The Flick Filosopher responds:
Oh, where to start?
I think some of my readers make themselves look foolish enough with no help from me, so how does having the last word make any difference? What "arguments" are you referring to? Name calling directed at me? Adoring slobbering directed at Roberts? I'm supposed to debate some guy who didn't even finish reading my article? I'm supposed to debate people who didn't understand what my article was about? The one Roberts fan who did have something substantial to say and could express himself adequately did get a reasoned response from me. So what's your beef?
Jealous of Roberts? Please. Never in a million years would I trade places with her. I like myself, and I like my life, and I don't know if all those people out there (like some of the sad cases who wrote to me defending Roberts) could say the same about themselves. What does she have that I don't have? Sure, she's got more money than I'll ever have, but she also has no privacy. I'm not sure that's a fair trade.
So, I should give all my correspondents the benefit of the doubt when it comes to knowing Roberts? I should assume they do actually know her, or could even be her? Give me a break. Or take your own advice: I could be her cousin or something. At any rate, I wasn't even talking about Roberts personally -- I wrote only about her work, which is on public display. I wouldn't presume to know anything about her personally, which her defenders do dare to presume.
When Linda Fiorentino's character in The Last Seduction is called "adorable" by millions of people, and Fiorentino takes over as "America's Sweetheart," then I'll have something to say about that. I said nothing about unlikable characters in general in my article (have you even read it?) -- I spoke about how Roberts's image as some kind of ideal woman was at odds with the usually nasty characters she plays in her most popular movies.
I have a life, thank you very much. Do you?

posted 09.29.99
cmaris@unm.edu writes:
You are too funny, girlfriend. Boffo job pinning the Pretty Woman by the thorax, and I howled at your back and forth with the tenacious 13-year-old illiterate from the Dark Side. Oh, the humanity!
The thing about Julia Roberts -- well, maybe not so much now, but a couple of years ago -- is that for awhile there she just wanted to get married SO BADLY -- it came off her like sweat. It was embarassing to watch her. She was like a horse plunging in a stall, I'm engaged to this one, I'm married to that one (LYLE LOVETT ???), no, wait, I'm not marrying him, I'm going out with this guy instead -- you just wanted to shoot her with a tranquilizer dart and make her STOP THAT.
Julia? Julia, honey? You're pretty now, sweetie, your skin has cleared up, the braces are off, you've found a FABULOUS hairdresser, and everyone's tired of your brother's schtick. You can relax. We all love you. You'll get asked to the prom, I PROMISE. Just breathe... breathe... breathe. There now. Isn't that better?
Keep it up, sistah. Love your stuff.

posted 09.29.99
Mary Chipman writes:
Can you stand one more e-mail re. your Julia Roberts review? I am a 38-year-old woman who has wondered for years why Julia Roberts is so popular. I also have to wonder why it is that most men find her sexy and beautiful. I'm sorry, but I think she's just plain homely looking. I also think that her acting is very poor, but then, I also think Nicholas Cage is a bad actor, so maybe it's just me. I avoid movies that star either one of these two people, and when I do see one of their movies, it is definitely in spite of them. Oh, and, you have a right to be very afraid of the future after reading some of your e-mail responses. There should be some kind of disqualifier for people who misspell and/or misword more than 50% of their letter. I can only hope they voluntarily remove themselves from the gene pool.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Nicolas Cage isn't much of an actor, either -- I agree with you there too.

posted 09.29.99
Cathy writes:
I dont know exactly why I am writing. I guess something made me feel moved to reply. I read your [Julia Roberts] article, and I agreed with almost all of what you had to say. I just have a few comments.
In reference to your question, "Would any woman want a friend, like the characters, Miss Roberts portrays?". I think we all have those kind of friends. I also think that we all adore them. Further more I think we all have those manipulating, lying, cheating tendencies, especially when scorned. Isn't that just human nature? If not, than I am a far worse human than I had ever dreamed.
Let's just face the facts, there is a Julia Robert's character hanging in ever crowd, and they make us laugh. I dont see her characters being "real" believable or even realistic, but I do see the qualities they posess as realistic qualities.
As for why we love her: I had to ask myself that question, because, I, too, adore the woman. By the way, I am female. What is it about her? I cannot put it into words for the life of me. Yes, she is cute, and that is dependable. Yes, she is sexy. Maybe we truly just want a "feel-good" diversion from the reality of life. I, myself, tend to appreciate the more complex and artistic movies. But I do love to view the latest Julia Robert"s flick too. They are easy and it is not as if you have to think to enjoy them. When you leave, you usually feel better than when you walked in. Maybe that is because you feel that there is someone out there, who is actually in worse shape than yourself. Who knows. I cannot seem to put my finger on it, but the woman has magic. Maybe it is God. Suppose she just posesses and aura not many of the rest of us were blessed with.
But lets look at Sandra Bullock. Is she not the same? Come on... What in the world was the hype with that "Speed" movie, if not for her? She, too, is cute and funny and something nice to look at. Myself, I probably like her best in "Wrestling Ernest Hemingway". But, I dont see any great acting ability or any great roles from her. So what is it? Maybe we all just like to look at cute woman and dream it were us.
I also think that some of the allure of the "Julia Robert's syndrome" is in her mystery. We dont really know that much about the woman herself. She appears both vulnerable and fragile. As a person, she is complex, and rarely does she open up, if at all. No one really knows what goes on in that head. To me, she seems troubled, and I even feel sorry for her. Ask me why and I will say, I do not know.
To sum it up-- I like her. I like to watch her. I can take my child with me. I can laugh, and cry, and walk out the door, feeling different.... not changed, but different, if only for a short time. Yes, that makes me a Julia fan, and no, I am not illiterate-- but did i spell that right?
Cathy<--- laughing

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for a more thoughtful defense of Julia Roberts than I got from almost all the other fans who wrote me. I can't say that I agree with you -- I myself do not have any friends like the characters Roberts portrays, and I certainly would not "adore" someone like her Runaway Bride character. I never said her characters weren't believable, though -- I just don't understand what's to worship in them.

posted 09.29.99
Jody Bower writes:
Just read your second take on [The Phantom Menace], and you touched on something I've been thinking. I'm not altogether sure that Lucas really intends all of the reactions or insights we get from his films. I almost feel that he is tapping into something that touches us all without really knowing it! He makes the movies, and then WE all tell him and each other what it all means.
The dark side/anger thing is an example. I've felt thoughout that Lucas doesn't quite get his own message. His characters say you must not give in to your dark side, but then he shows us that the only way a Jedi can defeat a Sith Lord is to do just that. He doesn't seem to get (as you do) that it's the ability to harness it and use it WITHOUT being overcome that is true mastery. (I love your insight here about Qui-Gon being blind to the dark side.) It seems to me that Lucas has also missed the boat here with setting up Anakin's eventual "fall." Instead of the separation from his mommy being the critical thing, Lucas should have had Anakin react with surprise and shock to Qui-Gon's death while planting the seed of Anakin's realization that his "unkillable" hero met an adversary greater than himself - if I were a kid, I'd sure be wondering who had that kind of power and how to get it.
Instead, all we get is him dressed and hairstyled like Obi-Wan (my niece said, "A Ewan Mini-Me!") just standing there.
Also, I hope that Lucas doesn't think he has to have FIVE simultaneous battles at the end of episode 2, and SIX at the end of episode 3 . . .

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Speaking as someone who has written fiction (and just finished my first screenplay -- woo hoo!), I can tell you that thematic elements often arise naturally from a story and the characters, and are not things the writer necessarily plans to show. Countless times, I've gone back and reread something I wrote ages ago, or something I just finished, and saw connections between plot or character elements that I did not deliberately connect, or saw themes that I had no idea were in there.
I'm sure that's the case with Lucas, too.
It's a little frightening sometimes -- it's not like I'm consciously creating a story, more like I'm just discovering it.

posted 09.29.99
Wendy Neu writes:
First, I have to say I love your site. I discovered you through the 'Filmgeek' and have been an avid reader since your partnership started. That said, I thought I would share with you the impact of your new Phantom [Menace] article.
As someone who was eagerly anticipating the release of Episode 1, I must admit I was terribly disappointed. Not because I thought it was racist or sacrilegious (if you look hard enough you can find an element of something offensive in nearly every film). But, because it had all the caliber of your garden variety "made for TV" movie with a few dated special effects thrown in for measure. As a stand alone piece of entertainment, it was a bust. I was completely baffled by the amount of debate it generated from serious journalists.
However, in reading your article. I realized that the power and magic of The Phantom Menace has nothing to do with the film. The film is merely a common ground upon which each audience member bases his experience of imagination. The lack of character development and simple repetitive message allows for each person to embellish drama and interest in their own mind. The desire for more content and the need for a rounded story line leaves people to invent and develop it on their own, outside of the theater.
A cynical person would reflect on George Lucas as a commercialistic, money grubbing merchandiser. After all, if the explanation for 'what the deal is with the Sith' comes in a $22 book or multiple books, he can cash in on that too. Not to mention the millions of action figures, light saber toys, costumes that all pay royalties to Skywalker Ranch owner Georgie! The market is wide open for books, games, toys, etc.
I now see a better view of Lucas as a talented inspiration to the young and old alike. It is amazing the number of multi-generational debates that have been sparked by this film. He is a clever one that Mr. Lucas. Very few people can inspire imagination. He takes each receptive person on a journey that is worth more than the price of a movie ticket and extends much farther than the the 2 hour film.
As someone who has grown quite comfortable with the nicely stitched up packages that Hollywood provides, I am a little envious. I obviously missed the boat upon which many of my 'previously dismissed as geeks' friends are sailing.
Bon Voyage! Perhaps I will catch the next one.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
A big part of my enjoyment of all the Star Wars movies -- and I think many fans would agree with me -- is discussing and analyzing them with other faithful. But that endless rehashing would not be possible if there wasn't something substantial there to start with. Not many movies have inspired the kind of devotion Lucas's have -- his work has fired the imaginations of countless people. But there's plenty of fodder for our imaginations to be found in the films themselves. They aren't empty vessels we've poured our fantasies into -- they're rich stories with age-old mythological underpinnings that resonate within us in ways many people don't even recognize.

posted 09.29.99
Russell J. Notides writes:
You really do not get some of the subtlety I think [in The Thirteenth Floor]. The 13th floor simply does not exist. That is, the premise of "reality" is simply another simulation in the movie. The movie tells us the existence we view as real,(i.e. their existence in this 13th floor computer array) is simply another simulation. Ergo, the 13th Floor as a Title is meaningful in that what we view as reality throughout the movie really is not. Agree the movie has some problems, but the title is quite clever in the context of it all being a simulation.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I think you're finding too much subtlety in a movie that didn't have any. Sure, the 13th floor didn't exist. But neither did anything else in that world. So, by your argument, the movie might as well have been called Dark and Noir-y Los Angeles, That One Guy's Really Gray Apartment, Rain-Soaked Alley, Big Corporate Office Building... You're getting the idea, I'm sure.

posted 09.29.99
Jason Lefkowitz writes:
Hello...
Thanks for your great site and always-insightful reviews! I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in regarding a point you made in your review of Rushmore, a film which took me pleasantly by surprise when I first saw it and has held a warm spot in my heart ever since.
I was struck by your observation that:

Max himself was too enigmatic for my taste. For example, Max tells everyone that his father (Seymour Cassel) is a neurosurgeon; later, he admits proudly that his father is actually a barber. That Max loves and admires his father for what he actually is is clear -- what isn't clear is why he initially lied and what made him change his mind and start telling the truth.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for the thoughtful insight into Rushmore. I can't say that it helps me appreciate the movie any more -- maybe I'll give it another shot in a few months.

posted 09.29.99
DptSGerard@aol.com writes:
Why did you give that dreadful turd You've Got Mail a glowing review ?

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I don't think you can call glowing a review that refers to the movie as "ultimately... silly and contrived." I also called it "very much a retread of Sleepless in Seattle." At best, my review was mixed.
But you can rest assured that my reviews always represent my true reactions to a movie, and nothing else -- there's nothing ulterior about my motives.

posted 09.29.99
Boy F. Petersen writes:
Greetings
Just a quick note to thank you for being one of the few that saw, The 13th Warrior for what it was - an epic. For me, an epic by its very nature is Spartan in all things modern movie goers would consider "plot" and deliberately sticks to the action of the story, but in such a way that the characters of the heroes come forth out of what they do and not what they say.
For me this movie stirred me to my very soul. I loved the combat scenes, not for what they did in it and how (although that was done very well and I've experience with sword combat), but because they were brutally honest in depicting it as a true epic should be.
I also agree with you very much on the point you made about religion. For a movie that had only a handful of lines about religion, it managed to say more about it than movies supposedly written just to discuss that matter alone.
But above all it was the final battle that the movie moved into the mythic as you said. Ibn Fadhlan's prayer to Allah, then the Norse prayer to the Gods, the battle itself in all its glory and goriness, then the showdown. All scenes that will live with me and cause me goose bumps. But the most stirring moments were that of after the battle when Bulvi sat down and sank his sword into the ground with the force of thunder, then of him dead. A more regal king there never was.
Sorry, I too have a bit of northland blood in me on my father's side. Perhaps that is why I found this such a wonderful movie. Now my sincerest hope is that this is the manner in which the Lord of the Rings movies will be told.
Thank you for your time

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Like I wrote in my review, I think this film is gonna get a cult following on video. We won't be alone in our praise for this movie for long.

posted 09.29.99
Rogelio P. Mendoza writes:
Muchas gracias for recommending The 13th Warrior. I was tempted to give a pass to this film myself, and indeed, if you walk in expecting a clone of Braveheart or Lawrence of Arabia, you will be disappointed. Taken on its own terms, the film works just fine.
Antonio Banderas continues to be one of the few modern actors whose sex appeal is as understandable to male heterosexuals like myself as it is to women. (What man in his right mind wouldn't want to identify with him?) But the big surprise is in the moments that aren't generally dealt with in big epic action pictures. The eerie depiction of a Viking funeral--even eerier than The Blair Witch Project if you know enough about Viking culture to guess what's going to happen--is a keeper; so is McTiernan's no-nonsense depiction of a Viking duel. (Just imagine how these same scenes would be dealt with in an Arnold Schwarzenneger flick. Now that's a scary thought.)
A lot of the points you make about the film's refreshingly realistic depiction of Vikings and Arabs are well taken. But the point that struck me hardest long after I saw the film was this film's odd parallels to "Fort Apache". Could McTiernan be the next John Ford? It would be nice if the last film he was remembered for wasn't "The Last Action Hero".

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I loved the funeral scene, too, and how the prayer for the dying was echoed later just before the battle. Funny that you mentioned Blair Witch -- did you catch the stick figures that were like giant versions of TBWP's creepy tree hangings? Very effective stuff...

[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 (c) 1997-99
MaryAnn Johanson.
All rights reserved.