The Flick Filosopher responds:
Wow. Thanks.

r.fukano@worldnet.att.net writes:
It's too bad I read your review after I went. Shakespeare in Love was disappointing. Clever, cute, beautiful heroine, lewd scenes for no purpose, love in the 90s. It's total cotton candy. If I had known that this is about as substantial as Dr. Doolittle, I would've enjoyed it.
This clever but inconsequential movie gets extraordinary ratings from almost all critics. Why? Because humor linked to Shakespeare is more important? Because the costumes and sets are great?
I'm so weary of the American movie industry. Totally in touch with money, and totally out of touch with humanity. And critics feed right into it.
And then, I see The Thin Red Line. Although this is not as highly rated as Shakespeare in Love, it's superb.
I would say that any movie with the following elements should be immediately rated in the Dr. Doolittle genre: 1) beautiful heroine (big tip-off); 2) action scenes to show macho or elicit excitement (totally different are the purposeful battle scenes in The Thin Red Line); 3) great special effects, usually meaning, "we got no story."
Keep up the good work, I enjoy your comments.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I'm sorry you didn't enjoy Shakespeare in Love, but I'm a little mystified by the reasons you gave for not liking it.
You mentioned "lewd scenes for no purpose." The love scenes were very tastefully done, I thought. Does any depiction of sex offend you? Sex is part of being alive, and sexual awakening is part of growing up -- they're valid subjects for movies to explore. Sexuality can be used as gratuitously as violence or special effects -- but it was a necessary part of character development in Shakespeare in Love. I saw nothing lewd or gratuitous in Shakespeare in Love.
You wondered whether "humor linked to Shakespeare is more important." Partly, yes. In a culture that thinks the height of hilarity is the crude humor of There's Something About Mary and South Park, yeah, intellectuals like to see their sense of humor catered to once in a while.
Is Shakespeare in Love an American movie (you said you were "weary of the American movie industry")? I think it's British. Do you think Shakespeare in Love is gonna make tons of money? Somehow I doubt it'll be in a league with, say, Armageddon. How was Shakespeare in Love "out of touch with humanity"? It touched brilliantly and succinctly on all the things that make us human: love, art, politics, humor.
Is any movie with a beautiful woman automatically garbage? How about Casablanca? Or more recently: As Good as It Gets? Elizabeth? In the Company of Men? Shall I continue?
You worried about gratuitous action scenes. But by definition, any aspect of a movie that isn't necessary to plot or character development is gratuitous. Why limit yourself to action scenes?
And as for special effects, do you think there were no special effects in The Thin Red Line? You think all those explosions were real and actually wounded the actors involved? Special effects aren't always spaceships. Forrest Gump is chock full of FX -- did you think that was crap? How about Contact? How about The Truman Show? Do you think Star Wars has no story?

[home] [archive] [new to video/dvd]
[articles] [search the site] [faq]
[join the mailing list] [reader mail] [links]
[awards] [goodies] [manifesto]

thechick@flickfilosopher.com

(please let me know if you don't want me to post your name and/or e-mail address)

Copyright © 1997-99
MaryAnn Johanson.
All rights reserved.