| home |
RSS feed | ||
 | ||
| Reader Mail | ||
find the latest reviews at the new home page
 get your daily movie dose at the Cinemarati blog
| |
posted 11.28.00 Subject: This Is Spinal Tap How sad are you, Ms. Filosopher? I shoudl have known that a "critic" like you who spouts off her unejicated opinion was one of those skanky "Tapgirls" I remember from High school. REAL Metalheads know that Tap, although they started out as a fairly competent Black Sabbath clone quickly degenrated into a crappy imitator band that latched onto whatever metal trend came along. "Rocka dn Rolld Creation"? - Pretentious art rock that can't hold a candle to the best of Jethro Tull. "Shark Sandwhich"? - Shit sandwhich "Smell the glove"? - Smell my butt! I was actually there for that concert in 1984 in King's Dominion (the one just after the puppet show) that's shown in the documentary (you can see me in the last row, on the left, wearing the white t-shirt with the chocolate ice cream stain on the front). It was the only time I ever saw Tap come close to a fine musical performance - there jazz progressions were actually tolerable! Then their hack guitarist re-joined the band and it was back to crap-rock city! True, the documentary was a brilliant film that causes me to laugh hysterically every time I see it but mostly because it's about some lousy has-beens (or never-wases) that cling to fleeting fame while being surpassed musically by geniuses like Whitesnake and Air Supply. So stick to your "chick flicks" like ALIENS and THE TERMINATOR and the leave the musical criticism to REAL metalheads like me who can recognize the true genius of bands like Warrant and Ratt while leaving "Spinal Twit" in the dust where they belong. A REAL Metal fan! The Flick Filosopher responds: I have only one thing to say to you: Tap RULZ and Ratt DROOLZ!
posted 11.28.00 read your reviews on "Almost Famous and Spinal Tap... man, you Tapgirls were always so scarey/cool ... i'd see you on the street or the subway and be so envious... especially of those red and black striped sweaters that you used to wear until they were all skanky and smelly and stretched out. SO cool! anyhow, i just wanted to say your review was FAR superior to that of reel.com or any of the other slaves to the corporate machine. yours was LOUD and right from the heart of rock n roll. an eleven man! also really dug your review on Almost Famous, which of course was not as real as Spinal Tap but that cameron crowe guy caught the feel of being on the road and breaking new ground. i remember when i was traving with Albacore White man... it was awesome! AND it wasn't all the music. there were drugs and indiscriminate sex too! sometimes there were moments of like, totally peaceful nude sun bathing on the roof of the bus... or communing with the Spirit of Aman Ra who used to appear to us sometimes back stage and tell us great things of wisdom. not that i can pass any of them on to you, you know, because like... they were mysterious and could only be understood internally--especially when using drugs and having sex. i think Albacore were the first group to have a member actually possessed on stage and start speaking in tongues! it was awesome. anyway... thanks for bringing back some memories from my youth -- especially since i can't remember most of my own! The Flick Filosopher responds: You sound really groovy, kid. Thanks for writing.
posted 11.28.00 Here I am a 41 year old stay-at-home mother -- and yesterday I snuck out to catch the matinee of Almost Famous. After a very disappointing year of films, this was a wonderful surprise. My only criticisms were 1) the acting between Crudup and Lee seemed to break down in that Tshirt scene; 2) Kate Hudson often sounded exactly like her mom which was distracting (but in a good way). You're right -- it was almost sad when it ended. I enjoyed your review because it gave me the opportunity to step back into the film for a few minutes.
posted 11.28.00 Subject: Almost Famous is So Corny! Re your review of Almost Famous: Gosh, you are a superb writer. It was an excellently written review, except that you were Almost Right, but not quite (couldn't resist!). How could you say this is an unsentimental film? It's worse than E. T.! Roger Ebert said that this film was so cute he wanted to hug it. Is that art or is it just empty calories? How can those of us who remembered the 1970's rock scene POSSIBLE relate to these cutesy-pie lines and "adorableness"? I knew Mr. Crowe in the mid-1970's and he was anything but immature and shy like William. He was an extremely savvy superstar (but a nice person). And I've been on 1970's band buses - no "kum by ya" group singing atmospheres there! Mr. Crowe has been a great artist all his life. An Oscar is waiting some day...I just wish it would be for a movie with stature, dignity and gravetos (spelling?). Feel-good does not necessarily make for a good film. Neither does ego wallowing. The Flick Filosopher responds: Thanks for your comments. I stand by my review, though, regardless of what Roger Ebert thought -- critics are not required to agree with one another. I also don't think that William was immature -- in fact, he was one of the most mature characters in the film. I don't personally know Cameron Crowe, but I do think this is the finest of all the wonderful films he has made.
posted 11.28.00 My wife and I just watched The Cider House Rules on tape Saturday. We were both looking forward to the experience. We were both disappointed. At the point when Fuzzy dies, which I can only assume is supposed to be an emotionally significant point, I looked at my sife, she looked at me. We both didn't care. I felt no interest in the characters and, probably, could have turned it off and never watched it to the end. Now, perhaps I just don't possess the sensitivity to see it, but I thought Homer looked like he was sleep-walking throughout the entire movie. I read your review and at one point you mention the emotions that fllicker across his face whn he's speaking with Candy about their important decision. I never saw them. Not being a critic, just a fan with a little bit of knowledge, I guess I just don't see movies the same as you do. I feel the same about American Beauty (I think FilmGeek hit this one on the head!). I like reading as many different reviews as i can because it helps me sort out what I REALLY think about a movie. I guess I can't make decisions on my own any more. That was supposed to be funny, but it might be more true than I'd like. Whatever. I have your site bookmarked, and I visit it often. The Flick Filosopher responds: Thanks for your comments. I'm sorry you didn't see the subtleties of Tobey Maguire's performance that I saw -- I think he's one of the most intelligent, most talented young actors working today.
posted 11.28.00 Subject: You're full of bull-dinky. The Thin Red Line is one of the best films of the decade. And human beings may be a part of nature but we are also separate from it in that we are self-aware. And that is part of what TRL is about, our self-awareness. It is also about so many other things....and can't be described in a single capsule on the back of a video box. And plot and character aren't the only things that make a movie. In a sense that's part of what Malick is asking with this film. What is narrative in film? Does it have to be clear? The Thin Red Line and masterpiece go hand in hand. The Flick Filosopher responds: One of the best films... in your opinion, which is no more and no less valid than mine. Chimps and dolphins have demonstrated self-awareness -- individuals of both species recognize themselves in mirrors, for one thing, and dolphins have individual names for themselves. And yet we don't see them going around making long, boring and pretentious movies about themselves, do we? Terry Kerbes replies: Long and boring is how I would describe most of your reviews. 3 hours isn't long, it's only 1 1/2 hours longer than the average movie. The Flick Filosopher responds: You're being funny, right? If 3 hours is only 1.5 hours longer than the average movie, than it's twice as long as the average movie, isn't it? And 3 hours isn't long if we're talking about Dances With Wolves or Branagh's Hamlet. If you find my reviews long and boring, why bother reading them? Life is too short to waste doing stuff you don't enjoy. Terry Kerbes replies: Dances With Wolves? Now you're being funny, right? Besides 3 hours is 3 hours no matter how you slice it. Time can't be bent, altered, or changed in any fashion. Every time I hear a movie critic complain that the movie was "too long" I shake my head and wonder what kind cruel fate it must be to make a living watching movies. Of course if this is just a hobby for you than you can be mildly forgiven. I guess we're just on oppposite poles with TRL, I think its poetic, you think its..ahem....boring. The Flick Filosopher responds: As Albert Einstein said, time is relative, and he explained, somewhat facetiously, that this way: Spend an hour with a pretty girl, and it feels like a minute. Spend a minute with your hand on a hot stove, and it feels like an hour. TRL was three hours with my hand on that stove. I agree, it would quite a cruel fate to make a living watching movies, and though I damn myself by saying so, I think I deserved to be punished in so horrible a way. Right now, I'm getting off scot-free, watching movies and not making a living at it.
posted 11.28.00 I just read your review of Edward Scissorhands and enjoyed it--except for one thing. You seem to be of the opinion, like so many, that Christianity is about intolerance and hatred. This opinion has apparently originated from your experience with Christians. Well, that's the problem. People are imperfect. People are hypocrites. And anyone who calls himself/herself a follower of Christ and yet hates others is NOT obeying the commands of Christ. The Bible tells us that "If anyone says 'I love God' yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother" (1 John 4:20-21). Therefore, Esmerelda cannot rightly call herself a born-again Christian, for she obviously does not love God. Christ commanded us to love--that is what true Christianity is about. The Flick Filosopher responds: The Pope refuses to rescind the 1493 papal bull which gave his distant predecessor's blessing to the European conquest of the New World and conversion of the "heathen" natives, and this in an era when he is apparently trying to make up for past wrongs. The Catholic Church's history is littered with crusades and inquisitions and witch hunts. Fundamentalist Christian leaders today condemn anyone they don't like, from gays to atheists. If the leaders of people who call themselves Christian behave this way, how are we supposed to take their actions? Are they lying? Or are they following the dictates of their hate-filled "holy" book? I'll avoid the Old Testament, since I'm well aware of how some Christians try to get around all the nastiness there -- particularly at the hands of their supposedly loving God -- by proclaiming that only the new covenant -- ie, the New Testament -- applies today. So, from the New Testament: Jesus says: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:49-51). Books are burned in the name of Jesus. (Acts 19:17-19) Jews "displease God" (I Thessalonians 2:15), and they are "detestable, disobedient, and unfit for doing anything good" (Titus 1:16). Women should have their hair cut off if they don't cover it (I Corinthians 11:3); "women should be silent in the churches" (I Corinthians 14:34); women do not have authority, nor should they teach, rather they should be quiet and submissive (I Timothy 2:9-14) "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin" (Hebrews 9:22) If that isn't intolerance and hatred, then I don't know what is. Do you cover your hair? Have you given away all your worldly possessions, as Jesus commanded his disciplines to do? Are you silent in the church? Are you violating that stricture forbidding teaching by proselytizing to me? How can you call yourself a Christian?
posted 11.28.00 I haven't seen the movie so I can't weigh in on whether it's any good or not, but I'm curious why you chose to relegate such an "important" film to your short cuts section. The Flick Filosopher responds: Firstly, why is Requiem an "important" film? Secondly, I am the only person producing content for my site, for no pay, and I need to do other things once in a while, like sleep, see my friends, and earn a living. I simply do not have the time to write full-length reviews of everything, and a capsule review is better than nothing.
posted 11.28.00 Your review of The Fantasticks is so incredibly stupid. Rather than critique the film as a film you have wasted my time as a reader and lover of films (especially musicals) by ranting and raving about how you don't like the story and the music. Who cares! Excuse me, the music is "insipid"?! What do you know about it?! Do you know anything at all about musical theatre? Are you even capable of appreciating this kind of art? The Fantasticks is one of the greatest classic musical plays ever written with a very intelligently and beautifully composed song score which now includes classic song standards that are right up there with all the other classic show tunes of Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin, Oscar and Hammerstein, Lerner and Lowe, George and Ira Gershwin to name only some of the greats. Perhaps in future, before you display your ignorance and arrogance boldly in print you might consider doing some research and study prior to reviewing a film adaptation of a greatly appreciated, respected, highly artistic classical piece of work like The Fantasticks. You don't have to like the play in which the film is based. But readers frankly don't care if you like it or not. The musical play has been running Off-Broadway since the early 60's and it's still running so obviously a lot of people like the show. Maybe if you had taken time to "critique" The Fantasticks as a film you might have had something to offer of value. The Flick Filosopher responds: Let me see if I have this right. When reviewing a musical film, I'm not allowed to comment on the music or the story? Got it. Now that I am aware of this stricture, I will be sure to follow it in the future. What kind of research should have I done? Should I have rung up the president of The Fantasticks fan club before writing my review in order to get an objective reaction to the film before I offered my obviously ignorant opinion? Please enlighten me -- I'm only a stupid critic who needs guidance. Thank you very much for your kindness and your concern. Jeff Haas replies: You obviously did not read carefully what I said in my initial email. You don't know anything about musical theatre, particularly long established classical ones. Plus, you don't have an ear for this kind of music; if you did you wouldn't refer to it as "insipid." Or - you would have at least explained why you think the music is insipid. You can't because you don't know what you're talking about. If you're going to refer to the music in The Fantastics as insipid you better damn have solid and sound reasons for backing up your comments. You obviously were not brought up with this kind of music or theatre; you lack the cultural background. As for research, you could have studied the musical play a bit; listened to the music, got some background on the musical's origins. Most film critics when they review a film that is based on material from another medium do this kind of research. But again, you don't get it because you reply to me with another idiotic comment, about "contacting 'the Fantasticks' Fan Club" (?) The point of this comment is.....? Commenting on the music and story is all well and good but as I said in my original email you did not review the film as film nor did you make any comparisons between the stage version and the film adaptation. This is more proof that you know nothing about the material you were reviewing. Your review of The Fantasticks is not an objective critique of the film which is what readers would be interested in reading. Your review is scathing, nasty diatribe about how you hate the musical play. A musical that you don't understand nor are capable of appreciating. Your views on The Fantasticks are emotionally charged with prejudice and personal bias. And yes, your review of The Fantasticks is based on ignorance. Quite frankly, I'm surprised you're so put out that I am annoyed by your review. If you're going to write such nasty, unsubstantiated, and unschooled comments about this movie than you're naive if you don't think people aren't going to angrily challenge your views. If you're going to dish it out you better be damned ready to get it dished out right back at you. And your passive/aggressive, hypocritical final statement: "Thank you very much for your kindness and concern" only solidifies the truth that you lack the ability to temper your opinions with any objectivity. I do not think you are a stupid film critic. I do think the things you say in your review are stupid. You obviously are an intelligent person but if you choose to review a film treatment of an extremely well known, famous work of musical theatre and proceed to trash it with no sound, objective or thought provoking information to back up such an attack then yes, you do give the reader the impression that you are ignorant. Obviously, you can write and review any way you choose but if you actually want your readers to take you seriously as a reviewer I would suggest that you know what you're talking about before you go into a ranting tirade. The Flick Filosopher responds: I lost count of how many times you accused me of not being "objective." I was not writing a journalistic history of the popularity of The Fantasticks -- if I had been, then objectivity would have been called for. But reviewing movies is not an endeavor that can be approached objectively. We all bring our own unique perspectives into the theater with us -- of course my review is "charged with personal bias"! I don't care if millions of people adore The Fantasticks, the play or the movie. I did not like the kind of film it made. That is my opinion, and whether that has anything to do with my cultural background or supposed lack of understanding of the play has nothing to do with the issue. You are free to disagree with my opinion, but you are not free to say I have no right to hold it in the first place. You obviously have a strong emotional connection to the play, and my "fan club" comment was meant to point out that your opinion -- opinion -- of the play is no more "objective" than mine is. But let me ask you this: Have you seen the movie? If not, go see it. You might find that it does not do justice to this play you love so dearly. Jeff Haas again: I think it's best that we just agree to disagree. I still don't think you get what I'm trying to say and that's fine. I don't agree that one can't review a work of art objectively. I do agree that there will always be some personal bias involved. Actually, you contradict yourself. First you say, ..."of course my review is 'charged with personal bias' ". Then you say: "whether that has anything to do with my cultural background or supposed lack of understanding of the play has nothing to do with the issue." One's cultural background does matter in reviewing works of art. For example, I don't like country western music. But just because I don't like it doesn't mean that it's not any good. I don't like this kind of music because I wasn't brought up with it and I've never bothered to really listen to it and try to develop an appreciation of it. If I was told that I would have to review a country western CD I would not be able to write a good review of it. I wouldn't know if it was good music or not because I don't have an ear for it. It still might be an excellent CD. So I would have to be as objective as I possibly could because the reader might like this kind of music and my review would not be of any use If I couldn't have some objectivity. I might have to admit at the beginning of my review that I don't like country western music. You are right - you don't have to like The Fantasticks just because it's a classic. But I think it's dangerous to trash a classic work and not explain why you're trashing it. In your review you do not explain why you have such strong disdain for the musical play. And like I've already said a hundred times you didn't review The Fantasticks as a film. Your review was simply critical of the subject matter - the music and the story. So you did not write a review of film. You imply that you've seen the stage play. If you hated it so much why did you bother to review the film? Why torture yourself? I guess I don't understand your motives for reviewing a film of material that you abhor. You do make an interesting comment about me seeing the film because I may not like what the film did with play. It would have been interesting if you could have written about this in your original review. That to me would have had more value. You might have some very valid points regarding the problems of transferring the material onto the screen. But as a reader I didn't get any of this information. I might still not agree with you after seeing the film but at least I would have taken your review more seriously and I might be more understanding of why you hate the musical so much. I think that you would have a lot of interesting things to say regarding the film. Of course I do not think you are a stupid film critic - quite the opposite. It has been stupid of me to have carried on this pointless debate. Of course you have a right to your opinion and I do apologize for implying that you don't have that right. You are right also that my opinion is just an opinion as yours is an opinion. We just disagree about this particular musical play and unlike you I do think cultural background and the lack of understanding or appreciation of art forms does matter in writing effective criticism. But let that go. It was wrong of me to berate you for your opinion. I apologize for this. It was also foolish and immature of me to rant and rave ad nauseum. As for seeing the film The Fantasticks I will not have the opportunity. The film is not coming to the city in which I live. I am very disappointed. I will not be renting it on VHS because I abhor panning and scanning of video transfers of films. As far as I know, there will be no home video version made available in letterbox format. In short, you need to review films according to your criteria not mine. It is arrogant of me to expect you to see things from my point of view. In the future when I respond to another ciritic's opinion including yours, I need to practice respect for that critics opinion. The Flick Filosopher responds: I do understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure you understand me. My point is simply that a film has to stand on its own as a film, regardless of how beloved the source material is or how "good" some people think it is. Of course my cultural background affects my personal bias, but just because I am knowledgeable about musical theater, and I am, does not automatically mean I will, or should, like The Fantasticks, the play or the movie. Your country western analogy doesn't quite cut it: it's like saying that a music critic who trashes a single album must not know anything about or like country western music. Read some of my other reviews of musical films, and you'll find that such a sweeping generalization doesn't apply to me.
posted 11.28.00 I was surprised to find a movie we actually disagree on (other than The Matrix): Sleepy Hollow. I was very disappointed in this movie. While I agree with all of your insights about the symbolism, the imagery, etc, I felt none of it was nearly enought to carry the story. For one thing, there was no horror in it. No, I'm not blind. By that I mean, before they even introduce Ichabod, they tell you all about who the headless horseman is, and explain that he is just a 'hessian horseman' who runs around killing for (say it with me) No Apparent Reason, other than he likes snarling and showing off his sharpened teeth (a silly, comic-book detail that adds nothing). This immediately sucks the life out of the mystery behind the horseman. I don't know whether this is true to the original story or not, I've never read it, but I hope not. Luckily, I was distracted at the beginning by the neat cameo of Jack the Pumpkin King. Anyway, the movie then meanders on, and finally it turns into a whodunit! I'm sorry, but all of that heavy mood, gorgeous visuals and fog just didn't seem to serve much purpose without anything really scary to adorn. Part of horror is not knowing what you're up against. Although I liked the backstory they gave Ichabod, I was again disappointed in the way the final flashback completely spelled everything out, in a particularly excessive and gory fashion, and left absolutely nothing to the imagination. One final note: CGI effects are NOT scary. There are several scenes intended to be scary where CGI effects are plainly used. It was distracting and totally unscary. Other than that, it wasn't a bad flick :) The Flick Filosopher responds: I saw Sleepy Hollow a couple of times (and the DVD is in the stack to watch), and I loved it more every time. The movie isn't so much a horror/mystery as it is a pyschological journey on Ichabod's part, along the line between reason and magic. And that was more than enough to keep the story interesting for me. I just watched The Matrix again, and loved it even more, too!
posted 11.28.00 When I hit your site a few days ago I had to smile. Who else would review a Nancy Drew movie [Nancy Drew... Reporter]? You are one very eclectic reviewer. I remember them fondly. I saw them on tv, as a kid. I never thought of them as a " Girls Movie",rather I thought they were great teenage adventure films. You'r looking at them as an adult, If you were twelve again, I think you would love Nancy's over the top behavior.As a boy, I thought she was pretty, vivacious and just a hell of a lot of fun to be around. I may rent one for old times sake. I also enjoyed your review of the Philo Vance [The Kennel Murder Case]. William Powell was one of the very,very best. One of the best mysteries of this type is The X - Mrs. Bradford, With Powell and Jean Arthur. It's at my local Blockbuster,so you should not have trouble finding it in "The Big Apple". Tell you what, If you don't like it, e-mail me, and I'll send you a check for $ 3.25 , that the going rental price in Louisville. The Flick Filosopher responds: Thanks for your nice comments, but I'm afraid I can't take the credit for choosing the Nancy Drew movie to review. Apollo Guide just sends me a stack of DVDs to review -- I don't get to pick what I review.
posted 11.28.00 I watched Billy Elliot last night at the opening of the Durban International Film Festival, and was therefore quite pleased to find that you had already done a review of it. I enjoyed it. I really did. It was everything that this genre of film should be.... a "warm and fuzzy". My only criticism is that this "warm and fuzzy" genre is fast reaching saturation point, and for me, Billy Elliot was that last spoon of sugar that just will not dissolve. There's nothing wrong with the film at all, it's just that everything in it has been done before. It's a motion picture decoupage of extra-Hollywood movies that have had so much success recently. The young boy dances to express his originality and escape a pressured family life from Strictly Ballroom set against the coal-mining crisis of Brassed Off. Heck... the wonderful scene in which his dad compromises the expectations of how he is supposed to act in order to help his child... that reduced the whole of The Full Monty to a couple of minutes. It is, as you say, a three-hankie film. There wasn't a dry eye in the house when he sat in the boxing ring and recited his mom's letter to his coach. It's a movie that will lift you up out of the deepest depression after sluicing your tear ducts. But that is the sort of thing we expect from AMERICAN movies, goddammit! European theatre should, in my opinion, stick with what it does best. Which is stay away from the mass-market consumer-driven claptrap that comprises the bulk of what comes out of Hollywood. Sure, this movie definitely isn't Hollywood. But it's not UK either. Round about Arizona. I must confess that my bias stems from the fact that I saw this movie at a film festival (a time where I feel almost compelled to buy a tweed jacket with patched elbows and carry a pipe, muttering "Deeply Symbolic Of The Folly Of Man" under my breath as I head to the bar at interval). Still, I enjoyed your review (as I enjoy all of them). Keep up the outstanding work.
posted 11.28.00 I have read your three reviews of Titanic and I have meant to write to you. This is probably my favorite film of all time. I completely agree with your reviews of the film, except for one point. You mentioned repeat business from teenage girls may be one reason it did so well at the box office. I was 42 at the time of the film's release, and I saw it seven times in the theater! I couldn't help it - it just drew me there every time. I would see it with anyone who would go. Perhaps because I knew how important it was to see a film of this magnificence in its true element. That's all I wanted to tell you - except that I enjoy your reviews. Please keep it up. Just wanted to know that I feel as you do about this movie. There just aren't enough movies of this kind out there. I may watch it tonight!! The Flick Filosopher responds: I'm well past my teen years, too, and I saw Titantic three times in the theater. I didn't say that only teen girls were seeing the movie multiple times, but it was they, for the most part, who made the film the humongous hit it was.
posted 11.28.00 Nice review [of Bedazzled], but, for shame, how could you not mention the original Peter Cook/Dudley Moore film? :^) One of my favorites - Peter Cook, especially, was wonderul in it - perhaps the only movie where he actually tried instead of just showed up. Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm seeing the re-make (not a big Elizabeth Hurley fan), but the original was wonderful piece of swinging '60's kitsch. Mike Meyers wishes he could be this good. Wonderful website BTW. The Flick Filosopher responds: I didn't mention the original because I haven't seen it, and since I couldn't compare and contrast the two -- and since my review focused on how Brendan Fraser made the film for me -- there didn't seem to be much opportunity to work the original in.
posted 11.28.00 I'll admit you're not 100% off base [in the review of Pay It Forward], though I do think you are leaping in critically a bit too fast... The trouble for you reviewers, as I see it, is that the movie is never self-deprecating, and without that little wink-wink, nudge-nudge, you critics, who rightly feel its your job to be critical, are a little uncomfortable allowing yourselves to be drawn into the movie's narrative. I understand, and I don't envy them the job of trying to be objective about as touchy-feely a movie as this, but I think that they're a little too willing to extend their claws just because the movie never tries to defend itself from such attacks. The paradox is that any such retreats would undo the narrative structure, so the movie can't hope to succeed without inviting claims of "manipulation" or "cliche"... But manipulations are the stock and trade of virtually all stories, and every film director I can think of relies on them constantly, with the possible exception of Mike Leigh, and cliches become cliches for a reason... try to look past the easy targets this movie presents and think about how it uses them, and judge it on whether it uses them successfully. The Flick Filosopher responds: Of course every movie is manipulative and contrived -- all invented stories are. But it's when you can see the strings that I start complaining. And you needn't worry that I'm trying to be objective -- I don't think that's possible for a movie critic. I'm perfectly willing to let a movie swept me away. Pay It Forward didn't do that, and left me feeling very jerked around. A good movie doesn't do that: it hides the fact that it is jerking the audience around.
posted 11.28.00 WARNING: If you insist on wasting your money on Pay It Forward, DON'T read anymore because I talk about the ending! Ditto on your criticism of the ending of this otherwise enjoyable film. As a pretty average movie-goer, I headed to the theater prepared for a feel-good film based on the commericals I had seen. Okay, they sure pulled out all the stops between the scars, the booze and the abusive dad. Everything was moving along fine and the reporter had made it to the beginning of the story. Darling little Trevor is getting his moment in the sun, and we are all happy for him. Then, BAM! and we get to see him die in a ridiculous junior high fight. So much for feeling good. All they managed to prove is that paying it forward isn't a very smart thing to do. They managed to take away everything good that Trevor had tried to do, and every good feeling I had about this movie. Surely no one believes that a 12 year old boy should take one in the gut so his buddy won't get roughed up a little. Remember, the bullies had been picking on the other kid for quite a while without causing any permanent damage, but when Trevor got involved, the result was death. Totally senseless. I admit that when I go to a feel-good flick, I really do want to leave feeling good. Go ahead, lead me in the direction you want me to go, bring on the bad guys, just let it end in a way that lets me go home smiling, not mad. The ending seemed to me to be an American Beauty wanna be. I should have known from the music, which sounded so similar. They had a nice little picture, but could they leave it at that? No, they had to put in something "deep", I guess, under the premise that a picture can't be really good if it doesn't make the viewer feel bad. I don't know if I agree with you about casual moviegoers loving this film, guess we'll just have to see how the box office does. I know that I told my mom not to go see it because she wouldn't like the way it ended, but she's into nothing but feel-goods. I think that they need to cut out the last 10 minutes, give us the happy ending we've paid for and let us leave the theater glad that we got to meet Trevor and his teacher. The Flick Filosopher responds: No good deed goes unpunished... that was the moral of the story as I saw it. But I think the filmmakers were going more for a Christ metaphor: Cute little Haley died for our sins, so we could have a better world. *gag* And as if we didn't get it, Trevor falls with his arms outstretched, like he's been crucified. Plus, that stab in the gut was a little reminiscent of the jab Jesus got. I'm sure if Mimi Leder could have worked a crown of thorns in, she'd have done that as well.
posted 11.28.00 While you may feel that you will "burned in effigy" for your review [of Pay It Forward], it won't be my me. I totally agree with your review. I don't mind being manipulated, if the story is good and the characters are likeable. But Leder and Dixon never really let you get to know the characters on a sufficient level to care. And the ending was totally out of the blue and totally inconsistent with the rest of the film. Instead of paying it forward, I wanted the theater to pay my money back. My vote, so far, for the worst film of the year.
posted 11.28.00 I read your Footloose review and I couldn't agree with you more. Another '80s movie along similar cheesy lines is Girls Just Want to Have Fun starring Sarah Jessica Parker (also a Footloose player), Helen Hunt as the wacky friend Jonathan Silverman and Shannen Doherty. Like Footloose, it features shadow dancers and a stiff, controlling father figure. I offer the following explanation, however, for the reason "why Ren and his mom ended up in this town full of sheep in the first place"-- it's because Ren's father has walked out on him and his mom and they are retreating to live with her relatives in this small town. I always assumed it was mom's sister and brother-in-law. There were also two young cousins in the home, one of whom thought Ren "a total fox." Love your page. The Flick Filosopher responds: I remember the cousins and the explanation that Ren's father had walked out, but that doesn't explain why Ren and his mother end up in that godawful town, relatives notwithstanding. Neither the mom nor Ren seemed to particularly get along with or even like the relatives, so why move in with them? It doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter -- it's a silly movie. |
| ||
| home |
RSS feed | ||