The Flick Filosopher responds:
Hmm... You want to insult me by calling my work bullshit, but you're too delicate -- or think I am -- to actually use the word. C'mon: I can take it. Tell me what you really think.

Paul Avila replies:
No ... I wasn't trying to insult you with my critique any more than you were trying to insult the late Mr. Wyler with your characterization of his movie as cornball homoerotica. I suspect we were both being smartasses. Besides, I like quoting Hunter Thompson.
No ... I'm not delicate nor do I "think" you are. I don't know you, so I'm not in a position to "think" anything of you ... although I do find it amusing that you think of those who refrain from using vulgarities when conversing with perfect strangers as "delicate". Probably a generational thing.
I could go on at length about your review of BEN-HUR, but it would accomplish little -- we're certainly not going to change each other's minds. I think the movie is visually stunning, I think Miklos Rozsa's musical score is beautiful, I think Hugh Griffith was terrific, and I think the chariot race, for pure spectacle, is unrivaled in movie history.
I saw this movie as a child when it was re-released in 1969 and it sparked my great fondness for movies which remains with today. That's probably why I took offense to your review, which to be honest I perceived as being somewhat snide.
Anyway ... BEN-HUR aside ... I wanted you to know that I do enjoy your website, and that I do appreciate any "chick" who can recognize the difference between SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (which affected me so profoundly I couldn't sleep) and THE THIN RED LINE (which put me to sleep) .

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I'm always a smartass -- no question about that. But I certainly wasn't intending to insult anyone by calling BEN-HUR cornball homoerotica. If you were a child in 1969 (the year I was born) you can't be all that much older than me, but -- as you said about something else -- it may be a generational thing. It's hard for me not to see some films (and other products) of certain eras -- especially the 1950s -- through an ironic lens, at least partly. You're right: the movie is visually stunning, and the chariot race is spectacular. But that doesn't alter the fact that Heston is so wooden an actor that you shouldn't light a match in his vicinity, nor that it is possible to read a clear homoerotic subtext in the film, if one has the kind of dirty mind I do. I'm sure it was not intentional -- but the 50s were so buttoned-down that a lot of unintentional emotional subtexts start popping out once you look for them in the works of popular art of the period. (Have you seen the movie since you were a child? You should check it out again with a grownup point of view and see what you think of it now.)
As for the delicacy required when conversing with strangers, do you really think there's a difference between "bull----" and "bullshit"? We both know what you're saying, so why not just say it?
Thanks for the compliments to my site overall. I hope you continue to enjoy it, excepting, of course, when I'm snide.

posted 07.03.00
McNeill L Michael Capt SMC/XRII writes:
I enjoy reading your reviews, and read almost all of them, but I believe you were a little off the mark in DINOSAUR. Yes it was a standard disney rehash, - "The Lion King 1,000,000 B.C." would have been a good name. And with the incredibly realistic Dinos it would have been better to make the movie without giving them human voices and characters. But it is disney...
Anyways, here's what you missed: The honking big meteor that hit was not supposed to be the big-un that hit off the coast of Costa Rica and supposedly ended the dino reign. So the movie did not leave me with ON THE BEACH hopelessness - here's why: That "big-un" would have absolutely vaporized the "monkey island" since it landed relatively close to them in the water. So it was just a precursor to the big-un. Also, the dust and ash, etc. kicked up by the extinction impact would have been visible all over the sky as they were migrating. The "wasteland" they crossed was not the dying earth caused by said meteor, it was just a desert. I say this because the old dinos said they made the trip across the wasteland frequently, if not yearly. Why they ever left the paradise nesting grounds at all is, however, a mystery.
Actually many higher-order primates were believed to be around during the late Cretaceous period - not just creationists believe that.
My problems were more to do with the fact that the dinos didn't stick together earlier to drive off the two predators, especially with their large numbers and their 100-ton brachiasaurus. But that would have ended the weak plot right early on in the movie.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
All those objections to considering the meteor the Alvarez one -- lack of enough dust in the atmosphere and so on -- occurred to me, but I dismissed those as just more of the same lack of scientific accuracy. The meteor, whether it was the Big One or not, should have totally vaporized Monkey Island, it was that close. That it did not doesn't really argue in favor of the crash being an extinction level event. And we're told that some of the dinos, like the old brachiosaur, travelling to the nesting grounds are the last of their kind. The end of the world as they know it certainly seems to be in the offing.
According to my ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MAMMALS, the earliest primate-like creatures -- we're talking tiny, tree-shrew-like things -- appeared about 70 million years ago, well within the Cretaceous era. But the earliest true primates didn't come along till the Eocene, about 54 million years ago, and the lemurs like the ones in the film probably didn't appear till 26-38 million years ago.
But, as you note, the real problems with the film are the weak plot and inconsistent characters. All the scientific goofs could be forgiven in a story that entertained those of us over age 5.

posted 07.03.00
iotarhorho writes:
Fossil record evidence in recent years has lemurs on the phylogenetic tree around 60 MYBP (million years before present). As you may or may not be aware, the fossil record is not a complete tabulary of life history so a good deal of temporal divergence is not only inherent, but expected. Recent molecular evidence (Arnason, et. al., J. Molecular Evolution 1996) has pushed this number back to nearly 80 MYBP. Now given you are a journalist (or at least obviously not any sort of scientist), I should probably tell you when the last dinosaurs went extinct, but I won't. I've done my homework, Disney has done theirs (albeit a par attempt at a movie). Before opening a review with supposedly scientific evidence, please do yours.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I'm well aware that the dinos went extinct 65 MYBP (I knew what that acronym meant, too, by the way), when the Alvarez meteor/comet hit near what it now the Gulf of Mexico. I am not a scientist, but I am a science enthusiast, and I'd venture to guess that I have a better science education than the general public. My assertations about lemurs in the DINOSAUR review were not unconsidered, and my research, though it certainly was not in great depth, did not contradict the general knowledge I had about primate evolution: that the earliest primate-like creatures -- we're talking tiny, tree-shrew-like things -- appeared about 70 million years ago, well within the Cretaceous era. But the earliest true primates didn't come along till the Eocene, about 54 million years ago, and the lemurs like the ones in the film probably didn't appear till 26-38 million years ago. I willing to concede that recent research may have pushed these numbers back, but I have yet to read anything in sources more general than journals (which I don't read) to suggest that a dramatic change in our understanding of early primate evolution was in the offing.
If Disney had done their homework, why would they have thrown a late Jurassic critter like Brachiosaur into what to me is obviously supposed to be the late Cretaceous era? It seems that they just picked the dinosaurs that would look coolest, and accuracy be damned.

posted 07.03.00
twensena moore writes:
I think the very opposite of what you do [about DINOSAUR]. Yes dinosaur and other animals were seperated by time, but so what it was still a good movie, one that I would take my child to see time and time again. Keep in mind this film is geared toward a child's age group. Just like Santa Claus.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Of course DINOSAUR is geared to children, and I mentioned in my review that they would probably love the flick. But I write for an adult audience, and they deserve to know what they're in for: 82 butt-numbing minutes of boredom.

twensena moore replies:
Yes boring to bored minded adults.

posted 07.03.00
Allen Rausch writes:
Against your advice and the advice of all right-thinking non-cult members on the planet, I foolishly went and viewed the celluloid atrocity known as BATTLEFIELD EARTH. I don't think you were able to get across in your review just how soul-suckingly, mind-bendingly, gravity-defyingly awful this movie was. This isn't your fault, no reviewer on Earth could truly express the depth of horror that is BATTLEFIELD EARTH. The film literally defies explanation - it even defies metaphor - there's very little in the entire canon of film since Thomas Edison's first experiments with the medium that approaches the depths to which this film sinks. In fact, BATTLEFIELD EARTH is actually the new standard for FUTURE metaphors. I believe that the 21st Century's bad movies will eventually be described in ways like "Not since BATTLEFIELD EARTH has a movie been this bad..." and the like. This movie hurts people, and I believe that it will go on hurting people until it's relegated to the MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000/Midnight Movie circuit where it belongs.
On the other hand, about 40 minutes into the film I found myself beginning to sneakily enjoy it. You have to admit, there's something majestic about watching a disaster of this magnitude. It's like watching the HINDENBURG blow up or a Las Vegas Casino implode or the baseball game videotape from the 1989 San Francisco earthquake. It's awful and tragic and nightmarish but you can't deny the sheer spectacle of watching destruction on that scale. Watching BATTLEFIELD EARTH was like watching a man set a mountain of money on fire - which, by the way, isn't too far from what actually happened. (That, and some of the scenes were just laugh out loud funny, like the cavemen grunting while flying their Harriers).
Actually, if anyone benefits from the existence of this film, it's actually that it makes the book look far better in comparison. I re-read portions of the book prior to going to see the movie, something I haven't done since I was 14. While the book is everything that it's critics say it is, immature, illogical, full of cardboard and borderline racist characterizations, scientific idiocies and a clear Scientoloigist philosophy and message - it also manages to be a fun, fast-paced piece of beach-blanket pulp sci-fi that rises to the level of "good trash"
Of course one of the criticisms that was leveled at the book was that both Jonnie Goodboy Tyler and Terl were manifestations of L. Ron Hubbard. Tyler, a natural "clear" in Scientologist terms, was what Hubbard wanted to believe his religion was offering to the world, while Terl the paranoid, obsessed, power-mongering, callous symbol of the hideous empire of the Psychlos was what he may, on some level, have realized that he and his religion had become. Terl in the book was a genuinely evil and frightening (if cartoonish) villain.
The odd thing is that watching the movie, John Travolta's Terl is really nothing like the Terl of the book. The movie Terl is a decayed, stupid, bloated, hedonist with delusions of grandeur who has absolutely no clue that everyone on the planet, friend or foe, doesn't take him at all seriously and is in fact, laughing at him. Sound like a $20 million actor who's been the butt of a whole bunch of jokes recently?
By the way, I also did look for Scientologist symbolism in the movie. You're right, beyond the fact that this movie is so muddled that it's tough to pick out the plot, much less any subliminal messages, I really didn't detect any. Well, there is one - the metal decorations that Terl wears look a whole lot like the electrodes used to give electro-convulsive therapy, but other than that - I really didn't pick up any Scientologist themes.
Anyhow - perhaps you think I've spent too much time anylyzing this festering corpse of a movie, this enormous pile of smelly underwear masquerading as a film, but I desperately needed to vent, to somehow lessen the psychic trauma that this film inflicted on me. Thanks for listening.

posted 07.03.00
Tom Siebert writes:
Swell job on these two [MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 and SHANGHAI NOON. I actually think you're getting better and more insightful with age.
Perhaps its time to make this your day job....

The Flick Filosopher responds:
If only I could find someone willing to pay me a living wage for it!
Thanks for the compliment.

posted 07.03.00
Bernard Fuh writes:
Perhaps we got off on a bad start (my fault). Hey I'd like to say I apologize for whatever was said by me. Anyways you probably don't remember me and what was said.
I pretty much idolize John Woo (mainly b/c I have a thing for people like John starting out w/ nothing and in his case homeless and becoming someone great) and I think out of all the critics you summed MI2 all up in your column and gave it one of the fairest reviews out there. Also thanks for not bashing John like many of the others out there who have not seen his previous films. With each movie he directs I see more and more of his art on screen dying (something about his directing style is separate and distinct from other directors that makes his style by far more compelling to watch as well).
I wished he would have directed GLADIATOR instead of Ridley Scott. That movie was shakier than THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and if I could tell what was going on maybe I wouldnt have been as bored in b/w the fight scenes.
Hey and good look w/ the movies u plan on directing.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I do remember you, but there're no hard feelings. I enjoy a good knock-down fight.
I think part of the problem with Woo's style getting compromised is working with Hollywood. There's no room for genuine creative freedom in such a corporate atmosphere.
Ah, now I can't agree with you on GLADIATOR. I think the film is damn near perfect, and I can't imagine the brilliantly shot action sequences being done any better. I loved the chaotic feeling to them, and I loved that you couldn't quite tell everything that was happening. I imagine that's what it must feel like to actually be in the middle of a battle or a melee.
Directing movies? I'd be happy with just selling a script. I've got one under consideration at the moment at both American Zoetrope (Francis Ford Coppola's company) and The Shooting Gallery. I'm keeping my fingers crossed!

posted 07.03.00
tri nguyen writes:
Re: SHANGHAI NOON

C'mon, what conspiracy? We only want to return this land back to the indians.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Say what?

posted 07.03.00
Brent Faul writes:
I noticed that you get a lot of email from the director-worship people who feel compelled to correct your mortal failure to see the sheer genius in works like EYES WIDE SHUT or THE THIN RED LINE. You know the type to which I refer... They argue fiercely when anyone dares to suggest that their particular guru - whether he be Stanley Kubrik, Terrence Malick, or whoever - might have made a pretentious piece of crap instead of a good coherent movie. They often use phrases like: "He teaches us that..." or "He wants to show us that..." when defending some lame stylistic device or some incredibly tedious sequence. Sounds a little like Christians referring to the big JC, doesn't it? I see opinions from these types all over the web. Their arguments are often ludicrous, like the one I've seen several times for "The Thin Red Line", which goes something like this: "Well, so what if the movie is long and boring, war is long and boring and Malick wants to show us this..." . I suppose Malick could have convinced the movie houses to turn off the air conditioning and overflow the toilets so that He could show us the hot, sweaty, smelly nature of war. (In a way it would have been no worse than subjecting everyone to three hours of vague rambling voiceovers.)
While these arguments invariably invoke the gag reflex in me I have to admit that I love it when you receive one, because I know your response is going to be utterly unapologetic and entertaining without being ugly. When you don't cave in to the superior arguments of their vast intellects then the gloves always come off. The vocabulary in their replies gets a little fancier (I can just see them whipping out the old Thesaurus in preparation for battle). The logic gets more fuzzy and the tone more defensive. You wouldn't think it possible in an email but their replies actually take on a shrill and hysterical quality. I just love it. Does this make me a bad person?

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Does this make you a bad person? Dunno: maybe. But it does make you my kind of bad person!

posted 07.03.00
G. Gordon writes:
Subject: OF 'WIDESCREEN' AND HORSE MANURE

No doubt you and/or your readers have encountered the current major studio full-court press attempting the switch to 'widescreen(letterbox)' format for motion picture transfers - especially on DVD. The frequent rationale is "preservation of the director's vision" - or some such horse manure.
In fact, the real reason is a major boost to studio profits: preparing a fullscreen(pan/scan) master, and including it along with the widescreen version on a DVD costs as much as $100,000 more than just the widescren version alone. That's PER FILM. Have you ever tried to watch a 2:35-1 widescreen transfer on an ordinary 25-inch or 27-inch TV? Talk about a 'two-hour squint'!
Widescreen transfers are arguably better on a really large TV screen of say 50-inch or bigger. But for those of us with ordinary sets, FORGET IT!
Latest twist? The studios are pushing this tripe onto the cable TV channels, and even broadcast TV despite howls of protest when tried earlier on the latter. Fact of the matter is, forcing a widescreen transfer onto a 4:3 screen is akin to forcing a square peg into a round hole: it just don't compute.
For those with really large screen TVs, I say great: but why not insist the BOTH the widescreen AND the fullscreen(pan/scan) versions be included opn all DVDs, not just the very few currently carrying both formats??? God knows, the studios need more money, but what about preserving eyesight of the general public?

The Flick Filosopher responds:
You're appealing to the wrong person in me. I think pan-and-scan should be banned by the Geneva Convention.
I do not think preserving the original framing of a film is horse manure, and I hate watching panned-and-scanned movies and knowing that I am missing part of the picture. It's not so egregious with recent films, since most directors frame their images knowing full well that it's gonna get chopped to hell for video -- though I hate that that means that watching a movie in a movie theater now means that widescreen is not taken full advantage of. But have you ever watched an old film that's been panned-and-scanned? Entire characters disappear from scenes, and we get horrendous swinging back and forth that can make watching a widescreen scene akin to watching a tennis match.
I do watch 2:35-1 films on my 27" TV frequently, and I would rather see a smaller, whole picture than only the part of it that someone else thinks I should see.

G. Gordon replies:
You're missing the point:
I have NO objection - none whatsoever - to 'widescreen(letterbox)' presentation. In fact, as I've said, they're arguably better when seen on a really large set of perhaps 50-inches or more. What I object to - as do so many friends and neighbors - is having the current crop of DVDs issued incorporating ONLY the widescreen version(it's about 90% right now), as opposed to those which have the widescreen on one side and the pan/scan on the other(or which use one layer on the same side for each), allowing the CHOICE of which side to watch. Your eyesight may agree with watching a 2:35-1 on a 27-inch set, but mine certainly finds it annoying and painful.
The major movie studios are now engaged in a full-court press to somehow convince the general public that widescreen is 'good for you', on the grounds that 'it preserves the director's vision' or some similar nonsense. In fact, friends in the video duplication business tell me that the real reason is a savings of as much as $100,000 or more PER FILM in not having to prepare the pan/scan version for DVD. The studios are now attempting the same on cable TV distribution(this try bombed badly when attempted on broadcast TV), for the same reason. And that is why I call the current campaign by the studios horse manure, because they're shoveling more of it at the public on this issue than can be found at Santa Anita. The most hilarious part of all this is the wording on many of the DVD boxes such as "DELUXE WIDESCREEN EDITION". I can just imagine the studio execs rolling in their office suites thinking "They bought it! The suckers bought it!" And in the meantime pocketing the extra $100,000 or so in fatter profits. Talk about chutzpah. So long as it works, you can be sure they'll try to push more of this widescreen-ONLY crap on the public.
My point is, CHOICE: offer the public a CHOICE and put BOTH widescreen AND pan/scan on the same disk.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I didn't miss your point -- I just don't agree with it. Sure, the motivation on the part of production companies may be to save money, but they're not in business for charitable reasons. DVDs are primarly aimed at serious movie fans, and serious movie fans want widescreen versions. Videos, which are aimed at more casual viewers, are almost always panned and scanned, so you can always buy or rent a video version if you want full screen. So you do have the choice you so desperately want.

G. Gordon again:
I didn't realize I was any less a 'serious' movie fan by virtue of the fact that I preferred watching pan/scan versions when saddled with my ordinary 27-inch screen via the DVD medium.
The only reason that I and my neighbors bought a DVD machine is for the much greater video resolution and improved audio over that on VHS, and not to be confronted with a 2-hour squint. A few(VERY few, such as THE THIRTEENTH FLOOR, A PERFECT MURDER) offer both the widescreen and P/S on the same disk, as I contend they should. Not only is the P/S version VASTLY easier on the eyes as to viewability, but ironically the resolution on these non-anamorphics is much better on the P/S side as well.
All I'm suggesting is: PUT BOTH VERSION ON THE SAME DISK --- PUL-EEEEEEZE!

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Okay. We've established that you want pan-and-scan versions of movies on DVD, and that I am not a supporter of your cause. So yelling at me isn't going to do anything. Write to the companies that produce DVDs and let them know what you want.

posted 07.03.00
Edward Shaw writes:
We are definitely on opposite ends of some spectrum here, but I agree that CONTACT was a good movie. The best thing about it to me was the scene near the end in which Ellie is being called to task for her absurd story about having actually traveled in the device to "somewhere" when all the evidence (I'll get to the 18 hours of static in a moment) showed that nothing at all had happened. She found herself stuck in exactly the same kind of situation a person who claims to have come to know God does, of having to say, "I know that something happened to me, whether anyone else believes it or not." To me, that was the punchline, that was the irony in the movie. Ellie WAS Carl Sagen, and this was his leap of faith, I'm sure made all the more important to him because he was nearing death when he finished it, always a sobering prospect. And in fact, with no proof of alien life and no means at our disposal of obtaining any, a belief in such life does require a leap of faith, no?
As to the 18 hours of static, it's almost as though he couldn't quite bring himself to remain on the same playing field as the religious adherent, and had to provide for some small external verification (at least in his book) that something had indeed happened to Ellie. Oh, well - it was HIS story, after all, to tell however he liked.
P.S. I just read your Manifesto - very nice.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I don't find irony in the fact that Ellie is in the same position as someone relating an experience of God: I find that the whole, unironic point of the film, that people who are not religious are searching for the same things that people who are religious are searching for, but only find it in a different place. But Ellie also knows that whatever she experienced cannot be scientifically demonstrated without evidence, that subjective experience is not a way to examine and explain the universe in a scientifically reproducible way. Hence, her frustration at the end of the film.
Of course Ellie was Carl Sagan, but he wrote the book upon which CONTACT is based in the early 80s, long before his death. But Sagan, like Ellie, knew that there is a world of difference between supposing that we are not alone in the universe and being able to prove that. "Believing" in the existence of alien life (I use quotes to distinguish the usage of the word from its religious sense) is not religious, and does not require a "leap of faith," because theoretically it is possible to prove that aliens exist -- it may take thousands or millions of years, of course, to find the evidence required, but it could be found. The "existence" of aliens is not dogmatic -- no one (except pseudoscientific UFO watchers) are saying that aliens exist, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that's all there is to say. No: some reputable scientists say, It is not impossible for alien life to exist, and we think it may actually exist, so let's look for evidence to support our supposition.
So searching for extraterrestrial life is a scientific endeavor. But belief in a deity is beyond the scope of science -- it requires faith, and the existence or nonexistence of the Christian god is by definition unprovable, just as you cannot prove that the universe was not sneezed out of the snout of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
I don't think the 18 hours of static was a copout, and I disagree that there can be such a thing as a level playing field in any kind of competition between science and religion. These arenas of thought do not overlap, and are not meant to. Science describes the world as it can be observed, directly or indirectly, and requires no faith. Religion is purely the realm of faith, an area into which science by definition cannot have anything to say.

posted 07.03.00
Sean Hooks writes:
Just wanted to take issue with you on your review [of THE VIRGIN SUICIDES]. I usually like your reviews a lot and often agree with them. Even when I disagree, your writing is usually clear, informative, level-headed, and critically incisive. My problem with your review of this film, to me, is that you are too busy complaining about what the movie should have been instead of basing your judgment on what it was. To me, it's the best film I've seen so far in 2000. The writing isn't perfect but it is very well-directed, original looking, original sounding, great use of music, and pretty well acted.

That's a story I want to hear. Enough of seeing girls through the eyes of boys. Let's let girls tell their own stories once in a while.

There's something very disturbing in the reasoning that to really capture a guy's imagination, a gal's best bet is never to let her true self be known.

THE VIRGIN SUICIDES is never about discovering what drove these girls to kill themselves -- in fact, we're given precious little reason why they did.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I made my biases perfectly clear in the opening of my review. I am sick of the kind of the depiction of women and girls that this film gives us. I said in my review that I knew it was unfair to the film, but I simply could not get beyond this gut reaction to the movie.
You may have found the film's perspective "uniquely female," but I'm guessing from your name that you are not female. Lots of girls have found and still find themselves in the same situation as the girls here -- virtually imprisoned by parents and society, if not necessarily physically, not allowed to be all they can, or indeed be fully human -- but we don't all go around killing ourselves. So perhaps, from your male point of view, this oppression of girls seemed like it was enough to drive anyone to suicide. But as someone who was a girl in the 1970s, and continues to see how women of all ages are not accorded the same opportunities as men, this was nothing new.
So, from my female point of view, it seems to me that if what we see depicted in THE VIRGIN SUICIDES was enough to drive people to suicide, the incidence of female suicide would be astronomical. Therefore, there are hidden reasons why the girls kill themselves that go undiscovered -- which makes the movie all about how the boys see the girls. Ergo, this is not a movie about women but about how men see, and don't see, women.

posted 07.03.00
Patrick Brown writes:
Thought I'd respond to your review of THE VIRGIN SUICIDES, which I saw last night.
I think a lot of your misgivings are spot-on, but I think there's an unreliable narrator device involved. The story is told through the boys' eyes, and they really do think that "they knew everything about us, and we couldn't fathom them at all." That's how teenage boys think about girls, whether the girls present themselves as unattanable goddesses or not. There's a massive inferiority complex going on, which I thought was one thing the film captured very well.
Usually in teen films both sexes are played by actors a lot older than the characters - in this one the girls were, but the boys weren't (except for Trip, the one the other boys were in awe of), which left them looking very gauche next to these poised, beautiful women. It did have the effect, as you said, of never getting anywhere near the girls as characters, but it depicted better than any other film I've seen the absolute terror young boys have of girls.
Mt problem with the film as a whole was that the suicide thing seemed entirely bolted-on to the rest of it. DAZED AND CONFUSED did a lot of the same stuff without resorting to that kind of sensational plot device, and it's a much better film.
The other thing I noticed about it was the credits - "written and directed by Sofia Coppola", then a few other bits, then "based on the novel by Jeffrey Eugenides". That annoyed me a bit. Coppola may have scripted it, but she didn't "write" it - that to me implies creation rather than adaptation. Or maybe that's just me. Not quite as bad as the trailers for THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS that claimed Tim Burton was the creator of Batman, but there you go.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
The absolute terror of boys when it comes to girls may have been wonderfully depicted, but this is hardly something we haven't seen a million times before. I want to see more movies about girls, dammit! And I even admitted to this bias in my review, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

posted 07.03.00
Andy Young writes:
Ok, this may be a day late and a dollar short but I felt I had to defend what I consider to be a good movie. DARK CITY, as someone else said, "...has its flaws..." but what movie doesn't (except AMERICAN HISTORY X with Ed Norton who can do no wrong)? But DARK CITY was not THAT terrible. Actually, with its no-name actors, save Sutherland, it was fresh. DARK CITY came to the table with no actors/actresses who had done anything of real value, so their roles weren't type-cast or miscolored by their previous work. The movie is dark (hence the oh-so-clever title) and spooky. There aren't oodles of gooey monsters and the villans are just creepy, lending the movie a Lovecraftian appeal to old school horror fans. Like all space movies, there were some cliche moments but hell, you didn't even know they were in the middle of space until the end. THAT was pure genius. And the mix of American eras spanning from the 30's to present? That was great! When was the last time you saw an "AUTOMAT" in a movie? Or a hooker being sassy to a cop? That's great! It also had the underlying message that people aren't what they do, they just are who they are. I just watched it again last night, quite by accident, and I still like DARK CITY. I just remembered your scathing review and thought I'd drop you a note. Your site still is THE authority on movies.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
You may never have heard of him, but Rufus Sewell is not a no-name actor, and he had done lots of value, mostly in English and Irish movies, before DARK CITY. And his talent was wasted in this flick.
A hooker being sassy to a cop? Check out L.A. CONFIDENTIAL. Now, that's a helluva movie.
I'm glad you still think I'm the authority on movies despite the fact that I hated DARK CITY. Thanks for that!

posted 07.03.00
Dr. Pete writes:
You may have missed the WHOLE point of THE MATRIX. Did you? THE MATRIX is based on the story of Christianity. My father, a very learned Presbyterian (and a huge MATRIX fan) has pointed out THE MATRIX's basic message. Neo is basically Christ. Morpheus is John the baptist. My father may be the only Christian minister to have referred to THE MATRIX in a positive manner! He spoke about it after he had watched it.
These are my father's observations. Although he would cite them in more detail. I am just trying to remember them.
In the bible, John the Baptist declared that there would be a new messiah. Morhpheus declared that Neo would come. In the bible, Satan took Jesus to the top of a temple and asked him to throw himself down (while morpheus was not satan this is obviously a comparable occurence in THE MATRIX.) When the guy in the beginning got his disk from Neo he said "You're my own personal Jesus Christ." And later when Cypher said to Neo "Jesus, what a mindjob, you're here to save the world!" And "Trinity" is a name whose meaning is less than obscure.
What have you heard on this view?

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Not to insult you or your father, but you'd have to be blind to miss the Biblical allusions in THE MATRIX. Your father is not the first person to point them out -- numerous critics have discussed them. (Even I mentioned the Bible as well as "literary allusions" -- some of us do consider the Bible nothing more than a work of ancient literature.)
But do you genuinely think that the WHOLE point of THE MATRIX is to retell the story of Christ? What about the movie's explorations of the dehumanizing nature of corporate culture? fears of technology? the redemption of Gen X slackerdom? Don't you think there's more going on here?
The story of Jesus is just a variant on what Joseph Campbell has termed "the hero's journey," anyway, so perhaps the WHOLE point of THE MATRIX is to glorify Gilgamesh, Prometheus, or Aeneus, all of whom predate Jesus, and from whose stories (amongst many others) the story of Jesus and Christianity is obviously derived.

posted 07.03.00
twensena moore writes:
To All Critics
I agree that THE ROAD TO EL DORADO needs to be told in a documentary, but at least someone thought of bringing it out, no matter if it's cartoon characters or not. Personnally I would of never known anything about it if the movie hadn't come out, so be thankful it's out in some kind of way.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Though THE ROAD TO EL DORADO is set in a halfway-real past, the story itself is pure fiction. How could it be told in a documentary? And why should I be "thankful" for a movie that imposes cultural attitudes on one of its characters that are so inappropriate that it renders the movie insensical?

twensena moore replies:
There is no use trying to explain anything to you because I doubt their is any movie that you would like anyway, your not open minded. Please don't write my e-mail anymore I hate to be rude but your not a filosopher, just a closed minded nobody. No more of your e-mails will be read but just deleted!

posted 07.03.00
Abe writes:
[FIGHT CLUB spoiler]
There seems to be a common misconception about Marla [in FIGHT CLUB]. Perhaps others have already pointed it out and I just missed it. Marla is also another of Jack's personalities. Notice the scenes where Jack first meets each of them. In each one both of them see in to Jack in the same way. With Tyler it's the line about Jack being clever and with Marla it is the line where she says she saw him practicing telling her off. In addition Jack also points out that he never sees both of them at the same time (or something like that, I can't remember exactly). This is strangely emphasized in the scene where Jack interrupts there love making. Just as Jack opens the door Marla disappears over the side of the bed. What do you think?

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I do not think Marla is just an aspect of the Narrator -- she is a real person. Does Jack say he never sees Marla and Tyler together? I don't remember... but it doesn't seem like the film would have worked if he had, because Marla knows all along that Jack and Tyler are the same person. If Jack said something like that, mightn't she has pointed out earlier that the two guys are one and the same? He never sees Tyler and Marla together because he's not really seeing Tyler at all -- Tyler is all in his head.
I haven't seen anyone else offer this interpretation of Marla, but if it can be supported by the movie then it's certainly a valid one. It's been too long since I've seen the film to recall it enough to argue convincingly one way or the other. Sorry.

posted 07.03.00
Caio Dias writes:
[WINTER SLEEPERS spoilers.]
I've just got home after seeing WINTER SLEEPERS and thought about browsing the Internet to download the soundtrack of the movie. Looking for the track listing, I've read your review of Tom Tykwer's film.
I'll refrain from arguing with you about your opinions on this movie. You thnk it stinks, I think it's great. But since we are supposed to evaluate things from our own points of view, it's OK.
There's just one thing that made me write this message to you: Have you understood the movie?

Marco's stolen Alfa Romeo, driven by a character who filches the car for reasons that go entirely unexplained.

Rene turns out not to be the creepy voyeur he appears at first, but the very specific reason he is such a photography buff doesn't get an adequate explanation until near the end of the film.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Yes, I need a reason why an otherwise entirely law-abiding character commits grand theft auto. I knew it was Rene who stole the car -- I was trying not to spoil the film for people who hadn't yet seen it. It doesn't matter that it was a major character who did the stealing... actually, it does matter. I want to know why a character we spend so much time with stole a car for no apparent reason. Or is this some kind of wacky French thing? Do the French go around stealing cars when they're drunk?
As for Rene's short-term memory loss, this is not an ordinary, everyday kind of affliction, and the first time we see Rene with his camera, he's taking pictures of Marco and his girlfriend having sex. Sorry, but the first thing that sprang to mind with Rene was that he was a photography buff with a voyeuristic streak, and we see no hint of an alternative explanation to this until near the end of the film.
Please explain to me how I have misunderstood the film's content. After all, I am only an attention-deficit-disorder-afflicted Generation Xer and as such cannot comprehend the sheer brilliance of this film.
Tom Tykwer, by the way, is an Xer, too.

posted 07.03.00
Elizabeth writes:
I must say again that I enjoy reading your film reviews a lot. Your essay on "reality" based on AMERICAN BEAUTY was very good. Philosophical and ultimately sad.
For some reason I felt this review was different from what I've read on your site. Your sensitivity comes through. Was it me or was there a little bit of melancholy tone? The cynicism and sarcasm that characterize your writing style on your reviews was not here -Not to say that these are less witty or lack critical content, not at all.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I'm always melancholy. Haven't you heard? Most writers are. Comes from thinking about stuff too much, I guess. At least I haven't yet descended to the Hemingwayesque level of rampant alcoholism and suicide, and hopefully I never will.
AMERICAN BEAUTY, as cynical a movie as it is, doesn't inspire cynicism in me, except in how some people have reacted to it (see my first review, and the comment about "Lesters in the making").

posted 07.03.00
Michael Malley Jr. writes:
[AMERICAN BEAUTY spoiler.]
Just got around to watching AMERICAN BEAUTY this past weekend and have one question. Who shot Lester ?

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Colonel Fitts, Ricky's dad, shot Lester. Didn't you notice all the blood all over Fitts at the end of the film?

Michael Malley Jr. replies:
Yes, but here's what threw me. The fact that Carolyn was seen with her gun while driving home. Didn't Ricky say something to the effect of " Oh God, my Mom " just before we saw his dad covered in blood ? My thought was Carolyn shot Lester, ( she shouldn't have blood on her from shooting him in the back of the head ) and Ricky's Dad killed his Mom.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
But we see that Carolyn is still outside the house when she hears the gunshot, so she could not have shot Lester. Ricky does say at some point something about his mom, but I think his concern is that his dad was violent enough to have shot his mom. But we have no evidence that anything at all happened to Ricky's mom. And whoever shot Lester certainly would be splattered in blood: a shot from such close range (the gun was practically touching Lester's head) would spew blood and brain in all directions, not just forward. I don't think there's meant to be any doubt that Col. Fitts shot Lester.

posted 07.03.00
Mark Suwannakom writes:
[AMERICAN BEAUTY spoilers]
I was wondering what is your interpretation as to why did the Marine dad killed Lester(Spacey) at the end of the movie? Some of my friends say that it's because Lester rejected the Ex-Marine's sexual advances when he tried to kiss Lester in the garage; so he kills Lester pretty much because he's gay and doesn't want anybody to find out.
My theory is, it's because the Marine percieved Lester as the cause of the rift between the Marine and his son. The Marine is not gay at all but he kissed Lester just to get closer to his son because he thinks his son is gay and perhaps by kissing another man he would experience what his son is experiencing and perhaps learn to accept his son sexual orientation.
I would like to hear your opinion on this matter. Is the Marine dad gay? That is the most important question I'd like to have answered.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I think Col. Fitts killed Lester because Lester made Fitts feel something he believed was wrong, ie, for a man to be sexually attracted to another man. I don't he was at all interested in learning to accept the (perceived) orientation of his son, and I don't think he was thinking of keeping his own gayness a secret. I think he was purely motivated by shock, shock in discovering that he might be something he has always detested, and he had to destroy the person who led him to this discovery: Lester.
Did Col. Fitts know all along that he himself was gay but felt it necessary to pretend to be straight? I doubt it. I interpret the character as never having been attracted to a man before. But there's no evidence to prove or disprove this from the movie. So you can make up your own story to go with what we see in the film, as long as it can be supported by the film.

posted 07.03.00
Robert Cusolito writes:
Great movie [AMERICAN BEAUTY]. I loved your review, too, but your paragraph or two seems a little snobbish:

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. Lesters in the making.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Someone else recently wondered if, with the comment you pointed out, I was being "a little condescending," and I replied that No, I was being a lot condescending.
AMERICAN BEAUTY ends with Lester commenting that his audience probably will not understand what he has been trying to tell us for the last two hours, and I thought the audience's uncomprehending reaction was such a perfect ironic capper to the film that I couldn't ignore it. I didn't say the audience members were losers, but I did say that they seem to have missed the entire point of the film. And if that makes me a snob -- and I'm sure it does -- then so what? I've never pretended to be a woman of the people.

Robert Cusolito replies:
You're still my favorite reviewer.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks.

[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.