NOT SO FONDA LUCAS, EITHER

Walter, I used to enjoy reading your put-downs of movie trash, but lately your reviews are getting so vitriolic and chainsaw-to-the-head brutal that I'm beginning to fear for your sanity. Well, not your sanity per se, but your sense of taste. I understand that too many bad movies in a row can leave you feeling beat-up, but what possessed you to refer to Fonda's performance this way: "[P]ushing up daisies, she can't resist the bulimic's mating cry of 'please want me.' " In a spirit of goodwill, I could imagine that you weren't deliberately referring to Fonda's past struggle with bulimia--were you? (Though you bring up her past in other ways, too.) Are you suggesting that she took on the role because she's not altogether right in the head? By the way, you refer to Monster-in-Law being directed by a man. Sure enough, though it was written by a woman--not that it improves, but as long as we're being gender insenisitive...
David
P.S.: You're review of Revenge of the Sith was pure character assassination of Lucas, but what the hell; I assume you've had a rough week.

Walter Chaw responds: Yep--lost my sanity a long time ago. I am referring to Fonda's past, of course, having just finished reading her self-serving and ridiculous autobiography for which she's done the same for personal gain and the chance to wag her finger at generations of women who've had better sense than she did in the first place. Almost every frame of Monster-In-Law is Fonda preening, posing, and demanding that people see her as sexually viable. It's pathetic and, as she might say in her own words, it's a product of her crushing self-esteem issues. She's all but admitted that the reason she agreed to be in this film instead of accepting one of the more mature roles she was offered was for the chance to vamp. So, yeah, I took the swing, but she pitched the ball. And Lucas character assassination? Please, man, this is a guy who said after The Empire Strikes Back that he'd never work that hard again to produce a good film because "We could have made just as much money with half the effort." He also says that he doesn't like making these films, that he doesn't know how his life has turned out like this, and that he'd like to make small, personal films. For God's sake, man.

David responds: Okay, but you could have let the pitch slide on by. When you bring up Fonda's past, you're playing gossip columnist. Does her performance really turn on whether or not she's a vain and needy bitch in actual life? (I'd think that would immediately invalidate most of the performances we see each year, thespians in general being what they are.) When you bring up her bulimia, you're implying that she's damaged goods beyond repair; then damaged goods, damaged movie. Crazy is as crazy does. It's little better than some Vietnam vets, forty years later still seething with rage, literally spitting in her face to denounce her in some way that only satisfies their own damaged psyches and leaves everyone else shaking their heads. Keep in mind that I'm not denying you your opinion that she sucks as an actress, but that you used the review to kick her in the ass for something outside the theatre. That's just holding a grudge. For Christ's sake, you went easier on child molester Victor Salva when you reviewed Jeepers Creepers 2! And blah blah more of the same blah blah George Lucas. I really didn't expect you to enjoy Revenge of the Sith--after the way you shat on Attack of the Clones, I would have been more surprised if you had. So they're not your thing, so be it, though I still wonder how you dove into the manure of The Chronicles of Riddick and came up smelling roses. But while Lucas does feed the press with self-serving and contradictory statements (tricksy, he is), it doesn't necessarily undermine his skills as a director. Sometimes, Walter, your reviews fall into a pendulum rhythm: hate or love, with little time spent in between.

***

Walter, I just recently read your review for Episode III (an hour ago, specifically) after having seen the movie, and I'd like to thank you. Not because you echoed my opinions, but actually because you made me realize just how much I was willing to ignore in order to convince myself that I'd enjoyed this final installment. It is far better than the last two Episodes, to be sure, but it not only fails where in better hands it ought to have succeeded but also pales in comparison to the Original Trilogy. I agree with almost everything you said: Lucas contradicting himself (or his past works); the absurd contrivance of Padme not believing Obi-Wan; the insulting way women and, perhaps, races are treated (it wasn't lost on me that the "Asian" species whose names I don't feel like looking up were first represented in this movie by a character whose accent was clearly American--the most self-conscious PR move since Eminem invited Elton John to perform with him at the Grammys, if you ask me); the disappointment with how vigilante the Jedi (even Yoda) come across; and especially that feeling of how weightless and inconsequential the whole affair was (Yoda's loss to Emperor Palpatine, for example, was so anticlimactic that it took me a moment to realize what had actually happened).

I was willing to delude myself into believing that Revenge of the Sith was a return to form for George Lucas; that this whole "Prequel Trilogy" was actually justified and not just the work of an obsessive-compulsive hermit (to be fair, I'd say that this movie makes Return of the Jedi more cathartic--although I never really thought that Vader vanquishing the Emperor was all that heroic to begin with since he says on numerous occassions that he wants Palpatine dead anyway). I returned home thinking that, and then I read your review, and I honestly felt ashamed. I was ashamed. I'd duped myself into glossing over a movie's quite glaring flaws. I don't now plan on writing furious letters to Lucasfilm or storming Skywalker Ranch strapped with nines. I'm just terrified by how easily I let my partiality get in the way of my seeing the truth. I'm sure you'll get plenty of death threats in the next few weeks and beyond, but it's good, necessary even, that there are differing opinions out there. Yours certainly made me realize how ugly a forced smile is.

The brilliant thing about Star Wars is that people, especially stupid fanboys like myself, are so well-versed in what's at stake that we can understand the significance of an event even if it's not established well in the film at all; it's like a missing ingredient: Just Add Weight. I only wish that Lucas had put the franchise in the hands of someone capable of doing the same. Peace,
Chris
P.S.: There were parts of your review that I believe (emphasis on believe) were unfair. While the melodramatic "NOOOOO!" is something that I've hated ever since I was a nine-year old kid reading Goosebumps, it's probably not significant enough to lament. It's no secret that the dialogue in Star Wars has never been realistic (personally the anachronisms--"Plan B," "good call," etc.--irk me more), but I've seen you give four-star reviews to movies that do the exact same thing (Spider-Man 2, for example). As for Yoda's "miss you, I will" to Chewbacca: seriously? I just took it as a sign of respect. Par for the course as far as Yoda goes, if you ask me. Whatever. Things to consider (or not), but I thought the rest of your review was pretty accurate and fair. Once again, peace. Or "miss you, I will."

***

Thanks for your review of Star Wars: Episode III, Walter. I have seen it twice now, and the second time I actually dozed off after the opening battle sequence. I have to say your review simply clarified exactly what it was that was bugging me about it. Now I can send people to FILM FREAK CENTRAL and say, "Look! What he said! That's exactly what was wrong with that movie!" I honestly hated this movie. I hated the terrible, terrible things that Lucas had done to something so intrinsically a part of my childhood. (I was 7 when Episode IV was on the big screen.) I had the pleasure of hearing a radio interview with Mark Hamill this morning, and he commented that one memory he has of filming with Harrison and Carrrie was how they were always laughing. They were having a great time and it was a big part of the essence of the first trilogy, it was just a whole lot of fun. The second trilogy was so badly put together, so badly scripted, acted, and directed it's embarrassing to be a fan of the Star Wars industry. Instead I seek solace in other people's work, the computer games and novels that Lucas can keep his damned hands off. Hope you don't get too flamed by Lucas' legions of yes-men. Regards,
Paul

A CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES

I thought I would read some of your reviews, I am one of the countless (and unfortunate) people who have wondered into your den of shit via Rottentomatoes.com, and don't' worry I have requested you be taken off their site. It won't do any good I know, but at least I'll have spoken my point. It's clear to see that you are not an educated person and that you are clearly a very poor writer. However, my chief problem with you is that you take yourself way, way too seriously. Your negative reviews on such recent favorite films like Star Wars: Episode III, Passion of the Christ, Million Dollar Baby and Napoleon Dynamite shows that you like to go against popular opinion. You like to go against the grain which is why you panned Eastwood's latest work, when it's one of the most important films in recent memory. You also condemn Gibson because he made a film that you disagree with, but even if you throw the film out because you don't believe in the Bible and you think the story i! s a farce, then you still have to admit that it is an emotionally moving, beautifully acted and well directed piece of cinema; which in your review you admit none of. You have no real clue what a good movie is, I honestly believe that. I think you are the worse film critic I have ever seen. . .thank God I don't ever have to read your reviews ever again. I am also a local film critic in my local paper. I don't get paid to do it, I do it because I love film and I love talking about it and sharing my views with other people. But I have NEVER condemned a movie, but rather disagreed with it. This is something you may try to do in the future you dumb shit. No on second thought, do us all a favor and quit writing reviews period. To quote David Spade, I am dumber having read just one paragraph of any of your reviews.
Name Withheld

Walter responds: And you're illiterate. Jesus Christ, man, get a fucking dictionary, read a book. Did you ever consider that if you didn't write like a friggin' simpleton, people might actually one day give a shit what you have to say about something? Think about it, genius. Me, I'm shocked that you have the wit to tie your own shoes much less turn on a computer. Don't you want someone you're insulting to at least think that you have a basic education?

***

You fucking anti-American bastard, you reek of terrorist values and ethics. Your anti-american Batman Returns [sic] review was praising the thousands of innocent lives that "Osama's crusade against the West" and glorifying the butchers and scumbags of the middle east. I hope thge FBI reads your sympathatic words to the people who murdered thousands of Americans in cold blood. Chaw is not an American name. Go back to where your sorry, terrorist, lowlife, scumbag ass was born and wallow in the failure of your commumist nations efforts to become part of the modern age. Fuckin' dickweed. I hope you get cancer.
Name Withheld

***

First off, let me warn you not to bother replying to this message, as I would not bother to even open (let alone read) mail from a moron such as yourself. The anonymous account from which this is being sent (obtained specifically for the purpose of insulting you) shall be promptly abandoned after providing you my proverbial 'two cents' (which is a hell of a lot more than your lousy 'review' is worth). Your piece on Chitty Chitty Bang Bang basically proves that: (1) you have no soul, (2) you have no sense of musical taste, and (3) you hate children. If you wrote your review (read: toilet paper) solely to irk decent moviegoers and their children, then brother, you've succeeded. It would have been put to much better use wiping my ass. I suppose your idea of entertaining children's fare is Triumph of the Will!

There are many sentences within your drivel that tempt me to rank them as the most ridiculous, but this one sums up most clearly why you've given me such incentive to disrespect and despise you as a reviewer, and as a person: "It's not so much the stupidity that grates, it's the bellicose arbitrariness of the exercise that presumes, nay, relies upon a certain degree of undemanding acceptance from its gaffed, intellectually and emotionally underfed audience." Now--what over-inflated-sense-of-ego would utilize words like 'bellicose,' 'arbitrariness,, 'gaffed,' or even 'nay' in the review of a children's movie for God's sake??? Whom are you trying to impress? The women in your sad past who berated you for your miniscule member, perhaps (an organ no bigger than your brain)? And as for "undemanding acceptance from its gaffed, intellectually and emotionally underfed audience"...are you on crack??? These are CHILDREN we are talking about!!! They're not supposed to be reacting to everything like it was fucking War and Peace! Do you know anything of child rearing, wherein children learn about, and are fascinated by, basic, simple things, like shapes, and colours, and cute little sounds, lively characters, and song and dance? What would you have our children demand of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, exactly? The secrets of quantum physics, maybe? Obviously, you're too bereft of sense to see that the music, performances, and plot are more than suitable to entertain children as well as adults, as evidenced by the 'legion' (thankfully) of fans this movie has. I wish you fascist critic thugs would get off of your soapboxes and stop asserting that you're looking out for the public's sense of good taste. Sincerely,
Someone who actually wasted time reading your garbage (Ah, that felt good.)

TENSION THICK ENOUGH TO USE A CHAINSAW (CAUTION: SPOILERS)

I just wanted to thank you for your enlightened review of High Tension. I've read many and you seem to be the only one who understood why the movie is full of "dangerous presumptions about lesbian sexuality." After seeing the movie, that was definitely the most predominant theme I noticed, which is why I am slightly disturbed by the fact that the general public was totally oblivious to it--I even had to explain it to my best friend, with whom I saw the movie. Although he's a straight male, he's usually acutely attuned to any form of discrimination, even on the basis of sexuality. I'm going to contemplate this matter further to clarify why this issue which was blaring to myself remains invisible to the majority of our society.
Lucy

Walter responds: Far be it from me to curtail your introspection, but let me just offer that it could be as simple as that while everyone has buttons, some people have buttons that are easier to push than others--and in different places to boot. And, incidentally, it's always disturbing to me what the general public misses in movies, especially when, as in the case of High Tension, there really wouldn't be a movie if it weren't for the lesbian subtext.

***

Hey Walter, I love the site and reviews. I just wanted to comment on one point in your High Tension review (in which I'm glad you could look beyond the "twist," which has so many blasting the movie as worthless after its reveal, as if what they saw up to that point wasn't the most twisted and tense 85 minutes or so in horror in a long time). When people comment on the inconsistencies of what we saw when it's revealed that Marie is actually the killer, being in two places at once and your comment on moving the bureau, I always say that if you see the movie again you realize that she is telling someone behind the camera at the hospital what has happened, it's her version of events, so I think that little inconsistencies like that can be explained, at least to quell some people that vehemently wanted an explanation. Also, I always took the end as Marie knowing Alex was behind the mirror and was reaching out to her. Great site and review,
Hugo

Walter responds: Can't argue the perspective thing, but I do think that although it's implied that Marie is reaching out toward Alex, Alex has just been assured that Marie can't see her, so...though it's creepy to think that Marie has some sort of second sight, I think it's more fruitful to consider that in a way, Marie is reaching out to a reflection of herself. It'd give Freudians a lot to think about for sure.

We deserve better critics than the verbose and posturing Mr. Chaw.
Sharon

Walter responds: We deserve better filmmakers than the simpering and lachrymose Mr. Howard. You, however, deserve Cinderella Man and it deserves you.

***

MULTIPLE-CHOICE HATE MAIL