posted 05.23.00
Fabián Guevara writes:
Greetings!
I have not seen the movie THE ROAD TO EL DORADO, nor do I plan to. It struck me that of the different reviews that I read online, yours was the only one semi-critical of the way the subject matter is treated. Even so, it is quite tame and generous to Dreamworks.
It is unbelievable to me that Disney, Dreamworks and others in this country continue to perpetuate myths. The Spaniards murdered many native people of the Americas (and raped their women) in their obsessive search for gold and El Dorado. They were no different from the rest of the Europeans in this manner. Furthermore, when I think about the story of Cuauhtemoc, the last of the Aztec emperors to defend himself against the invasion of the Spaniards, it infuriates me that people continue to romanticize the crimes of the plundering Europeans during the time of colonization. Cortes' men tortured Cuauhtemoc scorching his feet with burning oil so that he would reveal where he had supposedly hidden the treasures of Moctezuma. Needless to say, there were no treasures of Moctezuma hidden by Cuauhtemoc. Cortes then forced Cuauhtemoc to walk hundreds of miles before having him murdered based on rumors of sedition.
In the Carribean, the Spaniards demanded gold quotas from the indigenous people. Every few months, indigenous people had to pay tribute, and they were given some kind of ring or token to put on a necklace they had to wear. If they were caught without having paid the gold quotas the Spaniards imposed on them, they were punished, in many cases by getting their faces disfigured (i.e., they would cut off their noses or their ears) or by chopping off their hands.
These would be crimes now, and there is no reason for me to think that we must pardon the master villains of history because they lived during a different era. They would have been crimes back then had they committed them with their own people. Yet the Europeans had the arrogance to consider themselves more civilized! Many colonists were criminals even in their own lands, and they were sent here to populate the land while simultaneously fulfilling the goal of getting rid of the cancerous rotting tumors of European society.
Dreamworks and Disney are full of shady ideas, and they should deal with the real history of the Colonial period rather than brainwashing children with romanticized, sweetened, and glossed over versions of some of the worst crimes in world history.
Put THIS in your critique.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Are you daring me to post your letter? I have no problem posting it, and I will. I don't shy from controversy.

Fabián Guevara replies:
Thank you for your response. In response to your question, I am not daring you to post my letter. If you wish to you may. I suppose what I would really wish to see is truly critical reviews of the subject matter of the movies POCAHONTAS, TARZAN, THE ROAD TO EL DORADO, and the like. These movies continue to perpetuate age old myths that in many ways reveal many of the deeply ingrained racial prejudices of "American" society. THE LION KING got a little of that with regard to the shades and personalities of the characters and the respective ethnicities of the actors who did their voices. Why not the rest of them? I know, it's just entertainment and I should lighten up. But I also believe critics should also do a better job of being "critical". So, although you say you don't shy from controversy, you also have not told me what you think. You saw the movie. What do you think in light of what I am saying?

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Many movies perpetuate age-old myths about many things, from racism to sexism and everything in between. I agree with what you wrote about THE ROAD TO EL DORADO, but since I was not writing a book about the film, I needed, in my review, to choose which battle to fight. There are many aspects of a film that a critic could be critical about, and you can't always cover all of them. I chose to focus on how wrong-headed a character Chel was because it seemed a pointed example of how far the filmmakers were willing to go in imposing European attitudes on other characters. I'm sorry you didn't see it that way.

posted 05.23.00
Xatrix writes:
Hello, My name is Brad. I don't know why you are so critical that you would accuse the directors of this movie [PITCH BLACK] of being lazy. So there are people out there who enjoy movies of this type. I loved STARSHIP TROOPERS (which I won't go into) simply because of the action in it. I would have to say that this film has it's flaws, but by no means was it a 'half-assed' project. It might not be the best that the creators could do, but I don't know much about the creators, so I will move on. There is no need to be OVERcritical of movies. I doubt that you went and looked at the profiles of the crew for this movie, but you may have. I just know that it might have been some person's first 'nationwide opened' film, and that we can't expect that much more from him/her right now. I really do think that this film took some effort. Little things like the atmosphere being breathable for humans are mandatory in this film. You have to consider what it would be like if it wasn't breathable, or pressurized correctly. I know that I didn't want to go see a movie where the characters had to wear protective suits the entire movie. I thought that it was enjoyable, but then again I am probably just easy to entertain. I understand that you are entitled to your opinion, and I repect that. Thank you for reading this.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Sorry, I am not about to coddle supposedly professional filmmakers because a film might be their first. This isn't kindergarten, where everyone gets an A for effort and a big shiny star on their report card just for showing up. Crap is crap, no matter who makes it.

Xatrix replies:
You wanna be an asshole? That's fine... I don't really care. I don't really see what I have done to you.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Excuse me? I'm an asshole for expecting to get my money's worth when I go to the movies? I'm an asshole for expecting people who get paid more money than I'll ever see to make a movie to do their jobs well? And what on earth do my expectations of movies have to do with you?

posted 05.23.00
Edward Shaw writes:
Hello...
Well, I'm sure I wouldn't always agree with your assessment of particular movies (so who would always agree with anybody on anything, anyway?), but I like your reviews. And your site. What I've seen so far, anyway. C'mon, are you REALLY just one person? How can you POSSIBLY respond to all of these stupid comments?
MY comments here are sparked by your review (and other people's responses to it) of PITCH BLACK. Very entertaining. The review and the responses, that is.
I mean, you're right, of course; we do like our anti-heroes, our Dark Lords, but I simply take that as powerful reinforcement of what has been my consistent observation, that we are ONE REALLY SICK LOT -- just like I do what I've seen during my little visit to your web site! But that's a good thing, that's a good thing! Maybe we NEED to slap one another around a little -- who knows but what it won't wake us up (hasn't worked too well so far, though, has it?). This, then, is the question I find myself asking all-too-often, Ms. Filosopher: "WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH US, ANYWAY?"
P.S. I was going to finish up by saying something about being braced for your scathing retort and searing observations, but that's really just because I kinda liked the phrases "scathing retort" and "searing observations" and wanted an excuse to use them.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
No scathing retort is necessary. I agree with you: We're a screwed-up bunch of simians. We seem to be hard-wired for violence and tribalism, which isn't to excuse such appalling behavior. It's just that enough of us don't stop and think before we give in to instinct and 50,000 years of ingrained cultural attitudes before lashing out at someone whose skin color, religion, or opinion on PITCH BLACK differs from our own.
Yes, I really am just one person. I don't get enough sleep, however.

posted 05.23.00
Geoff McLain writes:
I see a dead horse, I pick up a club...
You mentioned, I believe, that upon re-watching the STAR WARS extravaganzas, you were amazed at how much of the depth of the characters was not actually up on the screen, but had been provided by the fans over the years. I think that is how all art works, to some extent. The characters in movies are NOT real; they are not three-dimensional. The belief of the viewer makes them real, and the emotional response of the viewer is the third dimension. We flesh out the skeleton, so to speak--if there is something in the movie that moves us. And what is moving, what is beautiful, what is funny--need we ask anyone to tell us these things? If a movie inspires you, then it is an inspiring movie--to you. If a movie bores me, then it is a boring movie--to me. That is really the only conclusion one can draw.
The power of art doesn't exist in the art, or in the audience, but in the relationship between the two. You are emotionally invested in the mythology of STAR WARS, and so you are willing to fill in the plot holes with rationalizations and imaginings, and flesh out the characters with your own feelings. If you weren't invested, you wouldn't bother--and the movies would be easy targets for the wicked barbs that are your words.
In a lot of ways, the relationship between art and viewer is a personal relationship, even a romantic one. For example:
I say, "That is the most beautiful woman I have ever seen."
My buddies say, "What, the one-eyed fat chick?"
"O, but how her good eye shines in the moonlight!"
"Ok, no more beer for you."
I've never been certain whether love is blind, or just sees past the trivial shit. And, as with who we like, our tastes in art tend to be visceral. What we believe we should like may be an intellectual or learned response--but what we actually like is visceral. Dickinson's criterion for great poetry was that it made her feel as if the top of her head had come off. A. E Houseman's test was whether reciting the poem made the hair on the back of his neck stand up. I think this is also true of movies. We decide, immediately and emotionally and physically, whether we like it; and then we attempt to justify our response intellectually.
Maybe this is why people get so pissed off at movie critics; they take negative criticism of the movies they like personally, because it IS personal. Art is personal.
I read your review of THE 13TH WARRIOR (and on a related note, will you marry me?), and that movie kind of illustrates my point. I seemed to find this movie far more moving and inspiring than most did. I think the reason is simply because I was raised on Beowulf and Norse mythology, and to see the heroes come to life, as it were, was a profound experience for me. It was, as I said to my brother, a movie I had been waiting to see since I was eight. Obviously, this made the movie a different experience for me than it would be for others. What we like is determined by what we are--not by what we think we should like.
The character Riddick in PITCH BLACK is basically a Norse hero--the Vikings would have liked the guy, although they would have thought him a little on the goody-goody side. Maybe that's part of the reason I liked him; he was, and I pray that I will someday forgiven for this, Beowulfian. A Viking in space. And, maybe because I am something of an anti-social bastard myself, I found the idea that even he could find some spark of humanity within himself compelling. It is more inspiring, I feel, to see a brutal sociopath commit an act of heroic self-sacrifice, than to see a Jedi do the same. The former is a more unexpected grace.
As for your cry in the wilderness, "You call PITCH BLACK art?!"; yes, I do. The STAR WARS movies did nothing for me, personally, but I still consider them to be art. Banal, boring, silly, commercial art, but still art. Seriously, though, isn't it a little arrogant to decide what is and is not art? I first saw Van Gogh's STARRY NIGHT when I was young, and it transfixed me. And it has never failed to transfix me since. Every time I see it, it takes my breath away. And yet, I cannot prove that it is beautiful, or powerful, or inspiring, or terrifying. I can only attest that it is those things to me. Nor can I prove that anyone who likes it less than me is less intelligent or less evolved--no matter how incomprehensible I find their opinion.
I have this recurring nightmare, that when the last piece of the puzzle is in place, and the universe has been laid bare to the bones, and we know all that there is to know, we will find that the most perfect work of art in the history of humanity, the one creation that most completely captures the essential truths of existence, is that painting of dogs playing poker.
PS: No, I am not equating PITCH BLACK or THE 13TH WARRIOR with the works of Van Gogh or Dickinson, in terms of the depth and intensity of my love for them. I didn't like either movie as much, for that matter, as you apparently like all the STAR WARS movies. But I'm not sure if I've ever liked any movie as much as you apparently like STAR WARS. Apparently, for you, they are sex and ice cream and summer days and Mozart, all rolled into one. To be honest, I'm a little envious. Mind you, I have to admit, THE PHANTOM MENACE is worth seeing just for the costumes and set designs--you know, if you're gay. Or a chick. Or French.
PPS: After reading more of the PITCH BLACK reader mail, I'm a little embarrassed to have liked the movie. Some of the responses to your review are, well, Riddickian in their eloquence.
PPPS: I really don't get the whole chick-flick/guy-movie thing. I like THE TERMINATOR, I like THE WIZARD OF OZ. But, anybody who accuses you, you sassy thang, of disembowelling a movie because it's allegedly testosterone-induced, hasn't bothered to read your freaking reviews.
PPPPS: I think your sullen ways (re: BEN-HUR) are VERY becoming. You're just full of crap on the PITCH BLACK thing. Prolly cuz you got boobs.
PPPPPS: I didn't mean to equate gays or women with the French. There are plenty of gays and women out there who've actually WON fights.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Yours may be the single most eloquent fan mail I've yet to receive, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for it.
Of course all art -- including movies -- is personal, and our reactions to it by definition are personal and even intimate, but not enough people realize that. As I'm sure you discovered, reading my mail pages.
Dickinson's and Houseman's test for great poetry, as you say, can also be applied to movies... and to romantic attraction. Does that movie -- or that man -- make the hair on the back of my neck stand up, make me feel as if I haven't been alive till this very moment? But movies are a shared experience -- millions of people can share in the feeling of falling in love with the same movie. That makes it worth talking about at a venue such as mine. Recognizing that not everyone will share in my reaction is part of what makes our reactions so interesting.
So, in the spirit of friendly disagreement, I can't see Riddick as a Vikingesque hero. He didn't sacrifice anything -- all his actions were motivated purely by self interest. That was the problem I had with Riddick: he didn't change as a character. He was the same bastard at the end of the film as he was at the beginning. We have no evidence that "Riddick died on the planet," a line that felt, to me, so obviously tacked on at the very end of the film that I found it insulting.
Will I marry you? I dunno. You made me laugh, which is a good start. But will you make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up?

posted 05.23.00
Mike Wright writes:
It really amazes me that people thought AMERICAN PSYCHO was a great movie. I'm reminded of your critique of THE FIFTH ELEMENT. You said it wasn't a movie as much as Luc Besson's vehicle for demeaning women. Well,the bitch hit back. Mary Harron butchered this movie.Do you really believe that every man is as shallow and worthless as these characters? And spare me the "satire of the 80's" nonsense. Its a satire of men,pure and simple. It attempted to show Christian Bale's character as a hypocrite.Not as an 80's icon,but as a male. A man who can name every social ill,but mock a homeless man and kill an innocent dog. (I really hated it when he killed the dog.) A "macho" man who uses lotions and elixers to make his skin perfect. It all comes off as ridiculous to any normal man; maybe,the real point is that whenever a man starts starts living for silly,frivolous things,he loses his true manhood. Its not "machoism" that brings out all this anger,insanity,and violence;the opposite is true. Its all of the repression;political correctness and feministic ideals repress men's true identities,subverting them into homicide.
FIGHT CLUB was an infinitely better movie as far as acting, directing, editing, cinematogrophy, and oh-I-don't-know everything right down to the catering. And it still made the same point. Whenever you live for the mask of soceity,you lose your soul.
By the way,normally your reviews are right on target. I especially loved your take on ARMAGEDDON. There have been several others that were hilarious,but that one particularly stands out.
PS I would LOVE to see your ideas on THE NINTH GATE. Johnny Depp needs to be put to sleep.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I'm not sure what you're complaining about. You seem to have gotten one of AMERICAN PSYCHO's points, which is that Bateman is supposed to be a ridiculous character -- he is NOT meant to be a model for men to follow. That's what "satire" means. But if you think "political correctness and feminisitic ideals" are what turn men to homicide, then how do you explain the fact that murder has been with us as long as we as human beings have been around?

posted 05.23.00
Branan Edgens writes:
subject: a few final words on EWS
I'm willing to give Kubrick the benifit of the doubt [on EYES WIDE SHUT]. What bothers me more than people's crticism is the reactionary tone of it all. A knee-jerk reaction to a Kubrick film just doesn't work. He crafted his films very slowly and deliberatly and plays the viewer like a chess game; he spent years assuring the meaning of his film would be slightly beyond our grasp. Unfortunately people are basically lazy and congragulated themselves for nailing-down the film in 30 minutes flat. I knew this was the case when viewer's whined about not seeing Tom Cruise (or any male figure) naked. This is graduate film school nonsense. People have been trained to approach films like an equation: More naked women than men? it's obviously sexist. Cruise doesn't seem to want to engage in sexual activity? He isn't a sexual creature.
He is impotent! That is partially the point.
My opinion? Well since I asked myself for it ... On the subject of human intimacy and it's various mechanizations, Kubrick seems to be saying, "don't go there". It is a dark film about tiny, worthless people using candles to find their way in a munitions dump. It's not a good idea to exlplore certain things. Kubrick has always warned us about the potentially destructive side of humanity's curiosity. Sometime's it's better to admit defeat and play it safe and remain in the dark. Pessimistic? Certainly. It's meant to be confusing,. It resists having one's brain wrapped around it, this is on purpose. Sex is a powerful, fundamental, messy and convoluted side of humanity: it is love-making and it is also rape. We don't understand it. Did you think Stanley was going to explain the whole thing to us? I think he's a genius but he knew better than to pretend.
Did you understand all of the "Fenigan's Wake" the first time you read it? For that matter what about Shakespeare? Sometimes you actually have to stop and think. I'm not sure why but film doesn't receive the same serious attention as, say, literature. Maybe it's because so few filmmakers give a damn. Kubrick knew film was more than mere entertainment, maybe one day we'll all learn to respect film as he did.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I'm sorry: Is this aimed to me, or are you just sending your thoughts out into the ether at random? All these references to "people" and "viewers" and "critics" in general makes me wonder.
I'm so glad to final have the last word on EWS, though. Obviously, you're the only one who understands this "confusing" film, and I thank you for sharing your wisdom with us lesser mortals. Never would I have imagined that Kubrick was exploring a subject that we're not supposed to explore. The genius -- the contradictory genius! I tremble in awe.
Plus, I can't thank you enough for the reminder to "stop and think" -- sometimes I forget the simple things like that. And I will try to work on those "knee-jerk reactions." My bad.
Oh, and it's FINNEGAN'S WAKE, by the way.

Branan Edgens replies:
just the ether...
oops,
I never stated I understood it... I never made references (plural) to "people","viewers", or "critics". It was called "a few final words" because I figured no one cared either way anymore (after all, it's almost a year old!) I never shared any wisdom (there isn't any).
It's okay, try to calm yourself ... after all the heated rhetoric - it's only a movie.
How long did it take you to find, "finnegan's wake" in your library, "by the way".
At any rate, I'll admit to a bit of spite here: you are critic. Yes?
"those who can not do - teach."
Give yourself a good pat on the back for me...
PS- what recent films did you like? I'll guess, THE THIN RED LINE and BOYS DON'T CRY? .phhhhhhhhhhhhhhhllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiit.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
You wrote: "He crafted his films very slowly and deliberatly and plays the viewer like a chess game; he spent years assuring the meaning of his film would be slightly beyond our grasp" and "He is impotent! That is partially the point." If comments like these aren't meant to imply that you understood the film, what are they supposed to mean?
You're right about "critics," but you did complain about "people's crticism" and "viewer's [who] whined." I took these to be aimed at me, particularly the one about whining because I did talk about the inequality of the nudity of the film. I resent being spoken of in the third person in an email directed to me.
I am calm. And if you interpret my response as agitated or annoyed, read you own comments and ask yourself if they couldn't be taken by a stranger as less than calm.
How long did it take to find FINNEGAN'S WAKE in my library? What is that supposed to mean? Is this a crack about the state of my library?
"Those who can not do - teach." Again, what is it exactly that you're implying? Can't you insult someone in a direct manner?
You'd be wrong in your guesses as to recent films I liked, which you'd have known if you'd bothered to read the reviews of either film at my site.
Recent films I loved, which are also obvious to anyone who reads my site: AMERICAN PSYCHO, CROUPIER, THE COLOR OF PARADISE, and BOILER ROOM. I enjoyed U-571, MISSION TO MARS, and WHERE THE MONEY IS, though they are not great films by any stretch of the imagination. My top movies of last year were AMERICAN BEAUTY, BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, DOGMA, ELECTION, FIGHT CLUB, THE LEGEND OF 1900, MAGNOLIA, THE RED VIOLIN, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY, THREE KINGS, and TOY STORY 2. Perhaps with this list you'll agree that I'm not unable to appreciate complicated films with dark messages. I just didn't think EWS was a particularly good example of such.

Branan Edgens again:
The amount of time I spend responding to your responses eats dangerously into the self-imposed 2 hour limit I give myself to be on-line per week. Respond if you'd like, you will, but this will be the last from me.
I'm not insulting anyone. But I am hostile towards the quickly expanding sense of cynicism, the fear that has everyone drinking their emotions from graduated cylinders, the arrogant sense of certainty. All of this confidence seems to come from making one's world smaller through dime-store-psychology, text-book-critical-methodology, and a paint-by-numbers perspective. These are the people (maybe you are one of them but I don't know so I'm not implying anything) whose involvement with the world comes through screens: connections are made via e-mail, info. comes through wires and not one's senses, and the reality they're describing comes from movies!
This all puts me in a weird place because I make movies, so am I part of the problem or am I okay because I spend more time out in the open-air, meeting and touching people, using my own eyes?
I've had enough of this academic, more smarty-pants than thou dialogue. My old graduate school prof. received a well-deserved slap in the face from Goddard for trying to engage him in this kind of ridiculous talk. This was just about the only thing worth a damn Goddard ever did.
I have never read your other columns and there's no sense in starting now. From this point my two hours online per week will be better spent downloading pornography. This speaks more to my high regard for porn than it does for my low regard for your writing. See? I'm not insulting you, but for some reason you want to think that I am. Weird.
To quote Kubrick's greatest character, "this conversation can no longer serve any useful purpose, goodbye."

[Needless to say, there was no point in responding if he'd had enough. But here's another of my favorite insults: "more smarty-pants than thou." I love it.--MAJ]

posted 05.23.00
Steven Cabral writes:
U-571
Haven't seen it yet probably won't till it hits cable.
Blacks on subs. Apparently was done. Mess corp in Navy was mostly Black or Philippino then. They were housed in their own quarters rather than with the white crew, very autonomous conditions.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for the little history lesson. I still doubt a cook would have felt free to speak so plainly to his CO, though.

posted 05.23.00
Christa Schleif writes:
Honestly,
Don't you critics have anything better to do than talk about Matthew McConaughey playing the bongo's naked? It happened like 6 months ago and frankly, it's getting really old. No matter how stupid you are, you can't deny that he is an extremely talented actor. He has made a huge impact on Hollywood. I think you need to find something better to do than talk about something that happened over 6 months ago. It's pretty annoying, and I think you're dumb.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Actually, no, I have nothing better to do than make fun of McConaughey's strange habits. But I'm sure he's happy to have you come to his defense.

posted 05.23.00
Peter G. Betz writes:
That was a pretty lame review [of U-571]. I don't which was funnier - the numerous Trekkie references or the sniffing disdain for any movie that doesn't cater to women. Whatever. You're entitled to your opinion.
I was not surprised that you don't know history very well, most movie critics don't. The US Navy was not completely segregated in World War II (In fact, it has never been completely segregated, from the Revolution (1775 - 1783) onwards). That is not to say blacks could hold any position, in WWII they served as mess stewards at sea or munitions loaders (or similar nasty jobs) on shore. Had the mess steward been white, THAT would have been an oddity.
The line about sissy names for subs was very humorous. Take that up with the Third Reich, I guess, U-boat numbers were official Kriegsmarine designations. Maybe they should make a movie about the US Gato-class sub "Guppy" (US subs were named after fish after the "S" series) - silly as the name sounds, it was one of the top scorers in the Pacific in 1944 and 1945!

The Flick Filosopher responds:
"Sniffing disdain"? Didn't I call the film "good clean silly fun"? Take a good look around my site, and you'll find that I typically don't go in for movies that "cater to women."
But that doesn't make U-571 any less cheesy.

posted 05.23.00
Brent writes:
Subject: The probability and statistics of movies and crap...
I figure a movie like the Flinstones prequel that you reviewed [THE FLINTSTONES IN VIVA ROCK VEGAS] has about a 90/10 chance of being pure crap. I base this prediction on the fact that the first one was crap and therefore greatly enhances the statistical probabilities that the second will be crap. Why go to see it in the first place? If you have a limited amount of time to review movies why not shoot for stuff that has, say, only a 50/50 chance of being crap? If the previews for this movie didn't scare you off then you need to calibrate your crapometer.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I endured the new FLINTSTONES movie because I was invited to an advance screening of it -- a free screening for critics. I would never have paid for it, as I put the chances that it would suck about where you did. But crappy movies are so much fun to review, which is why I reviewed it.

posted 05.23.00
Luis F Palomo writes:
Thanks for putting your opinion out there. It good to know people are still thinking these days.
God Bless

posted 05.23.00
Brandon Byrd writes:
I stumbled blindly upon your site a month or two ago and I can't commend you enough. As a high school student, I've limited income to spend going to the movies, and it's opinions like yours that keep me from spending my money on bad cinema. You deliver, honestly, fearlessly, and prolifically, reviews that inform and separate the cream from the crap. With charm, wit, and a distinct style of prose that oozes style, you help me determine what I'm going to rent and see at the theater. The only reason that I can think of that someone may argue with you is that he went out to see a movie, thought it was the most brilliant thing ever, and then read a review of yours that wasn't favorable. This simple act of invalidation probably made them feel a tad on the stupid side. So they sit down and write an insipid and droll letter filled with bad grammar, badly executed invective, and hostility. . . all of which should have been directed at themselves for approving CRAP! Anyway, thanks for the site. You've done an excellent job. Keep up the good work.

posted 05.23.00
Shawn Rafferty writes:
I would just like to thank you for paying attention to the movie [GLADIATOR]. I have read some god-awful reviews where the reviewer didn't even know who played in the movie, the plot twists, and basic geography. I'm glad I have found a movie reviewer that actually likes movies like GLADIATOR, THE 13TH WARRIOR, and BRAVEHEART, which are my three all-time favorites.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Movies like those you mentioned are my favorite kind -- the ones that get your blood boiling without requiring that you shut down your brain.

posted 05.23.00
Erik D. Goodwyn writes:
[Warning: GLADIATOR spoiler herein]
There has been some hub-bub about all the 'historical fabrication' that went on in this movie [GLADIATOR]. Here are some facts, from the Grolier 1998 encylopedia:
The successor to Marcus Aurelius was named Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus (160-192 AD). According to Grolier, he was:
"the son of Marcus Aurelius, ruled as coemperor of Rome from 177 and sole emperor from 180. Abandoning his father's military campaign against the German tribes (a move that many Romans considered treasonable), Commodus returned to Rome, where he persecuted the senate and endowed his cronies with enormous power. Apparently mad, he identified himself as the personification of Hercules and displayed himself in gladiatorial contests. His advisors had him throttled to death by a wrestler."
Not so far removed from what happened in the movie, after all, I'd say.
Maximus was a 'wrestler' of sorts, and he did throttle him, sort of.
So all of those annoying nitpickers (that come out of the woodwork every time a historical epic is made) can just go screw themselves.
Ahem. So there.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Yeah, but Commodus ruled for 12 years -- not merely through Acts 2 and 3 -- before they couldn't stand the little twit anymore and offed him.
Who cares, anyway? Russell Crowe in a skirt... mmmm... must see movie again...

posted 05.23.00
Andy Young writes:
Your movie reviews are so goddamn good. I must give you "props" on the creativity involved in your reviews, especially since I'm in such a position to do so considering I've read a total of two (count 'em, 2) reviews. GLADIATOR and RUNAWAY BRIDE. Very clever use of movie paralells in the RUNAWAY BRIDE one and I was impressed on how you didn't get side-tracked into the common pitfall of "this movie is only violent" in the GLADIATOR review. I'm officially in awe and will check out your writings for the fresh wit and sarcasm.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I've officially awed someone. Cool.

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