Conference bookie::movies

I remember seeing this movie in Leicester Square.  Absolutely hilarious due to
the preposterous plot and acting.  Mind you the number of beers I had before
might of influenced my judgement.

    re. 1
    I liked the book better.  It had a real "1984" feel to instead of just
    being a vehicle for ol' Arnie.  But I liked the movie for what it's
    worth.
    
    MJ 

Not to off on a tangent, but...

RE: .2

>    I liked the book better.  It had a real "1984" feel to instead of just
>    being a vehicle for ol' Arnie.  But I liked the movie for what it's
>    worth.
    
The book and the movie were certainly different, such that I think the movie
stated that it was "inspired" or "suggested" by the book, not "from" the
book.  Whenever I see weasel words like that, I know that the screen-writers
took the name of the book (and not even always that, consider "We Can Remember
It For You Wholesale" becoming "Total Recall" or "Do Androids Dream of Electric 
Sheep" becoming "Blade Runner", which is actually the name of a *different* 
book), maybe the name of the main character (also not guaranteed), and some 
plot elements which are then twisted around and changed however necessary 
(consider "Dune"), and then they completely ignored the source material and 
whatever point the author made in the book.

But I for one thought both were well done.  The movie was good clean Arnie
fun, with no thought toward being serious.  And the casting of the Richard
Dawson as the game show host was brilliantly inspired: he was a delight.
The book (IMHO) showed the really dark side of the current trend toward
walled communities and the abandonment of the inner city, as in, what happens
to those people who can't escape to the suburbs?  Certainly science fiction
has dealt with this before (any post-apocalyptic book or movie has the
abandoned zones where you have lots of devastation and ragged people wandering 
around while other wealthy people live in comfort and luxury, for example the 
movie "Soylent Green").  The despair and desperation of the people who have
no options or choices is depressingly well shown (as a father I identified a
little *too* strongly with the protagonist in his agony over his inability
to get medical help for his daughter).

But I vastly preferred the movie, simply because I was much happier when I
left the movie than when I put down the book, because both accomplished 
what they set out to do very effectively.  The movie wanted to make me happy
and the book wanted to make me depressed, and they each succeeded.

-- Ken Moreau

    
    re -.1
    
    	I agree - Richard Dawson was *excellent* as Killian
    whateverhisnamewas - I forgot he could act ( sorta - remember Hogan's
    Heroes? ).  
    
    	Definitely different from the book, but not as totally far off base
    as Lawnmower Man.  All in all a decent action flick, though.
    
    					Jimbo

    
    Loved the book (but I'm a King fanatic, and arguably biased).
    
    The movie I wasn't so keen on.  Yes, Richard Dawson was impeccable
    casting.  
    
    But this movie broke my major rule about "revenge/little guy beats the 
    bad guys" movies.  The "bad guys" were jokes.  They were comic book 
    characters.  I mean, the *second* you saw those idiots, you
    thought "this is not a challenge for Arnie" (Commando had this same
    problem with the silly Australian blob).
    
    The best of these types of movies always have great bad guys - evil
    foes that are a challenge to beat.
    
    - Sean
    

    Wasn't this directed by Paul Michael Glazer? (sp?)  I think the film
    was trying to be two things, one was the Arnie vehicle with all the
    clever one liners and the put downs. Secondly, the plot about the fate of
    television and the new opiate of the masses.  This didn't sit too well on
    Arnies shoulders.
    
    Was one form of oppression simply replaced by anarchistic violence or do
    I watch too many movies?
    
    R. Michael.

RE: .6
    
>    Was one form of oppression simply replaced by anarchistic violence or do
>    I watch too many movies?
    
IMHO, you are reading *way* too much into an Arnie movie.  The writers simply
took some current trends and extrapolated them in amusing and interesting 
ways (game shows with Richard Dawson as host, people's eagerness to bet on 
anything, the widening gap between wealth and poverty, the increasing influence
of television on American society, etc).

But there were some great lines:

Killian: "Get me the U.S. Justice Department, Entertainment Division"

Killian: "Don't talk to me like that, I know the [U.S.] President's agent"

As Maria Conchita Alonzo is going through the files looking for the film
clip of Arnie supposedly firing on the crowd from the helicopter, she finds
one clip labelled "Edited for Television".

Marvelous stuff...

-- Ken Moreau

    Does Yaphet Koto die a horrible death in this? Movies I remember with
    him was one with George Peppard, post nuclear war, and Yaphet got eaten
    alive by giant mutant cockroaches; in Blue Collar he got painted to
    death and in Alien got eaten by the monster. If Yaphet is going to die
    in this film I know it isn't going to be from a heart attack while
    asleep. 

    
    	And the answer is ...
    
    
    	... yes.  He gets slashed by one of the stalkers, I believe, and
    	basically bleeds to death.