Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: What Did You Watch? 2024-03-15 (Friday)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:44:41 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <ut5edq$35ec8$2@dont-email.me>
References: <ut4kmq$30cq8$1@dont-email.me> <ut4tc8$32ak0$1@dont-email.me>
 <ut503v$32sr5$1@dont-email.me> <ut58fe$34ir2$1@dont-email.me>
 <ut5a0b$34o1e$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:44:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f9305e802253285ea48c33d638b8f0fa";
	logging-data="3324296"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LPcZEF3i8uP5mP5ztcQxTBKMUhI3mW9c="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xC69NCAEqCIN/MybmNdDBMmzKS4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ut5a0b$34o1e$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4930

On 3/16/2024 4:29 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>> On 3/16/2024 1:40 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> 
>>>> The Frighteners (blu-ray) 1996 horror comedy directed by Peter Jackson
>>>> and starring Michael J. Fox as a conman who uses his ability to see and
>>>> talk to ghosts to con people until he stumbles upon the ghost of a
>>>> serial killer who hasn't let being dead slow him down.
> 
>>> I sort of like this movie, but it falls apart in the middle. I've read
>>> that the version distributed in the United States is heavily edited of
>>> the New Zealand version. I've never seen what Peter Jackson intended. I
>>> just looked; there's a director's cut that's 12 minutes longer. Also,
>>> there are two different DVDs for home video, the second with
>>> inferior audio.
> 
>> I was hoping for a 4K upgrade.  I heard one was on the way over a year
>> ago but it never materialized.  At least not in the U.S.
> 
>>> Any idea what version you watched?
> 
>> I watched the director's cut.  I have no idea what was put back in.  I
>> didn't listen to the commentary.  I do remember being less than
>> impressed when I saw the movie in the theater.  Over time I've more or
>> less forced myself to like it.  But part of that might be I've been
>> watching the director's cut.  I think it also helps if you go in knowing
>> what to expect.
> 
>> Like you said, I sort of like it.  I honestly don't understand why I
>> don't like it more.  Everything about it really screams great movie,
>> then I actually watch it and the best I can muster is it's OK I guess.
> 
>> Now that I think about it, maybe the problem is there are no likable
>> characters in the movie.  I never thought about it before now, but the
>> movie really has no one to care about.  The movie probably would have
>> been significantly better if Michael J. Fox's character was likable.
>> Right from the start his character is being a total jerk to his ghost
>> helpers and he's just in it to rip people off.  And now that I think
>> about it some more, the people he targets are basically widows and
>> orphans!  He has barely any character growth beyond that.  I know by the
>> end he's supposedly a nice guy, but the movie never justifies that
>> change.  It just happens because reasons.
> 
> Those are very good points.
> 
> His girlfriend's character isn't established and nothing we see tells us
> why they are together. That Jake Busey grabs her doesn't work as well
> because he doesn't seem to care enough about her.
> 
> I really wanted more from the Jeffrey Combs scenes because, hey, he
> saved a lousy first season Babylon 5 script, and the obsequious Weyoun
> on Deep Space Nine (not to mention liquidator Brunt). But his character
> just came across as weird without motive.
> 

Yes!  That!  I know they paid lip service about him being undercover, 
but he needed way more explanation than that.


>> Who was a mid 90s contemporary who cold have played the part but made
>> the character likable?  Brad Pitt?  Johnny Depp?  Keanu Reeves?  Will
>> Smith?  John Cusack?
> 
> Heh
> 
> It was the script.
> 

True.  But there's a reason they fired Eric Stoltz and replaced him with 
Fox after they had begun shooting Back to the Future.  Same script...but 
actor choice matters too.  Although personally, I think I might have 
preferred a Stotlz version of BTTF.  Especially for part 3.


> I also read that this was in post production for close to a year and a
> half because of the massive amount of time for effects in those days
> that are probably created today with a couple of keystrokes.