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 05.24.99
Jeff, as a followup to a previous letter, writes:
What didn't they wrap up [in The Mummy]? I believe they did wrap it all up but not to a place that naturally or necessarily led to the next moment. Take for instance that scene where the mummy hacked up a giant bug swarm loogie that was suppposed to totally scare the daylights out of us, but was stopped when O'connell simply pulled the shutters on the window closed. Those things certainly would have put up a serious fight and the hero could have been heroic stopping them. Perhaps the scene where the goofy brother Johnathan is reaching into his bag of goodies, and we know there are "scarabs" in the satchel, but all he pulls out is a bottle of scotch, makes you wonder what the difference is between the scarabs in the bag and the scarabs that come to life right away in all the other scenes featuring the little trouble makers. Its like crying wolf. Dosen't that kind of tale telling eat up all of your suspended disbelief?

I did get "into" the movie, (second row!!) but I actually was more entertained by your review, not to mention it was free! The part that caught me was your use of the word "cute" to describe Mr. Fraser, and the thought that the "beautiful face" of Oded Fehr is one to watch. Reading your review was very comforting because you have a way that is not very typical. I like the way you write, it feels nice. Also I find the simple fact that you returned such a swell reply to my silly letter, beautiful. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeff

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I didn't even think about the things you mentioned -- I was so caught up in the movie that I didn't notice any plotholes. Which is a sign of a diverting movie, for me. If I don't realize there were holes large enough to drive a truck through till long after the movie's over, I have been duly entertained.
Your comments are some of the nicest things anyone has ever said about my writing. Thanks very much! I hope you continue to enjoy my site.

posted 05.24.99
Lorie A. Johnson writes:
Hey- I liked The Mummy, too- even though I am a serious student of Ancient Egypt and wear a lovely scarab ring all the time. But hey- if I wanted Serious, I'd watch The Learning Channel. Gotta admit that it was your review that put me in the proper mind to watch this flick- had I been expecting more than a fun romp, I'd have been disappointed. Yeah, it was done on the cheap- did you see the fake camels in the background? Or the mismatched CGI? Ah, well- let the nitpickers at Internet Movie Database pick those out. I had fun, and will probably catch it again at the Dollar Flicks.
Lorie

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Glad to be of service.

posted 05.24.99
Rogelio P. Mendoza writes:
I like your site's new look.
As for your reviews, once again I find them more entertaining than almost anything else on the Net.
A few brief comments.
Re: City of Angels. Excuse me, but we're talking about a movie that begins with the death of a child. If you going to sink that low for an opening scene, you better have something more important to talk about than the joys of skinny-dipping. Unfortunately, this film doesn't.
Re: The Mummy. As the old cliché goes, it's only a movie. It won't make you forget Indy or Han or even Horatio, but it's lot more entertaining than certain recent critical raves like There's Something About Mary. And how about a few words for Rachel Weisz? No, this movie isn't likely to win her an Oscar, but she does make the nicest Marion Ravenwood wannabe I've seen in a long while and I can't wait to see her next picture. You can keep your Notting Hill; I take one of Rachel's smiles over Julia's any day of the week.
P.S. If your fans really hate The Mummy that much, have them rent High Road to China so they can see how bad that movie really could have been.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for all your nice comments. I love having readers like you!

posted 05.24.99
Another Jeff writes:
I think I love you. A fellow reviewer and twentysomething.
I just turned twenty-nine, and I have a movie-review website of my own. We have so much in common, me being on your mailing list, and you being less than one year older than me. My movie-review site is quite amateurish compared to yours, but I think it has a lot of heart. Anyway, I devote too much of my limited time to my work as an attorney, and my songwriting to make an awesome looking site like yours. Please send me a picture of yourself!
Jeff

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Keep dreaming, pal.

posted 05.17.99
Boyd Petrie writes:
Good review: The Mummy. Bad review: City of Angels.
There is just some damn thing wrong with this picture!
City of Angels is a very touching and heartwarming romantic drama... the first romantic drama that proves how good chemistry can boost a film. Meg Ryan and Nicolas Cage had such a powerful chemistry on screen that I was absolutely blown away. When they looked at each other, I could see the love between them. I haven't seen that kind of chemistry in years. It reminded me of the romance between Hepburn and Grant. This film reminded me of how romantic films can actually be. It's as powerful a character-driven romantic drama I've seen in years.
Now, The Mummy is the biggest piece of crap I've seen in years. In fact, it's so painfully bad that ninety minutes in, I realized I enjoyed watching the final projects of my student film class more. The special effects are so obvious that I had to laugh at the absurdness of it. The screenplay is about as laughably bad as I've seen in all my years of film watching. The sets are so fake-looking that it seemed that they were in a Hollywood film studio instead of Morocco. But my biggest problem is that it doesn't know what it wants to be. It wants to be a comedy, an action film, a horror film, and a special effects extravaganza. I'm okay with characters cracking jokes and making fun of their situations, but as soon as the mummy appears (which is far too late in the film), almost all of the jokes should stop. Do they? No, they increase. Brendan Fraser roars back at this mostly decomposed and walking mummy. Now, what kind of stupidity are we talking about here? I have never been more offended by a film since 1996's Romeo + Juliet. It's truly awful. The fact that it is receiving good reviews is even more of a joke. I only hope that this is not a sign of how filmmaking will continue. If it does, twenty years from now, Hollywood will be extinct. Twenty years from now, this film will be only remembered as the worst film that got good reviews. Ebert compared it to such films as Anaconda and Congo (both of which made my worst films list of each prospective year). If this is the future of film, I'll read a book.
Boyd Petrie
Respect's Movie Reviews

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Once again, we're on totally opposite sides of the fence.
I loved Romeo + Juliet, too.

posted 05.17.99
Boyd Petrie again:
Well, while we are disagreeing. I do consider Romeo + Juliet to be the worst film ever made. It had good intentions, but good intentions never make up for bad filmmaking. Romeo + Juliet is the biggest piece of junk ever filmed. It's painful to watch. I haven't met in person someone who has actually liked it. The only people who have liked it are inane critics.
Boyd

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I've never been called inane before. Thanks for another word I can add to my List of Insults I've Been Called.
For my part, the worst movie ever made is The Avengers, closely followed by Batman and Robin.

posted 05.17.99
Helga writes:
I just read your movie review [of The Mummy] and I thought it was good. The reason that I am e-mailing you is what you said about Oded Fehr. I could not agree with you more. I could not keep my eyes off him :). I have to say, Brendan Fraser pales in comparison. In case you do not know (you probably do) he is supposed to be in that Cleopatra movie that is on May 23rd.
Thanks,
Helga

The Flick Filosopher responds:
He was delicious, wasn't he? I guess I'll have to waste some time with that Cleopatra thing...

posted 05.17.99
elvis (he is alive!) writes:
I read your review of The Mummy and i cant help but wonder if you are on drugs? I do not mean this in a bed way but how can you remain high on the movie just because it dosent take itself seriously. Is that not just a cheap excuse for not "finishing" the script. What if you didn't take yourself seriously and got all goofy in your review by leaving it unfini............

The Flick Filosopher responds:
The script didn't feel unfinished to me. What did you feel was left hanging at the end of the movie? What hadn't been wrapped up?
I'm not on drugs. I didn't like The Mummy just because it didn't take itself seriously, but because it was a fun, roller-coaster-ride of a movie. It's not the greatest movie ever made, not by a long shot. But you can't judge these kinds of movies on the same scale as more serious works. My sole criterion for praising a movie is whether it entertained me, and The Mummy certainly did.

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

(Warning: I won't correct your grammar or spelling!)

made with a mac