The Flick Filosopher responds:
[[You are the most annoying film critic around]]
Thank you. I strive to be a thorn in the side of the Web.

[[I still visit your web site regularly. Masochism, maybe?]]
Sure sounds like it.

[[I disagree with 99.9% of what you write, but I like your personality.]]
Definitely masochistic.

[[Will you ever put a photograph of yourself on the web site?]]
No, precisely because all you guys seem to want one.

[[It would be comforting to be able to match the words on the screen with a face.]]
But what if I look like the Elephant Man? Would that be comforting? You'd never again be able to read my annoying words in quite the same frame of mind.

[[What are your cats' names?]]
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

[[Now I'm venturing into forbidden territory with this question, but psychologically speaking, do your cats serve as a substitute for male companionship in your life?]]
#1: What on Earth leads you to think that? #2: What makes you think I'd discuss my sex life with you?
Thanks for writing. Knowing I have readers like you out there makes me feel like taking a shower.

posted 06.14.99
Stacie Rockaway writes:
Finally, some sensible commentary on the Horatio Hornblower series -- and the slightly neurotic female fans!
I've never logged onto a message board until the Hornblower series. I decided to give A&E a try, hoping that it would produce more thoughtful "conversation" than what I imagine appears on other message boards or in chat rooms (which I still haven't used). You can imagine how disappointed I was.
Thank you for your time and effort to produce worthwhile reviews.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
You'd think A&E viewers would be a little more erudite than the typical message board poster, wouldn't you? Ah, well...

posted 06.14.99
Rob Lund writes:
Just read your review of The Prince of Egypt (I'm a little behind). Good comments, but your bias sure shines through. That's cool, I mean you're the reviewer. Let me quote:

So it seems that it's the ordinary folks and not their religious leaders who are being the sensible ones here. Instead of complaining about details that don't match those in a lovely but fictional work of mythological, allegorical literature, lay audiences can enjoy The Prince of Egypt as a ripping yarn, and one that is ravishing to look at.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
The makers of The Prince of Egypt tell us, right in the opening credits, that this is not a strictly faithful adaptation of the story of Moses. And plenty of other people would dispute your statement that the film is "faithful to its own context." Check out: this, this, this, this, and this.
I'm not sure whether you're upset or being sarcastic or what when you refer to my supposed "expert opinion" in regards to the fictionality of the Bible. I also implied, in my review, that the Egyptian gods are fictional. Does that statement bother you? Why not? How it that different from saying that the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist?

posted 06.14.99
Heather Selph writes:
Ok, Ok, so I'm a little slow to respond on your review of The Mummy -- but I've been tirelessly scouring the net for info on the breath-taking Oded Fehr! And when at last I found your glowing comments on him -- well, I knew I had to respond! He was indeed scene-stealing, and I regret I saw the movie only three times before it was swept from our local theater. (Oh, yeah, and I thought the movie itself was totally cool, too!) Keep up the great work!

The Flick Filosopher responds:
You wouldn't believe how many letters along the same lines as yours I've gotten. There are lots of breathless women out there panting over Fehr, and nothing available to satisfy their craving. There's a way to make some money in here somewhere, I'm sure... I wish I knew what it was. www.odedfehr.com, anyone?

posted 05.31.99
Bonnie Black writes:
i agree with you that there are weaknesses that lay Star Wars: The Phantom Menace open to main stream criticisms:
(a) it definitely needed more wit and far less childish, i.e., bathroom, humour; (b) Jar Jar Binks was unnecessary "comic" effect that i intensely disliked. (much to my surprise, i have spoken to several adults, of all ages and colours, who found Jar Jar delightful. i despair for humanity!) Jar Jar was the only character i actually hoped would die in the movie (and that includes the sith lord and senator palpatine [who was hissed by my movie companion [[that would be me--MaryAnn]] at his every appearance]). i can only hope we will be spared Jar Jar's presence in the next film. but then, i've never been a fan of ewoks either. if you want real humour it is more than amply supplied by C3PO and R2D2, who have true heart. (c) movies with phenomenally intelligent and self-possessed pre-pubescents are usually a big turnoff for me....
all that said, as a SW fan:
(A) i found the parallels with the first movie satisfy my inner joseph campbell; (B) the performances of ewan macgregor and liam neeson were fabulous. i loved liam neeson's portrait of the self-assured, completely centered Qui-Gon Jinn and ewan macgregor's anxious, tense but eager young Obi-Wan Kenobi. there was real affection between the characters; AND (C) the movie brought up more questions than it answered and that's the true test of a contained and valid universe. we want to know more about them all... how did a child queen come to be elected the ruler of Naboo? what type of slavery is practiced in other parts of the galaxy? and i believe that Qui-Gon Jinn deserves to have his story told...
all i keep remembering is that i wasn't really all that impressed by the original movie Star Wars: A New Hope. it wasn't until The Empire Strikes Back that i was swept up in the entire vision. i am sure that this first of the new trilogy is just the set-up for the darker and more complete crisis of the second movie and the resolution in the third. the critics may not like it, but many who panned the first movies have come and gone, but the Force lives on!

The Flick Filosopher responds:
That's a really good point: The Phantom Menace is just the first act of a bigger story, and I suspect we're all gonna like it a lot more once we see it within the perspective of the larger story. As much as I wanted to see a darker Anakin here, now I'm starting to wonder what is gonna push this sweet, generous child to the dark side...

posted 05.31.99
rrjaso@dstsystems.com writes:
On your Phantom Menace review: I think your loyalty is making you too nice. Why didn't they devote the time they used on Jar Jar to character development. Jar Jar was a complete waste of time and distracted me throughout the picture. I walked out of that theater thinking, if I hadn't known (and loved) the future of these characters I would have thought the movie was just a cool video game. Also, why waste Samuel Jackson? The girl from The Professional was great.
Thanks for your site, I find it quite enjoyable and your reviews are intelligent without being high-brow.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I have no loyalty to George Lucas. Loyalty is too personal a feeling to bestow upon a stranger.
I hated Jar Jar too, but I also hated the Ewoks, and that didn't really stop me from enjoying Return of the Jedi. Obviously, Lucas is playing to a young audience with The Phantom Menace, as he did with Star Wars. That young audience has changed, however, in twenty-plus years from 1977's already cynical and pragmatic teen and preteen Generation Xers to today's more babied kids. Think about it: Today's 8-year-old grew up singing "I Love You, You Love Me" with Barney; 1977's 8-year-old grew up with Kermit the Frog singing "It's Not Easy Being Green." Jar Jar is for the Barney set. Unfortunately, there's no snarky Han Solo in The Phantom Menace to appeal to grownup Gen Xers, though I am quite taken with Obi-Wan's dry, dry sense of humor, which I have to say I didn't even notice till my second viewing.
Thanks for writing. I'm glad you enjoy the site.

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

thechick@flickfilosopher.com

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

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