[Warning: A.I. spoilers]

Mikey Inouye writes:

Hi, love your site, love your cold-blooded bitchy feminist cynicism, and I loved your review on A.I. more than the actual movie. I have one question on your opinion about the ending. Don't you think it was a little saccharine sweet at the end? I thought it was really, really trite and sappy. I mean, the best place to end it would have been when poor ol' Haley was stranded under the fallen carousel, while the camera is pulling back, leaving the audience with all that juicy and poignant visual symbolism, without the murder of subtlety from that damned intrusive narrator, and without the "2000 YEARS LATER" where aliens fish him out of a glacier after all the pe ople on earth are dead. It just seemed to kill the flow of the movie. What did you feel about it? Didnít it just piss you off, or were you too busy bawling like my aunty?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

No, the ending did not piss me off, because I don't think it's a happy ending (or a trite or a senitmental one). I think it's tragic, and awful, and heartbreaking, for many different reasons. Look at it this way: there are two possibilities for David's fate at the end of the film. Either he shuts himself down because what else can he do, or he goes on existing forever, never aging, never changing, and never dying, still pining for Mommy, because his programming never allows him to grow beyond that. He's yearning still for something that hasn't existed in two millennia, and will never exist again, and he is inconsolable -- nothing will ever make him feel better.

The real ironic thing is that what he wanted from Monica -- unconditional love and devotion -- he gets from the robots at the end of the film. Those spindly creatures are not aliens, they are robots, the descendants, so to speak, of David and Teddy and Gigolo Joe. As the narrator robot tells David, he is so important to them, and they want to do anything they can to make him happy. Now, someone like you or me might figure this is a good place to alter our "programming," cuz we figure, Okay, humans are all dead and I'm never gonna get any satisfaction hoping for a human to love me, but these guys really, really like me and want me to be happy, and that makes me happy. But David can't be comforted by this. And that's horrible.

I think the ending of the film is absolutely vital for understanding the ugly, Frankensteinian possibilities we are dealing with with artificial intelligence. If we're not smart enough to recognize all the possible paths one of our AIs may take during its "life," we run the risk of creating monsters like David, who should never, ever have been created as he was. And David is a "monster" in the sense that Doc Frankenstein's was, because he was created to suffer just so some thoughtless human (here, Professor Hobby) could prove that it could be done.

Kennyselko@aol.com writes:

i think your reviews are pretty good, sister. but spielberg took you for a ride with this one. i too had tears streaming down my face while watching A.I. but mine were related to the torture i was undergoing. would that fucking movie ever end? let me just give you the nut shell version of why i think somebody must've slipped you something on your way to the theater.

1. the kid was creepy. creepy in a BAD way. his so called "love" would suddenly and violently appear out of nowhere. no rhyme or reason. i, for one, would have returned him the morning after his weird-boy laughing fit at the dinner table. and i would have asked for some kind of cash settlement for scaring the shit out of me. personally, i think the character should have been less robotic. indistingishable from a real kid. then real confusion about what it is to be human would take center stage. and that's what's interesting, isn't it? not a weirdo robot who doesn't blink.

2. In this word, robots have filled a major niche in society. but in stevie's movie, we see David and a few escapees running in the forest. oh, and joe. otherwise, we're never shown how these robots function and interact. what a gyp.

3. the kid rock concert was very silly. loud and silly. very waterworldish

4. mom and dad (especially mommy) drop out of the movie for a long, long time. mommy only reappears at the end -- for one day. that one-day business. can you explain it to me?

5. oh i almost forgot. the real son. the one in the coma. would you wait five or six years by the bed side of a little prick like that? maybe they could return him with david and just get a nice kitty cat. a robotic one.

6. william hurt's character. couldn't steve have found a little bit more for him to do? talk about underused.

7. jude law. fun but underused.

8. jesus. let me say something about the other "davids" hanging around in william hurts spacious office. what imbecile didn't see that reveal coming a million miles away? come on. and where the hell did hurt wander off to, anyway? did it creep you out when david decapitated the other david? it creeped me out. not william hurt. hurt didn't miss a beat. but i'm telling you; he took his fricken head off, sister. he really is dangerous.

9. this blue fairy nonsense has got to stop. maybe it worked in the book or whatever this is based on, but it didn't work in the movie. and when the kid is in the helicopter thingamajig on the bottom of the ocean floor staring at blue fairy -- this is where spielberg really embarrassed himself. those had to have been some of the worst and sappiest voice overs i've ever heard. nobody in my theater laughed at the "2000 years later..." stuff, but i did inside. holy mecha. steve hasn't written a script since '82 and it shows.

10. speaking of the 2000 years later business. the craft which soars over an ice-covered new york was very cool. the way it separates, leaving the tall, swanky robots standing there, very cool. and those robots, very cool. until they begin to speak that is. the "give him what he wants" line was my favorite. it has my vote for silliest line in a move of 2001.

those are just a few of the things which come to mind. i can't understand how you were taken in. it's a shame. it was REALLY looking forward to this film. the trailers were superb. that's who the real genius is. whoever cut those trailers and made a weak piece of robotic junk look like a winner.

i suppose you'll think i'm out of line,

but thanks for listening...

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I think you missed much of the point of the film. David is supposed to be creepy. He's supposed to make you think that his creation is wrong, a very bad idea. He is a Frankenstein's monster, and Professor Hobby is Doctor Frankenstein, a seriously fucked-up man with a god-complex. David's destruction of the "other" David is meant to freak you out, because if you've accepted up to this point that David has some rights, is worthy of some sort of comforting of the build-in obsession for Mommy, then you have to admit that he commits murder by destroying another of his "kind."

The 2000-years-later stuff is absolutely vital. See the above reply.

Kelly Ross writes:

A.I. finally made it to the $3 house, so I went to see it. And it didn't disturb me. And I'm not sure why that is. Your review and your reader's comments indicate that this movie packs an emotional whallup. Mind you, I thought it was well enough made. There was a certain illogic in selecting that particular couple for the trial run ... the woman was clearly emotionally unstable, from the start. And her thoughts of abandoning the mecha-boy, instead of taking him to the lab to be put out of his misery, indicates not great motherly feelings, but self-indulgence: like she couldn't bring herself to do the right thing for the lad. Messy. Of course a woman like that would have a bratty natural child to screw things up ... at least there was logic in the characters, but rather typical of Spielberg concepts of family and children (see, E.T.).

I don't know. I've never had much feeling for Spielberg's human portraits; I don't think he is being cynical, I think he honestly thinks his is a healthy view of family life. Or American family life. Or Californian family life. The values strike me as skewed, like a dark study of what's wrong with our society. Like seeing ourselves within a small box and, not knowing what's outside the box, never getting any perspective on ourselves. But that's Spielberg: wondrously lacking insight in all he touches. A.I. left me feeling indifferent. A nice story, but with very little human depth and very little mecha depth, either. Perhaps I've got a mecha heart ... or perhaps Spielberg has.

Bicentennial Man, from an Isimov storyline, left me pondering an intriguing situation (implausible as it was). A.I. left me wondering if there was a good idea in there somewhere, one that Spielberg doesn't seem to have the capacity to develop. A.I., like Empire, is just another heartless Spielberg flick. I haven't seen Final Fantasy, but the descriptions and reviews of it make me think it's a Spielberg knock-off. (Cheap at twice the cost.)

BTW, I quite enjoyed Brad Rawiszer's comments on Eyes Wide Shut. Haven't seen it; not likely to. His thesis may have much or nothing to do with the film, but it WOULD BE a powerful theme to try to portray (whether Eyes Wide Shut attempts it or not, I have no idea, and only his "review" to indicate that it might). But it was neat hear his ideas on it; thanks for posting them.

And, oh yeah, not to prolong a messy subject, but I enjoyed The Fifth Dimension, and did not see the alien as a woman, but as a ... well ... as an alien. There was no human depth to her; there wasn't supposed to be (I didn't think). Of course, if this was supposed to BE a human woman (or a human man's portrait of an ideal human woman), then, yeah, it was misogynist as hell. But I just never saw it like that. I'm trying to remember why not, but I saw it when it first came out (ages ago), and don't remember much about it, except for Oldman's brilliantly hilarious portrait of evil, with tongue hovering around the cheek. When I saw him, a bit later, as a terrorist in something forgettable (with Harrison Ford, I think) trying to be evil by projecting a constant rage, I couldn't believe an actor of his talent would allow himself to be so wasted. I suspect that Fifth Dimension sported an inspired script (at least for Oldman) and some inspired direction. It was refreshingly unAmerican (inven tive and lively, like American films of yore). And it was visually stunning, as you pointed out. And, to my mind, it was wholly a cartoon, like the Batman & Robin tv series (or the Jetsons, I'm not sure which - or, here's a thought: Pee Wee's Big Adventure). And, face it, French culture is pretty much stuck in the 1960s anyway. But what the alien had to do with human women, potentially or otherwise, I don't quite know. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention. Yeah, Barbarella was Bimbo Babe on Mars, and tacky in consequence, but 5th Dimension struck me differently. Not that your point isn't entirely valid, I just didn't see it like that ... is all.

[I think she means The Fifth Element.--MAJ]

priyanka chauhan writes:

My name is Priyanka Chauhan and I am from India. I have been a regular visitor to your site since the last few months, and have been planning to mail you for quite a long time, but never got around to doing it. However, yesterday something happened that made me want to mail you right away. You probably don't remember, but you reviewed an Indian movie called Bandit Queen a while ago, which was based on the true life story of a lower caste girl, Phoolan Devi, who was raped and tortured by rich upper caste landlords and who later went on to become a bandit and take revenge by killing her tormentors. You will be surprised to know that, after serving her jail term, this spunky lady went on to contest and win the elections in India and became a democratically elected member of parliament (now that's "Go, Girl", isn't it?).

The sad, rather shocking, news is that on July 25, she was shot dead by unknown assailants, in the middle of New Delhi's (India's capital) most elite and protected VIP areas, in broad daylight.

Seema Biswas, the actress who played her character in the movie, and who you found to be exceedingly beautiful, had this to say, "The kind of horrors that Phoolan lived through, she could have died a thousand times in her life, but she survived. And now, when life was finally beginning to look up for her, when she finally had access to political power, when she could finally make a difference to the lives of countless others who have suffered like her, she is dead. I am deeply distressed. It feels like a part of me has died."

I don't know whether you remember the movie, or even care about anything I told you. But, while going through your site, I got a feeling that you cared about the art of making movies in a way very few people seem to. So, I thought I would tell you about the way not just a person, but an interesting movie character finally ended up.

Keep up the good work

PS If I was to buy one of your t-shirts, would you deliver in India?

Also, did you know that Bandit Queen was directed by Shekhar Kapoor, who has also directed Elizabeth, which starred Cate Blanchett. As an Indian, who is proud of fellow-Indian Shekhar's achievement of doing a reasonably good job in Elizabeth, I was a little disappointed to find that your review of Elizabeth had no mention of Shekhar, while most of your other reviews analyse the director's (in)competence as well. Any special reason for your ignoring Shekhar?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I hadn't heard the news of Phoolan Devi when you sent this, though I've now found tons of coverage of her assassination online. Thanks for alerting me -- this is a terrible story.

CafePress, which handles my merchandise, does ship internationally. You should check their site for more details, like shipping costs.

I didn't deliberately ignore the director of Elizabeth -- my discussion of the film just didn't touch on the direction. I frequently do not mention directors or writers by name, bu that's not intended to be a slight. When I mean to be rude, it's obvious. :->

[Warning: Planet of the Apes spoilers]

YankeeGrrl24@aol.com writes:

i have a question, i probably sound stupid though but oh well..can you explain to me the ending? im a bit confused..did he land back on earth in the future where apes have just evolved and taken over the world all on their own? or, when general thade went in the old space ship he flew it back and took over earth? or, was it something completly different? its really bothering me that im not catching on to the ending. if you could explain it to me id appreciate it greatly.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I can't explain it. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and a Fox exec admits that flat out.

It's a completely asinine ending to the film. It's funny (but senseless), but it would have been even funnier if Wahlberg was only hallucinating everyone as apes.

I know somewhere some scriptwriter is still cracking himself thinking about "Ape-raham Lincoln."

Eugene Novikov writes:

Just a couple of words about [Planet of the Apes], which I saw today...

I really enjoyed it, but that's not the point; I wanted to comment on the ending, which you said was "hilarious but didn't make a bit of sense."

A couple of things:

1) Nobody seems to have noticed, but Burton and Co. haven't made up a new ending at all but rather kept the original one Pierre Boulle used in his novel.

2) When Wahlberg goes back to earth, his date counter stops not at 2029, which is when the film begins, but at 21 something or other, which could, I suppose, give the apes enough time to evolve and take over.

Well, not really. But it doesn't really matter anyway.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

The ending is not quite the same as the novel, because the planet in the novel was always Earth. Wahlberg travels to a different planet in the new film, then returns to an Earth that has changed for what reason? It's completely ridiculous, and intentionally makes no sense, according to that Fox exec.

Paul Wartenberg writes:

Having read your review of Planet of the Apes I was just wondering, firstly, I don't think you had reviewed the '68 original. Have you thought of doing a comparative review to the re-imaging (don't call a remake! Sheesh! Unclench, Mr. Burton!...)?...

At the end of your review, you wondered why it ended the way it did. Well, it's what's called "planning for the sequel". ;-) I'm not stunned, actually. The original series had to do this too. They had filmed the apocalyptic second Ape, but it did so well the studio wanted a third movie. So when Paul Dehn (the screenwriter for all four sequels) wrote "Escape From..." he intentionally left the ending there for a fourth installment. See, reading the trivia section in imdb.com is educational!...;-)

Hope this helps.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Leaving room for a sequel at the end of a film is fine. But that setup should make some sense within the context of the two hours that have come before it. Tain't the case with POTA.

I may review the original Apes movies soon. Stay tuned...

Paul Wartenberg replies:

Well, that's where the sequel comes in. It'll explain *how* Thade escaped his glass prison; *how* he was able to find a space pod to fly off into the timestorm, *what* he did when he arrived at Earth to mutate the dimished ape population here in order to conquer it, and *who* will rise up among the disaffected chimps to aid Marky Mark and claim the role of savior against Thade's evil rule. BTW, can Alan Cumming do a good Roddy McDowell impression? Anyone? Someone's gotta play the noble Cornelius!...

The Flick Filosopher responds:

The technical term for that explanation is "s-t-r-e-t-c-h."

David W. Bertoni writes:

What happened to Tim Burton. Or, perhaps more accurately put, what happened to the image of Tim Burton propogated so well by Hollywood? After watching his remake of Planet of the Apes, all I can say to Mr. Burton is take a bath, get a haircut, and drop the brooding genius pretense. There is nothing brilliant, artistic, or even mildly above average about this film. Think "Stargate Meets Planet of the Apes." And even a horrible film like Stargate had an ending we could understand.

But, then, maybe that's Mr. Burton's game. Present an ending that even Socrates couldn't unravel. There! That's the proof of his brilliance. Only he of old man sunglasses and dirty hair is capable of understanding this "twist." Sorry, though, I don't buy it.

MaryAnn, you dismissed the ending summarily. And there is good reason not to give it much thought. But it is worth dissecting it if for no other reason that to project what the sequel might be. (Oh, there will be a sequel. The ending begs for one. "Please, give me chance to explain this shocking non-sequitur!") Here are my best guesses for the sequel:

(1) It was all a dream. Marky Mark is a zookeeper who wakes up from this nightmare, frees all of his chimps, and falls in love with a particularly attractive Orang. (She'll be animatronic in the film--with perky, human-like breasts, perhaps.)

(2) Marky Mark entered a parallel universe in which an ape version of Tim Burton is making Planet of the Humans. Mark is recruited to star in the movie and is ultimately placed in a zoological park for retired animal actors.

(3) Marky Mark was driven insane by his experience with apes and now sees all humans as Apes, including his mother--which leads to some dramatic incidents involving bananas.

As usual, MaryAnn, I love your reviews and your site. Keep up the good, hard work.

Trevor Friesen writes:

Just wondering why, when referring to Robert DeNiro as the actor in a film, you tell us he was in Rocky and Bullwinkle, and Analyze This. Do you not like DeNiro? This seems like you are trying to belittle him. Just wondering.

P.S. I would suggest Taxi Driver, or even Heat (if you wanted to use something more recent).

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I always refer to the most recent film an actor has appeared in that I've reviewed at my site.

I adore DeNiro. You're clearly reading your own dislike of DeNiro in R&B and AT into my completely innocuous mention of some of his recent films.

I haven't reviewed Heat, and the point is to keep people reading at my site as long as possible.

docsavage20 writes:

I've disappointed by many movies over the years that start out fine, have an interesting premise but then at some point fall apart, sometimes seeming like they ran out of time/money, and it was a matter of "get it done and in the can now.." Gaping holes left in situational dynamics, characters end up doing spectacularly illogical, stupid things to make the story move along, dialogue seems like it was scribbled out on a napkin moments before the scene was shot etc.

I'm not talking about events such as Bruce Lee movies where you could care less about the plot, you're witnessing a physical marvel and that's why you wanted to see the film. I'm talking about films that are supposed to have a plot.

Since you seem to be an articulate surveyor of movies, could you suggest or is there such a list on your website of what you consider to be movies that were well made from start to finish, without the above kind of shortcomings? They could be from any era.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

There is no such list on my site (and I'm aware of nothing like that online), but it's something I'll keep in mind to discuss in my email newsletter, Cinematic Musings, which is devoted to that kind of discussion. Thanks for the suggestion.

Loz writes:

Hello! I found your site quite by accident recently - I was doing a rather aimless search for Hornblower information, and came across your reviews of the series.

Wonderful! I really enjoyed your individual style, and the fact that you present opinions as you want to, be they about the genre, the actors (Ioan. Ahhhh) or the value - or lack thereof - of the films, often outside the very staid and uninformative reviews that tend to appear in newspapers and elsewhere on the 'net. Anyway, I couldn't stop smiling at your reviews, particularly the ones of Mutiny and Retribution.

So I then looked up another recent favourite I haven't found much information on - Croupier - and found another excellent article. I particularly liked the comments on the narration.

Basically, it all snowballed from there, and I'm afraid I'm hooked! I may not always agree with your opinions, (I thought Gladiator was good, but not great - as an history student, some of it became irritating) or entirely understand the style of a particular article (I've never really played computer games, and so your Tomb Raider piece went over my head, although I agreed with the sentiment), but your writing is never less than entertaining, and is always honest. A refreshing change from much of the unanalytical dross out there. And I very much like the fact that intelligence is involved/required in and for your reviews. As a reader, I hate feeling like I'm being treated as the lowest common denominator merely because that's the level at which so much media is pitched.

And it's always a pleasure to find someone who doesn't feel the need to defend their choice of movies based on gender or other stereotypes. I'm female, but I liked Hornblower for the action as well; The Hunt for Red October is a favourite, and I prefer a classic western to a modern 'teen' comedy any day of the year. Normally this is met with a bemused stare; it's great to read things that don't assume movie-watching has to fit into a particular pattern.

Anyway, I'm sorry to take up so much of your time (I'm a student - it's second nature for me to be long-winded), but I just wanted to thank you for the enjoyment I've received from your site.

(By the way, I don't know if you're particularly interested in the extent of your readership, but contrary to my e-mail address, I'm actually resident in Sydney, Australia. And as release dates here continue to be haphazard, your site's an excellent way of discovering what might be worth waiting for!)

Phil Teichroeb writes:

Hello flickfilospher:

I don't know whether you prefer to be called by your real name or your alias, so I'll go the safest route, if for no other reason than to keep correspondence at an appropriate personal distance.

I found the demise of the Filmgeek.com unfortunate, I was not only an admirer of his reviews, but I had just begun an interesting correspondence with him as well. However, the silver lining is that through his now defunct website I ran into your site, which is home to equally perspicacious and interesting reviews. Even more so, you're still up and running...

I peruse 'Net movie sites so much because I live in northern British Columbia, Canada, and only have a few theatres within driving range to fulfill my voracious movie needs. It's a depressing scenario to say the least; I have to wait for all the good movies to come out on video to watch them, and even then I have to drive an hour just to rent them. C'est la vie...

Nonetheless, I love your reviews. Your review of Tomb Raider was brilliant, and you've brought an interesting edge to reviews of movies like Moulin Rouge, A.I., and others. I would love to contribute financially to the continuation of your website, so my main question would be: Do you have a mechanism for Canadian contributions? For example, if I signed up for Cinematic Musings, what would it cost me? How can I buy a t-shirt from you? Would my credit card work just as well as if I were an American? (were I so lucky!)

That being said, let's talk movies. The summer of 2001 has been bitterly disappointing. The only good movie has been A.I., which I feel might be Spielberg's Vertigo. It won't make money, and only future generations will appreciate it. It is so far out of Spielberg's comfort zone. I'm not sure he understands it totally, like he's too beholden to Kubrick's viewpoint. The movie is an unsteady combination of both mindsets, although as you rightly point out, Haley Joel Osment's performance lifts the movie to a different level virtually all by itself. When he wins an Oscar at 21, it will be because they didn't give it to him for this movie (the Academy always seems to miss the right performance, then scrambles to make up for it later, why didn't Al Pacino win for Looking for Richard, his best performance in years?) And why does Marlon Brando keep getting work, when it's obvious he's quit being interested in acting since the 70's? The only good movie he's been in lately is The Freshman, which he slammed in the press right before its release. The Score is only any good because of Ed Norton, who is a tremendous talent. American History X is very good, too bad director Tony Kaye self-destructed in his criticism of it.

Anyhways, I know I'm not talking about recent movies, but they are just too depressing to talk about. Why talk about Jurassic Park III (Yawn!) when I can talk about Au Revoir, Les Enfants and Day for Night, which I saw recently? Why is such a sophisticated culture so adept at making movies about children? Why do the French love Jerry Lewis so much? Maybe they are not such a sophisticated culture, but are only good at acting like they are, Eric Roemer movies notwithstanding? A better question might be - why are Hollywood movies so popular in thed world? Answer me that, and I'll consider you smarter than me, a difficult assignment, to say the least.

Love your website.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Sorry to hear about your movies-bereft location. I'm glad I can help ease your deprivation somewhat.

You should have no trouble making a contribution or buying merchandise from Canada. Amazon and PayPal both accept international payments, and CafePress can ship internationally. I believe all the currency conversion and everything else you'd have to worry about it taken care of seamlessly, too, by all three companies.

Thanks for writing and sharing your thoughts. It's always nice to hear from fellow movie fans.

McNeill L Michael Capt SMC/XRII writes:

Jurassic Park III: or shall I unscramble the title to it's real meaning, J. III, Crap Ass U R.

That movie was more shit than the piles of steaming dino dung that the actors found the satellite phone ringing in. I'm shocked! and why I'm writing to you, MaryAnn, is that you took it so easy on the film, after ripping a new one in pretty much every blockbuster within the past year - I can't believe you spared this disastrosaurus of a bomb. The JP series had so much promise - JP I was a new kind of movie with a decent, believable plot which also had funny, scary, serious, and satirical parts - as well as way-cool dinosaurs. JP II was a decent sequel, with lots of plot holes sure, but at least Jeff Goldbloom was there to wisecrack his way through and say "you people are idiots" throughout the film.

JP III - where do I begin? - had NONE of that. There were no strong characters - in fact they were all extremely annoying (except Dr. Grant)- and the plot was weaker than Tomb Raider. Ok the plot...first off by now one of two things would be happening on the island - there would be "world police" surrounding the island to keep people from violating air and seaspace of this supposedly "highly restricted" location, or...there would be zero dinos on the island from all of the poachers who would raid the island daily for priceless dino parts which would be sold around the world for novelty, aphrodesiacs, collectors, and rich people. If any yahoo could drive thier boat right up to the shoreline to give para-sailing tours or fly their plane in by simply switching off their radio without fear or reprisal or search party - then surely poachers would have picked the place dry. Dinos, even the big ones, wouldn't stand a chance against a few guys armed with standard machinguns who aimed for the head.

As for the ma-and-pa store owners who happened to somehow get enough money to charter their own plane and pilot and hire mercenaries with high power military grade grenade launchers, please. And if they could do all that, didn't they think to actually prepare for a landing there, like bring along jungle clothes, medical supplies, thier own weapons? I complain so much about this movie because not only did it suck, and I got berated by my wife for promising her it would be a watchable flick, but I feel that everything happened in the move for your trademarked saying, "No Good Reason". There was NGR for them to go to the island so unprepared. NGR for Tea Leone (sp?) to constantly yell into the megaphone or out loud other than to attract dinos and speed along the plot. NGR for any of the crew of misfits to have survived more than 10 minutes on the island when surrounded by supposedly superintelligent monsters who could lay traps but would not hunt and pursue slow, defenseless prey for more than a minute or two. The kid survived in raptor inftesed territory for 8 weeks yet when his sorry "rescuers" show up he wanders through the jungle aimlessly, loudly, and seemingly unfazed that he could be eaten at any second. Dr. Grant's speech about astronaut vs. astronomer after his protoge' just got (seemingly) pecked to death by Pterodactyls? Ultra Cheese! Basically, I have written all of this because I'm surprised you let all of this go in your review. I saw all of the action unfold in the same way as Pitch Black and The 5th Element - For No Good Reason. Worse Even. And like Tomb Raider, the bastards took my money when they could have made a decent flick - for No Good Reason.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I didn't "take it easy" on JP3 -- I genuinely enjoyed it. I've said it before and I'll say it again: All films have plot holes, some more than others. JP3 is certainly full of them. But if a film grabs me and keeps me from picking through the plot holes while the film is running, then I think that film succeeds in doing what it set out to do, which is make you forget the real world for a couple hours. JP3 doesn't pretend to be anything more than what it is: a monster movie, a 90-minute theme park ride. And maybe it's the 5-year-old in me, but... dinosaurs! It had dinosaurs who eat people. That's cool. And to be fair to myself, I did make that bias clear in my review.

Chris Zammarelli writes:

So my fiancee Jen and I sat down to watch Valley of the Dolls last night when she was suddenly inspired by a recent purchase from the Jelly Belly Factory to sort out the appropriately colored Jelly Bellies and pop them at various points of the film.

We wrote down a list of good doll-popping moments (other than mentions of or shots of doll-popping in the film), which I am about to put into a Web page.

Before I began to do the design, I did a Google search on Valley of the Dolls and came across your review. Now I had read it before, so even before I clicked I remembered you refering to popping appropriately colored candy at appropriate times in the film.

So I swear to whoever you'd like me to swear to that Jen, who hadn't read your review, made this up independantly of you. We're not ripping you off, really!

But we will put a link to your review on the page, which will be at www.lemurlove.com/dolls when it's done.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Swear to Jacqueline Susann, and I'll believe you. :->

Chris Zammarelli replies:

I swear to Jacqueline Susann & Andre Previn's wife!

Kenford Mar writes:

Whenever people blast you for giving a negative review of a movie that they loved, I can't help but think, "Why are they even bothering?"

A movie review is an opinion. The Flick Filosopher's opinion will not be changed just because they profess that they ritually bow down at an alter dedicated to the makers of the movie, nor will it be changed by referring to her with some choice, colorful metaphors.

In fact, sometimes an opinion cannot even be changed by cold hard facts.

So, given this, I find that many readers' efforts to write in are ultimately futile. Even if they successfully prove that you were too critical of a movie, so what?

Why do some people argue with you so vehemently? Do they feel you possess some uncanny power to influence the unknowing masses?

I am interested in what opinions they have as well. But their opinions about the MOVIE are more helpful than their opinions about the movie REVIEWER (i.e. you).

You possess specific opinions about a great many things. This is what some people take offense at. But for me, I welcome your opinions. If you agreed with me completely then why do I need to read your articles?

If you liked a movie, does it necessarily mean that I will? No. If I liked a movie, but you hated it, does that mean you are an uneducated, biased cynic? No.

I'm always looking to learn more about a movie... what kind of movie is it? should I check my brain at the door for a no-storyline action flick? should I be wide awake for an intricate mystery-thriller? should I throw away my physics book for a fantastically unbelievable space yarn?

Thanks for entertaining and informing at the same time.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I can only imagine that some people are so insecure in their opinion that a dissenting one is too threatening. I don't understand that -- if your opinion of a film can be supported by the content of the film, and you can argue your point of view even halfway convincingly, there's no need to get upset. I guess I hold some sort of position of authority, having a popular Web site and all, but the fact remains that I'm just an opinationed person with a bully pulpit. It doesn't make me automatically right, and everyone else automatically wrong.

People do mystify me sometimes.

Russ Thornton writes:

I love your site, and always find your reviews hillarious and spot-on (to be truthful, your reviews are usually more entertaining than the movies they critique). You have excellent taste, but I just have to say... Myst? You enjoy Myst? Come on. Myst has all the gameplay of a Final Fantasy screensaver. I know yours isn't a videogaming forum, but I just have to harp on this because it's the only thing I can find on your site that I don't agree with. And yes, this entire email was just an excuse to shamelessly fawn on you and tell you what a huge fan I am. Isn't that sad?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

What can I say? I don't like fast-moving games that my no-longer-young, always-girly hand-eye coordination can't keep up with.

My ego appreciates your pathethic groveling. :->

GarryReiff writes:

your a real bitch

The Flick Filosopher responds:

It's "you're," not "your."

GarryReiff replies:

you're a real bitch

The Flick Filosopher responds:

That's better.

newer mail | previous mail