[may contain spoilers for Cold Mountain and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King]

Subject: Review of Cold Mountain and RoTK
From: Jeanne Northcutt [JNorthcutt@sskfny.com]

Mary Ann, I really enjoy your reviews. In fact, your reviews on RoTK and Cold Mountain stunned me because it was like you crawled up inside my head and wrote down what you saw there. I'll tell you, I first read your RoTK review before I saw the movie, and I thought "what a great review, but she was probably exaggerating a little about the emotional stuff". Then I went that very night and proceeded to cry through...I am not kidding....the entire movie. I started up at the intro, for pete's sake! I went home drained and couldn't sleep (dreams of Faramir, much to my husband's chagrin) and spent the next day with one of those headaches you get when you cry way too much.

I expected to be left cold by Cold Mountain (I wasn't blown away by the book), but I dutifully saw it because I felt like I should. Not one tear. Not even WELLING UP. In fact, the only thing I muttered during the death scene was "Well, that marriage was shorter than Britney Spears". I could hardly believe I was so removed from this movie which was actually quite handsomely made. But you hit the nail on the head. Thank god you had enough pluck and candidness to just come out and say it: nothing can hold a candle to RoTK, whether it is the alleged "Year's most rapturous love story" or not!!!

Subject: ROTK
From: Kristin Cassidy [1111elm@lmf.net]

Reading your review, and many reader comments about the movie, I can't help feeling there is something wrong with me for not being affected - at all - by "Return of the Kings." I was in love with The Fellowship, and saw it 5 times in the theatres. I thought the movies would get even better, but The Two Towers left me feeling void of the emotions the first film instilled in me.(I've only seen it once, and that was a full year before I saw the third...maybe that's part of my problem, but I don't think so.) I'm trying to decipher what exactly it was about the third movie that I didn't love.(Indeed I liked it, but it was nothing of what I expected.) I've only seen ROTK once as well, the first day it came out.(so that was about a month ago) I feel like some of the characters(Legolas) and side stories(Faramir and his father, for instance)were underdeveloped, and not in the movie nearly as much as they should have been. I felt annoyed by some aspects of the film.(I think I need to see it again to tell you EXACTLY what...I know I'm being a bit vague) I was mostly unmoved by Frodo and Sam's relationship.(and I'm one to get emotional about these things! After I read your review, I expected such an explosion of feelings, and I didn't! Argh!) I hated Eowyn. It seemed like, OMG, girl power! This film revolves around the hero's so we better throw a beautiful, tough heroin to kill the bad guy and please the female veiwers!

I don't know what's wrong with me. It seems like everyone BUT me didn't love the movie. Is it because I didn't read the books!? (I did read the Hobbit though, hah) And, I know you're not the right person to be complaining about this to, haha. Sorry. But there is NOTHING you felt that was off in that movie? Nothing?

I respond:

No, there was pretty much nothing that I thought was off in ROTK. Even the so-called multiple endings didn't bother me, as some people are complaining about (it's a 9-hour movie -- there's a lot to wrap up).

Movies are a personal thing: I can't tell you why you didn't enjoy any given one. Perhaps it *is* because you didn't read the books -- Legolas isn't all the developed a character in the books, either, and Eowyn is no more Girl Power! in the movie than she is in the book. (I'd have liked to see more of Eowyn and Faramir's relationship, which is only barely hinted at in the film, but I can see why it was cut and I don't think the movie suffers from its absence.)

There's nothing wrong with you for not being moved by the film. It just didn't do it for you. No big deal.

Subject: Lord Of The Rings
From: Robert Pulliam [docsavage20@mpinet.net]

Hi MaryAnn, thought I'd chime in on LOTR - ROTK. I just saw it last night. I'm not any kind of a LOTR geek, never read any of the books, never saw the first 2 movies, but heard such uniformly raving reviews I thought I'd check it out and am so glad I did.

Wow....

Even having only a sketchy grasp of the plot line, and couldn't tell you the name of 4 of the characters now, it was absolutely enthralling. Yeah, there were probably some minor issues you could pick apart if you wanted to be a curmudgeon as I see a few of your readers did, but simply as a visual, musical, auditory, cinematic spectacle it's incredible. Since I'm seeing it a bit late in its run, it was already gone from the local theater which I'm now glad forced me to go to a mall which as it turns out has a much better screen and sound system.

Scene after scene with absolutely stunning shots of this imaginary world, it's 3 hours of non-stop eye candy. The CGI stuff appears to be getting more refined all the time, but I was surprised to read that one version of the kingdom was actually constructed in a quarry somewhere, what a feat of set design that must have been.

If you deign to put any part of my e-mail in your reader mail section, I want to pass the word that speaking as someone who's gotten turned off by Hollywood offerings and have been scare at the theaters, you DO NOT have to be a LOTR devotee to enjoy this movie. Go see it on the big screen while you can!!!

I respond:

I'm delighted that you enjoyed the film so much. But I have to ask: Did you see anything in the film beyond eye candy? Were you able to get involved in the characters and the story at all?

The reader responds:

Well, again keep in mind I didn't have any of the background at all other than having heard of the books for years and a vague awareness that they're some sort of fantasy adventure story, a cursory awareness of what a Hobbitt is, and owning the hilariously cheesy 60's Leonard Nimoy album containing his rendition of "The Ballad Of Bilbo Baggins".

I know, the wedding's off. ;-)

But, with the above caveats in mind, and that I just don't get "into" fictional characters the way some do, judging strictly from this one movie, the ideals as presented are fairly stock - good triumphing over evil, comrades-in-arms banding together, heroism in the face of insurmountable odds, temptation and greed, etc. Kind of vague, entertaining, but 2-dimensional stuff. It doesn't seem that it would really stand up to in-depth analysis - such as what about the fact that the kingdom of man or whatever it was called is presented as a monarchy of some sort, in itself a totalitarian regime?

Some things that did strike me, the futile charge of the knights in shining armor (forgive me, I realize you probably know the names of every group and character better than your own family) made me think of the valiant but doomed stand of the Polish army against the Nazis, refusing to go down without a fight.

I'm also guessing that this story was either wholly or at least substantially, the inspiration for the Star Wars series. The similarities are too obvious. Or am I all wet?

Oh, and as I see others noticed, the scenes between Frodo and Sam struck me as leaning toward the lavender side...jeez, get a room!

Anyway, my .02 Would you say the first 2 are as engaging as this one? How accurate a representation of the books do you feel they are?

I respond:

The films are an excellent filmic representation of the books. Yes, Jackson made some changes, but there are stories that work in literary fiction that don't work on film -- I think he made the best film version of these books as could be made, which is not the same thing as saying he made a literal adaptation. He didn't. He couldn't have.

Star Wars was not, to my knowledge, inspired by LOTR, but if they share some similar traits, it's because they're both versions of pretty much the oldest story ever told, the hero's journey, which we find all over ancient literature, from the Illiad to the story of Christ, to many modern retellings, like Star Wars.

Two-dimensional stuff? *sigh* Wouldn't stand up to in-depth analysis? I wonder what the writers (and readers) of the many, many analyses of Tolkien (and now Jackson) would say to that. There are very few new ideas under the sun -- it's what you do with them that's the important thing. LOTR may be "just" a good-versus-evil story, but it's one of the best-told ones. It's the specifics -- not the "vagueness" -- that makes it so memorable.

You might try watching the other two films before you decide if this is merely stock stuff. Yes, they are thoroughly engaging, but for me, it's all about character, not spectacle and FX. It doesn't sound like you were engaged on that level at all.

The reader responds:

> *Star Wars* was not, to my knowledge, inspired by *LOTR,*
> but if they share some similar traits, it's because they're
> both versions of pretty much the oldest story ever told,

Actually, after I mentioned this, I did a quick net search and it seems there are several references about this such as:

" Lucas has often cited The Lord of the Rings as a major influence on Star Wars. The superficial stuff is the most obvious, but the subtle lesson Lucas learned from Tolkien is how to handle the delicate stuff of myth. Tolkien wrote that myth and fairytale (two terms he used interchangeably) seem to be the best way to communicate morality - hints for choosing between right and wrong - and in fact that may be their primary purpose. "

From http://www.jitterbug.com/origins/lotr.html

> You might try watching the other two films before you decide
> if this is merely stock stuff. Yes, they are thoroughly
> engaging, but for me, it's all about character, not
> spectacle and FX. It doesn't sound like you were engaged on
> that level at all.

Well again, several factors play into this. First, starting in media res as I did - knowing nothing about what was going on, and having only the "Cliffs Notes" version of it at that. Also, I often find that the kind of message that a storyteller is trying to tell isn't one that I even found worthwhile, I very often have to ignore the message and simply enjoy the spectacle. Can't tell you how pissed I was to find out that Mel Gibson's "Signs" was a big religious allegory, given my feelings about religion. The trailers for the film were completely misleading, and I believe intentionally so, especially with his latest effort. Didn't realize he was a Bible thumper before.

In this day and age, watching the Carlie Brucia tragedy (among far too many others) unfold, seeing how screwed up existence among men has largely been over the centuries, and continues to be, I guess I find that it's hard to buy into "the good guys always win".

I respond:

Lucas should take another lesson in handling "the delicate stuff of myth" after what he's done to it in the new SW movies. Sheesh. :->

Storytellers that have overt "messages" in their stories are usually poor storytellers -- as Samuel Goldwyn once said, "If you want to send a message, call Wester Union." Stories are for... stories. Nothing else. Messages and themes and such should arise naturally out of them. And if Tolkien has any intended "message" in his story, I don't think it was that "good always triumphs over evil." I think he was more interested in showing the toll the battle against Evil takes on Good. But you won't see that "message" if you haven't seen the first two films. :->

Subject: Dilemma
From: Rand Hutcheson [brh@vgernet.net]

I think I write you about once every 18 months or so, and the time has come once again.

I am on the horns of a dilemma, to wit:

I determined some time ago that you are the only reliable online movie critic. Therefore, when I want to see a movie, I tend to check what you have to say about it first. Now, I have noticed an extremely high correlation between your idea of a really crappy movie and mine. If you think a movie is really awful, I do too; conversely, if I think a movie is really awful, you do too. Similarly, most of the movies I really like, you really like too. The problem is that you sometimes think a movie is really fantastic, while I think it pretty much sucks. Titanic, for example. The Return of the King.

I believe I have more or less pinpointed where our differences lie, and it's all in the plot--or, to be more precise, in the treatment of the subject matter. I wrote you several years ago about Titanic; I don't think you responded (and you usually do respond to my ramblings (and while we're at it: I also notice that only my initial e-mail to you, several years ago, in which I praised your sagacity and discernment is "out there" on the Web, while my e-mails that are critical of you are not (at least, I believe this is the case; my basis for this remark is that only this one turns up when I "Google" myself (I would never have thought of Googling myself if a friend hadn't told me that I'd find it entertaining if I did; I'm still not sure what he was talking about)))). At any rate, my objection to Titanic was the trite and predictable plot, which I thought was gratuitous and unnecessary.

My issue with The Return of the King (and, in fact, with the whole Rings trilogy, except the second one, which I thought was passable) is that the plot is incoherent. The whole basis for the ring thing is never explained--or if it was, I missed it. To paraphrase Alcuin, Quid circulus cum malo? Why a ring? Why must the ring be destroyed? Why is Golem the only guide the Hobbits can find to get to Mordor? For that matter, why does the good wizard turn evil in the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring? Et cetera. There is no credible motivation anywhere in the story, as far as I can see, except as regards trivial matters.

The whole fight between good and evil/fate of the world thing is well done, though hardly unexpected. The movies were nicely made and fun to watch, though the armor really did look a little bit too much like plastic and that scene towards the end of The Return of the King with the Hobbits jumping around on Frodo's bed was just too blatantly cutesy for words. And what was up with the elf-ship at the end? Was that some kind of Avalon thing, and if so, why wasn't it explained? Again, a plot theme is introduced with absolutely no motivation or explanation.

I suspect the problem is that I have not read the books, but this should not impair the effectiveness of a book-based movie. I'll admit: I have never cared for fantasy literature--though I do sometimes enjoy watching it on the screen (still, I probably would not have gone at all if my kids hadn't been eager to see the thing). I almost want to read the books now to see if they are as poorly done as the films. It seems more likely, however, that the people who put this movie/these movies together simply never imagined that they would be watched by people who had not read the books--and this is the worst failure of imagination of all.

I have read a good deal of what Tolkien wrote, but I've never read any of his fiction. Was he trying to be allegorical? Did he have other aims than designing a credible plot? Wolfram von Eschenbach is incoherent at times too, but at least the grail quest makes sense, in a way that the ring thing does not. Is Tolkien trying to write from a medieval perspective, with a medieval world view? Or is he simply telling a medieval story, and rather badly, at that? I wish I knew, but, truth be told, I am probably not going to go to the trouble of reading the damn books to find out. Still, Tolkien was a highly intelligent man, and I strongly suspect that the fault was with the moviemakers and not with Tolkien. I think Tolkien probably knew exactly what he was doing.

But I digress. My problem, once again, is this: how am I to tell whether I might think a movie you think is really neat is really not so neat at all? I have a thought: do more of the kind of disclaimer you did with the Rings reviews, where I knew not to trust your opinion because you admitted you were ga-ga over Tolkien. For example, someone writing a review of Titanic--not the staid and respectable Flick Filosopher, of course, but some hypothetical other person similarly situated--might have included in her Titanic review a statement like "I am just ga-ga over Lenny DiCraprio, so I don't care if a movie he's in is totally anachronistic and absurd--I'm going to give it a good review." Your thoughts?

Post-script on Peter Pan: I liked Peter Pan, but not quite as much as you did. Just in case you are interested, which you should be, considering the prediction contained in the review, my daughter, who is--yes--eleven years old, and--yes--in sixth grade, did not find the hero particularly appealing. Something about his teeth, I seem to recall. But she did report that one of her classmates had a huge crush on him.

I respond:

The Lord of the Rings is all about *power,* dude. That's what the ring is: all-corrupting power. It's why the wizard turns evil. It's what drives *everything.* I've read the books, of course, so I can't imagine what the films seem like to someone who hasn't, but it seems to me that it's all there in the films: every scene with the ring highlights its seductive draw. I'm not sure how anyone could miss it.

I publish plenty of hate mail. I can't post it all. Sorry if I passed on posting some of yours.

As for your proposal: It won't work. There's no obvious bias I can think of that makes me love Titanic as much as I do, and I have never seen how love of the film has to be qualified in any way. And this will be the case, probably, with many films we disagree on. Alas, I can't read your mind to know in advance which films you're going to hate and so give you warning.

Subject: so...
From: chris b [sfg005@hotmail.com]

you didn't really like cold mountatin because you REALLY liked ROTK. that's compelling.

i expect a lot more from your site.

I respond:

More than honesty?

Look, I expect my review of Cold Mountain would have been somewhat similiar if ROTK didn't exist -- certainly, the lack of chemistry between CM's stars has nothing to do with Peter Jackson and is a huge part of why CM doesn't work for me. But in a ROTK-less world, I would have had to grasp around for a metaphor to explain my lack of emotional involvement in CM. Instead, I had one right at hand.

I didn't dislike Cold Mountain *because of* ROTK -- I disliked it because it didn't move me like I now know a film can.

The reader responds:

Fair enough. There's just something in my craw about the site recently. I can't put my finger on it. It's either that the reviews are slipping, but I can't really back that up. Maybe it's the bias meter. I mean, think about it this way, if you are dreading the new Jennifer Connelly movie, can you really give it a fair review? But, on the other hand, if I was in your shoes, I'd be really dreading the Jennifer Connelly movie, because I think she sucks, too. But should I say that before-hand? Is that right? Maybe it's the plea for money last year, but really. I read your site and use it to base the movies I see, so why should I not support it. I mean, I do give to the PBS station.

So, I can't really put my finger on it, but something seems wrong lately. I guess that makes my attack on the Cold Mountain review (a movie which I never saw, BTW, since I could sort of tell it would be vapid, as your review confiemts) a venting.

But probably an unwarrented one.

Best to put all this madness behind us.

I respond:

I'm not sure what your issue with my bias meter is. You'd prefer not to know what biases I have going into a film? They aren't invented by the bias meter -- they're there whether the bias meter indicates them or not.

Do you imagine other critics don't go into certain movies dreading them, or eager to see them? They certainly do. I'm upfront about my biases -- I don't see how that could be a bad thing.

Subject: My response to Cold Mountain via RotK
From: DG

First of all, I should say that I love your reviews. You put my distaste for "Pretty Woman" into words, and for that I'll be forever grateful.

But I am sorry you couldn't feel a lot for Cold Mountain. Against my expectations, I rather liked CM. I thought the premise sounded ripe for mishandling by Mr. Minghella because, though I love The English Patient, the man has an inclination toward melodrama. Instead, I found myself appreciating the honesty of the characters and their lack of artifice. Sam said in The Two Towers: "There's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for." Similarly, Inman travels through an America that has lost its innocence; he's searching for something beautiful and uncorrupt from before the war. It does not matter that he barely knew Ada; it's the idea of her that keeps him going. I found that very compelling.

I love Lord of the Rings, and RotK is my favorite installment. I think LotR and CM are more similar than different, and I found myself able to appreciate both films for what they were. I hope you give CM another chance, later in the year, when your excitement about Peter Jackson's achievement has ebbed a bit.

I suppose the real reason I am taking the time to write this to you is because so many people wrote to you stating that they had no intention of seeing CM at all. That bothers me. I have a theory as to why they're so biased against it (it involves the Oscars, CM's supposed frontrunner status, and many insecure LotRs fans), but that's another story. You can say CM will never be as good as RotK, but I say: what is? And, for the record, I think Return of the King should win the Best Picture Oscar this year.

I hope I wasn't rambling. Our tastes generally coincide about 95% of the time. And while we're on the topic of Mr. Minghella's films, see his wonderful debut film "Truly, Madly, Deeply" starring Juliet Stevenson and Alan Rickman. It's lovely.

I respond:

You're right: Sam's little speech about some things being worth fighting for should apply to Cold Mountain, but for me, it didn't: I never felt what was supposed to be worth fighting for. Sure, I can see it, intellectually, but I never felt it.

And yes, I've seen Truly Madly Deeply -- in fact, I mentioned it in my CM review as the film that affects me most profoundly after ROTK. I knew what Minghella is capable of, and I didn't see him working at his best here.

Subject: Cold Mountain
From: Edwards [wayne1@xcelco.on.ca]

I had looked up critics reviews and heard great things about Cold Mountain. I had heard all the hype about it rivaling ROTK at the Oscars and was curious what film could possibly rival that experience. So it was that I went to see it. Therefore, I was completely shocked by what I saw and just how bad it actually was. What was with all the animal killing and rape and explicit sex scenes with no apparent relation to the plot? Was the director thinking that a movie couldn't possibly be any good without all this constant disgusting shock value or that it would distract people from the cheap and sappy story? Person after person is senselessly murdered. In the scene where the family is massacred, the two AWOL sons come running out to save their mother but they've got to be dumb to come out running at two armed men who subsequently shoot them down like dogs. Oh then you're sitting there thinking what's next baby killing? Well something like that, the soldiers leave a baby in the mud while they rape its mother. Come on. I don't think a movie needs all this for us to know that war is terrible but the film just kept beating us over the head with it. Someone needed a history lesson before making this movie as well. Where is the issue of slavery, it is the civil war after all. In fact where are the blacks altogether? In the "Battle of the Crater" the majority of the soldiers were black but of course all we get to show the diversity of the south is a Native American thrown in for no apparent reason carrying a knife instead of a gun and everything. While there are some scenes where the main characters show kindness to blacks this is obviously to gloss over the larger issue and make us sympathize with their plight. There is every cliche imaginable, in fact the whole movie seems to be made up of them. The old wise woman who rescues Inman and brings him back to health with herbs in the middle of the forest, the psycho with the blond hair (why exactly wasn't he out fighting the war), the love child at the end, the father who seeks redemption, it just goes on and on. The accents were completely God-awful. Kidman looks glamorous through the entire movie, all polished up even though she's supposed to be starving and trying to save a large farm practically alone. In the last scene where she walks out to see Inman standing there she looks like she walked straight out of Vogue in a matching pant suit and long black jacket, not a hair out of place. What era is this again?? She's supposed to be a minister's daughter and yet she screws a guy she barely knows (and she falls for a labouring man to boot) in a cabin in the middle of the forest. Of course, once she says I'll marry you three times they are married and it's o.k. Renee has received a lot of acclaim for this, although she overacted some parts. Of course this is overlooked because the movie needed some kind of humour just to keep it entertaining, because damn it was depressing. This is the kind of movie that has stuck with me for all the wrong reasons. This reminds me of the last scene in Hannibal (which I never quite got over) in your review of that film. One character after another is thrown at us and we're expected to automatically give a damn about them. So many people were tortured and killed that I could have cared less and I was hoping that everyone would just die already so it would just end. Of course I sat through about two hours and a half hours to see a mediocre reunion of the two characters and Inman shot dead. I could go on and on about this piece of Hollywood crap specifically designed with the sole purpose of winning Oscars but I 'm pretty sure I got my point across by now. I just want to know, why wasn't I warned as to how terrible this was?? O.k. so you said it doesn't compare to the LOTR but how many films really do? You mentioned the fact that Ada and Inman don't have much chemistry and that they didn't know eachother too well. This doesn't exactly make it a really bad movie to avoid.

I respond:

I didn't "warn" you about the things you complained about because those weren't the problems with the movie, not as I saw it. War is hell, soldiers rape, boys will come to the defense of their mother even unto certain death, and this wasn't a story about slavery -- is it now forbidden to make a movie set during the Civil War that does not feature slaves and slavery?

A minister's daughter isn't allow to have sex? Since when?

03.08.04

to batch #2 | to batch #4