@@@@@ @   @ @@@@@    @     @ @@@@@@@   @       @  @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
         @   @   @ @        @ @ @ @    @       @     @   @   @   @   @  @
         @   @@@@@ @@@@     @  @  @    @        @   @    @   @   @   @   @
         @   @   @ @        @     @    @         @ @     @   @   @   @  @
         @   @   @ @@@@@    @     @    @          @      @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@

                        Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
                    Club Notice - 10/27/00 -- Vol. 19, No. 17

       Chair/Librarian: Mark Leeper, 732-817-5619, mleeper@avaya.com
       Factotum: Evelyn Leeper, 732-332-6218, eleeper@lucent.com
       Distinguished Heinlein Apologist: Rob Mitchell, robmitchell@avaya.com
       HO Chair Emeritus: John Jetzt, jetzt@avaya.com
       HO Librarian Emeritus: Nick Sauer, njs@lucent.com
       Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
       All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.

       The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the
       second Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call
       201-447-3652 for details.  The Denver Area Science Fiction
       Association meets 7:30 PM on the third Saturday of every month at
       Southwest State Bank, 1380 S. Federal Blvd.

       ===================================================================

       1. I read that goldfish have only thirty seconds of  memory.   This
       is  why  when they swim around in a bowl they can keep swimming the
       same path over and over.  It is constantly new to them.  In general
       they  are not big fans of cinema, but there are definite advantages
       for a goldfish film fan.  You could show them the same film over an
       over  and  it  would  always  be fresh.  A goldfish would start his
       favorite movie with no idea where it was going.  He would be amazed
       and  entertained.   The ending would be a complete surprise.  "Gee,
       the butler did it." But that would be immediately followed  by  the
       question,  "Did  what?" Then the fish could start the film over and
       see the dastardly deed.  But then he would immediately  wonder  who
       did  it.  And so it would go.  This might have positive aspects for
       humans.  Maybe some day we will be able to selectively  forget  all
       about  our  favorite  books  or  films,  just  at the moment we are
       starting to watch them again.  If everybody  had  a  thirty  second
       memory it would make writing these weekly articles a lot easier for
       me.

       I read that goldfish have only thirty seconds of memory.   This  is
       why when they swim around in a bowl they can keep swimming the same
       path over and over.  It is constantly new to them.  In general they
       are not big fans of cinema, but there are definite advantages for a
       goldfish film fan.  You could show them the same film over an  over
       and  it would always be fresh.  A goldfish would start his favorite
       movie with no idea where it was going.   He  would  be  amazed  and
       entertained.   The  ending would be a complete surprise.  "Gee, the
       butler did it."  But that would  be  immediately  followed  by  the
       question,  "Did what?"  Then the fish could start the film over and
       see the dastardly deed.  But then he would immediately  wonder  who
       did  it.  And so it would go.  This might have positive aspects for
       humans.  Maybe some day we will be able to selectively  forget  all
       about  our  favorite  books  or  films,  just  at the moment we are
       starting to watch them again.  If everybody  had  a  thirty  second
       memory it would make writing these weekly articles a lot easier for
       me.

       I read that goldfish have only thirty seconds of memory.   This  is
       why when they swim around in a bowl they can keep swimming the same
       path over and over.  It is constantly new to them.  In general they
       are not big fans of cinema, but there are definite advantages for a
       goldfish film fan.  You could show them the same film over an  over
       and  it would always be fresh.  A goldfish would start his favorite
       movie with no idea where it was going.   He  would  be  amazed  and
       entertained.   The  ending would be a complete surprise.  "Gee, the
       butler did it."  But that would  be  immediately  followed  by  the
       question,  "Did what?"  Then the fish could start the film over and
       see the dastardly deed.  But then he would immediately  wonder  who
       did  it.  And so it would go.  This might have positive aspects for
       humans.  Maybe some day we will be able to selectively  forget  all
       about  our  favorite  books  or  films,  just  at the moment we are
       starting to watch them again.  If everybody  had  a  thirty  second
       memory it would make writing these weekly articles a lot easier for
       me.

       I read that goldfish have only thirty seconds of memory.   This  is
       why when they swim around in a bowl they can keep swimming the same
       path over and over.  It is constantly new to them.  In general they
       are not big fans of cinema, but there are definite advantages for a
       goldfish film fan.  You could show them the same film over an  over
       and  it would always be fresh.  A goldfish would start his favorite
       movie with no idea where it was going.   He  would  be  amazed  and
       entertained.   The  ending would be a complete surprise.  "Gee, the
       butler did it."  But that would  be  immediately  followed  by  the
       question,  "Did what?"  Then the fish could start the film over and
       see the dastardly deed.  But then he would immediately  wonder  who
       did  it.  And so it would go.  This might have positive aspects for
       humans.  Maybe some day we will be able to selectively  forget  all
       about  our  favorite  books  or  films,  just  at the moment we are
       starting to watch them again.  If everybody  had  a  thirty  second
       memory it would make writing these weekly articles a lot easier for
       me.  [-mrl]

       ===================================================================

       2. BEDAZZLED (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):

                 Capsule: : Harold Ramis writes  and  directs  a
                 remake  of  one of the funniest comedies of all
                 time.  At its best it is more of the same  sort
                 of    humor    that   was   the   first   film.
                 Unfortunately Ramis cannot match the hilarious,
                 literate  banter of the original and the remake
                 has the feel of a dumbed down version.  If  you
                 cannot  get your hands on the original, this is
                 at least an above average comedy.  Rating: 5 (0
                 to 10), low +1 (-4 to +4)

       I think you can learn a lot about somebody  by  just  knowing  what
       comedies  he finds funny.  Within my top three funniest comedies is
       the 1967 BEDAZZLED, a film directed by Stanley Donen, but  most  of
       the  humor and creativity came from the erudite British comedy team
       of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore who with this film were at  the  top
       of  their  form.   The  humor  of  that  film  could  be lampooning
       Christopher Marlowe's play  DOCTOR  FAUSTUS  (the  inspiration  for
       BEDAZZLED)  one  moment and then be drolly slapstick the next.  And
       perhaps the moment after that it would be presenting some  profound
       insight on the Bible and religion.  Being so eclectic and literate,
       the original is a film that gracefully  shows  its  age  but  never
       dates.   It  is a comedy that does not need to be remade for modern
       audiences.  If anything, it needs to be annotated.  Remaking it  is
       a project that is hazardous from the first.

       In the remake Elliot Richardson (played by Brendan Fraser) works on
       a  computer  help  desk.   Most  of  the people in his office would
       apparently prefer solitary confinement to having to deal with  him.
       Elliot  has  a  not  so secret crush on the demure Allison (Frances
       O'Connor) who has worked in the same  office  for  four  years  and
       never  even  noticed  the  obnoxious Elliot was there.  Elliot runs
       into Allison in a bar and tries to  make  small  talk  only  to  be
       snubbed.   But  wait,  the  evening  is  not  over.   There  is  an
       absolutely stunning woman in the bar who seems more than  a  little
       interested  in  Elliot.   Elliot is skeptical, but no, it turns out
       she is not a hooker.  She is something a little bit worse.  She  is
       the Devil (Elizabeth Hurley) in human form.  And she has a deal for
       Elliot.  She will give him seven wishes in  return  for  his  soul.
       With  each  wish  Elliot  can become somebody else.  He can specify
       what he will be like, what other people will be like, anything that
       comes  into  his  head.   And  with each wish, of course, the Devil
       finds some nasty way to live up to the letter of the  wish  but  to
       completely  subvert  the  spirit.   After  all, isn't that what the
       Devil does?

       First, what was done well about this film?  Some of the  jokes  are
       fairly  clever  and  some (only some) of those are original.  I did
       find myself laughing at this film.  The credit sequence gives you a
       Devil's eye view of the world and the people in it with little tags
       to tell you their deep  secrets.   That  is  a  clever  idea.   The
       premise  of the multiple wishes and how the Devil is tricky is done
       almost as well as in the earlier film.   With  each  wish  Elliot's
       appearance  changes  to  fit  the  wish  and  at  least some of his
       appearances are quite funny.  The Devil's general mischief  is  not
       as  inspired  as  it is in the first film, but several of the jokes
       are funny.  If the first film did not exist, this would be at least
       a clever, watchable, and enjoyable comedy.

       The problem is that there are places where this film is  almost  as
       good  as  the  original,  but  many other places where it in no way
       comes close.  Almost all of the banter based  on  the  classics  of
       literature and religion are gone.  In the original the holes in the
       main character's wishes made subtle philosophical points.  There is
       little  such  intelligence in this screenplay.  What this film does
       offer that the first film did not is some  machine  guns,  a  short
       chase  involving  a  helicopter,  and a large traffic accident, all
       fairly common and by now boring stuff.  The ending of the  original
       was  hardly  brilliant,  but  the remake simplifies it and dumbs it
       down so that it is maudlin and really betrays  the  spirit  of  the
       film.

       Brendan Fraser's best work was in the serious  dramas  SCHOOL  TIES
       and  GODS  AND  MONSTERS,  but  through  practice he is becoming an
       accomplished comic actor.  He  manages  a  tour  de  force  playing
       several  externally  different  characterizations, reminding one of
       Alec Guinness in KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS.  The film's  replacement
       of the lackluster Peter Cook with the seductive Elizabeth Hurley as
       the Devil may be slightly an improvement, but  the  lackluster  was
       part  of  the joke.  One feels that if the Devil could look any way
       he/she wanted to, that the choice would be  to  look  like  Hurley.
       Frances  O'Connor  needs to do little but be demure and attractive,
       and she does little more in  her  role.   It  is  interesting  that
       English-born  women  were chosen as the two stars of this remake of
       an English comedy.

       For me, this attempt was as misguided as would  be  an  attempt  to
       remake  CITIZEN KANE.  The result could have been worse, I suppose,
       but naturally my recommendation would be to see the original rather
       than  the  remake.   Still this version gets 5 on the 0 to 10 scale
       and a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.  [-mrl]

       ===================================================================

       3. PAY IT FORWARD (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):

                 Capsule: A seventh grade teacher challenges his
                 students   to   change  the  world.   Then  one
                 implements a scheme  that  might  just  do  it.
                 Given the premise, this is a surprisingly adult
                 and moving drama.  It does not talk down to the
                 viewer.   There is a lot of pain in the scarred
                 characters.  Kevin Spacey again gives  a  solid
                 performance.   Rating:  7 (0 to 10), low +2 (-4
                 to +4)

       A reporter's car is destroyed while he is  getting  a  story  on  a
       hostage  crisis.   As  he  sadly  looks  at  the wreckage a passing
       stranger throws him some car keys, making him the  gift  of  a  new
       Jaguar.   But  the benefactor has one condition.  The reporter must
       do large favors for each of  three  deserving  people  of  his  own
       choice.   And  each  of  them must do three favors.  Intrigued, the
       reporter sets out to find the origins of  this  benevolent  pyramid
       scheme.

       Flash back four months.  In a Las Vegas junior high school,  a  new
       teacher,  Mr.  Simonet  (played  by Kevin Spacey) gives his seventh
       grade social studies class two tough  assignments.   The  first  is
       just  to  keep  up with all the new vocabulary words he uses in his
       conversation.  Not easy, but the second assignment is a lot harder.
       "Think  of an idea that could change the world."  Not an assignment
       frequently given to a junior high student.   (At  least  not  until
       high  school  teachers see PAY IT FORWARD.)  Trevor McKinney (Haley
       Joel Osment) comes up with a plan more powerful than  he  realizes.
       He  will  do  favors  for  three people, each of whom will pass the
       favor on threefold in an ever growing pyramid.  Rather than  paying
       back  the  favor  they  pay  it  forward.   This  part of Las Vegas
       certainly is a community that could use  some  altruism.   Trevor's
       mother  Arlene  (Helen  Hunt)  is  a  recovering alcoholic who is a
       waitress in a casino by day and one in  a  strip  joint  by  night.
       Arlene  is  infuriated  when Trevor gives a homeless man the run of
       her house, and she goes to complain to Mr. Simonet.

       There are several ways this  story  could  have  gone  wrong.   The
       people  could have been instantly transformed by the power of good.
       Or everybody in the  chain  might  have  their  lives  dramatically
       changed  by  the  scheme.   Or  the  people  might  not be properly
       developed or only developed as one might expect for a film aimed at
       teens.   In  fact  these  are  people  who  have  had  some hellish
       experiences and whose lives are not working out.  The script  could
       have pulled its punches in many different ways.  The way that story
       does go wrong was in a much less offensive manner, thought wrong it
       does  go  at  the  very  end.   The  filmmakers turn the heretofore
       realistic plotline into a slightly syrupy allegory toward the  end.
       To that point they go out of their way to take a story that was not
       pat, and then they give it a pat ending.  But  then  director  Mimi
       Leder  has  had  previous problems with the final reel of otherwise
       good movies.  That was her problem with the film DEEP IMPACT.  This
       screenplay was written by Leslie Dixon who wrote OVERBOARD and MRS.
       DOUBTFIRE. The writing is frequently  moving  and  at  times  takes
       chances.   I  could probably have done without the love story.  But
       for  the  ending  and  perhaps  some  gratuitous  violence  at  the
       beginning the writing is good.

       The plotting has been compared with what one might have gotten in a
       Frank  Capra  film and it is an apt analogy, though this screenplay
       has some harrowing realism, perhaps along the lines of LEAVING  LAS
       VEGAS.   Speaking  of  Las  Vegas,  when  this film about a pyramid
       scheme shows the skyline  of  that  city,  it  features  the  Luxor
       pyramid.   Was it an intentional comment?  Other writers have tried
       to do films in  the  Capra  style.   Notable  particularly  is  THE
       HUDSUCKER  PROXY  by  the Coen Brothers.  This is a more successful
       attempt.

       Helen Hunt seems to be showing up everywhere on  the  screen  these
       days.   She is in both PAY IT FORWARD and DR. T AND THE WOMEN, both
       currently playing in theaters.  If that were  not  enough  theaters
       are  showing  a  trailer  for  WHAT WOMEN WANT starring Helen Hunt.
       Haley Joel Osment, formerly of THE SIXTH SENSE, seems to have  been
       born with a face that just seems earnest and intense.  But whatever
       part luck played, he is already a skillful actor who holds his  own
       against  adults, not with Shirley Temple cuteness, but with genuine
       acting   intelligence.    Kevin   Spacey   also   exhibits   acting
       intelligence,  but then he is all grown up so it not quite the same
       feat.  All three play scarred people, though  Spacey's  character's
       scars are the most obvious.

       This is a good film worth seeing as I think the other half dozen or
       so  people  who saw it in the theater with me would agree.  It is a
       pity it is  not  getting  larger  audiences.   Perhaps  people  are
       underestimating the maturity of the storytelling.  I rate it a 7 on
       the 0 to 10 scale and a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.

       A comment for people who have seen the film:  The  chronology  does
       not  quite  work in this film.  The birthday party is maybe one day
       before the end of the film, but  the  invitation  to  the  birthday
       party happened before the whole parallel sequence.  Simply too much
       had to have happened in that interval of time.  [-mrl]

       ===================================================================

       4. DR. T AND THE WOMEN (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):

                 Capsule: Robert Altman looks at the superficial
                 lives  of  the  wealthy  and frequently not too
                 bright in Dallas upper class.  His  points  are
                 less  subtle  and  just  a bit more vulgar than
                 usual.  The film takes a long time to make  its
                 point,  which  turns  out to be disappointingly
                 trite.   This  is  a   film   that   at   least
                 superficially  seems  to  verge on misogyny but
                 perhaps is really anti-rich.  Rating: 4  (0  to
                 10), low 0 (-4 to +4)

       DR. T AND THE WOMEN is about a fabulously handsome  and  successful
       gynecologist  living  and working in the Dallas area.  Dr. Sullivan
       Travis, (played by Richard Gere) lives the good  life.   He  has  a
       beautiful  wife  Karen  (Farrah Fawcett) and two nice children.  In
       his practice he  treats  many  attractive  women,  yet  he  remains
       totally faithful to his wife and family.  In typical Altman fashion
       we follow several strands of plot in the lives of T's  family,  his
       patients,  and  T's  relationship  with  an  intriguing  woman golf
       professional at T's country club.  Problems start to creep into T's
       world  as Karen Travis childishly takes off her clothes and takes a
       swim in the fountain in from of  a  Godiva  chocolate  shop  in  an
       upscale  mall.  Her doctor diagnoses her case as something called a
       Hestia Complex, a mental disease of the wealthy.  Meanwhile as  one
       daughter  plans  her  upcoming  wedding,  another  seems  intent on
       disrupting the wedding plans.  And several other plot strands  work
       themselves out.

       Director Robert Altman is a  surprisingly  erratic  filmmaker  even
       after  all  these  years  and  after  having made several classics.
       There is a great deal of similarity in  all  his  films--each  will
       have  a  large  number of familiar actors and a lot of plot strands
       that all make a sort of mosaic of life in some part of the country.
       Yet  each film will be trying to make some point and the quality of
       the film tends to hang on that point  and  sort  of  people  he  is
       portraying.   Last year this gave us the charming COOKIE'S FORTUNE.
       Considerably less charming and in the final analysis  more  than  a
       little  fatuous is this film.  What we get is a not very flattering
       portrait of the nouveau riche, with  women  going  through  women's
       pursuits  of  spending  large sums of money, planning weddings, and
       turning visits to the gynecologist into one more  popular  form  of
       entertainment.   It  is  hard  to  imagine  women  so excited about
       getting an intimate examination  that  they  cluster  like  pigeons
       turning the doctor's office into real chaos just for the excitement
       of being examined.  Somehow even with someone with  Richard  Gere's
       looks  doing  the examining, this really stretches the imagination.
       Meanwhile the receptionist snorts like a horse  and  patients  plan
       accidents  for other patients.  While the women are doing this, the
       guys are doing really masculine and only marginally more believable
       pursuits  like  shooting  skeets  (well, golf balls) and going duck
       hunting.

       Altman has done  more  interesting  work.  This  film  only  really
       engages  the  viewer  if  one  is  fascinated  with  this sector of
       society.  The film generally hovers no further  than  arm's  length
       from  being  sexually  titillating.  We see locker room scenes, and
       gynecological examinations.  People take  off  their  clothing  out
       behind  desks.  We see Farrah Fawcett nude in a fountain once it is
       clear she is not mentally competent.  Altman can do  better  things
       than tantalize the audience.  Most of these patients are treated in
       a superficial and not very sympathetic manner.  Many we  never  see
       outside  the  chaos  of  the waiting room.  Like MAGNOLIA the story
       builds to a sort of a strange climax, though what happens  here  is
       much  less  likely  than  what happens in MAGNOLIA.  This is all in
       service to making a point that has been made many times  before  in
       film.   Altman  is  no  more intelligent about making that point in
       this film.  Nor do his characters have the interest value they  had
       in  COOKIE'S  FORTUNE.   If  one  neither  enjoys the theme nor the
       characters, there is not much left.

       Altman probably cannot make a film that is totally bad.  His famous
       relaxed  style  of  shooting  a film attracts too many good people.
       But with a really mediocre script he can waste  talent  on  a  film
       worth  only  a  4  on the 0 to 10 scale and a low 0 on the -4 to +4
       scale.  [-mrl]

       ===================================================================

       5. GINGER SNAPS (a film review in  bullet  list  form  by  Mark  R.
       Leeper from the Toronto International Film Festival):

                 Capsule: A new  take  on  the  werewolf  story.
                 Lycanthropy  and puberty come to a teenage girl
                 at about the same time and that only  increases
                 the  confusion.   In  spite  of  some  immature
                 teen-film   trappings   this    film    touches
                 sufficiently on psychology to make it stand out
                 and deserve to be seen.  Rating: low +2

          - Title is a pun
          - Very similar premise to story "Boobs" by Suzy McKee Charnas
          - Takes place in Bailey Downs (safe and caring)
          - Bridgett and Ginger, sisters, are odd kids of school
          - Both years late into puberty
          - Some strange animal hunts night
          - Ginger bitten by night creature which is then killed  in  WOLF
            MAN fashion
          - Younger sister knows
          - Lycanthropy and puberty come to Ginger at the same time
          - All adults are out of touch with reality
          - Bridget is sullen
          - Ginger growing fangs and tail, nobody but Bridget notices
          - Ginger shapely very quickly, becomes popular with boys
          - "Do you think I want to go back to being nobody?" Ginger asks.
          - Bridget and friend have to stop killings
          - Puberty or lycanthropy: which changes come from which
          - Buffy-inspired
          - All adults out of it
          - Tense finale
          - Directed by John Fawcett
          - Lots of stage blood
          - Werewolf done well on budget.  No good view till late in film,
            then looks a little plastic
          - Werewolf noise loud and chilling
          - Good actors for lack of experience
          - Ginger grew breasts too fast for late puberty
          - Mimi Rogers is one name actor, good comic performance

       [-mrl]

       ===================================================================

       6. THE GODDESS OF 1967 (a film review in bullet list form  by  Mark
       R. Leeper from the Toronto International Film Festival):

                 Capsule:  A  young  Japanese  yuppie  with  odd
                 tastes  travels to Australia to buy a rare 1967
                 Citroen Goddess.  He finds to buy  it  he  must
                 drive   cross-country   with   a  blind  woman.
                 Through flashbacks we piece together her  story
                 and   some   of   his.    One   the   story  is
                 reconstructed it is cliched  and  melodramatic.
                 Style   is   more  unusual  than  the  content.
                 Rating: 0

          - Strange Japanese man  on  road  trip  with  enigmatic,  blind,
            Australian woman
          - Starts with Japanese man  on  PC  typing  "I  want  to  buy  a
            Goddess."  Turns out to be a Citroen Goddess.
          - Man likes snakes, feeds then mice
          - Dickering price on Internet
          - In Australia strange owner, blind, claims must  take  a  5-day
            trip to get owner to sell car
          - Road movie with flashbacks telling woman's story
          - Remembering sexual abuse by grandfather
          - Grandfather living isolated thought he could make own rules
          - Distorted colors, orange washed out
          - When in car backgrounds through window are impressionist
          - Aussie dusty vistas vs. memories of Japanese crowded city
          - At first seems pointless but bits of stories collect in puzzle
            to put together
          - Parental sexual abuse (overused theme)
          - One powerful scene at end
          - Long, slow, and often not of much interest
          - Filmed in Australia and Japan
          - Dialog style  like  early  Jim  Jarmusch  films,  long  pauses
            between lines

       [-mrl]

       ===================================================================

       7. HOLDUP (a film review in bullet list form by Mark R. Leeper from
       the Toronto International Film Festival):

                 Capsule: When a robbery goes wrong  the  robber
                 and   his   two  hostages  spend  an  afternoon
                 together waiting for the safety  of  night  and
                 forming two-on-one alliances.  Based on loosely
                 a real incident, this film offers a nice mix of
                 comedy and drama.  Rating: low +2

       German language

          - Vienna
          - Andreas is unemployed and badly needs money
          - Tries but cannot get up the courage to rob grocery
          - Hides I tailor shop, then decides to rob it
          - Takes two prisoners, tailor (Boegel) and sick man (Kopper)
          - Blindfolds and ties prisoners while searching for more money
          - Unrelated police barricade  across  the  street,  but  Andreas
            cannot leave
          - Andreas goes into rages
          - Prisoners at first cooperate, but start to get on each  others
            nerves
          - Sick man accidentally locked in bathroom
          - The three talking about private lives
          - Robber reveals details foolishly
          - Trying to be compassionate
          - Humor
          - What director calls typical Austrian denial, but one refers to
            serving in "the war against Hitler."
          - Most of film one shop
          - Loosely based on real incident
          - Robber played by standup comedian

       [-mrl]

                                          Mark Leeper
                                          HO 1K-644 732-817-5619
                                          mleeper@avaya.com

           You are free, and that is why you are lost.
                                          -- Franz Kafka