I love a good disaster flick, and by "good" I mean "lots of disaster."

I have a deep and abiding love for the cheese that is the original Poseidon Adventure--Gene Hackman, Shelley Winters, and Red Button, especially.

Jurassic Park was okay the first time I watched it, but I remember sitting in the theater getting pissy about some of the changes from the book to the movie. In the book, rather logically, the palentologists don't know exact details of how the dinosaurs hunted becuase they only have fossil evidence, and it's not until they see the real live dinos that he gets some of their behaviour.

In the movie they already knew that.

Of course I was working at Suncoast when it came out and for a week or so we played it all the time. There were two tapes so one was always playing and no deviation.

The only thing I liked from it was the autoerotic/anomatronic mix up line. I always imagined the T Rexs with their short arms not being able to do anything.

When I told my very vanilla boyfriend he was offended big time. It was just sex and dinosoaurs, it's not like I asked him to role play sex with dinosaurs.

Should that fail, a slappy fight could ensue.

Now I'm picturing Lilty and Tom Cruise re-enacting the sissy-fight scene from The Initiative. Hee!

Ultimately, I think film is an emotionally manipulative medium, so I don't necessarily think that's an automatic strike against a picture

I think it's a strike against the picture when the emotional manipluation becomes transparent to the audience. Same as editing, sound design, or any other element intrinsic to the medium. If it's good, it shouldn't call attention to itself.

I have no problem with it, as long as it's good.

Good emotional manipulation is Dickens and Spielberg at his best. Bad emotional manipulation was the book The Horse Whisperer. All the time I was reading it, I cried at the points the author wanted me to, but afterwards, I just felt dirty and pissed off at him, because they weren't good cries, if you know what I mean. I won't read a Nicholas Evans book again, just because that experience left such a bad taste in my mouth.

When no moppet is available, I guess he makes do with Tom Hanks.

I'd mention Dakota Fanning, but she's far too creepy to be called a "moppet." My theory is that she's one of the Martians in disguise, and that in the last act, she will rip Tom Cruise's head off with her bare hands.

I have a question about the resistance to emotional manipulation.

My problem is when you can see a big, neon sign that says, "Emotionally Manipulative Scene" blinking on and off in the upper left hand corner of the screen. I'm fine with movies drawing an emotional response when it seems to be an organic part of the movie, but most Spielberg movies I've seen (the first Raiders is sort of an exception) don't feel organic. They feel like the director is poking at my emotional response centers via the film, and while I'm crying I'm also hating him for making me cry.

Jessica said what I was about to say, but with more words and more sense.

she will rip Tom Cruise's head off with her bare hands.

Tom does this scene without CGI or a stunt-double.

He got it in one take, too.

I have a question about the resistance to emotional manipulation. I don't quite get it. I have no problem with it, as long as it's good. Go ahead, fuck with me, is my motto with the arts. I love Dickens' novels and that's what he was all about. I don't mind intellectual manipulation, emotional manipulation, pop songs making me get up and dance--go ahead, make me think, make me feel, why not? Of course, if the film or book is bad, I don't like it, manipulation or no.

I agree with Sean that film is a manipulative medium, but Speilberg tends to anvilicious about it. It was the girl in the pink coat that did it for me. The first time I saw her, I knew what was coming and I just got mad for having to sit through another Speilberg schlockfest. He got points for having Ralph Fiennes play a Nazi that was so evil and so hot at the same time. It was confusing.