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 03.01.99
ndavis@fas.harvard.edu writes:
You know, memories of Kathy Bates aside, I am on my way to being your #1 fan. Two other reviews that I take a lot of guff about -- my slamming of There's Something About Mary and my high praise for Deep Impact -- again find echoes on your site. I don't want to give the impression that I am enjoying your reviews so much merely because they so closely adhere with my own thoughts -- though, who are we kidding, it's nice to be corroborated! Still, even when I don't agree with you (i.e., on A Simple Plan and on The Thin Red Line, the latter of which will see a full review posted soon), I appreciate your thoughtfulness in reviewing and your expectation of a certain standard from what you see at the multiplex. You are always critical and considerate, even when I do not share your line of thinking. More than all, I value the scale on which you seem to judge the movies themselves, and not just their marquee value, popular reputation, or preceding hype. If a film is arty and well-appointed but doesn't go anywhere, there's no reason to reward it; if it seems like just another summer blockbuster but actually springs from a surprisingly humane core, then praise where praise is due. A wonderful and fair guideline, it seems to me, for how to appraise movies, and I am glad that you share it. I'll be back again very soon!
Best,
Nick

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for the kind comments. (I'm enjoying your site quite a bit, too.) I do have an expectation when I go to the movies -- to be entertained. That's the only criteria I have. I do have a wide definition of "entertainment," one which goes way beyond "amusing." Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List fit my definition as entertaining just as much as Star Wars and Paulie. They all swept me into their worlds and held me there -- they moved me, made me laugh, cry, feel something for their characters, whether they were Holocaust victims or precocious parrots. The filmmakers held themselves to a certain standard, and that shows in a truly entertaining film.

posted 03.01.99
roymend@cyberramp.net writes:
You must be psychic. I saw Babe 2 last night at a second-run theater and had almost the same thoughts about it that you printed your review. (And no, I did not read your review before seeing the movie.) As for the Something about Mary controversy, I'm sure I'm not the only one who got tired of hearing last summer how daring this movie was because it dared to be politically incorrect. Oh please! Life of Brian offered the perfect satire of the politically correct long before it was politically correct to target the politically correct. Mary, by comparison, just picks easy targets -- retarded people, for example -- and picks on them for cheap laughs.

In any event, I get tired of seeing even the most tasteless movie defended on the grounds that somebody found it funny. As the old saying goes, what's good is not always popular and what's popular is not always good. Just look at all the people who enjoyed watching bullfights, minstrel shows, or gladiatorial contests.
Sincerely,
Roy Mendoza Jr.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Nah, I'm not psychic -- we obviously enjoy the same types of movies is all. God, I'd love to see Babe 2 on a big screen again -- that was one of the best movies of last year.
Life of Brian! Great film! Thirty years later, Monty Python is still ahead of its time.
As much as I disliked Mary and find myself appalled by its popularity, I really couldn't care two figs if someone can find some amusement in something that I dislike -- but I really hate being accused of not having a sense of humor for disliking it!

posted 03.01.99
respect@aros.net writes:
How can you be so heartless and insensitive? For being such a post-feminist idealist, it is shocking to hear you criticize Calista "McBeal" Flockhart [in the review of Telling Lies in America]. She has stated continuously that she is not anorexic, and yet you belittle her with a startlingly tasteless comment. For someone who thinks There's Something About Mary was tasteless, maybe you should go wash your mouth out. Thank you, Ms. Hypocrite.
Boyd Petrie

The Flick Filosopher responds:
She's said she isn't anorexic, and yet she obviously weighed quite a bit more only two years ago. Either she stopped eating or she's seriously ill. I'm not being facetious. It's startling how much healthier she looks in Telling Lies.
What does "post-feminist idealist" mean, and how am I one?
I continue to be amused by your comments. Please keep them coming.

respect@aros.net replies:
You have this picture that women should look a certain way, and when they don't, you gripe against them. Calista has said that she works out and is quite healthy. She may have looked healthier, but it may just be her genetics that cause her thin frame. Have you ever even thought about that? Maybe back when she made Telling Lies in America she was fat for her genetics?!

The Flick Filosopher responds:
#1: Please point out where I have said women should look a certain way. [Needless to say, I haven't yet heard back from Mr. Petrie on this. Probably because he couldn't find any examples in my reviews to back up his claim.]

#2: I bet that's the first time Calista Flockhart has been called fat.

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