Lou Regis writes:

Your so-called review of Rush Hour and Rush Hour 2 is slapdash and useless. Collecting tips, I see. Okay, here's one: you want to be treated like a professional, start writing like one again.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

But hey, the films are slapdash and useless, too!

Lou Regis replies:

Touche; I was feeling crusty last night.

Anna writes:

Re: Rush Hours (both of them) review

You are ... simply AMAZING!!!!!!!

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Thanks!

GarryReiff writes:

[continued from last week]

I would like to apologies about the bitch thing. I sent you that message after reading your pearl harbor review witch I strongly disagree with. A few things that I do agree with you on is that a lot of Jerry Bruckheimer\Michael Bay films (Con Air, CoyoteUgly, Gone in 60 Sec) are pieces of shit but I dont believe that pearl harbor (or armageddon) belong in that category. These 2 movies are very entertaining and in the cases of pearl harbor a tad bit educational and I believe that if you , and many others, hadent seen the names Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer in the opening credits you would have went a lot easier on it.

That said I went threw your site to day and read some of your other reviews and I think you did a wonderful job. I especially like your review of Dogma, one of my favorite movies, witch was bashed by many other critics as are most Kevin Smith films excluding Chasing Amy.

But I do have to know one thing. How could you rip Pearl Harbor like you did for having cliqued characters and plot angles but not do the same thing to Jurassic Park III witch has the same problems times a 100?

PS pls dont correct me on all of my improper word usage, miss spellings and bad grammar, im only a sophomore in high school for gods sake

The Flick Filosopher responds:

The difference between Jurassic Park 3 and Pearl Harbor is intent. JP3 pretends to be nothing other than what it is: a monster movie, a theme park ride. And it achieves what it sets out to do -- get people eaten by dinosaurs, and nothing else -- in a brisk 85 or so minutes. Sure, the characters and plot are stock, but the film moves fast enough -- at least for me -- to overlook those things.

PH, on the other hand, thinks it's a monumental movie about sacrifice and honor and duty and love and god knows what else. It is loaded with Import and Theme and all those other things that are supposed to arise naturally from a well-told story -- as Samuel Goldwyn (one of the founders of MGM) said, "If you want to send a message, call Western Union." Stories, first and foremost, are not about their "themes" -- they are about people we care about in the process of doing things we want them to accomplish. Someone needs to tell Michael Bay this.

If you didn't want to be judged by your grammar, then you should have given me something else to go by. Look at it from my point of view: Some guy tells me I'm a "bitch" without giving me the slightest idea what the hell this is in reference too, and he can't even spell to boot, and I'm supposed to take him seriously? How else should I have responded?

Anyway, anyone how has made it to high school should know the difference between "you're" and "your."

GarryReiff replies:

[My replies interspersed in boldface--MAJ]

you're back to being a bitch now. i guess you're the only person online who sends emails with perfect grammar. my english teacher would be proud of you but i think she's a bitch too.

I never said I have perfect grammar or spelling. And if you had given me something of substance to reply to in your first email, I wouldn't have pointed out your grammatical error. Or did you think I'd just take your insult sitting down?

P.S. JP3 doesn't, according to you, "achieve what it sets out to do" only 3 people (not counting the people on the boat or the step father) get eaten, that's less than in ether of the 2 previous flicks and it all happens in the first 30 minutes.

I stand by my earlier statement. JP3 thinks it's a theme-park ride, and it is. PH thinks it's an Oscar-sweeping epic, and it's just a cornball, overly melodramatic, trite romance that trivializes the very people and the very event it wants to honor.

P.S.2 (no not Play Station 2) i really respect and agree with most of your reviews and apologized for the first 2 emails that i sent you but at the time i thought that you where one of those critics who thought that all movies should have a big creative impact or a monumental message

And that justifies name-calling?

(your Pearl Harbor review makes you come off as one of these). But i think that some of the best movies ever made are ones you go to to have fun.

Like I said, the problem with PH is that it crams its "monumental message" down the audience's throat. That's not my kind of fun.

shit, i seem to have used several run on sentences, i'm sure you have already noticed this and are preparing some bitchy response

Go back and read what I wrote about your first emails. As I said in my explanation of why I picked on your grammar, it's hard to take someone seriously who has nothing to say, and can't even say that nothing correctly. You're hardly the first person to call me uncreative names, and I doubt you'll be the last.

[Warning: Planet of the Apes spoilers]

David Conner writes:

Just started going through the latest reader mail (which has always been one of my favorite parts of your site), and noticed you were a little off on the details of the Apes novel:

"The ending is not quite the same as the novel, because the planet in the novel was always Earth."

I haven't read the book myself, but going from a synopsis on Cinescape, Burton's movie actually follows the general outline on this level. Earthman travels to distant, definitely-not-Earth "Ape World," has adventures there, then returns to Earth. At the end of both, Earth has turned into a Planet of the Apes itself.

But in the book, it makes more sense. Due to relativity effects, the hero's journey takes only a few years, while centuries pass on Earth, thus semi-plausibly providing enough time for the big changes to occur. And more to the point, it fits the philosophical theme of the novel. Apes took over from humans on "Ape World" because (in the words of the Cinescape article's author) "[the humans'] intellect slowly devolved through apathy, allowing the apes to mimic their actions and evolve to their current state." The message of the ending is that this same thing happened to homo sapiens on Earth. An interesting moral, not really addressed by any of the movies. Something like "Don't take your superiority for granted. Evolution never stops."

The problem with Burton's movie, of course, is that Wahlberg arrives on Earth not long after he left. (And even if he had arrived centuries later, the groundwork *still* isn't there.)

J. Alex Knapp writes:

Much as I adore both your reviews and your wonderful website, my anal retentiveness demands satisfaction. In response to a letter regarding the new Planet of the Apes movie, you wrote that in the original novel, the planet was Earth all along. This is simply not the case. In Pierre Boulle's original novel, the intrepid French astronauts found themselves on a planet orbiting the star Betelgeuse. The protaganist returned to Earth to find that in the intervening years, it too was controlled by apes. In fact, the original novel is quite good, but the twist ending in the original movie was entirely the invention of Rod Serling. In fact, in the novel, the apes came into power because of human mental apathy because of reliance on apes and technology, not because of any catastrophe.

The Flick Filosopher responds, to these and the other readers who pointed out my error:

Is that right? Maybe I was getting the novel confused with the original movie -- I guess I should read the novel again (it's been a while).

Assuming that what you say is true, though, the ending of the new film still is not the same as the novel. The new film posits that somehow, General Thade -- from a civilization that is relatively technologically backward on a planet distant from Earth -- somehow finds a way to travel through both space and time, and engineers a takeover of Earth, and that the ape-ruled Earth still develops a Washington DC that looks exactly like the one we know today.

Like I said, it's preposterous.

[Warning: A.I. spoilers]

Mikey Inouye writes:

[continued from last week]

Re: ya just make people not wanna give up dontcha?

My angry imbittered sore loser WHY ARE YOU EVN A CRITIQUE, YOU WAIST SO MOCH TAIME, GET A LIFFE YOU ARE SO WROUNG, I"M WRITE AND YOU KNOW IT, AND EVEN THO EVERYBODY HAS AN OPINIUN YOUR OPINIUN IS INCERRECT retort:

I agree with your view on the theme of the story [of A.I.], but believe that the First ending (the ending where he's trapped under water) proves the exact same point with much more poetic punch. You know everybody was about to get up and leave after that, because they thought, "Hey that's the ending." They were also thinking, "but little Haley Joel Osment is in it and Spielberg made the movie and I haven't cried yet." I think that's why the ending was thrown in there, and after that I couldn't help feeling manipulated (and you know if some of the audience actually Realizes they're being manipulated, something's wrong). So here's what I think: The narrator from The Grinch was intrusive, the aliens at the end were aliens (which two of the critics that revealed the ending in their reviews also agreed to -- but even if i t's wrong it doesn't matter because the overall impression the audience got was that they were aliens, and I won't try to prove this point because that would mean another $4.50 to see a movie I didn't much care for), and most of all, the Second ending (the ending where big lumbering skinny cgi creatures go bibidibabidi boo and give our friendly robot horse and carriage that lasts only till midnight), was just hammering the same head into a nail that was already set nicely into place. But of course... you always get to analyze all the people's points with a final word, but that's cool because if you can cut all my points down to size then at least I'll be able to develop some of the appreciation that you had for the film. Thanks cya

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Ending the film at the Blue Fairy underwater would not have the same effect as the film does now, because we would not see that David getting what he wants from someone other than Monica just doesn't cut it for him.

The narrator was Ben Kingsley, not Anthony Hopkins.

Why do you believe other critics who said the beings at the end were aliens, but you don't believe me when I say they're robots? Because they agree with you? The proof positive that they are robots, the inheritors of Earth, and not from another planet with their own independent culture is this: The search for a meaning of life clearly is important to the beings at the end of the film, but if they were from an independent culture, they'd have their own art and music and mathematics and their own search for a meaning of life. That they do not, and must explore the works that humans left behind, proves that they cannot have developed independently.

And it does make a difference, actually, that they are Earth-originating robots and not aliens from another world. It makes David far more important to their quest to understand humans (and, as a result, understand themselves).

Kristijan Schmidt writes:

Greetings from Bulgaria, Im sorry you didnt like Pitch Black. I saw this movie like 20 times and Im impressed by its characters and by its actors. The effects are great, but there we dont disagree. Imagine you are in a fucking mascarade. What is good and what is evil? Is Riddick evil? Im sure he is not! Johns? He reveals as an assholŽ, but he tries to act as a good guy and not to get too far away from the society. What about Fry? She si certainly not evil! even though she is able to sacrifice 40+ people. This is survival. Im sure you dont lack imagination if you cant understand this Film. Its just your understanding of Good and Evil which is predominated by some stupid Books (may be 2000 years old)

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Okay, I am imagining I am in a fucking mascarade...

Nope, doesn't help. Thanks for a good laugh, though -- the suggestion that an atheist like myself might be overly influenced by the Bible had me howling!

Kristijan Schmidt replies:

Atheist? you call yourself that? its too much I think! If you dont believe, just dont care about the "fucker". Im sure God exists, even if only in the heads of those who believe!! So what is your atheism worth now? Do you neglect an idea? Wake up and stop calling yourself atheist? :-)

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Wow. Your devastating argument smashes to bits my long held and carefully considered position. I give up. I shall stop calling myself an atheist immediately.

Kristijan Schmidt again:

Dont care for describing who you are! just get a real life, girl! You care so much for your non profit wwwsite and you laugh so much at other people or arguments, that I dont believe you are happy! Im am not sorry for that - Its your choice how to live!

The Flick Filosopher responds:

It's amazing that you can tell over the Internet from halfway around the world how how happy I am. You should go into business as a psychiatrist.

Kristijan Schmidt replies:

yeahh. i know:-) the level of happyness is reflected in your weltanschauung!

I cant believe you think the 13th Warrior is a good movie, whereas you consider PitchBlack to be crap!

I enjoyed "the 13th w." but it was a creepy production, it has a somehow romantic atmosphere( if you like this part of the history), but that was all. anyway, have a nice weekand and TGIF

Kenny Falconer writes:

I just finished reading you review of The Mists of Avalon. I loved the book, and I am generally a fan of fantasy, but I dislike the way it is often portrayed in movies, as quaint little people in a fairy-tale land. I appreciate what you said about the spirit of the story being lost. When a book is made into a movie, this seems to happen more often than not. The question I wanted to ask was, do you think Hollywood should take great books and try to make movies of them? I appreciate that this would limit directorial freedom, but shouldn't the original author be much more heavily involved with script writing and direction? Surely he or she would be the best person for the job, as they more than anybody are aware of what the character are thinking, how they would act and what they would feel. The forthcoming movie, Ender's Game, is an adaptation of a truly classic sci-fi novel, and the author, Orson Scott Card, is the script writer. I am not sure, but it seems to me that since he does have theatre experience, he might also be involved in the direction. Not every author is still around, or even willing to participate in a movie of one of their books, but surely Hollywood should wake up and involve them much more heavily if they don't want to disappoint the hoards of loyal fans such books have.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Writing a novel is a very different venture from writing a script, and directing a movie is very different from writing anything. One person can't necessarily do them all well, and a novelist isn't always the best person to adapt a screenplay of his/her book. And the way filmmaking works, the screenwriter can't just decide to act like a director, assuming her or she is even invited to the set (I think the writer should be on the set, and I believe the new contract agreement the WGA just passed allows for that). And as with writing, directing for the theater is very different from directing for film -- being good at one does not necessarily mean someone would be good at the other.

The writer should have more power in Hollywood, but if that ever comes about, it won't be because the industry is worried about angering book fans: there just aren't enough readers to make a big difference when it comes to the success of a film adaptation, for the most part. Even if you count all the people who'll have read a beloved classic like The Lord of the Rings before it opens in theaters this Christmas, they'll still be a small part of the intended audience of the film.

Kenny Falconer replies:

I appreciate that the people who have actually read the book of the movie, might only be a small part of the intended audience. The problem is, that when Hollywood turns a widely respected book into a film, they are obviously hoping to capitalize on the fame of the book to pull larger audiences into theatres. Even people who have only heard of the book are more likely to watch the film if it had a wide following.

If the movie turns out to be bad, or even just average, then it is going to recieve a much more hostile response from critics and audiences alike than if it had just been a normal production. Surely this means that book adaptations are a much higher risk enterprise, and should be treated with more care and attention, to make sure the spirit and atmosphere that made the book great is transferred.

Orson Scott Card said of the movie Enders game "Hopefully we're in a strong position to go to a studio WITHOUT having to get an "amateur" director whose first act would be to fire me and hire his pet writer(s) to turn Ender's Game into a remake of the Last Starfighter or S-Troop."

I am not saying that every great book should be adapted so that everything about the movie is as close to the book as possible. What I am saying is that the things that made the book great should go in the movie, so that the spirit of the story is not lost or changed. And that the author of the book should never be passed over in the way described above, otherwise it just seems to me that the studio is wasting its money.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I agree with you 100 percent, but Hollywood doesn't. If all a studio is trying to is capitalize on the fame of a best-selling book -- that is, using the name recognition a title or author has -- even among people who don't read, then most of the audience is not going to know whether the spirit of a book has been retained, because they haven't read the book. If non-readers say to themselves, "This movie is based on a Stephen King book, and I know King writes books people say are good, then I'll go see this movie," then the objective has been achieved. The Mists of Avalon adaptation got almost entirely good to rave reviews from critics. How many of them read the Zimmer Bradley book? I bet not many of them.

Whitney S. Cohen writes:

As always, deeply enjoying your reviews -- how wonderful to find someone who I agree with so often! -- and your musings. Just wanted to drop a line to say that I'm certainly interested in your screenplays, both as an actress (theatre, television, and film) and a writer (poetry, stories, even a good chunk of movie reviews). And you are just so dang cool, hard-working, and independent I can't see myself being uninterested in anything you've done.

Ah, and I'm also a webdesigner and graphic artist, when I'm not singing or acting, and therefore must briefly praise your site's simplicity and power.

So, yes, I'd love to read your non-review writings.

Justin Wagner writes:

I first visited your site to settle an arguement about a movie. My friend said that Pulp Fiction won Best Picture in 1994, and i still said it was Forrest Gump, turns out i was right, he must have been wacked out of his skull. Anyway, my friend and i find ourselves to be respectable movie critics, the only reason we keep our jobs at Blockbuster is for our free rentals, and we can sit around for hours just talking about movies. I dont mean to waste your time, i was just so excited when i found there are others out there who make criticizing movies a hobby. Thank you for creating the greatest web site i have ever been to, keep up the good work! Thanks for reading.

Bill McClain writes:

Re: "To Gamers, With Love" gaffe? [Tomb Raider review]

The inventory reveals a Glock, right? Why threaten the studio exec with the lunch, then? Are studio execs more afraid of non-organic bologna than guns?

Very clever review, though. If you can justifiably call it a "review."

The Flick Filosopher responds:

The gun vs. bologna bit was yet another swipe at Hollywood types. It was absolutely intentional.

Why not call it a review? It conveys my reaction to the film, and that's what a review is supposed to do, isn't it?

Bill McClain replies:

I guess I just didn't get the text-game reference...we're talking about a film based on a highly visual series of games.

I read Roger Ebert's review of the movie and couldn't figure out why he was so gushy about it other than (somewhat understandably) having a thing for a digitally enhanced Angelina Jolie. The whole film sounded like yer basic lowbrow escapism, same as JIII, Rush Hour, Planet of the Method Actors, etc.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Using the text-based game was another sarcastic point I was making, that text games are better than shoot-'em-ups. In my opinion. :->

It ain't Ebert's thumb that is up for Angelina Jolie. Check out his review of ORIGINAL SIN. He will praise to the heavens any film that features her and her lips.

newer mail | previous mail