posted 11.28.00
David Conner writes:

On your discussion of plot points in X-Men, I was a little surprised by Magneto's willingness to sacrifice Rogue at first, but I think it ultimately makes sense. Another way to look at it is that Magneto's Ellis Island plan was simply the first shot in a long war. And Magneto has the awareness (or hubris?) to realize that the war can't be won without his leadership. So even if he would sacrifice himself for total victory, the time wasn't right. So, regrettably, he had to sacrifice another mutant.

posted 11.28.00
Geoff McLain writes:

Subject: Regarding the great X-Men debate

While I agree with most of your argument in defense of X-Men, I have to disagree with both you and Mr. Bertoni on the Magneto question. I don't think he was either "a Jew killing a Jew to get back at the Nazis", or sacrificing Rogue for "equal rights for mutants", as Mr. Bertoni argued, nor was he "saving his own skin", as you argued. I think the better analogy would be a Jew killing a Jew in order to prevent the Holocaust--sacrificing one in order to save millions. Magneto wasn't worried about equal rights, he wasn't worried about getting the mutants equal pay for equal work, he wasn't trying to enact some kind of petty revenge scenario--he felt that mutantkind faced a much more serious threat, that of complete annihilation. He saw a direct parallel between the current political climate and that of Nazi Germany in the early days, and he could not see any other possible outcome for mutants than concentration camps. His actions weren't simple two-dimensional villainy; he was attempting to prevent genocide; he was fighting for a moral cause, however immoral his tactics may have been. Which brings us to Wolverine's point, that Magneto was full of bullshit, because a truly righteous man would be willing to die himself. I wonder, however, if Magneto's decision to use Rogue as a sacrificial lamb represented cowardice, so much as ego. Magneto is a phenomenally strong-willed, powerful character; such a character would be inclined to believe that he was irreplaceable, unexpendable. Who will guide the new world through the coming difficult times, if not him? This would be, of course, utter bullshit; but it is the kind of bullshit that egoists are always suckers for.

Finally, Magneto embodies Nietszche's warning about becoming the monster you fight. (C'mon, a discussion about superheroes--someone had to drag that poor syphilitic bastard Nietzsche into it sooner or later!) Given his personality--a combination of ego, power, fanaticism and grief--killing innocent people would absolutely be in character for him. I don't think a concentration camp would turn very many of us into gentle-hearted pacifists filled with faith in humanity's goodness.

But anyway, it was a fun, good movie. (As opposed to the Patriot, which was neither.) It might not have been a great movie, but it was great fun. The women obviously weren't, by any stretch of the imagination, weaklings; Jean was the one who figured out Magneto's plan, by first fixing and then using Cerebro--against the wishes of the men, as you pointed out; Storm destroyed Toad, who had previously and handily defeated half the team; and the fight between Wolverine and Mystique was easily the closest, most exciting fight in the movie. Obviously, they couldn't give all the characters equal airtime, without making a 10-hour movie; and obviously, as you pointed out, they had to go with Wolverine, as he is the money-maker of the franchise.

And Anna Paquin was lovely as always, and her performance was superb, as always; the big brother/little sister relationship between her and Wolverine was the emotional core of the movie. Of course she was whiny and teary and melodramatic; she was a teenager. With the mind of ANOTHER teenager trapped in her head. But, "unemotional face"? Geez! How much emoting does Mr. Bertoni expect?

Although, I have to admit, Halle's accent WAS somewhat less than Streepian.

It was, however, perfectly Costnerian.

PS: As an aside to Mr. Bertoni: it's kind of unlikely that Wolverine would want to have a beer with any of us, as we all spend WAY too much time on our computers, discussing comic-book movies. I'm afraid Wolverine would think we are all pathetic dorks, bub. Likewise Magneto.

posted 11.28.00
Ola Jaensson writes:

Hello there, and THANK YOU for pointing out that very special relationship between Logan and Rouge in the X-Men movie...I'm just so pleased to see that I'm not the only one to have noticed that well-balanced tension between them, and you captured it beautifully in your review. Indeed, it is a subject rarely depicted on screen. Perhaps the sci-fi-genre itself makes it possible, with its connections to myths and folklore. I myself grew up with "la Belle et la Bete", and everytime I see something like a young girl getting in touch with her "animal" side in a movie, I am sooooo happy. :-)

posted 11.28.00
mutate20 writes:

As a longtime comic fan, I've been reading several reviews as a sort of post mortem analysis of how the X-Men movie was received. I enjoyed your thoughtful commentary and also read your discussion with David Bertoni. I would like to address some of the issues mentioned as plot holes, as I've discussed them with fellow fans on message boards. (1) "Might Magneto have been more self-sacrificing in his plan?" No; that is why generals have foot soldiers, whether the are recruited (Mystique, Toad, Sabertooth) or drafted (Rogue). This is only the beginning of a war between humanity and mutants, certainly not the time for a leader to give up his own life when a soldier's life would suffice. (2) "How does Magneto know about Rogue?" Mystique, posing as the senator's assistant for weeks, had access to all information that was sent to the senator, including reports of mutant activity like the file she hands to him during the debate scene with Dr. Grey. (3) "Why doesn't Xavier just read Sabretooth's mind?" Cerebro is purely a locator, amplifying Xavier's detection abilities, but not his deciphering nor projection. Otherwise, another alternative would be to change Sabertooth's mind against carrying out Magneto's instructions. Xavier needs proximity to employ his full range of abilities.

posted 11.28.00
Andy Young writes:

Hold up. Being one o' them readers you should have realized that The Ninth Gate was what every old school, Lovecraftian horror story is except on the big screen rather than a cheap paperback. It wasn't supposed to be glitzy or bloody, just......spooky. True there are silly parts (the twins, the Satanic orgy) but all those silly parts are typical of early 1900's horror, which is exactly what this movie was emulating. They seem goofy now only because we're used to HellRaiser and the like, but back in the day a story about an evil book (Necronomicon anyone?), Satanic orgies, murder, gateways into the netherworld, and mythical legends like the Whore of Babylon (that's who that blonde on the motorcycle is throughout the flick). were freaky. Even though this review was, in my humble opinion, less than perfect.........you still ROCK.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I realized the pulpy roots of The Ninth Gate, but I nevertheless still did not find it spooky. Not in the least. If Polanski wanted to send up Lovecraft, he needed to be a lot more over the top. Where The Ninth Gate is funny, it's unintentional.

Andy Young replies:

I was going to leave this one alone but I couldn't resist. You say you realize the spooky-novel origins of the book but Lovecraft wasn't always "over the top". Indeed, some of his best work involved no monsters at all. Just the presence of monsters and quiet hints at the supernatural were enough to make most of his seemingly mundane works, truel terrifying. I think Polanski was shooting for something like this. Something so subtle as to be missed by those not paying attention. Not to say you were alseep in the movie, but maybe you made a judgement about it because you thought it was going to be something it wasn't. Who knows, I wasn't invited to the screening. Anyway, The Ninth Gate was cool and I've seen it twice in the past month and I still like it.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I wasn't invited to any screening of The Ninth Gate -- studios generally don't screen movies after they're released. I just rented the DVD, and I didn't sleep through it, either. If the frights there were supposed to be subtle, I guess they were just too subtle for me to get. I laughed through most of the movie, actually.

posted 11.28.00
Ashley writes:

Hi, I love Star Wars as much as the next person does, perhaps more. I was intimatly into the triology when i was a kid. I was also overjoyed when the new episode came out, and was appreciative of the connections between the originals and The Phantom Menace. The only thing this movie was missing was Han Solo.

But i would like to point out everything seemed more high tech than in the original movies, which take place in the future, from phantom's viewpoint. It seems that George Lucas brought a timetraveling machine back to Anakin's childhood, and desposited equipment they didn't even have in Jedi. It doesn't quite fit.

Jar Jar Binks is a total waste. All he did was get Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon a shuttle to escape the bad guys. Lucas could have been more imaginative as to getting the jedi's a way out, instead of counciously trying to replace Chewbacca, or maybe C-3PO, and trying to relate to the younger generation(which he did fine with Anakin Skywalker.)

The Flick Filosopher responds:

If you subscribe to the generational theory promulgated by Howe and Strauss (see fourthturning.com), there was no Han Solo-type character in Phantom, who's basically of a GenX type generation, and there could not have been a character like him, because his generation would have been babies or youngsters during the events of Phantom. (Some have argued that Anakin is of Han Solo's generation, but even if he is, he's too young to have developed the snarky, devil-may-care attitude that will exemplify Han's generation as adults.)

The reason, perhaps, that things seem more high-tech in Phantom than they did in STAR WARS is the reason that things were more high-tech in the Roman Empire than they were in medieval Europe: technology took a slide, lost ground during a period of cultural stifling. I don't see the Empire as particularly encouraging R&D, and I doubt the Emperor oversaw a period of cultural flowering. The Empire sent the galaxy into a "dark ages."

Ashley again:

Subject: Return Of The Jedi

I hate Jawas. Why did Lucas choose them over Wookies(as he had originally planned) is beyond me. The whole battle on Endor is a comedy sketch that could have been on Saturday Night Live. Jawas are teddy bears, something that the kids will want to see over and over again. Star Wars and Empire weren't really for kids, but this movie seems to be. The only thing about Jedi that is along the same lines as SW and Empire, is the fight between Vadar and Luke, and the Emperor. The tension is great there.

The begginning text that slowly crawls through the screen is also annoying. What ever happened to the dark stuff (it is a dark time for the rebels. . .)? It is now replaced by(Luke skywalker returns to his homeplanet to save his friend Han Solo).

OH, and Han solo is a pretty picture. A chubby Mr. Rogers, a cheerful, happy, supportive man, instead of the interesting rascal smuggler he used to be. Jedi's Han Solo is cracking off one liners, that could be in your average sitcom.

One more thing I'd like to point out, is the way Anakin Skywalker so easily was accepted back to the light side. And why does he get to get cleaned up, and regrow his hair, when Yoda still stays the same elderly muppet?

Sorry, still something left. Remember the nice, relaxing song that was played in the orginal Jedi's Jabba's palace? So what happened? Lucas figured it would appeal more to have a music video, with clearly animated figures?

Don't get this wrong, I love Star Wars, which is why I'm critcizing it. I have nothing bad to say about Wars and Empire. Jedi was pushing itself to far into a disney movie stratus.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I think you mean you hate Ewoks. I mean, everyone hates Jawas, filthy little buggers (now watch me get mail from the Jawa Antidefamation League), but Jawas are not teddy bears, so I assume you're not really referring to them.

Maybe Yoda always looked the way he did, and that's why he stays a muppet in the Jedi afterlife.

Many SW fans have issues with Jedi --- you're not alone.

posted 11.28.00
Ee B Galbraith writes:

Read your review of The Godfather. If I read correctly, your argument is: Don Wildmon preaches family values. Don Corleone preaches family values. Don Corleone is also a murderer, extortionist & racketeer. Therefore, Don Wildmon is bad.

You could also argue that Don Wildmon is bad because everyone addresses him as "Don"... just like "Don Corleone!" Sound logical?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

You do not read my argument correctly. Nowhere do I say that Wildmon is bad (though I do think he's dangerous). How closely did you read my review? The very last line of it is: "I guess that just goes to show that maybe the much-vaunted 'family values' aren't quite the solution for the problems that ail us." That's my point: Wildmon thinks if everyone adopts his version of "family values" (which includes things like hatred and discrimination against everyone who's not like him), all our problems as a society will miraculously vanish. My argument is that so-called "family values" are not the panacea that some people would like to think they are. And I could not have been clearer making that point in my review. Try reading it again.

posted 11.28.00
Art Aiello writes:

As I was scanning many of your reviews, I came across the review you wrote for The Crossing. Actually, I finished reading your review for Longitude, and thought you might have similar praise for The Crossing. The Crossing was the first A&E historical drama I had seen, and as a documentary buff, I really enjoyed it. I've never been a big fan of American history, but I grew up in Trenton, NJ, moving to the midwest in the fifth grade. My family had picnics at Washington's Crossing State Park in Delaware. And the one thing I found myself doing as I watched The Crossing was kicking myself for not having recognized the historical significance of my birthplace while I still lived there. As an adult, I would have loved to see The Crossing in Trenton, and then sought out the historical locations described in the movie in an effort to better understand the events. If The Crossing does nothing else for the viewer, I think at the very least it prompt s us to look at the dirt on which we are living, wherever that may be, and wonder what may have happened there throughout the course of history.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I live not far from Gun Hill Road in the Bronx, so named because it's where Washington's troops dragged their heavy artillery up to a strategic hilltop. Pretty cool.

posted 11.28.00
Jay Payne writes:

I too enjoyed Cube when I rented the video tape over a year ago. My wife didn't like it too much, but once again you hit the nail right on the head. You are too good for your own good. (Does that even make sense?!)

I read every one of your reviews and have even started to use "FlickFilosopher Lingo": natch.

Keep up the good work, though I have a feeling you would, regardless of my plea.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

What, pray tell, is "Flick Filosopher lingo"? :->

Jay Payne replies:

Natch.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Ah, that's hardly original to me. I picked that up while I was writing fashion copy for McCall's magazine.

Jay Payne again:

Oh well, you got me saying it now. Your website was the first place I had seen it, so you get the credit (or the blame, depending on how you look at it) anyway.

posted 11.28.00
Andy Young writes:

Subject: Bless the Child

I really wished I had taken your advice Mary Ann. I just couldn't get the trailer outta my head because it was so cool what with all the monsters (I'm a sucker for monsters). I didn't want to believe you when you explained that the trailer was 10 times better than the actual movie. The only problem with your review was that it wasn't scathing enough. Oh well, live and learn.

Just when I thought I'd seen the last of Kim Basinger and her horrible acting, she had to go and sleep with some director and get put into another movie. Perhaps the most phony actress next to Julia Roberts and definitely the least sincere.

From the moment the movie started, not even five minutes in she's giving some emotional speech about "Just saying NO" while slapping her strung out sister around. Maybe I would've cared if there had been some build up, but it quite literally went from no dialog to a heated argument that was supposed to pull at the audiences' heartstrings. I'd barely gotten settled into my extraordinarily uncomfortable seat and here she is CRYING on the big screen. I really should've taken that as a cue to leave but I paid $20 bucks and come hell or high water I wasn't going anyplace. Just like this movie.

It seems as though the director/writers wanted us to think that Basinger was a good, concerned surrogate mother for her goofy child Cody. Unfortunately the only thing that came across was that she was really stupid and that it was amazing her "child" lived to be 6 years old in the first place.

Perfect example: Christina Ricci is landed in the hospital for some sort of heroin OD or some such nonsense where Basinger works as a nurse. She alerts Basinger to the fact that she knows her estranged sister and also about her daughter and is trying to tell Basinger that there is an organized GROUP of thugs after her child. Basinger doesn't even hear that, instead demanding Ricci to tell her where her useless bitch of a sister is. Duh! If some heroin junkie knows all about your family and tells you your kid is going to get it, you'd think you'd run straight home to get your kid right? Or wait, even better: Her sister shows up on her doorstep after dumping her kid on her 6 years ago and brings with her googly eyed Rufus Sewell. They demand to take Cody and the two end up kidnapping the kid an leaving. I've known 3 years olds who would die rather than give up a semi-favorite toy yet Basinger just whines lamely when Cody is kidnapped right out of her house. She also gets herself into trouble trying to get the kid back all by herself from the organized group of devil-worshipping killers. In her vigilant quest to get Cody back, Basinger goes all out and even sends an E-MAIL to the kidnapper (Sewell) politely requesting that he call her. Not only was that retarded, it had no place in the movie. Any director worth their salt knows how lame it would be for Basinger to ask the devil-worshipping-child-murderer if he "got her e-mail". Please. Thing is, they realized it AFTER they shot the scene where she sends it so it becomes one of those parts of the movie that are conveniently forgotten. Thank God.

And what the hell is that trip to the dentist? I guess evil really cares about oral hygiene. You'd figure that since this is evil's one chance (in what, two thousand years?) to get a hold of the next Prophet of God, that the forces of evil would be a bit more careful and, gee I don't know, lock Cody up in a underground fortress or something. But no, on the eve of potential world domination through Cody, they decide it's time for a check-up. What the hell?

I won't even get into the stupidity of all the other "cop characters" who were, at their acting best, moronic and unbelievable. There was absolutely no character development among the cops other than some sort of animosity between the special agent and the regular beat cops. And of course the special agent is the noble seminary student turned crime fighter because prayers weren't good enough for him. Good God this script is mostly a photocopy of every other "ritual killing" movie ever made. There is always the hard-boiled cop who knows everything about the occult. How formula can you get?

Another conveniently forgotten part was that a small army of law enforcement was on its way for the final siege on the "devil house" and only the special agent and a random cop show up. Along with Basinger who cannot stay put and is always putting everyone's life in jeopardy. The random cop disappears after one scene and is never "scene" again. Ha, a pun.

The only cool things: CGI monsters, rats, demons, the devil etc. strategically placed throughout the movie so that just when you're about to walk out of the theater you decide to settle for a little eye candy. Not nearly enough of it though. I suppose the director wanted us to be frightened solely by the ogling effects of spooky looking and plastic acting Sewell. I know I'll have sleepless nights.

This movie was still better than Autumn in New York though which is the ultimate worst movie. I can't believe I've seen two horrible movies in the past couple of months where I really wanted to leave. That represents $40 bucks and at least three hours lost forever where I could've been clipping my nails or something else equally exciting. I think Sewell put it best when Cody made a bunch of plates spin in protest to her future death and/or conversion to the dark side as he simply said, "Is that all?". Damn Hollywood.

You still rule Mary Ann, but I'm not buying a T-shirt. A magnet yes, but no T-shirt.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I'm sorry you've suffered so. It's been an awful movie summer.

posted 11.28.00
Frank Kane writes:

I am a 42 yr old Irish-American disbeliever in the Church and the IRA Mythos, and the son of a devoutly Catholic and ferociously pro-IRA immigrant from Galway. I have been reading your website regularly for 2-3 months now, and thus obviously, have found it worthwhile. I am awed and dismayed though by the extent of your misconceptions regarding the conflict in Ulster [in the Titanic Town review]. Since however, this is a not a forum about the history and politics of the British Isles, let me instead suggest a very good movie with a slightly different take on the matter. BELFAST ASSASSIN is a tough, smart gem of a movie made, I believe, by the BBC in the early 80s ; if you can find it, see it and thank me later....

The Flick Filosopher responds:

You didn't say what I got wrong. The factual information in my review came either from the film itself or the press materials that accompanied it. And none of that contradicted what I know about the situation, as a (partly) Irish-American, a religious disbeliever, someone anti-IRA, and a friend to many Irish from the North.

posted 11.28.00
Juscat67@aol.com writes:

What a great review [of Eyes Wide Shut]- I couldn't agree more that this movie was crap. It wasn't only disappointing, it was offensive. Its about time that someone had the balls to speak out about double standards when it comes to on screen nudity. Not that this was the only thing wrong with this movie by a long shot. How many gratuitous naked women did he need to put in here? I won't even go into the poorly written script, ridiculous and inconsistent story lines (who the hell rolls a Cheech and Chong joint and acts that aggressive, and what prostitute that looks like that would only charge $150 and not want to accept the money for just talking! Christ, I could go on). But tons of cookie cutter naked women? That takes the case - I guess naval officers never remover their clothing during sex - neither do men at orgies. If this story was reversed and Kidman had a zillion naked men around her, I don't think we'd see too many men watching this movie unless they were gay. I have no problem with nudity in films - male or female- if it fits in with the story, as a matter of fact I love hard-core porn because the human body is so beautiful and I get to see close ups of it in action. I just have a problem with the double standard in the American movie industry. I wish more women, like you would stop staying silent and speak out about the hypocrisy.Just because someone doesn't appreciate this movie and speaks out about double standards doesn't make her a femi-nazi or ignorant, just outspoken. Its amazing the way guys have such a sense of entitlement when it comes to gratuitous T & A. Will they be so open minded when and if the table are turned?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Thank you for your comments. I hope you continue to enjoy my site.

Juscat67@aol.com replies:

I'm surprised you responded. Thanks - keep up the good work! So do you feel that we will see more male nudity in our new millennium, especially with the number of female consumers constantly rising?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Women tend not to be particularly interested in male nudity, at least not the way that men are -- women want character and romance along with any nudity, and men don't require that. But if there is an increase in male nudity, it won't be because women want it but because our society has becoming increasingly comfortable with the idea of male homosexuality. After all, if women are allowed and expected to be turned on by female nudity -- and they are expected to be -- then it's only when straight men are expected to be turned on, or at least not actively turned off, by male nudity that we'll see much more of it in mainstream movies.

The number of female consumers isn't rising -- what makes you think that?

posted 11.28.00
Rachel writes:

I've read your reviews for a while now and figured I'd check it out today just hoping to see a small mention of Highlander: Endgame. I wanted to hear someone else's review besides the usual "It sucked" or "It rocked". And I was thrilled when your site did not disappoint.

Your review really made my laugh and nod my head in agreement. It's great to get an opinion from a woman (on all movies) instead of grey haired old men. Your site fills a hole that's sadly lacking in movie commentary land. I felt the urge to let you know your work is very much appreciated.

And Happy Anniversary, too!

posted 11.28.00
Kayla S Fisher writes:

You call yourself a Highlander fan???? You don't know the meaning of the word fan. I have seen the movie twice and plan on seeing it again. You and a lot of other critics don't know a good movie when it slaps you in the face. You said everybody laughed from beginning to end? Now I know that's a plain out and out lie. It's you and people like you that call yourselves critics and don't know what the hell you're talking about that make me disrespect critics in general. You need to stop spuing such garbage and retire. LONG LIVE THE HIGHLANDER. May we have many more great movies.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

If "fan" means "one who lacks discrimination," then you're right: I don't fit that definition. But you certainly do.

Kayla S Fisher replies cluelessly:

Excuse Me? Discrimination? Who said anything about discrimanation? (LOL) You are totally lost. Don't bother writting again. You don't have anything I want to read.

posted 11.28.00
TGHarbor@aol.com writes:

Maybe you could have saved your fellow droogs experience by taking off your shirt during your screening of Endgame.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Adrian Paul is much more attractive than I am, so I doubt your suggestion would have helped much.

posted 11.28.00
Jon Arnett writes:

I just read your review on Highlander: Endgame, and I was very impressed with your writing. You're quite funny, and I actually thought a guy was writing the article until the end, where you said that you were waiting for some guy to take off his shirt, then I noticed your name being female. Anyway, it's not to say that women can't be funny, I just don't know any who are. And by that token, I just wanted to let you know, how very funny (in the good witty sense) that you are.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I could be a gay guy pretending to be a girl. Ya never know...

Jon Arnett replies:

Again, as I said that I didn't really know any girls that were funny, I don't know any gay guys that are funny.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

My comment was meant to be funny. You should hang out with funny people more so you get used to humor. (Just another joke.)

Jon Arnett again:

For future reference, when you read any message sent by me, change the voice in your mind to sound like Norm MacDonald, then you'll know how I meant it to be heard.

posted 11.28.00
Janice Wolk writes:

Your reviews on actor Ioan Gruffudd's movies [Solomon and Gaenor and Warriors] are well-worded, sensitive and intelligent. Bravo, and thank you for giving this talented man the recognition he deserves.

posted 11.28.00
Cherokee33184@aol.com writes:

Just so that you know it is with aid from this film and the teaching of my school that I wish to become a doctor. I too want to help people I want the power to help save a life and sometimes doctors are WAY out of line but I respect their should I say "prickness" But I respect them. So why can't YOU respect the work of this fine movie and this brilliant man.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

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

Cherokee33184@aol.com replies:

Patch Adams

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Now that I know what movie you're talking about... Fine movie? It's utter tripe, and treacly tripe at that. If Patch Adams is teaching you how to doctor, please tell me where you will be practicing, so I know where never to go for medical assistance.

posted 11.28.00
Thomas Falater writes:

Your review of Bulworth is utter hogwash. It was one of the worse films I have ever seen. As I left the theater, two couples were at the manager's office asking for a refund for wasting their money on watching such a film, something I have never seen before...(I did, however, see three people walk out of the film half way through).

And yet, I read this review of your proclaiming it 'brilliant'.

Give me a break. It was garbage. Warren Beatty is on drugs or something.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Gee, if only I'd known you hated the movie so much, I'd have refrained from calling it brilliant. My only purpose in life is to avoid causing you to take offense, and I failed miserably in this instance. Please accept my deepest, most humble apologies.

Thomas Falater replies:

Your apoligies are accepted.

In the future, before you write such ridiculous review on films that are obvious garbage, I suggest that you educate yourself about the art of film.

Bullworth, by the way, was the laughing stock of Hollywood for months.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Since you obviously missed the sarcasm in my reply, I'll be plainer: Your definition of garbage is not definitive -- to be even plainer, just because you think something is garbage does not make it so, not does it require that everyone else think it garbage.

Perhaps you'd care to educate me in the art of film. What is it about Bulworth that makes it garbage?

Thomas Falater again:

I did understand the sarcasm of your reply but I was ignoring it and turning it back upon you, obviously.

No, my definition of garbage is not definitive but when the majority of people concur and when the financial records bear evidence to support the opinion of the majority, the definition of garbage vis a vis Bullworth becomes a circumstantial fact.

I will now educate you upon judging the value of films:

=A film does not return a salable profit.
=A film is not given any awards of artisitic merit.

When one of the criteria is met, a film can either be good or bad, depending upon one's tastes. When both of the above criteria is met, a film is factually garbage.

If you have any more questions, let me know. So far, you are the only person I had met who has any connection whatsoever to the film industry (even as a self-proclaimed critic) who considered the film Bullworth good. Also, I am amazed that you thought my treatment of your sarcastic reply could have been explained by my ignorance of your ruse.

This entire conversation is quite humorous, I've never so easily beat someone into the mud and had such an easy time wielding my intellectual prowess over such a complete idiot.

Please continue.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

You have some odd ideas about what makes a movie great. Lots of critically acclaimed films fail to earn back their budget or win any awards. So what?

Who is among this "majority of people" you say concur that Bulworth is garbage? Take a look through the reviews listed for the film at the Movie Review Query Engine. James Berardinelli, one of the Net's most respected critics, gave Bulworth 3.5 out of 4 stars. If Net critics aren't good enough for you, Roger Ebert also gave it 3.5 out of 4 stars. So did USA Today. The Austin Chronicle and Film Threat gave it 4 out of 5. And then we have The New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and Time magazine raving over the film. It's true that not everyone loved the film, but the general consensus is in the other direction.

I don't see any mud around me. You'll have to try harder.

Thomas Falater again:

Your statement: 'critically-acclaimed' films that fail to win any awards is an oxymoron.

I can point you in the direction of hundreds of critics who called Bullworth a bomb. Therefore, my statement and points stand untouched despite your best effort.

Once again, you have failed to come close to even remotely proving your point or winning the argument.

I would ask you to try again but if this is your best effort, it isn't worth my time.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

You said that I was the only person you knew who praised Bulworth, yet when I point out major critics who adored the film, you ignore that. And I think you misunderstand what "oxymoron" means -- a film that is "critically acclaimed," it means that movie critics like it, not that industry insiders (aka the Academy) bestow upon it a little golden guy. Even end-of-year critics' awards can never give awards to every film that earned terrific reviews.

I'm starting to think you're pulling my leg.

Thomas Falater once more:

'Critically acclaimed' (SIC), means just what it says. And if a film has not received any artistic awards or nominations, it has not been acclaimed. The majority of awards presented to films are voted upon by various media and art critics, some of whom you have mentioned. The particular award you mentioned is probably the most publicly well-known but certainly not the majority.

You do seem to have a problem with citing one or two or even a handfull of examples and then making broad sweeping conclusions as if they are fact.

You simply mention a few critics and then state that the entire community of Hollywood loves the film. Your exceptions prove the rule and prove my fact. Bullworth was a worthless flop. It didn't even sell foreign distribution rights. Beatty personally lost over 5 million on the film.

I do realize however that people of your lower intelligence and income situation like to have the last word so you can feel superior, therefore I will let you have it and give you the feeling that you have 'won'. I will not respond to your gibberish.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

My "income situation"? What does that mean? How could you possibly think you know anything about my financial situation?

I'm a member of Mensa, by the way. You know, the high-IQ society.

newer mail | previous mail