Mary and I went to see this movie last night, based on good initial reviews
and high ticket sales. (Having Uma Thurman in it certainly didn't hurt,
either. :)

Just wanted to let everyone know, before they spend a nickel in the theater,
that both of us consider "Kill Bill" to be the absolute worst movie we've
ever seen. The "plot" is contrived, the action scenes completely
unrealistic, Tarantino's attempts at "film noire" fail utterly, and it is
chock-full of absolutely gratuitous violence from start to finish. There
isn't five minutes without a limb (or worse) being severed, and blood
spurting everywhere.

Worse, the carnage was completely unrealistic. It's one thing to make a
violent movie -- it's another thing to make a violent movie badly.

We've seen some truly horrible movies in our day, but none that made us want
to run out of the theater as badly as this one.

Let me put it another way: Kill Bill makes Led Zeppelin's awful "The Song
Remains The Same" concert movie seem like a brilliant, break-through film.
And, until now, THAT movie had ranked as our biggest waste of time, ever.

In fact, its ONLY saving grace is that Uma Thurman looks GREAT in tight
leather. (This didn't do it for Mary, however...)

Required Aviation Content: There are several flying scenes in this movie,
depicting a Boeing 747 jetliner in flight over the ocean and coming in to
land in Tokyo. In all my years of movie going, I've never seen a worse,
more amateurish rendition of an aircraft in flight. The old TV series "12
O'Clock High" did a better job, some 35 years ago...

Save your money and go buy the new "Matrix" DVD instead...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Mary and I went to see this movie last night, based on good initial reviews
> and high ticket sales. (Having Uma Thurman in it certainly didn't hurt,
> either. :)
>
> Just wanted to let everyone know, before they spend a nickel in the theater,
> that both of us consider "Kill Bill" to be the absolute worst movie we've
> ever seen. ...snip...
>
> Save your money and go buy the new "Matrix" DVD instead...

Well, I haven't seen it nor do I intentially intend to, but it looks
like you are in a huge minority:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266697/ratings

.... and the good news is that next year you get to do it all again with
"Volume 2"

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:02:22 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:


>
>Required Aviation Content: There are several flying scenes in this movie,
>depicting a Boeing 747 jetliner in flight over the ocean and coming in to
>land in Tokyo. In all my years of movie going, I've never seen a worse,
>more amateurish rendition of an aircraft in flight. The old TV series "12
>O'Clock High" did a better job, some 35 years ago...

It was my impression that those scenes were intended to have a
somewhat retro look to them; Tarantino wasn't going for realism there.


Mike

"Jay Honeck" :
>Tarantino's attempts at "film noire" fail utterly, and it is
> chock-full of absolutely gratuitous violence from start to finish.

Just as a point of comparison, what did you think of his "Pulp Fiction" of a
few years ago?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> We've seen some truly horrible movies in our day, but none that made us
want
> to run out of the theater as badly as this one.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)

As Roger Ebert said, "Kevin Smith's movies are either made specifically for
you, or specifically not made for you."

Since I'm not 14, it apparently wasn't made for me.

They were free tickets ...and we still felt taken!

--
Montblack
"I like to watch"

> It was my impression that those scenes were intended to have a
> somewhat retro look to them; Tarantino wasn't going for realism there.

A "retro" looking 747 in flight, that we're supposed to take seriously? We
laughed out loud!

I believe that attempt at style falls under the "Nice Try" heading, which is
alphabetically just ahead of "Sucks"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Just as a point of comparison, what did you think of his "Pulp Fiction" of
a
> few years ago?

I enjoyed it. Mary hated it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

LOL...we went for the same reason a few days ago, initially we didnt want to see
it, but everyone seemed to be ranting that it was a great movie, we left after
45 minutes.

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Mary and I went to see this movie last night, based on good initial reviews
> and high ticket sales. (Having Uma Thurman in it certainly didn't hurt,
> either. :)
>
> Just wanted to let everyone know, before they spend a nickel in the theater,
> that both of us consider "Kill Bill" to be the absolute worst movie we've
> ever seen. The "plot" is contrived, the action scenes completely
> unrealistic, Tarantino's attempts at "film noire" fail utterly, and it is
> chock-full of absolutely gratuitous violence from start to finish. There
> isn't five minutes without a limb (or worse) being severed, and blood
> spurting everywhere.
>
> Worse, the carnage was completely unrealistic. It's one thing to make a
> violent movie -- it's another thing to make a violent movie badly.
>
> We've seen some truly horrible movies in our day, but none that made us want
> to run out of the theater as badly as this one.
>
> Let me put it another way: Kill Bill makes Led Zeppelin's awful "The Song
> Remains The Same" concert movie seem like a brilliant, break-through film.
> And, until now, THAT movie had ranked as our biggest waste of time, ever.
>
> In fact, its ONLY saving grace is that Uma Thurman looks GREAT in tight
> leather. (This didn't do it for Mary, however...)
>
> Required Aviation Content: There are several flying scenes in this movie,
> depicting a Boeing 747 jetliner in flight over the ocean and coming in to
> land in Tokyo. In all my years of movie going, I've never seen a worse,
> more amateurish rendition of an aircraft in flight. The old TV series "12
> O'Clock High" did a better job, some 35 years ago...
>
> Save your money and go buy the new "Matrix" DVD instead...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> > Just as a point of comparison, what did you think of his "Pulp
Fiction"
> > of few years ago?

> I enjoyed it. Mary hated it.

Dang. I loved "Pulp Fiction" and was looking forward to his new movie.
Guess I'll wait for the DVD now.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

> LOL...we went for the same reason a few days ago, initially we didnt want
to see
> it, but everyone seemed to be ranting that it was a great movie, we left
after
> 45 minutes.

Mary wanted to leave, but I kept holding out hope that things would improve.

Bad choice.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> > We've seen some truly horrible movies in our day, but none that made us
> want
> > to run out of the theater as badly as this one.
>
> Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)
>
> As Roger Ebert said, "Kevin Smith's movies are either made specifically
for
> you, or specifically not made for you."
>
> Since I'm not 14, it apparently wasn't made for me.
>
> They were free tickets ...and we still felt taken!
>
> --
As long as we're talking about movies with the 'SUCK' factor, the sequel
to 'Fast and Furious' that came out earlier this year had me retching, and
they were comp tickets. When I left the theatre every snot nosed, tattooed
and pierced punk with a Honda, Toyota or Murray riding lawn mower was
wanting to race me (I drive a modified 2002 Mustang convertible with a
Vortec turbocharger - documented 335 HP at the rear wheels).
Ed Wood's 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' was Emmy Award winning material next
to this drek.....

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:fxkjb.788060$uu5.136691@sccrnsc04...
> > Just as a point of comparison, what did you think of his "Pulp Fiction"
of
> a
> > few years ago?
>
> I enjoyed it. Mary hated it.
> --

Pulp Fiction was so bad it was good. It was like watching a mass
accident - you just don't what's coming next. I've gotta admit, me being a
Southern Boy, having the rednecks being two homosexual sadist didn't exactly
fill me with pride.....

>Save your money and go buy the new "Matrix" DVD instead...

I love my teenage son so much, I went with him to see Matrix in the theatre
AGAIN. That boy's gonna buy me an airplane when he grows up and gets a job.
I've already told him that.

A few weeks ago, we saw "Secondhand Lions," which has a lovely biplane for far
too short a time (though it's a critical plot element at the end). We liked it
pretty good. I used lots of hankies, the boy none.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<yBijb.777674$YN5.761294@sccrnsc01>...
> Mary and I went to see this movie last night, based on good initial reviews
> and high ticket sales. (Having Uma Thurman in it certainly didn't hurt,
> either. :)
>
> Just wanted to let everyone know, before they spend a nickel in the theater,
> that both of us consider "Kill Bill" to be the absolute worst movie we've
> ever seen. The "plot" is contrived, the action scenes completely
> unrealistic, Tarantino's attempts at "film noire" fail utterly, and it is
> chock-full of absolutely gratuitous violence from start to finish. There
> isn't five minutes without a limb (or worse) being severed, and blood
> spurting everywhere.
>

Not to nitpick you or anything Jay, but me thinks you might have
missed the point of this movie. Now, that being said, no, I have not
yet seen this one. BUT, reading interviews with Tarantino, that was
his intention. This was a pure action movie; the plot was supposed
to be secondary to the action scenes.

> Worse, the carnage was completely unrealistic. It's one thing to make a
> violent movie -- it's another thing to make a violent movie badly.
>

The carnage was SUPPOSED to be unrealistic. The gore and violence are
supposed to be over the top, it's an homage to the Asian Kung-Fu
movies of the 60's and 70's. One of the reasons that it got an R
rating instead of NC-17 for the violence was because the violence is
done so unrealisticly.

They went out of their way to make the blood too thin, and make it
spurt out at insane rates.

> We've seen some truly horrible movies in our day, but none that made us want
> to run out of the theater as badly as this one.
>

<snip>

> Save your money and go buy the new "Matrix" DVD instead...

Hmm, I was grossly dissapointed with "Reloaded" when I saw it in the
theaters, and I loved the original. It may have been because the
original was so "outside the box" at the time and original, and the
second one just didn't break any new ground. Or it could have been I
saw it after being on the road from 5 am the day before with only 6
hours of rest after driving from Champaign, IL to Cape May, NJ.

--
Mike O'Malley
(gotta get me a decent ISP soon!)

> Not to nitpick you or anything Jay, but me thinks you might have
> missed the point of this movie. Now, that being said, no, I have not
> yet seen this one. BUT, reading interviews with Tarantino, that was
> his intention. This was a pure action movie; the plot was supposed
> to be secondary to the action scenes.

Hmm. So saying "I meant that" makes a bad film okay? Sounds like the
classic refuge of an incompetent director, to me.

A *good* director successfully combines plot AND action.

> The carnage was SUPPOSED to be unrealistic. The gore and violence are
> supposed to be over the top, it's an homage to the Asian Kung-Fu
> movies of the 60's and 70's. One of the reasons that it got an R
> rating instead of NC-17 for the violence was because the violence is
> done so unrealisticly.

So, let me see if I've got this straight. We have a movie that has a weak
plot -- ON PURPOSE -- and unrealistic violence -- ON PURPOSE -- with the aim
of being some sort of an homage to the Kung-fu movies of the 60s and 70s?
While your premise may be true, I'd say the audience has been duped on more
than one level here...

Tarantino must be laughing himself silly.

Oh well -- I'll always remember Uma Thurman, in tight leather, neatly
slicing off Lucy Liu's cranium -- and then watching her die.

Yeah -- a real "classic" movie, this one.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article >, "Ralph
Snart" > wrote:

> As long as we're talking about movies with the 'SUCK' factor,

Dune.

--
Bob Noel

(Mike O'Malley) wrote in
om:

<snip>
> Not to nitpick you or anything Jay, but me thinks you might have
> missed the point of this movie. Now, that being said, no, I have not
> yet seen this one. BUT, reading interviews with Tarantino, that was
> his intention. This was a pure action movie; the plot was supposed
> to be secondary to the action scenes.
>

Seems to me that unless one is an art critic, the director's intent in a
movie is pretty irrelevant. Either a movie is enjoyable to watch, or it
isn't...

>
> <snip>
>
>> Save your money and go buy the new "Matrix" DVD instead...
>
> Hmm, I was grossly dissapointed with "Reloaded" when I saw it in the
> theaters, and I loved the original. It may have been because the
> original was so "outside the box" at the time and original, and the
> second one just didn't break any new ground. Or it could have been I
> saw it after being on the road from 5 am the day before with only 6
> hours of rest after driving from Champaign, IL to Cape May, NJ.


OK. Now the importan question... Why would a guy hanging out on
Rec.Aviation.Piloting ever drive from Champaign, IL to Cape May, NJ???

;)

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:dypjb.780228$YN5.771263@sccrnsc01...
> So, let me see if I've got this straight. We have a movie that has a weak
> plot -- ON PURPOSE -- and unrealistic violence -- ON PURPOSE -- with the
aim
> of being some sort of an homage to the Kung-fu movies of the 60s and 70s?
> While your premise may be true, I'd say the audience has been duped on
more
> than one level here...

Perhaps not for those who read the reviews or Tarantino's promos.

> Oh well -- I'll always remember Uma Thurman, in tight leather, neatly
> slicing off Lucy Liu's cranium -- and then watching her die.

Yep, that's a lot more entertaining than playing with film history.

> Yeah -- a real "classic" movie, this one.

....probably not, but generated a pretty good OT thread.

"Ralph Snart" wrote:
> As long as we're talking about movies with the 'SUCK' factor,


"Pearl Harbor"

"Memphis Belle"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> Mary wanted to leave, but I kept holding out hope that...

....Uma Thurman would take off the leather suit.

> "Pearl Harbor"
>
> "Memphis Belle"

Those two dogs have wonderful flying scenes, at least...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:yBijb.777674$YN5.761294@sccrnsc01...
| Mary and I went to see this movie last night, based on good initial
reviews
| and high ticket sales. (Having Uma Thurman in it certainly didn't hurt,
| either. :)
|
| Just wanted to let everyone know, before they spend a nickel in the
theater,
| that both of us consider "Kill Bill" to be the absolute worst movie we've
| ever seen.

Apparently you did not see "The Rundown." Actually, "The Rundown" is
hysterically funny as a satire on bad Hollywood. Some camera shots are used
more than once; one scene shows a Piper flying over the Brazilian jungle and
another shows the same shot without the Piper. The Piper actually has the
jaggies from being badly digitized and it jitters around in a way impossible
for a real airplane. The Piper, of course, has duct tape wrapped around a
strut, implying that the airplane is held together that way (silly
Hollywood, where else would you store your duct tape?). There is also a
small stretch of jungle road that is used over and over and over for
locations that are supposed to be far apart.

We also get to see horny African monkeys in Brazil, hallucinogenic fruit
that somehow has not become part of the popular subculture in the United
States, Indiana Jones style golden idols, and every trite marshal arts scene
ever filmed. Well, okay, no one gets thrown through a plate glass window --
they get thrown through brick walls. Oddly, the bullets don't sparkle
whenever they hit something; I kept wondering how that particular piece of
Hollywood idiocy got left out. People fall thousands of feet down a cliff
without serious injury, despite the fact that they invariably land on trees,
rocks, limbs, etc, crotch first. And let us not forget the cute reference to
Amazonian parasite that swims up your urethra and which can only be removed
by amputation, an apparent reference to the candiru catfish. Best of all, we
get to see Christopher Walken doing his non-plussed bad guy routine as his
defenses get taken out one by one.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
| In article >, "Ralph
| Snart" > wrote:
|
| > As long as we're talking about movies with the 'SUCK' factor,
|
| Dune.
|

Which one? The movie or the Sci-Fi channel version?

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> > "Pearl Harbor"
> >
> > "Memphis Belle"

> Those two dogs have wonderful flying scenes, at least...

Yeah, but they have such silly-ass story lines and, in the case of "Pearl
Harbor," awful acting that I walked out on both of them. I felt they were
insulting to the heroic memory of the real events - some Hollywood lounge
lizard's idea of what war is like.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In article >, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

> | > As long as we're talking about movies with the 'SUCK' factor,
> |
> | Dune.
> |
>
> Which one? The movie or the Sci-Fi channel version?

the movie - the one spewed forth many years ago, way before
the Sci-Fi channel one.

--
Bob Noel

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
<snip>
> So, let me see if I've got this straight. We have a movie that has a weak
> plot -- ON PURPOSE -- and unrealistic violence -- ON PURPOSE -- with the
aim
> of being some sort of an homage to the Kung-fu movies of the 60s and 70s?
> While your premise may be true, I'd say the audience has been duped on
more
> than one level here...

Kung Pow: Enter The Fist (2002)
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/kung_pow/

This movie is so stupid, it's funny. It's an actual 70's Kung-fu movie
(1976) called "Tiger and Crane Fist" that's been .... um, modified.

It made many people's "worst film of all time" list.

I, however, laughed and enjoyed the effort.

"Wewewewewewe..."
"Wewewewewe..."

--
Montblack
"I like to watch"

Judah > wrote in message >...

<snip>
>
> OK. Now the importan question... Why would a guy hanging out on
> Rec.Aviation.Piloting ever drive from Champaign, IL to Cape May, NJ???
>
> ;)

Is that supposed to be one 'o them rethorical questions?

You actually brought it back OT, thanks! I had a job towing banners
on the Jersey Shore for the summer, and those of us foolish enough to
try and make a living in aviation right now usually don't have access
to airplanes for extended personal trips.

That and since I was going to be there for 3 1/2 months working, it
would be kind of nice to have a car while there, since I can't rent
one (nobody will touch ya if you're under 25) I had to bring my own.

Now, if I only could have found something that I could put my car in,
and fly out there with it, that would have been perfect!

Mike O'Malley

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:02:22 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Mary and I went to see this movie last night, based on good initial reviews
>and high ticket sales. (Having Uma Thurman in it certainly didn't hurt,
>either. :)

Wanna see Uma Thurman in a great, worthwhile movie?

Watch "Gattaca" instead. Only $15 at the DVD store.

I think that's a sci-fi drama story that rates up there with the
classic greats from golden age of sci-fi novels of the 1940's, 50's
and 60's. Quite a provocative storyline... and especially fitting
since *right now* the US Congress is working on legislation dealing
with using someone's genetic code to discriminate against them.The
Senate just passed their side of the bill.

Gattica involves an aerospace company and someone who dreams of
flying, so this particular post is kinda on topic for r.a.p. :-)

Ahhh, perfectly good explanation... And while it was none of my damned
business, I really was curious! :)\

We vacationed in Wildwood twice this summer... Were you based out of
Woodbine? And you were getting paid? I thought I had heard that the guy
at Woodbine had people towing banners for nothing more than the hours...
Maybe that's the guy at Allaire...

I love that shoreline, tho... By air, land, and sea! :)


(Mike O'Malley) wrote in
om:

> Judah > wrote in message
> >...
>
> <snip>
>>
>> OK. Now the importan question... Why would a guy hanging out on
>> Rec.Aviation.Piloting ever drive from Champaign, IL to Cape May, NJ???
>>
>> ;)
>
> Is that supposed to be one 'o them rethorical questions?
>
> You actually brought it back OT, thanks! I had a job towing banners
> on the Jersey Shore for the summer, and those of us foolish enough to
> try and make a living in aviation right now usually don't have access
> to airplanes for extended personal trips.
>
> That and since I was going to be there for 3 1/2 months working, it
> would be kind of nice to have a car while there, since I can't rent
> one (nobody will touch ya if you're under 25) I had to bring my own.
>
> Now, if I only could have found something that I could put my car in,
> and fly out there with it, that would have been perfect!
>
> Mike O'Malley
>
>

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> Ahhh, perfectly good explanation... And while it was none of my damned
> business, I really was curious! :)\
>
> We vacationed in Wildwood twice this summer... Were you based out of
> Woodbine? And you were getting paid? I thought I had heard that the guy
> at Woodbine had people towing banners for nothing more than the hours...
> Maybe that's the guy at Allaire...
>
> I love that shoreline, tho... By air, land, and sea! :)
>

Nah, we had our own strip just north of WWD, and yeah, I even got paid for
it (better have, the shore is a nice place to visit, but an expensive place
to live!)

You probibly saw me, some of the more memorable ones I towed were
Tastykakes, Sands Casino or the Miller Lite billboards. Those were just the
more prominant ones.

It IS a fun place though.

--
Mike O'Malley

I'm almost certain I would have seen you... I think I know the Tastykakes
and Miller Lite banners. I don't recall the Sands Casino banner. Frankly, I
spent more time watching the planes than the banners!

Were you flying the little white and red low wing? Or the plane that looked
like a cross between a piper cub and a C152?

Come to think of it, what are those planes? There's a third one that I
can't think of at the moment - but he wasn't always around...



"Mike" > wrote in
:

<snip>
> Nah, we had our own strip just north of WWD, and yeah, I even got paid
> for it (better have, the shore is a nice place to visit, but an
> expensive place to live!)
>
> You probibly saw me, some of the more memorable ones I towed were
> Tastykakes, Sands Casino or the Miller Lite billboards. Those were
> just the more prominant ones.
>
> It IS a fun place though.
>
> --
> Mike O'Malley
>
>
>

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<dypjb.780228$YN5.771263@sccrnsc01>...
> > Not to nitpick you or anything Jay, but me thinks you might have
> > missed the point of this movie. Now, that being said, no, I have not
> > yet seen this one. BUT, reading interviews with Tarantino, that was
> > his intention. This was a pure action movie; the plot was supposed
> > to be secondary to the action scenes.
>
> Hmm. So saying "I meant that" makes a bad film okay? Sounds like the
> classic refuge of an incompetent director, to me.
>
> A *good* director successfully combines plot AND action.
>
> > The carnage was SUPPOSED to be unrealistic. The gore and violence are
> > supposed to be over the top, it's an homage to the Asian Kung-Fu
> > movies of the 60's and 70's. One of the reasons that it got an R
> > rating instead of NC-17 for the violence was because the violence is
> > done so unrealisticly.
>
> So, let me see if I've got this straight. We have a movie that has a weak
> plot -- ON PURPOSE -- and unrealistic violence -- ON PURPOSE -- with the aim
> of being some sort of an homage to the Kung-fu movies of the 60s and 70s?
> While your premise may be true, I'd say the audience has been duped on more
> than one level here...


that's like complaining that the tail fins on 50s classic cars are
unrealistic, serves no technical purpose and therefore owners of those
cars have been duped. similarily, certain fans of super-resolution,
hi-fidelity photographic pictures may theoretically decry the
unrealistic, formless faces of impressionism and reason the lack of
realism detracts from beauty, and in fact is a source of ugliness --
but these are more an aesthetic calls than anything else.

what tarantino understands methinks, and that i quite agree with, is
that movies are inherently unrealistic. now, that doesn't give
license to making incoherent dialog or fanciful scenes of sugared
kaleidoscopes and but it certainly doesn't preclude a vast middle
ground where entertainment and reality freely mix. (the bush admin is
a case in point, but that's another post.)

the bottom line for most people is that they want movies to *feel*
real up to a point, but in the end, they just want to be entertained
for chrissakes. afterall, the market for amnesty international-type
realism or the harvard business review-type documentaries is only so
big.





>
> Tarantino must be laughing himself silly.
>
> Oh well -- I'll always remember Uma Thurman, in tight leather, neatly
> slicing off Lucy Liu's cranium -- and then watching her die.
>
> Yeah -- a real "classic" movie, this one.

What would have been wrong with reissuing "What's New, Tiger Lily,"
and leaving it at that?

Don

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> I'm almost certain I would have seen you... I think I know the Tastykakes
> and Miller Lite banners. I don't recall the Sands Casino banner. Frankly,
I
> spent more time watching the planes than the banners!
>

Hey, it works! People DO remember us! The Sands Casino flew only July 4th
weekend. It was a shame, it was one of our best looking ones (and lightest
towing).

> Were you flying the little white and red low wing? Or the plane that
looked
> like a cross between a piper cub and a C152?
>

The red and white low wing was a Pawnee from Ocean City. We flew the ugly
duct-tape colored ones with no cowlings. Cubs, Super Cubs, and Super
Cruisers. You're probibly thinking of the one that "looks like a cross
between a Cub and a C152" I flew the PA12 with the red tail.

> Come to think of it, what are those planes? There's a third one that I
> can't think of at the moment - but he wasn't always around...
>

The ones that I remember were our Cubs and PA12's, a handfull of Pawnees and
Super Cubs, a couple of Skyhawks and 3 Citabrias. I think thats just about
all of 'em between Cape May and Asbury Park.

--
Mike O'Malley

Kung Pow. Great Movie! I loved it. Wife hated it. Son (TKD Black Belt) was
having trouble breathing, he was laughing so hard.

Just watch out for those Gopher Chucks.

Craig R. Bowers
Rosamond, Ca http://craignet.com


"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> <snip>
> > So, let me see if I've got this straight. We have a movie that has a
weak
> > plot -- ON PURPOSE -- and unrealistic violence -- ON PURPOSE -- with the
> aim
> > of being some sort of an homage to the Kung-fu movies of the 60s and
70s?
> > While your premise may be true, I'd say the audience has been duped on
> more
> > than one level here...
>
> Kung Pow: Enter The Fist (2002)
> http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/kung_pow/
>
> This movie is so stupid, it's funny. It's an actual 70's Kung-fu movie
> (1976) called "Tiger and Crane Fist" that's been .... um, modified.
>
> It made many people's "worst film of all time" list.
>
> I, however, laughed and enjoyed the effort.
>
> "Wewewewewewe..."
> "Wewewewewe..."
>
> --
> Montblack
> "I like to watch"
>
>
>

> the bottom line for most people is that they want movies to *feel*
> real up to a point, but in the end, they just want to be entertained
> for chrissakes. afterall, the market for amnesty international-type
> realism or the harvard business review-type documentaries is only so
> big.

Had we been "entertained", we would not have felt ripped off.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"