The Flick Filosopher responds:
Does anyone review movies "objectively"? Don't we all have personal biases that affect how we see films?
That said, I think I've made it clear that I don't have any personal beef with Roberts. How could I? I don't know her. My problem has always been with audience reaction to her characters. And, as you noted, I made it plain that I thought she did a fine job in EB. As I alluded to in my review, if my problems with EB have anything to do with Roberts herself, it's that the movie has a working-class attitude (the suspicion of professionals like lawyers) that fits right into her fan base. It's a criticism, of course, but it's also part of an explanation of her appeal, and the appeal EB is sure to have.
Does that answer your question?

Jeff Huston replies:
:-) As best as it probably will be answered, I guess.
"Does anyone review movies 'objectively'?" Only on extreme rare occasions does that happen (or come close to happening), so I don't disagree with your question. But your rather public animosity towards Julia Roberts (or her persona, or whatever) is a little extreme for a film critic, don't you think? Or at least extreme in regards to willfully making such a public case of it. You're entitled to express yourself however you wish, don't misunderstand me. But I almost wonder if it undermines the objectivity you would want your readers to perceive you as having. I dunno. Again, I was just wondering.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I don't think my criticism of and attempts to understand the popularity of arguably the most popular female actor in the world is at all extreme for a film critic. And didn't I admit in my review of EB that I was wrong about her acting abilities? I don't understand what it is that you're seeing as a problem.
Why would I want readers to perceive me as being objective? The whole point of my site is that I am offering my opinions of movies, and I think people come back to my site specifically because I am not objective and say so loudly and clearly. Do you think your readers think you're objective? [Jeff has his own movie-review site at believe-me.com--MAJ] How can there possibly be anything but subjectivity at work in what we do? If reviewing movies was an objective thing, there wouldn't be so many critics -- instead, we could have a single Consumer Reports for movies that would give us the objective lowdown on every film.

posted 04.21.00
Edward Fung writes:
Hi, I think your site is really interesting. Your style of criticism is quite unique and I like it. It feels like you are talking to someone and sharing ideas about movies. And I like your taste, too. I rarely read review from a woman since some of them are too sentimental.
May I ask, are u doing this for a living? If not, how can u keep up with all the movies that are coming out each week.
One other thing, I could find any review about the recent movie Wonder Boys in your site. It is a good movie and I think you should do a review on this if not terribly good but profound movie.
Keep up the good work.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I don't do this for a living, and I can't keep up with all the movies that come out each week, which is why Wonder Boys isn't yet reviewed at my site. I likely won't catch it now till video.

posted 04.21.00
Arty Hinson writes:
I only recently discovered your page and have enjoyed reading your reviews and have found then informative, amusing etc. etc. And then I was bored enough to see what you thought of Titanic...why why why??? How can your opinion on anything be credible anymore? At least admit that it's a pile of wank that's strangely appealing and leave out all that bollocks about well drawn characters and sense of history. Please! Titanic: Appealing pile of wank.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Ah. So when I agree with your opinion of a flick, I'm a genius. But when I disagree, I'm full of bollocks. I think this says more about you than it does about me.

posted 04.21.00
Jennifer Grimaud writes:
Ah! I feel like I've discovered a long-lost sister. Every so often, I find a reviewer who seems to echo my thoughts on a number of movies, but hardly ever so many and so perfectly as yours. (Roger Ebert is another reviewer with whom I can agree most of the time.) Of course, it helps that I'm 29, female, and in whatever invisible subculture it is that encompasses 30ish females who can appreciate things like Star Wars, MST3k, and Douglas Adams. (But Titanic? As a friend of mine put it, it was... sappy and indulgently long. Wierdly enough, it's the only review of yours I've found to which I just could not relate.)
One question and one technical note...
Have you ever thought about doing a Best of the Worst list? The movies that were so awful they were fun to watch? I'm not talking about The Mummy, which actually pulled off its campiness, but movies like Starship Troopers. (Maybe I was just up waaay too late when I watched it on video, but that movie was hilariously bad.) I know these lists have been done before, but I'd love to see yours. Besides, there are only so many /good/ movies at the video store...
The technical note -- your site needs a search feature! There are a ton out there. http://atomz.com/ is just one...
And thanks for giving me one more place to check before I go spend money on a movie. :)

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for all your nice comments. Women like us -- with an appreciation for smart satire and SF -- are certainly in a small minority.
Your Best of the Worst idea is similar to a section I've been thinking of adding to the site, called Guilty Pleasures and Movies I Know By Heart. The problem is time: I've got lots and lots of ideas for ways to expand the site, but since it's barely paying its own way -- never mind recompensing me for all the time I spent on it -- it's hard to justify devoting yet more time to it. The site could certainly be a full-time job for me... if only it paid full-time wages.
A search engine is something I know the site needs, but unfortunately the free ones like Atomz (or at least all the ones I've come across so far) limit the number of pages they can handle to 500 -- and believe it or not, my site has more than 500 pages on it. Atomz has a search engine that can handle more pages, but it's a fee service -- and I really can't pour more money into the site until it starts bringing more in.

[I added a search engine after this letter was posted. Check it out here.--MAJ]

posted 04.21.00
Michael Alms writes:
Subject: was review joke?
just finished watching Stigmata...
first, how can we second guess superstition? it's very nature keeps us from knowing the truth
camera work aside, I found a compelling parellel to my philosophy reared catholic(bummer) I never could understand the importance of churches or other constructs in a life of faith when I was constantly told(while too young to question) that our bodies are temples of Christ/the lord/god, so why do we need organized religion?
catholicism has been a power play from day one, history proves such of course those in power want to hang on to it, another historical fact maybe Frankie's mom wanted to make sure her souvinere didn't get lost on way home so she sent it to her, maybe unknnown, atheist daughter why would the dead priest occupy the body of an apparently troubled priest who is in, at least semi, thrall to the church? a captive actually who could easily be hidden when he'd obviously attract attention displaying what would be considered actions disturbing to the catholic bosses & any messege would never get out like wot was attempted on Frankie in the church at the end, an excorcism
would Frankie have been killed by the fifth if the church had not intervened?
the old priest, A(forget name), obviosly wanted to get a messege out I don't believe the deathe of a chic was the messege
I do feel that someone so close to god as to be afflicted by stigmata would be a target for the devil, such a person would be powerful & a threat
athiest or faithful, we're all people, existing on this plane, but a troubled priest loyal to what A percieved as a repressive organization? I'd consider him a bad choice
confusing camera work
but I really connected with the "break a board & u will find me, lift a stone & I am there" point we don't need organized religion, we are our own
btw, I am 40+ male, non-practicing anything

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Was my review a joke? Depends on what you mean by the word. Yes, it was intended to be funny, but my criticisms of the film are offered in all seriousness. Stigmata simply cannot hold itself together long enough to tell any kind of coherent story, and to disguise that fact, it assaults the viewer with frenetic camerawork and a loud soundtrack.

posted 04.21.00
Roger Zawacki writes:
Subject: i don't understand your p.o.v.
are you really a film critic i mean the fact that you don't understand why Max in Rushmore lied about his father, leads me to believe that you probably don't understand most mise-en-scene in most of the films you watch. very bad things cant even be compared to the genius behind RUSHMORE but i would like you to tell me more you didn't get about the movie and i will explain it to you gladly.
peace
ken

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Yes, of course I'm really a film critic. What kind of question is that?
Why don't you tell me what I don't understand about mise-en-scene.

[Never got a reply.]

posted 04.21.00
Patricia Young writes:
I dont like to criticize the movie makers because they do the best they can and it's a very exspencive business to run....I dont like to hear people talking them down eather.so i guess i'm saying i dont like the e mail i got in the mail that brought me to this site......just so you know....

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Gee, could you be a little more vague? My site gets mentioned a lot all over the Web, so you'll have to be more specific about the email that brought you to my site. And perhaps you'd care to point out the specific instances of my talking down to Hollywood that upset you. It's hard to respond to your comments when I don't know what you're referring to.
Sure, movies are expensive to make. But who is subsidizing the movie industry? Viewers like you and me. We are Hollywood's customers, and we have ever right to complain when they hand over a shoddy product.

[Never heard from her again either.]

posted 04.21.00
Gordon Ferguson writes:
I don't always agree with you, but I always respect your opinions.
Normally I would hesitate to do this, but having seen only the previews for Pitch Black, I am more than willing to trust your judgement on this film. (I understand you have received some flack because of your review). Having seen just the trailers and your review, I feel ably equipped to make a decision about this one. I'm not going. Enough lousy movies have made money off of me in the last few year that I don't need to support any more.
You might not want to print this letter, since it's not terribly logical in its arguments, but I wanted to let you know that I appreciate your website and I have found it a useful point of reference for many of the pictures I have seen. More often than not I agree with your take on a movie. I have taken the time to see some films I might not otherwise have seen, and have avoided others because of your comments.
Though I always read your reviews, I rarely read your mail page, as I find it rather depressing. Anyway, I hope the stars are shining where you are.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for the vote of support. As with most things, it's the people who are dissatisfied who tend to speak up, so I can only hope that the vast majority of people who read my site either argree with me, respect opinions that differ from their own, or just don't give a hoot one way or the other. So I wouldn't take the vehement, vitrolic letters on my mail page as an indicator much of anything.

posted 04.21.00
Bonnie Black writes:
well chick flick, you've really done it this time. with your review of Pitch Black, you have proved once and for all that you:

1. don't have a penis;
2. are a good reviewer;
3. are a bad reviewer;
4. are at least partially responsible for the election of William J. Clinton and the decline of morality in America;
5. are a scientific nitpicker;
6. are a scientific ignoramous;
7. are a serious, dyed-in-the wool, sure enough, bound for Hell, athiest;
8. you HATE science fiction and don't get it;
9. you LOVE science fiction and get it completely;
10. are all things to all movie-goers.

posted 04.21.00
Carrie writes:
Sheesh! Thanks for posting all those letters in response to your Pitch Black review. If I didn't already not want to see this movie based on your review, Ebert's review, the trailer itself, etc., etc., I certainly don't want to see it now if these letters are indicative of the people who thought it was good Sci-fi.
I too, am a "chick" who likes Sci-fi and action movies - as long as I'm not required to check my brain at the door. At $8 a pop for a movie, I better get some grey matter use out of the deal (especially if I also have to sit through the almost-obligatory female frontal nudity). When I want mindless entertainment, I'll rent, thank you, or go to the second-run theater. (You can enjoy dreck like The Fifth Element so much more when you're not thinking "I paid $6.50 for popcorn and a soda for this?")
What most of the mouth-foaming Pitch Black supporters fail to see is that plausible science in sci-fi and real science are not the same thing. (and judging by their letters, they wouldn't know real science if it bit them on their collective heinie.) You've already tried to explain this to them until you're blue in the face, so I won't elaborate. All I have to say is: suspension of disbelief can only go so far.
Sci-fi is often misunderstood and misrepresented by people who are not interested in it, so I can understand people who defend even the crap (I myself defend vigorously the Anne McCaffrey Pern novels I loved in high school). But we should also realize the crap in Sci-fi (and other genres, too) for what it is and not be complacent with what Hollywood shoves down our throats. Demand better. Use your brain.
Anyway, enough rambling. I think your site is great. Even when I don't agree with you on a movie, I can always understand your point of view - a mark of good writing.
P.S. do guys who write in to differ with your opinions always use the "you're a chick so you can't possibly see why this movie is so awesome" angle? It's pretty repulsive.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for the words of support! There are few enough people who enjoy and crave real SF -- never mind women who get it -- so I really appreciate your comments. You've pegged my own point of view on the matter perfectly.
I don't usually get accused of being a woman by my detractors except when I dare to comment on the supposedly male domains of science fiction and action movies. In any case, I think we can assume these Neanderthals aren't reading my reviews of The Horse Whisperer or The End of the Affair, so they're not likely to have any comments on movies like that.

posted 04.21.00
Eugene V Caruso writes:
Dear Professor,
I want to complain that Pitch Black and several other similar movies were derived by writers who read my screenplay "Manteau" and hoarded the categories and borrowed my themes. The problem is these writers were not only destroying the originality of my screenplay, they have even never invited me to participate in the making of their films whose themes were taken from my screenplays. I should be invited and hired to work in movies who obviously use my writing to learn ideas for the motion pictures.
I invite your agency to represent me and my screenplay. Manuscript available on request.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
With a name like "MaryAnn," you can imagine that I get asked about "the Professor" all the time. He cannot be reached at this email address, though -- try theprof@gilligan.org.
You invite my agency to represent you and your screenplay? Only if your agency will represent me and my screenplay.

Eugene V Caruso again:
Your site is named Flick Filosopher since your a movie critic I though you were a Ph.D.
By writing you my intention was to expose USA films as unethical movie makers and selfish for not helping me with a career in screenplay writing and Movie making. Your response to my invitation to read the manuscript was unclear to me. Although you certainly sound bright witted to me. Since you were a critic my second intentions were to gain your mentor advice about my screenplay. By the way you mention your name is MaryAnn and referred me to theprof@gilligan.org; were both of you members of the Gilligans Island television cast? Thank you for writing me email by reply. Receiving a letter from a Movie critic was really exciting. I hadn't expected a such brilliant wit by response, something to ponder about.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
You've got to be kidding. You actually thought I was a PhD?
USA Films is not in the business of helping you with a career in anything -- production companies exist to make money, and they obviously thought they could not do such with your script. Don't take it personally.
My name is actually MaryAnn, but since I was born after Gilligan's Island left the air, it's highly unlikely that I was a member of the cast of that show. theprof@gilligan.org was a joke.
If you want to send me your script, I'd be happy to comment on it. But be warned -- I'll be brutally honest. You can send it as a Rich Text Format document -- that would be easiest for me to read.

[Another one who never replied.]

posted 04.21.00
Robert Cusolito writes:
I'm feeling pretty silly right now because this is the second e-mail I've sent you in one day (I'm like some lovestruck teenager - or maybe a deranged stalker!). I just discovered your sight today, and I really like it. This is primarily because you seem to share some of the same views as I do, such as a dislike for Julia Roberts, and for unrealistic Sci-Fi. Ah, this could be love at first web site viewing (sorry, couldn't resist)!
I've got to thank you for your review of Pitch Black, because you've helped me decide not to see this movie - at least not to pay for it in the cinema. This may even be the first time you've received an e-mail from someone thanking you for a review, when that someone hasn't even seen the movie! You see, I hate unrealistic Sci-Fi as much as you seem to. I can sometimes take it if it's sort of the "fantasy" type of Sci-Fi, like Star Wars, where you know going in that they're not going to try and make it realistic. As long as the story stays somewhat consistent within it's own "universe", and obeys it's own preset rules, I'm usually okay with it (okay, so that giant asteroid-dwelling monster in The Empire Strikes Back was a real stretch). But since I assume Pitch Black is set in our relatively near future, it's got to follow some rules. The aliens in the movie only come out and eat every 22 years? And the humans just happen to crash-land on this planet right before the next eclipse? Another desert planet with a human-breathable atmosphere? Yes, these are also the kinds of plot holes that bother me in Sci-Fi movies. So you've given me enough facts to decide to stay away from this movie tomorrow night, when I was planning to see it. Perhaps I'll see Mission to Mars.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
You're not the first to thank me for steering you away from a film, but I'll accept your gratitude anyway!

posted 04.21.00
Christopher Meier writes:
Subject: How do you do it?
I just read the mail column for the Pitch Black review. I can't believe the load of emotional, irrational, and nonsensical ranting people send you. Is this normal?? If not, why would people respond so vehemently over PB? If so, why haven't you shredded your e-mail reader? I admire your gumption in facing this onslaught of inanity.
I might have just shaken my head and chuckled over these emails and replys, but the last series with Mr. Fuh caught my attention. I wanted you to know that I am a Christian, and evolution doesn't make me nervous. Most of my Christian friends don't have a problem with it, although some do. It doesn't really matter. People show they're Christians by how they live and how they treat other people, not by what they say they believe or don't believe.
This is off the topic of film criticism, but I wanted you to be aware that not all Christians are loonies. Of course some are, but loonies have pretty well infiltrated about every group you can think of.
Thanks, and I will continue to check your site. You do good work.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
The Pitch Black mail was a step above the kind of mail I usually get, but not by much -- I get a lot of raving, nearly incoherent letters, as well as a lot of rational, well-reasoned ones.
I realize that not all Christians are loony, but they sure are the most visible and the most vocal ones!

Christopher Meier again:
I want to know if you're as irritated with some things in Mission to Mars as I am.
First off, I'm no film guru. I have an active "willing suspension of disbelief" gland, so I tend to be pretty tolerant of less obvious cinematic or logistic blunders. I judge films based on how many times I say, "What's up with this?" the first time I see them.
I had about twenty "What's up?" moments with this movie, and one moment of absolute offence. I don't want to spoil this movie, so I'll give a few vague examples to see if you agree with me.

1. What's up with Gary Sinese's eyeliner in the first half of the movie? Was this just a really bad Cover Girl product placement?
2. What's up with the too-obvious product placement?
3. All through this movie, I was distracted by the thought, "Is Gary Sinese related to DeForrest Kelley?" Some of the left profile shots look just like Bones in the 1st season. 'Specially the eyebrows.
4. I was thoroughly offended by De Palma's low estimation of my memory and intelligence with the M&M flashback scene. Did the director really think that I wouldn't remember the only previous scene in the movie that didn't feature M&Ms and not connect it to the current scene? Unnecessary flashbacks are one of my pet peeves, admittedly, but I heard several audience groans at this one. I mean, my brain would have to be boiled mush to need the flashback here.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
A perfect movie Mission to Mars isn't, not by a long shot, but I actually enjoyed it.
What kind of "logistic blunders" are you talking about? The ending was corny, and the film was a bit too exposition-heavy in the beginning, but mostly I found the film remarkably logical and scientifically accurate.
Was Sinise wearing eyeliner? Some people just have naturally heavy eyelashes -- though I'd have to see the film again to say whether this was the case with him.
2001, which everyone seems to feel is what De Palma was shooting to emulate here, had lots of product placement, too (Hilton, Pan Am). Product placement bothers me sometimes, but I thought it was used to good effect here. Our lives are surrounded by brand names, and that isn't likely to change -- and I liked that the Dr. Pepper and the M&Ms actually had some use as far as plot devices.
Is it the movie's fault that Sinise resembles Bones McCoy?
I agree with your assessment of the M&M flashback, though -- that was pretty insulting.

posted 04.21.00
Lorie Johnson writes:
Yay! Mission to Mars managed to top the movie charts this weekend, despite the critics rips of it. I am glad you enjoyed it- my sister and I went to see it yesterday, and thought that the critics were way too harsh. Hey- give this geek gal a nice nuts-n-bolts SF film over a sappy romantic comedy or sloppy braindead garbage any day!
Yeah, the product placement was a little blatant- but it was in 2001, too. I liked the idea that the tech 20 years from now wouldn't be too terribly different from today- just slicker. Did you catch them drinking beer from those juice-box style containers?
Also, if you get a chance to view Apollo 13 on DVD, treat yourself to the alternate soundtracks. One features Ron Howard's commentary on the making of the film. The other is a real treasure- Jim and Marilyn Lovell tell us what is real and what is stretched j-u-s-t a little for the story. Marilyn thought that they did a great job with the house- and some of the stuff on the walls were copies of their own mementos. The level of historical accuracy on that film was amazing. It'll be interesting to see how close we get with the tech from Mission to Mars!

posted 04.21.00
Beth Kelleher writes:
I stroll by your site from time to time, but only just now saw your review of American Beauty.
I think that you gave the film a very fair and balanced review and I agree with your assessment of Lester as nearly incomprehensible.
However, I thought that you might be interested in the reaction that my husband and I had to the movie.
We were in Tulsa, Oklahoma, attending the wedding of a friend during the weekend that we saw the film. We flew down on Friday, went to the wedding on Saturday morning and then were at odds with what to do with ourselves since our flight back wasn't until Monday. So we went to the movies and saw American Beauty.
To make a long story short, the message of the film put us both in an extremely philosophical mood, as well as exacerbating minor anxiety about the flight home into a conviction that if we got on the plane it would crash.
We were both so hyper-aware of how short life is, and how important it is to appreciate the beauty of life, that we drove back to our hotel, called Hertz and exchanged our local rental car for one that could be returned at a distant location: the airport near our home in the Virginia suburbs of Washington DC.
So we drove home, over the night-dark hills of the Missouri Ozarks, across the cornfields of Illinois and Indiana, through the rolling blue grasses of Kentucky and up into the twisting mountain ranges of West Virginian Appalachia.
We sped across the western portions of Virginia on Monday evening, to make the deadline for turning the car in without a penalty fee, tired from the drive.
But it was worth it. So very worth it. I have traveled all over Europe, yet no trip has affected me so profoundly as that crazy 24-hour drive across half of the United States. My head is full to bursting still, of the panoramic imagery of the country, the changing lay of the land, the architecture of each city we passed through on or trek eastward.
Crossing West Virginia, we also took the "road less-traveled" forgoing the interstate in favor of a tiny twisting mountain road (albeit that we were actually looking for a shortcut, *ahem*). But that choice wound up being a fortuitous one, as we were plunged deep into the amazing territory of the mountains in early fall: red and gold leaves studding every shoulder of the mountains and hills, dappled sunlight patterning the road, a general store that has stood at the intersection of two roads for 100 years ...
It's difficult to express the thoughts and feelings I had as we crossed the country, taking in all of its small and grand glories.
But it all began with this film, a film from which the most lasting image in my mind, is still, Ricky's plastic bag dancing in the wind ...

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Wow! What a wonderful way to describe the effect the movie had on you. Thank you so much for sharing it with me!

posted 04.21.00
ienbastiaans writes:
Why is it that many of the reviews of the filmgeek and your reviews say exactly the opposite? I'm from Holland and a fan of your review site, it's one of the best on the net that I know of, but why you do have this collaboration with the filmgeek ,goes beyond me. Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing that someone has another opinion, but the filmgeek has made a sport out of it, I think his reviews are just plainly wrong. All the best.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
The Film Geek and I have partnered because we share a similar philosophy about movies: that they should entertain us. We don't always agree on particular movies, that's true, but what would be the point of sending my readers to another review for exactly the same opinion on a film? And that's all our reviews are: opinions. Yours is no more "correct" than anyone else's is "wrong."

posted 04.21.00
Boyd Petrie writes:
While I agree on the greatness of Run Lola Run, I do have to admit that I am kind of appalled at the thought that the dubbed version is even half as good as the subtitled one. Perhaps it is just because I bought the video, and not the DVD, but they are definitely not the same actors, and the loss is VERY noticeable. I, of course, immediately ran the tape back and demanded the subtitled version, which they did not have (by the way, the copy I had said subtitled on the box but dubbed on the video). Great film, but the English translation makes it lose something. The energy isn't quite there. There is something about the German language that makes everything they say seem like a dagger, like it must be heard. Just thought I'd give my thoughts.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
What can I say? I didn't feel that the film lost much via dubbing. Note that both here and in my review, I noted that film didn't lose much, not that it didn't lose anything. I think the tradeoff of dubbing is worth it, because it allows you to totally concentrate on the visuals, which is where the film really stands out.

posted 04.21.00
keesara writes:
i totally disagree with the review of The Messenger! i thought it was a brilliant movie which really inspired and touched the lives of many ppl! and to top it off it thought that Mila Jovovich was extremely good in this movie ...i can't believe u criticised her so much!she's a talented young actress who'll do really well and prove critics like u wrong! anyway i thought this movie was outstanding and i'm still hung up on the movie after watching it 2 weeks back...it touched me so much ..everytime i think about it ..i get all wet-eyed! i can't believe u hated it so much
luv,
Joan Of Arc

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Wow! Joan of Arc! I thought you were burned at the stake, like, hundreds of years ago. Hey, if you're still hearing voices, you should know that they have medications to treat that now. And I'm sure computers must be a new thing to you, too, but you should scope out that "spellcheck" feature: it'll alert you to mistakes like spelling "you" as "u" and "people" as "ppl." Seeing as English is a second language to you, you'll probably find spellcheckers immensely useful.
Oh, and could you let me know who, precisely, found their lives "touched" by The Messenger? I'd love to ask them whether it was the hilarious head-lopping, the California-dudism of Joan's right-hand-man, or the extreme close-ups of Dustin Hoffman's enormous pores that touched them most. Thanks so much.

[Again, shockingly, no response.]

posted 04.21.00
Kevin H. writes:
I myself am an American Indian, and appreciate the recognition [in your review of The Road to El Dorado] of Hollywood preying upon our culture and misrepresenting it horrificly, however if I were you, I'd think twice before I said: "that Middle Eastern book of fables known as the Bible". I took offense to your degrading of my religion, as many people would as well.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
No offense was intended -- I was merely expressing my own religious beliefs, or lack thereof. When your god commands that you disregard other deities and religions, is that "degrading" the strongly held beliefs of others? How is my lack of belief in your religion any different from your lack of belief in, say, Hinduism?

posted 04.21.00
Joe writes:
In your Oscar predictions, you said that Star Wars should and would win the best visual effects Oscar. Instead, The Matrix won. Here's why:
Think back to the invention of photography in the 19th century. The photograph was a way to capture reality without the hand of humans. As photos became cheaper, faster, and easier to make, there was less demand for people who could paint realistically. Eventually, this led to the jump into abstraction that dominated 20th century painting. Obviously, I'm being a little reductive here. Basic semiotic theory will tell you that there's no true realism even in photographs, yada yada yada. My basic point is that once people had an easy way to record reality (photos), the old-fashioned "craft" of recreating reality through the canvas was free to explore other realms of expression.
The same thing, on perhaps a less noble scale, has happened to the special effects in Summer blockbuster movies. The development of the cheap, quick, and easy photograph is paralleled, I think, by The Phantom Menace. Computer effects have gotten just about as close to reality as they're ever going to get. Lucas interpolated CGI seamlessly into almost every scene. Some scenes, like the final battle between the evil robots and the Gungans, are completely believable and immersive worlds created from CGI. It's amazing stuff. I would say there might be too much of it. When every corner of the frame is filled with super-realistic aliens and robots getting zapped, it gets ordinary. Where does the wonder go? But I'm going off on a tangent from my main argument...
Even though it came out before Phantom Menace, The Matrix actually takes special effects to the next level. Once reality has been attained, abstraction and impressionism are open territory. When Neo's out on the building ledge and he drops his cell phone, we see it slip through his fingers in slow motion. Why? Because that's how Neo perceives that one, momentary, agonizing slip of the fingers. In writing this, I'm realizing that Scorcese and his editors did the same thing with the fight scenes in Raging Bull--slowing down the moments of heightened consciousness. I can't think of another movie off of the top of my head that does this with special effects. Maybe Kubrick's 2001? The part in Rear Window where Jimmy Stewart uses the flash to ward off Raymond Burr, or the goofy dream sequence in Vertigo? Maybe you can think of one. Obviously, the examples I mentioned didn't have the technology we do today, so it's an unfair comparison.
The Matrix is chock full of these impressionistic moments: Trinity's leaps in the first sequence, Neo's final awakening. In a movie so concerned with the idea of perception, it's fitting that the special effects are more than mere razzle-dazzle. The Matrix is the first film to use advanced computer effects not merely as way to wow us with "how'd they do that?" but also as an impressionistic palate as powerful as any of the other tools in the directorial repertoire. When compared to the art of The Matrix, The Phantom Menace merely gets an "A+" for effort.
I suppose I should mention that you liked Phantom Menace and I hated it, which certainly colors my perceptions on this issue. Thanks for the great site. Please don't print my email address.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for that analysis. I loved both The Phantom Menace and The Matrix, and I can assure you that nothing like favoritism was at work in choosing TPM as having more far-reaching effects (no pun intended) than The Matrix.
The Matrix's SFX were astounding, no question, as were TPM's, but I think the reason TPM will be seen more as a milestone is because they demonstrate that there is nothing that cannot now be realistically created in a computer. Technology like that on display in TPM is going to replace first location shooting, and later actual human actors. Is this a good thing? I doubt it. But it's going to happen, and soon.
The Matrix was dazzling and dizzying. But TPM is a harbinger of things to come, whether we like it or not.

[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.