"I think, therefore I am. I think."
STUFF SEEN IN THE CINEMA
by Richard Karsmakers
Even though financial setbacks (most notably the purchase of a
Falcon) have made it necessary for me to curtail extravagant
spendings I still had the chance to go to the cinema a few times.
By the time this reaches you the stuff will probably be out on
video already, possibly already in a version you can buy instead
Anyway, I still found it necessary to write down the following
remarks about miscellaneous cinematographic works I've been lucky
enough (or not) to get a chance to see.
I realise that they're all a bit positive. This is largely
caused by the fact that no cinema recognizes ST NEWS as an
official film magazine and therefore I have to pay for every
ticket. I only go to films I think I will like.
Stefan had already raved about this film before I had seen it.
"Technically brilliant," he had said, as well as some other
things which somehow got in one ear and out the other. On the
evening after Miranda had had her last 1993 exam we went to the
cinema to check out if Stefan's ravings had been anything close
I could have known. With "Terminator II" they had been pretty
spot-on. And again that's what turned out to be the case.
"Aladdin" is the latest Walt Disney full-length animated movie,
and it seems they wanted to make people forget all about "Beauty
and the Beast". This means even more personal characters, more
spectacular (co-computer-animated) background sequences, and even
more of those little touches that make the creation process so
much more difficult without adding a lot to the actual film.
The thing I really liked about "Aladdin" was Robin Williams.
That, and the fact that Aladdin's little monkey was incredibly
human-like in all its emotions and facial expression.
If you haven seen the film yet you might wonder what Robin
Williams has to do with the whole thing. Well, Robin William is
the voice of the Genie, who also contributed a lot the the
creature's humour, right into the actual screenplay. This is also
the reason why I believe that none of the versions in other
languages will actually match the original, no matter how hard
they obviously seem to have worked on it.
"Aladdin" is one of those few animated films you just have to
have seen, together with something like Walt Disney's "Snowwhite"
and "Beauty and the Beast" and cult classics such as "Heavy
Metal" and "Akira". It's full of humour and impressive animation
sequences. You won't be disappointed.
Sleepless in Seattle
Now before you start screaming about sugar-sweet plots and
romanticism oozing out of year ears, "Sleepless in Seattle" only
partly falls into the category. Of course I went to see it with
my girlfriend - it's not the kind of film you go to with a lot of
fellow males, nor on your own. "Sleepless in Seattle" might
indeed have been the 1993 Christmas tearjerker, and most rightly
so. It's the story of a widower (Tom Hanks) who becomes the
target of his son's attempt to get him together with a girl
located all across America (Meg Ryan). Meg Ryan is lovely, of
course, and Tom Hanks at time genuinely moving. There's plenty of
comic relief (especially the son and his friend), some nice
romance and Meg Ryan is truly gorgeous. Oh, I said that already,
Well "Sleepless in Seattle", I'll be frank, is a bit of a film
for couples. But it's a bit of a classic in the genre, though
it'll never suck up lots of Oscars I think.
Nothing you have heard about this film is exaggerrated. It is
extremely violent, there are gallons of blood per scene, and it
is actually a pretty bog-standard fighting film if you look at
With "Hard Target" what you get is another film that is not at
all likely ever to get many Oscars. As a matter of fact I don't
think it'll even get one, not even for special effects or the
film score or some other more trivial thing.
Not that it is a bad film - no, not at all. It's just that just
about every tiniest of aspects is laughingly exaggerrated. When a
main character turns around on the screen you get this kind of
low-pitched "swoowsh" sound. At the weirdest moments, the
director deems it fit the slam the film in slow-motion, quite
often not even during any of the fighting scenes. There are lots
of insanely close close-ups, people only die when they have at
least twenty bullets shot in their gonads (and preferably an
arrow or two pierced right through their chests), and there are
enormous quantities of blood.
The story, involving among other things a police strike (like
"Robocop II"?) and the principle of rich people hunting Vietnam
veterans with no family are a bit on the trodden path. The film
isn't exactly original, but there's plenty of fun and oodles of
the most senseless violence.
If you want to have a good laugh at a rather OK film, go and see
it. Some of the shots are actually quite good, and there's
certainly some suspense and a few slightly incredible stunts. The
thing with the ever re-occurring pigeons is probably something
very literary that I failed to grasp.
The text of the articles is identical to the originals like they appeared in old ST NEWS issues. Please take into consideration that the author(s) was (were) a lot younger and less responsible back then. So bad jokes, bad English, youthful arrogance, insults, bravura, over-crediting and tastelessness should be taken with at least a grain of salt. Any contact and/or payment information, as well as deadlines/release dates of any kind should be regarded as outdated. Due to the fact that these pages are not actually contained in an Atari executable here, references to scroll texts, featured demo screens and hidden articles may also be irrelevant.