Dave Graham writes:

I love your reviews because your style and wit match my own. Your philosophy about movies being fun, and made with the regular Joe/Jane in the theater in mind is great. Your conversational writing style makes your reviews enjoyable to read. Hope you find great success in your career. You leave Ebert and Maltin in the dust. I regularly check your site before I even consider plunking down my hard earned cash. Thanks. Keep up the good work.

Brad Rawiszer writes:

hi, i wanted to see if i could possibly educate you just a little on the brilliant movie eyes wide shut, first of all you must realize that this film is NOT a huge dissapointment as you stated in your mis-guided review, this film is not about men's mis understanding about female sexuality as you again so wrongly stated, this IS a film about our society today and where we are heading, FACT, us as a people, us in how we view marraige and how we can make the wrong choices, and what will happen to us if we choose the temptations of modern society, look around you, everywhere you look today in the print media, the television, the radio, etc SEX SEX SEX, its in our culture so deeply rooted that its literally everywhere, now this is not a bad thing mind you, the great stanley kubrick is making a point that we should not look for a better wife, do not long for a better husband, look at yourself and you will see that you have it all, be careful because around every corner is a hidden temptation lurking, in the movie these temptations start out very innocent,( like the grieving daughter who kisses tom and states her love for him,) then the HIV infected hooker who is so pretty , then the costume shop's owner who has a teen daughter who is very alluring, slowly the film builds to a frenzy of an orgy in a weird setting with ugly masks and robes, and the head ugly is wearing a red robe, creepy stuff, but tom has led himself to this point as he is following what most men do, their penis, their sexual desires, stanley is so brilliant in the fact that in todays society this is the number one problem facing us today, i cant believe that you the flick philosopher cant see the symbolism in this movie, maybe you should choose another profession! dont you know about the 60% divorce rate in this country? dont you realize how many men are married but treat their wives like garbage? are you ignorant of this or just in denial? this movie starts beautifully and builds to a frenzy of sex only to come back full circle,(tom cruise never takes the bait, he almost does, but NEVER does!) and thus we have come full circle, he is with his wife and daughter christmas shopping, and they decide to , rather nicole suggests to FUCK, and the movie comes to a blunt end, which is what everyone should realize BOOM, WOW, stop wanting and hoping for something better, a better car, a better wife , a better family, i mean its not wrong to be ambitious, but my gosh, tom really has the american dream, hes a doctor , has a beautiful wife, a beautiful daughter,the point is that many of us are fed lies and deceptions by the media today, and this movie shows more than anything that the key to being happy , is to learn to love the blessings you already have!!!!!!, another movie that so moved me was american beauty. where kevin spacey finally realizes how truly blessed he was at the end, but BOOM it was too late, at the moment he realizes this , he is killed and its too late for him, in eyes wide shut, however tom cruise gets a chance to really have it all, he learned his lesson and it was a scary lesson , i cannot believe that you missed the entire point of this movie!!!!!!!! shame on you, we should trade jobs, you take my job as a bartender, and let me analyze and dissect film, this isnt the first time stanley has brought a timely message for society through his films, Dr. strangelove came at a time when the cold war scared the hell out of us, and 2001 came at a time when our space program was at its height with the moon mission, causing us to look at where we came from and where we might be headed, full metal jacket came at a time when we were reflecting on the vietnam war and how it affected every american, and now eyes wide shut couldnt have come at a better time when our society is bombarded by every kind of temptation imagineable, and the break up of our marraiges, not just man and wife but of relationships in general, due to the sexual images shoved at us from every angle, telling us that the person we are with is not as good as the one we could be with, so go ahead, take a bite and you just might like it, go ahead and have a quickie with that pretty girl, your wife will never know, you wont get a sexual disease, my point is that this movie has NOTHING to do with the things you wrote about in your review, its too bad you missed the boat here because you really did not have a clue about this movie at all and thats sad, especially in this day and age when this movie should be required viewing for every man who thinks about cheating on his wife with a hooker no matter how pretty the hooker is, just like requiem for a dream should be required viewing for every high school atudent across this country, see my point? the images in this movie have many layers and symbols that deepen after several viewings, you come to see the man in the red cape as a death like figure, who tells tom cruise to remove his clothes, very scary, at that point every one in the theatre with half a brain is trembling , but like you , the people who saw this movie were not looking for any ANY meaning at all, just a good time like in a DIE Hard flick or a lethal weapon flick, kubricks films are meant to be deeply discovered by people with a brain , people who read a lot, people who demand more than shoot em up popcorn flicks, and im not being snobbish here, im just trying to tell you to wake up and see how this film is so timely and right on the money in what our society is troubled with right now, then you might begin to realize the brilliance at work here,

[You see what I have to put up with?--MAJ]

Derek writes:

Subject: You fabulous she-mensch, you

Just wanted to write and tell you how much I enjoy your site. I look forward to reading more and more of your reviews, both in the future and in the archives. Thanks for all your hard work in making your site what it is - a credit to online film criticism. Aw, shucks, it's a credit to film criticism in general, in my book. Such is my regard for your writing that I have forwarded on your url to a whole list of my friends that value movies and intelligent discourse.

I fancy that I've become acquainted with you in that casual, bulletin-board sort of way over at Cinemarati. I like the Roundtable - definitely the most intelligent and substantive discussion forum I've found on the web, movie-related or otherwise. Pleasingly, there is also a healthy element of fun over there.

Anyhoo, keep up the good work on your reviews, and I'll see you at the Roundtable.

Chris Bisoski writes:

Subject: wtf? your review is slanted!

You reviewed 5th element with a bit of a slant. Objective journalism ring a bell? You are sick! With those mad slant skills, you could make Timothy McVeigh sound like a nice guy who just had a bad day. It must feel good to say all that shit, but think of what you're doing to the people who didn't get fucked over so bad by men, as it seems you have. They're going to miss a decent movie cause you slanted the review towards total shit pile.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Ah, so your opinion that The Fifth Element is "decent," objective fact, and my opinion that The Fifth Element is not is a "slant"? I see now.

Reviewing movies -- reviewing anything -- is not "objective journalism." Movie reviews are one person's opinion. That's it.

Take a Prozac, man.

Casey Fahy writes:

[My replies interspersed in boldface--MAJ]

Subject: Objectification of Women... So?

Dear FlickPhilosopher,

I admire your site very much, so enough of that and straight to a quibble: Upon reading your review of The Fifth Element, a candy-colored bauble of a movie, I found myself becoming exasperated by the feminist gripe about the adolescent objectification (objectivisation? objectifying of? What's Foucault say?) of women.

So, the minute a woman complains about something related to women, it's time to insult her by calling her a "feminist," eh? Okay.

Sigh. I am not an adolescent, though I am a white male (though I do not think that I or "my kind" are responsible for all evil that has ever happened to non-white-males, but whatever, I have of course learned to roll with that one).

Why? Why not fight it if it bothers you? Or are you saying I should just "roll with" the depersonalization of women that happens way too often in what passes for entertainment in our society?

My question to you is: don't women objectify men?

Are you talking about women in real life? Or women in the movies? You're mixing two different arguments here. I was talking about the objectification of women in the movies... in a particular movie. Do all some women see in a particular man is nothing more than his car and the size of his paycheck? Yes. Is that objectification? Yes. But the wholesale depersonalization of one gender on film is almost exclusively what male filmmakers do to the women they depict onscreen.

And what is heaven's name is wrong about that?

Have you ever had a girl look at you like you were a mouse because you didn't drive the kind of car she felt her man should? Imagine seeing men depicting onscreen like that over and over and over again. Then maybe you can begin to see what's wrong with that.

It tells us something about the opposite sex.

No, it tells us what one person thinks of the opposite sex.

Ayn Rand put Gary Cooper at the top of a skyscraper in The Fountainhead. Jane Austen had P&P's hunk striding into a pond to cool his burning blood. Ridiculous?

Maybe, but that's not objectification. Depicting a male character as masculine is no more objectification than depicting a female character as feminine is. Rand and Austen's characters were fully rounded, male human beings. Luc Besson's female characters were nothing more than their bodies. They were not fully human. That is objectification.

Sure, but a fascinating objectification of men which delights me as a man, because it tells me what object women want men to be,

Can you possibly imagine that all women want the same kind of man? Do all men want the same kind of woman? Of course not.

which, though I don't keep notes and try on a new personality every day to suit women's expectations, still interests me and engages me.

Masculinity, with its cliches of stoic integrity, endurance, and fighting courage, has a veiled whiff of a bull's musk, an animalistic impulsiveness that one could, I suppose, complain about as an adolescent degradation of men by women. Yes, men are your loyal guard dog, and they'll spring into self-sacrificing action like a Doberman and rip the lungs out of that creep who pissed you off. My boyfriend's back and you're gonna be in trouble. But I don't complain, because it says something true about men AND women, and true isn't bad, it's just true.

Right. So that explains why some men beat the women they profess to love. Or abandon them. Some men are wimps. And not all women want a pit bull, anyway -- Jesus, the first time my boyfriend ripped the lungs out of some creep who pissed me off, I'd dump him. How long would it be till I pissed him off enough to warrant the same treatment?

You've been reading too many regency romance novels. Get out in the real world. People come in wider varieties than you imagine.

I hate to break it to you, but the women in The Fifth Element, though it is not my psychosexual cup of tea, are the strongest characters in the film. Besson is obviously in awe, almost terrified of their power, and that power comes from their sex appeal, their idealized feminity that is charged with a yes- I'm- a- knockout- and- I'm- going- to- dress- this- way- because- I- know- it- will- put- men- in- my- thrawl- but- they'll- still- enjoy- it- while- I'm- twisting- them- around- my- finger- because- that's- the- tango- of- men- and- women- since- Helen- of- Troy's- face- launched- a- thousand- ships.

Some women are a little more grown up than that. Some men call women like that "bitches" or "teases." And they're right.

Besson fetishizes women, and shows exactly what blows him away about women. Besson obviously sees women as the true heart of beauty and love in the universe, and it is their beauty, and yes the vulnerability of simple, nurturing feminine sweetness of spirit and flesh,

Huh? Where are you pulling this tripe from? "Simple, nurturing feminine sweetness of spirit and flesh"? Gag! Do you really imagine all women fit this definition? Oh, wait... I guess the ones who don't are "feminists," right? Hairy legs and all, right? Probably lesbians, too.

which is different than men, which men should respond to and protect from their own pointless violence.

And so if a woman isn't sweetness and light, men won't respond to her? Is that Beeson's point? Or yours?

Do I think the movie is deep? No, but, believe it or not, this was a valentine to women

I don't believe it. Oh, maybe Beeson thinks it's a valentine, but then again he is a twisted fuck. In my opinion.

that, at worst, reveals the director's own sense of inadequacy in the presence of the fairer sex.

That's one thing we agree on.

Men have an honest reaction to women for being women, not for being men.

Except gay men, of course.

The sound of a woman screaming or crying does fire off synaptic triggers in men.

Jesus. Do you get off thinking about women screaming? Shit.

Their impulse is to defend, to be filled with sorrow that loveliness should be a victim of masculine cruelty.

Unless he's the one inflicting the cruelty, of course.

Sorry. You may want men to desire women for their prowess on the battlefield or their scientific genius,

Where the hell did you get that from? I've never said any such thing.

but men have sense memories of their wife/ girlfriend/ sister/ mom/ grandmother's beautiful smile shattered by pain and weeping on their shoulder,

How the hell did you grow up? Get some help, man.

and the message is clear: protect, kill for, shelter from all that is bad and build a damn skyscraper or something to make sure this never happens to her again.

Build a skyscraper?

Besson did capture in his little film a glimpse into what triggers men to feel their equivalent of the feelings women have when they watch Kevin Costner chick-flicks.

Not all women. Though probably only us feminists would be so unvulnerable and hard-hearted not to weep like babies on our man's shoulder over a Costner flick. So never mind.

It's an honest, boyish to be sure, glimpse into the soul of a man, but even the most sophisticated, erudite, and educated of us men still can be touched by a movie like this on that level, and, no, it's not "look at those jugs, heh, heh," it's much more than that, dammit! I don't think you are JUST reacting to Russell Crowe's legs, though seeing them in a gladiator's skirt you admit is titillating,

You're like the tenth guy to comment on Russell Crowe's thighs in Gladiator. What does that mean?

because I know you are connecting the body to a whole concept of the man,

And a whole character as presented in the film! Maximus is a person. He's human. He is not simply his thighs. But Besson's female characters are simply their bodies.

and it is appropriate that his body evoke that feminine objectification because, afterall, we aren't disembodied mind-puffs of energy but men and women, flesh and blood. The flesh informs the blood, the mind, and vice versa.

True enough. But in much more complicated ways that you have lain out here.

Anyway, I've said too much, but will leave you with an irritating little question: If a guy sends you an embarrassingly corny Valentine's Day card, do you rip it up and call him a misogynist, or politely tell him you don't want to date him?

What on earth does such a question have to do with The Fifth Element or my reaction to it? It's either/or with you, isn't it? Either a woman fits into your narrow, confining mold of what a woman is supposed to be, or she's out to kill all men?

Second go-round with Casey Fahy:

Well, I sure walked right into that one.

I obviously enjoy what you have to say more than you enjoy what I have to say, that's certain.

You allow that psychosexual response to physical attributes happens "in much more complicated ways than I have lain out here." Maybe that's what I should have to said to you.

My metaphors about men's response to female vulnerability and beauty and women's response to male strength (which is reflected in movies) were not meant to illustrate myself but a social phenomenon, and of course I don't believe everybody fits into them or heaven forbid should fit into them. I mentioned them merely to footnote a social fact before offering an explanation of it that differs from the sometimes simplistic political explanation offered by feminist ideology. (And no, I did not mean to demean you by referring to this ideology, which I gather you agree with at least in part, as do I, and I do not consider it an insult.)

Your apt illustration of women who value men only for their property got me thinking, although Hollywood has been known to glamorize such traits in men from time to time. As a starving writer, women who desire this exclusively, on screen or off, don't appeal to me because their appreciation of men, and themselves, is incomplete. I don't consider them evil or oppressive, however, even if they're just responding to the way a guy looks, which sometimes has less to do with his character than wealth does. There's still something interesting in it, though, and there's some truth there, even if not for each and every individual on Earth, if you're of a philosophical disposition. It's not just something which should be excoriated.

I certainly think movies like Topless Car Wash are demeaning to women, but ultimately more demeaning to the men who make them. But I don't think it's fair to paint Besson with the same broad brush any more than it's fair to paint me with it. Let's see, I'm a Regency romance-reading closet homo who wants to beat my girlfriend to a pulp to hear her scream and cry and believes all feminists are dykes? See, that's what I was talking about.

You know the person you are. I have only your comments on The Fifth Element to go by. And yeah, that's how you came across. Try rereading what you sent me.

Third go-round with Casey Fahy:

I think you should try re-reading what I wrote, as well. Maybe I will learn how my words fed a gruesome stereotype, and you'll see there might be something else going on in what I said.

I admit, my awareness of your writing is much larger, so I temper my opinion of your thinking in that context. I'm sorry I was unable to communicate any more than you were able to interpret in what I said, and will leave it at that.

Adieu and best of luck with your site. Somebody should start paying you lots of money to do what you do. You work too hard if you exert all this energy on a neanderthalic misogynist like me. ;)

Clearly, anyone who appreciates my writing cannot be a neanderthalic misogynist. :->

Bill McClain writes:

Subject: A.I. review -- clever!!

I walked out of the movie thinking and feeling a lot of things, but I hadn't considered Eliza. Hmmm. Any chance we'll see a bot that looks and talks like Doktor Freud?

Thanks for existing.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

You're welcome.

As for that bot, they'd have more luck with one that looks like Tony Soprano's Dr. Melfi.

Jason Johnson writes:

Subject: A.I. review

I knew the movie would be a bit rough on the emotions when I went into it, but I didn't quite expect what I saw. I could not believe people had their kids in there with them. I don't think anyone with a mental capacity below 21 should even be allowed to see this movie, it was way too unsettling and required too much mental energy for the fragile little brains of children (and some adults). Yeah, you tend to feel more for the machines than the people, like when the Nannybot met her ill demise, or the others as well. But the teddybear was easily the one who got the worse deal, if you catch my drift (without spoiling). When the credits rolled, there were adults just sitting there with their mouths agape, just like the kids, not quite understanding what just happened. Yeah, the DVD isn't coming out fast enough...

Paracimio@aol.com writes:

Came across your site by chance, while looking for Contact and A.I. reviews, 2 movies that I greatly enjoyed, especially A.I. That movie murdered me emotionally the way only a good book or song can. I love your writing and ideas, very sharp, very fresh. I even bookmarked your site. Seems that you're an atheist as well. Now that's SEXY!

Me: man, 32, married, musician in LA

You: smart, smart, smart

Thanx for your great reviews & your fresh, honest POV.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

And you're married, huh? Drat. I like musicians. :->

docsavage20 writes:

Maryann - if that IS your real name..

Hey, don't be talkin' 'bout my woman, Dr. Beautiful. I bet you wish YOU had your very own portable breeze...

Seriously, I found your review of Final Fantasy via Rotten Tomatoes, and it absolutely left me rolling. Funny, funny stuff. I don't know who that idiot was who tried to get into a battle royal with you about it, but I feel sorry for him if he couldn't appreciate the rapier wit you displayed in your trashing of it.

Yeah, yeah, judged strictly as a movie it was lame. But I've still been recommending it simply for the stunning visuals - and have been adding the caveat that it stinks otherwise. But since that's the vehicle they chose to offer, and there's no other game in town currently, I certainly wouldn't tell anyone not to see it simply because of that.

I'll have to look up some of your other reviews if this is indicative of your style. Very entertaining.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Pretty visuals aren't enough for me -- I need some substance. Otherwise, I'd be in love with Keanu Reeves. Yes, FF is the Keanu Reeves of movies: nice to look at, but dumb as a post.

Marco De la Cruz-Heredia writes:

I thought the review [of Final Fantasy] was hilarious, and pointed out the weaknesses of the film. Alas, I agree with Alfred Cheng, it summarily dismissed all its strengths. The film does have a heart and soul, its loving craftsmanship (or, as the philistines would say, "hormonal worship" :) leaves no doubt about it. I'm too much of a geek, I guess, heh, heh...

Oh well, FF failed miserably at the box-office, and reviews are mixed at best (MaryAnn's being one of the most negative ones I've read). Then again, I seem to recall a little movie which once got a similar reception... years ago... hmmm... ah yes, it was called Blade Runner.

Only time will tell.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

You're kidding? You think Final Fantasy might one day be held in the esteem that Blade Runner is today, after its rough start? A.I., maybe -- many people hate it now, but there's obviously something there to inspire so much heated, emotional debate. But the only thing anyone has to say in favor of FF is that it's a giant step forward for the wankers of the world, and their dreams of a day when they won't actually have to talk to a real girl to get laid. That's not much of a legacy.

Marco De la Cruz-Heredia replies:

Sigh.

Chill, get off your high horse, read your response above, and look up the word "irony" in a dictionary.

You're a good critic, but a fairly nasty person. Oh well.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I'm nasty because your irony didn't come across?

If you could see some of the mail I've gotten on Final Fantasy, you'd understand why I saw no irony in your comments.

ephemeron writes:

So okay the FF movie is a popcorn S/FX flick. But is it good popcorn? Comparing it to the opposition, I think it fared rather well. It certainly has more cohesion, if not depth, than Tomb Raider (Aki's no match for a certified Oscar winner.) And between Lara's big Caucasian bust and Aki's more modest Asian chest, which is the more politically and ethnically correct? Shrek still has to be premiered in our territory, but from the snippets I have seen on showbiz and tech tv, I can already see the same sort of cultural pastiching that often passes for American postmodern comedy. Let's not talk about Jurassic Park III. Seeing the Yahoo box office chart, I'm now convinced mankind's future would soon be in the dust, not the stars. The only movie on the horizon I feel hopeful about is Rule the Planet (TM), and that's just because I consider the original as the greatest big-ticket sci-fi movie about a distopian future.

Is FF derivative? But when was the last time you actually saw a studio release that didn't plagiarize (The Matrix and Star Wars were cinematic summaries of all those cyberpunk, space, Japanese martial arts flicks that went before them, with enough transcendental mumbo-jumbo thrown in) or parody (Shrek, the Scary Movies)? Let's also not forget that the movie was intended to capitalize on the Final Fantasy franchise (something which sadly appears not to be happening in the initial US release).

Let's give credit to the makers of FF for what they have achieved. And I'm not talking about pure CGI power, as Shrek appears to be more advanced in this department. The FF anime-ators have come closer than anybody else to creating the sort of virtual person you can actually fall in love with (psychotic gamers and their Lara excepted), hair, fainting fits and all. In a world being increasingly virtualized, I think that's a step forward (with the addition, for the sexually other-oriented, of a virtual Brad Pitt). I see lonely geeks in the not-too-distant future logging on to akiross.com to get their share of vicarious love. Why deny the abnormal and the maladjusted the possibilities of this great technology that woud also give the serial killer population one less reason to live out their fantasies? (Hmmmm. akiross.com and .net are already registered, leaving the true believers with the .org-y)

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Why not let's talk about Jurassic Park III? It's just about the only popcorn film this summer that set itself a simple mission and fulfilled it. Final Fantasy is Aliens with New Agey bullshit and not a single character to care about; Tomb Raider is Maxim meets Raiders of the Lost Ark, with not a whit of wit or danger about it. JP3 doesn't muck about with "messages" or overly complicated, absurd plots -- it's an unpretentious, cut-to-the-chase monster movie, and nothing more.

Everything is derivative; Shakespeare stole his plots -- hell, the Bible steals its plots. But a good movie does it cleverly; neither FF nor TR is clever in its theft. I agree: the masturbators of the world who can't wait for an even better to reason to avoid genuine human beings should rejoice -- I'm sure the pornographers of the world are working on ways to use Aki's CGI sisters to take more of your money. But this is not reason enough for me to praise FF.

ephemeron replies:

My Final Word: I still think FF is the better popcorn movie. FF looks to the future, JP3 (despite the genetic engineering) looks to the past. The dinosaurs won't save us; the Mars Society will.

FF may be pretentious BS but it's not so much Aliens and New Agey as pop science and Eastern. Comparing it to Aliens is unfair; almost every realistic scifi movie with aliens can be traced either to Aliens or to Steven Spielberg (the anthropomorphic third variety is the aliens of the Star Trek kind). As for its being New Age, look at the credits: aren't those Japanese-sounding names in there? What's New Age to the West may well be a national religion in the East.

When Aki reveals that the evil aliens are actually indifferent ghosts, she's merely being true to the action-adventure anime tradition. Either the bad guys are converted to good or they are shown to be not so evil after all. Compare this with similar transformations in the anime series Dragonball Z (ex-arch-enemies Vegetta and Piccolo become the allies of the perennial good guy San Goku) or the anime feature Ghost in the Shell (the heroine fuses with a computer program with an attitude).

FF isn't a great movie; but neither is JP3, and it's threatening to overshoot the 200M $ mark. Between the intergalactic pacifism of Aki and the cross-species paranoia of Jaws on heels, my choice is clear.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

You're arguing that photorealistic animation will "save us"? FF "looks to the future" because it tells a ho-hum story using cutting-edge technology? It's the cutting-edge technology that's the problem here -- if FF proved anything, it's that human actors don't have anything to worry about, not for quite a while yet. Aki looks like a mannequin whose face moves. Her face is not "animated" the way a real human face is "animated" -- there is nothing spontaneous or alive about her. And so I didn't care about her or her friends at all. And so the movie did absolutely nothing for me.

If the filmmakers wanted me to care about spiritual position the film takes, they should have made me care about the characters who espouse the spirituality. And they didn't. Between spending time with unalive puppets who stand around talking and real human beings in a fight for their lives, my choice is clear.

Jess Ragan writes:

Subject: You, my dear, are awesome.

I just wanted to tell you that your film reviews are some of the best I've ever read; better than Roger Ebert's butt-kissing bonanzas by a long shot. Some of those reviews, man, they're incredibly inventive, if a little obscure... I'm guessing that not many people will recognize the references to the computer psychologist Eliza and Scott Adams' old text adventures. Fortunately, I did, and I loved it. Keep up the good work!

Jess Ragan The Gameroom Blitz On-Line

P.S. You strike me as the video game playing type... would I be correct to assume this?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Thanks for your nice comments. Always appreciated.

I play some games: I'm old, so I'm partial to things like Pac-Man and Infocom text adventures, the kind of stuff I grew up with. Never did get into things like Quake or Tomb Raider. The games I play now tend to be strategy oriented ones, like Civilization and SimCity, both of which I'm addicted to. I also loved Myst, and one of these days I'm going to get around to playing Riven and the new sequel that just came out.

Eric Haug writes:

I want to say thanks for all the work you put into your fantastic site. Your reviews offer a refreshing, unique flavor. I tend to read most of them after I've seen a movie. It's a cool thing to get the added perspective after viewing, especially since you tend to find some of the nuggets that I'm not always sharp enough to grab. Often I read one of your reviews of an older movie and it makes me want to see that movie again. I also love the added bonus of reader comments. The most entertaining ones come from people who are upset with you, because you ripped a movie that they enjoyed (it amazes me how people can take movie reviews so personally). I notice that panned Robin Williams movies tend to get the most responses - they usually elicit the nonsensical, bitter retaliations that I find hilarious. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the well-thought responses, too. There's just something appealing about seeing dumb people at work.

jrtemple@u.washington.edu writes:

I'd like to discuss your review of the undeservedly bashed little musical "The Fantasticks", although I should mention this: I do tend to go on. And on. And on. And then add a lengthy epilogue. You have been warned. However, I also promise not to spout absurdities like "You've got to give yourself over to the fantasy . . ." Oh, and should this get posted on your Web page, I warn all potential readers: spoilers ahead.

From beginning to end, "The Fantasticks" deals with the line between real life and theatrical illusion and our need to blur it. For the first 45 minutes or so it establishes the setting of a pair of isolated farms that only exist in Norman Rockwell's Americana (entirely appropriate for the story and the medium), giving us a pair of fathers who are genuinely concerned about their offspring's future (the fathers, in a sense, provide the heart of the show-more on that later). They have, on their own, set up a false feud to introduce romance into their children's lives-do humans have an intrinsic need to invent illusions, to create fiction? They already have it established by the time El Gallo & Co. come into the picture and offer to invent the most theatrical abduction affordable. In your review, your described some of the carnival sequences as "uncomfortable" rather than "charming and magical," particularly the "Abduction Ballet" (that's what they call it). What makes the abduction vastly more charming is presence of the fathers, who watch from a distance as two benevolent entities orchestrating the affair-that is the heart of the movie, and what keeps the abduction from becoming the disturbing scene it might have been. Luisa's father, I should note, is played by the awfully spry (for 63, when this was filmed) Joel Grey, who won an Oscar for his role as the emcee in the movie production of "Cabaret." He plays this role like a down-to-earth elf, costumed in his trim blue vest and watch-chain, twirling down the front porch of his impeccable red-and-white home. His airiness is nicely complemented by the earthiness of Brad Sullivan as the other father, and the first song these two perform together isn't insipid-it's spirited, with the confidence of two old pros who are sure they've finally figured things out.

For the children, we have Jean Luisa Kelly as the daughter, who sings her first solo number in a voice that is perhaps too well trained for the more naturalistic inflections required by Broadway music, but with youthful eagerness. The casting of Joe McIntyre isn't bad, as he looks the part nicely. Wide-eyed, open-faced, looking like he was born in those 1920s costumes, this boy could've stepped out of a Rockwell portrait. His tenor voice meshes pleasantly with Kelly's (as witnessed in "Soon It's Gonna Rain") . . . so it's too bad the director couldn't rein him in for the non-singing scenes. Someone should've explained the concept of "less is more" to this kid, as he takes that wide-eyed, brash act too far for almost the entire first half, and it's not until the more restrained second half that he finally calms down and his acting starts to work.

It's an intimate but unabashedly theatrical piece-notice how the best moments are quiet ones, and when the characters go for great dramatic songs and speeches, they come across as ordinary people who are trying to inflate their personalities. The most genuine moments are quiet ones (such the gentle snow over the ending, to the tune of the ever-so-wistful "Try to Remember"), or the father/daughter dance performed by Grey and Kelly. Watch the musical numbers for the in-jokes, especially the player piano in the background of "Soon It's Gonna Rain," El Gallo conducting from the tree, or (my favorite touch) a heavenly chorus singing . . . then pan down and we see it's all the bizarre members of the carnival huddled just out of sight.

I won't try to say "The Fantasticks" is without some considerable flaws, and they start to appear in the second half. Having set up so much theatrical artifice, the director is going to have a hard time tipping the scales in favor of genuine emotion, and Michael Ritchie can't quite pull it off. In staging the musical numbers, he has taken advantage of the nature of film and moved characters into entirely different situations while they're singing (like a montage), rather than just staging them straight through. This works fine for the first half, but not the second, which is supposed to be rife with disillusionment. He should also work it with a sense of irony, the acknowledgement that out of all these characters it is El Gallo, the man who best understands artifice and illusion, who also best understands reality. Continuing the techniques of the first half through the second just doesn't work, as the tone should be shifting along with the characters to something more realistic, less dramatic. Then there's the pointless introduction of a distinctly sexual attraction between El Gallo and Luisa; he should be looking upon her with a sad, jaded feeling of sympathy for this naif, not a roving eye. I also find it hard to believe that Matt would be pounded into bewildered submission by simply taking a physical beating. The screenwriters should've found something more effective to do than just beat the heck out of him. Luisa's "big" scene, as the carnival trucks leave town, is botched completely; Ritchie has her actually double over with emotion, a completely over-the-top gesture. (Maybe someone should've filled him in on the "less is more" theory along with McIntyre) Thankfully, though, the ending strikes the right note with El Gallo's voice-over of "Try to Remember."

There are other flaws (mostly some slow patches), but I found "The Fantasticks" worth my time with spirited, intimate performers, a few things to think about, the emotions it goes for nicely evoked. And volumes of charm.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. I still say The Fantasticks was weird and creepy. But thanks for writing.

Michael Gore writes:

Your Cinamarati article was very kewl to read, as I agree with almost all of your picks (give or take a couple). I'm tired of people who don't read sci/fi putting that label on anything that has a spaceship/alien in it. I've read sci/fi all my life, and have always thought that it if someone could only put a couple of Heinlein or Sturgeon short stories up on the screen (well done, of course) maybe those attitudes would change.

I enjoy laser blasts and screaming monsters from planet X as well as the next movie fan, but I would really like to go to a movie and get the whole experience. For the past few years, it's been all empty calories and disappointment. And from what most film reviewers have to say about Planet of the Apes, the trend will continue.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Thanks for your nice comments. And yes, alas, POTA is only surface SF. It's passingly enjoyable, but pretty forgettable.

Bealzeebob@aol.com writes:

Subject: Braveheart

Basically I just wanted to say thank-you. I thought I was just bias because I myself am a Scot but you gave this movie basically the same review as I would have. It showed me that my love of this movie was shared by people who had never even heard of William Wallace. I thought Braveheart was an incredible movie, because it told the story of my country. All the heartbreak, the violence, the self defeating bickering and the raw passion was there. It didn't matter that the film wasn't as historically accurate as many would have liked, because you cannot cram the life of William Wallace into one movie. All Mel Gibson was trying to do was get the love affair, that every Scotsman has with his country across to the audience. And he did that with enormous success. (As the great girly tears rolling down my cheeks for the majority of the movie prove.)

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Glad you liked my review and all, but I did actually know who William Wallace was before I saw the film.

Kelly Ross writes:

I realize you can't possible watch/review all the new movies, but on what criteria do you pass on something like "Angel Eyes"? Of course, if I missed your review on you site, then this is truly a dumb letter:). But I did a "search" and didn't find it, so I assume you passed on it. But, having seen the movie yesterday, and having thought it a bit more than passable, I sort of wondered how something like this fails to make it even to your short cut list.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

There are simply too many films released, and not enough time to cover them all... not when I'm not making a living from my site.

Kelly Ross replies:

Thank you for your reply. However, you didn't answer my question in regard to your criterion for passing on a film (perhaps for not even bothering to see it). I know you can't do them all and remain creative. I reviewed movies for a newspaper back in the 1980s. I watched 5 to 8 movies a week. I did them all. And, after two years, I burned out. How do you decide not even to go see a movie? I no longer keep up with a lot of media stuff, so, when I went went to see "Angel Eyes," I had no idea that the lead was sort of a fashion bitch ... all I saw was an intriguing story and a fine piece of acting. A quiet gem. Part of the reason that I "saw them all" when I was reviewing was that I came across quite of few of these "quiet gems" (that nobody else seemed to think much of - at the time) and they made all the dreck worth it. This is not a criticism of you for not seeing/reviewing Angel Eyes, nor do I care whether you ever see it, I truly am curious how you "filter" what makes it to your li st. As to making money from your website, I would think you would want to make it as comprehensive as possible. But you filter. So. How do you do this? Thanks for giving this some thought -- if you do.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I did see Angel Eyes, and as far as I can remember, there were just too many other movies that week that I wanted to review, and AE was way down on the list, mostly because I just didn't like it that much. Or maybe I just had too much paying work that week to make time for a review of that film.

I don't have a lot of criteria for "filtering," as you call it. (Though I refuse to review gross-out movies anymore, I do still see many of them, just because I know people will be talking about them.) I do try not to skip reviewing too many films from one studio or PR agency in too short a period of time, because I don't want to be dropped from their press lists (which would mean no more screening invitations from them). But as far as content of the films themselves, I try to see as many films, and as many different kinds of films, as possible. I do, as a mercenary measure to increase my traffic, try to review all the films that appeal to the online demographic: action, science fiction. (Fortunately, those tend to be my favorite genres, too.) But you'll still find plenty of films with small, select releases reviewed at my site.

It really is just a matter of time that keeps me from reviewing all of them. It's not a matter of not reviewing films because I can't remain creative -- it's the time. I already spend 30 to 40 hours per week on my site, on top of doing other work that pays the bills. I cannot possibly make my site any more "comprehensive" -- there aren't enough hours in the day, not if I want to sleep and maintain some semblance of a real life and keep a roof over my head.

I hope that answers your question.

Kelly Ross again:

Gottcha ... thank you for taking the time to respond. Keep up the good work. I enjoy your reviews and insights.

newer mail | previous mail