@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society Club Notice - 06/04/93 -- Vol. 11, No. 49 MEETINGS UPCOMING: Unless otherwise stated, all meetings are in Holmdel 4N-509 Wednesdays at noon. _D_A_T_E _T_O_P_I_C 06/23 CHINA MOUNTAIN ZHANG by Maureen McHugh (Non-European Futures) 07/14 SIGHT OF PROTEUS by Charles Sheffield (Human Metamorphosis) 08/04 Hugo Short Story Nominees 08/25 CONSIDER PHLEBAS by Iain Banks (Space Opera with a Knife Twist) 09/15 WORLD AT THE END OF TIME by Frederik Pohl (Modern Stapledonian Fiction) Outside events: 07/31 Deadline for Hugo Ballots to be postmarked The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the second Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call 201-933-2724 for details. The New Jersey Science Fiction Society meets on the third Saturday of every month in Belleville; call 201-432-5965 for details. HO Chair: John Jetzt HO 1E-525 908-834-1563 holly!jetzt LZ Chair: Rob Mitchell HO 1C-523 908-834-1267 holly!jrrt MT Chair: Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 mtgzfs3!leeper HO Librarian: Nick Sauer HO 4F-427 908-949-7076 homxc!11366ns LZ Librarian: Lance Larsen LZ 3L-312 908-576-3346 quartet!lfl MT Librarian: Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 mtgzfs3!leeper Factotum: Evelyn Leeper MT 1F-329 908-957-2070 mtgpfs1!ecl All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted. 1. The -4 to +4 rating system was used for a long while in _C_i_n_e_f_a_n_t_a_s_t_i_q_u_e, a magazine about fantasy cinema. They no longer use it but I and an number of people I discuss film with adopted it at that time or since. I like it because 0 indicates pure neutrality. If I am negative on a film, so is the sign of the number. Positive, the same is true. As I use it, it assumes film quality will follow a normal distribution curve. Each point away from zero corresponds to to some part of a standard deviation (perhaps approximately half a standard deviation). By the time one THE MT VOID Page 2 gets out to +4 (or -4) the films are rarefied enough that these ratings include the entire tails of the curve. Further, because people have suggested to me that this system does not have enough granularity, about one third of films rated +2, for example will be dubbed "high +2", another third will be "low +2". There are only a handful of films I have given a full +4 to, and quite a few get -4. There is some question in my mind as to whether the system could be destroyed by a film coming out that is miles better than anything I have ever seen in the past. I don't think that is quite likely, but it is theoretically conceivable that I might in the future want to give out +5s. I give a -4 to films that I consider are really completely worthless, and that does not happen all that often, but there are a lot more really bad films than really good. As someone pointed out, you can consider a rating point half a standard deviation. Examples of ratings (highly subjective): +4 A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS / FIVE MILLION YEARS TO EARTH +3 THE NATURAL / CONAN THE BARBARIAN +2 PLACES IN THE HEART / ALIEN / ROAD WARRIOR +1 SUPERMAN / FLETCH 0 COCOON -1 SUPERMAN II -2 MAD MAX -3 DUNGEON MASTER -4 FIRE MAIDENS FROM OUTER SPACE / THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN 0 is what I consider the mean for all films released. However 1 is probably the mean for all films I see in a theater. Since I try to avoid bad films when I am laying out money, the distribution of the films I see in theaters is skewed upward. In general the differences in the various rating systems I consider much less important than a number of other factors. The most crucial is consistency in their application. Part of this is do not tie it to something that will shift a lot with time. For example, the dollar rating system--"this film is worth $3 to see"- -will be good only until serious inflation hits. It may not mean the same thing to a Canadian as it does to someone from the U.S. or to a rich person as a poor person. Unless the film industry gets considerably better or worse, a normal scale comparing against all films I have seen (like the one I use) is the least likely to suffer shifts with time. It is also important that a scale be defined, particularly in the early days of its use, or when new people start trying to understand it. A third important characteristic is granularity. Thumbs up vs. down is not very articulate. On the other hand I would feel very THE MT VOID Page 3 uncomfortable using a scale that rates films to four decimal places. Even assuming I was that sure I knew so precisely my feelings toward a film, I doubt that I could consistently apply such a scale. The real question is am I reasonably sure that I would give the same film the same rating a rear later, based on a viewing, not on memory of what I had given the film. Each of these characteristics is in support of the most important characteristic, that you want a scale to communicate a general feeling about a film quickly. In my reviews the capsule serves that purpose and the rating is like a capsule of a capsule. I am periodically asked for a list of my +4 films. I don't have a fixed list in my head, but I would probably say (in no particular order after the first, and leaving out fantasy films, which I admit I tend to rate too high): A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS (My choice for all-time best) LAWRENCE OF ARABIA THE KILLING FIELDS EMPIRE OF THE SUN THE PATHS OF GLORY SPARTACUS THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER THE PAWNBROKER INHERIT THE WIND THE LION IN WINTER--maybe THE COLOR PURPLE--maybe Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 ...mtgzfs3!leeper It is inconceivable that the whole Universe was merely created for us who live in this third-rate planet of a third-rate sun. -- Alfred Lord Tennyson THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK HOT SHOTS! PART DEUX A film review by Mark R. Leeper Copyright 1993 Mark R. Leeper Capsule review: Topper Harley is back hunting Saddam Hussein in the sequel to the very funny _H_o_t _S_h_o_t_s. To my taste it is not as funny as the first, but others may have a different reaction. Rating: low 1 (-4 to +4). Being objective in writing a film review is nearly impossible even under ideal circumstances. Perhaps major film critics are able to be objective about the films they write about, but I doubt even that is true. My approach to the problem is periodically to remind people that I am writing about one person's experience with a film on one viewing--their mileage with a film may vary. Now, while this inescapable subjectivity is enough of a problem with a film such as _H_o_w_a_r_d'_s _E_n_d, it is far worse with a no-holds-barred comedy such as _H_o_t _S_h_o_t_s! _P_a_r_t _D_e_u_x. Anybody builds up a resistance to a style of comedy eventually. My experience with Monty Python is that the earliest episodes I saw were, and still are, hilarious; episodes seen later lack that zing. Other people seem to have shared this experience: in spite of seeing episodes in a different order, they also find that what they saw before they became jaded are funny for them, but not so much what they saw later. _H_o_t _S_h_o_t_s! _P_a_r_t _D_e_u_x is the latest in the sub-genre of film and television satires punctuated with rapid-fire gags. I would claim the sub-genre was invented in 1976 with James Frawley's _B_i_g _B_u_s. But the sub-genre came to be led by Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, and Jerry Zucker, who did an extended skit, "Fistful of Yen," in _K_e_n_t_u_c_k_y _F_r_i_e_d _M_o_v_i_e (1977). They made the 1980 film _A_i_r_p_l_a_n_e!, and the 1981 television series "Police Squad." One or more of the triple has been involved with many similar comedies since. Abrahams without the Zuckers directed _B_i_g _B_u_s_i_n_e_s_s and _W_e_l_c_o_m_e _H_o_m_e, _R_o_x_y _C_a_r_m_i_c_h_a_e_l, then returned to the _A_i_r_p_l_a_n_e! style with the original _H_o_t _S_h_o_t_s! and now _H_o_t _S_h_o_t_s! _P_a_r_t _D_e_u_x. _H_o_t _S_h_o_t_s! _P_a_r_t _D_e_u_x begins by parodying, almost to the point of remaking, the first part of _R_a_m_b_o _I_I_I. However, the problem is not in Afghanistan but in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein is holding American hostages and several teams of would-be rescuers, including Col. Denton Walters (played by Richard Crenna), an old commander of Topper Harley (played by Charlie Sheen). (Trivia question: what was the inspiration for Col. Denton Walters's name?) Topper Harley leads the rescue attempt. Of course, a good deal of the fun is noting the film and/or television allusions and/or rip-offs. There are nice bits borrowing Hot Shots! Part Deux May 31, 1993 Page 2 from _C_a_s_a_b_l_a_n_c_a, _L_a_d_y _a_n_d _t_h_e _T_r_a_m_p, and a particularly clever gag on _A_p_o_c_a_l_y_p_s_e _N_o_w. But how funny is the film? I would say it is funnier than the "Naked Gun" films, but not as funny as _A_i_r_p_l_a_n_e! or _H_o_t _S_h_o_t_s! But again, what is and is not funny is very subjective. I give _H_o_t _S_h_o_t_s! _P_a_r_t _D_e_u_x a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. (Avoid the closing credits if you have not seen _T_h_e _C_r_y_i_n_g _G_a_m_e.) [Trivia answer: Richard Crenna played Walter Denton on radio and television in "Our Miss Brooks." His character was a dim-witted teenager who talked as if he had peanut butter on his tonsils.]