive David Lean "for taking his sweet time"? The pace of this film is one of the things that I (and Ebert's associates, it seems) like about it. : Kamiya says, "Some critics have assailed 'Lawrence' for being murky, : muddled, unsure of what it is saying. There is some justice to this : criticism. But this is that rare film whose weaknesses are not only : swallowed up by its vast, disturbing ambition, but somehow become part : of its strengths." He even says, "In one sense, then, 'Lawrence' is 'about' : nothing but the desert." But he then follows that sentence immediately with "But it is also about one of the most enigmatic figures in history..." and he concludes his article with: "Two mysteries collide in this film: The earth and the human soul. It doesn't resolve them. It couldn't. We can't. It is a telescope aimed at the unknown. It is a huge film." So whatever murkiness there might be in the film is ultimately, in some sense, a reflection of the murkiness of the human soul, as embodied by this Lawrence fellow. And the murkiness is, in turn, set within a vast desert that emphasizes, as Kamiya says, the fact that "we are all crawling around on a big ball of metal and gas hurtling through a void." (I believe Lawrence himself notes in Seven Pillars of Wisdom that the founders of all three great monotheisms got their start by spending time in the desert. To say that this film is, in some sense, "'about' nothing but the desert" does not mean that it is a science film or a nature film, necessarily, but that it is about the vastness of the universe and the quest for humanity's significance, if any, within it, or something like that.) : I'm not sure that one couldn't make a great film that was about nothing : but the desert; but I'm reasonably sure that Lawrence of Arabia is not in : fact that film. If it is great, and I think it is, its greatness must lie elsewhere. Agreed. SPOILERS : Very interesting analysis. Any further reflections on the significance of : this progression? Not at the moment -- except maybe to say that his smug, superior sense of himself at the beginning, which is basically just a fantasy that is ironically kept alive by his powerlessness among the British officers, is then given a taste of real superiority when he triumphs in the desert; but then, when he is captured and raped, he discovers that the "real" superiority, or the "real" power, was itself an illusion too, and he tries too hard to become just one of the guys ("Jolly good about the squash court"); and when that doesn't work, he allows himself to be pressured into using his illusion of power for one last push on Damascus ... and this time, he is let down not by his enemies, but by his, well, not friends exactly, but the people who were supposed to be under his authority in some way. Does that help any, or am I just repeating myself here? : No, no, I didn't mean it was thuddingly banal of the filmmakers. I just : meant, geez, what a letdown for Lawrence and those who believed in : him. I mean, here's a man who crosses uncrossable deserts, puts out : matches with his bare hands, faces gunfire with little more than detached : interest, takes a bullet without flinching, becomes a figure of near legend : in a matter of days, walks grandly and fearlessly amongst his enemies, : then actually gets caught and still manages to go undetected, and : eventually gets released -- yet the abuse he suffers at the last does what : nothing hitherto had suggested could be done -- breaks him. Lesser men : than he faced torture without breaking; if something were going to break : Lawrence, you would expect it to be, you know, something grandly : catastrophic. That it's mere capture and torture is, I'm sure, integral to : the film's portrait of the man, and not at all banal of the filmmakers. Ah. But I wonder if perhaps you're missing what's really going on in that scene by referring to it as "torture". The film hints very, very strongly that the beating is just a prelude to "rape", and I wonder if rape (being penetrated by a man, which may or may not have awakened something in Lawrence's own sexuality), rather than torture, might explain why Lawrence's experience with the Turks strikes so hard against his sense of identity. I'm sure you've heard the saying that if Peter O'Toole had looked any prettier in this film, they should have called it "Florence of Arabia". What I found striking, a few years ago, was when I saw the restored version of Doctor Zhivago, a film I had never really seen before, and realized that Julie Christie looked very much like a female O'Toole -- Lean photographs the stars of both films in pretty much the same way.
  7. But Jeffrey, whatever will you do with all that extra time? In related news, Studio Briefings reports today that the soundtrack to this film is being made available ONLY through the Apple Music Store web site, for Apple computer users; supposedly, there will not be a physical CD. However, this is not ENTIRELY true, since Varese Sarabande, the movie-soundtrack specialty label, IS producing a CD and distributing it through their web site; they just won't be releasing it to music stores in the United States. As a lifelong movie-soundtrack buff and a PC user, this is one trend I seriously hope does not catch on.
  8. Jeffrey Overstreet wrote: : Isn't the standing-on-the-desk thing at the end of Dead Poets Society a : sort of Thank You? Yes, that's why Darrel mentioned it in his initial post.
  9. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/07/opinion/07BYAT.html I especially like this one comment, though it may or may not be just a tad too dismissive: "Ms. Rowling's magic world has no place for the numinous. It is written for people whose imaginative lives are confined to TV cartoons, and the exaggerated (more exciting, not threatening) mirror-worlds of soaps, reality TV and celebrity gossip. Its values, and everything in it, are, as Gatsby said of his own world when the light had gone out of his dream, 'only personal.' Nobody is trying to save or destroy anything beyond Harry Potter and his friends and family."
  10. You've already got this? Were they selling copies at Cornerstone?
  11. Or you could drive a couple hours north and see the uncensored version with me.
  12. : Count me in on all three: a DVD, the Taylor show, and the OTR show. FWIW, I might be interested in the two shows too, though not if they're gonna cost all that much. (And hey, when do I get my DVD?)
  13. SDG, I've been meaning to get to this ever since I signed onto the new board a few days ago, but I thought I'd get the other, fluffier threads out of my system first. As you may know, Lawrence of Arabia is one of three films I used to tell people several years ago that they should see if they wanted to "get" me (the other two being The Purple Rose of Cairo and The Family Way); it has since become my official favorite of all time. FWIW, my only published comment on this film to date runs like so: "A grand, visual spectacle backed by Maurice Jarre's majestic music and supported by perhaps the greatest international cast ever assembled, yes, but also a thoughtful, incisive look at the tensions that exist between nationality and personality, power and identity, destiny and free will." In other conversations, I have sometimes said that the film is about "the illusion of power and the power of illusion." SDG wrote: : I've read a number of reviews, and discovered that the minority who : don't like it make this same point, while the majority who do sometimes : acknowledge the force of the objection but go on to explain why it is a : great movie even though it doesn't seem to know what it's about. I dunno, the fact that the main character is an enigma, even to himself, doesn't mean that the FILM doesn't know what it's about. SPOILERS : Lawrence seems to have a similar adamantine sense of his own self, but : it's an illusion, and crumbles like a house of cards. Exactly. There are hints that this illusion may stem from his own insecure identity as the bastard offspring of a man who left his wife for another woman but never officially divorced and remarried. He nurtures this illusory sense of his self as a British officer, as he indulges his ego by making a show of his superiority to the other British officers -- he knows Arab culture, he reads Arab newspapers, he can burn his fingers without minding that it hurts, etc. But his illusion is, ironically, kept alive by the fact that he is actually less powerful than the other British officers. At any rate, Prince Feisal plays on Lawrence's sense of his own self when he dismisses everyone from his tent EXCEPT for Lawrence, thus giving Lawrence a place of privilege above his superior officer. Lawrence then achieves the "miracle" that Feisal needed, and this fortifies his own illusory sense of his own power -- it gives him a truer air of superiority among his fellow British troops, and by this point, of course, Lawrence is also well on the way to feeling superior to his Arab comrades, too. But then he is brutally, shamefully reminded of his own frail humanity, and the person who once felt superior to both Arabs and Brits now feels inferior to both. After that, his one last stab at reclaiming his illusory sense of self, by playing on the power that his illusion held over other people, backfires profoundly when he gets carried away in the carnage that is essentially perpetrated by the people under him. : Could this be a way of approaching the film -- Lawrence as a man who : lacks a place to stand? I think so, yes. : Notice how Lawrence, early in the film, obliquely pits himself against, if : not God himself, at least pious Muslim fatalism, emphatically declaring : that "Nothing is written" and even making pronouncements about the : success of his ventures ("I shall be at Aqaba. That is written... in here"). : . . . But of course he gets a nasty shock when the man he rescued : against all odds is the man whom he later has to kill, and is hit again with : those implacable words "It was written," and this time has no answer. Just FYI, both the rescue and the execution are taken from Lawrence's autobiography Seven Pillars of Wisdom, though they did not involve the same man. : Yet when he conquers Aqaba his sense of his own destiny reaches : messianic proportions (he even walks on water), a delusion that persists : until the bubble is popped in the most thuddingly banal way possible, : capture and torture. Well, Lawrence's capture and rape by the Turks IS a matter of historical record (though some skeptics do question whether Lawrence just made it all up). : The ironic thing is, his claim of invisibility is in a way vindicated: He's : captured, questioned, stripped, tortured, and released, and the enemy : never has a clue who he was. Interesting point. : Does his messianism crack when he confronts the Turkish column that's : just massacred an Arab village, as the man for whom "mercy is a : passion" cries mercilessly "No prisoners" and shoots in cold blood a : uniformed soldier with his hands raised in surrender? This, too, comes from Lawrence's autobiography, though it was the source of some serious controversy -- as I recall, Lawrence's brothers objected to this part of the film, and Robert Bolt wrote them a long letter in reply, quoting those portions of the autobiography that supported the film's portrayal of that incident. : Or is this simply the culmination of his messiah complex -- is he now : beyond good and evil? I think the "crack" is definitely there when Lawrence looks in the mirror of his sword (echoing an earlier scene, when he was first given his Arab robes) and both he and the sword are caked in blood.
  14. To Sir with Love is the first thing that comes to my mind. And I really, really like the scene near the end of Jerry Maguire where Cuba Gooding Jr. and Tom Cruise are pointing at each other after the climactic game; that might fit here.
  15. SDG wrote: : Their interaction is completely pragmatic, not personal. In The Four : Loves Lewis says that lovers look at one another, that is, in opposite : directions, while friends look in the same direction at a common interest. : Grant and Russell look in the same direction, not at one another. Ah, gotcha. : I prefer Bruce Almighty's picture of Jim Carrey finally reaching a level of : unselfish love where he really would rather see Jennifer Aniston happy : with someone else who could see her as he never did and give her what : he was never able to -- only then was he finally worthy of her himself. : This is the very attitude that Grant fakes, and, when it turns out to be a : fake, Russell is supposed to be touched. If I took these particular films more seriously, then yeah, I would agree with that. Speaking of Bruce Almighty (and the newshound aspect of it in particular), I came across this interesting review of the film by Mark Steyn yesterday -- he focuses far more on the newshound aspect of it than the God aspect of it (and in particular, he focuses on the real-life newshounds who may have inspired Jim Carrey), which I think is a refreshingly unusual perspective to be coming at it from: http://www.marksteyn.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=26
  16. Darrel Manson wrote: : Let me use as an example Driving Miss Daisy which I just roughted out : an example of a film study guide for the committee to look at. Early in : the film, when Hoke (the Freeman character) is first meeting Boolie : (Aykroyd) about the job, he says he prefers to work for Jews. "Lots of : people say their cheap, but don't be saying none of that around me" : [approximate quote]. Is the prejudice that Hoke has (or at least echoes) : racism if he has no power? It's racial profiling, but it's not necessarily racist; either way, though, the question of his power or lack thereof simply doesn't enter into it. : At a couple places, Daise says to Boolie that she isn't prejudice. This : may be open to debate, but could it be true and she still be racist : through her participation in he racist society of which she is a part? She : may not consciously be racist, but she has the advantages that come : from a racist system. Having the advantages doesn't make her a racist, though; for one thing, it is not she who gave herself those advantages, but someone else. One might ask whether Saint Paul was, I dunno, a racist or classist or culturist or something just because he made use of the privileges that came with his Roman citizenship every now and then. : Most white folk don't have any idea how often that happens for people of : color. I don't have to think about being white in this culture. Very true -- nor do I. : I never get pulled over by racial profiling. Which is not to say that racial profiling isn't justified or doesn't work. One could almost consider racial profiling a responsible use of one's resources, and thus a form of good stewardship. There is, after all, a huge difference between racial profiling, in which the cop is more likely to check one group of people for drugs and weapons than other groups of people because statistics have shown that the first group of people are more likely to have the drugs and weapons, and something truly unjust, like throwing people in jail just because of the colour of their skin. But having said all that, yes, I can definitely see how being a member of the profiled race would definitely be uncomfortable and upsetting. : Rather the focus is on the institutionalization of bias within the power : structure of society that maintains inequality. And I frankly have no idea what that means. There are a lot of Jews in Hollywood, and since it's who you know and not what you know that tends to get you work, I expect that Jews will continue to have a statistical advantage over non-Jews there. But since there is no rule requiring Hollywood executives to be Jewish, I do not see this as an "institutionalized bias" -- it's just the way the demographics have gone. : To some extent, I think this is the liberal guilt thing. I suspect so, yup. But I suspect there is also a certain liberal-moral-superiority thing involved in this too, and it has the odd effect whereby supposedly anti-racist white liberals start making basically racist arguments, like when Maureen Dowd recently got upset with Clarence Thomas for failing to support affirmative action. Dowd, being the liberal white woman she is, assumed that affirmative action had helped Clarence Thomas to get where he is, so how dare that black man be so ungrateful as to vote against affirmative action. The irony of this somehow never occurred to her -- to wit, so long as affirmative action exists, and so long as the accomplishments of black people are understood as a gift bestowed to them by white people and not as something that black people accomplish for themselves, white liberals like her will continue to assume that they can tell black people like Clarence Thomas what to do with themselves.
  17. Russell Lucas wrote: : Is there anything apart from garden variety circle of life stuff that would : make this an unwise decision on my part? By "garden variety circle of life stuff", you mean scenes of birds attacking and devouring insects and fish and frogs (and each other), and scenes of crabs and dogs and humans attacking and devouring birds? Nope, if your kid can handle that, then I don't think there is anything else that would make this an unwise decision on your part.
  18. M. Dale Prins wrote: : Regardless, I mostly agree with Peter: Daniel Amos' two best works are : Doppelg
  19. Christian wrote: : But it doesn't imply I want twice as much story. So you're setting up a : strawman. Well, you were responding to (and agreeing "100%" with) someone who complained that this film was only half as long as the director's previous films, but whatever. (In fact, now that I re-read DanBuck's comments ("I had just met this guy and all the sudden it was over"), it seems to me that maybe HE wanted twice as much story, too.)
  20. Russell Lucas wrote: : German soldiers and tanks? : Holy departure from source material, Batman! Ah, well, what I'm about to say is revealed in the first five minutes anyway, so this isn't a spoiler or anything: Shortly after the "Germans" attack the Brits, there are attacks in Germany and Italy as well that appear to come from England or some similar place, and it's pretty clear that what we have here is a scenario like we used to get in the old James Bond films like You Only Live Twice, where an evil organization like SPECTRE would make small attacks on America or Russia and try to provoke these countries into counter-attacking each other.
  21. Peter T Chattaway

    Terminator 3

    LoneTomato wrote: : Along with Igby Goes Down (which I didn't understand...my friend said : it's because I'm from Hawaii) it looks like she's back! I'm sure most : people in T3 were gaa gaa over the T-X but my eyes were on Danes. And don't forget The Hours.
  22. Darrel Manson wrote: : : : But the focus of the committee I'm doing this for is systemic racism, : : : not so much prejudice, but the way that racism is woven (often below : : : our conscious levels) into everyday life. : : : : Care to flesh this out more? I assume you're not just referring to : : statistical inequities, like the fact that most of the corner stores in my : : neck of the woods are run by people of South Asian descent, or the fact : : that a disproportionately high number of Hollywood executives are Jewish. : : We work with the idea that racism and prejudice are not synonymous. : Racism is about power. When the power structures back up and embody : racial biases, it is racism. Under that understanding, bigotry in the hands : of the powerless is not racism (thus "reverse racism", while it can be : wrong is really not racism in itself ). Sorry, this just sounds muddled. When you say, "When the power structures back up and embody racial biases, it is racism," what do you mean? If "racism" is a backed-up and embodied "racial bias", but it is not a "prejudice", then what, exactly, is it? How can there be a "bias" without "prejudice"? Is the "bias" you're referring to just a descriptive abstraction, like the fact that there is a disproportionately high number of Jewish Hollywood executives, or is it a matter of prescriptive prejudice, as it would be if someone said, "Hollywood executives should be Jewish"? If, as I suspect, it is only a descriptive abstraction, then is this supposed to be a problem? And if it is a problem, is the solution then to encourage prescriptive prejudice (a la affirmative action programs and "bigotry in the hands of the powerless" -- perhaps we Goyim should be agitating for more power in Hollywood)?
  23. Christian wrote: : Huh? You take from my comments that I want twice as much story? Well, a comment like "the ending is quite abrupt" implies that you don't want the story to end, yeah.
  24. Regarding Captain Nemo's ethnic identity, here's what the novel preserved at Project Gutenberg has to say: [ snip ] "My opinion is formed," replied Ned Land, sharply. "They are rascals." "Good! and from what country?" "From the land of rogues!" "My brave Ned, that country is not clearly indicated on the map of the world; but I admit that the nationality of the two strangers is hard to determine. Neither English, French, nor German, that is quite certain. However, I am inclined to think that the commander and his companion were born in low latitudes. There is southern blood in them. But I cannot decide by their appearance whether they are Spaniards, Turks, Arabians, or Indians. As to their language, it is quite incomprehensible." "There is the disadvantage of not knowing all languages," said Conseil, "or the disadvantage of not having one universal language." [ snip ] At half-past eight we were again on board the Nautilus. There I reflected on the incidents which had taken place in our excursion to the Manaar Bank. Two conclusions I must inevitably draw from it -- one bearing upon the unparalleled courage of Captain Nemo, the other upon his devotion to a human being, a representative of that race from which he fled beneath the sea. Whatever he might say, this strange man had not yet succeeded in entirely crushing his heart. When I made this observation to him, he answered in a slightly moved tone: "That Indian, sir, is an inhabitant of an oppressed country; and I am still, and shall be, to my last breath, one of them!" [ snip ]
  25. Russell Lucas wrote: : Incidentally, in the second volume, currently in print, the League faces : off against the invaders from War of the Worlds (he does a little time : alteration). Lewis's Sorns make an appearance, as does John Carter. Fascinating. SDG wrote: : I never felt there was a resolution problem. It was most obvious, to me, in those scenes where we get shots of the Nautilus stretching into the distance, and you get that shimmering effect in the distance where the computer doesn't know how to condense the rather complex detailing into a handful of pixels. : The scene were Venice is collapsing is an eye-popper. If only I had a : clue how the LXG's strategy for saving the city made any sense at all... As I recall, there was a network of bombs under the city, and they were trying to set off an explosion AHEAD of the string of explosions that were already working their way through the city, thus cutting off the unexploded bombs from the exploding bombs. SPOILERS : Here are a few random things that bothered me while I was watching the : film and continue to bother me: : : * Why is there no onscreen explanation for why Mina Harker, apparently : a full-fledged vampire, can withstand full daylight, even the African sun? I was wondering that too. (And what was WITH that final African scene, anyway?) : * Why the heck is Captain Nemo a Hindu Indian? He sure wasn't in Jules : Verne. Was he in Alan Moore? I have heard that he WAS an Indian in Verne (and, thus, in Moore), though whether he was originally Hindu or Sikh I could not say. (I was surprised, too, but then, my only previous exposure to the character was in that Disney film starring James Mason.) : * Why does everyone say "Quartermain" when it's "Quatermain"? Heck, : IMDb actually spells it "Quartermain"! Heh. I wondered this too, but you have to admit, "Quartermain" does sound more natural. : * If the young American addition is supposed to be Quatermain's heir : into the 20th century, why make him an aged boyhood hero of the 19th : century? Why not make him somebody who later becomes a figure of : legend in the early 20th century? Yup. : Anachronistic SLANG?! How about anachronistic EVERYTHING? World War : I-era tanks, a 1930s-looking car, an aircraft-carrier size submarine : equipped with 1950s-era missiles... I'd be curious to know how the Nautilus here compares to the Nautilus in Verne's novel. I'm guessing it probably doesn't have the missiles? As for the tanks ... I could buy the World War I connection, since that war was only 15 years into the future anyway, but the uniforms worn by the Germans seemed more like something out of World War II, to me. To be honest, I was half-expecting the villains to be from the future. BTW, between this and the Matrix and Terminator sequels, there seems to be an awfully fatalistic tone to our sci-fi these days -- the good guys cannot prevent the big war from coming, only postpone it, the good guys on their heroic quests were actually just being manipulated by the villains, etc.
  • Create New...