Conference noted::sf

    I saw it last night and I agree with the original comments and would
    like to add some.
    The script was written by Terry Jones of Monty Python. (I dont think
    the screenplay was) There are a few scenes that are very reminiscent
    of Python but they were not overdone. 
    The best I could summarize the movie is: a mix of Alice's Adventures
    in Wonderland (Lewis Carrol, not Disney), and The Wizard of Oz as
    performed by the Muppets and Monty Python, taking the BEST of each.
    David Bowie's performance was superb. Although he was playing the
    antagonist, he was also very likable in a way.
    I don't agree that the movie was one long special effect. The landscape
    was magical, and mostly animate. (Star Trek, The Movie was one long
    special effect) 
    The story is also more than just a fantasy adventure, its about
    a child becoming an adult, resposibilty, "fairness" ( "but that
    isn't fair". "I'd like to know what is your basis for comparison"),
    reality, and value.
    There are also a few of the classic logic puzzles thrown in; Two
    guardians in front of two doors, one door leads to the castle, the
    other to (DA DUMMMM) CERTAIN DEATH (OOOOOOOOOOH), one guardian always
    lies the other always tells the truth, you can ask only one question.
    	The fantasy world is so fully realized and the characters so
    finely developed that you soon stop noticing that they are (very
    complex) puppets.
    	I think I could go on much longer, so I'll stop now and just
    say that I recommend it heartily, and if you have small children,
    TAKE THEM! I predict (ooooooh) that this movie will become a classic
    of children's film, because it speaks not only to children but to
    adults (or the child in the adult) as well.
    	Oh yes, the three rock numbers, I liked them, I'm not real
    enthusiastic about them, but they did fit into the movie, although
    they wouldn't have been there if Bowie hadn't been in the movie,
    but then I think it would have been a lesser movie without Bowie.
    I was quite impressed with Bowie's performance.
    
    Enough said,
    
    sm (beware the fractal dragon)

        Also, read the book.  Either before or after seeing the movie.
        They don't conflict.  The movie gives the visual images,
        and the book gives several additional scenes and a lot more
        background on what's taking place.
        
        My wife tried to find parallels to The Wizard of Oz after
        seeing it... you know, the little girl on a quest, the
        self-professed coward who finds courage,... but it kinda
        breaks down after that, really fast.  There isn't even an
        evil adversary... The Goblin King is more interested in
        convincing her to go home and have fun than in destroying
        her, and is always somewhat perplexed that she keeps advancing
        to reclaim her brother when she started this whole mess by
        wishing him to be taken away.  He's definitely a basically
        nasty guy... but more of a kid playing irresponsible practical
        jokes than a wicked witch.
        
        Comparing with Alice in Wonderland leaves you on the same
        territory.  It's a truely wonderful fantasy about a young girl
        in a strange place.  Sarah (Jennifer Connelly, by the way)
        even falls down a hole.  And Hoggle resembles the White Rabbit
        both in the way he's first seen hopping around after the
        fairies and in the way she keeps meeting him throughout her
        adventure... but even that's stretching things a bit, for
        several reasons.
        
        At the same time, there's a feeling of oddness and wonderment
        about the story which we all felt for the last time while
        watching or reading either Alice or Oz... and that's the
        real basis for the comparisons.  And it's a good one.
        
        	/dave

    re .1
    
    The 'classic' logic puzzle was first done in .... wait for it...
    
    
    The pyramids of Mars. 
    
    A 'classic' Dr Who episode.
    
    
    Stan.

    I can't agree with the general tone of the proceeding notes.
    Although I enjoyed several scenes very much, particularly the
    crystal ball and the Escher labyrinth, overall the movie struck
    me as being generally stupid.  It was the same feeling I had seeing
    Legend.
    
    Rich

    We enjoyed it, too, and then spent some time trying to pinpoint
    the reasons why this one seemed more enjoyable than "Legend" (and,
    indeed, most other attempts at fantasy). We didn't really resolve
    the question, but the use of humor has to do with it, as does the
    fact that there seemed to be a bit more character behind both the
    girl and the goblin-king than in either of the leads in "Legend".
    
    Not that this film *has* to be compared with "Legend", just because
    both came out the same summer. Basically, I found "Labyrinth"
    entertaining, with lots of unexpected bits - the little worm (did
    you notice it took four people to handle that worm???), Sir Didamus
    and his noble steed, the door-knockers ("I never could understand
    that!"), the Escher connection (breathtaking!).
    
    And, as someone who has lived in a dream world most of her life,
    I appreciated the final conversation between the goblin-king and
    Sarah. "You have no power over me..."
    
    -b

    RE .2:
    
    The Alice/Oz comparison I was making was more like your last statement
    about the wonderment both left in the reader/viewer. I did not mean
    to imply that any parallels could be drawn. 
    
    RE .3:
    
    	Dr. WHO may have been the first to dramatize the puzzle but
    I remember seeing it as a child, posed as the missionary and natives
    problem. ( an island is inhabited by two tribes, one always tells
    the truth, one always lies. the missionary comes to a fork in the
    road on his way to <somewhere>. They then go through the same routine
    as in the movie.)
    
    RE .4:
    
    	To each his own, but I bet you wouldn't like Wizard of Oz if
    wasn't released until today either. I say this not as a personal
    slander, but as a response to the friends that I saw the movie with
    who also either didn't like it or thought it was "ho-hum". I think
    their expectations prevented them from enjoying the movie for what
    it was; a story of the transition from childhood to adulthood told
    metaphorically through the device of fantasy. I think this is also
    present in Wizard of Oz and the Alice stories.
    
    
    Well, let me apologize for being so long winded and defensive.
    See the movie with an open mind, and maybe try to bring out the
    child in you, and I think you'll enjoy it immensely.
    
    sm

I saw it last night with my two children.  This is not a great film, but it
was fun, and stimulated lots of neat questions from the kids, like "Why did
she call her toys junk?"  By all means, take children with you.  I may not 
have liked it if I had gone by myself.

    Being new to this notesfile, I may be rehashing something, but...
     
    One reason "Legend" was so bad may have been that it was cut to
    shreds. I saw a newspaper article that stated that a 3+ hour version
    had been released in Europe. It was cut to about 1-1/2 hours here
    because the producers didn't think people would go to see a long
    movie. Smart, huh?
     
    Roy

    re:.8
    
    It wasn't that great a difference. I think it was only something
    like 20 minutes that was cut.
    
    --- jerry

    Me and my boyfriend enjoyed it many times, as my 6 year-old niece
    wanted to see it again and again.  We even bought the soundtrack,
    which is also good.  I've been a Bowie fan for years, and I thought
    his music melded well with the movie.
    Your typical Rambo fans probably wouldn't like it...
    
    It's also kinda neat to see an old classmate's name in the credits
    as part of Jim Henson's team.
    
    Theresa.

    Re: .10
    
    This is the second note I've seen today (the other in the MOVIE
    conference) that *liked* the music.  The one thing that *everybody*
    in the group agreed on was that the musical scenes were entirely
    wrong (they felt sort of thrown in to me).
    
    Otherwise, though, I liked it.  A bit too pat, but interesting.
    The Escher scene near the end was particularly neat.

    There is a video available which details the making of this film.
    I think it can't help but be more interesting and entertaining than
    what little I sat through of the feature itself.
    

    
    

I watched LABYRINTH for the first time yesterday. I can honestly say it was
the most enjoyable film I have ever seen. Ok, so the storyline is nothing
special. The attention to detail, the animation of the puppets, the special
effects, the set, the action .. fantastic, pure escapism.

As for Bowie, well, the icing on the cake. I know his acting leaves a lot to
be desired, but the music .... marvelous, deep, meaningful, melodic whether
it was out of place or not.

As for the kids, my little girl is 3 years old and she never took her eyes
off the T.V. (we watched it on video).


ps.	Does anyone know where I can get the soundtrack album on cassette.
	(I'm in the UK).


Andy.