The Flick Filosopher responds:
Don't worry: you're not crazy for being so emotionally moved by a movie. I can't say that I had the same reaction to Ordinary People, but I've certainly been moved not only to tears but to uncontrollable bawling by movies. Seeing yourself in a character, particularly a character going through a rough experience, can be very startling and cathartic, and letting yourself get caught up in that character can sometimes help you avoid going through, in real life, the pain the character experiences.
But it doesn't just have to be the movies in which you see yourself that move you so. In fact, most of the movies that have me crying my eyes out don't fall into that category for me. Titanic is one: it's never the doomed romance that gets me, like I think it does a lot of people who love this movie. Instead, what moves me so is the sense of the continuity of history that the connected stories of the old and young Rose represent. Why that concept is so meaningful to me, I'm not quite sure, but it's a theme that affects me when it's done right: Forrest Gump, October Sky. Dances with Wolves always has me bawling, too, as do Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List.
So, you're definitely not alone. Do you mind if I post your letter? I usually don't ask before I post a reader's comments, but yours are so personal and I don't want to embarrass you. But I bet there are lots of people who wonder, like you did, whether there's something wrong with them for being so affected by a movie. I also suspect that other men, who aren't used to losing control of their emotions, even privately, would identify with your confusion.
Let me know what you think. If you're afraid of being embarrassed, perhaps I could post your letter anonymously.

Shann replies:
Thank you for responding back to me, I'm glad to know I'm not "nuts". I have no problem with you printing my letter, I would be very interested to hear from others who have had a similar experience, especially guys around my age. No one I have asked has had a movie affect them the way I described. I still get the same effect when I see the movie and I cannot explain it-maybe I'm finally getting in touch with my "feminine"-side, but I don't know. I can understand that others may not get the same effect from Ordinary People that I did, but maybe a female who has been assaulted could relate after seeing a movie like The Accused. The emotion that it stirs up within me is calming and at the same time heart wrenching. It's not the sadness of the film, it's the vivid reenactment of a life experience that hits so close to my reality it's almost scary. Thank you for responding, you're a great critic, and I needed a fellow critic who truly appreciates movies the way I do to tell me that I'm not nuts. I'm very appreciative, and you can use my name, I don't mind. By the way, I also appreciate films that effectively show the fluid continuity of history. Schindler's List, A League of Their Own, Forrest Gump, The Green Mile, Titanic, and Saving Private Ryan are all films that I greatly appreciate for their vivid portrayl of telling a story in this way. I also like great costumes and memorilbilia from past decades.
Anyway, blah blah blah, I've gone on a little too much-but being a movie buff I guess you can relate.
Thank you again.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for giving me permission to post your letter. I'll post this one, too, to let readers know you're interested in hearing from people who've shared your experience.
I'm sorry to hear that your experience has mirrored that of Ordinary People so closely. I hope you're not alone, and have someone near you who cares about you to talk it over with.

posted 02.23.00
Ken Johanson writes:
[spoilers for The Talented Mr. Ripley]
I just saw The Talented Mr. Ripley tonight. It's one of the better movies I've seen in a while, and indeed, left many questions unanswered. Do you know if it's an original screenplay, or if it's based on a novel? The character of Ripley reminded me A LOT of Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights. You kinda feel sorry for them both, despite all the vicious and evil things they do. When he makes the comment towards the end of the movie about pretending to be somebody versus actually being a nobody, I had to look back and wonder if any of his feeling towards anybody were real. I began to think that it was more a concious choice of his to be in love with someone (specifically Dick), than any real emotion. I'm still not sure what to think about what he felt towards Peter. That he started to drop his guard and almost let him in on the truth leads you to believe that maybe his feeling there were genuine, but his final actions leave a big question mark. He's perhaps the most perfect movie villain I've seen in a while, not because of his illegal actions, but because of his abilities to manipulate people. Did you get the feeling during the first half-hour or so that pretty much everybody but Matt Damon (specifically Gwenyth Paltrow) seriously needed to check into the Royal Hospital for Overacting? It bothered me at first, but seemed to subside a little later in the movie.
Perhaps I missed something at the beginning of TTMR. I was a little confused when the American inspector mentioned (towards the film's end) that he confirmed that there had been a Tom Ripley at Princeton who was a piano tuner. I realized then that the real Tom Ripley was the character we caught a quick glimpse of at the movie's beginning. It was clear that "Tom" filled in on the gig at Greenleaf's party because the real Ripley had an accident involving his hand (your review made me wonder about the origins of that "accident" as well). But we are never let in on the string of events that have "Tom" taking his place, are we? I also find it a little funny that "Tom" mentions (during the film's opening monologue), that the story's events began when he "borrowed" the jacket, as if it was he who was receiving the favor. Could it be that "Tom" had been manipulating events long before the events depicted in the movie? He seemed to have the uncanny ability to set things up in his favor long before even he realized their benefit (such as when he introduced himself as Dickie to whats-her-name when he first arrived in Italy). I'm pretty sure I've got to see the movie again. There's way too much I'd like to look for, knowing the events to come.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
TTMR is based on a novel of the same name by Patricia Highsmith. (There's a series of novels about Tom Ripley, actually, and apparently, there's another movie about Tom in the works.) There's also a French adaptation of the novel, called Purple Moon, from the 1960s, I think.
Tom is definitely one of the most sympathetic villains I've ever seen onscreen, and your point that perhaps none of his feelings being genuine is an excellent insight, and one I hadn't thought of.
I didn't feel that anyone overacted, actually -- I thought everyone was terrific. And if Jude Law doesn't have the chance to become a huge star after this, then there truly is no justice in the world.
I'm not sure if the guy in the car was the real Tom Ripley... though he could well have been. Didn't the inspector say that the Ripley at Princeton worked there, not that he was a student there? The Damon character could have worked there as a piano tuner -- he obviously did know how to play the piano.
And actually, the accident I wondered about was the girl in Italy who drowned, who was pregnant by Dickie. Did she kill herself, or did Tom kill her to help Dickie? Recall how Tom had offered to take the blame for her pregnancy when it looked like Dickie might be publicly embarrassed by the situation. Tom would have done anything for Dickie (well, before he killed him).
I hadn't even thought about the fact that Tom might not be the real Tom Ripley. Wow. You've given me so much more to think about.

posted 02.23.00
Rogelio P. Mendoza writes:
Now that you have devoted so much time to Star Trek, when are you acknowledge the other long-running science fiction show of the English-speaking world -- Dr. Who? Since you yourself have chosen to admit that you're an Anglophile, I would have thought this was a natural show for you to mention. Oh, well. At least you found time to put a plug in for good old Peter Davison -- or was that some other Peter Davison you were referring to on your New to DVD page? :->
Anyway, you made a good point about Supernova. I knew this film was trouble when I found myself laughing harder at its supposedly serious trailer than I did at the trailer for Galaxy Quest. I do find it sad, however, to see how often our English-speaking friends across the sea make far superior sci-fi shows for a tenth of what this film must have spent on catering. Even an admittedly lowbrow effort like Red Dwarf has more ideas in its first half-hour than films like Supernova have in their entire running time.
And yes, it is sad to see Hollywood frittering away Angela Bassett's talent -- just like they did with Whoopie Goldberg. Does Hollywood have something against talented black actresses or are they simply giving her the same treatment they've given poor Robert Forster? It makes you wonder whether those Oscar boycotters had the right idea several years ago.
Oh, well. I made a resolution to keep my rants this year short and to the point. Thanks for recommending Being John Malkovich. I hope The Crossing makes it to video very soon. After the godawful Messenger, I welcome the chance to see a good historical flick for a change. And yes, The General's Daughter did deserve its zinging. It would be interesting to read your comments on the equally hypocritical Cruel Intentions -- talk about your double standards -- but I suspect you're going to see enough godawful movies this year as it is.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
No, that was Doctor Who's Peter Davison I was referring to. The reason I don't mention DW is that American movies tend not to refer to it in any way, or even remind me of it. Believe me, I'm as big a Doctor Who fan as they come, but it's so British -- and American movies are so American -- that the twain never meet.
I will be reviewing the American Doctor Who movie, though, the one that was on Fox a few years ago, as I finish up my holiday movies for this year.
I knew from the Supernova trailer that it was going to be one big cheeseball. I went with a group of friends and we had a great time making fun of it. American filmed science fiction, in a word, sucks.
You can already buy The Crossing directly from A&E. Check out their Web site for ordering info.
I may get to Cruel Intentions eventually. You're right: I'm sure to see lots of awful movies this year. But bad movies are so much fun to write about, so I try not to complain about them. :->

posted 02.23.00
Vicki Hvid writes:
We might go further yet and call Lake Placid Not, In Fact, Lake Placid At All, Nor Even Filmed Near New England since it was filmed on Vancouver Island, just up island from us at Shawnigan Lake.
Love the site.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Well, many, in fact probably most, movies are not filmed where they are set. But to name a movie after a real place and then have all the action occur somewhere else... Well, it boggles the mind.

posted 02.23.00
Boyd Petrie writes:
I have to admit, I was a little apprehensive before seeing either of the films you mentioned (Lake Placid and Supernova) but I was actually entertained by both, to a certain degree. I don't know if you went alone or with friends, but both can be quite enjoyable when you are with your friends. Lake Placid had all of us laughing, particularly at Bridget Fonda's "Stop throwing heads at me!" comment. I laughed for five minutes with that one, because 1) it was completely absurd, and 2) it made complete sense given the circumstances. It was one of the more entertaining films -- hey, at least it was vastly superior to that crappy The Mummy flick. It almost can't get worse than that one. At least this one knew not to take itself so seriously. As for Supernova, I gotta admit that the space sequences were hauntingly beautiful. Sure, the physics of normal life are thrown out the airlock (much like the cast), but I was never bored while watching it. Personally, that's recommendation enough. However, it's inferior to Event Horizon, which dealt with similar subjects in similar ways. Check that one out for scares! I didn't sleep the night I saw that one.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Oh, I can appreciate the cheeseball appeal of both Supernova and Lake Placid. I went with a group of friends to see Supernova, and we had a ball making fun of it. I watched Lake Placid alone, and drooled over Bill Pullman in the privacy of my home. That doesn't make either movie any less crappy.
You can't compare Supernova to The Mummy, though -- Supernova is offered in all seriousness as a Serious Science Fiction Film. Lake Placid at least shared the tongue-in-cheekness of The Mummy (which I guess you didn't see) -- however, I think The Mummy pulled it off while Lake Placid didn't.
The only thing remotely actually of interest to me in Supernova was the exterior of the Nightingale, their spaceship -- it looked like a real ship, and at least they made an attempt (with the rotating section of the ship) to explain why they had gravity onboard.
Event Horizon? That was the very first movie I reviewed here. I hated it. Although it does have Sam Neill, who's very easy on the eyes.

posted 02.23.00
Christina Maris writes:
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one unconvinced of [Lake Placid's] David E. Kelley's genius; his shows remind me of everything Stephen King has published since Christine: one small, faintly amusing premise expanded to novel length through the overuse of details. Boring.
Which wouldn't be so bad if his contempt for women weren't so palpable that it deserves its own screen credit. Ally McBeal sets women back 10 years every time she opens her mouth (assuming she removes her fingers from her mouth long enough to stammer something out). Like every other female character on the show, Ally's sole purpose is to remind men, in excruciating detail, of exactly why they dislike women so much. How do you suppose he got Michelle Pfeiffer to marry him?
I'd also like to know why he gets to use his middle initial all the time when the rest of us -- with the exception of George Senior's boy, whom everyone seems to have forgotten was central in the S&L scandal and is now proposing to run the country -- have to get along on first and last names. Who decides these things, anyway? (I understand that the press refers to him as "dubbya," which I quite like.)
Keep 'em flying, girlfriend.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
If anyone thought David Kelley was a genius, Lake Placid should disabuse them of that notion.
I hate to come to the guy's defense, but the middle initial thing may just be a matter of another David Kelley being a member of the Writers Guild, or whatever guild he's a member of. Perhaps it's like the Screen Actors Guild, which requires that members have unique names -- which is why some actors use middle initials or middle names.

posted 02.23.00
Cheryl Deering writes:
Yo, Filosopher--g!
Thank you _so_ much for ranking out this awful movie [The General's Daughter]. It was Xmas Day viewing around here, and it was one sour, depressingly lame experience (even the guys were irritated at how sexist this was--g!). Reportedly, the book's author Nelson deMille noted in a foreword for the most recent paperback version of this that he wrote TGD because he honestly didn't think women should be in the military. Just what the world needed--a faithful adaptation of a book not worth the effort--g! Thanks, again. . .

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Not having read the Nelson DeMille novel, I didn't feel I could comment on it in my review... but I'm not surprised to hear he has problems with women in the military.

posted 02.23.00
Ben writes:
I loved your review of Magnolia (it's undoubtedly the best film of the year for me along with Fight Club and Felicia's Journey), but there's one thing in your review that I disagree with...
You say that:

nearly every character in Magnolia is searching for something -- love, sex, death, or respect -- to make up for a painful past, and most of them are not finding what they need. The cop looking for a "calm and loving relationship" is unlikely to find that kind of serenity with drug-addicted Claudia. The boy genius Stanley, who tells his father in the end that he has to be nicer, will almost certainly be disappointed.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for your interpretation of Magnolia. I still stand by my comments, though. I disagree that the cop has neither a haunted past nor a painful present: He has been through a divorce that has obviously hurt him, and he is lonely -- he wouldn't be advertising in the personals if he were happy. You're right that he probably gets a sense of satisfaction from helping people and in particular Claudia, but he also wants a relationship, in particular with Claudia, and I think he's going to be disappointed in that. And I don't think we can ever say that anyone's disappointment is irrelevant.
As for Stanley, of course he has a past, although it is a short one. His father, cold and demanding, has turned Stanley into a bundle of neuroses that no kid should be burdened with. And you actually illustrate my point when you say that Stanley represents a new generation that will "wise up": Stanley will have to look out for himself, figure out for himself where his dad went wrong. He's not going to get that kind of support from his father.
Thanks, again, for writing. It's always refreshing to hear alternative interpretations of a film.

posted 02.23.00
JM writes:
[spoilers for Magnolia]
I just saw Magnolia. I hopped online b/c I was dying to know what others thought of it. I enjoyed it - I could watch the cast over and over. But I am curious about the significance of the frogs. I know it's biblical imagery, but I'm not much of a bible buff. Can you please help enlighten me?

The Flick Filosopher responds:
You may have noticed, sprinkled throughout the film, several references to "Exodus 8.2" -- there was a guy in the audience of What Do Kids Know with a handwritten placard (which, ominously, is taken away from him by a production person) and it also appears as an ad on a bus shelter. If you look up Exodus, this is what you find (from the King James translation):

8:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, Go unto Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Let my people go, that they may serve me.
8:2 And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs

posted 02.23.00
Chuck Montgomery writes:
I saw The Cider House Rules last night and I can only say "amen" when it comes to your assessment of Tobey Maguire.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Maguire's certainly one to watch. I think he's on his way to becoming one of the finest actors of his generation.

posted 02.23.00
Col. Steve Monroe writes:
Re: Patch Adams
I have had the privilege of knowing Hunter for 35 yrs. I was a Ranger in the US Army. When I left Vietnam in '73 I was totally screwed up, but than I meet "Patch" around ' 79, his form of treatment kept me from blowing my brains out, like a lot of my fellow brothers did. The movie is very close to fact in how he acts and cares for people. Hunter has a love for people like no other person on earth. Mabey your a sad pathetic little person who was discouraged a lot as a child, or, mabey you hate vets that are stable now instead of destroying your little world.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Movies are not real life. Even documentaries are interpretations of the truth. I would not presume to judge the real Patch Adams, as you seem to think I do in my review of the movie based on his story, and if you can find one disparaging remark about the real Adams -- as opposed to the character Robin Williams plays in the film -- then I will correct it.
I do presume, however, to pass judgment on Tom Shadyac's interpretation of the real-life story of Patch Adams. I have no doubt that the real Patch Adams is a wonderful person who has helped many people. But the film is so contrived, so shamelessly manipulative that it does nothing but detract from the real Adams' message that we need to change our medical system.
I'm delighted to hear that the real Patch Adams was able to help you when you needed it. You can bring a personal perspective to the film that I -- and most other moviegoers -- cannot. Patch Adams, the film, is a terrible introduction for the rest of us to a man you obviously love.
I'm confused by your last comment: "mabey you hate vets that are stable now instead of destroying your little world." What exactly is that supposed to mean? And how on earth did you come up with the idea that I hate veterans?

posted 02.23.00
Gregory Spencer writes:
Im a soph film major at the University of Oklahoma and an admirer of Stanley Kubricks work, I recently had the chance to see Eyes Wide Shut for a third time on campus last week and decided to read some reviews again to try to figure out how this film is not in Oscar contention. Ive come to the conclusion that with the fact that films released early in the summer never get nominated and that mixed reviews from people who expected something else hurt its chances. Anyway your review is undoubtedly the most rediculous of all the bad reviews Ive read. You obviously dont understand the film and were there just to see some hot action and Tom Cruises ass. This film was never described as strictly about Sexual obsession as you imply, its about a journey , a journey youre obviously not smart enough to take. The symbolism of this film is endless and is one of the best films ever to discuss and philosophize about. Toms character goes through what all men and women go through, thoughts of infidelity and sexual desires that are left unfulfilled. As to this film not being thought provoking, this film left me stunned and amazed like no other film when I first walked out the theater. The fact that this film is not sexy is the point, Bill is married and his emotions , just as his character are being jerked around and played upon, hes not in control , its a dream, hence the cinematography and lighting that adds to the stunning visuals. As for the script, though I dont find it flawless in its dialogue its path a structure are what make the movies journey so amazing. I could go on about this movie more but unless you are able to see what this movie is about and get past the point of what u thought it would be about and take it for what it is you will never understand. I apologize for insulting your intelegence and hope u can see this movie again and have new light shed upon you

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I just love getting letters from 19-year-old kids telling me that not only do I "obviously" not understand film but I also don't understand adult sexuality! I suppose it's conceivable that a college sophomore could be more sophisticated than a 30-year-old, but I'm not getting that feeling here. In fact, I'd venture to guess that perhaps the reason you were so "stunned and amazed" by Eyes Wide Shut has more to do with your relative youth and inexperience than with anything stunning and amazing about the film itself.
If you expect to make films yourself -- a reasonable assumption, since you took care to tell me you're studying film -- you should remember that all art is open to interpretation, that those interpretations are beyond the control of the artist, and that intelligent people will often have differing interpretations that can be supported by the work. So disagree with my interpretation of Eyes Wide Shut, if you will, but when you insult my intelligence, all you do is demonstrate your own narrowmindedness.
And I'd be especially careful about questioning someone's intelligence in a letter riddled with misspellings, run-on sentences, and atrocious grammar. Is this kind of poor-quality writing typical of college students?

Gregory Spencer replies:
Alright ur obviously an intellegent woman and probably know film. Im fully aware that people interpret art differently and that people are entitled to a difference of opinions. As for making fun of my grammar and what not I really dont try to hard to watch for that in my emails its not as if im writing a paper. I happen to be an honor student who is intelligent just as ur, and I understand ur 30 years old and Im twenty but I still believe you have misjudged this film. U put down probably the greatest film maker ever and I dont see how u can give this film absolutely no credit. He deserves his proper respect and while I dont feel this film is flawless or his best work, Its still a great film I think u misjudged. Anyway thanks for writing to me I appreciate it and hope u dont feel im some stuck up 20 year old, and sorry for more bad grammar but Im just typing fast and getting my feelings out.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Sorry: the "it's just email so grammar doesn't count" argument is not going to work. If you expect me to take what you say seriously, you'd sure as hell better present yourself as someone worthy of being taken seriously. You only make your writing harder to understand when the reader has to stop to parse your run-on sentences and interpret your creative spelling. How am I supposed to accept your comments as reasoned and well-thought-out when you admit you're "just typing fast and getting [your] feelings out"?
And if you reread my response to you carefully, you'll notice that nowhere do I suggest that you are not intelligent, or not as intelligent as I am. What I took issue with was your youth. I resent the implication that I misinterpreted Eyes Wide Shut because of a failure on my part to understand adult sexuality -- and this from someone barely beyond childhood. I think it's safe to assume that I probably have a better perspective on adult sexuality that you do.
I don't care how many people tell me Kubrick is the greatest filmmaker ever -- that doesn't change my opinion of his last film. I refuse to let a director's reputation dictate my reaction to a movie. Every film stands or falls on its own merits.

posted 02.23.00
Erik D. Goodwyn writes:
Regarding your review of The 13th Warrior, I am pleased to hear that you are One of Us.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Who are "us" and why am I one of you?

Erik D. Goodwyn replies:
Hmm, well that was an attempt at humor, but I guess I just came across as sounding wierd. I should have known, as you probably get scads of strange email from people all the time. Sorry about that.
Anyway, I was just trying to say that I quite agreed with your "take" on The 13th Warrior. With the exception of Star Wars, this is easily the best action movie I have seen in years. I have a soft spot for midieval adventure, sword swinging warrior type movies anyway (I am absolutely drooling for a glimpse of the future Lord of the Rings movies).
Like you, I felt 13th Warrior was a very cinematic, daringly antinarrative telling of a streamlined and intense tale of great heroes and battles. What I thought was great about this movie was what it didn't have, for example:

1. there are no silly "warrior queens" running around in skimpy "armor" that would not protect anyone from anything.
2. there aren't any 'hip' stars playing themselves in costume.
3. there aren't any modernisms in the script. In fact the story is quite politically UNcorrect, as it should be. These are vikings, after all!
4. there isn't a lot of time wasted on sex scenes or other nonsense.
5. It doesn't have Leonardo DiCaprio.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I get tons of bizarre, incoherent mail -- you have no idea. So, when you said I was one of you, I wasn't sure whether you meant, "fans of The 13th Warrior," "ethnic Vikings," "people into Antonio Banderas in black chain mail," "people into big blond guys with huge swords," or people into some other cool thing I mentioned in my review.
So I'm glad to discover that you are not one of those bizarre, incoherent people, and that you actually have some interesting things to say about this incredible movie. I don't know that I'd compare it to Star Wars, but I just bought the DVD of The 13th Warrior, and as I was watching it, I did get a little premonition of what we might be in for with Lord of the Rings.
Like you, I loved that the film was not polluted with anything modern, like ridiculous warrior babes and political correctness. And as much as I love things like Kevin Sorbo's Hercules, with its irreverent and anachronistic humor, it's also nice to see historical fantasy treated seriously, which is much harder to do without coming across as too earnest. The touches of humor in The 13th Warrior are appropriate to the characters and the time period. I hope this film gets a following on video -- it really deserves it.

posted 02.23.00
Simon writes:
I was reading some of your reviews when I came across this in the review of Adrian Lyne's Lolita.

You'd think Humbert might find Charlotte as appealing as she finds him -- she speaks the way Griffith always does, like a little girl playing grown-up. But no: Humbert isn't a pedophile. It's just this one particular 14-year-old girl he's fixated on -- Lo reminds Humbert of Annabelle, with whom he was infatuated when they were both 14, their doomed teenaged affair full of aspirations of love and adventure.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
It's been a while since I saw Lolita, but I don't recall getting the impression that Humbert was attracted to little girls in general -- which would, yes, make him a pedophile. My recollection could be hazy, but I think I can trust what I wrote. It must have been my belief at the time that Humbert did not come across as someone with a sexual interest in children, for the most part.
I haven't read the novel, and things could be quite different there.

posted 02.23.00
Mister Andy Sturdevant writes:
I would just like to say that I think yours is hands-down one of the best-written and most perceptive film review sites out there, and goodness knows there are quite a few. I also think this is going to be hands-down one of the most inane letters you have ever recived, and goodness knows there are also quite a few of those, too. But I don't care what people will think of me or my letter, I have to know the answers to these three questions!

1. From where is your site's image derived? I mean of course the woman in the reporter's hat.
2. Why no mention of The Iron Giant on your top ten of '99 list, not even in the runners-up section?
3. Are you related to David Johansen of the New York Dolls?

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks very much for the compliments! But yours is nowhere near the most inane letter I've ever gotten. You have no idea what kind of bizarre mail I get.
My logo is from Woman's Home Companion magazine, February 1951, from an article about different ways to wear a hair extension. The Oscar logo at my site, with the same woman looking more glamorous, is from the same piece. But those two pictures are the only ones suitable for my site, so those are all you'll see.
I didn't list The Iron Giant among my best of 1999 for the same reason I didn't name a lot of other good movies: as wonderful as The Iron Giant was, there were other movies even more wonderful.
I am not related to David Johansen. Nor am I related to Ingemar Johanson the boxer, Iris Johansen the novelist, or Donald Johanson the anthropologist.

posted 02.23.00
Patrick Dodds writes:
For the most part I agreed with your list of top eleven films of 1999 and the honorable mentions as well, but I was surprised that you didn't mention The Iron Giant. This movie is a massive breath of fresh air from those formulaic (but enjoyable) Disney animated features. The Iron Giant has a few hints of E.T. to it (although the book its based on came out years before E.T.), but none the less it has stuck out in the minds of those who had the good fortune to see it. What other family oriented cartoon have we seen that takes place in the Red Scare era? Or would even joke about an "ATOMIC HOLOCAUST". Thats gutsy and unfortunately this film didn't do very well in the box office, but its gaining quite a following on home video.
I realize that you had to cut out a lot of great films to make your list and it is YOUR list, not mine. But, The Iron Giant stood out to me last year and I feel should it should be remembered in this amazing year of film breakthroughs. By the way it has also made MY list of best sci-fi movies of the decade! Well, that's my two cents.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
You're not the first one to ask me why I ignored The Iron Giant, and I'll tell you what I told him: As wonderful as The Iron Giant was, there were other, more wonderful films, to my eye, last year.
The one thing that ties all my best-of-99 films together is that they all push the boundaries of the art of film in some way. This wasn't something that I consciously thought about -- it was only after I made my list of the films that for some reason had struck me as extraordinary did I realize that they had this in common. The Iron Giant tells a more complex story than we usually see in what's marketed as a kids' film, and tells it in a highly enjoyable way, but it simply wasn't groundbreaking in the way that Three Kings or Being John Malkovich was.

posted 02.23.00
Erik D. Goodwyn, back for more:
What the frag?
Starwars didn't make your list [of the best films of 1999]? What's going on here?
Surely this must be some kind of mistake!

The Flick Filosopher responds:
The Phantom Menace was a lot of fun, especially for a big Star Wars geek like me, but it was hardly one of the best movies of the year. It was a big event, sure, and I saw it mumbledy-mumble times, but it didn't have anywhere near the impact on film that the original film did.

[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.