posted 08.05.00
andy betts writes:

Dear Maryann

After reading your review of What Lies Beneath i have come to some conclusions.

I am not sure of your age but isnt it time you admitted that people of your age are way to far behind the times to comment on films such as these. As most of the movie going audience is young adults who cares what you think about it!!!!!!.

Everyone who i have spoken to about the film thought it was very good and very scary. Do you really think people looking at the film were saying stupid things like you " it was only a dog. how scary can that be" Sir i dont mean to be respectful but im sure you probably made some bad comments about such films as Scary Movie which everyone loved but im sure you didnt understand.

Dont you think it is time you stook to reviewing films for the elder generation films which maybe you understand. I am so tired of seeing this happen. Im sure you will disregard this letter and think you know everything, but i can not understand in anyway how you can dislike this film so much. Please sir stick to Out to Sea or Driving Miss Daisy where the cast and film are closer to your age and maybe you can understand them.

i hope to hear from you soon!

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Letters like yours simply bring a tear of joy to my eye. The myriad ways in which you prove my central thesis, endlessly discussed at my site, that people are morons is just too, too wonderful. Where shall I even begin? I am giddy with excitement.

First of all, you are obviously aware that my name is "MaryAnn," generally considered to be a moniker of the female persuasion, yet you insist on addressing me as "sir." This confusion about some extremely basic concepts leads me to wonder if words mean the same thing to you as they do to the rest of us. Maybe when you use the word "stupid," for instance, you actually intend it to mean the opposite of what the rest of us take "stupid" to mean. But if I were to question the meaning of your letter down to this level I'd be here all night, and frankly you're not worth that much time. So I'll assume you mean what you appear, in your convoluted way, to be saying.

Knowledge of a basic nature doesn't really seem to concern you, apparently, since although you admit you do not know how old I am -- despite the fact that I've made no secret of my age -- you feel competent to comment on "people of [my] age." To save you time and what little brainpower you have searching my site to learn my age, I'll tell you right here that people of my age are not the cast of Driving Miss Daisy but the cast of X-Men, and I'm not talking about Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan. Which makes me, I'm guessing, probably not much older than you.

But what does my age matter? If you feel that my reactions to movies do not mesh with yours, you are free to avoid my reviews. I shudder to think that there could be a hideous experiment being performed deep in the bowels of the Pentagon, where impressionable young men such as yourself are strapped down, eyelids propped open, and forced to consume my writings while old Ludwig Van plays in the background.

And if we're to assume, as you are proposing here, that the age of the cast and the age of the audience must be alike for the latter to enjoy a film, then I must conclude that you are somewhere between the ages of 43 (Michelle Pfeiffer's age) and 58 (Harrison Ford's age). I'm wrong, though, aren't I? Which disproves your theory right there. Perhaps you were thinking of IQ range -- certainly the success of a piece of cinematic shit like Scary Movie proves that, however unlikely it may seem, the imbecile demographic has been underserved by Hollywood's offerings.

You are correct, by the way, that I "didn't understand" Scary Movie. I'm so glad you brought this up! Please, please, PLEASE do explain the deep filmic symbolism behind, say, that firehose blast of cum, or Carmen Electra's fake tit being removed with a kitchen knife. Enlighten me. I so look forward to your cinematic analysis.

P.S. You know, my readers are getting so hooked on my reader mail -- especially from people like you -- that I can't help but wonder how genuine this letter is. Are you actually one of my biggest fans, trolling for trouble?

andy betts again:

Subject: Fan ha ha What fans

I want to start by saying i am certainly not a fan of yours as i doubt you have any . First of all i want to say that so what i said sir in my letter. The letter i gave to you was the same letter i sent to a man who reviewed the film as well. I just forgot to change the sirs for it.Please be assured though this one is just for you. Now i hate to get a little offensive but you started it with your iq jibes.

I dont really care how old you are so what if your 22, 30 or whatever that doesnt change anything. The fact is that you are obviously not in touch with what the moviegoing audience of today. I just wanted to add the fact that the film we were dicussing was in fact number one over the weekend so more than just me thought it was ok. If you would like to check out the yahoo movie reviews from regular people you will see that five stars is a regular occurance.

You really think you have fans hu this is amazing to me a little woman activist movie critic who thinks they have fans ha ha ha. It is so funny to me, to hear you talk about Scary Movie you obviously have no sense of humour, so why did you even bother going to see that film. Your idea of a funny movie moment was probably when Miss Daisy backed the car into a tree. You think you are so clever because you was able to predict parts of the film wow do you want a medal. All this is coming from a woman who enjoyed The Mummy enough said ha ha. You say there bedroom is bigger than your apartment then you are obviously doing really well in your chosen profession if you can call it that and you must be really well appreciated. Im suprised you didnt actually love this film as the woman did outsmart the man you must have loved that at least. Oh yes and the cinematic point of the cum scene and others in SCARY MOVIE were this thing called laughter, you know the thing people with a sense of humour do. Im sorry to tell you but your age does matter alot has changed since you were a little girl and the fact you are out of touch in many ways is ever so present in your "reviews". I look forward to hearing from you.

Your number one "fan" ha ha ha fan ha ha ha what a joke!!!! you havent got any fans just people who humour you.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Oh! You wound me with your insults! "Little woman activist movie critic"? The Miss Daisy thing again! Stop it! You're killing me!

You poor, poor dear. What does money -- either in the form of box-office takings or one's salary -- have to do with the intrinsic worth of anything? I feel quite sorry for anyone who takes such a shallow view of things. Yes, What Lies Beneath was number one at the box office this weekend. So what? National Socialism (that's Nazi-ism) was quite popular at one time, too, albeit only in Germany. As my mom used to say, If everyone jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do it too? Popularity and quality do not go hand in hand, as is proven by the fact that Adam Sandler is a huge star. But then, you probably think he's funny, too.

And, sadly, your argument -- that I am out of touch because I am not a lemming at the multiplex -- falls down when you consider that I raved over X-Men and Gladiator, both of which are on target to be among the biggest moneymakers of this year. How do you explain that? Or is it just sheer coincidence that my fuddy-duddy tastes happened to overlap with a comic-book movie about mutant superheroes and a superviolent revenge epic? And hey, The Mummy was a huge hit, and you didn't like it? What kind of idiot are you, anyway? EVERYONE loved The Mummy! Perhaps you're just out of touch with the real moviegoing crowd.

I know I use a lot of big words and cram a lot of concepts into a single paragraph, but do have another look around my site. You'll see that half the time, I'm not only criticizing a film but its audience as well. That's part of what I do. That's part of what I was doing in my response to you: complaining about the fact that stupid things are popular. But the reading comprehension just isn't there, is it?

Oh, and the apartment thing? Is my apartment actually smaller than the Spencers' bedroom in What Lies Beneath? No (though that would not be unusual for New York City, where studios that size go for $2500 a month -- hardly pocket change). But the way I phrased that sentence utilizes a technique called "exaggeration," which writers use to emphasize a point. I'll leave it to you to figure out what the point was that I was making.

You're right: Semen is a laugh riot, and gallons of it is hilarious beyond belief. I stand corrected.

That's another technique writers use: sarcasm. What I really mean is, What the fuck, are you 12 years old? Do you still giggle at tits, too?

andy betts continues babbling incoherently:

The more i listen to your stupid ramblings i start to realise just how pathetic you are.

The fact that the film was number one over the weekend shows people wanted to see it and by looking at the reviews everyone seemed to enjoy it except you, enough said there. Im sorry to bring up the Miss Daisy thing again but i truly believe that neither adam sandler or any of Scary Movie could make you laugh i think you definitely have no sense of humour and maybe something like driving miss is the only thing you find funny.

Yes Adam Sandler is a big star and yes i do think hes funny and so does most of America if we take his box office success as the proof. I think that you do a terrible job of reviewing films and i think a blind moose could do better.

Please believe me everyone did not love The Mummy and the fact you thought that was so good and What Lies Beneath was so awful goes to show that you are more impressed with the work of computers than by good actors. Oh i forgot Brendan Fraser is a incredible actor ha ha ha.

Believe me i am not out of touch but i think you have definitely reached the age where you are.

What kind of idiot am i ?

A person who when he reads something can easily recognize when someone is just using looked up in a dictionary big words to hide there obvious stupidity!!!!!.

When i watched Scary Movie the theatre was full and the age range was very varied and the there was laughter fron start to finish. Now if you had been there you woouldnt have laughed because you probably sit watching the film with the other old out of touch "critics" and say things like "that cum scene was so unrealisitc even after 20 years of no sex the amount of semen would still not have enough pressure to do such things" You sad sad out of touch "film critic"

Get a life please and dont waste your time reviewing anymore because no one agrees with you and you sound really stupid like a uppity ass queen reviewing films . Its just the same ,a person who has no idea what the regular movie going audience of today thinks or likes.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Okay, let me see if I understand you. When I dislike a movie that's a huge hit, I'm an idiot. But when you dislike a movie that's a huge hit, that's just you expressing an opinion.

You just don't get it, do you? I don't find barrels of cum amusing not because it's not realistic (The Mummy wasn't realistic, was it? And yet I liked it.) but because I have outgrown adolescent embarrassment about sex and normal functioning of the human body -- apparently, the vast majority of the moviegoing public is still emotionally 12 years old. I realize this makes me out of step with most of the rest of the world, but I don't think that's anything to be ashamed of. Grownups who still think fart jokes are funny are the ones who should be ashamed.

I have a life. Do you?

andy betts doesn't know when to give it up:

Subject: what a sad woman you are

your web site sucks and so do all your opinions!!

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Such a charming fellow. Thanks for writing.

posted 08.05.00
Gary Morris writes:

Subject: thanks for the hilarious review of What Lies Beneath

Howdy, I saw this awful awful movie tonight at a preview and just had to drop a line to say I loved your superb trashing of it (one of the two best I read, the other being Michael Wilmington's riotous review in the Village Voice, q.v.). One small quibble -- I think Ford is deep into geezerhood. In that early bedroom scene, there was a creepy scene of her pulling on his back and his skin stretched way too far out in her fingers... in *folds*... I won't even mention his saggy tits. Keep 'em coming!

Gary Morris
editor/publisher
Bright Lights Film Journal

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Thanks. Stretchy skin? Ewwww. I must have blocked that out -- can't bear to think of Han Solo gettin' saggy.

posted 08.05.00
Donna Barber writes:

Subject: What Lies Benieth

What planet do you come from? Harrison Ford is alive and well and I enjoyed this movie very much. Get a life!

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I can always tell when my correspondents will have nothing constructive to say: they misspell words and appear not to have even read my review. To wit: It's "beneath," not "benieth," and if you can point out where I declared Harrison Ford dead, I'll retract it, since he obviously is alive and well. His career, though, is foundering badly.

How nice for you that you enjoyed this movie. I'll thank you to allow me my differing opinion. Or is your opinion the only correct one?

posted 08.05.00
Mike Smith writes:

I am completly stunned by this movie Rushmore. I have just watched it for the third time and I can not get over the performance by Jason Schwartzman. I can say no more. I am speechless.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Good for you.

posted 08.05.00
Jody Bower writes:

Add me to the list of women who love battle movies that make you think!

The opening scene of Gladiator contains an homage to Zulu, another of my favorite war movies. The parallel is obvious: "barbarians" used to hand-to-hand combat facing the well-honed and well-equipped Roman/British fighting machine. But it was a bit startling at first to hear the Zulu war challenge coming from the Germans. Anybody else catch that?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I haven't heard anyone else mention this connection -- everyone seems intent on saying that they were expecting the Germans to moon Maximus's troops, a la Braveheart!

posted 08.05.00
Lee Walker writes:

I was amazed by your review of Pitch Black. I haven't seen it, but have been reading the reviews and looking forward to it's arrival at the video store. Your review is directly opposite of most I've read. Most comment on the character development and innovative photography. Almost all commented favorably about the visual effects. It has often been compared to Aliens. In my opinion Aliens is one the best movies ever made. I probably won't get a lot of support from the general populous on that, but Aliens is one of the few movies that allows me to almost completely check my brain at the door. I can just hang on for the ride. The 15th time is as good as the first. The Matrix would be another that fits that bill. A movie not taking itself seriously is important, and allowing that movie to take me somewhere new is what I look for in a movie experience. I don't doubt that there are flaws in PB, but none of the ones you mentioned would detract from my movie going experience. Having a truely evil villan/hero sounds like a kick to me. Sometimes it's fun to root for the bad guy. Regardless, your comments are as potently poisonous as the cheers were from other reviewers for the same character. What that tells me is that I should get exactly what I want, an emotional boost from the movie. I understand that this could be a "violence for the sake of violence" movie. I often rate movies based solely on body count. I guess what I'm saying is it's not that I will watch and enjoy any crap Hollywood spews. I walked out of Virus. It was way to stupid. I didn't really like Sphere, didn't think they expanded on the parts of the story I though were interesting. Didn't like The Thirteenth Floor, Deep Star Six, or any number of slow, plodding, uninteresting tripe found adorning the video rental shelves. What I can say is that I've never left a movie that had the energy this one seems to disappointed. I'm going to watch Gone in 60 Seconds tonight. I'm not expecting character development, plot, or any particular emotional attachment to the characters in the film. I'm looking for some outrageous action, a little unnessecary violence, and explosions anywhere plausible. That's about all I expect from Pitch Black. I don't expect to be disappointed.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

"Potently poisonous" is going on my list of favorite negative comments I've gotten from readers. Thanks for that one.

My review may be "directly opposite" of most others (although I did say that the film was "beautifully shot," as you say everyone else did, too), but is that a bad thing? If movie criticism were objective, there'd be no need for multiple reviews of a film. What's the point of reading reviews if you expect everyone to agree with one another?

Lessee: You say you won't watch any old crap, but all you require from a movie is a high body count, explosions, and unnecessary violence. So how low does a movie have to go before you consider it crap? You're exactly who I was talking about when I wrote that "moviegoers will watch just about anything with spaceships and lots of gore."

Lee Walker again:

I agree that different reviewers are good, and please don't mistake my comments for an attack on your review. I haven't even seen the film yet. I may completely agree with you once I have. The differences in reviews adds an interesting outlook to movie going. Most reviewers have really like Gladiator for instance. I found it to be boring, and tedious. My best friend thinks it's the best movie ever made and has seen it 7 times. How bad does it have to be before I won't watch it? Good question. I'm not sure. There are several I've really hated. Species II sucked, as did Batman 2 and Virus. A couple of the Star Treks were a waste of plastic. Mars Invades [I think he means Mars Attacks!--maj] was about as funny as a root canal. On the other hand I really enjoyed Starship Troopers, Event Horizon and Soldier, none of which got very good reviews. I guess the answer is that movie going is subjective, and you get more if you expect less sometimes. I may get more from a movie with a good story line and completely plausible plot, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy a movie because I get a rush out of it. Some of the best scifi is pretty tame (I said tame, not lame). 2001, Alien Mine [I think he means Enemy Mine--maj], Dune, Contact, etc are all fun stories. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy watching Ripley start pumping gernades into the eggs in the queens chamber. Predator and Pred 2 are fun. Were not talking a bunch of space crap. Just a one on one competition where humans are the underdog. That's what I enjoy about Aliens, Deep Rising and a host of other films. If I expected the story to be true to all of the facts all of the time I'd loose way to much of the fun of the stories. As I've said, I haven't seen PB yet. I'll let you know what I think as soon as I have. I'm glad I read your review if for no other reason than it peaked my curiosity. That film has really got to have something going to be loved and hated so dramatically.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I do not want to "get more" out of movies by "expecting less." It's because the general moviegoing audience has that kind of attitude that we get so much shit coming out of Hollywood.

Lee Walker replies:

I watched The Cider House Rules this weekend. Not what I want for average movie fare. Like I said, I thought the raved about Gladiator was crap. I just don't think movies have a duty to improve the human condition. I think it's just fine for them to be just fun, even if they offend some.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I don't think movies have a duty to improve the human condition, either, and I do think their primary purpose is to entertain. I obviously just have a different standard as to what constitutes "entertainment" than you do. I have no problem with a movie being "offensive" -- what bothers me is when a movie is so derivative that there's nothing original to enjoy. It's like the first time you hear a joke, it's funny, because it's surprising. But by the tenth time you've heard that joke, it's no longer surprising and it's no longer amusing. Pitch Black was just one too many Aliens ripoffs for me.

posted 08.05.00
Charles Lahlou writes:

Wow-wow-wow !!!

Your site is fantastic ! I've just discovered it - I made researches about Ehren Kruger and his Nicholl Fellows prize, and I found your comment about Reindeer Games ! I'm glad we share the exact same opinion about it, and how talents are wasted in this crap. If I may forgive Ehren, because he made Arlington Road and Scream 3, The pill is hard to swallow for John Frankenheimer.

His crappy-old-nasty 70's 'noir' thriller movies's directing turned me sick, and his direction of actors is catastrophical -

Now I've read this first comment and you're amazing manifesto, which is very close to my views concerning movie reviewing (I don't want to make reviews to invite people to see film, but such as you, analyze and talk about flicks after have seen them!), and I'm very excited to discover all what you've written so far !

If it wouldn't be 5 am there, I would hang on for hours. So, it's reported for tommorow - prepare to receive other messages from me ! :)

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Thanks for your nice comments about my site. You may have missed the point I was making about Ehren Kruger and his supposed talents, however. One halfway interesting script (Arlington Road) and two pieces of shit -- Reindeer Games and Scream 3 -- do not add up to "talent wasted." They add up to, maybe, a guy who had one halfway interesting script in him, and nothing more.

I can only hope that Kruger's stuff is typical of the kind of entries the Nicholl Fellowship receives, because I've entered a script in this year's contest, and I want to win!

[I just got a letter from the Nicholl people the other day notifying me that my script did not make the semifinals. Damn.--maj]

posted 08.05.00
Anne Woodward writes:

I love your site and enjoy reading your movie reviews each week. I'm a fellow movie lover so I'm always curious to see what "the critics" think, after I see a movie. I generally don't read them before, because I choose to make up my own mind about what I want to see after viewing the trailers. Also, I usually don't like to know too much about a movie going in to it. I am, however, writing you regarding your Perfect Storm review - a movie that I have not yet seen.

I wanted to let you know that you mentioned several inaccuracies of "sea life" within your review. Mainly, that "Tyne's foolhardy decision to try to steam right through the storm -- a decision that nevertheless is the only one the character could make -- there is tension amongst the crew". This is not a foolhardy decision for any experienced sailor. My boyfriend spent 12 years in the Navy and concurs that going straight into the storm is the best way to make it through it. This point is also brought up by the real Linda Greenlaw in a recent article in the Washington Post newspaper.

Also, you state that "McAnally's refusal to call for help at the first hint of bad weather may be more a case of stubbornness than of following his bliss, but once the women override his authority and call in the Coast Guard, we meet more men in love with their work." According to Ms. Greenlaw, though, Mr. McAnally was correct in not wanting to call for help and the women were wrong. Fishermen/sailors meet lots of bad weather and all the laws of sailing says to stay out to sea, where you can't hit anything and you have a much better chance of survival.

I have wanted to see The Perfect Storm, but when a few friends of mine panned it, I started to reconsider. After reading your review, however, I think I will give it a chance and see it on the big screen. Who can resist the Clooney/Wahlberg paring anyway?!? Certainly not me! ;-)

Thanks so much for your honest reviews. I don't always agree with you, but it's always nice to hear differing opinions.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Tyne's foolhardy decision was not his method of sailing through the storm but deciding to sail through it in the first place. He and his crew and his ship were perfectly safe where they were -- they could have waited for the storm to die before heading home. Tyne did not have to "make it through" the storm at all... except that he was the kind of man who could not have just sat waiting for it to be over.

As for McAnally and his passengers, their choice is not whether to sail to port or stay at to sea, it's whether to weather 100-foot waves in a tiny sailboat or call the Coast Guard to rescue them. I think the Coast Guard was the better choice. If, as the article you sent me says, it's better to stay aboard than risk even rescue, the movie might have told us that. It doesn't.

posted 08.05.00
Chris Mastrangelo writes:

Thanks for writing this review [of The Perfect Storm]... so many other landlubber film critics who have probably never been on a boat or can't swim gave The Perfect Storm a bad review. I LOVED IT! Yours is the ONLY review I have found online that I agree with wholeheartedly. Thanks again for writing it!

posted 08.05.00
Azzy writes:

Question. Can you please insist on why you insist on calling Disney's Dinosaur a retread of The Lion King? In my mind, likening the two is like likening gold to runny eggs, The Shining to The Haunting. It's degrading. Either way, the plots are completely different. "Hero is orphaned as an infant, raised by wisecracking primates, later to meet up with his own species", sounds far more like Tarzan than The Lion King. Now, Tarzan was a far better movie, but at least they're comparable plotwise. Can you please explain any similarities you see that cause you to liken a masterpiece like The Lion King to an empty, soulless show-off picture? Love, Azzy

The Flick Filosopher responds:

How about "Hero is raised in a trans-species environment and returns home to challenge the leadership of his people"? Sounds like both Dinosaur and The Lion King, doesn't it?

Dear, you need to learn how to formulate an analogy. When you say that likening Dinosaur to The Lion King is like likening "gold to runny eggs," you're saying that Dinosaur is the gold and The Lion King is the runny eggs. I agree with you: The Lion King is a masterpiece, and Dinosaur is dreck. But calling something a "retread" is not a compliment. It's an insult. Which is exactly what Dinosaur deserves.

posted 08.05.00
Vicky Loebel writes:

Hi, I often stop by your site for reliable film recommendations. How pleased I was to read your cheerful review of 1776- a movie my family and I watch every year at this time, and that I have been pained to see panned in movie and TV guides.

I have long loved the film for it's wit, charming protrayals and historical accuracy. Thanks for giving it a pat on the back for me!

posted 08.05.00
Rogelio P. Mendoza writes:

On behalf of all us fellow Americans who are starting to get tired of whiney historical revisionists, I'd like to thank you for your remarks on behalf of The Patriot. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm already tempted to see it twice just out of sheer principle. If any diehard Tories or Loyalists give you any flack over your review, tell them to back off or else I'll toss a large copy of "England, Bloody England" in their direction.

If they still give you trouble, remind them that being surprised at the depiction of the British in a Mel Gibson movie in the wake of Braveheart and Gallipoli seems at best very foolish. Indeed, being surprised at less-than-worshipful portraits of British folk in any movie that features massive creative input from an Aussie actor seems especially odd. Did these blokes fall asleep during the theatrical release of Breaker Morant or what?

I'm not suggesting that Brit-dissing should become the new national sport--after all, they did have a point with that sub movie--but criticizing The Patriot in the wake of all the Hollywood films that have basically glorified or whitewashed English history just doesn't seem sporting. It's just not cricket, old girl.

And after all that fuss Hollywood Anglophiles made over the excellent but slightly overrated Shakespeare in Love, the Brits have some nerve complaining about Saving Private Ryan as well. What's next? Complaints that we shouldn't stage a production of Richard III because the villain has a British accent? I thought it was bad enough when critics of The Road to El Dorado start combining an apt critique of Spanish atrocities with the notion that we Americans should just wink at the many atrocities committed by Indians themselves against other Indians and only pay attention to European-inspired genocide. Apparently that was only the tip of the Orwellian iceberg.

Oh, well. At least we're still free to own Johnny Horton records and U2 CDs. If I were you, I'd rent a copy of Johnny Tremain while it's still legal. :->

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Jason Isaacs was on the radio here in NYC the other day, talking about The Patriot -- Isaacs plays Col. Tavington, the sadistic British officer who's the source of all the fuss from across the pond. Isaacs -- who's from Liverpool, where the inspiration for Tavington is something of a local hero -- was a bit miffed about his fellow countrymen's reactions. He wondered whether Tavington should have been expected to consult the Geneva Convention, two centuries before it was written. And he also said that Tavington's inspiration was nick-named "The Butcher," and not because he was handing out meat (I love this Isaacs guy!). You have to wonder about a city that reveres a guy called The Butcher.

posted 08.05.00
Kenny writes:

i love this site!

I really do. It's very groovy. I was very impressed with your thoughts on Edward Scissorhands. You must have above-average I.Q. You must.

We were born the same year.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I'm a member of Mensa, actually. True.

Happy 31st birthday to us.

Kenny again:

do you take requests?

I noticed that two films of great importance are missing from your site: Excalibur and At Close Range. What gives, sister?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Dude, I have to sleep sometimes.

posted 08.05.00
Mark Cogan writes:

I saw in your recently-updated "reader mail" column that someone was apparently taking issue with your characterization of Ben-Hur as "homoerotically charged".

If you haven't already, see The Celluloid Closet. The actor who played Messala (Stephen Boyd) states that he was told by the director (Wyler) to play his character as though him and Charlston Heston's character had been boyhood lovers -- but not to tell Heston, since he wouldn't be able to handle it. Homoeroticism there is, and it's in there on purpose...

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Hee hee! That is simply too perfect for words. I cannot wait to post your letter.

posted 08.05.00
David Bertoni writes:

I thought about putting up a website with movie reviews. There are so few sites with consistently intelligent and insightful reviews--so, thinking myself at least as good as Roger Ebert, I put in my two cents.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, I guess), I stumbled on your site and started reading review after review. To put it mildly, I am stunned, amazed, and flabbergasted at just how good you are at reviewing movies. I couldn't hope to compete. So, here's a note of thanks and appreciation. I'll just keep on practicing law.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

So, are you saying that I'm better than Roger Ebert? That you could see yourself competing with Ebert but not with me?

Cool.

posted 08.05.00
Eugene Novikov writes:

I was just browsing through your always entertaining Reader Mail section and took issue with this [in re American Beauty]:

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.

Did you notice the utterly terrified expression on Fitts' face when his son one-upped him by railing against "faggots" in the car? I think Fitts is a man who has spent his whole life concealing his homosexuality. But that's just my interpretation.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

As you noted, this is only your interpretation, but it's a valid one.

That's what makes movies like American Beauty worth watching over and over: you'll always see something new and discover new ways to interpret the film.

posted 08.05.00
Rich Armaly writes:

Subject: HI HOW R U?

I am going to point out a little mistake on your webpage, well actually a few. First off, you own a Macintosh.A Macintosh is just about the shittiest comp you can get which brings me to another point. The Jackal as you so blunty put it A movie that is almost worth seeing is sure as hell worth seeing, that movie is a classic and the remake was even better. That movie is what i would call EMMY material. The plot was well thought out and with the cast of so many wonderfully different actors, it would be impossible for that movie to suck.When a script doesn't leave much room for an actor to do his job, why bother with actors at all? Next thing you know, Hollywood will start casting, oh, I dunno, models and professional athletes to "act" in movies.

But that could never happen, right? Thisline is bullshit. You are obviously a stupid insignicant asshole who probably in my opinion eats shit and other assorted fescetic materials. I have a suggestion take your webpage and pee on it!!!!!!! in all respect go eat poo!!!!!!you suck get a life and stop putting down good movies for gods sake.

SINCERELY,

SOMEONE WITH TASTE

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I was going to just thank you for your obviously well-considered comments and then let your deliciously ironic signoff -- "SOMEONE WITH TASTE" -- speak for itself when I post your letter at my site, but I simply must ask you this:

How do I pee on my Web site?

I mean, if I pee on my shitty Mac, all that does is damage my computer and leaves the site intact. So, what do I do? Do I have to actually fly out to California and find out precisely which server at Simplenet hosts my site and then pee on that server? Still, that's really only peeing on a computer -- a site is such an intangible thing.

Perhaps you should start up pee-on-it.com, where you could allow surfers to virtually pee on sites they think deserve it. I bet you'd make a fortune from others who share your discriminating taste.

[No response.]

posted 08.05.00
Ratna Dhaliwal writes:

Subject: What you thought of the movie

have you seen the movie? If so, did you think it was good or bad? I would really like to know exactly what you thought about it other than jumping back an' forth between good or bad. Thank you for your time and patience.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I'm not psychic. What movie are you talking about?

[No response.]

posted 08.05.00
Bonnie Black writes:

Your review of Ghostbusters brought tears of joy (and laughter) to my eyes. As we've discussed many times, there are some movies that even though you remember them -- as almost part of your genetic makeup -- you forget just how wonderous they are until you hear (or read) the lines and set up that make them worth seeing over and over and over again. Together with The Princess Bride, any Indiana Jones movie, any Star Wars movie and Casablanca, Ghostbusters makes up that canon of movies where I say: "I've seen it a million times -- I'm NOT going to watch it again..." even as you settle down nice and comfy to watch it again.

Thanks for the reminder. Now, where did I put that video of GHOSTBUSTERS?

posted 08.05.00
Allen Rausch writes:

Thank you for that review of Ghostbusters. It's good to know that others have as much passion for this movie as I do.

Thank you too for noticing that Gozer looks a LOT like Sheena Easton (who I had a crush on at the time). Most people thinks I'm nuts when I point this out. For years I thought it WAS Sheena Easton in this movie, though I later found out it wasn't. Do you have any idea who player Gozer? I think she was uncredited in the movie.

"When someone asks you if you are a god - you say YES!"

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Gozer was played by Slavitza Jovan, who, according to the commentary track on the DVD, was a Romanian model the filmmakers spotted in New York and hired on the spot. The IMDB says she's been in a couple of other films since Ghostbusters, most recently last year's House on Haunted Hill.

posted 08.05.00
David Bertoni writes:

[X-Men spoilers]

After watching X-Men on opening night, I felt empty and, for the most part, disappointed. For me, the story's the thing, and this one violated fundamental rules of storytelling. I had the same view after watching Apt Pupil, a film I rented in anticipation of X-Men. The core story seemed artificial--not in its ideas, but in its execution. After all, the idea behind Apt Pupil, that evil acts, big and small, share a common physiognomy, is a profound one and worthy of intelligent exploration. Yet, Apt Pupil leaps from place to place, resting on events of varying improbability, and betraying a degree of tone deafness to plot development and creating a suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. As just one example, we are thrust into the story believing that a student made a connection between a photo in a dusty library book, a lecture in class, and an old man that he chances to see on a bus. I understand that life is full of funny surprises, but when they advance a story line so obviously, they are not the stuff of good movies.

Rather than dissect Apt Pupil, X-Men offers its own examples of somewhat tone deaf story telling. A good example is the scene in which Wolverine, Cyclops, Xavier, and Storm "brainstorm" the solution to why Magneto has kidnapped Rogue. It seemed to be a scene dashed together to fill in a plot hole. After all, reaching this "conclusion" requires the group to conclude that Magneto would not sacrifice his own life for the cause (something at odds with the degree of nobility infused into his character), but rather put the life a young girl in jeopardy. Remember, according to the dialogue, he does not use Rogue because he thinks she might better withstand his "machine" because of her age and energy level. (That might have been a better plot turn by itself.) Magneto decides to do it so it will kill her instead of him. This act of selfishness is hardly explained and contrary to the likely mindset of a bright, noble man who witnesses the Holocaust first-hand. And how does Magneto even know about Rogue? That information seems crucial to believable story-telling. Are we to assume that he has the equivalent of Cerebro.

Which leads to my next problem. A rehashed plot line reminiscent of so many other comic book-style movies. When I saw the helicopter racing toward Magneto's island, I started to laugh. All that was left was to see Dr. Evil's face on the side of the island. I was waiting for Magneto to tell Senator Kelly, "Welcome to my secret island lair!" This wasn't the only similarity to Austin Powers. As Magneto's plan unfolded, I kept thinking about Scott Evil telling his dad to just shoot Austin Powers. Magneto's plan was pretty close to the equivalent of suspending world leaders over a tank of man-eating sea bass. Why on earth, in the end, would he want to turn these close-minded, gun loving homo sapiens into homo superiors? It's hare-brained, it seems to me.

I will offer just one more example, before turning to what I liked about the movie. (I did end up liking it overall, but only after seeing it a second time--alone. More about that later.) I had a problem with the Cerebro sabotage and how it was resolved. First, why wasn't Cerebro sabotaged earlier? Just because Xavier could not read Magneto's mind, he certainly could have read enough of from Toad, Mystique, and (maybe) Sabretooth to at least find Magneto's "secret island lair." I mean, throw me a frickin' bone here. Nothing in the dialogue suggested that Magneto's accomplices weren't in on at least part of the plan--enough for Xavier to figure out, for example, that Sabretooth was looking to kidnap Rogue. After all, that was Sabertooth's only instruction! I can get past the fact that Mystique sabotaged Cerebro with "liquid goo" (perhaps the same liquid goo in which Austin Powers was dipped?). But the who incident seemed like an artificial device to keep Xavier's mental powers for screwing up the finale. After all, a mind-reading telepath could take some of the suspense out things. I'm not taking issue with the need to take Xavier out of action. It might not be the most interesting plot device, but it's serviceable. What I do take issue with is the artificiality of the way it was staged, acted, and filmed. Maybe thats just what happens when a filmmaker is told to complete a film in just nine months. However, it smacks more of having to many people working on a script. Indeed, most of the story flaws in X-Men smell of writing by committee. There doesn't seem to have been one clear, creative storyteller bringing his or her vision to the movie. I liken this syndrome to making whipped cream. After a while, the more whipping--e.g., writes and rewrites-- that happens, the whole thing starting turning into a buttery sludge. Just in passing, I thought the "special effect" when Jean fixed Cerebro was pathetic. It looked like the just put the tape in reverse and the liquid good slipped right out of the cylinder--much the way Jeannie's smoke used to go back into the bottle. Is that all you can get for a couple of million?

As I noted, I did end up liking the movie, but only after a second chance. Alone. The first time I went, I took my son and daughter, their friends, and another dad, and I spent the entire moving wondering whether they were going to cringe at this or that or the other thing. The other dad also kept telling me how slow it was. I sheepishly agreed. The second time, as a rare treat, I ventured to the theater alone and opened myself to the possibility that I might like it. I took the movie on its own terms.

Where did I land? I thought the movie showed solid craftsmanship. Some of the acting was really terrific. Hugh Jackman's persona in the cage was electrifyingly realistic--the way he rolled his shoulders and glared, for example. Dynamite stuff. McKellen invested Magneto with a soul--so much so that when it was revealed that he was willing to kill Rogue, I just didn't believe it. This was a noble character who'd seen enough killing. Enough of "homo sapiens and their guns." Famke Jannsen's action was smart, too. Her wry smiles seemed genuine and brought a warmth the character. I thought the Senator Kelly character was terrific, too. Who was the worst? I'd have to say it was a tie between Anna Paquin (in the real world, she'd still be standing on the snowy mountain road--not only was she a whiner, but her acting was completely unnatural; she was posing more than acting, and those glycerine tears were so out of place on that unemotional face) and Halle Berry (who seemed to have a different accent in every scene). Which leads me to a general comment: Where were any strong women in the movie? WIth the exception of Jean Grey, the women seemed to be, to one degree or another, emotional basketcases. And even Jean seemed to be constantly deferring to the men. I guessin the "not too distant future" not much progress has been made on portraying strong women in film. Too bad.

The second go around, I came away feeling that this movie, though flawed, had a soul, had characters I'd like to see again. When I leave a movie wishing that I knew a character in real life, I know that the filmmaker has succeeded in creating something special. I felt that here. I'd like to debate philosophy with Magneto, and I'd like to have a beer with Wolverine. My only regret is that there were no female characters that made me feel the same way. And there should have been. The world of the X-Men is filled with strong, smart, and interesting women. Maybe they'll make it into the sequel.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Perhaps needless to say, I disagree that there are drawbacks and plot holes in X-Men that ruin the film. I've seen it three times now, and even going in looking for problems, I didn't see any. It's a rare film that doesn't contain holes in its plot and contrivances to keep things moving along, but I think a film succeeds when it enthralls you to such a degree that you don't see these necessary artificialities. For me, X-Men works on that level.

I disagree, too, that Magneto's motivations are unlikely. Some people react to being victims of violence by abhorring violence, but others want to turn that violence back on the perpetrators. You see Magneto's experience of the Holocaust as reason for him to shun extreme solutions to the oppression of mutants by normals, but I see it as a completely understandable justification (in his own mind -- I don't advocate genocide) for his desire to make war on the normals: Magneto has seen what people will do in the name of "racial purity," and he intends to prevent another Holocaust from happening by any means necessary. I'm NOT suggesting that this is an appropriate reaction to his situation, but merely one that could logically follow from his past experiences.

Likewise, I don't see any plot problems with Magneto's plan to turn world leaders into mutants -- it would be akin to somehow turning Hitler Jewish. Jean Grey misses an opportunity, when she's speaking to the Senate, of making the point that what keeps a girl who can walk through walls from walking into a bank fault is the same thing that keeps the vast majority of people from picking up guns and robbing banks: a shared sense of the inherent immorality of such a thing. Turning world leaders into mutants would at least demonstrate to them that they remain human, and remain the same people they were before, with the same values... except, perhaps, the one that tells them it's "right" to treat mutants as less than human.

Might Magneto have been more self-sacrificing in his plan? Sure, he could have been, but I have no trouble with Xavier's people assuming that he would not want to kill himself -- few people do, even for a cause they believe strongly in.

How does Magneto know about Rogue? Why doesn't Xavier just read Sabretooth's mind? I don't know, and these are reasonable questions. They didn't bother me while watching the film... though now that I think on it, it's not unreasonable to conclude that Magneto, who's well aware of Xavier's telepathy, probably takes it into account. Perhaps he only uses henchmen whose minds can't be read (which, I suspect, could be something different than susceptibility to being mind-controlled, as we see Xavier do with Sabretooth and Toad).

Jean Grey constantly defers to men? Doesn't she take the initiative in using Cerebro? Storm seems to have her head fairly well attached -- though she doesn't have much to do, I'll admit -- and what about Mystique? She may be evil, but she's certainly a strong character. Rogue may be a basketcase -- and understandably so -- but so is Logan. And it's the fact that they're both basketcases that makes them so interesting, and so interesting together.

I find it interesting that you're willing to ascribe more sympathy to the bad guy here -- Magneto -- that to the hero, or at least the protagonist. You don't think Magneto should want to sacrifice Rogue for his devious plans, but Logan should have left her on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere?

David Bertoni replies:

Yikes.

The only reason I thought Rogue should be left on the side of the road was because of the whining performance of Anna Paquin. I found her performance quite artificial and annoying; apparently, we disagree. I guess I can take comfort in thinking that Magneto turned on her only after spending a few hours listening to her annoying blather.

Frankly, I don't think the artificialities in X-Men were necessary at all. Why make Xavier so all powerful that he creates plot and story difficulties? In the comic books, of which I've read a few over the years, there is no consistent treatment of his mental powers. Why not make Cerebro a device of finding mutants, not reading their minds at extreme distances, for example? Then we don't have to worry so much about a telepath crashing Magneto's party. It also would explain why Magneto didn't feel the need to wear his helmet while waltzing around his secret island lair.

As for your theory about Magneto's turning to violence, you've missed my point. I don't doubt at all that Magneto's experiences might make him strike out against humanity in a violent way. What was inexplicable to me was his decision to do harm to Rogue, a person who shares his status as a mutant. It would be like a concentration camp survivor killing another Jew to get back at the Nazis. Whether it's credible as a general matter or not, it didn't work for me here. Indeed, Magneto's non-violent nature is shown by his failure to kill the police that threatened him and his disparaging statement about "homo sapiens and their guns." This, in other words, is a non-violent man choosing to be violent towards another mutant. Again, not believable to me.

The whole thing coheres pretty well, I agree, but its shortcomings could have been cured with just a dash more intelligence and care. While I hate to compare the two because one is so clearly superior to the other, THE SIXTH SENSE has that kind of intelligent script that knows who to be internally consistent both with respect to character motivations and story. That's what makes it so special, in my opinion. It's the same thing we look for when we read a good book.

Good luck, anyway. It's kind of a shame that you decided to be so strident in your response. I had hoped for some directed give and take, but I suppose the tone of my letter may have left you feeling more offended than engaged. Trust me, it wasn't intended. It just lucks as if we've either seen two very different films, or you're willing to overlook things that I can't, and vice versa.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Whoa! "Strident"? "Offended"? I thought giving detailed explanations of why I disagreed with you was engaging in a "give and take." I'm sorry you mistook the intent of my comments.

I don't have answers to many of the questions you asked here -- all of which are reasonable questions, as I noted in my previous reply about some of your other problems with the film -- mainly because I don't see the problems you see. That's not to say that your quibbles with the film are unreasonable ones, and I can appreciate them on an intellectual level. But, frankly, X-MEN is a film that gets me more on a visceral level. I complain a lot, at my site, about movies that are so unengaging that they leave me plenty of time to pick them apart. X-MEN thrilled me mostly because I loved the characters, I got caught up in their dilemma, and I find their world highly intriguing. Because I was so involved in the movie on that level, perhaps, is why the plot holes that become apparent in retrospect didn't bother me while I was watching the film, or even when I see the film again with those holes in mind.

I'm not trying to make excuses for the filmmakers -- I'm just explaining why any faults on their part don't bother me too much. Trying to come up with convoluted fixes for things like why Cerebro couldn't be used to find Magneto's lair aren't really the kinds of things I enjoy wondering about -- I'm more interested in the characters.

So your take on Magneto intrigues me. You seem to have assumed that we agree that Magneto is inherently nonviolent, and I'm not so sure that is that case -- the fact that he was willing to do such violence to the world leaders on Ellis Island kinda belies that, to me. To continue the Holocaust analogy, I'd find it hard to believe that there weren't Jews (or homosexuals, or gypsies, or members of some other group targeted for genocide) who didn't give up their fellows to the Nazis in the belief (mistaken, probably) that it would save their lives. I wouldn't liken Magneto's attempted murder of Rogue as a case of a Jew killing a Jew to get back at the Nazis, but as a Jew sacrificing another Jew in an attempt to save his own skin. I think the only reason Magneto spared the cops, when he could have killed them, was that it would have been bad press (as he reminded Xavier when the prof was threatening to use the mind-controlled Sabretooth to kill Magento in that same scene). Rogue was not going to die in public but in secret.

I find Magneto's paradoxical nature intriguing. You find it contradictory. I'm not offended by this difference of opinion. It's rare enough to find someone who engage in a lively debate in an intelligent and coherent fashion, and that's what makes this kind of exchange fun to me. I'd hoped you'd feel the same way.

David Bertoni again:

Maybe I'm being a bit too sensitive--I just sense a little "bite" behind the words. Sorry if I misread you.

I have a tendency to get caught up in the plot devices of movies--I really have a hard time enjoying a film if it has problematic storytelling. I felt that to be true with X-MEN. It had good some good characters, some interesting cinematography, and a strong guiding philosophy. But the story miscues really kept me from being absorbed in the experience.

The Magneto character, perhaps, was one of those contradictory people who generate a shrug of the shoulders sometimes. But, for a movie like this, I would have appreciated a better explanation of his motives and persona sufficient to make me believe that it was in him to kill Rogue for the sake of equal rights for mutants. It just hit me as so out of character, so robbing of the compex "evil" he represents. If it wasn't for the silly mutant machine and the killing of Rogue, Magneto could have been a real hero of this movie, the kind of complex result that occurs when a writer understands that complex, intelligent characters have both good and evil in them. (Which is why Xavier's character came up somewhat flatter for me. He seemed so unidimensional. All strength, no weakness. I hope that, in the sequel, we see more of what makes Xavier tick. In fact, I think he should be the key character to develop. Why is he so galdarn set on helping people? On saving humanity? On being such a goody-goody? There must be some dark side to him that we can explore.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

A dark side to Xavier is something I'd love to see. Unfortunately, there just isn't time in a single picture to give every character the kind of depth and complexity that the film devoted to Wolverine. From a mercenary point of view, it made sense to make Wolverine the star of the first picture, since he has always been the favorite of the fans. Perhaps in the sequels we'll get some more focus on the others... Although it does seem as if X-Men sets up the first sequel to be all about Logan. Which is fine with me. He's an intriguing character.

posted 08.05.00
Andrew Gray writes:

[From X-Men review:]

There's a lot of smart, unexpected depth behind the delicious visual popcorn in X-Men...

Smart is right. My favorite quote from the movie is Magneto saying "I always thought of God as ... a bringer of light..."

Of course, the latin for "bringer of light" is "Lucifer".

Nice one :)

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I hadn't picked up on that. Clever of you to notice that pun. God is Satan, huh? I can see how someone who witnessed the Holocaust and now finds himself a mutant outcast could believe that.

posted 08.05.00
Anne-Kari Bornholdt writes:

Subject: from a recent flickfilosopher convert

... and what that did it for me was your spot-on, hilarious and scathing review of City of Angels - truly one of the most god-awful pieces of tripe I have ever suffered through. I did note that you said you haven't seen Wings of Desire - I HIGHLY recommend you rent it (though it is hard to find). It has its problems, not the least of which is teetering on the edge of excessive pretension at certain points, but this is a minor complaint.

Oh well, Hollywood has a long tradition of taking interesting, original, well-written foreign films and turning them into 2 hour General Food International Coffee moments.

Anyway, I'm enjoying your site tremendously, and look forward to reading your reveiws of the rest of the summer 'blockbusters' (loved your take on the X-Men, esp noting the non-icky friendship between Rogue & Wolverine - very sharp of you to note that)(no pun intended).

As a fellow chick hopelessly in love with the movies, I salute you.

posted 08.05.00
Russ Carr writes:

Subject: <swoon>

I just had the good fortune to trip over your site.

I'm doing some online research for a series of articles I'm writing on the treatment of sex in the movies. Doing a search with Sherlock 2 (I, also, am a Mac user) led me to your reader mail page regarding Eyes Wide Shut. I don't have enough time presently to read all the back-and-forth, but the page engaged my interest because it hinted at a site that penetrates deeper <adolescent snicker> into the whole body of a film, rather than just probing its individual components (script, plot, etc.)...

I look forward to sucking every drop of insight and opinion I can out of your site, whether it be your observations, or those of your other readers. Kudos.

Russ Carr (a male who didn't care for EWS)

posted 08.05.00
The Rook writes:

it's because of movies like The Nutty Professor that the french think jerry lewis is a genius and why we think the french are insane. in point of fact, most all of lewis' output since he broke up with dean martin hasn't quite sparkled. i've always found his comedy to be rather undistinguished and kind of dull. at best its funny stupid. his main claim to fame may very well be the annual labor day telethon. and those have become rather pathetic over the years.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Lewis's Nutty Professor bored me. And that's the best I can say about it.

posted 08.05.00
Joe Owen writes:

Just saying nice work :)

I have only recently discovered your site, and must say how much I enjoy your reviews.

Your sense of humor, and strength of character shine through in all the reviews, and, what's more...almost always match my opinions (and isnt that the most important thing? that we all agree with me? LOL)

Anyways, just read your review of The Klumps, and was struck with the inspiration to write you, because I cannot stand the proliferation of potty humor....I mean come on, so much out there is SO funny, why stoop down to that? it makes no sense!

Not to say I am some puritanical freak, I like lowbrow humor as much as the next guy, but I think it should be left to a oneliner style joke, or gag...not a 2 hour film!

Regardless, I enjoy your site, and turned my wife onto it as well, because we both feel that there is not enough strong minded women out on the 'net for our tastes, and you are just what the doctor ordered! keep up the good work, and thanks for a great site :)

posted 08.05.00
Onur Tukel writes:

[Klumps spoilers.. if that's not too absurd a concept]

Subject: response to your Klumps review

Loosen up.

It's a summer popcorn film.

Why is it that Hollywood isn't allowed to have fun with ocotogenarian nudity or penile disfunction? What's so offensive about that? If we're allowed to feel arousal towards a nude young body in the movies, then we should be allowed to laugh at a nude old one. To you, comedy has to be sanitized to be considered funny.

Sure, farting is a hollywood cliche, but it was used effectively in this film. And regarding the Hamster fecies scene, I've never seen the act of defecation used as a weapon in a film before, so to me, this movie broke new wind...I mean, ground.

You're so good at criticizing all the scatological humor yet you don't give praise to any of the achievements of the film.

=Dynamic performance of Eddie Murphy
=Solid direction and scene choreography of Segal
=Interesting and creative plot twists (the Buddy Love/Dog DNA bit was clever) and the "eating Buddy Love" solution at the end of the film was bold and unexpected.

Did you find the portrayal of Klump family so reprehensible that you couldn't say one good thing about them? For God's sake, give Murphy a few kudos for making each of the members distinct and endearing at times.

I hate it when critiques only point out the bad aspects of a film that is full of good ones as well.

Scary Movie, now that was shit....

So, loosen up and enjoy The Klumps for what it is. What were you expecting? Schindler's List.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

My objections to The Klumps have nothing to do with being uptight, so there's no need for me to loosen up. What's inherently funny about "ocotogenarian nudity or penile disfunction"? Why is it okay to laugh someone's body merely because s/he is old? Comedy does not have to be "sanitized" -- Monty Python produced some of the raunchiest, rudest comedy ever made, but it was intelligent, it had a point, and it was funny as hell. Ditto Kids in the Hall, Mr. Show and the original Saturday Night Live. What passes for humor these days, as exemplified by The Klumps, has no point beyond being gross and juvenile. I've yet to see farting used "effectively" as a source of humor.

I didn't ignore the so-called "achievements" of this film because I didn't see any, beyond the technical ones, for Rick Baker's makeup -- Eddie Murphy certainly didn't look like himself as all those Klumps. I did not feel his performances were dynamic -- they were strained and artificial. There is nothing original about the dog melding with Buddy -- that's taken directly from the remake of The Fly (the one with Jeff Goldblum), in which the scientist melds with the fly. The "eating Buddy Love" solution was, as far as I could see, the only solution to Sherman's problem, and such an obvious one that I was astounded that it was presented in the film with such an air of revelation about it. Perhaps that solution didn't occur to Sherman immediately, seeing as how he was losing his intelligence (a la Flowers for Algernon), but the audience should have seen it coming. I did.

I did, in fact, find the Klumps so reprehesible that I couldn't find one good thing to say about them. I did not find them endearing, and if they were distinctive it was only in their individually unique, annoying crudity and obnoxiousness.

As for Segal's direction, the best thing I can say about it is that the film was in focus the whole time. Though I should probably direct that compliment to the cinematographer (Dean Semler must have been desperate for a paycheck), and not to the director.

Here are the only two good things I can say about The Klumps: The extremely short bit with the dumbest hamster in Sherman's lab, who doesn't know how to run in her wheel properly, was the only funny bit in the film (for all that it lasted about two seconds), and the only genuine emotion Eddie Murphy (or anyone else) exhibited was when he cried out, "You bastard!" to Sherman, at the end of the film, as Sherman is about to take advantage of Buddy's somewhat doggy nature.

The Klumps was exactly what I was expecting, since you asked: an adolescent waste of celluloid.

newer mail | previous mail