A DVD REVIEW: JOHN CARPENTER'S THE THING - COLLECTOR'S EDITION (Universal)

[RGA]

First the reason I discussed the name was your entire first paragraph with "......its just that there is a certain MAGIC about director John Carpenter's work that wouldnt be the same without his name legally affixed to all his motion pictures; its what we associate his films with --- his own name."

What does this have to do with anything. Every director of every motion picture has their name on the film. No offense but John Carpenter just isn't an elite director. He has three notable films - Halloween, The Thing and Escape From New York. Halloween set the standard withg Psycho as the greatest slasher films ever created. Halloween at the time was absolutely brilliant with it's use of camera and music to create an incredibly scary film with little to no gore. And the Thing is also on my list of the best 13 horror films. But it has problems. Many professional critics note the problem with the score and if you read what I wrote I saud the score OTHER than the bass beats. The bass beats were fantastic -- it is the REST of the score which is a failure and most pro-critics have noted it. It's not like it ruined the movie but it sure didn't help anything.

Escape from New York was a good but not great movie and Escape from LA does have some interesting ideas and a story...but it's a complete disaster on film with atrocious special effects.

http://www.movieline.com/reviews/escape_from_la.shtml

It doesn;t work as satire nor does it work as political commentary because it falls into what it tries to mock and just becomes schlock.

You must have went to a pretty lame school for 22 year olds who would call an entire film a classic becuase of the opening scene of a film which is a CGI shot. I'll give you it could be a classic monster movie or the best dinosaur movie - but there ain;t many of them that are very good. It's certainly an entertaining movie and it was certainly brilliant visually when it came out but a classic has to be more than that.

Most of the pro critics are here and I don't see any of them raving about the quality of the performacnes or the story or calling it a classic. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jurassic_park/

[Lexmark3200]

"What does this have to do with anything. Every director of every motion picture has their name on the film"

No offense back, but are you smoking crack? Where does it say in the beginning of ANY other film "SO AND SO's" and the name of the film? Carpenter is the only director to have this moniker affixed to the FRONT OF THE TITLE OF THE FILM.

"No offense but John Carpenter just isn't an elite director. He has three notable films - Halloween, The Thing and Escape From New York. Halloween set the standard withg Psycho as the greatest slasher films ever created. Halloween at the time was absolutely brilliant with it's use of camera and music to create an incredibly scary film with little to no gore. And the Thing is also on my list of the best 13 horror films. But it has problems. Many professional critics note the problem with the score and if you read what I wrote I saud the score OTHER than the bass beats. The bass beats were fantastic -- it is the REST of the score which is a failure and most pro-critics have noted it. It's not like it ruined the movie but it sure didn't help anything."

Absolutely not agreed by me. I believe he IS an elite director, and all the comments you made regarding the score is simply untrue; Ennino Morricone's score is a saving grace of The Thing --- ask any self respected THING fan, and he or she will tell you (I dont care what these so-called critics you keep on bringing up say) that the score adds to the PARANOIA and ISOLATION the characters are experiencing in the film --- which is the point of The Thing --- these guys dont know who to trust and the score supplements this PERFECTLY; you are simply not concentrating on this aspect of the film and the thumping, simple score as it relates to what is going on up on that screen for some reason. It is a BRILLIANT piece of score for this gory sci fi/horror classic.

I am so glad you made your comments regarding Halloween in the method you did, because I was going to have to rip on you for that if you didnt --- Halloween is DOWNRIGHT MONUMENTAL in the way it chilled and shocked without much gore and with the reliance of Carpenter's classic piano score co-themed by Alan Howarth.

"Escape from New York was a good but not great movie and Escape from LA does have some interesting ideas and a story...but it's a complete disaster on film with atrocious special effects."

What does that review you provided prove? I dont agree, nor do other Escape From New York and LA fans; Escape From New York WAS a GREAT film --- and you are right about ONE thing with regard to Escape From L.A., which I talk about on Home Theater Discussion.com during my review --- the CGI that accompanies this film is a COMPLETE DISASTER and Carpenter just didnt know how to deal with the technology; the special effects DO look horrible, and it almost seems cartoonish on screen. You are right. Escape From L.A. goes beyond interesting ideas....it shows the buried ruins of downtown LA, a Universal Studios logo sign underwater, and other great Los Angeles landmarks like the Capitol Records building crushed to rubble....but the effects are terrible looking, correct.

"It doesn;t work as satire nor does it work as political commentary because it falls into what it tries to mock and just becomes schlock."

Yeah, in SOMEONE ELSE'S opinion.

"You must have went to a pretty lame school for 22 year olds"

Absolutely unfair and rude to say without knowing me or the school I went to, and untrue. Adelphi University's film school division, as well as New York's Hofstra University where I went for follow-up film history classes, are both renowned for their professor staff and graduation success with regard to those who professionally go into the film industry; I didnt......I centered my talents on WRITING, of which I hold a Masters Degree in Expository Writing, but I DID study film on a level which I believe you are being way too harsh on without knowing me personally or my classmates who were well-respected.


"who would call an entire film a classic becuase of the opening scene of a film which is a CGI shot. I'll give you it could be a classic monster movie or the best dinosaur movie - but there ain;t many of them that are very good. It's certainly an entertaining movie and it was certainly brilliant visually when it came out but a classic has to be more than that."

It was classic, again, for reasons you dont either A) cannot or B) refuse to understand; as I contend, the film was monumental because it made audience's mouths drop open in those opening shots --- and every theater I went to to discuss this film with people coming out of the cinemas said the same thing: an absolute Spielberg-classic-to-be.....

"Most of the pro critics are here and I don't see any of them raving about the quality of the performacnes or the story or calling it a classic."

THATS A LAUGH.....you put stock in ANYONE from Rotten Tomatoes? That is a BIG mistake, my friend, believe me.....I know a lot of these guys and they wouldnt know celluloid from a roll of toilet paper, trust me.

[shokhead]

Nothing against Carpenter but Howard Hawks not a bad Dir. either and not bad for his only Sci Fi flick. Imo,when the thing comes into the room and they set it on fire is one of the best 30 seconds of action in a movie for its time.

[Worf101]

Nothing against Carpenter but Howard Hawks not a bad Dir. either and not bad for his only Sci Fi flick. Imo,when the thing comes into the room and they set it on fire is one of the best 30 seconds of action in a movie for its time.

We know that Hawks directed this, it bears all his trademarks.... particularly the excellent cross dialogue I love so much. But there really is no comparing the two films. They're as different as two films could be from one another and still have the same name. J.C.'s The
Thing is NOT a movie I can watch easily. There are things in it that move me to the point of revulsion. If it's on and I'm NOT in the mood I cannot watch it. The original on the other hand I will watch over and over again with glee.

Don't get me wrong, the remake is an amazing film, but it's a little too amazing in the gore category if you catch my drift. I may own it someday, but I ain't rushing out to get it.

Da Worfster

[Kam]

RGA, i'd personally add Big Trouble in Little China as one of Carpenter's best, and the completion of his Kurt Russel trilogy. I thought this movie was a lot of great fun and cheesy over the top melodramatic characters, with Jack Burton my fav kurt russel character to date.

i hated escape from la so i dont include that in The thing / Escape from ny / Btilc trilogy, nor elvis, his tv movie with carpenter.

also Lexmark, it all depends on your definition of "elite director" if you're going to include carpenter in that category. if it's your own subjective defintion of 'elite' than you can obviously include whoever you want. if it's an industry definition of "A" list directors, then carpenter is not amongst them. if it's a historical look at great directors, personally, i dont believe carpenter's body of work stands up to the likes of Lean, Kurasawa, Hitchcock, Satyajit Ray, Scorcese, Spielberg, Coppola, Kubrick, Mel Brooks, etc.

its always tough to discuss the merits of a subjective form, one person's trash is another's treasure.

[RGA]

RGA, i'd personally add Big Trouble in Little China as one of Carpenter's best, and the completion of his Kurt Russel trilogy. I thought this movie was a lot of great fun and cheesy over the top melodramatic characters, with Jack Burton my fav kurt russel character to date.

i hated escape from la so i dont include that in The thing / Escape from ny / Btilc trilogy, nor elvis, his tv movie with carpenter.

also Lexmark, it all depends on your definition of "elite director" if you're going to include carpenter in that category. if it's your own subjective defintion of 'elite' than you can obviously include whoever you want. if it's an industry definition of "A" list directors, then carpenter is not amongst them. if it's a historical look at great directors, personally, i dont believe carpenter's body of work stands up to the likes of Lean, Kurasawa, Hitchcock, Satyajit Ray, Scorcese, Spielberg, Coppola, Kubrick, Mel Brooks, etc.

its always tough to discuss the merits of a subjective form, one person's trash is another's treasure.

I think this is where there is confusion. I don't think Carpenter is anywhere in league with the list you just mentioned. But I think most of us could agree on a Qualifier such as saying that Carpenter is an "Elite" horror film director. Halloween is certainly a masterpiece in the horror genre and that film is good enough to carry some of the other weaker films on its coat tails. And Carpenter still has more movies to come I'm sure.

I am a big Spielberg supporter and he gets blasted by many of those in the art-house film community. So it's ironic that I'm getting on JP's case and the dowright idiotic, utterly boring War of the Worlds. To me JP is a weak Spielberg film which still makes it better than most other director's crowning achievement - only two Carpenter films that I hhave seen better it and one of them, The Thing, most probably would not agree with me on.

[Kam]

I think this is where there is confusion. I don't think Carpenter is anywhere in league with the list you just mentioned. But I think most of us could agree on a Qualifier such as saying that Carpenter is an "Elite" horror film director. Halloween is certainly a masterpiece in the horror genre and that film is good enough to carry some of the other weaker films on its coat tails. And Carpenter still has more movies to come I'm sure.

I am a big Spielberg supporter and he gets blasted by many of those in the art-house film community. So it's ironic that I'm getting on JP's case and the dowright idiotic, utterly boring War of the Worlds. To me JP is a weak Spielberg film which still makes it better than most other director's crowning achievement - only two Carpenter films that I hhave seen better it and one of them, The Thing, most probably would not agree with me on.

agreed, that was my point, carpenter is NOT in the same league as those directors, imo and according to the industry. and yep, carpenter is in production on his latest horror movie to come out next year called "Psychopath" or... "John Carpenter's Pyschopath" and he's a producer on the updated The Fog coming out next year as well.

[Lexmark3200]

"I don't think Carpenter is anywhere in league with the list you just mentioned."

Some may wholeheartedly disagree with this view, believe me, because Im one of them, for many, many reasons not being understood here.

"But I think most of us could agree on a Qualifier such as saying that Carpenter is an "Elite" horror film director. Halloween is certainly a masterpiece in the horror genre and that film is good enough to carry some of the other weaker films on its coat tails. And Carpenter still has more movies to come I'm sure."

Oh you are DAMN Skippy about Halloween --- a masterpiece it is that paved the way for slasher films (although some say Hitchcock's Psycho did that --- I dont want to get into a debate about that because that IS a classic film too). I think, though, and I am a huge Carpenter buff, that poor John has unfortunately run out of steam......once Ghosts of Mars came out, I was convinced he may have lost his edge in cinema making.......

[Lexmark3200]

"i'd personally add Big Trouble in Little China as one of Carpenter's best"

Oh god, a real Carpenter fan would disagree with this with loads of cheese on top......

"I thought this movie was a lot of great fun and cheesy over the top melodramatic characters, with Jack Burton my fav kurt russel character to date."

Ughhhhhhhhh.....give me Snake Plissken any day of the week over this character.

"i hated escape from la so i dont include that in The thing / Escape from ny / Btilc trilogy, nor elvis, his tv movie with carpenter."

Well, you hated Escape From LA because you didnt understand what Carpenter was going for, as I did, as I spoke with him about the ideas he had for it, as I said, during an Escape From New York fan convention in Madison Square Garden.

"also Lexmark, it all depends on your definition of "elite director" if you're going to include carpenter in that category. if it's your own subjective defintion of 'elite' than you can obviously include whoever you want. if it's an industry definition of "A" list directors, then carpenter is not amongst them. if it's a historical look at great directors, personally, i dont believe carpenter's body of work stands up to the likes of Lean, Kurasawa, Hitchcock, Satyajit Ray, Scorcese, Spielberg, Coppola, Kubrick, Mel Brooks, etc."

When exactly did I call him an "elite director"? He happens to be a brilliant director, IN MY OWN OPINION, and puts out some of my favorite work on celluloid --- no one can tell ME that I DIDNT LIKE Christine, The Fog, The Thing, Halloween, Escape From New York.....I disagree with what you say about his works not standing up to those men you mention.....I believe his works DO stand up to those men for the audience core and genre he is directing for. Mel Brooks? Pluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuleeeeeeeeeeeeeze........ ...

[Kam]

When exactly did I call him an "elite director"? He happens to be a brilliant director, IN MY OWN OPINION, and puts out some of my favorite work on celluloid --- no one can tell ME that I DIDNT LIKE Christine, The Fog, The Thing, Halloween, Escape From New York.....I disagree with what you say about his works not standing up to those men you mention.....I believe his works DO stand up to those men for the audience core and genre he is directing for. Mel Brooks? Pluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuleeeeeeeeeeeeeze........ ...

In post #9 at around 9:07am (the time listed as i log in, EST) above you said: "Absolutely not agreed by me. I believe he IS an elite director, and all the comments you made regarding the score is simply untrue;"

And that was my point: If, in your opinion, he's an elite director, than awesome, good for you, i've read your arguments and just don't agree with them, it's a difference in opinion. I consider Mel Brooks an elite director IMO, if you disagree with that, hey, no problem. The industry however, (am not talking critics here, (although they do too)am talking the people who work with Mel) consider him an elite director as well. Maybe he needs to come with a caveat ala an elite comedic director, but i just think he's genius, and personally, from my own experience in the industry, comedy is FAR FAR FAR harder than drama.

And i put stock in the industry that pays the people in that industry. Someone may not say that Shaq is an "Elite" center, but look at how he's paid compared to other centers and it will give you some idea of his current status in the basketball industry. Look at his stats and give time to see how he stacks up in history to other centers. That's my point with why i look at how the industry treats Carpenter compared to the other people on my list as "Elite Directors."

On the issue of the only thing that matters is what's on the screen:
Since you have studied creative writing, you should know that the creator never has a verbal 'gimme' to explain what he meant other than what is written on the page. One of the first writing classes i have taken made the writer sit quietly and listen to all the criticism of the work, without a chance to "explain what he REALLY meant to do." Until after, when the writer can say, "Ok, this is what i wanted to do...." to find out specifics as to WHY that didn't come across. And then can go back and change the script to get across exactly what he wanted in the first place, ON THE PAGE.

If your point isn't translated across on the page, than you didnt do your job. I write as well, and if an editor comes back with a WTF is going on here? I can always explain what i "meant" to do, but i obviously didn't do it. I have to go back and do it better. If Escape From La has to come with a big caveat and explanation intro from Carpenter, than he didnt accomplish what he wanted to do, at least to me or anyone else i know that has seen the movie. I didnt see it as a satire of Escape From New York. If other people did, on their viewings sans benefit of carpenter's personal insights, than he accomplished what he set out to do with them. If the only way anyone understood what he was trying to accomplish was with his own personal viewpoint told, then... IMO, he failed in accomplishing what he wanted to do.


and in the end, its just a difference of opinion is all, not that carpenter is better or worse than any other director, because it's all about being entertained, and i know that he has certainly made some entertaining movies that i've enjoyed. (including Big Trouble in Little China!!!)

[Lexmark3200]

"J.C.'s The Thing is NOT a movie I can watch easily. There are things in it that move me to the point of revulsion. If it's on and I'm NOT in the mood I cannot watch it. The original on the other hand I will watch over and over again with glee."

Agreed about Carpenter's THE THING --- and THATS why I said I CANNOT EAT anything while this film is playing --- especially during the spider head sequence.

"Don't get me wrong, the remake is an amazing film, but it's a little too amazing in the gore category if you catch my drift."

It was a landmark in special effects makeup technology for the time --- I did an interview with Rob Bottin, special effects coordinator for the film for Home Theater magazine once, and the WORK that went into this film --- chronicled in the extra features on the DVD --- was just exhaustively awesome.

[RGA]

"What does this have to do with anything. Every director of every motion picture has their name on the film"

No offense back, but are you smoking crack? Where does it say in the beginning of ANY other film "SO AND SO's" and the name of the film? Carpenter is the only director to have this moniker affixed to the FRONT OF THE TITLE OF THE FILM.

"No offense but John Carpenter just isn't an elite director. He has three notable films - Halloween, The Thing and Escape From New York. Halloween set the standard withg Psycho as the greatest slasher films ever created. Halloween at the time was absolutely brilliant with it's use of camera and music to create an incredibly scary film with little to no gore. And the Thing is also on my list of the best 13 horror films. But it has problems. Many professional critics note the problem with the score and if you read what I wrote I saud the score OTHER than the bass beats. The bass beats were fantastic -- it is the REST of the score which is a failure and most pro-critics have noted it. It's not like it ruined the movie but it sure didn't help anything."

Absolutely not agreed by me. I believe he IS an elite director, and all the comments you made regarding the score is simply untrue; Ennino Morricone's score is a saving grace of The Thing --- ask any self respected THING fan, and he or she will tell you (I dont care what these so-called critics you keep on bringing up say) that the score adds to the PARANOIA and ISOLATION the characters are experiencing in the film --- which is the point of The Thing --- these guys dont know who to trust and the score supplements this PERFECTLY; you are simply not concentrating on this aspect of the film and the thumping, simple score as it relates to what is going on up on that screen for some reason. It is a BRILLIANT piece of score for this gory sci fi/horror classic.

I am so glad you made your comments regarding Halloween in the method you did, because I was going to have to rip on you for that if you didnt --- Halloween is DOWNRIGHT MONUMENTAL in the way it chilled and shocked without much gore and with the reliance of Carpenter's classic piano score co-themed by Alan Howarth.

"Escape from New York was a good but not great movie and Escape from LA does have some interesting ideas and a story...but it's a complete disaster on film with atrocious special effects."

What does that review you provided prove? I dont agree, nor do other Escape From New York and LA fans; Escape From New York WAS a GREAT film --- and you are right about ONE thing with regard to Escape From L.A., which I talk about on Home Theater Discussion.com during my review --- the CGI that accompanies this film is a COMPLETE DISASTER and Carpenter just didnt know how to deal with the technology; the special effects DO look horrible, and it almost seems cartoonish on screen. You are right. Escape From L.A. goes beyond interesting ideas....it shows the buried ruins of downtown LA, a Universal Studios logo sign underwater, and other great Los Angeles landmarks like the Capitol Records building crushed to rubble....but the effects are terrible looking, correct.

"It doesn;t work as satire nor does it work as political commentary because it falls into what it tries to mock and just becomes schlock."

Yeah, in SOMEONE ELSE'S opinion.

"You must have went to a pretty lame school for 22 year olds"

Absolutely unfair and rude to say without knowing me or the school I went to, and untrue. Adelphi University's film school division, as well as New York's Hofstra University where I went for follow-up film history classes, are both renowned for their professor staff and graduation success with regard to those who professionally go into the film industry; I didnt......I centered my talents on WRITING, of which I hold a Masters Degree in Expository Writing, but I DID study film on a level which I believe you are being way too harsh on without knowing me personally or my classmates who were well-respected.


"who would call an entire film a classic becuase of the opening scene of a film which is a CGI shot. I'll give you it could be a classic monster movie or the best dinosaur movie - but there ain;t many of them that are very good. It's certainly an entertaining movie and it was certainly brilliant visually when it came out but a classic has to be more than that."

It was classic, again, for reasons you dont either A) cannot or B) refuse to understand; as I contend, the film was monumental because it made audience's mouths drop open in those opening shots --- and every theater I went to to discuss this film with people coming out of the cinemas said the same thing: an absolute Spielberg-classic-to-be.....

"Most of the pro critics are here and I don't see any of them raving about the quality of the performacnes or the story or calling it a classic."

THATS A LAUGH.....you put stock in ANYONE from Rotten Tomatoes? That is a BIG mistake, my friend, believe me.....I know a lot of these guys and they wouldnt know celluloid from a roll of toilet paper, trust me.

I'm sorry for the comment I made about the university, it didn;t come out the way I intended but from the movies you've been posting here they do not seem to represent a single serious film but popcorn entertainments. I don't see La Grande Illusion, Lawrence of Arabbia, Schindler's List, 400 blows, The Seven Samarai, the three colours trilogy or a host of other "real" classics. Instead I'm seeing action movies and CGI movies like Under seige and Jurassic Park. If JP is a classic then we need a new and better word for what Schindler's List is because there is zero comparison between which of the two is truly a monumental work of film making.

Please give me the name of the pofessor of the school and his e-mail or phone number -- I want to ask him if he is teaching students that JP is a classic film and why. If therewas some sort of credible reason as a classic of special effects as historical note then I can see it. A Master's Degree student should be able to completley rip the dialog of that film and the plot to shreds in my view.

Your comments about asking fans of a movie whether something is a classic makes absolutely no sense. I am sure fans of Ace Ventura Pet Detective will be spouiting off that it's a classic too --- WHAT ELSE would a FAN say? The reason someone is a fan is because they love the movie. But there are plenty of crappy films that people are fans of and to THEM it may be a classic which is fine by me.

I have the Thing as one of my favorite 13 horror movies. And I would give you "cult-classic" standing. But this film does not get, by any serious film critic, very high marks that a Citizen Kane tyupically musters. Not everything is a classic just cause you and some friends of yours like a movie. I recommend lots of films but they are not all classics. In fact I'm amazed that a serious film class would spend time on Jurassic Park -- No film school I know of considers that film a classic or even a GOOD movie. John J Puccio teaches film school at a major California University and I've discsussed a number of films with him

"Jurassic Park" is an adventure film par excellence, at times short on logic and certainly short on plot, but long on thrills and amazement. Once you see (and hear) the dinosaurs, they're tough to forget. In addition, it's hard to resist Sam Neill's transformation from a hater of children to a protector of them. It adds a touch of poignancy to what is otherwise just an opulent thrill ride. In the final analysis, "Jurassic Park" is a film worth watching again and again, which is what a home-theater library of DVDs is all about."

I guess if you read what film professors had to say virtually ALL of them say the exact same thing as John is saying -- a lot of fun great visuals weak plot lacks logic. John is actually friendlier to it than many.

I suppose I should have started with my view of what a Classic is...and why I hate this WORD from being thrown around for every single film that someone likes. A true classic is somethinng that stands the test of time. So when a movie like Cinderella man comes out and people say things like it is a modern classic (or any such current film) it makes no sense. May as well be predicting Aliens will land next year. A film must last through a considerable amount of time IMO at least a generation or preferably two or three. FIlms from the 70s people can start addressing as classics not 1990s because no one knows that in the year 2025 if anyone is going to continue to like the plot and story and performances and heart of a motion picture.

I can tell you it is a LOT easier to predict a period piece drama as standing the test of time than ANY special effects movie. Special effects have the luster to attract current audience with great effects but that is shallow and in the year 2025 when the effects look completely crappy by the standards of the furture. So a film BETTER have a terrific plot, terrific dialog, profound ideas because the wonder of the Bronto ain't gonna hold wonder anymore. Even the effects of T2 or the Abyss which at the time were staggerringly brilliant for visual just are not that great by today's standards and these films are not even 20 years old.

The critics all praise, as I have done, the visuals and thrill ride aspect of JP, but all of us note the lame dialoge thin logic and weak plot. It's like the Movie Superman -- it just doesn't hold the same wonder it did when it came out because the effects look really bad when one compares it to either Spiderman. Superman holds up reasonably well because of the writing and charm of the characters and the tongue in cheek nature.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this -- To me classics should be reserved for a very select few masterpiece films and JP to me is just not the MacBeth of the film world - it's a comic book.

[Lexmark3200]

"I'm sorry for the comment I made about the university, it didn;t come out the way I intended"

If your "intentions" are judged and merited by the comment you make below, I cannot believe your sincerity in apologizing:

"but from the movies you've been posting here they do not seem to represent a single serious film but popcorn entertainments. I don't see La Grande Illusion, Lawrence of Arabbia, Schindler's List, 400 blows, The Seven Samarai, the three colours trilogy or a host of other "real" classics. Instead I'm seeing action movies and CGI movies like Under seige and Jurassic Park. If JP is a classic then we need a new and better word for what Schindler's List is because there is zero comparison between which of the two is truly a monumental work of film making."

First of all, you have NO idea what you are talking about here: I AM DOING DVD REVIEWS PLAIN AND SIMPLE as I pull discs off my shelf and watch them and then REVIEW them ---- I AM NOT TRYING TO SAY ANY OF THESE ARE CLASSICS BY DOING REVIEWS ON THEM; as a matter of fact, as I said, I am trying to get the site to allow me to set up JUST a DVD review section so we can separate talking about CINEMA and talking about raw technical DVD reviews --- I think you are missing my point for reviewing these discs. They are JUST FOR INFORMATION for you guys --- THATS WHY there are old titles being reviewed and posted.....I am not posting for ANY OTHER REASON.....they're just meant for review purposes, and not for comparing "Jurassic Park" to "Lawrence of Arrabia". And, IF YOU READ THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD FORUM CAREFULLY, IT SAYS "DISCUSS ANYTHING MOVIE-RELATED"......so that's what Im doing.....DVD reviews constitute "anything MOVIE RELATED", my friend.

"Please give me the name of the pofessor of the school and his e-mail or phone number -- I want to ask him if he is teaching students that JP is a classic film and why."

Professor Scott F. Johnson, cell phone number 702-308-1908, Professor and Doctorate Administration Head of Adelphi's School of Arts and Cinematic Studies. I am giving you his Nevada cell phone number because he actually has a house very close to where my family lives in Henderson, Nevada, where he resides in the summer months, and the best place to reach him is via this number, although I myself have trouble reaching him here even when I try just to say hello! For some reason, I never got his New York cell exchange, which I think he changed to Nevada anyway after he moved out here because he was a friend of my parents' as well, and so he bought a house in the town of Henderson.


"If therewas some sort of credible reason as a classic of special effects as historical note then I can see it. A Master's Degree student should be able to completley rip the dialog of that film and the plot to shreds in my view."

Not true. My Masters Degree is in EXPOSITORY WRITING if you read my original post......so what are you talking about?

"Your comments about asking fans of a movie whether something is a classic makes absolutely no sense. I am sure fans of Ace Ventura Pet Detective will be spouiting off that it's a classic too --- WHAT ELSE would a FAN say? The reason someone is a fan is because they love the movie. But there are plenty of crappy films that people are fans of and to THEM it may be a classic which is fine by me."

It DOES make sense by your own definition, dont you understand that? And who is to judge what a CLASSIC is then --- your good friends at Rotten Tomatoes or Ebert? THATS a laugh, man, it really is.

"I have the Thing as one of my favorite 13 horror movies. And I would give you "cult-classic" standing. But this film does not get, by any serious film critic, very high marks that a Citizen Kane tyupically musters. Not everything is a classic just cause you and some friends of yours like a movie."

Serious film critics? Who are these people? They are PEOPLE just like me and you who may find what THEY feel are classics to be classics, nothing more, because THEY like the movie --- so another words, THEIR word is law because they are a CRITIC? Doesnt fly be me, and thats the first thing I learned in film history school. Dont listen to these so-called "critics".....judge film on your own merits and with your own heart and love the film for the emotional response it explodes from within you.

"I recommend lots of films but they are not all classics. In fact I'm amazed that a serious film class would spend time on Jurassic Park -- No film school I know of considers that film a classic or even a GOOD movie. John J Puccio teaches film school at a major California University and I've discsussed a number of films with him"

First of all, you are getting COMPLETELY FIXATED on this Jurassic Park issue with regard to the film school I graduated from; all I was saying was that MOST of the people I graduated with felt this was a landmark Spielberg film for so many reasons that seem to be beyond your comprehension for some reason or because you are simply NOT OPEN to this possibility whatsoever --- thats okay, but doesnt make you RIGHT. The film schools you have discussed Jurassic Park with may have not thought it a good film, but the ones I HAVE DID find the opposite, so you are right, then?

""Jurassic Park" is an adventure film par excellence, at times short on logic and certainly short on plot"

Again, I completely disagree.

"but long on thrills and amazement. Once you see (and hear) the dinosaurs, they're tough to forget."

That was my point.

"In addition, it's hard to resist Sam Neill's transformation from a hater of children to a protector of them."

Well, didnt think so much of this aspect of the film, but okay, if you say so......

"It adds a touch of poignancy to what is otherwise just an opulent thrill ride. In the final analysis, "Jurassic Park" is a film worth watching again and again, which is what a home-theater library of DVDs is all about.""

True. What I was saying with regard to looking at my library of discs --- now topping close to almost 2,000 (that's TWO THOUSAND) DVD titles --- is that when I look at Jaws and Jurassic Park I get the same warm fuzzies inside regarding the fact that I know I will be looking at a Spielberg classic, either way, in MY opinion.

"I guess if you read what film professors had to say virtually ALL of them say the exact same thing as John is saying -- a lot of fun great visuals weak plot lacks logic. John is actually friendlier to it than many."

Not the ones I have spoken with or have experience with.


"The critics all praise, as I have done, the visuals and thrill ride aspect of JP, but all of us note the lame dialoge thin logic and weak plot."

Who's "all of us"? The people in here and the folks YOU site? That makes it the final verdict, huh?


"We'll have to agree to disagree on this -- To me classics should be reserved for a very select few masterpiece films and JP to me is just not the MacBeth of the film world - it's a comic book."

I would never compare Jurassic Park to Mac Beth or Romeo and Juliet; thats TWO different animals. You are missing completely what I am trying to say about the VALUE of this Spielberg film, so lets just drop it.