Subject: Thanks for your continued support of the Hornblower series!
From: Laurie Kristinat [lkristinat@Cerritos.edu]

As someone who remembers you from the time you spent on the A&E Hornblower discussion boards in those heady days of the Emmy winning first series, I have always turned to your site for good words about the episodes, and have never been disappointed. This, in turn, got me reading your other reviews, and darn, but they're good too! Keep up the good work!

However, I must correct an egregious error in your review of the excellent "Loyalty" and "Duty." Horatio most certainly did not break the ceasefire with the French. The noble men of "Hotspur" were fired upon by the treacherous creatures aboard the "Loire." Good grief, you think Horatio would do such a thing? I'm afraid you've lost dibs on dying in his arms. Get to the back of the queue.

Other than that, your site is perfect.

Subject: Mona Lisa smile
From: Alicia Norman [sepiasiren@yahoo.com]

I read with interest your review on Mona Lisa Smile, and first I have to say I didn't see the movie, but wondered a bit what it was about and if it would be worth the price of admission (with the economy being what it is, I hardly think I want to waste a cent on a bad film). Based on many of the reviews I read, I may skip it and wait for it's released to video.

What compelled me to write was not the fact that you obviously hate Julia Roberts, but that you, as well as quite another number of reviewers, seemed to downplay the idea of the importance of a retrospective on feminism, it's immergence, and it's relevence to the here and now.

Sure, we have come a long way, but the walk is hardly over. Women still make far less than men do annually for the same job and the same amount of tenure, are still considered inferior in job skill and performance, and in certain countries girl infanticide is ritualistic and even accepted. A recent study in America revealled that if parents were given the ability to chose the sex of an unborn child, many would elect to have a boy. When asked why, some proclaimed it was less "trouble" to raise a girl, others cited the males ability to progress further and faster in life with less hindrances. These statments hint as a society that pays lip service to female liberation, but on the average, most women still marry and give up all for home and family, and if she does not, she is regarded as a womanly failure, despite accolades otherwise. How is that liberation? Also ever heard of female circumsicion? The idea of women in subjegation is not wholly antiquated, and a reminder or two of that is not a bad thing. It pays to reflect on the struggles of the past to mark our progress and to see how far we have to go. Believing that we "have arrived" makes us unaware of the chains that still bind us. Judging from what I have read, I think people seriously think sexism is dead. These same people also think that black folks were freed the second Lincoln signed the proclamation (I am incidentally African American and thusly know that such was not the case). In regards to even sexual liberation, women are not on equal footing with men. Just think about how a man can sex up women all day and be heralded a hero and yet a woman can't have sex with more than one partner without being thought of as a slut. Why you even say in your own review, and I quote

"...Juliet Stevenson as the (lesbian *sigh*) nurse who gets fired for distributing contraception to sluts like Giselle."

You ridicule the movie for even hinting back at the days when women were ill regarded, and yet can make a comment like this about one of the characters. Why does Giselle have to be a slut for being sexually liberated?

There also seems to be some kind of consensus that women who thought like Julia Roberts didn't exist during that time period (not suggested in your review, but in others). Well the suffrage movement began in the 1800's and many women of note over the years have been lauded for being progressive and free thinkers even prior to that, Madam Curie for example.

So it is not out of the question that a bohemian thought process could exist in the fifties. Also I do think it is important to re-examine history for todays youth--you'd be surprised how many young women while aware of the past don't fully understand it's oppressive nature. For many, the movie would be "news" to them.

I feel the strong negative reaction has more to do with the film forcing people to not only look at the past but the present as well, and if people look too hard they will see that there is still work to do, so it is best to degrade the subject matter and not look at all.

Now this is not an attack on your review. I can give you that the movie may have been horribly cliched with sappy treacly writing and an inept script. But to ridicule the subject matter is to say that women are completely free, and in many ways, we are not. I just found it odd that so many reviewers feel that one shouldn't even dare do a movie with a feministic theme in our modern era, and yet men get to pat themselves on the back all day long about their past and current achievements cinematiclly. Yet another double standard that in my opinion is the reason why women still have a long way to go.

I do think however that you are a gifted reviewer and I value your insight in this regard, beleiving wholeheartedly in the Volatiristic philosophy of "agreeing to disagree"

I respond:

Wow.

Wow.

You admit you haven't even seen the film, and yet you're comfortable calling it a "retrospective" on feminism. It isn't. It's a gloss on feminism. It's a greeting card on feminism. For a film that's supposed to be about the value on nonconformity, it's shockingly conformist. The subject matter is certainly open to ridicule when it's handled the way it is here.

Please do not lecture me on feminism. I know what problems women face, being a woman myself. Female circumcision? My god, this film is so far from dealing with any real problems of women in the 1950s or women today that to even mention such a horror in the same breath as this film is thoroughly absurd.

I don't think women like Giselle are sluts. I know independent women like Katherine existed in the 1950s. It's the damn movie that has the attitudes you accuse me of.

You want to be mad that plenty people think feminism is done and over and women are completely equal with men? Blame movies like this. Don't blame those who call it out on its deficiencies. And please see the movie if you want to have a substantive discussion about it.

The reader responds:

No I wasn't calling the movie a retrospective on feminism, nor was I in any way defending the film. I haven't seen it so how could I. Rather it appeared some critics were taking shots at feminsim via their reviews. It seems sometimes critics step away from just reviewing and get personal revealling aspects of thier own belief systems or personal tastes, which is okay, seeing as a review can be as individual as the individual themselves, and that is why they are fun to read. As I said in the beginning and in the end of the letter that I do believe that the film is probably what all the critics are saying it is as I tend to agree with most critics assessments, particularly when it is a majority consensus. I am something of an opininated cuss myself, dissecting movies ad nauseam to the point my friends hate seeing a movie with me. I am that way with most things, and to me it appeared people were lamblasting feminism, not the movie. I could have misunderstood. I was saying that it seemed people were taking shots at feminism via the movie review. The reviews I have read don't make me desire to see the movie because the more I read the more I feel you guys may be right on that subject. If anything MONA may be relegated to a Thursday night movie pick at Blockbuster if there is nothing else good to rent, just to see what the fuss is about. In that spirit, I've also promised my self a B-Movie night and plan to put rent Gigli, Glitter, Crossroads (Britney Spears) and Swept Away on the list of fare (please don't hurt me...lol) just for the mere curiosity factor of it. Sometimes a really bad movie can make you understand and appreciate a really good movie. Again my letter was never intended as a defense of a movie I never saw but rather asa defense of feminism, and if I misunderstood your intentions I am sorry--I am just very passionate about the subject of feminism as I am also a woman and all, and I get such flack for many of the decisions I have made, like chosing not to marry (past my prime no less, in my mid thirties) and pursue my "bliss" as they say. The fact that I am happy and comfortable with myself is beyond comprehsion to many, women in particular. As many times as I am asked when will I marry there came with it this underlying idea that something must be wrong with me if I can't get a man. I have been proposed to twice, and I have had satisfying long term relationships, satisfying in that I learned and gave so much and now have wonderful friends in my life. I don't feel I have to be partnered to be complete--and yet many think there is something wrong because I haven't had kids or gone down the aisle. heck I may never want to do that and in a modern society I think women should have that right. Throwing off the chain of that particular expectation has been very freeing indeed, and I do love my life, but as I say, feminism is a subject dear to me, and it kinda jarred when I felt the critics were trashing it from behind the veil of a movie review. However, I wrote a couple of other critics as well and they were so kewl about it and explained their POV so that I kinda got what they were saying a bit, although I may have worded the review myself differently, but then that is why they are they and I are I...lol.

That said, keep the spirit and I do apologize for the misunderstanding!

I respond:

I think you're mistaking a lambasting of feminism as it's presented in the film with a lambasting of feminism on the whole. Of course, that distinction is hard to make without having actually seen the film, which is why it's dangerous to criticize a critic when you don't have any real knowledge of what the critic is criticizing. :->

The reader responds:

But do I have to see that movie? Isn't being humbled enough punishment? LOL, You know it's funny, when I saw the trailers for MONA, some of the dialogue even threw me off, I was like--eck what kitsch. And Julia R, bless her heart, at times I can take or leave her, despite her adorableness lol...wasn't sure I wanted to see it, and more inclined not to.

Hey, I do have something to blame for my rashness, I mean I am after all an artist prone to impetuousness and just downright silliness. I write and sing and stuff. My stage name is Rae' Ven--maybe one day you'll hear of me--plan on releasing a CD in February 2004. If I get famous you can tell people that I wrote ya one day and that you were able to smack me around a bit into reason (I am so kidding--I have an odd sense of humor) Hey! I may even turn out to be one of those singers, who turns actress, wouldn't that be grand--lol.

*big cheesy grin*

I respond:

I'm not saying you have to see the film. I'm suggesting that in the future, you might want to keep in mind that it's hard to talk intelligently about something that you have only minimal knowledge of. :->

Good luck with your CD.

The reader responds:

Ah, I was just jokin', and badly I may add...lol, I know you wouldn't make me see the film. But once again, I concur with your assessment *sigh* Passion gets in my way at times, I gave a knee jerk reaction to what I felt was an attack on feminism, the movie I could care less about but if I wanted to talk about the movie as it may relate to past and modern feminism, then I wholeheartedly agree I would have to see MONA. But, just for the sake of argument, and this is just for arguments sake mind you, ( I like a enlivening sparring debate with intelligent minds, keeps one on ones toes and sharpens the mind just as much, I think, as reading) ;-)

Anywayz, if someone made a statement like. "I saw Mona Lisa Smile and hated it. Damn feminists, all they are are ballbusters who hate men!" or "The book and Movie ROOTS by Alex Hailey is nothing but blacks trying to whine about slavery and yet again make white people villains!" Then I could bring up a counterpoint about feminism and or racism without having to see the movie based on what seems to be a speakers apparent bias against feminism/racism, couldn't I? Not saying that is what you did, just playing devils advocate. There could be times where a knowledge of a particular type of material (like a book or movie) could be less important if an apparent bias is presented about said a subject, in which you may have a first hand knoweldge of (in my case, lets say, racism.) In other words, someone making a racist comments about a movie could be approached and intellectually debated with without my having read or veiwed the material if the person makes a statement grossly out of proportion to a discussion about a movie or book...

I respond:

Okay, but no one did write anything like "I saw Mona Lisa Smile and hated it. Damn feminists, all they are are ballbusters who hate men!", did they? :->

Subject: Foggy sand in my shoes
From: David Conner [dconner69@yahoo.com]

I'm delighted to find that my skill at Reviewing Movies I Haven't Seen is holding up with House of Sand and Fog. I wanted to throw things at this movie just from seeing its trailer! It's awful enough as a 3 minute movie or whatever it is, at 120+ minutes it must be excruciating!

Just out of curiosity, does the movie cover the fact that, when your property is sold at auction to pay your tax bill, you get to keep (value of property minus amount of tax due) for yourself? Shouldn't Jennifer Connelly have a big chunk of Ben Kingsley's cash, which would allow her to avoid shaving her armpits in public restrooms? Or does the movie take place in a parallel universe where all the money goes to those mean govermnent bureaucrats who read their mail every once in a while?

I fully admit that I may just be an evil unsentimental materialistic SOB, but after the first 30 seconds of the trailer, if I were Jennifer Connelly, I'd just say "ah, life's too short to spend stalking mean old Ben Kingsley. I think I'll buy a nice condo and deal with the horror of being one of the most beautiful women on the planet and not living in dad's crappy old house." But that's probably just me.

I respond:

Connelly's character gets nothing from the county, at least not that we're told.

I agree with you about Jen: I'd move on, too. But see, the house is Symbolic. It's Important. It's a Metaphor. Only phillistines like you and me can't see that. :->

Subject: OT: our town
From: scott hamilton kennedy

I never do this, but I just stumbled across your piece on my film OT: our town, and i just wanted to say thank you, and I'm glad you liked the film. Praise is always nice, but I really liked what you saw in the film. Thanks for supporting the 'smaller' movies.

Subject: can I complain about Battlestar Galactica yet?...
From: Paul Wartenberg [wittylibrarian@lycos.com]

Okay, saw your review [of Battlestar Galactica], and DAMN right! Nailed it! And I'm surprised you threw in the "Prisoner" reference, I'm not too sure anyone else would spot it...then again, if they made her "Number 5" there'd be in-jokes about the Peanuts cartoons...

You're right about messing around with the canon, even for a mainly cult show like Galactica. The gender and ethnicity changes to most of the cast (uh, Boomer and Tigh were black, guys, and the cylons were toaster ovens not blondes...) just throws it for the people who watched the original and are the ones who would be the most keen to see a revival of the show. And like it or not when you remake (or reimagine) a movie/series you kinda gotta stick to the original structure, at least the stuff that worked (and it wasn't the casting that hurt the original series, it was the increasingly lame scripts). It's like reimagining Psycho with a female Norman Bates, or Planet of the Apes with a Marky Mark...wait a minute...

The other things I hated about the miniseries were:

1) who let a 2-yr-old work the Zoom button on the camera? Zoom in! Zoom out! Zoom! Zoom! Zoom and pan! Dizzy spell!

2) How lazy is local law enforcement when a baby killer like Number Six is allowed to wander aboot for days?

3) Adama's supposedly inspiring speech during the mass funeral, inciting the crew to search for the Lost Colony of Earth? (The colonies, btw, are representative of the tribes of Israel with the lost tribe representing the Mormons, the whole quest thing is supposedly mimicking the Mormons' flight to Utah...the original producer/creator of the show was a Mormon...there's a link for it on Wikipedia.org) Oh, where was I? The speech. Yeah, the speech was...well, flat. And I felt mis-timed. And not staged properly. It would have been nicer if he had thought it over, maybe coming out later with some 'map' or historical documents or weapons of mass destruction to back up his claims of a lost colony/safe haven.

4) The final plot twist revealing who the Imperious Leader was. BOOMER?!?!?! Dammit, couldn't they cough up some dough to get Patrick Macnee in for a two-minute cameo as Count Iblis?! And I didn't want Boomer to be the traitor...it would have been cooler if it was...hmm...if it was...June Lockhart? Nah...

Sigh. If only we could get Kevin Smith to film a live-action remake of StarBlazers...sigh...

Subject: Boxey
From: Roger Travis [rogertravis@rcn.com]

Thanks so much for the Battlestar Galactica review. I just have to say that there should be some kind of congressional hearings on why the knowledge was kept from pre-adolescent geeks that there were so many of us who thought Boxey was a cool name. When I think of how much emotional torment that knowledge could have saved me. . .

01.07.04

to batch #3 | older mail