What about Vanity of the Bonfires?

I went for Big Trouble…

Porky’s obviously. Saw that one at the movies when I was a teen, lots of laughs.

I've seen four of those movies and don't even recall her in any of them. So I can't vote for any of them as the "best Kim Cattrall movie". But if I voted for the "best movie that happened to have Kim Cattrall in it", I'd go for Big Trouble in Little China of those listed.

Big Trouble. Fun Movie.

I saw Porkies when it first came out, so I didn't know the actress as of yet.
Plus, I barely remembered anything about the movie.
It took me awhile today to realize that she must have been the screaming/howling gym coach.

My answer is Star Trek VI.

She's one of my favorite things about that movie.

Terrifyingly, I agree with Doot.

Star Trek VI's mental rape scene seemed uncharacteristic of Spock to me. I don't think most people appreciate what a terrible violation of one's being that would be.

I can remember the outcry about that - pre-internet, there was a lot of stuff in Starlog about it, as I recall. It was odd but it was a genuinely dramatic scene, and it's definitely my favourite of all her acting performances (admittedly, I've never watched SATC).

He was trying to prevent a terrorist attack. There's a little something called the needs of the many, maybe you've heard of it.

I failed my SATC's.

Sure, but never to so boldly justify torture. I mean, it didn't seem to fit with the more lofty ideals of the Federation, or those who say torture is never justified. Of course normal torture isn't particularly effective - but the Vulcan method may be. Certainly, compared to Klingon methods of mind shifters (or mind rippers) and other measures, it's probably a comparatively mild form of mental rape. And her guilt was not in question, so it wasn't like he was torturing a mere suspect to find out if she were guilty.

Nevertheless, it's hard to straight up say you're fine with torture these days, or the ends justify the means.

I think the power of that scene - and why it was controversial - was that a beloved character was shown doing something that fandom saw as uncharacteristic. It upset people. Spock was angry as he felt he'd been betrayed by his protégé and was somehow complicit in her crimes as a result (my take on it). He blamed himself for being taken in by her and lost it totally.

The description of it as 'rape' was what made it controversial. That was one interpretation, but I didn't see it as anything other than Spock reacting angrily to a personal betrayal. As Doot points out, Spock did something extreme to prevent a catastrophe. There was no indication that he enjoyed doing it, just that he did something extreme as a last resort (again, my take on it). I think it bothered people to see Spock lash out, but that was the point of it. He was driven to do something unconscionable in order to prevent something he saw as even more unconscionable.

It was truly horrible and I didn't watch any movies about the original crew that came out after this one, because I was so offended and I knew I could never look at Spock the same way again.

That's true, whenever a new story comes out about how someone had their mind read against their will by U.S. operatives who were actually sanctioned to do so, it makes me sick. I blame this movie for making people think that it's okay.

Yeah, sure - it was the movie that did that.

But I do wonder about it. I'm not a rape victim, myself, nor have I ever had anybody tear information out of my mind, in a painful way or otherwise, and nobody else has been actually mentally raped since it's fictional. But which would be a greater crime? Which would leave longer lasting negative impressions and continue to affect your remaining life more?

In fantasy games, I also wonder about the ethics of some spells or abilities to control people, read their minds (with or without their knowledge) and compel them to do things they otherwise would not, perhaps would never, do. Who is to say how much damage is done? The perpetrator of the act? I'm sure somebody can always find a reason to justify their actions to get what the want, and it's a little too easy to just put up the tally sheet and show the many benefitted, so big deal if the few got screwed to the wall.

Ultimately, though, I have to say if somebody is going to be defined as the "enemy" then perhaps anything you do is justified - even killing them. Torture, then kill, too, is perhaps justified - not like you're leaving a wreck behind to suffer for years after.

Bah. I don't know. We're terrible people and we do terrible things. Or we're good people but we occasionally do terrible things. Motive should count - I always thought so - but you better make sure the majority agree with it, or even the vocal minority can't slam you for it. Even then it doesn't make it right. It just makes it so.