The Flick Filosopher responds:
Oh, yeah? Wait and see.

Orson Peellaert replies:
What do you mean "wait and see"? Don't tell me you didn't like the movie!

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Sorry: I didn't like the movie. It's manipulative and unrealistic... even if it is based on a true story. (A woman who has no money to pay her phone bill, yet never wears the same outfit twice? Gimme a break.) It condemns professionalism and makes all laywers out to be cold-hearted sharks.
I had the same experience with the sneak-preview audience you did, though: they couldn't get enough of Julia. I have no doubt this will be her biggest movie in a long time, if not ever.

Orson Peellaert again:
Come on! I know you've made hating Julia a trademark, but here you're exagerating a little bit!

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Where did I say anything about hating Roberts in this movie? And please explain what you think I'm exaggerating about.

Orson Peellaert, who doesn't know when to give up:
Well, first of all you call Roberts your "mortal enemy" (which is SLIGHTLY exaggerated!) .Then, I read your critics about Julia's previous films (mainly romantic comedies) and even though and I don't agree with what you were saying (I don't agree with the fact that a movie should be "believable",I mean if you want to see real life, you just go out and see the everyday life-I think that movies, as fiction, are supposed to make you dream and feel good also,so of course they're implausible and that's part of their magic), you made a point. But with Erin Brockovich, she has at last the opportunity to prove that she can do more than just smile, that she has a unique charisma that makes her a true moviestar, and you're STILL not happy, while all the critics in the world are raving about the film, and especially about Julia's performance...

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Wait. Your email was in response to my comments about Erin Brockovich, but you were actually talking about other stuff I've written at my site? How was I supposed to know that? Of course calling Julia Roberts my mortal enemy is exaggerated -- it's called humor.
Movies, fiction, any kind of stories have to have some kind of internal consistency, whether they take place in the here and now or on an alien planet a million years from now. There's a big difference between "real life" and plausibility in fiction. And I think you probably know that.
Please point out where I have said anything as yet about her performance in EB! I haven't! Actually, I thought she was fine in EB, but I still have problems with the movie. Did you see anything in the film besides her "unique charisma"? (Not everyone is charmed by her, as I would have thought was obvious by now.)
"All the critics in the world are raving"? Now who's exaggerating? I guess you didn't see the disparaging review in this week's Time magazine, huh? And even if every other critic in the world was actually raving about this movie, that means I have to, too? What's the point in having critics if they're all going to agree?

posted 03.17.00
Absolutely Legitimate Films writes:
Despite the rather harsh tone of your review, let me say that the director and I appreciate your taking the time to watch and review Harwood.
That said, I'm a little at a loss as to your reaction. It seems that you expected this to be a standard murder mystery/thriller. It is not, nor was it ever intended to be, that kind of movie. Harwood is an examination of the three main characters, Sarah, Anna, and Simone, and how they deal with the aftermath of the governmental appropriation of Sarah's work. Harwood doesn't want to be The Manchurian Candidate or A Clockwork Orange or Eye of the Beholder. The Twilight Zone reference is more apt, but Harwood is its own beast, which may be part of the problem -- the blurring of genres is always risky. And that's my point. While you bring up some valid issues, any judgment of the film and its failings should be based on its own merits (or lack thereof); the piece should be taken for what it is, not for what the viewer wants it to be.
One of our biggest concerns with your review deals with your apparent confusion as to why Sarah gives up her practice. Sarah's being forced out of her career is not a condition of the divorce settlement; in Mr. Layton's words, it's part of the government's appropriation of the Lyne Process. He and Sarah talk about two sets of documents, the divorce settlement and the government contract. They are dealing with both at the same time. Having Sarah give up her practice as a condition of the divorce settlement would indeed make no sense. And your stating of it as a fact of the script makes Roberts sound like an inept screenwriter, which, whatever problems the film may have, is not the case. The rest of the review is only opinion, and the opinion of a seasoned critic, but this is a misinterpretation of both the script and the film. I'd rather you had said the scene was confusing and that some things didn't make sense to you, not that Roberts had a clearly illogical plot device in place. Similarly, I don't understand why you say that Anna and her brother continue to act as if their mother committed suicide after they find out that's not the case. Upon hearing this news, Anna heads to her mother's house to investigate.
More generally, looking at the film in this light should make sense of a number of your criticisms -- the desire for the Lyne Process to be explained, the question of seeing Gil's death, Max and Simone's break-up, the absence of a red herring, Sarah forgetting to remove the deed. These things were handled according to the logic and needs of the story we set out to put on screen. Sarah's crimes, for instance, are a result of her mind snapping. She is not a master criminal with a grand plan. She is a woman lost in her own mind; by the time she has Simone kill the Mattress Lady, she's operating only according to the rules of her own inner world. Every event in the story is intended to bring us closer to that final moment, where the three women live out their conflicts.
So yes, we refuse to acknowledge the limitations of low-budget filmmaking -- to a certain extent -- but not without awareness. We wanted to be ambitious, to have numerous locations, to push the boundaries of what we could get away with. We didn't want to make another one-location indie movie where a bunch of twentysomethings sit around and talk about their love lives -- or their hatred for their convenience-store jobs and their feelings about pop-cultural icons. Yes, Clerks is a fine film. Mr. Smith writes wonderful dialogue, and he entertains the hell outta me, but neither Morgan nor I were interested in making that kind of movie. We don't believe that low-budget indies should be made according to a strict set of rules regarding location and plot. We wanted to do something different from what other low-budget filmmakers are doing. In that, I think we succeeded.
Normally, I wouldn't write a response to a review -- amassing opinions is important, and I simply try to absorb it all objectively and take the valuable parts under advisement -- but you asked for thoughts. Thanks for the A for effort.
Perplexedly,
Ben Boyington

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I'm sorry that you thought my review was harsh. I actually felt as if I had bent over backwards to be as nice as possible. Certainly, if you've read any of my savagings of certain Hollywood movies, you'll see how nasty I can be.
That's not to say that your film deserves to be savaged. As I said in my review, it's quite an accomplishment to make a film, but Harwood has a lot of problems.
Let me start by saying that I didn't go into Harwood with any expectations of what kind of film it was going to be. I didn't compare it to A Clockwork Orange or The Manchurian Candidate because that's what I was looking for -- I invoked those films because I thought you were trying to invoke those films. If Harwood is trying to be an in-depth character study, then I'm sorry to say that neither the script nor the acting supports that. I did judge the film on its own merits, on what I saw in it, and not what I wanted to see in it.
As for Sarah's giving up of her practice, I went back and watched that scene again. The lawyer and Lyne go from talking about her divorce settlement to the giving up of the practice in a way that makes it seem as if the two are connected. And then ex-husband comes in and asks if the papers are signed, seemingly reinforcing the idea. It simply is not clear that the divorce and closing the practice are not related (even the lawyer's one mention of the government in the conversation I construed as commentary on the laws regarding divorce). I urge you to get someone else who does not know the film's backstory to watch the scene and get their reaction. I couldn't have said I was merely confused because I got no idea from the film that the government had anything to do with closing the practice.
When Anna and her brother find that their mother is still alive, after they'd believed she was dead, I saw nothing in their behavior that indicated the kind of relief you'd imagine someone would experience upon learning such news. Anna didn't seem to have any sense of urgency in, as you say, heading to her mother's house to investigate. Why aren't the police involved? Certainly, I'd have expected a scene in which the cops talk to Anna and her brother, trying to figure out where Sarah would have gone -- wouldn't Sarah be the prime suspect in the murder of the woman believed to have been her? And if Anna thought her mother was still alive, why did she tell the hitchhiker that she thought she had inherited the mansion in Harwood? You don't inherit things from people who are still alive.
As you say, these are only my opinions, but I disagree that what I saw as problems in the story logic can be explained away. I applaud your attempt to push the boundaries of low-budget filmmaking, but I don't think you've done it entirely successful with Harwood. There simply isn't enough character onscreen for me to see it as a character-driven film. You say that Sarah's crimes are the result of her mind snapping -- but what made her mind snap? What was she like before her mind snapped? She'd've had to be pretty unstable to start with if the government taking her work away pushed her over the edge. (I can imagine it being extremely frustrating, but I cannot simply assume that it would drive her literally crazy.) We don't know enough about her to even begin to understand her. Anna does nothing but react to events around her -- we don't particularly see that she has much of an opinion about her mother's work (before she snapped), and hence it's hard to see what effect the government's appropriation of her mother's work has on Anna. And she seems little more than merely annoyed by her mother's New Age conversion.
Please believe that I am not trying to offer anything but constructive criticism of your film. I am an absolute supporter of anyone making films outside the Hollywood system. But I still find Harwood deeply flawed. Again, this is only my opinion. I hope some of the other members of the OFCS review the film -- I'll be interested to see what they have to say.

posted 03.17.00
Rogelio P. Mendoza writes:
I just wanted to thank you right quick for your review of the nature film, Kestrel's Eye. Thanks to the overkill of PBS, Disney and Mutual of Omaha, it's not easy to come up with a nature film that doesn't seem like something you haven't already seen half-a-dozen times on TV. It's even harder to write about such films in such a way that they seem interesting to people who aren't especially big enthusiasts about nature films. Yet your review of Kestrel's Eye was so offbeat and original that I actually regretted the fact that the movie wasn't already in the local theatres. (Unfortunately at this writing, it still isn't. Get with it, people!) Such a shame you can't convince the filmmaker to give you a screen credit for "interpreting" his film to American audiences. :-)

posted 03.17.00
Sims, Clyde writes:
HI there...please tell me that you really are a woman..AND HOPEFULLY "OLDER". I love your site...
Just found you thru a Being John Malkovich link...while searching for reviews for my. JOHN CUSACK FAN CLUB
You have a great way with words...after surfing your site, I wondered just how many times I chuckled .
Keep up the good work...
MOLLY

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Well, now, if I was a guy going through an elaborate ruse to convince the Internet community that I was a woman, would I actually tell you so?
But the fact is that, yes, I am a woman. I'm not sure what you mean by "OLDER," though. At 30, I am older than some people, and younger than others. I hope that answers your question.
Let me ask you a question, however. You seem to be a woman concerned that other women are out there doing things visibly. So, are you aware that your email program is set up to say that your email is coming from someone named "Syms, Clyde"?
Thanks for writing. I hope you continue to enjoy my site. And good luck with your own site!

Sims, Clyde replies:
her again HI...lol...got me on both counts...I am 52 and loved your site...you sound wise beyond your 30 years...
Tha "clyde" thing is for safety...hubby thinks his name should be on everything to protect me...lolol

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I was born 35, so I'm still catching up.
Methinks men who think that way are more worried about their own egos than anything else. But not to insult your husband... :->
Anyway, the safety issue is sort of defeated when you sign your emails "Molly." :->

posted 03.17.00
Amber Good writes:
I've enjoyed reading your site for close to a year now. I always look forward to new reviews, particularly when I see a film and walk away really needing another female opinion. Boys Don't Cry was one of those films, and I was surprised by your take on it. I agree that much within the movie was left unexplained, but that -- to me -- was part of what set it apart as a smart film. I appreciated that Brandon's criminal record was not analyzed. The fact that he had a complicated (but largely unexplained) past gave him a depth beyond just "strange girl who thinks of herself as a boy." I think these details were intentionally played down for the purpose of keeping melodrama out of the film. To connect his record (or any part of his past) to his gender crisis would be to intellectualize Brandon in a way that this movie doesn't intend to do. I don't think Peirce means to explain Brandon, but rather just to present his life as it was before it was taken away.
I also tend to think that Lana is less deluded than she is immature. True, it's not clear when she realizes Brandon's secret, but I think it is clear that it just isn't relevant for her. Her concepts of love and sexuality aren't solid enough to require delusion -- Brandon's confusion is much less bizarre than that of her ex, John, who would have required a good measure of self-delusion of a tenderhearted person like Lana. I think we are supposed to see two sweet, flawed people who cared too much about finding warmth to worry about its source, and then see them pay for it brutally. Maybe seeing the documentary would change the way I look at the characters, but I think it will be a long time before I'm recovered enough from this disturbing telling to see another. Thanks for listening and thanks again for your site...

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I see where you're coming from, but I still feel that the characters in Boys Don't Cry behave in ways that are so totally removed from the experiences of most of us that their motivations needed some kind of exploration. I think most of us would have trouble accepting their behavior if we didn't know that it all actually happened, and that leaves me feeling very unsatisfied with the film in some ways.

posted 03.17.00
bingawebmaster@yahoo.com writes:
I am helping start a large scale - high traffic entertainment site and I was wondering If we could use some reviews and/or e-news from your site, (with full credit and links back to your site of course.)
Please reply soon.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
What kind of syndication fee are you proposing to pay?
The fact that you're using a freebie Yahoo email address leads me to suspect that you're not, in fact, proposing to pay anything. If that is the case, please tell me why I should give you my work for nothing in order to help you build your traffic?
You might want to try developing your own content.

[Never heard from him again.]

posted 03.17.00
Ben Morgan writes:
read a few of your reviews.........one question. Do you even like movies???......I mean you even had bad things to say about a classic like Fantasia. Not one of your reviews that I read had a movie you liked. Are you that burned out on films that you cant even just sit back and enjoy? I mean take Patch Adams for example...........yes it was loosely based on the real man......but it was meant to be a feel good and funny movie........I think it accomplished this. Over analyzing every movie that you see. I cant see how you enjoy any of them.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
You must be thinking of another reviewer. I love Fantasia and Fantasia 2000 -- please point out the "bad things" I said about either film.
You can't have read much of my site if you didn't come across a single positive review. How about -- to name just a few movies I recently raved over -- My Dog Skip, The Talented Mr. Ripley, The Cider House Rules, Galaxy Quest, The Green Mile, Cradle Will Rock, Magnolia, Toy Story 2, Ride with the Devil, Sleepy Hollow... should I go on?
You know, though, all these films are ones you enjoy more the more you think about them. Some of us actually like thinking about movies, and enjoy complicated movies that reward giving them some thought.
I disliked Patch Adams immensely, as you gathered from my review. If it was meant to be a "feel good and funny movie," then it failed miserably, in my opinion. But I don't see how you can extrapolate from this disagreement on our part to conclude that I don't like movies at all.

[Another one who never wrote back. I hate it when someone picks a fight and then can't go the distance.]

posted 03.17.00
Barney Metz writes:
I watch a lot of movies and have a hard time swallowing most critics reviews as they sometimes forget that going to the movies is not supposed to be artsy or life moving, but sometimes a step away from reality or just goofy fun. I stumbled onto your site and you and I would review movies in a very similar fashion. I just wanted to extend you a thank you for fiarness and reviewing from a movie buffs perspective. Thanks a lot.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
The weird thing is, I just got a letter from a guy who accused me of not liking any movies and overanalyzing everything too much.

Barney Metz replies:
Here is even a better feather for your cap. To make sure I was in line with your reviews, I picked The Mummy, The Matrix, The Muppet Christmas Carol, Pitch Black, Wild Wild West. Our reviews were nearly identical or at least in the same vein. But, I wrongly stereotyped that you being a woman would rip Fight Club like every other female reviewer, as a male testosterone festival with little point beyond showing men's stupidity in making and viewing this film. Although, we are not neck and neck in our reviews, at least you could see the message, gave it a fair shake, and was pretty much right on the remark on the intent and message of the movie. I want to say I am a fan and a BIG thank you for being good, damn good.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks again. I'm glad I could confound your expectations with regards to Fight Club -- all women do not think alike, just as all men do not think alike. There is no such thing as a "woman's point of view" that speaks for all women.

posted 03.17.00
Rand Hutcheson writes:
How refreshing finally to find an online movie critic who not only knows a good movie when she sees it (and can tell the difference between a good film and a bad one), but can write as well! At last someone whose opinion I can trust. Thank you.

posted 03.17.00
Alice writes:

I'd guess that most of the audience with whom I saw American Beauty didn't understand Lester, as Lester himself guesses most people won't. While I sat stunned in my seat, unable to move, as the credits began rolling, most of the rest of the audience hopped to their feet and started filing out, saying to one another, "Wow, that was cool, that was great!" like they were getting off a roller coaster.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
No, I was being a whole lot patronizing.

[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.