@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
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.]