posted 03.09.00
Riley, SheRue A. writes:
Subject: critic
your analysis of the film is about as helpful as a migraine. I don't know what your personal problems are but maybe you need to see Dr. Laura If this is a full time job, I really feel for your employers! M o v i e does that ring a bell somewhere not reality but movie! Have a great day.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Hundreds of films are reviewed at my site. You'll need to be a little more specific than "the film." And perhaps you'd care to explain why you feel I have "personal problems."

Riley, SheRue A. replies:
Subject: Movie -Pitch Black
I must apologize for to you for not mentioning the movie I was referring to. I like your web site. It is very professional. However I've seen the movie twice and I continue to find it enjoyable, your analysis of the movie is still in the realm of 'don't have a clue' but I like your style! Enjoy, I am looking for to check out your web site again. Once thanks for responding.

posted 03.09.00
Mason Rey writes:
Subject: Constructive Criticism
You are the most incompetent movie critic I have ever encountered. The review you gave of Pitch Black was totally undeserved. All you are is a babbling automaton [this is my favorite insult of the many names I've been called over the years!--MaryAnn]. Sure the movie was repetitious with its themes of gore but that is what the American public wants to see. The movie was very creative with the whole night vision idea and the way the film makers interpreted that nobody is beyond the point of not being human. Vin Diesel was unbearably cool to the younger viewer, a model of infatuation to the female audience, and a spokesman for what guys want to be like. Maybe if you weren't such a hack then maybe you could see that.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Let's see what you have to offer in defense of Pitch Black beyond name-calling. "Very creative with the whole night vision idea"? Try: an idea contrived beyond belief. How terribly convenient for our characters that the baddest bad ass among them just happens to be able to see in the dark. Riddick is "unbearably cool"? So, you're saying that a stone-cold killer is an appropriate person for kids to look up to? And which women, precisely, are you speaking for when you say that Riddick is "a model of infatuation to the female audience"? Please, I want names -- there was nothing in the least attractive about the character to this woman. Guys want to be like Riddick? Are you serious? The character is a psychopath! If you want to be like him, then please stay very far away from me. I can promise you that I will not find you cool or attractive.
Thank you for beautifully illustrating my point that American movies audiences will watch, enjoy, and even defend whatever shit Hollywood throws at them.
By the way, do you have any idea what the phrase "constructive criticism" actually means?

posted 03.09.00
Sol Man writes:
Okay,
First of all let me say that I don't usually respond to what critics write about when it comes to movies, but I was propelled to add a few things about your review of Pitch Black.
Number 1, Your scientific assessment of their situation is absolutely correct, and I was thinking the some of the same things about a lot of what you mentioned, especially concerning what the aliens eat when everything on the planet was dead. However, you should remember that Pitch Black fits into the subgenre of science-fiction called space opera along with Star Wars, Aliens, and a myriad of other films that places story, plot, characterization, and action as being more important the scientific fact. That is predominately the realm of hard sci-fi, which is best epitomized in the fiction of Isaac Asimov.
Number 2 I feel that the movie overall was fairly good. I liked Van Diesal's character. I'm not a huge science-fiction fan I mostly enjoy fantasy more, or I used to before it became ultra politically correct. It the dawn of the sword & sorcery genre you had characters like Robert E. Howard's Conan, Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, and Micheal Moorcock's Elric: characters who were more interesting in survival, material wealth, good booze, and fine women rather than saving the world. Elric's character is the exception he was a complete psychopath who murdered all his friends and the woman that he loved. Since then there has been a big push in fantasy for political correctness. Nowadays the main characters in fantasy fiction are all white females, the male characters aren't allowed to like sex or show any "disrespectful" behavior towards any of their female companions, and both male and female characters are annoyingly moralistic. In science-fiction you are still allowed to have such amoral, and yes sometimes even immoral characters as the protagonist like Riddick. Let's face it people like dark protagonist. Look at the success of Hannibal Lector, the HBO series OZ and The Sopranos, and a host of other movies and miniseries.
Another reason that I like Pitch Black was, because it has been a long tradition science-fiction films and supernatural thrillers for a Black man to sacrifice himself for the good of the group. The nigga then dies, and all the White folks go one living happily ever. A good example. of this is Stephen King's The Green Mile. I liked Riddick, because of the fact that he didn't fit that mold, in fact, he went directly against it. The ending of the movie, where myself, and I would estimate most of the audience was expecting Riddick to die, and get left behind on the planet while the docking captain made it off safely with everyone else gets turned on it's head when Riddick stabs the captain, says, "Not for me!" and makes it to safely back to the escape ship. Yes! At last! For once not another Black man sacrifice your life for the White folks then die flick. I loved it!
Lastly, I enjoyed Pitch Black, because of it's positive portrayal of the Imam and the Islamic faith. Lately, in both Hollywood and The Press (some intellectuals would argue there isn't much of a difference between the two) it seems to be all the rage to malign the Islamic faith in general and the Arabic people in particular. I don't know if this is because Islam has remained a heavily patriarchal faith in a society where White feminist issues have been pushed to the forefront, or if it is just due to simply racism. Followers of Islam are routinely made about to be fanatical terrorist, who go around fire bombing cars, and blowing up buildings. The truth is less than ten percent of terrorist act in the world comes from followers and the Muslim faith. In America Muslims count for less than five percent of terrorist activities. On the contrary, the majority of terrorist acts in America come from environmentalist groups composed of fanatical tree hugging animal rights activists, who might I add are predominately White and seemed to be equally composed of males and females.
I thank you for time in reading this email. I would be interested in reading a response from you, or someone at the staff of Flick Philosopher. If you don't email back (I profess to be ignorant as regards whether highbrow reviewers due that sort of thing) it was entertaining reading your review. It did make some strong points, but overall I thought you came off sounding like a staunch moralist. This is not meant as a slam against you personally but merely an honest assessment of your article.
PS For the record I would give Pitch Black anywhere from a B- to a solid C rating. And also, please excuse whatever typos are present within this writing. As an English major I am usually much more fussy over my grammar. I am a bit rushed, however, and could not be as meticulous as I normally am.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Staff? You've got to be kidding? I wish I had a staff. The Flick Filosopher is a one-woman operation, and I answer all my email myself.
You use the word "moralist" like a slur. Since when did having a sense of morality become a bad thing? I have no problem with dark protagonists, but I absolutely stand by my outrage at seeing a disgusting character like Riddick portrayed in nothing but a positive light. And you do a great disservice to things like The Sopranos when you try to compare Tony Soprano, say, to Riddick. Anti-heroes like Tony Soprano, or Hannibal Lechter, or even Elric of Melnibone (see, I know a lot more about F&SF than you think I do) engage the reader or viewer not because of their evil deeds but in spite of them -- on the other hand, we're meant to like Riddick not in spite of the fact that he's a psychopath but precisely for that reason. Riddick doesn't slowly come to realize he needs to change his way -- one line tacked onto the end of the movie (as if the filmmakers suddenly realized they'd better do something to soften him) suffices as characterization for Riddick. I'm sorry -- I don't buy it. And I don't buy Riddick as a man worthy of our sympathy or even interest.
You're right in saying that PB falls into the realm of space opera or science fantasy, as most movies labeled SF do. But the things that make movies like Star Wars and Aliens compelling enough to ignore scientific inaccuracies are character and story -- and PB had little characterization and a story we've seen a hundred times before. There was very little that was usefully original about it. Yes, it was nice to see Muslims depicted onscreen in a positive way -- but why didn't they do anything with the imam? As a character, he's useless. He does nothing but watch his children die... and with very little reaction to what must have been a horrifying experience! And the science fantasy of movies like Aliens does not tend to make the movie fall totally apart, like the concept of the creatures in PB does.
Is Vin Diesel black? (He looks as if his background might be racially mixed, but then he could be at least as white as he is black -- why does that automatically make him black?) I agree that you can usually pick out an early victim in these kinds of movies by skin color, but is Riddick really much a step beyond that? Is a psycho-killer the kind of black character you want to see depicted onscreen? PB had a potentially interesting black character in the imam and did absolutely nothing with him.
(I think you're wrong to lump The Green Mile in with movies that sacrifice a black man for the good of white people. Part of the point of John Coffey's sacrifice there is that this kind of injustice is all too common for black men in the real world, not only in dumb movies.)

Sol Man replies:
Hello (again), and secondly I would like to thank you for responding to the email that I sent you earlier. I apologize for my sarcasm concerning whether or not you would answer my email.
In regard your question concerning Van Diesel's ethnicity. I agree Van Diesel is probably mixed (or else a light skinned African-American). In my opinion, even if he is mixed the character talked with a Black dialect in the movie, and in an interview that I recently saw him in he sounded Black like he grew up around brothers, so to answer you question to me if walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then hey, I'm going to call it a duck.
My first question is in response to you saying that It is a disservice to compare Riddick to Tony Soprano. Why? Because, Tony Soprano is White and walks around in expensive clothes. Look, believe it or not, I'm not trying to get off on a racial thing, but it seems to me White people are fascinated by 'white people and tend to romanticize whatever actions they take no matter how bad they are. I mean, you feel Riddick bullied people in the movie, despite the fact that he never actually laid a head on anyone, except the Dock captain (who attacked him first), and the mercenary, who I think was equally scummy if not more so than Riddick, while in one episode of The Sopranos Tony Soprano beats a guy to the ground, just because the poor idiot can't figure out how to properly use a telephone menu system.
You were talking about how you don't mind dark protagonist such as Hannibal Lechter, and evidently judging by the popularity of The Silence of the Lambs, the book Hannibal, and the host of films such as Seven that Silence of the Lambs spawned so do a lot of people, but do you, in your honest opinion, believe Hannibal Lechter would be construed as such a cool or interesting character by the public if he were Black, Latino, or whatever. I think not.

The Flick Filosopher again:
Hello, again, to you too. I didn't take it as sarcasm when you wondered whether I would respond to you -- I was simply amazed, as I continually am -- by people who take my site to be a larger operation and much better funded than it is. I guess I must be doing something right.
Obviously, our society has lots of problems with race, and with treating people who aren't white (and male) equally. But not everything is about race, and my objections to Riddick have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with race. Characters like Tony Soprano and Hannibal Lechter are not "cool," at least not to me, and I do not "romanticize" them, but they are interesting because of their moral complications. When Tony Soprano beats people up, we are not meant to cheer him on -- the whole point of The Sopranos is exploring why Tony Soprano is the way he is. We see Tony as a fairly decent family man who cares about his kids, a guy who gets emotionally involved with a family of ducks living in his swimming pool, and that makes it all the more horrifying and mysterious to see him be such a violent jerk. But we're supposed to cheer on Riddick merely because he is a bad-ass dude. There is no depth to his character. He's cardboard.

posted 03.09.00
Brian Tinker writes:
Hello Now I know you obviously didn't like Pitch Black much, but I thought it was a pretty good film. There were some stupid parts, like when Fry goes into the hole to investigate what killed the other guy. About what the aliens eat when there's no life out there: they eat themselves. Remember the scene where the people look up to see the aliens eating themselves? and plus we don't know how long it has been since other life existed on the planet. Maybe they crash-landed a week after the aliens ran out of prey to eat. The planet of course doesn't look like the kind which had breathable air. Maybe they previous visitors created an artificial atmosphere. It's possible to do that nowadays, but it's very expensive. They also never said in the movie that it was an eclipse every 22 Earth years, just years. The woman found the little model and it showed the planet's years. It was pretty dumb that they didn't check the model to see how long the eclipse would be. Also, when the Muslim kid goes missing, Riddick knew where he was because Riddick can see in the dark, and when he was looking into the window of the Coring Room, he could see the little kid crawl inside through the hole. He didn't tell anyone about it sooner, because, well, he's psychotic. The movie had it's good points too. It gave away only enough information to scare the audience while making them wonder what will happen next, even though I could predict every single part where something was going to jump out and attack.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
The aliens eat themselves? That's no way to maintain an ecosystem -- sorry. And it doesn't matter how long it has been since other life existed on the planet -- nature doesn't work that way. Something has to sustain those creatures. Ecosystems die out together -- one species wouldn't be left standing after everything else has died out the way the creatures in PB are.
It is NOT possible to create a planetary atmosphere now, as you say, at any price. That kind of technology, though, is feasible and could well be developed in the future, but there's no indication of anything like that happening in PB. You're grasping at straws.
As to the years problem, Fry recognizes the dating system used to label rocks the long-dead geologist had left behind. She says they're dated 22 years previously, so the dating system has to be one she's familiar with. She is not familiar with this planet. If the rocks were dated according to local planetary time, she wouldn't be able to say how many years ago they were dated. Hence, they are dated in whatever standard measure of time is used throughout this space-faring civilization (presumably Earth years, but it could be some other standardized measurement of time.) But then the model of this planetary system shows the years clicking by as she turns it, moving it closer to eclipse. The eclipse begins when the years click to 22. So, either the model is set up in the standard measure of years, which makes no sense. You wouldn't want to know how many Earth (or standard) years would pass before an eclipse hits -- that wouldn't be accurate enough. You'd need to know in local time.
You wanna talk about stupid parts? Why the hell does the antiques dealer crawl off into the dark when he knows damn well the only way he can survive is to stay in the light with the group? I'll tell you why: so that he can damage their lights enough to put everyone in danger. It's that kind of plot contrivance that really pisses me off: people acting illogically in order to further a weak plot. And not even acting illogically the way that people sometimes act illogically in stressful situations, but acting in ways that do nothing but suit the plot.
Thanks for writing, but you haven't changed my mind about this movie one little bit.

Brian Tinker replies:
I take it you didn't like the Aliens trilogy much either?

The Flick Filosopher again:
I love the Alien movies. Well, I love the first two unreservedly -- I have some problems with the third and fourth. But PB is a pale imitation of that far superior series. In at least the first two movies, the characters are much more developed, the stories much more compelling, and the science far less ludicrous. I could have easily ignored the scientific goofs of PB if the characters and story had held my interest. They didn't.

posted 03.09.00
Movie Critic writes:
You were one of the few critics to give this movie a bad review. You don't have a clue! Filosopher indeed!
Your Critic

The Flick Filosopher responds:
You're right! Forgive me! I am not worthy of even your criticism, oh anonymous one! How can I possibly make it up to? Please, don't leave me hanging! Let me know how I can earn your respect!

posted 03.09.00
Evan Schlachter writes:
Hello there, I was skimming through your review of Pitch Black and I personally believed that some statements were quite uncalled for. Now, your opinion is your opinion, however, several of your "examples" were misleading, as well as somewhat incorrect. Most of which you took out of context, or simply interpreted the wrong way.

My question is, Why? Why would these creatures be the least bit interested in humans? Predators and their prey develop in symbiosis

What do these things live on when there are no humans around, which is most of the time?

Fry finds a model of this planetary system. It's vitally important for them to know how long the dark will last -- they have no power to make artificial lights, and those creatures come out at night -- but does Fry or anyone else advance the model along its track to see how long before the suns come up again? Of course not.

When one of the Muslim kids goes missing, the first place it is suggested they look for him is in a building where they have to blast through the locks to get in. Now, the audience knows that the kid found a way inside, but if the characters in the film didn't know about that other way in, and thought the place was inaccessible, why would they look there first for him? How do they think the kid got in?

the fact that Riddick -- remember, the psycho killer? -- is the hero here

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Let's talk about misinterpreting things and taking things out of context.
Ravenous insects need prey just as animals do, and any creature that lays waste to its entire ecosystem will not last long. If nothing survives, then there is nothing to be food the next time these guys get hungry. The long-term survival of any kind of animal or insect requires a food chain, of which there is no evidence on this planet. Sorry, but a few skeletons of big dead things do not an ecosystem make -- what did those big creatures live on? There is no "of course" about humans representing food. These creatures are the product of an entirely different line of evolution -- there is no reason they would recognize humans as food, as that humans would be suitable food for them. (And if you can't understand that, I suggest you try reading some books about science.) A venus flytrap plant will try to eat chopped beef, but that will kill it -- and a venus flytrap and a cow are actually genetically related, if distantly -- just as metal armor will not sustain a tiger shark.
Creatures that find their prey underground do not need to fly, and are not likely to swarm above ground in the dark. Animals do things because those actions have survival value -- they do not do them for plot convenience or because it would be really cool.
Sorry, but your excuse for not advancing the model doesn't cut it. There is no reason except plot convenience that kept Fry from advancing the model.
Please point to where I mentioned "'Enderaing softness to Reddick's charecter' look-alike [I was] referring to," to quote you. And please do not call me "unprofessional" or chide me for not paying attention for disagreeing with your opinion (though I suppose I must thank you very conceding that I am allowed it). You say it was obvious Riddick knew where the kid was hiding. I say it was not obvious and is just another example of ridiculous and contrived plotting.
And you again misrepresent what I wrote when you suggest I said that all science fiction must have a true hero. I neither wrote not implied any such thing. But it is morally repulsive to me to see an unrepentant psychopath's reprehensible behavior played for laughs. I did not see Riddick as a "nice" alternative to a hero or an anti-hero. There is absolutely nothing sympathetic or redeeming about Riddick, and I worry that anyone sees him that way.
So, let's see: You call me unprofessional, say I do not pay attention to movies I'm reviewing, accuse me of being "grossly unfair," and assume that I haven't considered what I'm writing before I write it. And I'm not supposed to be offended?

posted 03.09.00
Tom Richmond V. Ramos III writes:
1) You got the crash sequence correct which was a no brainer
2) Those teens were not the son(s) of the Imam, he was taking them on a Pilgrimage to New Mecca
3) The Planet had 3 suns, keeping the planet in perpetual daylight
4) Alien creatures (regardless of where they are) that are predators will hunt for prey, whatever that prey maybe, as long as they find it to their liking. If humans where toxic to them well they might have left the people alone. These creatures in the movie are plainly driven by a food chain of eat what you can. Which even on this planet is natural.
5) The aliens eat each other when there is nothing else to eat, they eat the weaker ones, young ones or maybe others of diff tribes, who knows, it happens here too.
6) Yes, they use earth years, the planets in the model revolved differently but they relied on earth years so everything would remain standard. Yes the planet took lets say 7 YEARS to make one rotation in its system but, every 22 EARTH YEARS the suns eclipse and the planet goes dark and the creatures come out, nothing at all wrong with that.
8) The reason they didn't bother advancing the model was because of the way the system rotated, logic states that if a planet rotates slower than ours that means the eclipse would last longer than they can hold out.
9) The reason they looked in the Coring Room for the young muslim was eactly the fact that it was the only place left unchecked by them. Since he was a child he might have gotten in a crack that an adult could not. Ever hear of the kids in the well?
10) Everthought that maybe the diff radiation from diff suns would make the shades diff? or the fact that there is no measurable water in the sky let more radiation pass through than normal?
You saw this moving with a mind already set to look for things that were wrong with it, there is nothing wrong with the things you said were wrong, being a critic you should have watched it with an open mind. You are the worst critic I have read about yet, you are biast and don't pay attention to the film your watching. But we agree on one thing, it was shot beautifully.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
1) Should I kiss your ass for that?
2) Shouldn't the imam still have been a teensy bit upset when they died? They were still his spiritual children, weren't they?
3) You're right. Mea culpa.
4) Read a some books about ecology and evolution before you start spouting stuff like this.
5) Ditto.
6) Using Earth years for an alien planetary system is not going to give you precise measurements, and we see clearly that the counter on the model doesn't even go to one decimal point of measurement.
7) You skipped seven.
8) What the hell are you talking about? Who, in the film, said anything about the length of the planet's orbit? Logic? Do you know the meaning of the word?
9) The coring room was suggested as the first place to look.
10) Ever read any books about planetary or stellar science? Try it.
I went into Pitch Black -- as I go into every film I see -- expecting to be entertained. When the film fails to do that, I am forced to entertain myself by nitpicking it to death.

posted 03.09.00
lekang writes:
The movie Pitch Black left me with a couple of questions that I was wondering if you could help me with. First off, I know this is going to sound very stupid, but I SWARE TO GOD I saw the trailor for this movie under a different name. The name was: Daylight. I am just curious if anyone else knows anything about this or am I just a raving luney? If this is true i am sure they changed it to not get sued by the company that made Daylight, the movie about an underwater tunnel breaking in NYC. Ok, now on with the movie questions. First question: I am really baffiled at this "Meteor storm". Did anyone noticed how when the captain fell out of the cyro chamber half-alive he had a knife like projectile in his chest. Could this have been a wepon ?, or what i am now thinking is that it was a piece of the ship that might have been blown off from a meteor. Ok lets move on. Second question: I know everyone LOVES to see how far a hero's special powers will take him (in the movie), but i think dislocating your own sholders is quite impossible. Third question: in one of the desert sceens (just after the large man was killed), when they finally caught Reddick, why was he not screaming in pain after his glasses were knocked off. He was in obvious pain when a flashlight was shined in his eyes. Last question (most important): Why did Frye die? I felt very alienated after one of the star characters was suddenly ripped away from Riddick, by an alien thing, after helping him to his feet. What a bunch of arbitrary bullshit. Why even have the character Frye? Bad writing in my opinion. Well thanx anyhow. Good bye.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
It does not sound stupid that you remember seeing a trailer for PB under another name. I can't confirm that the film was once called Daylight, but I do know a working title for the film was Nightfall (though I don't know whether it was ever previewed under that name).
I don't think Fry's death was arbitrary, but it was cheap -- the only point to it was to prove that Riddick was worth dying for. Which I don't agree with -- even at the very end of the film, he was still going to leave the few survivors behind. Bastard.

posted 03.09.00
Nelson Bamundaga writes:
I couldn't believe the review you wrote on this film! You kept spouting about how being an intellectual probably kept you from falling for certain things that couldn't happen in this film or that just plain didn't make sense. I think, however, if you were an egghead that you would have caught certain details or at least watched the movie again to be sure of your facts.
[Simliar objections to readers above deleted--MaryAnn]
I'm a fan of realistic sci-fi movies and a major critic of ones that try put major snow jobs over me (Armageddon). I'm not going to say that you're a feminist who is innately unable to like this type of "male" sci-fi movie and I really don't care if that's the case. I just think you should take a closer look at the movies you screen to make sure you get all the details your supposed to.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
By saying "I'm not going to say that you're a feminist who is innately unable to like this type of 'male' sci-fi movie," you're saying precisely that. Take a longer look around my site, and you'll see that whatever my politics are, I am a big fan of science fiction movies (which do not only appeal to men, despite the fact that Hollywood tends to believe that). I know science fiction, and Pitch Black is crap. Thanks for proving my assumption that people will watch whatever shit Hollywood throws at audiences as long as it's called science fiction.

Nelson Bamundaga starts shouting, for some reason:
I DON'T REALLY KNOW THAT YOU'RE A FAN OF SCIENCE FICTION. I DO KNOW THAT WHAT MAKES SCIENCE FICTION GOOD IS NOT JUST MAKING A MOVIE THAT'S TOTALLY BELIEVABLE ACCORDING TO OUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE.
GOOD SCI-FI THRILLER. IT TAKES A COMBINATION OF THINGS. THE FACT IS, THIS MOVIE TOOK THE TIME TO ACTUALLY DELVE INTO CHARACTERS AND COME UP WITH A FRESH SCI-FI THRILLER CONCEPT.
IF "SHIT" MOVIES RECEIVE A MAJORITY OF GOOD REVIEWS, DO GREAT AT THE BOX OFFICE, AND ATTAIN CULT STATUS AMONG FANS THAN I GUESS JUST STAMP MY FORHEAD WITH A BIG STATUS QUO AND SEND ME ON MY WAY.
I REALLY ENJOYED YOUR RESPONSE(S). I MAY NOT AGREE WITH YOUR REVIEW BUT TAKING THE TIME TO READ YOUR READERS RESPONSES AND RESPOND YOURSELF MAKES YOU A BETTER FILM CRITIC THAN A LOT OF OTHERS.

The Flick Filosopher again:
I absolutely agree. An entertaining movie of any genre requires intriguing characters doing intriguing things. PB does not provide that. Fresh? Have you seen Aliens? Most critics -- and by that I don't mean fanboys on Ain't It Cool News -- have not given PB good reviews.

posted 03.09.00
BestDigest.Com writes:
Your comments regarding Pitch Black are more entertaining than the movie itself. Actually, that doesn't do you justice. Basically, having seen the movie and read your comments, I would rather pay you the $8.25. Your writing is quite entertaining. Do you distribute your reviews or links to the reviews via e-mail? Do you write for any newspapers or magazines?
As for the Pitch Black, I was amused to see that you had so much to say about it. Having seen the trailer several weeks back, I was looking forward to seeing the film. I tried to set my expectations low (and go into the theaters with the same type of "hang-your-brain-at-the-door" mindset you mentioned), but couldn't help thinking about neat story concept/premise. What a disappointment. And Entertainment Weekly gives this stinker a B+? I actually feel bad for having convinced my friends to go see it. I wonder how movie studios can release insulting movies like this one or something like Armageddon. What is up with the director/writer Pitch Black and the prisoner character? Seems like he's in love with Riddick. Writers and directors can make a character a badass without having to go into all the unnecessary intricacies(?). Maybe Twohy and co. can watch the Unforgiven and learn from Eastwood and Peoples for future references in that department. I was sitting in the theaters wonder if this is a prisoner-reform flick or a space-creature sci-fi horror that's been advertised. Not to say that the two types of storylines cannot co-exist.
Anyway, I am just focusing on a few minor details. Your comments say it all.
Keep up the great work.
Cheers!

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I don't distribute reviews via email, but you can sign up for a mailing list that notifies you when I update the site by clicking over to here.
Alas, I do not write for any newspapers or magazines, but I'm always hoping to figure out a way to make a living reviewing movies. You know anybody who wants to pay six figures to a critic? :->

posted 03.09.00
Jeff Martin writes:
[Simliar objections to readers above deleted.]
I guess the point that I am trying to make is that the situation that they stumbled into is not ecologically impossible. Also, I do not feel that films are necessarily bound to offer logical or scientific explaintations for every aspect. There can be much that is hidden from our perspective, at first, but that allows improbable situations to exist and sustain.
I would like to thank you very much for incorporating scientific validity in your review of this movie. It was a pleasant surprise to read that you had. I very much concur about the highly improbable odds of randomly crash landing on a planet with a breathable atmosphere AND within walking distance of a settlement on a planet that appears to be deserted.
You wrote:

I can't remember when this kind of positioning of a character in a film made me this angry.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Few films that call themselves SF are scientifically accurate. But there were no compelling characters or interesting story in PB, so I had to entertain myself by nitpicking. When a movie piles improbability on top of improbability, and then doesn't nothing with that setup, that's when I start getting mad.
Excuse me? Are you calling PB art? Boys Don't Cry is a film meant to anger the audience with its depiction of ignorance and injustice. Riddick was not meant to anger the audience -- he was positioned as the character the audience is meant to identify with, sympathize with, and cheer on. That's what made me angry. Can you see the difference?

Jeff Martin replies:
I do see the difference, yet I still do not see how their positioning of Riddick can be used to critize the quality of the art. All the other silly things in it made it a mediocre movie rather than a good film.

The Flick Filosopher again:
Because the positioning of a character is part of the art.

Jeff Martin again:
I thought for certain after reading that Pitch Black review that you would tear apart The Matrix, but instead you gave it high praise. At least Pitch Black was supposed to be space fantasy / horror, The Matrix was supposed to be scientifically sound.
Please induldge me. Remember the whole premise of The Matrix, that the machines were using people as an energy source and the Matrix kept them pacified. Well, the problem with that is that any growing living thing consumes more energy than it radiates. That is how it continues to live. The whole premis was flawed. The scenario as explained could never have existed. It is a physical impossibility.
Whatever the machines were feeding the humans must have contained carbohydrates. The machines would have taken that substance, fermented it, and extracted the fuel. Or used nuclear power. Anything but humans.

The Flick Filosopher once more:
You're right in saying that the premise of The Matrix -- the enslavement of humans to generate electricity for machines -- is absurd. But this film is no more meant to be scientifically accurate than PB is. But what The Matrix does do -- in a way that PB cannot even hope to approach -- is entertain, with intriguing characters and a compelling story.
All movies -- all fiction of any kind -- are contrived. But good films make us forget that.

posted 03.09.00
Orryn writes:
I know it may be incomprehensible to you, as a "chick", but some movies aren't made to be awe inspiring. The aren't made to instill in us a respect for life, love and the pursuit of holier-than-thou-ness. In case you didn't see the movie, and by your inaccurate reviewing of the plot, it's strikingly obvious that you went in with a pre-review already in mind. "When one of the Muslim kids goes missing, the first place it is suggested they look for him is in a building where they have to blast through the locks to get in." One of the exemplary example of a "chick" watching a "guy" movie and making "eggheaded" comments when none are needed. Did you even see the Imam go running out 5 minutes before? Were you watching at all when he came back and asked everyone where his son was? And I suppose you didn't see that Riddick saw the young girl and the Imam's son near the boreing shack. Excuse my nit-picking, but don't you have an editor that checks your reviews with something that actually has basis in reality? What we have here is a woman, pardon my genderification, who is trying to review a movie that is made for guys who like action movies. Stick to "chick flix". I hear The Horse Whisperer is good.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I find it astounding -- though I probably shouldn't -- that men are responding to my negative review of Pitch Black not with reasoned defenses of the film but with macho posturing. Worse, with macho posturing that proves they have not read any other reviews I've written.
No -- like you, they all assume that because I lack a penis, I somehow don't "get" action films. So here's a suggestion for you: Have a look around my site. You'll find that not only do I hate the typical "chick flick," but I love action and SF movies -- good ones, that is. Pitch Black is not a good action film -- it is derivative, ridiculously contrived, and not in the least bit scary. But thanks for proving for the shit-shovelers in Hollywood that audiences will happily devour any piece of junk labeled science fiction.
On second thought, here's a better suggestion for you: Go back to Ain't It Cool News and hang out with all the other clueless geeks there. My site is for readers with a sense of taste and discrimination.

posted 03.09.00
winginnit writes:
Chicky-- OK OK....We are all entitled to opions, and yours is obvious. You didn't like it. But you also flamed other Sci-Fi's that along with Pitch Black, I thought were not only good but a valid way for a Sci-Fi lover to spend a rainy, cold, Michigan afternoon. If your consistant slamming of Sci-Fi flicks means you don't like them then maybe you should stick to rating Meredith Baxter-Burney movies. If you didn't get one thrill, twitch, or other emotional reaction out of Pitch Black, get a doctor to check your pulse. Over exposure to yawning "chick-flicks" may have deadened your senses. Even my wife who can only tolerate the occasional "dick-flick" enjoyed Picth Black's special effects and decent story line.
Sci-Fi-Forever

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Relax. You're not the first guy to spray me with testosterone over my slamming of Pitch Black, and you're not gonna get me worked up with your ranting.
P.S. Meredith Baxter Burney? Is she still alive? Jesus. What, are you watching reruns of crappy women-in-distress flicks from the 70s on TBS or something?

posted 03.09.00
Allen Rausch writes:
I read your review of Pitch Black and I think I've figured out why I hated this movie less than you did. While you'll certainly get no argument from me that the movie was a piece of cinematic dreck (it was) I think you misinterpreted the character of Riddick.
The only indication we get of what Riddick's crimes supposedly were come from the "Lawman" Johns, who as we find out, is not really a cop, but a drug addled mercenary who is the one to propose murdering and throwing one of the party to the creatures to allow the rest of the party to escape. A proposal that Riddick opposes with deadly force.
The screenwriter also gives Riddick a chance to explain himself and his character in his speech to Keith David. He had a bad start in life and had to be tough to survive. It was a pathetically clumsy attempt at a character arc, yes, but is inconsistent with your interpretation of him as nothing but a "heroic psychopath".
I also didn't see him "getting off" on the terror he inflicted on the others. On Johns, sure, but he had personal reasons to hate him. On the other hand, he was more than willing to work with the others to get off the planet. The only reason to think he might kill the others and escape by himself is because Johns says so, and again - he's hardly an unbiased source. The little bit of fear he engendered in others? Well, when you think about it, if you intimidate them a bit, they just might be too scared to lock you up again - it's very cliched "movie prisoner" kind of an attitude.
The whole point of the movie, I thought, was to watch the character of Riddick rediscover his empathy and trust and rejoin the human race. It failed to engage me enough to care about him in any way, but that's a function of the movie's inept direction, poor plot structure and atrocious screenplay - not on the presentation of his character.
Perhaps you think I've invested too much time and thought in what was really an extraordinarily bad movie, but it is interesting how even when two people agree on the intrinsic merits of a film (in this case, none) they can still disagree on the specifics of interpretation.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Okay, I might be able to buy some of what you say about Riddick except for a few things:
Just because Johns is in nasty piece of work doesn't automatically mean Riddick was a nice guy. Remember that Johns said that Riddick was worth a lot of money to him -- people don't have bounties on their heads for no reason. Riddick was also obviously convinced that he was going to spend the rest of his life in a dark prison -- why else would he have a "surgical shine job" done on his eyes that is a handicap outside prison, where there's sunlight? Riddick was a Bad Guy no matter how you slice it.
Then comes the matter of how the filmmakers positioned Riddick -- as the hero. Remember, the audience doesn't know Johns is an addict mercenary when Riddick threatens him -- and so we have no possible basis yet to wonder if Riddick isn't as bad as we've been told -- and yet that scene is still played for laughs. The crowd we saw the film with certainly got a big kick out of what they thought was a ruthless murderer (and I still maintain that he is) menacing what they thought was an officer of the law. This is the basis we have -- at least in the beginning, before we know that there are any circumstances that could be considered mitigating -- for seeing Riddick as a hero: that he's a bad-ass dude who has committed numerous murders who escapes from his punishment.
I don't think he was willing to work with the others so that they could all escape. He was willing to enlist the others' help so that he, and he alone, could escape. And sure enough, that's exactly what he was going to do: Leave the other survivors (including the one person, the teenaged girl, he seemed to have affection for) behind to die, right up until the very end of the film. Now, maybe -- MAYBE -- I could believe the change-of-heart theory fans of this film have been putting forward IF Fry had died earlier. I could see that if Riddick suddenly realized that someone else thought he was worth dying for, that might at least guilt him into not leaving the others behind. But Fry's death -- which, notably, is hardly a conscious choice to sacrifice herself but pure dumb bad circumstance -- comes after everyone else is already on the shuttle. The ONLY indication we get that Riddick has had any kind of change of heart is the one line to the girl about Riddick having been left on the planet. It's tacked on, and it's cheap, manipulative bullshit that I refuse to fall for. Sorry.

posted 03.09.00
Jason Barnick writes:
Do you remember the movies Alien, Sphere or Deep Star Six? Each of those had several scenes that involved people trying to appear menaced in space/underwater gear that completely contained them. Most of those scenes failed to convey much. Perhaps that is why the Sci-fi genre has a tendency to bend probabilities and allow other planets to have an atmosphere that could sustain human life. Face it, who wants to see the first lunar landing over and over, even if you throw in an alien or two?
Another thing about your review that was way off the mark was the hero you named. There is no way Riddick is the hero. Had he done things his way, he would have been the only survivor. Only the idea of Fry's self sacrifice, which he pointedly drew out, kept him there. Perhaps a bit of respect for her.
Fry is truly the closest thing to a hero out of the main characters. Overlooking that really shows that you weren't really tied into the movie at all. From someone who appears to not be a fan of the genre, that is to be expected. Perhaps there are other movies that you should stick with. Sci-fi is not your calling. Of course, I could never write a review for "chick flicks," but then, neither do I try.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Why do you assume that because I don't have a penis that I'm not a fan of science fiction or action movies? Not all women buy into the "chick flick" garbage. Have a look around my site, and you'll see that I'm a big fan of the kinds of movies that are supposedly the exclusive domain of male movie fans -- and that I can't stomach Julia Roberts.
Let me amend that: I'm a fan of good SF and action movies. Pitch Black is not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, all SF movies -- all movies, in fact -- are contrived. Good movies make you forget that by involving you in interesting characters and a compelling story.
In a better version of PB, Fry would have been the hero. Unfortunately, that was not the version that I saw. She was perhaps not quite as cardboard as, say, the imam or the antiques dealer, but she wasn't given much thought at all. No, in the version of PB that reached the screen, Riddick was unquestionably positioned as the character we are meant to cheer on, and simply because he's a bad-ass dude.
Sphere is perhaps a good movie to compare to PB -- both are stupid and ill-conceived. But Aliens? Don't insult a terrific flick by likening it to this garbage.

Jason Barnick replies:
This is one of those times when two intelligent people are going to agree to disagree, I think. I really wasn't trying to stereotype you, but I after writing my letter I did look around your site a bit. There was mention of several movies that I agreed with your view of it. The one that stands out would be The 13th Warrior, a completely underrated and under publicized movie. Antonio does a wonderful job taking the back-seat among the warriors (to an extent) while still maintaining an impressive warrior.
Once again, it is not your lack of a penis that motivated me to assume you not to be a fan of the Sci-fi genre, rather your approach toward a few of the elements that I mentioned in my last letter. When I mentioned chick flicks, I was referring to a type of movie stereotypically written for a female audience. I don't do well in those arenas, and I make no assumptions as to where you stand on them.
By the way, at least you are willing to take and even respond to E-mail. This is one of the first sites I have seen that allowed for such debate. Yes, that is meant as a bit of a compliment.

The Flick Filosopher again:
Being a fan of science fiction movies does not mean I have to accept and enjoy the bad ones. Hollywood keeps getting away with releasing crappy SF movies because fans will flock to them no matter how bad they are. I refuse to be part of that crowd.

posted 03.09.00
Dennis Brand writes:
In your review (or whatever you'd call it) of Pitch Black you wrote

Is it an active contempt for the audience, I have to wonder, that propels a movie like Pitch Black through production, or is it mere laziness on the part of the filmmakers combined with the unspoken assumption -- generally an accurate one -- that moviegoers will watch just about anything with spaceships and lots of gore?

posted 03.09.00
Thomas E. Nelson writes:
Wow! great review of Pitch Black! You made me laugh and saved me money! I hope if I ever do a film I do better.

posted 03.09.00
Charles Bartz writes:
Leave your bias at home the next time you review a movie and take it for what it is...Entertainment. Let me pick apart some of the things that you said ruined this film. [same objections snipped again]
You are bothered by riddick being the hero of the movie when he is in reality a multiple killer bent on destroying and tormenting humanity. Why don't you slow your brain down a minute. They never once mentioned why riddick was imprisoned beyond that he killed people. Wow do you think that maybe he was a special ops military person captured in a covert operation and imprisoned by a foreign planet/country. They tell you next to nothing about riddick's past and automatically jump to the worst conclusion. True the movie does not try to dissuade you from thinking this, BUT AT LEAST YOU ARE THINKING. It is not all given to you on a silver platter like all to many movies do today. I did not see the movie poster saying fight evil with evil so that did not influence my view of the movie. If it were my choice that would never have been used. It is quite stupid.
This movie did not compare to Aliens, Star Wars, or some of the other best sci-fi movies made, but it was definitely not one of the worst. It was an enjoyable night out where you got a chance to think of some of the concepts that were left out of the movie. Obviously you disliked the movie enough that all your thinking was narrow-minded enough where nothing would work. The next time you review a movie take it for what it is and not for what your mind could not conceive. There are few enough good movies out as it is. Try not to trash everything that does not win an Oscar. That is what has left us in today's world where a movie will not be made unless it will gross $100,000,000 or can be made for under $20,000. There are many good stories unmade because of just this philosophy. Every movie is the same and no one will take a chance to make a movie that may or may not be good. John Wayne made hundred's of films. True some were poor and others were great, but with today's actors only taking films that will be big hits because of critics like you, we will not see them in many movies. How many films will tom cruise, or Denzel Washington make because they do not try movies on the edge.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
How closely did you read my review? Did you not notice that I said that the scientific transgressions could be forgiven if the story entertained? See, I didn't find it entertaining. So it's hard to take the movie for what you say it is: entertainment.
First you reprimand me by saying "Why don't you slow your brain down a minute," and then you say you enjoyed the movie because "you got a chance to think of some of the concepts that were left out of the movie." So which is it? Do you need your brain to enjoy this movie, or not? Or is it possible that all the thought you put into it was because you needed to fill in too much stuff that the screenwriter should not have left out?
Here's a suggestion: read some more reviews at my site, and you'll find that not only do I like lots of movies that other critics have trashed and that have never won any awards, I also have bones to pick with movies that have won Oscars.

Charles Bartz replies:
Thanks for the response. I knew you would get me on the "slow you brain down" part. It was not worded very well and was contradictory. I was just a bit upset when my friend sent the review and was not going to see this movie. I know he will like the movie when he sees it. You seemed very angry about this movie and it just touched a cord with me. You did say if you put aside the scientific transgressions the movie was still not entertaining, but you spent quite a bit of the review explaining the transgressions. I know this is not a great movie but I also do not think it deserved the lambasting you gave it. But to each their own.

The Flick Filosopher again:
I was angry about Pitch Black (still am). But if I were you I'd tell your friend not to heed merely a single reviewer in deciding whether or not to see a movie. It's only one person's opinion.

posted 03.09.00
Mel5563@aol.com writes:
Subject: Re: Pitch Black Review
excuse me, but you shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about my gender. I am a 36 year old female (mel stands for Melinda) . And if you would peruse the fan sites you would find that most of the people who liked this movie the most are female (check out Entertainment Weekly's site that breaks down grades by gender and educational level. - Better educated females gave this the best grade.) I don't expect anybody who doesn't like icky real science or the harsh reality that most people don't behave well, to like this movie, but if you are going to write revues, you should at least agree that intelligent people (females) can disagree.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Excuse me, but where, precisely, in my review of Pitch Black did I make "sweeping generalizations" about anyone's gender? I'm mystified -- I can find no such reference whatsoever.
"Icky real science"? What does that mean? You inferred, somehow, from my review of Pitch Black that I don't like science? Please explain. In all the nasty letters I've gotten in response to my review, yours is the first to say that it's my lack of appreciation for science that's the problem. Everyone else seems to feel I was being too much a stickler for accuracy when it came to the science. Perhaps you can explain the "icky real science" that you found interesting in PB.
Read a few more of my reviews -- you'll see I have no problem with the "harsh reality" that people don't behave well. But can you not see the difference between a bad character we're meant to cheer on merely because he's bad, as Riddick is in PB, and a bad character who is compelling in spite of his badness, and not because of it?

[Shockingly, she never replied.]

posted 03.09.00
Bernard Fuh writes:
[Edited from a series of increasingly abusive emails that came one after the other, without waiting for a response from me]

[first letter]
I have a BS degree in biology. It not necessarily that all predator and prey relationships are living in symbiosis as you termed. Also symbiosis is the wrong word to use anyhow. Symbiosis is a relationship between two organisms that benefit from each other. A predator and prey relationship is not a symbiosis. The prey obviously doesnt benefit from the predator. Sometimes predators over-eat the prey and die off. An example, AIDS is not a very efficient virus; it kills person. Not like E.coli that lives in your intestines which in this case is a symbiosis. Therefore, we dont know in the film if the creatures might die off eventually.
hey its just a movie and if you think this hard about every movie and try to be nit picky about every little detail then somethings gotta be wrong with you.

[second letter]
Maybe all the critics are all the same and criticize a good movie and rate all the shitty ones good. 9 out 10 times you say junk movies are good and good movies suck. Especially, when you said the new Star Wars movie wasnt as good. Thats a bunch of bullshit. It was one of the best movies I saw all year. If you are so damned good at writing a movie lets see you do it then and see how hard it is to come up w/ something good and then we can all make fun of your mistakes. Perhaps you never thought that todays movies are so competitive that seeing Star Wars now isnt that spectacular. Put yourself into the 70s and think if you saw the episode 1 that you would be saying the junk you are now.

[third letter]
Let me ask you the most intelligent questions I have asked since my last two emails. What the hell did you mean by "aliens and humans came from 2 different lines of evolution?" How are you defining evolution and what kind of evolution are you talking about? And what does evolution have to do with being hungry and eating a tasty human meal (in the movie that is)? What I think is you don't really know. You just threw in the words evolution and symbiosis w/o really understanding the terms. GREAT YOU FOOLED THE AVERAGE JOE AND DUMBASS. No wonder we have jackasses that voted for Bill Clinton. Because the average retard is fooled by people like you who dont know what they are talking about. And I tell you there arent many smart people out there.
The fact that you actually congratulate yourself on how smart you sound really makes me want to puke. The "Too intellengent of a question? Well lets try and easier one" just makes you sound retarded. Please no more trash writing from you critics.
Btw if you are talking about the evolution I think you are talking about you better read more about evolution because 90% of the scientists dont even believe that animals and humans evolved from these nonliving molecules and assembled themselves together and poof you have a mammal or creature that evolved to modern animals/humans.
I also know you wont reply to me because you would have if you came up w/ some facts instead of junk and wrote me like 1 hr later.
One last comment. I find it so damn funny that you made all these mistakes, and if the story were to really happen in Pitch BLack. The characters didnt even really have time to think things through and try not to make mistakes while trying to survive. You had all the time in the world to think and you still messed up.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
You're awfully sure of yourself. You knew I wouldn't reply, huh?
Where do you get your information about evolution? From the Kansas Board of Education? From Sunday school? 90 percent of which scientists don't accept the fact of evolution? Please support this outrageous statement with some sources that do not include fundamentalist Christian propaganda.
The aliens evolved on their planet (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, such as being relocated from another planet or genetically engineered). Humans evolved on Earth. These are two entirely different lines of evolution. What's not to understand?
What that has to do with "being hungry and eating a tasty human meal" is that what constitutes food for those alien creatures should in no way involve humans. There are basic proteins and fats that humans require as nourishment, and those proteins and fats are also products of Earth's evolution. It is highly unlikely that proteins and fats necessary for human survival will be found on another planet -- just as it is highly unlikely that what the aliens need for nourishment would be found in the products of an entirely different evolutionary process. I don't know how much simpler I can get. (That's not to suggest that those alien creatures wouldn't at least attempt to try eating a human, as a shark will sometimes take a bite out of a human before realizing that humans are not tasty food. But the behavior of the creatures in the film goes beyond that.)
I was using the term "symbiosis" in a generic sense, and not in the scientific sense. Prey species may not benefit, from their own point of view, by being prey, but just as predators overeat and die off, so do predators maintain checks on the prey population that does benefit the prey species in the long run. The point is, predator and prey need each other, and there is no evidence of natural prey in Pitch Black. So where did those predators come from?
When you say things like "AIDS is not a very efficient virus," I start to wonder how useful your science education is. HIV (AIDS is a condition, not a virus) is extremely efficient, which is why it has spread worldwide and is such a danger to humans. HIV lets its host spread the virus far and wide before killing it, and it is very difficult to eliminate from a host -- people on the so-called HIV cocktails need to be extremely vigilant in taking their medication, because HIV evolves rapidly to become resistant otherwise. Perhaps you were thinking of something like Ebola, which is not efficient: it kills its hosts too quickly to allow for much spreading, which is why Ebola has pretty much been confined to small, remote areas of Africa. So far, anyway -- perhaps there's a mutant variant of Ebola, which doesn't kill quite as quickly, just waiting for a human host to catch it just before s/he hops on an international flight for New York or Hong Kong.
I myself do not have a degree in any science, but I do have a greater understanding about scientific matters than the typical layperson, which comes from extensive reading, particularly in the areas of cosmology, astronomy, and human evolution. If you'd care to explain to me how I am wrong in my assessment of the scientific basis of the movie without resorting to name calling, please do so. But you insult my intelligence by saying that you could do so, and then don't.
The fact that writing a movie is not easy does not excuse bad writing. A more extreme example, but a fair one nonetheless: If a surgeon botched your appendectomy, how would you feel if he said, "Well, if you think it's so easy, why don't you try it?" Absurd, right? I do not think it unreasonable to expect professional work from people who not only present themselves as professional but also get paid an obscene amount of money for that work. That goes for doctors as well as people who make movies and expect me to fork over close to ten bucks for the supposed privilege of seeing their work.
Second: I have written a screenplay, and I'm in the process of selling it while I work on my next screenplay. Perhaps someday you'll have a chance to call a movie I wrote "bullshit."
Thanks for proving my assumption that people will watch any old crap labeled "science fiction" as long as it has cool special effects and buckets of blood.

Bernard Fuh replies, in part:
You should try reading Phillip E. Johnson. One basic and short book by him is Defeating Darwinism by opening minds. Author of Darwin on trial. Read that and tell me what you think. Thats where I get my info. Read that and tell me if that's christian propaganda.

The Flick Filosopher again:
Whoa! Phillip E. Johnson is a lawyer, and as such can hardly be considered an expert on evolution! And he's a born-again Christian who starts out his thinking on evolution with the assumption that God exists, basically because he can't seem to deal with the idea that there mightn't be a god (click here to read his own words on the matter). That's NOT science!

[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.