The Flick Filosopher's Mail

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

posted 02.22.99
MythGuy25@aol.com writes:
Dear Ms. Chick,
Your Web page is the best film review page I have ever seen. You are the exact opposite of every other online critic. You never resort to profanity or pathetic attempts at humor. Your writing is impeccable and your thoughts are insightful. I order many DVDs through Reel.com and would be more than happy to buy movies through your page. Please do not give up on this even if it is a money pit. We will be stuck with idiots like Mr. Cranky and his foul brethren.

Just one question: How come you review sequels such as Alien 4 and Babe 2 but not the originals?
Sincerely,
Adam Christopher Brown

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks very much for your nice comments. Letters like yours make me not care that the site is a money pit!
You may have noticed that each week I review a current film and a recent video. When I started the site in Sept. '97, the older Alien films and the original Babe were outside the time parameters I set for myself. Now, though, I am beginning to add other sections to the site, such as the Best Picture retrospective, which is allowing me to review older films. Eventually, I may add some section in which reviewing those older movies you asked about makes sense. For now, it's enough work keeping up with new films!

posted 02.22.99
ram.samudrala@stanford.edu writes:
I disagree with you that the audience likes to see Mel Gibson beaten up. As a guy (and a heterosexual) I'd argue Gibson has a charm that appeals to him that goes beyond invoking the mothering instinct in females.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Certainly Gibson has charms and talents beyond the near-constant abuse his characters take. I don't think that the sadist factor is the only reason for his popularity, just one factor.

posted 02.22.99
roymend@cyberramp.net writes:
For months, I have been trying to find a way to describe what I disliked about In and Out without sounding like a Trent Lott fan. Then you came along and summed up all my thoughts on the subject in one paragraph.

If that wasn't enough, you actually had the guts to describe what I found so unlikable about There's Something About Mary -- as well as what I liked about GATTACA and Shakespeare in Love. Granted, any fool can applaud a film critic who always agrees with him. But I found even those reviews I disagreed with -- Pleasantville, for example -- to be equally worthy of applause.

In any event, I look forward to your next review. Good luck.
Sincerely,
Roy Mendoza Jr.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks very much for your comments. It's nice to know my work is appreciated.
Now I know of three people besides myself who disliked There's Something About Mary. We're a small minority!

posted 02.22.99
respect@aros.net writes:
Actually, [the Farrelly brothers'] last film was Kingpin [contrary to what I stated in my review of There's Something About Mary] but you will no doubt argue against that fact too, since you always argue against my responses.

I didn't really like There's Something About Mary, but there is one thing I wasn't when I watched it: bored. How could anyone be bored by it? Siskel named it one of 1998's best films, and Ebert also highly praised it. I made some of the same comments you did about making fun of the people it was trying to get you to sympathize with, but I think that says something more about us as a society. We will laugh at mentally-handicapped people because they are different from the norm. It's rather sad. But I laughed. And I laughed hard. I really want to know if you've ever laughed in your entire laugh. You know what it is? Besides, I found that women tended to enjoy the film even more than men did. And these are adult, 30 year old women laughing their butts off at the screen. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your sense of comedy, and then try again.
Boyd Petrie
Respect's Movie Reviews

The Flick Filosopher responds:
No, you're right about the Farrelly brothers' last film. I should have said something like "the last movie by the Farrelly brothers that I saw."
Do I offend you by disagreeing with you? You mustn't be very secure in your opinions. Do you expect me to fall to my knees in abject apology and thank you for making me see the error of my ways? Get real.
[[Ebert also highly praised it]] So? I have to like a movie because Siskel and Ebert liked it? No matter how much they're paid, their opinions aren't any more valid than mine or yours.
[[I think that says something more about us as a society]] You're right, and it says something about us as a society that people will laugh at a movie that plays right into those prejudices by depicting such things in such a cheap way. Now, wouldn't it have been interesting if the film had been commenting on the mean smallmindedness of people? But that would have required some cleverness on the part of the filmmakers.
How can you say you didn't like a movie and then say that you "laughed hard" over it? How can you think something sad and also laugh at it?
[[I really want to know if you've ever laughed in your entire laugh. You know what it is?]] I assume you meant to ask if I've ever laughed in my entire life. Now, that's just too low. Just because I don't share your sense of humor doesn't mean I'm lacking one. You wanna know what I find funny? Humor that tickles my brain. The Larry Sanders Show, Mr. Show, Monty Python's Flying Circus, Mystery Science Theater 3000. Men in Black. The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai. The Babe movies. A Fish Called Wanda. Shakespeare in Love. Shall I go on? I like humor that requires more than half a brain and a little bit of cleverness, humor that serves plot and character rather than merely being tacked on to a movie.
[[women tended to enjoy the film even more than men did]] So? You think all women are alike? I'm proud to say that I'm not like the vast majority of women.
[[Perhaps you should re-evaluate your sense of comedy, and then try again.]] Perhaps you should reevaluate your sense of proportion. This is JUST A MOVIE. Why do you get so upset when people don't agree with you? You must have some serious confidence issues.

respect@aros.net responds:
It's not a confidence issue at all. What does bother me is the fact that you seem so content on badgering people in your responses. I've read many of them, and you don't just hold steadfast to your opinion, but you make belittling and sarcastic remarks that are as offensive (or moreso) than anything depicted in There's Something About Mary.
Here's a quote taken from your response to Clintonio:

"I didn't take your mail as a flame, but because I mostly couldn't figure out what you were talking about I had to fumble around trying to understand. I had to read between your lines. No, you didn't mention veterans per se, but now who's twisting words?"

Are you saying he's an idiot? Just because his grammar is not up to your level (sarcasm) doesn't mean he is stupid. After all, he was tired. I think the world has come to such a sensitive level that anything said can be misinterpreted. I defend my reviews, but I also like to quibble with other critics about those reviews. Sometimes (as with you) the inanity of the conversations irk me. Take into consideration other people's opinions, instead of bashing that person. After all, we don't want to be a hypocrite, right?
Boyd

The Flick Filosopher responds:
If you can explain to me what that writer was saying, I would like to know. I still don't get it. Is it too much to ask that someone make himself clear? I'm not psychic.

posted 02.22.99
bgutting@indiana.edu writes:
I think The Thin Red Line simply states that war is a completely natural event, part of the environment just like anyone or anything else. To say that Malick thinks we should throw away this material world and go back to our so-called roots is ludicrous; rather, he just explored that old philosophy that all conflict is based on the idea of private property and muses on what happens to people when they fight. I'd guess that he realizes that conflict is a necessary part of human nature, as well as nature as a whole. His characters, however, do not understand that.

I liked this film because it didn't try to say war was a bad, bad thing. It sort of asks why we fight, and more or less says everything you pointed out--as humans, we're prone to killing each other. As for the voice-overs, often called "pretentious," I decided to actually ask veterans who fought there; not surprisingly, man of them revealed that they or their fellows often found themselves lost in the same muddle expressed through the men in The Thin Red Line.

Just my two cents. I really enjoyed reading what you had to say, too.
Brad

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for your comments. I can't say that I agree with your interpretation of TRL, but I can see how you came to your conclusion. As for the voiceovers jibing with reality, that may be true. The saying "truth is stranger than fiction" means, though, that sometimes things that are true in the real world don't work in fiction. As an outrageous example, if someone were to fall from the roof of a 20-story building and survive, it doesn't mean you could get away with a plot device like that in a movie.
Thanks for writing. Hope you continue to enjoy the site.

posted 02.22.99
eamst14+@pitt.edu writes:
You are probably sick of this topic by now, but, here goes:

If I understand you: One of your objections to The Thin Red Line is that it attempts to distinguish man from nature on the basis of man's having been given goodness. You think that, as a part of nature, we are brutal, and if we are to become good, we are going to have to achieve it all by ourselves.

One thing you're right about: The film does try and distinguish man from the rest of nature. But it's odd that you think it does so on the basis of our being essentially good. Most of the men in the film are not obviously good, after all. And much in the depiction of nature renders it quite serene.

Let me propose an alternative reading: Man is distinguished from nature (from alligators and birds and plants) by being partly natural and partly not. The part that is not natural (in a certain sense) is not our possession of some innate goodness bestowed on us by God, but rather a capacity that is in the first instance purely cognitive: the capacity to understand and ask the question: What should I do? (as opposed to What do I want?) Mere animals do as they like, they are not responsible for what they do just because they lack the intelligence (or something) to differentiate between what they want and what they ought to do. (And training your pet not to shit on the rug most certainly doesn't tell against this point.) Our nature endows us with something special, but it's not goodness, rather its freedom. Freedom is not unnatural exactly: we became free when our brains became well-developed enough to sustain the kind of reflection that freedom and morality require. But freedom makes goodness a possibility for us in the way that it isn't for the rest of nature. Because we can ask 'what ought i do?', we can also do the right thing on the basis of having answered that question -- and that's what morality consists in. Perhaps the good whose loss the soldier bemoans is simply our chance to fulfill the potential that our freedom accords us.

I think much of the film can be understood as a reflection of just this point: The war in the heart of nature the film refers to is not just a war between various elements in the natural world, nor even a war between two groups of people, rather it is a war in the heart of man: a war between two sides of our nature: the part we share with mere animals and the part that makes us special. Much of the film is devoted to showing how various soldiers reconcile themselves to this conflict in a situation where it is most visible. Moral reflection demands that we accord other humans the same respect and dignity we believe we feel we our entitled to, but war calls on us to subordinate those feelings to the aim of killing our enemies. All of the characterization in the film is, I think, devoted to showing a variety of ways soldiers respond to this inherently self-destructive tension (e.g., by outwardly refusing to feel it while inwardly dying (Nolte), by coming suspect that the conflict will always be won by our brutal side, while still hoping otherwise (Penn), by focusing on the good that can be done at the expense of carrying out one's duty as a soldier (the paternal captain), by trying to forget what one is doing by obsessively (mis-)remembering a perfect domestic life, by going crazy....). I think TRL is an excellent movie in part because it works as an exploration of this theme.
Just a thought,
Eric

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I am getting a little tired of constantly rehashing The Thin Red Line, but what the hell...
You've read too much what I wrote. I said nothing and implied nothing about the essential goodness of the characters of the film -- the references in the film are to some greater goodness supposedly inherent in humankind in general that individual people lose. Many of the men depicted in the film are obviously not good, as you noted -- but the quote about "losing the goodness we're given" to me suggests we're meant to believe that these men were once good and lost something, and that loss allowed them to turn into the violent creatures we see before us.
Nature is depicted as serene, and that's part of my problem with the film. Nature is not serene at all.
[[Man is distinguished from nature (from alligators and birds and plants) by being partly natural and partly not.]] But if our consciousness and ability to self reflect is not God-given, as I do not believe it is, then it is by definition natural -- it occurred as a normal part of our evolution.
[[Mere animals do as they like]] Yes, but more and more research shows that things like altruism and generosity do have evolutionary benefits. I'm not saying that we don't possess free will, but I do believe that all the things we have the capacity for have evolutionary advantages, and as much as we'd like to believe that we're totally in control of our urges -- whether for good or bad -- I'm not sure that's true.
[[Perhaps the good whose loss the soldier bemoans is simply our chance to fulfill the potential that our freedom accords us.]] I understand what you're getting at, but there's a big difference between a neutral capacity for making decisions and understanding what we're doing and thinking, and a mishandling of a boon in the form of some inherent goodness handed down from god or nature or whatever. Nature doesn't care about goodness or badness -- those are value judgments that we apply to behaviors.
[[the part we share with mere animals and the part that makes us special]] Are you sure that this capacity is unique to humans? Chimps have been seen to show remorse, to deceive, to lie -- all things that require self-reflection and an understanding of the consequences of actions. Chimps may not have the refinement of that ability that we have, but I don't think we can draw definite demarkations between what is "human" and what is "animal." If we could communicate with dolphins and whales I suspect they might show similar capabilities. TRL in my eye draws such a definite line between Us Humans and Them Animals.
[[Much of the film is devoted to showing how various soldiers reconcile themselves]] I can see how you drew these conclusions from the film, and I'm glad you got something enjoyable out of it. I didn't -- but as I have said to other readers, these are only my opinions. I'm sure Terence Malick is not upset that some little nobody with a Web site soapbox didn't like his movie.
Thanks for writing.

newer mail | previous mail

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

thechick@flickfilosopher.com

thechick@
flickfilosopher.com

Tell me I'm full of bull dinky. Tell me I'm right on the money. Tell me anything.

made with a mac