cbf writes:

I just gotta say, it really amazes me when I see some annoying little malcontent not only e-mail you just to piss and moan at you for having your own opinions about something, but somehow manage to go through several cycles of very similar correspondance, no matter how frequently and how hard you crack them across the back of the head with the Clue Stick. Now I don't want this to turn into a bunch of syncophantic ass-kissing, but how much oven cleaner and paint thinner did these sad little gits need to huff to get the idea that you're somehow obligated to please every damn person on the planet? If you post this to the website, and any of those deluded little crack babies stop trying to punch their own reflections in the mirror long enough to read this, I'd like to let them know straight up that the only reason you're running this site is because it's something you enjoy doing, and if you didn't enjoy it, there's absolutely nothing keeping you from pulling the plug and replacing all content with a single page consisting of a giant picture of a hand flipping the middle finger, and an auto-redirect to [very naughty site URL deleted], alright?

Bonnie Black writes:

the most frustrating thing about Cinematic Musings is that i received it at 12:52 p.m. and -- too quickly -- finished reading it by 12:58 p.m. meanwhile, i know that you slaved away on it for hours and spend nearly a week thinking about what to say. even truly intellectual ramblings are all too fleeting.

a job well done!

Amy Buttery writes:

I've been toying with the idea of subscribing to Cinematic Musings anyway, but the inticement of reading your screenplay would probably do it for me. Every month or so I try to remember to thank the friend who first put me on to you. My husband is getting annoyed at my insistence that he read every review of yours that I do, even if we have no intention of seeing the movie or video. (I keep thinking he'll get hooked on you like I have, but maybe it's a girl thing. Or maybe he'd just rather spend his precious online time seeking out collectible Huckleberry Hound stuff on eBay.)

Anyway, bring it on. Yours would be the first website content I would actually pay for.

David Conner writes:

I just wanted to offer you my consolations on your defeat at the hands of the invincible Thomas Falater. I'm sure you must be devastated!

But here's a link you might want to consult to avoid disappointing Thomas Falater in the future. Know your enemy!

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Hee hee! Thanks!

McNeill L Michael Capt SMC/XRII writes:

[My replies interspersed in boldface--MAJ]

Congrats! I saw your write-up in this week's TIME Magazine. Somebody had been taking notice of you. They mention you and the Filmgeek as their examples of online film critics.

Note that it was not my old friend Rick Ferguson they were referring to, but some guy called Joey the Film Geek. Completely different person.

Interesting that they gave you both praise....and criticism - as they seem to accuse you of being biased because you are trying to sell screenplays to the same studios whose movies you are critiquing.

Yes, and I am quite annoyed that Time thought it was okay to raise such a suggestion without allowing me the opportunity to respond. No one from the mag bothered to even attempt to get in touch with me before the article ran -- the first I heard about this article was from a friend, who cc'ed me on an email to Time's letters column, defending my integrity.

Also, Roger Ebert, who has won a Pulitzer Prize for film criticism, had several screenplays produced early in his reviewing career. Time didn't mention that.

So....are you? Does their accusation have any merit? I always figured you reviewed movies for your damn self, and not to impress anyone or because you are getting paid by the studios. But this does put you in a bit of a situation. If you slam a movie like The Princess Diaries or Tomb Raider and then try and sell a script (screenplay?) to that studio, would that hurt your chances, or are studios so big that they wouldn't notice or care?

I do review movies for my own damn self, and I can't imagine how anyone who has spent any amount of time at my site could conclude otherwise. Not only do I regularly slam films from major studios -- the ones that deserve it, of course -- but I also slam the whole Hollywood system! I do wonder sometimes whether this will hurt any screenwriter career I might have, but then I tell myself, Fuck it. If honesty is a problem, then I don't want any part of Hollywood. I honestly can't see any big studio risking money on much of what I'm writing in screenplays -- it just isn't blockbuster potential. And to my knowledge, no big studio has looked at Bronx Cheer, unless it's been passed to people there by a third party. It's just small production companies that have expressed any interest in me so far, and that's just fine with me. I'd rather see my scripts done right by outsiders with less money coming my way than sell out for big bucks to Hollywood only to see my work trashed by "script doctors," sanitized for mass audiences, and reworked for Julia Roberts or Sandra Bullock.

Oh, and on your reviews of 2 recent anime films - Final Fantasy and X. I see that you're not an anime buff - no crime there, few are (fewer women even). I think you were quite harsh FF though. The story needed some work, sure - it was too "anime-ish" what with the spirit babble and so-so ending - but that seems to be how the genera is. Your review seemed to hold it to the standard of a big-budged live action U.S. film.

That's because it was a big-budget American film, intended for American audiences not particularly familiar with anime. But really, the only standard I hold any film to is, Did it entertain me?

I think it was still quite a breakthrouth for what it was. You mentioned you couldn't care much about he characters becasue their emotions didn't come across - I was wowed by the emotion and realness they were able to portray - keeping in mind this is entirely a computer flik.

I had no problem feeling for the characters of Toy Story or Shrek. So I don't think it was the CGI per se that was a problem for me.

I found it easy to forget Aki Ross and her hair wasn't a real person (except when they showed her hands, which looked very plastic-y), even though it looked like the programmers didn't spend as much effort on the faces and movements of the other characters.

They didn't. From the press kit for the film: "The most time-consuming and render-intensive part of Aki is her hair; 20 percent of total production time was spent on it." That's appalling.

Still, I was impressed, and put the film far above "jerk off fodder for computer geeks".

Perhaps. But it's nowhere near the "compelling story and sympathetic characters" realm.

I just hope they do better on both fronts (story and emotions) next time when the computers used to render them are more powerful.

As for X - I haven't seen this film, but the response from one of your readers was pretty funny - so was your review. She was pissed! Japanese (i'm assuming she was japanese) take their anime seriously! I'm suprised you reviewed it at all, seeing as how it's not your cuppa tea, and it seemed you were a reporter sent to a strange and unfamiliar planet trying to just keep up with describing eveything in your review. I got the feeling that you were just plain lost throughout the film.

I was. But as I note right in the beginning of the review, I took a friend with me to the screening who is a total anime nut, and he was lost too. So it wasn't just me.

Which is a common theme in anime. Anime is a different world - no censorship, no ratings, no need for a linear, logical plot, no western rules apply - in some films everybody dies, or very often the bad guys win, and some are incomprehensible but pretty darn good - or at least gory, some are insanely profane and some are just ??@#!%?

As I guide for watching or reviewing future anime I offer the following classification system:

Kung-Fu: includes, natch, kung fu stuff. Usually takes place in the past but can also be an apocalyptic future where people duke it out with fists of fury. Recommend Ninja Scroll and Fist of the Northstar. Really violent and gory and usually extremely good - The Matrix, after all, was intended to be an anime.

Future: Probably what most fall under, like Akira, Ghost in the Shell, Robotech, FF, the list is endless. Most of these have the most amazing plots but almost always deal with a futuristic setting after a nuclear holocaust. Actually, the nuclear thing plays very heavily in many categories of anime. Must be that whole Enola Gay experience. Anyhoo, it's too bad more of the good ones aren't made into american movies - but they would require huge budgets - or some good CGI like... Final Fantasy.

All FF had was CGI. That's just not enough for me.

Soap Opera: These are sometimes also in the crack-anime section - but they have subplots and twists and backstabbing and angling that put any Live action soap operas to shame! Seriously. Check out Marmalade Boy.

Demon Penis: Anime has a thing for young underage virgins - and those virgins must be raped and killed by huge multi-headed building-sized fire-breathing penises and the demons that own them. Many animes have a very common theme of powerful demons who must rape and kill beautiful virgins at every chance, which helps them take over the world, instead of doing other demonic things - I don't know why. Any Urotsukodoji films are a prime example, and if any of these films made it in front of a Senate committe or a N.O.W. meeting they would be given a XXXX rating and banned from existence. Again, you usually see the apocalyptic theme, if Nukes aren't destrying Tokyo, Penises are.

Porn: Um, Porn - but different from Demon Penis stuff. Anything by Soft-Cell or Pink Pineapple. And of course all girls in an anime porn are tiny young virgins. They actually have plots and stuff - but the plots are always about young virgins getting taken advantage of by guys with, natch, huge penises.

Great. Like I need to watch more adolescent male fantasies about fear of women.

Crack-Anime: This gets a special category of it's own. It's like the writers were on crack when they wrote it. Maybe X falls under this catergory. The characters may be so stupid or the plots so incomprehensible that Crack must be involved somehow. Think Tranzor Z or Pokemon.

Well, I appreciate the effort you took in putting that guide together, but I just don't see myself immersing myself in it.

Round 2 with McNeill L Michael Capt SMC/XRII:

[My replies interspersed in boldface--MAJ]

Well, good to know that you could care less about what the studios think of your reviews. I saw on the evening news once that the reason movies always get rave reviews by "critics" on their TV and newspaper ads is because the studios "treat" critics to an advanced preview with free stuff that they give out.

There are "critics" who attend junkets at which they get all sorts of free junk (movie merchandising, usually, like t-shirts and caps and so on) and access to the stars, but they also get airfare and get put up in nice hotels and free meals and so on. Some more scrupulous outlets don't let their journalists accept the freebies, but there are plenty of "critics" who do take the freebies and will supply rave quotes for any film. I can't see the point in doing that. I love movies, that's all. I'm not interested in kissing anyone's ass or hanging around movie stars -- not only is that a sure way to lose every last iota of respect the industry might have for you, but I'd lose all respect for myself.

Reading your site does make it seem evident that you give your unbiased opinion,

I am always honest, but I can't pretend to be unbiased. No one is. We all have our own prejudices -- I do have particular preferences for certain actors, directors, types of movie, etc. I try to make those prejudices clear in my reviews. But the day I decide to go easy on a film that deserves ripping to shreds because of how it might look to the studios is the day I hang up my reviewing pen forever.

but Time did slip you a jab in the ribs. But who knows, I found your site because I read a letter to the editor you sent in to Entertainment Weekly about The Matrix.

I picked up a lot of new visitors from that letter. :->

Perhaps the mere mention of you by Time will get you many visitors who may even sit at the bar and throw bread in your jar. So even their attempt to throw tar on your rep may wind up being good for you after all.

So far I haven't noticed much of a boost in traffic. But we'll see.

Back to movies, I'm floored that 20% of rendering time for FF was spent on Aki's HAIR! You're kidding? She didn't need conditioner in the future, she had, like, a $30 Million dollar haircut! That's way more than 100 bucks a strand. Damn.

If 20% is the amount the studio is willing to admit to, then I'd bet it was even more.

As for anime - a lot of it is male fantasy - but again, due to the no censorship and no hollywoodization of the plots - some are downright fantastic and have genuinely intelligent and way cool ideas. Hollywood could learn well from them and stop churning out "action movies" that have the same weak plots and the same super tough heroes or heroines that have a happy ending every...single...identical...time. Terminator 2 comes to mind when I think of a Hollywood success that was very anime-ish, but it's been such a long time.

And I love T2. I vehemently oppose censorship and I do wish that we'd see more different types of stories being told. But that doesn't mean I'm required to like all those different, uncensored stories. :->

McNeill L Michael Capt SMC/XRII replies:

I don't like many anime either - but some - like Ghost in the Shell, Vampire Hunter D, and Ninja Scroll, are worth checking out for something different yet comprehensible. So are the sagas like Macross and Berzerk if you have the time and patience to sit through some 22 episodes...

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I've got Ghost in the Shell sitting in my to-watch DVD pile, and I'd like to see Princess Mononoke. But I don't feel a real need to immerse myself in anime beyond that.

McNeill L Michael Capt SMC/XRII again:

Bueno. For me personally, I'd rather see you review Hollywood flicks. that seems to be your turf and those are the ones I'm spending my 40 bucks on.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Never fear. I'll never stop reviewing Hollywood films. They're just too much fun to trash.

There I go, ruining my screenwriting career again. :->

[Warning: A.I. spoilers]

Clay Taylor writes:

I noticed a debate in the most recent "Reader Mail" section about whether the creatures that rescued David in A.I. were aliens or robots. I just read in Entertainment Weekly that Steven Spielberg said that, indeed, they were an advanced form of robot life, and he trusted that the audience should be able to figure it out. Hopefully that should end any confusion.

Love your site, by the way. I think I might hang your Armageddon review in my room somewhere, so I can show it to all the people I know who think it's the "greatest movie ever."

Derek writes:

I think Amazon probably already notified you, but I just wanted to let you know that as a fellow creative artist, I'm with you on the forced-poverty situation that working on your site has put you in. So I sent you 5 bucks. Would that it could be more, but ya know...

Hear this, though - when I get rich and famous and have a term deal at a studio or something, I'll send a good deal more (and I'll want to see your screenplays ;-> ).

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Thanks again. Your generosity is much appreciated. But be aware that I plan on being rich and famous someday, too -- maybe even to the point where I get my name (instead of just the name of my work) in Time magazine!

Good luck in all your creative endeavors.

Brian Carson writes:

I only listen to three reviewers. Roger Ebert, CrankyCritic.com and you. In the vast wasteland of $hitty reviewers, your work is much appreciated. Keep it up as long as you can!

Lyman Maddox writes:

Since I saw a link to your site on Yahoo, I've been dropping by for about a month now. I get a lot of pleasure from reading your fun, thought-provoking writing. Today I used Amazon to send you $5 (no applause please.)

I read a discussion thread where someone asked if one of the staff members of Flickfilosopher could do something better, and you explained the scope of the Flickfilosopher staff, and that sure was funny! And then I thought it would be nice if all of us reader surfers could come visit you in New York for a week and see how much time and effort you send preparing for and writing reviews and doing all the things it takes to create a great website!

But if that might be somewhat inconvenient, perhaps you could write about "A Week in the Life of the Flickfilosopher". All kidding aside, I think many people would enjoy that story, and if we understood what you do, we might send you more money.

As long as you are having fun, keep up the good work at Flickfilosopher!

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Thanks for the donation -- it's much appreciated!

I love your "a week in the life" idea. I just may do it. Stay tuned...

newer mail | previous mail