Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!@RUTGERS.ARPA:Joseph.Henr@Xerox.ARPA From: @RUTGERS.ARPA:Joseph.Henr@Xerox.ARPA Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: LADYHAWKE Message-ID: <1732@topaz.ARPA> Date: Tue, 23-Apr-85 01:03:08 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.1732 Posted: Tue Apr 23 01:03:08 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 24-Apr-85 02:22:31 EST Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 65 From: Brenda I very heartily second everything in Dwight Ernest's review, plus would like to add a few comments of my own. In regard to Michelle Pfeiffer <> to not thinking she looked the part. Did you happen to notice her hair?? I thought that this was an excellent touch. It bothered me that she had chopped hair, especially for the period, then I realized -- travelling only at night, never knowing where she was going to wake up, but mostly away from civilisation, she would soon chop off her hair, by herself - with her dagger, to make it easier to take care of. I thought this was an excellent touch, and nicely understated. >>Your review was more than just a mild spoiler, incidentally-- >>perhaps I'm slow, but one of the most marvelous parts of the film >>was in slowly making the connection between the hawk and Isabeau, >>and between the man and the wolf. I'm glad I didn't know about >>that before I saw it. >By the time I saw the film I had heard the premise in presentations >at science fiction conventions, in ads, on TV's At The Movies, in a >presentation at a science fiction society by Joan Vinge who is >writing the novel, etc. Also I contend it is almost impossible to >review the film without giving that much away. I'm very sorry you had already heard, and I noticed that every review I saw (luckily after I saw the film) gave away the secret. Its too bad -- a lot of enjoyment of the film from figuring this out. I totally disagree that you can't review this film without giving it away. Do people always give away the main plot device when reviewing mysteries?? Don't they find ways around it? >>the scene at the end is perhaps one of the most romantic and >>delightful scenes ever filmed, although it's simple. >I actually thought this scene was a bit drawn out and for reasons I >won't mention here, unrealistic. I think that this scene (well, admittedly only the two main people, but the rest were in a bit of a shock, and may have known the full story....) was very realistic. Think about the times invoved here. I'm trying not to make this a spoiler, but my G'd, if I had been through what they had,I would have done exactly that and there. I would not just calmly walk away to a nice private, more appropriate place like some movies have them do. Admittedly, this is not a perfect movie -- there are stereotypical characters, Mathew Broderick's on-again-off-again accent bothered me the first time I saw it. But I just went to see it again (after reading your review and three bad reviews in papers and magazines) and I still think that this is one of the best fantasy/love stories (my favorite genre) I've seen in awhile. I hope people go themselves to make up your mind -- I don't think yuo'll be disappointed. ~Brenda PS I took my boyfriend this time -- He introduced me to SF (has been reading it all his life), who likes to play D&D and read some fantasy (Zelazny's Dilvish, Niven's warlock, etc) but is not into love stories or all the fantasy I am into and he liked it. Also, for a very realistic, scientific, strong control over his emotions kind of guy, there were tears in his eyes at a certain sunrise scene.