posted 11.28.00
Patrick Dodds writes:

Subject: All I Wanna Do is a fun movie, but I think it could have eased up on the male bashing

Last week I was able to watch All I Wanna Do (useless trivia: the film's original title was called, Strike!). It was enjoyable and it did give me some food for thought. However, like in so many stories (whether fictional or nonfictional) about women in society there's almost always a proclivity to make the males look as lousy as possible and All I Wanna Do is a perfect example. In fact this movie had just about every possible negative male stereotype imaginable and nary a decent guy in sight. Not all the players on my team are lecherous, deceitful, violent, insensitive, or easily manipulated by our hormones. Don't get me wrong this is a fun movie and I liked it, but I spent as much time wincing and trying not to take the barbs to my gender personally as I did smiling and chuckling.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

What offensive male stereotypes did you see in All I Wanna Do? And wasn't Dennis a pretty nice guy?

Patrick Dodds replies:

First, I'd like to say that I hope I didn't offend you with my observations about the movie All I Wanna Do. This movie obviously means a great deal to you and I make sure never to trash something that people have strong feelings for (I always get defensive when people slam Star Trek). I stated earlier that I DO like this movie, but there just a few things about it that irked me a little. I hope before I die that I see a movie about a male teacher at an all-girls school that isn't a sex fiend, just a decent guy. You're right, there ARE some nice male characters in this movie, I suppose I just wanted them to be a little more fleshed out and given more to do like help the girls in their strike. The scene where Kirsten Dunst's character talks with the guy about their parents' divorce is a gem. I just wish there were more scenes like that. That said this is a sweet movie with some brilliant touches of social commentary. Maybe, as a white male, when I watch a movie about women's solidarity, a little subconscious voice says, "Oh brother, not another one of those 'men are slime and should die'" women's films. This film wasn't.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

No, I'm not offended -- I don't offend that easily. I was just curious to hear a more detailed reaction to the film, especially since I did not see what you did.

Don't worry about "trashing" something that's important to someone. If it's truly important to them, they'll be able to argue its defense effectively.

When was the last time you saw a movie set in an all-girls school? I don't think there are enough of them to say they all have sex-fiend teachers. I could be wrong, of course. But, speaking as a former girl (though not one who attended an all-girls school), I can tell you that there's always at least one creep in a bunch of male teachers.

Hmm. You wanted the guys to be as fleshed out as the girls, huh? Now you know how girls feel when watching movies about boys!

posted 11.28.00
Terry Chapman writes:

I found it odd that you find it sad [in the A Man for All Seasons review] that Thomas More died for his beliefs (even if you don't sympathize with him.) The United States was founded by people willing to do just that. Where would we be now if it weren't for such people?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Nowhere did I say or imply that dying for something you believe in is a bad thing. What I did say is that More died for a belief that I -- and many other people -- find foolish and fantastical, and that the movie never made me empathize with More in spite of that. A Man for All Seasons never engaged me emotionally the way, say, Braveheart, rather similiarly themed in some ways, did. As I wrote in my review of Braveheart, by the time that movie is over, you want to kill some Englishmen, too, whatever your politics. A Man for All Seasons never fired me that way, never made me feel as if I could die for More's belief the way I felt I could die for Wallace's belief.

I would risk my life, actually, if necessary, to defend what America stands for, and if boys had been required to sign up for selective service when I turned 18, I would have tried to sign up myself, if only to make the point that I would want to fight for my country, too, if it came to that. I actually wanted to be a fighter pilot for a while when I was a teenager, but the Air Force wasn't letting women fly the cool planes then. Bastards.

posted 11.28.00
Phillip L Bullington writes:

Tis a pity that you are so shallow!

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Tis a pity I'm not psychic! Please elaborate.

Phillip L Bullington replies:

I was referring to your review of A Man for All Seasons. It may seem strange to you that someone would give his life for his faith but millions have done it. A brief study of the Reformation in England will show there were many like St. Thomas Moore.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I knew what review you were referring to, but you didn't say what made it shallow.

It does seem strange to me that people would die for a fantasy, but I am, of course, well aware that many people have done so. That doesn't excuse the movie from having to make us identify with More to some degree -- lots of people have committed suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, but if you made a movie about someone who does that without making you feel his pain and passion, you have not succeeded in telling his story. Merely saying that "lots of people have jumped off the bridge" is not reason enough.

A Man for All Seasons seems to be preaching to the choir: you have to already share More's faith to really appreciate the movie. Not everybody does share that faith. To contrast, look at at a movie like Braveheart -- no matter what your politics, you want to kill some English by the end of it. Braveheart makes you understand and feel Wallace's passion and commitment -- A Man for All Seasons did not do the same for More, at least not for me.

posted 11.28.00
Alexander Gimelbrant writes:

I've greatly enjoyed reading you reviews, but never felt like writing to you until I stumbled upon your comments on The Fifth Element.

Most of your reviews have a really interesting angle (I think your comments on American Beauty are among the most perceptive writing about this film) and, quite importanly, often show unmistakable signs of sense of humor.

But I think that your reaction to TFE displayed something that keeps fascinating me as a foreigner in America - the sudden loss of sense of humor (and proportion) when gender relations are talked about, or thought to be talked about. (I'm making wild generalizations, inspired by generalizations of your genX riffs :-))

I don't think it's fair to discuss TFE in these terms - it's generally a good idea to judge a work of art by the aims it set for itself. The plot of TFE is an obvious clothesline to show off set and costume designs. And these were fabulous, inventive and non-pushy (my personal favorite was the princess Leia's hairdo, donned in TFE by the "military woman" - I thought it was hilarious and it wasn't hammered into your head). I'm afraid that being offended by TFE's "gender politics" is a little bit like arguing that the original Star Wars is racist (with DW being the epitome of black maleness) - possible but incomprehensible.

I realize that people can get passionate and irrational about issues. You don't want to tell a Serb to lighten up about Kosovars, or vice versa.(Or worse still - brace yourself - here comes the real and actual quote from The Phantom Menace review by the Film Geek:"And if you never really liked Star Wars in the first place, then just shut the fuck up".) I'm just wondering why not indeed lighten up - wouldn't more be accomplished?

Well, just wanted to share my observation with you.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I appreciate your comments on my review of The Fifth Element, but I resent be called, basically, a humorless, irrational feminist. Why is it that no one tells black people that they have no sense of humor if they object to jokes that denigrate black people? Feminists, of course, garnered their reputation for humorlessness when they objected to being treated as less than human even when it was disguised as humor. Haven't you ever heard the expression: "Many a true thing is said in jest"?

I don't quite get the people who call Star Wars racist just because there are no black people in it (at least until Lando). But that's not a fair comparison to what I did in my review of The Fifth Element. If Star Wars had white actors in blackface, or black actors performing as atrocious black stereotypes, then I could see accusations of racism justified. But that's precisely what TFE does in relation to women: it treats them as nothing more sex objects, and the fashion design you love so much is appalling and ridiculous on them. (Men, of course, are never dressed by designers in such absurd fashion. Women's bodies may be treated as works of art, but not men's, because men are generally appreciated as individuals while women generally are not.) Bruce Willis gets to wear clothing that fully covers his body, clothing that looks contemporary depsite the film's setting hundreds of years in the future, but Milla Jovovich is supposed to get by with a few strategically placed straps. Where's the joke here that I'm missing?

What would I accomplish by "lightening up" in regards to TFE? The movie pissed me off, and I vented. My accomplishment here is preventing myself from bursting a blood vessel in my brain, and that's pretty important to me. I like my brain, and I use it all the time.

posted 11.28.00
Geoff McLain writes:

I finally watched American Beauty, and then read your excellent review of it. I kind of put off watching it for awhile, as the whole mid-life crisis thing--speaking as a man in his late thirties--is a load. The only thing more annoying than teen-agers, is middle-aged men acting like teen-agers. I can't fully express my contempt for the whole sordid deal.

Having said that, I liked this movie a lot more than I thought I would; my initial impression was that it was good, but maybe overhyped; however, I found the movie grew on me as I thought about it. I like it more now, two days after watching it, than I did while the credits rolled. I also liked Lester a lot more than I thought I would, or wanted to. I agree with your review, on the whole--though maybe you were going a little easy on old Lester--but I did want to say a couple of things.

First, the look on Lester's face during his epiphany in the school gym wasn't lust, I think, so much as unbottled grief, stunned wonder, and terrible regret. This scene astonished me; even for Spacey, this was extraordinary acting. This was the point at which I realized that Lester might be likeable, and that this movie maybe wasn't going to adhere to the mid-life cliches, but rather subvert them.

Chris Cooper was amazing. The scene involving his character and Spacey's in the garage was heartbreaking; I didn't read it as simply a closet homosexual forced to confront his fears, so much as a terrible mute attempt to reach out to his son, to embrace or understand or forgive his son. (Mind you, what one of your readers said about his fearful reaction to his son's homophobic rant was very interesting.)

Finally, as another of your erudite readers said, Lester's death wasn't a tragedy; the whole point of the movie was that his enlightenment, his breaking past all the lies and fantasies and spiritual death of his life, was NOT too late; if you reach the truth before you die, as Lester did, then you reach it in time; he had one moment of perfect awareness and honesty and joy before he died, which is more than most humans get.

I can't say how much I admire and enjoy a movie that takes my preconceptions of it and forces me to eat them raw. I thought Lester would be a creepy, whiny loser through the entire movie, and then die a meaningless death, when instead he was a creepy, whiny loser through most of the movie, who reversed his fall, and died in a state of grace--I use the term in a non-denominational sense. I thought the jarhead dad would be a two-dimensional redneck, instead of a tormented, lost soul. I thought the neighbourhood kid would be a typical movie psycho who ends up killing people, instead of an atypical movie psycho, who hurts no one. Your analysis of him as having "his head on straight" is a little off; he was a warped, drug-dealing freak who had stalker tendencies. But warped drug-dealing freaks can be kind and sensitive, this movie says; just as redneck ballbusting marines can be tormented, and creepy middle-aged losers can become wise, and plastic bags can be beautiful. (The most sane, healthy people in the movie seemed to me to be the gay couple next door, who were almost annoying in their wholesomeness.)

It can't be too late to live, Lester tells us, as long as we are alive. It can't be too late to find hope and faith and joy in our lives, Lester tells us, because our lives are inherently miraculous. We just have to wake up to it.

But the sooner the better, Lester tells us, because life is also inherently unpredictable, and has a tendency to end suddenly.

Good movie; good review.

posted 11.28.00
Karen Rugg writes:

Subject: Okay, So I'm Late ...

... having just seen Gladiator -- finally -- last weekend. Because I'm beyond the "buzz" curve, I came to my fav flick site to see what my fav reviewer said, just to see if the same things that thrilled me, thrilled others. I see that they did. (Even to the editing in the battle scenes; a technique which failed miserably in The Patriot.)

I'm a little surprised you didn't mention the unexpected emotional layer of the film. Yes, we've seen it in other places, a.k.a. Braveheart, but I really had no idea ... and it was extremely powerful. Especially in the final scene -- Maximus, dying, with hand outstretched to the door and to the world in his mind. The colors!

I am thinking, as with Braveheart, and Gladiator, and even Highlander and several other films, what drives the hero is the battle to serve two "rulers" -- that of the love that rules the heart and that of the hope that rules the soul. It is too bad that, so far in these films, it is only through catastrophic and bloody loss that our heroes find that love again, and peace, and honor. It shouldn't be such a struggle. Maybe that is how today's films tell us that these things are valuable, worth dying for.

Am listening to the score as I write. A tip for your readers that, if they didn't know of co-composer Lisa Gerrard before and, if they liked what she did (that's her voice on the soundtrack), they should check out her solo release The Mirror Pool, and then everything she did with her group, the now defunct Dead Can Dance, a truly creative, ingenious and eerie duo comprised of her and Brendan Perry.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I love Dead Can Dance, too, and if you like Lisa Gerrard's work on Gladiator, you should check out the Insider soundtrack, which is all her. It's terrific and very evocative of the movie.

I like your thoughts on heroes struggling to serve two rulers, and though I agree that the struggle shouldn't necessarily be so bloody, those struggles usually make for more interesting movies than the easier ones!

posted 11.28.00
Scott McCarty writes:

You made me laugh at my desk.

I sat through Space Cowboys staring at Marcia Gay Harden every time she was on the screen and thinking, "Was that the actress who played the female Vulcan after Kirstie Alley in the Star Trek movies?" (Was that Kim Cattrall?) And here you make a throw away line about her looking disturbingly like a Romulan (who, as we all know, are related genetically to Vulcans).

Too funny. I am glad I found your site.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

It was Kim Cattrall... in Trek, that is. Marcia Gay Harden was the Romulan in Space Cowboys. Why didn't she just beam up to the satellite and fix it?

posted 11.28.00
Rogelio P. Mendoza writes:

Remember that old law of physics that says that to each action, there exists an equal and opposite reaction? It wouldn't surprise me if Space Cowboys was the inevitable reaction to all those teen-oriented flicks we've been seeing lately. Feel free to argue with me if you wish, but the fact that you have yet to mention the recent teen flick LOSER makes me wonder if there isn't something to said for movies that don't assume everything revolves around the life-experience of the typical American teenager. Of course, "Geezer Power" and "Up with Old Fogies" aren't exactly original themes. Indeed, the notion that the very old can be hipper than the very young has been around since Harold and Maude came out in the late 1960s. And let's face it. In these youth-oriented, teen-pandering times, it's nice to see images of old people that aren't restricted to Bill Cosby and Grandpa Simpson.

But alas, you do have a point. After this film, the deluge. There's always been a good reason why Ruth Gordon was so funny as a feisty senior citizen in Harold and Maude and not so funny when she was still playing feisty senior citizens a decade later in films like My Bodyguard. And even the most inspired movies--Psycho, Citizen Kane, Chinatown, The Godfather, and some George Lucas film I can't quite remember--inevitably inspire imitations that are at best mediocre.

Maybe this trend will kick in when you and I are both over sixty and we're both eager to see an aging Brad Pitt and Reese Witherspoon sock it to those young whippersnappers.

posted 11.28.00
Marsha Finley writes:

I worship the keyboard you type on (even though it is a Mac). But I was puzzled by your review of Space Cowboys.

Was it really a review of this film, or of the films that are to come? (I fear your prediction about future waves of old codgers movies is correct.) While your description of Space Cowboys is functionally accurate, I can't figure out whether you liked the film or not. I'm only sure that you aren't going to like all the copycats.

I saw the film and found it mildly enjoyable but instantly forgettable. Maybe there wasn't enough substance in Space Cowboys to merit much opinion on your part. Still, I missed the usual pleasure of thinking, "she's SO right!" when I read your review. You probably are right, I just couldn't figure out what you thought about the film itself.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

My review of Space Cowboys was a review of this film. Sure, I talked about how this is the harbinger of things to come, but my mixed reaction to an enjoyable but forgettable film (as you pegged) it comes from its intergenerational conflict. The younger astronauts -- some of them, like the Loren Dean character, really too young to actually be astronauts -- are pushed aside by the story in contrived ways that have nothing to do with their skills or their talents but everything to do with their age, and with letting the filmmakers demonstrate how cool and capable older people are. Like I said in my review, we should not discount people for their age... but that means people of any age. Ageism is just as distasteful when it works against young people, as it does in Space Cowboys.

posted 11.28.00
Bonnie Black writes:

your comments on The Right Stuff was right on about the difference between doing what you love and taking the consequences and going for the fame and/or glory and/or money and taking the consequences. the atronauts from the mercury program and apollo programs basically gave up flying and went on to being shot into space, where they had little or no control over anything. and what did any of them really accomplish later on? even john glenn, who became a united states senator for gosh sakes and was talked of as a presidential candidate, still spent years lobbying to get back up into space... like guys who come back from a war they hated, and yet never really feel alive again. an interesting comment on choices we have to make in all our lives. is it better to fail following your bliss... or to have wordly success that tastes of ashes?

oh, another thing. i am 99-44/100% sure that it was a WOMAN test pilot who broke the sound barrier first... but i'm going to check that out for certain. i think i saw that on Fly-Girls... wouldn't that be a kick in the duck-twilled trousers?

now... about your "centrum silver" remarks on the future of movie making.

i admit that, even from a "boomer" (detested expression) standpoint, my first reaction on seeing the previews for Space Cowboys was an interior groan. i figured it for a lot of technology pounding... "i'm as sexy to the young girls at 65 as i ever was at 25" male chauvinism (and i can see from your review that in some respects i was right) but i gotta ask you: how many years has X-er attitude been the prevailing one at the movies? every thing from Pretty in Pink and Ferris Bueller to Ghostbusters (and don't get me wrong, i LOVE all those movies) on into the gross-out Farrelly brothers and the current craze for Screams most older movie goers (older than me at least) feel totally marginalized by the entertainment industry.

we've discussed the fact that movies have become PC about everything BUT age (or weight, obviously)... it's all right to find the romantic or sexual fantasies of older people (especially women) gross to the point of being hilarious... but watching teenagers make out and have sex in a fashion that would put porn movies to shame is considered box office draw.

movies are a package market. "older" people like this kind of movie, younger people like that. and then there are the ubiquitous "chick flicks" (ugh).

why can't movies show respect between the generations? why can't there be a decent, reasonable, humourous script that shows cross-generational love, respect and genuine friendship (of course, there is Harold and Maude but...)?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

And that was my point exactly. I have absolutely no objection to movies about older characters doing all sorts of exciting and adventurous things. What I was complaining about was the attitude Space Cowboys evinced toward the younger generation: It wasn't enough for the old guys to go into space and have fun doing it, they had to put down the younger generation while they were at it. I've got no problem seeing a slew of movies aimed at older folks, and you're right in saying that after a spate of movies aimed at youngsters, this will be a welcome change. But I don't care to witness the continuing denegration of Generation X, though I know I'll have to. Even the movies we loved as kids -- including the ones you mentioned, like Pretty in Pink and Ferris Bueller's Day Off -- portrayed us as slackers and losers. But now, if we grow up to be a character like Loren Dean's in Space Cowboys, an obviously intelligent and accomplished guy with multiple degrees from MIT, we're still losers and dorks. It's enough to make an Xer give up entirely.

posted 11.28.00
William J. Webb writes:

<clinteastwoodvoice>

So missy, didn't care for the young people bashin' that we did in Space Cowboys? Well, listen here. I don't have time to be dealin' with people half my age or less who think they have something to say about my films. But, being as my good friend Bill Webb called me up, I am abliged to do so.

Aw hell, he ain't my friend and I ain't CE. But like I said, I don't like wastin' time. I don't have much left. So here goes.

Anyone who don't like my movies, I got 250 years of ass on film to show what I think of your review. I am an entertainer. I entertain. Hollywood is makin' movies for little squirts who are too young to know what "Are you feelin' lucky?" really means. We've forgotten to make entertainment -- good entertainment, not "Touched by an Angel" -- for the ... well, for folks like me. Or not even as "experienced" as I am. Good fun, blue humor for the blue-haired set and anyone else who wants to enjoy it. And if your Generation X sensibilities are offended, well, I'm sorry. That's what the Gerber is for.

What I think we were able to achieve was a charming movie, with actors and characters who were comfortable with their ages and their looks. While it might not have been my best performance, or my best movie for that matter, I stand firmly behind the product. Tommy Lee Jones might be the funniest 60-year-old man alive, James Garner played nicely against his type, and Donald Sutherland finally convinced all of us that he still can act. Darn near stole the show, he did.

So there you are. A funny yarn, a good twist and an ending that wasn't too sentimental. You say some parts were unrealistic? So what. This is make-believe. We put these guys through training, orbit and re-entry in two hours, not two months. These were men in the autumn of their lives, doing extroadinary things in extraordinary times. I thought that was the kind of thing you liked, MaryAnn.

So enjoy your movies, missy, and keep writin' those reviews. I hope we'll talk again.

</clinteastwoodvoice>

Didn't he ramble?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

If you look back at my review, you will see that nowhere do I say or imply that I have any problem whatsoever with movies about older people, and I did say that I agreed with the film's conceit that "there's no reason to write anyone off merely for being of a certain age." But was it really necessary to put down younger people in the process? It doesn't say much for the idea the film is trying to promote, that older people are still smart and capable, if the only way Clintwood and Co. could succeed was for the youngsters to be removed from the picture. Or can't they take the competition? What's wrong with cooperation between the generations? They'd still have been plenty of humor to milk from the age difference without having to get nasty about it.

Oh, and by the way, Tommy Lee Jones is not 60. He just had his 54th birthday. Don't age the guy prematurely.

posted 11.28.00
Mark Cogan writes:

It's been a while since I've seen Darkman, but you forgot to mention the coolest part of the movie : the phrase "Belusarius Memorandum". Raimi could have just called it "the papers" or "the evidence", but, no, in a stroke of genius he chooses to call it the "Belusarius Memorandum". It's so fun to say, you can almost see the actors smiling whenever they mention it. And they always use the full name -- not just "the Memorandmum", but "the Belusarius Memorandum".

Belusarius Memorandum. Nine syllables of fun, and it sounds like a Robert Ludlum novel.

That's what I liked about Darkman, anyway.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

You're right. It's a very cool phrase. But I expect nothing less from Sam Raimi.

Do you have a DVD player? If so, I highly recommend the new director's cut version of Army of Darkness. The commentary track by Raimi and Bruce Campbell is worth the price of admission alone... if you like wise-asses, that is.

posted 11.28.00
Robert Cusolito writes:

I loved your little battle with Andy Betts over your review of What Lies Beneath. I haven't seen the movie, but it can't be half as entertaining as your trashing of this guy.

You do have to get the last word, though, don't you...

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I post entire email exchanges. If it seems like I have the last word, it's only because a correspondent chooses not to respond to me. I'm not interested in giving myself the upper hand... it just the rare person who can go the distance with me! :->

Robert Cusolito replies:

I just thought it was amusing that right before your "last word" message, you titled andy's last message as 'andy betts doesn't know when to give it up'.

Andy finally showed some intelligence, though, by giving up. I think you could have just kept trouncing him...I'm not sure he could even understand some of the vocabulary you used in your replies. Truly funny stuff.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Well, I wait until exchanges have obviously petered out before posting them, so I knew, when I posted it, that Andy's last message was indeed his last.

posted 11.28.00
rocky shoe writes:

As I age I start to read more into Hollywood Cheese Ball Films. I saw What Lies Beneath last night, and I enjoyed the feminist archetypal issues of the film. Was it really all to banal and obvious? The next door neighbors' marital trouble as a metaphor for the truth hidden in her own marriage? The cello as a lover between her legs- a lover left behind when she decided to become the wife for Norman. The daughter and the mistress as the youth stage of her life, parts of her that have died, been allowed to wilt. The roses- everywhere, roses, symbolizing life cut off from its source.

Am I going nuts, FlickFil-A? Am I seeing too much in everything? Is it bad for symbolism to be blatant?

I am still scared of the Ouija Board. I am 35.

I love your reviews.

I know how to spell.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

WLB felt 30 years out of date. Feminism may not have triumphed yet, but I'd hope we're beyond the I'm-a-bored-housewife bit by now. I wanted to smack Pfeiffer's character and tell her to get a job, get a hobby, just get out of the house once in a while. I'm tired of female victim characters who refuse to take any responsibility whatsoever for their own happiness.

A Ouija board is just a game -- Hasbro or somebody makes them. There's no reason to be afraid of it.

rocky shoe replies:

Yes, Ouija is just a game made at a factory for the purposes of making money. True. But, it is the meaning we put in it that makes it scary.

As to the bored housewife, true it is trite and old, but I have many friends that are bored housewives. Luckily, I am not one of these, and it is hard to imagine allowing myself to be stuck in that role, frustrated that my husband and children do not make me feel complete. Despite my own choices, it is still a life that exists.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

But that doesn't mean it automatically makes for an interesting story.

rocky shoe again:

Yes.

Although I found it fascinating to watch Ford's scabrous and toad-like flesh, and think, once again, how bizarre that men can age so gruesomely and be thought sexy, while women must be fresh as a daisy and free of wrinkles.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

That pisses me off too. I think people get more interesting as they get older, men and women alike.

posted 11.28.00
Ashley writes:

First off, I want to say that i enjoyed reading [the What Lies Beneath review]. It was amusing, humurous, and interesting. I'm going to go back and read other reviews.

OKay, next i want to say that i loved the movie, but i love almost anything, which is why I'm not a critic. I thought it had a good plot(with a few rough edges, i admit). I was scared through the whole thing, ocassionally covering my eyes, but i can also agree that they used the "turn around to see Harrison Ford watching you" too much, but everytime it scared me.

I love Harrison Ford, and the only thing in your review that made me a bit mad, was your saying he was about to enter geezerhood. Even if it's true, i hate that word!! My mom's not a geezer, and I'm sure your mother's not either.

And Ouiga Boards can be taken seriously, if you were in the same position that Clair Spencer was in. A Ghost was haunting her. . .

So they borrowed from movies. . . yes they did. I don't care, and i don't think anyone else cares. Movies borrow from movies all the time.

What i would like, is for you to say some positive things about What Lies Beneath. You've got to have something decent to say about it?

Again, I'm not a critic, so I don't know what the public thinks, or what the critics think, i just know what i think. And I enjoyed the movie. Thanks for writing this.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Of course movies borrow from one another all the time. But when stolen material is all there is, as in What Lies Beneath, that's cheating, and makes for a really boring movie.

I love Harrison Ford, too, but he's no spring chicken anymore, although -- like all other men over 50 in Hollywood -- they think they still deserve to appear onscreen with women young enough to be their daughters.

How closely did you read my review? I didn't say that Ouija boards couldn't be taken seriously (at least within the context of a movie -- anyone who takes them seriously in real life needs to have their head examined). I said, in so many words, that the one character who should have taken the Ouija board seriously doesn't, and that this was indicative of how atrocious the screenplay is.

Why do you care if I have anything positive to say about WLB? Why does it bother you so much that I didn't like it and found it unbelievably boring?

newer mail | previous mail