The Flick Filosopher responds:
I'm glad you liked my review, but I wasn't being kind -- I was being honest. I really liked Oxygen an awful lot. It's great to see films like yours being made outside the Hollywood machine -- people like you are my movie heroes. I'm teetering on the brink of trying to make a movie myself -- I've got a script that I feel strongly enough about that I don't want to have to alter it to suit Hollywood (behind every critic is someone who thinks she can do it better :->). But I don't know if I have the fortitude to go the indie route. If I do decide to do it, though, it'll be because of movies like yours.
Thanks for writing. I love knowing that my reviews are being read by filmmakers. And good luck with whatever you're working on now. I know I'll look forward to seeing it.

posted 12.08.99
Doug Block writes:
Wow, and thanks for a great review [of Home Page], MaryAnn! Seriously, after reading a bunch of reviews today (including the NY Times) from luddite old farts who seriously misread the film (even if they kind of liked it), it was extremely refreshing to read yours. The reviewers were exactly those old men from the Newspaper Association of America in the scene you single out. Aghhhhh!
Anyway, I appreciate your thoughtful and well-written piece and letting me know about it, too.

posted 12.08.99
Patrick Brown writes:
Just a note to say how much I enjoy your site. It's getting to the point that every time I see a film I have to look you (and Rick Ferguson) up to see what you think and if I agree. I like looking up those fundamentalist child-protection film review sites as well, but for different reasons.
Anyway, I've got my new "Cartoonist" site up and running, and I've included a link to your site. I stole your logo to act as a link button, so I thought I'd do you the courtesy of letting you know, so you can check and see if it's the sort of thing you want to be associated with.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for your kind words, and for the link at your site. Your site is great, by the way -- I'm happy to be associated with it. Good luck with it!

posted 12.08.99
Matt writes:
As a 15 year old male, I was glad that I read your article [about the MPAA at the Online Film Critics Society]. I found it insightful and straight to the point. All throughout my childhood, my parents always said that they would rather me see sex in a movie (unless it was violence against women) than violence in a movie. They still stick behind that statement. It is sad that people in society view sex as disgusting when violence is OK. Sex is natural, violence isn't. Sex happens, hopefully violence won't. I want to see Fight Club badly, but my parents say that it will desensitize me to violence. I guess they still want me to cringe when violence happens (the way it should be). Thanks.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I hate to contradict someone agreeing with me so nicely, but I think violence is just as natural as sex. I'm not saying using violence to solve one's problems is a good idea, or the right thing to do. (Anthrax and cancer are natural too -- doesn't mean they're good.) Humans are inherently violent, and that's a valid area of our behavior for humans to explore in film and other art.
I do wish violence was handled more responsibly on film, that it served a purpose and helped in making a point. I think it's unfortunate, actually, that you've been forbidden from seeing Fight Club, because although it is an extremely violent film, it is not pointlessly violent. But in just a couple years you'll be able to see for yourself.

posted 12.08.99
Ben writes:
[a Fight Club spoiler herein]
Let me start off by saying I absolutely love your site. I read your reviews as often as I can. Being a kid (young teenager, please still hear me out) who loves film and doesn't know any HMTL, it's tough for me to voice my opinion on film, an opinion that I really like expressing. That's why I respect people who do what you do (and do it well) so much. Thank you for providing me, and many others, with a worthy and well-voiced opinion. It's also refreshing to have someone who not only reviews movies, but goes deeper as well. There are only a select few places (you, Film Geek, and 24 Frames Per Second) where I can feel as good reading a review before I see the film as I can after. Anyway...
I loved your review of Fight Club, one of my favorite movies of the year. Being a part of the young group many people want this film to avoid, I feel slighted: Never has a film's importance lined up so well with the time it's released. It's disheartening to hear critics like Roger Ebert among, unfortunately, so many others condone the "immature" violence this film puts forth. I didn't find it gratuitous, I found it disturbing, effective, and only superficially irresponsible. Perhaps the only way to reach the audience which the film is about, desensitized men no longer young, not yet middle-aged, is to present something darkly real and eerily extreme, in this case violence in the form of fist-fighting and other such things. The violence, unrealistic in the form of fanciful gunfighting or unrealistic swordplay in so much of modern film, in Fight Club is disturbing because it's already right there. I have access directly to a fist, not to a gun or a sword. The fist is there for me, for you, for anyone who so feels the need to use it. The violence in Fight Club, however, is disturbing for the very reason that it doesn't involve death; it involves that dank, dreary corridor right next to it. Fight Club certainly does not promote the anarchic behavior it betrays, at least the way I see it. Merely the look of the film condemns the antics of Tyler and the Narrator, I don't know about you, but I never want my life to look like that. I don't want to fall into that trap that the Narrator does by the end of the film. At first glance, I didn't feel this film took a stand on its own violence, and maybe it still doesn't to most. Maybe every different American teenager who walks away from this film comes away with a different attitude or perception of what the film was about, as they/we should. Whether that perception is a dangerous one is highly unlikely, this film is intellectual, yes, but doesn't require an intensely intelligent person to understand what's happening beneath it all. The violence in Fight Club is neither immature nor irresponsible but endlessly effective and substantially frightening.
Also in your review, you mention Helena Bonham Carter's character to be "almost an afterthought." I think this is incorrect. Her character, Marla Singer, is, in my eyes, crucial to the film and what it has to say. I tend to think of the Narrator as neutral, so drearily so it drives him to insomnia and a constant bored face. When he meets Marla, one extreme of his is filled. Marla actually exists, so the "Jack," the Narrator, must create another extreme for himself in Tyler. For this reason, I believe Marla is just as central to the film as Tyler, and therefore, in my eyes, hardly an afterthought.
Again, I know I speak for a lot of people when I say thanks for the site. There are a lot of interesting films out there now, and there are only more to come, and I can hardly wait to read your reactions to those upcoming movies. Anyway, I know you're busy, and if you got this far, I just want to thank you profusely for hearing me out. I hope to respond to more of your reviews in the future, knowing there will be someone there to listen.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thank you for your compliments and your insightful comments on Fight Club. You write better than plenty of adult film critics -- are you sure you're a "young teenager"? :->

Ben replies:
Ah, hehe, yes I'm sure I'm a young teenager, 14 to be exact. Thanks for the compliment, I enjoy writing more than a lot of things so it's always nice to be complimented on it.

posted 12.08.99
Christina writes:
Being John Malkovich: Oh my GOD what a wonderful movie. Went to see it Thursday night, entirely on your wildly enthusiastic review, and OH MY GOD WHAT A WONDERFUL MOVIE. Thanks so much for turning me on to it, and convincing my cynical friend it was worth the $7.50.
I see movies based strictly on who's in them, and I adore John Cusak (who could resist him in Say Anything?), so I would have seen it EVENTUALLY, but probably not on the big screen, which I think is a plus for this movie.
Favorite parts: The chase scene (Siggy Freud meets The French Connection), the Gary Sinese comment at the end, the toothy chick who plays Maxine (something odd in the bridgework there, but not enough to really distract me), and the fact that they are ejected onto the Jersey Turnpike. I also LOVED the puppeteering -- that opening scene, yikes!
Just a cyber bouquet from a happy reader.
Keep it goin' on, girlfriend.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I totally adore Gary Sinise, so I got a big kick out of that line, too.
Glad you enjoyed the movie!

posted 12.08.99
MBowden479@aol.com writes:
While I agree with many of the points made in your review [of The Messenger], I must take exception to your comment that the movie was neither really good or really bad. This movie was awful. In the re-telling of one of the most remarkable and enduring stories of French history, director Luc Besson has managed to ignore or gloss over the entire development of Joan of Arc from illiterate peasant girl to military leader and warrior to martyr. Instead, we got plenty of blood and guts scenes, complete with gory spurts of blood worthy of the tackiest grade B horror flick, and strange wandering cloud scenes that were supposed to move the viewer in some way which I never quite figured out. Whether schizophrenic or not, the fact remains that this young girl really did accomplish some very remarkable feats, all based on her unshakeable faith in God. The entire fascinating story of how she finally managed to get access to the dauphin was glossed over in one scene with a creepy looking Fay Dunaway as the mother-in-law of the dauphin explaining things. I had a hard time paying attention to her, as I was so busy staring at her strange hairline and wondering why they made almost everyone in this movie, including Faye, look ugly.
The movie also took some liberties with historical fact, such as the rape and murder scene involving Joan's sister, who actually died of consumption. But heaven forbid Besson be denied the opportunity to force the viewer to sit through a completely tasteless and disgusting scene calculated, I suppose, to make us hate the English. By the end of that scene, the only one I was angry at was Besson.
I was never really sure of anything concerning Joan's visions in this movie, but, based on historical fact, she herself believed in them strongly and even spoke with them. So why didn't the movie show us this side of Joan? The visions were what gave her the strength she needed to overcome unbelieveable obstacles, particularly given her sex and status as a peasant. All I saw was, as you said, a grubby looking figure staring goggle-eyed from his stone throne, who certainly wouldn't provide that kind of inspiration in anyone. Then there were the rather scary, cloud moving scenes, once again not providing Joan with any heavenly help that I could see.
While all this was happening, the background music continued - dreary, boring and uninspired, adding nothing to the visuals, which needed all the help they could get.
Finally Joan is caught and imprisoned and now, when she's really in trouble, we see Dustin Hoffman, complete with New York accent, as some strange other-world inquisitor. It was so ridiculous I couldn't help snickering every time he opened his mouth, particularly as the camera zoomed closer and closer to his nose, finally filling the screen with an intense close up of every Dustin Hoffman facial pore you never wanted to see.
This movie completely missed the chance to show a very interesting piece of French history from the perspective of the main character. We never got to know Joan. We were never really put into the time period, except through feeble attempts such as showing lots of tooth decay and filth, and we were never really shown just how improbable it would have been in that time for a peasant girl to lead the French army. Women filled women's roles only, and there was no room for argument. Remember that one of the reasons for her execution was that she refused to dress as a woman, wearing pants and armor instead. Imagine that happening today! And the irony of her being put to death by the church she lived for was also ignored., but by this time, I just wanted the movie to end, whatever it took.
PS love your web site, you're the first person to provide a solid, written basis to my vague reasons why I always hated Julia Roberts. Remember the crop tops she wore in The Pelican Brief? Talk about taking away all her credibility as a law student, but at least she looked cute!

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for that really insightful review of The Messenger. You're absolutely right in every point that you make. If you take the movie as serious drama, it's awful. I was wishy-washy on the good/bad thing because I could have even enjoyed it as camp or as an action movie, but it couldn't even really get started in those modes, either. My friend and I both felt that it was just... there. It didn't make me actively hate it, and it didn't thrill me, either.

posted 12.08.99
Jan writes:
I just read your review of Oliver! and I couldn't agree more about Mark Lester. I'm 39 years old and I'm still in love with him too. He's now 41 and practices osteopathy in Cheltenham, England. He's married to a lady named Jane and they have three daughters. (Deep sigh!) By the way, he is indeed just as cute now as he was 30 years ago -- not as angelic, but good-looking just the same! Anyway, I just had to write to another Mark Lester lover; he was my first crush, and I am still fascinated with him.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for the update. He's taken, huh? The best ones always are.

posted 12.08.99
Danielle writes:
I just wanted to thank you for some of the first positive criticism that I've been able to find on Kevin Smith's newest film [Dogma]. I agree with you on all points and I think that this definitely one of his most moving films ever. Thank you again.

posted 12.08.99
Steve Hare writes:
hi, love the site, and you seem like an intelligent person so i wanted to bounce this idea off you about why Saving Private Ryan is such an abhorrent piece of film whereas The Thin Red Line does a lot more justice to war and violence. Basically what I disliked about Saving Private Ryan was that it seemed that Spielberg had decided he would do his 'war' movie and if he was going to do a war movie then it would have to be about the biggest war, world war 2, and what was the biggest battle in the second world war, d-day. So now he has his blockbuster elements but that is not enough, he needs to have the audience focus their sentiments on one individual, ryan, so that our emotions can have a focal point. Contrast this with Thin Red Line where the focus of the film is somewhere in the pacific, fighting for control of an island that will have no real effect on the outcome of the war. instead we see the individual, and sickening, motivations of the different characters for fighting. ie nick nolte saying 'you'll have your wars, this one's mine' or something to that effect to john cusack. ok, maybe i haven't perfectly explained my point but i'm not sure how busy you are so i'd rather send this off and get a response then type a three page explanation going into the heart of it and not hear back from you. But basically, i am sickened by spielberg commercializing war, as he did in Schindler's List as well although most critics would not agree, and i think what he did with saving private ryan in one sense is the worst kind of thing a powerful filmmaker could do
thoughts?

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I feel exactly the opposite as you do, as I think my reviews of Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line pretty much point out. I thought Ryan was brilliant (and Schindler's List even better), and Line was the biggest, most pretentious piece of junk I've seen in a long time.
Sorry!

posted 12.08.99
Marsha Finley writes:
Damn, you're good!
Thanks for the note-perfect review of Sleepy Hollow. Most of the other mainstream reviewers got hung up on their own preconceptions -- complaining that the film isn't true to the original story or that the hero is less-than-manly or that it's not a good neo-Hammer horror film, yada, yada, yada. You looked, saw, and understood.
There ought to be an award...

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks! I was surprised, too, to see a lot of reviewers complain about the dream sequences of Ichabod as a child. They weren't superfluous -- they were part of the whole point, I thought.

posted 12.08.99
Rogelio P. Mendoza writes:
Actually I enjoy your ramblings about symbols and themes and other assorted items [in the Sleepy Hollow review]. In fact, I suspect most of your readers do or else they would not keep returning to this site.
For the record, I enjoyed Sleepy Hollow too, though I think Mr. Burton might have gilded the lily a tad much with Mr. Walken's spiked hair style and pointed teeth. (After all, Walken was scary enough in The Prophecy without these additional effects Why add them now?)
As for Ravenous, my adult mind keeps wanting to disregard this film as an at best mediocre guilty pleasure but my inner teenager keeps pointing to various elements -- the score, the cinematography, that eerie scene in the cave, that scene on the cliff, and of course, Robert Carlyle's performance -- and saying, "Hey, look! A George Romero film for people who don't like George Romero films." And indeed, this film does share the same fondness for dark humor and cynical social commentary as the best of Romero's Zombie Trilogy. Granted, this movie is hardly the subtlest argument for vegetarianism ever committed to film, but it has its moments.
And for all his scenery-chewing -- no pun intended -- Carlyle gives a better performance in this film than he does in the recent James Bond movie. Indeed, there's something genuinely scary about Mr. Carlyle's villainy in this movie that the Bond film never comes close to tapping.
Apart from The Sixth Sense, Ravenous was one of the few horror films released this year that I actually er -- liked. Could there be a lesson here for the it-ain't-really-fly-without-that-CGI crowd?

[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.