Subject: praise
From: Erin McGinty [erin0109@hotmail.com]

"Blakeney is in the middle of the clash between the superstitious past represented by the older sailors, who deem the Acheron a "phantom" and disparage a timid young officer as "cursed," and the dawning of an age of reason represented by man-of-science Maturin and the Surprise's detour to the Galapagos Islands, three decades before Darwin; between the calm rationality of Maturin and the heated muscularity of Aubrey, both to whom Blakeney is mentored."

Please forgive my oddity, but I had to write and tell you what a beautiful sentence that is, particularly the last phrase. I also quite agree with your review. I saw M&C last night and felt pretty much the way you did. My boyfriend complained about the pacing in the middle of the film - feh. Clearly, I need to work on the man's attention span.

I've very much enjoyed your site and am glad to have found it. I will probably even give you money when I have some. (No, really.) The internet can be a yucky place, and I thought a kind word from another literate person might be nice for you. You needn't write me back.

Subject: Fan Mail for Vitriol
From: Donlee Brussel [master_dyb@juno.com]

I don't know if your New Year's Resolution was to be more incisive, more biting, or just plain more awesome, but after reading your reviews of "The Butterfly Effect" (So bad my nose bled!) and "The Perfect Score" (...doesn't get 200 points for showing up.), I feel as though I need to pay worship to the new Queen of Vitriol. You reek of awesomeness.

I respond:

You're too cool for saying so. Thanks.

Subject: Perfect Score
From: Robert Dukes [jurgan6@yahoo.com]

I normally wouldn't want to talk about a movie I haven't seen, but you asked a question and it seemed like you might actually want an answer. You referred to a "rumor" that students taking the SAT get 200 points just for showing up and writing their names. Actually, it's 200 points per section, and it's completely true. Sort of. What it means is that the minimum score on the SAT is 400, and the maximum, of course, is 1600. The reason for the grading system, I believe, is so that students will not compare the scores to grades in school. 1000, the arithmetic mean of 400 and 1600, is the most common score, and a fairly respectable one. On the other hand, in most schools with a 100 percent scale, the arithmetic mean of 50% is a failing grade. So they changed the system in order to avoid students thinking it uses the same scale.

On another note, I agree wholeheartedly that the SAT is giving far too much weight (and I got a 1540 on the damn thing, so no one can say that's just sour grapes). As an aspiring educator, I think the attempts to standardize nationwide is odious and stupid. I could go on, but I'd just end up repeating what you've already said perfectly. From the commercials for this movie, I never felt any desire to see it. It wasn't until I read your review that I realized how such a movie could be used as commentary on the issues I was just ranting about. I didn't plan on seeing this movie, but now that I've seen the reviews, I almost certainly won't.

Oh, yeah, love the site, blah, blah, blah. I just found it a couple months ago, and your reviews are generally very good, even if I disagree with them. Some of the more unusual ones, though, while funny and interesting sometimes leave me confused as to what exactly you thought about them (look at The Majestic, if you want to know what I mean). Is there a reason why you don't rate movies? I like the way you put links to reviews of any movie you mention- or perhaps I like it too much, as it makes browsing so easy that I sometimes spend hours reading old reviews. Well, keep up the good work!

I respond:

It honestly doesn't matter to me whether the SAT gives points just for showing up. My point was that The Perfect Score doesn't get such a pass.

Did you really not get from my review of The Majestic what I thought of the film? I thought I conveyed my exasperation with the film's implausibility, its overt sentimentality, and its Oscar baiting, not to mention how little sense it made from a business and career standpoint for Jim Carrey.

I don't rate movies because I don't know how to reduce my reaction to a film to a number. That's all.

The reader responds:

Subject: Something's Gotta Give all right
From: Kay [kay112997@yahoo.com]

Well, I've never given my 2 cents' worth before but after I saw this movie this weekend and then read your review, I just have to speak up. As a 55-year-old, movie-loving, not-up-tight woman who just saw Something's Gotta Give and has slept with one or two men in my life, I thought you ranked the movie way too high. Surely I'm not the only over-50 woman, if not person, who detested this movie. It is certainly not true that "everyone over 50 will love it." That is not how pathetic we become.

This movie lacked anything to interest me. Jack Nicholson is getting way too old to even attempt this kind of role, and you're so right, we have Jack playing a ridiculous character and/or a ridiculous Jack. And can anyone get any stranger than Diane Keaton, in or out of a movie. Her character was a disgrace to all adult women.

I found it hard to believe that Nancy Meyers supports older women or any women in any way. The joke that Jack's never seen the body of a naked woman that old was bad enough but the movie carries this theme throughout. Even though I saw the naked body scene on TV promos, I thought that the movie must have some redeeming value. Not so. I found it amazing that a woman Diane's age, and presumably some savvy given that she's a writer, pops into bed with someone, who as far as I can see has nothing inviting to offer, and then is surprised that he isn't automatically in love with her (especially given his background) and cries and whines for seems to be an eternity. I agree that Diane's character was especially idiotic, and if this is the kind of movie put together to promote the value of women, get a laugh, or whatever they were trying to do, then women at least have a long, long way to go.

I feel better now.

I respond:

I agree with everything you said. You thought my review was too kind? I thought I was pretty hard on the film.

Oh well.

The reader responds:

Subject: behind-the-scenes credit info for writer of Miracle
From: Toni [lawriter@bellsouth.net]

Love your site and interviews. You mentioned the credited writer for Miracle and how much you enjoyed the film, but what you saw wasn't actually written by that person. It was written by Mike Rich (Finding Forrester, The Rookie). Greal Beal has posted an explanation on this site (Greg works for The Nicholl Foundation for the prestigious Nicholl Fellowship competition).

Just thought you'd like to know.

I respond:

There's probably a story like that for half the scripts produced.

Thanks for the update.

The reader responds:

Yeah, you're right. It's not so bad when someone doesn't want to share the blame for the bad stuff, but it sucks when someone good doesn't get the good credit (or conversely, gets the credit for the crappy rewrites.) I'd met Mike last year and he's one of those rare "good" people.

Subject: 50 First Dates
From: Donlee Brussel [master_dyb@juno.com]

I couldn't help but notice Adam Sandler didn't switch from your I'm Dreading Meter to your Current Enemy one... I gotta ask, did you see 50 First Dates, and what did you think if you did, since there's no review on the site.

I know you hate romantic comedies and the stars of 50 First Dates' films usually, but I happened to really enjoy the film. It has a sweetness and funniness to it that is sorely lacking in most Sandler films save for this one, Punch Drunk Love, and the Wedding Singer.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

I respond:

As I noted in the news blog on my site, I skipped the screening, because life is too short to watch Adam Sandler movies. I can't imagine that I would ever have enjoyed the film.

03.08.04

to batch #3 | older mail