Subject: Love your site!
From: Extinct Flightless Bird [trepan8@yahoo.com]

A friend pointed me to your review of "Kill Bill 2" and then I had ever so much fun reading your back-and-forth with readers about Mel Gibson's splatterchrist flick. I love it when atheists take the time to engage the religious in debate, especially when they're as smart and witty as you are. (I'm an atheist, but too impatient to debate...) I did think that Jack Black was a lovable schlub in "School of Rock," but you're right that it was awfully toothless satire. Anyway I look forward to reading lots more at your site. Thanks for doing it.

Subject: Yes I-Con, darnit, and a wee comment on Kill Bill V.1
From: dryad [dryad@puritycontrol.co.uk]

Oh, your report of I-Con made me long for my convention going days. Admittedly, I actually went to far fewer than I wanted (Dr Who, ST, ST:TNG, Noreascon, and hopefully Worldcon in Glasgow next year, seeing as I'm missing Noreascon in August), but I fondly recall being with People Who Understood.

I'm grateful my husband is a just as much a fan of SF as I am (he prefers '50's and '60's fiction, though I'm trying to widen his horizons), so I can say things like 'That's no moon!' and 'I say we nuke it, just to make sure' and he completely understands. Ah...

As for Kill Bill, the fact that your entire review of it is correct didn't stop me from enjoying the heck out it. [g] I dunno, maybe it's because I was able to turn off my analytical brain while watching, which is a pretty rare thing (I'm an unpublished author, and I'm sure you can understand when I say it's difficult to shut down the editor when reading or watching something).

Anyway, though, thanks for bringing me back to the good old days! :)

Subject: becoming a regular supporter
From: taipei_gold@hotmail.com

[note: this was accompanied by a donation to the site's upkeep--maj]

I'm not really into SF at all but lordy those ads are a bit of a jarring sight, and your Oompa Loompa ditty at the end of your Van Helsing review made me laugh out loud. Really these are just excuses to show you my continual appreciation of the work you do at your site. I can sincerely say that your work got me interested in movies; before the LOTR trilogy I can count on both hands the number of times I ever went to the cinema. Someone on the TheOneRing.net messageboard way back in 2000 linked me to your site and I suppose your love of movies became rather infectious.:) Now I'm a memer of the local indie cinema hear and am constantly nagging my friends to see be more adventurous in their film choices.

I respond:

Wow. What nice things to say about me. It's great to know I'm having some small effect on moviegoers.

Subject: Reviews
From: Ron Charron [magneto@adelphia.net]

I am a faithful follower of Rotten Tomatoes and recently read your review (link) of New York Minute. I have no intention of seeing it but with a dearth of quality entertainment in the theater I have to diligently search for the gems. My first impression of you was that you are an uber-feminst ranting about a perceived target audience of dirty old men. It was a surprisingly large portion of the review. Yet there was no rant in Lost in Translation when the dirty old man got the girl and could have easily went off together.

At this point I was thinking you would make the perfect anti-reviewer for me. Those can be just as useful as a reviewer that always agrees with you. Susan Stark is an anti-reviewer for me.

However I was wrong. I saw a great deal of depth in your personality from comments on various movies. You saw The Lord of the Rings trilogy the same way I saw it. Same thing with Hidalgo, Master and Commander and Pirates of the Caribbean. I liked but didn't love Hellboy but I enjoyed how the "cool factor" as I call it elevated the movie for you as it does for me if it's done right. In other movies you appreciate a well crafted story and character development as do I. I'm even going to see Dogville because you seemed to love it.

I have one question of all reviewers I'd like you to answer. There is one type of movie that always seems to get rave reviews I don't understand. It involves bizarre, broken relationships, has a message of hopelessness, contains some element of dark humor, usually crawls at a frigid pace, and nothing of any real consequence happens for the majority of the movie. Here are the examples;

Lost in Translation - Most boring movie ever.
American Beauty - Nearly walked out it was so bad.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - This actually had great promise that never delivered.

Thanks for reading (if you do).

I respond:

My first impression of you was that you are an uber-feminst

What's wrong with being a feminist?

was no rant in Lost in Translation when the dirty old man got the girl and could have easily went off together.

There's nothing lascivious in *Lost in Translation* -- it's an honest film about two genuine, believable people. *New York Minute* is not much more than lascivious drooling over its robotlike stars. There's an enormous difference between the two films.

Hollywood is trying to make money!

Of course it is. And it's appalling that it tries -- and is often able -- to make money with negative portrayals of women. It's a legitimate complaint, even if "feminism" has become a dirty word.

The trend we should worry about is the all-invasive low-brow and poddy humor disease.

Read enough of my reviews, and you'll discover that I complain about that quite frequently too.

At this point I was thinking you would make the perfect anti-reviewer

You haven't even seen *New York Minute,* so how can you know whether you disagree with me about the film or not?

However I was wrong.

See? A gal can be a feminist and a geek at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

see Dogville because you seemed to love it.

I hope you enjoy it.

It involves bizarre, broken relationships, has a message of hopelessness, contains some element of dark humor, usually crawls at a frigid pace, and nothing of any real consequence happens for the majority of the movie.

Sure, that description can apply to some films, but have you considered that there may be something you're missing in other films? I suppose it depends on how you define "real consequence" -- matters of consequence aren't always about the end of the world or civilization as we know it.

Lost in Translation - Most boring movie ever.

So you say. I see a beautiful, thoughtful film about figuring about what you want out of life.

American Beauty - Nearly walked out it was so bad.

Discover what's really important in one's life is a matter of great consequence for many people, and can radically change your life if you discover something that's been missing from your life.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - This actually had great promise that never delivered.

I disagree. The matter of great consequence here is: How much pain are you willing to risk in exchange for love? Is it better to be emotionally safe but lonely or take a chance on being happy with someone else?

Thanks for reading (if you do)

You're welcome.

The reader responds:

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I was very interested in getting an answer to the last question and you did answer it. Let me answer yours a minute then expand on the three movies I listed as examples.

What's wrong with being a feminist?

Nothing, and this was a first impression. I find that far too many people are too thin-skinned or oversensitive though. I don't even like putting people in categories because everyone is different.

You haven't even seen *New York Minute,* so how can you know whether you disagree with me about the film or not?

Still first impression. I have no doubt just from the trailer that NYM is bad. You spent a lot of time bashing "horndogs" instead of the movie. There are a lot of movies with shower scenes and scantily clad people running around. Why is the Olsen movie extra-offensive? I'm sure you are right they know their target audience and wanted to maximize sales. Since the Olsens produced it in part they could have vetoed any part of it.

No, thanks to you and other reviewers I don't have to waste time with too many bad movies. Except Van Helsing last night. Mostly bad and highly implausible. I can suspend disbelief for monsters and mythology but not physics: Six horses jumping a chasm with a loaded carriage. A woman swinging one handed from a wet, steel cable. Frankenstein accidentally crashing through a window at the exact moment and place needed to stop the co-star from being - bitten. I ignored the bad reviews and got what I deserved.

So you say. I see a beautiful, thoughtful film about figuring about what you want out of life.

Two people with pathetic, empty lives. They reach out to each other and find a spark of something they don't have and shouldn't have since they are both committed. With a snails pacing they finally reach the conclusion and ... go back to their own joyless lives. It was a message of hopelessness to me. Especially since I've been there I could empathize with the characters. But since 1999 I've been hopelessly, madly in love and incredibly happy. I didn't have to go through their exact decision but I got out of a joyless, unhappy situation and never looked back. I was looking for a message of hope in the movie.

Discover what's really important in one's life is a matter of great consequence for many people, and can radically change your life if you discover something that's been missing from your life.

Another message of hopelessness. Was any character at any time in this movie happy or looking forward to their future? I don't think the wife got any satisfaction out of the affair. Lester (Spacey) seemed to think the teen friend would make him feel young, vibrant, and happy. Then he seemed to have finally figured things out for himself when he died. Look at all the messed up people in the movie (I'm sure many could identify with them). Maybe you'll find peace when you are dead like Lester. I don't need a happy ending but someone in the movie should have one. The message made me queasy.

I disagree. The matter of great consequence here is: How much pain are you willing to risk in exchange for love? Is it better to be emotionally safe but lonely or take a chance on being happy with someone else?

Their lives as it unfolded started out pleasant and grew more and more hostile as time passed. They are about as incompatible as it gets. Yet for him he valued their few good moments so much he is willing to accept all the long, lonely terrible times too. I wouldn't wish that existence on anyone! She hated it so much she went for a radical brain manipulation.

In the end when they knew what they were facing, they chose to risk it, knowing it would probably unfold much like it did before. Not because the love was so strong it was worth the risk, but because they were so empty and alone without something to fill it. Their nasty life together was still the best thing they had going or could hope to. Again a message of hopelessness. Sacrifice all to be with someone who brought little joy and great pain instead of hoping and waiting for real love and happiness.

Thanks for your insights. It explains why other people like it and I do not. We are seeing different messages from different perspectives and life experiences.

I respond:

You spent a lot of time bashing "horndogs" instead of the movie.

No, I bashed the movie's pandering to horndogs. Big difference.

Since the Olsens produced it in part they could have vetoed any part of it.

Which implies that they either approved of the pandering-to-horndogs attitude or are too stupid to have recognized it.

Two people with pathetic, empty lives. [snip] But since 1999 I've been hopelessly, madly in love and incredibly happy.

I disagree that their lives are either pathetic or empty. But even if they were, you can only empathize with characters whose lives mirror yours?

07.29.04

older mail | to batch #2