Conference noted::sf

     I DID SEE THIS TRASH WHILE IT WAS ON AT THE THEATRE, IT IS VERY, VERY
BAD. ALTHOUGH, IT IS BETTER THAN 'ATOR'. YOU FORGOT TO MENTION THE NEED FOR
BARF BAGS, NOT THAT IT'S ALL THAT GROSS, BUT, ANY TRUE FAN OF FANTASY WILL
PROBABLY GET REAL SICK WHILE WATCHING.
                                       REEECH,
                                              KEN COBB

	Re .1:
	That there are bad fantasy movies should come as no shock: the
operative here is Sturgeon's Law -- "90 percent of *everything* is 
crud."  For every _Destination Moon_ there was a _Cat Women of the Moon_.
_Hercules_ was, well, all right for its time, but what about the enormous
number of imitators (e.g., the "Sons of Hercules" series)?  I jhaven't seen
_Sorceress_, and don't think I want to, but I'm not surprised that if there
are good fantasy films there will be cruddy ones.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

Too true, too true. I find that the bad movies fall into several different
categories, though, each with a different degree of obnoxiousness.

There are the technically bad ones, which may have some good plot elements
or good performances, but are marred by sloppy editing, muddy film, poor
lighting, or bad effects. If you're willing to work at it, you might
enjoy such a film, but if the tech is *really* bad, it's liable to be
unwatchable. These are the ones I feel badly about, because I hate to
see potentially good material ruined because somebody wouldn't spend
some extra cash to do it right.

Then there are the amateur ones. These can have poor tech too, but I've
found that the performances are more often the weak point. You've seen
the ones I mean - all the actors read their lines stiffly, seldom looking
at each other and never getting the emphasis right. For the most part,
these films are just plain boring.

And then we have the ones where the writing is lacking, the ones with a
totally incoherent plot. These can be very funny, assuming that they
don't drag on for too long; but they have to be watched in a laid-back
sort of way, with no expectation whatsoever of being entertained.

"Sorceress" is, in my opinion, a blend of types 2 and 3 (mostly 3). The
tech was (marginally) acceptable, but the acting was not great, and the 
plot was ridiculous. However, I found it to be unpredictably ridiculous,
as opposed to boring, and that was why I found the movie funny enough to
comment on.

Then again, maybe the major plot elements weren't that bad, either. A
talented director might have put the whole thing together in either a
more believable fashion, or in a more obviously amusing one.

But - no matter. You're certainly not missing any great experiences by
passing up "Sorceress". Still, I'd have to put it in my list of "memorable
bad movies", if only for the final scene of the zombie warriors carrying
off the writhing vestal virgins, leers all over their semi-intact faces!

Or maybe I'm just weird!

-b

In reference to "Sorceress" and other films of its type --

In college, we called these films "High Adventures". 

"First -- get high... then -- watch the `adventure'."

If you take neither the film nor yourself too seriously, films like
this can be lots of fun.

					andrew

 Actually, "Sorceress" is a riot!  We really enjoyed it.  (Once we realized 
that we weren't going to enjoy it.  If you know what I mean...) Don't spend
any money on it, but if you can see it on cable or rent it *cheap* do so.  
There is one scene that is definately worth wading through the rest of it for.

tlh