The Flick Filosopher responds:
Nope, I don't buy it. If fallible humans can subvert the will of God, that's still a loophole that proves that God is also fallible.

posted 12.20.99
Robin Tiller writes:
I thought the movie, Dogma, was of very poor taste and a bad representation (funny or not) of angels and prophets. The language itself was not enjoyable, and speaking of sex in a very detailed manner was also of very poor taste. I could only sit through this for 15-30 minutes, in hopes that it would get better, which it didn't. I am a christian and thought a movie with angels would be fun (supposedly being a comedy). Basically, disrespect comes to mind.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
If you'd stayed to watch the rest of the movie, you might have noticed that director Kevin Smith had some serious things to say -- disrespect was the furthest thing from his mind, except, perhaps, the disrespect that hidebound institutions like the Catholic Church deserve.
And what's wrong with sex? If you believe in a creator god, you must believe that he/she/it gave us our equipment. Are we not supposed to use it? I suppose you'd say we should use it "properly" and not talk about it. But that's like saying we shouldn't talk about eating. It's all just natural functions of our bodies.
Jesus -- even if he was just a fictional character -- was pretty cool. I think he'd have gotten a kick out of Dogma.

posted 12.20.99
Major Michael Kelley, CSA writes:
We were intrigued to read the review of Ride with the Devil and discover that it takes a Tawianese director to be allowed to show an understanding of Southerners and the Civil War.
We fully support the film's portrayal of the character "Holt" (Jeffery Wright), since it is based on the real character of John Nolan, a Free Black who rode with Quantrill's Raiders as Scout and spy. This is an area of history too long denied.
Your Obedient Servant,
Major Michael Kelley, CSA Commanding, 37th Texas Cavalry (Terrell's)
http://www.37thtexas.org
"We are a band of brothers!"

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Well, Victor Fleming showed Southerners the same respect 60 years ago with Gone with the Wind, and he was American. I pity the person, though, whose historical knowledge is based entirely on movies.

posted 12.20.99
Patrick Dodds writes:
Don't worry I'm not going to blast you for your review of It's a Wonderful Life as you might expect others to. You make some interesting points about the film. I'll be the first person to admit the film isn't totally realistic with its black and white morality, but Star Wars was a film just as black and white in its moralizing. "The totally evil empirial government trying to thwart freedom and justice throughout the galaxy is being fought against by a group of rebels driven by 100% good intentions" -- how realistic is that (ignoring the sci-fi/fantasy element of it of course)? Yes, Han Solo was kind of a wild card in the first movie until the film's conclusion, but in the end he joins the Rebel Alliance for totally good-hearted reasons. This fact doesn't take away from the film's enjoyable qualities and for me that goes for Its a Wonderful Life too. Both of these film classics are modern fairy tales and that's what makes them beloved around the world. Besides, in the Star Wars Trilogy evil is punished while the villian in It's a Wonderful Life gets away with his foul shenanigans. How's that for realism? Oh well, that's my two cents. Happy holidays!
P.S.-- Am I the only one who finds it odd that It's a Wonderful Life, a Christmas movie, ends with a New Year's song being sung?

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Both films are fantasies, it's true, but Star Wars speaks to me in a way that Wonderful Life doesn't.
As for the singing of "Auld Lang Syne" at the end of Life: it may be considered a New Year's song, but it's about remembering old times and old friends, so it seems an appropriate tune for a gathering of George's old friends to sing, especially when you consider that it's because they remember all that George has done for them that they're helping him out in the first place.

posted 12.20.99
b. lynch black writes:
dear chick: i love the movie It's a Wonderful Life and while i can absolutely see where you have problems with the various overdone aspects of the film, it is something that spoke particulary, i think to the Boomer generation. perhaps simply because of the exposure from television, but also because they benefited from the post-war boom and never felt that materialism is enough. i truly think this is an instance where "generational" outlook makes a difference between a "hokey" movie and a "pointed fable."
however, mainly i have to tell you about an error in fact [in the Point/Counterpoint article at the Online Film Critics Society]. when referring to the rich man with the car and the new young wife, you are mixing up George Bailey's brother, Harry Bailey, with Sam Wainwright, the well-to-do, young man about town. Sam had been courting Mary in the earlier part of the movie and also offers George the chance to go into the "plastics" business with him. it is Sam Wainwright who appears at Baily Park ("hee haw") with his young wife and flash car when the Martinis are moving into their new home.
Harry Baily does comes home from college with his wife and a good job offer (small to start but with the opportunity to go far), but he does not actually reappear in the movie until the very end when he flies in from Washington to make the toast to his big brother at the end. Sam Wainwright is also the rich man who wires from London that he authorizes his bank to advance George Bailey up to $25,000 on his word alone. he is a rich man who does not forget his friends or where he came from.
i just had to tell you that, because it does sort of weaken, a bit, your section of the argument about money and goodness. Sam Wainwright is not the most loveable or the most prominent character in the move, but he does play an important part in balancing some of the rich/poor elements.
otherwise, enjoyed your reviews (as always) and the "Point/Counter-Point" column even more than usual.

posted 12.20.99
Patrick Lauder writes:
My personal feelings about It's a Wonderful Life aside, you made a MAJOR mistake in your column, and according to the points you made, it heavily influenced your impressions of the movie.
You claim that George Bailey's brother Harry came home from college, stepped off the train, and introduced George and Uncle Billy to his new wife.... but then showed up years later at Bailey Park in a fancy car with a DIFFERENT wife. This is absolutely FALSE. [Patrick goes on to detail my error, but as it is explained above, I don't see the need to repeat it. --MaryAnn]
By the way, thanks to your persuasive positive comments on Meet John Doe, I plan on renting soon. Perhaps it will become my SECOND favorite movie of all time. Can you guess the FIRST? :-)

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for your comments. Others have pointed out my mistake as well. I can't say, though, that this alters my opinion of the film too much. No, I should say: Just as my objections to Julia Roberts have more to do with how her fans see her than with the woman herself, my big problems with It's a Wonderful Life has more to do with how revered it is than anything with the movie in and of itself.
I hope you enjoy Meet John Doe!

posted 12.20.99
zuzu22@webtv.net writes:
I read the discussion [about It's a Wonderful Life] between you and Dan, and it seems that you both need to watch the film again. In the scene you refer to that takes place in Bailey Park, the man in the new car with the different woman is NOT Harry Bailey. [Again, I've snipped the details. --MaryAnn] My take on the movie, which I have seen at least 20 times, is this: No matter how insignificant you might think you or the things you do are, you can and do make a big difference in the lives of others, sometimes without even knowing it. This movie has been a large source of inspiration for me, and has caused me to do more, to try to be a better person, to think about how my actions will affect others and act accordingly. I suggest you watch it again, with less cynicism, and see the REAL message it sends.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
The message you see in the film is certainly a valid one, and it's a sentiment that no one could argue with. Of course we all affect the lives of the people around us, and should try to do so for the better. I don't think I said anything in my essay or debate with Dan that contradicts that message or indicates that I don't agree with it. But that message, which I do see in the film, doesn't alter the fact that I still have a problem with George sacrificing so much of his own life and his own dreams to help others realize their dreams.

posted 12.20.99
Sandrine Thierry writes:
I think you have no reason to do a bad critique of Joan of arc [The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc] from Luc Besson! There is nothing to compared with Braveheart it is two different fiml and that is it! What really anoy you in this film is that a french film can be a sucess! Joan of Arc is our Culture and you will never be able to understand that and you will never try to , because you seem to me very narrow minded!

The Flick Filosopher responds:
What are you, Luc Besson's mom or something? By what measure is The Messenger a success? It tanked at the box office and received just about universally bad reviews.
How closely did you read my review? I wanted to get all pumped up over your Culture! It was your French director who failed to make an interesting film about your Culture, so why don't you go complain to him?
Merci beaucoup pour votre lettre. Peut-etre je ne suis pas l'americain stupide de votre esperance?

posted 12.20.99
Wendy Neu writes:
I have to say that you are one of the most prolific independant film critics I have ever encountered. I read lots and lots of reviews, but I have trouble keeping up with you!
I enjoyed your review of Arnold's new movie [End of Days]... I laughed at the imagery until I thought my sides would split. I do think it was a bit unfair to Arnold to put End of Days and Die Hard with a Vengeance in the same article. Its a little like musically reviewing Megadeath and Pink Floyd together...

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I guess I need to get a life. :->
Thanks for writing. It's good to know that someone is enjoying the fruits of all my work!

posted 12.20.99
Sabra writes:
I liked your comments about Satan [in End of Days] being a frat boy's dream. After seeing the movie, I though about how the Devil's entire plan depended on getting a girl pregnant within a single hour -- all I could think was what if she happened to have her period that day? Would the Devil have to wait another thousand years before taking over the world? Only a man could conceive a character so potent he'd only have to do it once in order to, well, conceive.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Most women can only get pregnant during a very few days each month, so Satan had a real small window of opportunity. I guess he might have taken that into consideration in his planning, but then, he couldn't even kill Arnold Schwarzenegger -- who could be beaten up by short, plump Miriam Margolyes -- so what does that say about Satan's power and planning ability? He could at least have brought an Uzi with him or something.
Stupid, stupid movie. But Gabriel Byrne looked fabulous. :->

[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) 1997-2000
MaryAnn Johanson.
All rights reserved.