legeros.com > Movie Hell > Letters > Letters |
------------------------------------------------------------------- Letters to Hell - June 2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Contents ======== - Fanning - Better Writing Skills - Dare to Review - What Was Your Favorite Laugh Out-Loud Moment? - Painfully Punny - Eternally Grateful - Music By John Morris - Common Sense - Second-Rate Craftsmanship - I Didn't Even Try to Keep From Laughing - Unless You're a Chick #1 - Unless You're a Chick #2 - Fat Rosie O'Donnell - Talking to the Camera - At Least It Was Better Than Mary Reilly Fanning ======= [ From: Tish ] > > Hi. I'd like to e-mail Brian Dehenney directly. Can you help me? > [ No ] Better Writing Skills ===================== [ From: Bryan] > I feel you should keep your real job and stop writing reviews > while you have a chance. Your local community college has > classes dedicated to better writing skills. [ Thanks for feeling me ] Dare To Review ============== [ From: David ] > I find it funny that you would dare to review a movie even after > you walked out of it. I have a review site and I've only done > such a thing once-- a really obscure and bad film from Canada, > BUBBLES GALORE. [ To quote my newest tag line, think of it as "cinematic taste test- ing" ] What Was Your Favorite Laugh Out-Loud Moment? ============================================= [ From: Glenn in Edmonton, AB ] [ Re: BATTLEFIELD EARTH ] > Hard to say. What got me was that the Psyclods kept sending sur- > veillance aircraft over where the humans were supposed to be min- > ing gold to make sure they were working... and never noticed that > the aircraft they had was missing? [ Heh ] Painfully Punny =============== [ From: Bonnie in Mebane ] [ Re: DINOSAUR ] > > Heck, the movie isn't even boring-enough to induce a nap. It's > > just there. Large, loud, and, for at least one viewer, utterly > > under-appealing. > > So you were not en-raptor-ed? It was pterodactyl? The plot di- > plod-ocused? You were ready to leave in a trice-roptops? Did you > go steg-osarus, or did you take a date? [ Had ass-teroids afterward, too. ] Eternally Grateful =================== [ From: Chris ] > I am a student at in Warrington, England. I'm currently in my > first year of Film Studies at Advanced Level. As part of my exam > coursework I have to produce an in-depth study of Oliver Stone's > NATURAL BORN KILLERS. After seeing a couple of your reviews on > the net, I have come to the conclusion that you have written quite > a bit about film. Could you could send me any reviews, informa- > tion, or web site addresses that could help me in my study. I > would be eternally grateful. [ Two to recommend: http://us.imdb.com and http://www.mrqe.com ] Music By John Morris ==================== [ From: Flau Blucher in Bilbao ] > I'm a Spanish fan of Mel Brooks and I'm very interested in the > soundtrack from YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. Here in Spain is very dif- > ficult to find. Could you help me? How and where could I find > it? Thank you very much in advance [ From: Tim in Australia ] > I was having a look around your site, and I figured you might know > if there was a release of all the music from Mel Brook's HISTORY > OF THE WORLD, PART I. Any clues? [ The former should be available at any online music store, such as http://www.cdnow.com. The latter, which includes dialogue, "The Inquisition," and the "Jews In Space" theme song, has been out-of- print for years ] Common Sense ============ [ From: Dawn ] [ Re: GLADIATOR ] > > First we see snow falling on cedars, then the green green grass > > of home, and then a desert. Jeez, how 'bout title cards to > > help us out? > > > How about simple common sense? That wasn't snow falling, dink. > It was ash from the forest burning. > [ From: Dave ] > > Hey, at least he *finished* the movie. > [ Heh ] Second Rate Craftsmanship ========================= [ From: Matt at Columbia University ] [ Re: GLADIATOR ] > > A poor sound recording garbles the first half-hour (or more) of > > dialogue. > > > Thanks for this. I thought it might have been the theater I was > at, but perhaps it's the fault of the mixing/recording. Things > like that, along with the ham-fisted editing, bothered me more > than anything else. I couldn't get over the general second-rate > craftsmanship put into it. > [ From: Todd ] > > I couldn't get over the general second-rate craftsmanship put > > into it. > > > I can't get over the number of armchair directors who have the > audacity to speak any ill of the editing, cinematography, sound, > etc. All the technical production values in this movie, as in > all Ridley Scott films, were first rate. There simply isn't a > technically bad frame on the platter. Now, say whatever you want > about story, etc. [ I will ] I Didn't Even Try to Keep From Laughing ======================================= [ From: James in North Carolina ] [ Re: MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 ] > > ...the greatest challenge for the MI2 viewer is not to giggle. > > Don't laugh during the love scene when Cruise says, straight- > > faced to Thandie, "Damn you're beautiful." Go with the flow > > with the incredulous cliff-hanging opening, as well as with the > > MATRIX-style kung-fu flips that you know full well were accom- > > plished with wires, mattes, or stunt doubles. > > > I didn't even try to keep from laughing. Don't think anyone else > in the theater thought it was funny, but everything you mention, > plus the "two motorcycles pass each other at high speed, then one > turns around and immediately has caught up to the other" were too > silly to take seriously. The kung-fu flips didn't even make > sense-- just using whatever technology you have, I guess. Thanks > for letting me know what to expect before I got there. [ My pleasure ] Unless You're A Chick #1 ======================== [ From: Regina at Columbia University ] [ Re: WHERE THE HEART IS ] > > Though neither syrupy nor stunning in its execution, the film > > falters as the major melodramatic events-- baby-napping, torna- > > do, etc.-- eventually fall into a predictable pattern. And > > by that point, even Portman's luminescent presence isn't enough > > to keep things compelling. That is, unless you're a chick. > > > I think it's worth pointing out that both screenwriters and direc- > tor are men. > [ I think so too ] Unless You're A Chick #2 ======================== [ From: Bart ] [ Re: WHERE THE HEART IS ] > > Though neither syrupy nor stunning in its execution, the film > > falters as the major melodramatic events-- baby-napping, torna- > > do, etc.-- eventually fall into a predictable pattern. And > > by that point, even Portman's luminescent presence isn't enough > > to keep things compelling. That is, unless you're a chick. > > > This is quite possible the lowest point you've reached in your > history as a "film critic." And that is saying a lot. I don't > know why I even waste my time reading your reviews any more. > [ From: Will ] > You're not the only one. He's been in my killfile for months now. > Give a monkey an Internet connection... etc. > [ From: Matt ] > Sheesh. Tough crowd. I look forward to Mike's weekly ramblings. > Not that he needs defending, really. > [ Please pass the bananas ] Fat Rosie O'Donnell =================== [ From: Dawn ] [ Re: THE FLINTSTONES IN VIVA ROCK VEGAS ] > > ...an all-new cast that fleshes out the familiar roles even bet- > > ter than John Goodman, Rick Moranis, Elizabeth Perkins, and fat > > Rosie O'Donnell did. > > > Let me get this straight. You actually want people to listen to > your opinion, yet you lead off with descriptions like "fat Rosie > O'Donnell"? So much for my caring what you think about the movie. > [ From: Mike ] > More appropriate would have been to have written "fat John Good- > man, short Rick Moranis, right-handed Elizabeth Perkins." > [ From: Tuttle ] > Well Betty always had a good body, at least until Rosie O'Donnell > played her. > [ Wilma was hotter ] Talking to the Camera ===================== [ From: Someone at AOL ] [ Re: LEAVING LAS VEGAS ] > Since your review was posted some time ago, someone has probably > already notified you about your confusion with the Shue sequences > when she is talking to the camera. Remember she is with Ben when > he expires. Therefore, she must report the death to the author- > ities. > > So, it seems she is talking to the cops-- maybe a detective or cop > psychoanalyst who could be taping the interviews-- about this man > who walked into her life, if only for a moment, gave her an uncon- > ditional love she had never received before, won her over on a > genuinely romantic level, and then died, leaving her with the re- > sponsibility-- something that goes hand-in-hand with living in re- > ality, which Ben couldn't deal with--of cleaning up his selfish > final act. > > By the way, the rest of the content in your review was good, if > rather general. If I enlightened you the slightest bit, then I > thank you for reading my blurb. If you are bothered by my nit- > picking, my deepest apologies are offered. They are just my in- > significant, futile observations. But may I suggest you take > my response to your review as a compliment-- that I would take the > time to contact you about it means you touched a nerve and that's > always a good thing. [ http://www.nonvirtual.com/hell/1995/leaving.html is the review in question ] At Least It Was Better Than Mary Reilly ======================================= [ From: Ryan ] [ Re: MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN ] > I disagree with most of what you're saying. You miss out on sev- > eral points, some subtle and some obvious, that Kenneth Branagh > makes in this beautiful adaptation. First of all, the "'circling' > camera technique" that you seem to so confused about. It's an ex- > ample of the director's genius that such a minor motion can dis- > play the fevered state Dr. Frankenstein is in. The motion is de- > signed to show the audience his point of view, as a dizzied and > confused scientist so devoted to see if he can, that he never > stopped to ask if he should. This is the underlining point of the > book, which Branagh focuses on. It is a serious story and Branagh > tries to pull the audience through Frankenstein's mind as the e- > vent's unfold. This is why there is no humor. Frankenstein saw > this as a serious event, his family was dying, and he had just re- > leased upon the world a blight such as none had ever seen. By > making those comical references to past versions of the book, it > would no longer make the movie MARY SHELLY'S FRANKENSTEIN, but ra- > ther MEL BROOK'S YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. Branagh wasn't making an ac- > tion film or a comedy. He was doing what he does best, making a > book on the big screen. > > His direction fills the mind with amazing imagery, leading to the > grotesque moments that help develop the ideas of the shear hide- > ousness of the creature. Branagh illustrates the book, instead of > making a new plot loosely based on the book. The immense imagery > that you mention is very lingering in the mind-- such as Eliza- > beth's death or the monster's scared body-- but what you fail to > appreciate are those small moments where the more-beautiful-less- > grotesque imagery from the book is brilliantly transcribed to > film. Branagh portrayed the madness and remorse of Frankenstein > very well. De Niro certainly showed the depths of rage and the > immense compassion that the monster can have. The others, Cleese, > Holm, Carter, etc., have small roles, but in the book it they're > small roles as well. In conclusion, Branagh is able to keep to > the main focus of the book, and is able to brilliant illustrate > the imagery that Shelly unleashes in the mind, making the movie > one, if not the, best adaptation of "A Modern Prometheus." Better > known as "Frankenstein." [ http://www.moviehell.com/1994/mary.frankenstein.html is the other review in question. Good night everybody! ] Copyright 2000 by Michael J. Legeros Movie Hell is a trademark of Michael J. Legeros