Roger Ebert and Joe Bob Briggs

(Jack Pantalones on Joe Bob Briggs in the Atlantic online forums):

He tends to base his evaluations on whether or not a film contains things like jiggling boobs and dismemberment-by-chainsaw.

Jack, they're humor pieces, from a true-blue redneck, in the tradition of Libby Gelman-Waxner (a.k.a. Paul Rudnick). Actually his best moments are when he leaves off reviewing the latest piece of drive-in trash and talks about one of his many girls (Mary Jane Lou, or Mary Lou Ellen, or whoever he's shacking up with nowadays), or his really strange friends, or his sudden obsession with video (I wonder what he makes of DVDs). Read between the lines and you actually get a sense of his aesthetics.

I prefer him over Ebert. Maybe Ebert's finest moment was his reply to Vincent Gallo, but that's a case of preferring the smaller asshole. Ebert gives the plot in detail (including a few spoilers), gives a rating (out of four stars), and that's it. He's basically worthless, and he puts almost nothing into his articles. What little he does is embarrassing, and not in an entertaining way.

No end to love notes re: "The Perversion of Christ"

(Still more fan mail in reaction to my article "The Perversion of Christ:" http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/427 )

 

From Dave Lee (nextnext7@hotmail.com)

 

Dear Mr Noel Vera,

 

You want to stoned a false prophet? According to the old testament, a false prophet is to be stoned. According to the new testament, He who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

I know you've probably heard this before, now I say this to you again in reminder,

 

You don't GET it.

 

It is like someone is trying to tell you your house is on fire and you complain about his grammer.

 

Who is the false prophet? In regards to the sound magnified by cash register as you commented, did anyone help prophesise that this movie will be the highest grossing film ever when right in the beginning Mel Gibson wasn't even sure of any wide distribution for the film.  How can this man even be a prophet let alone a false one when he is trying to relate a part of a story that happens 2000 over years ago that he selected from the best selling book in history that anyone can refer to themselves. Do not put the cart before the horse.

 

To say this is a bad film if it doesn't suit your theology or accuracy is one thing but to call it EVIL is just plain arrogant. What evil has it done? Does the lack of accuracy in the film Ten Commandments while making cash registers ring causes any evil to anyone?

 

It's like those days in the 80s when every rock band is consider evil by the self righteous because they misquote the bible and uses lots of gore in ther lyrical imagery and album cover. Back then Judas Priest are like mass murderers. Does any of the heavy metal album featuring lots of blood and misquotations from the bible bothers you enough to cal them false prophets and pronouce them evil? Does the heavy metallers wailing to the bank bothers you enough to call it evil. Not liking a piece of music or film is one thing but to be jealous of another man's earnings and call something evil is...

 

As a critic, you are free to voice your point of view on how you perceive the quality of music or film but it is really foolish when critics start to really take liberty with their pen to be a judge of good or evil of a piece of work.

 

Mr Vera, in regards to religious hypocrisy, no offence but you do sound like a pharisee, eager to pronouce judgement and pronouce something evil based on head knowlegde forgetting where our hearts at.

 

As for the cloak of holiness and righteousness that you yourself saw Mel Gibson wraps himself in that you claim as religious hypocrisy, I saw something else.

 

I saw a man coming to grips with his own hollywood-ness and human imperfection and unholiness to make a film about the one he sees as perfection who loves him and suffers for him to die for him.

 

Give us your honest criticism and research but leave your own self righteousness to the cross.

 

No bad blood though, just my imperfect 2 cents worth. Hope you can take it with humility. I know you as a critic is also trying your best to put your views across the best way you know it.

 

In the midst of all the waves of impermanence and resentment sweeping through the world, I sincerely pray that the knowledge of Christ filled your heart with love and eternity.

 

God is love.

 

EzekielC.

Still more love notes re: "The Perversion of Christ

(Still more fan mail in reaction to my article "The Perversion of Christ:" http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/427 )

 

From Ruta Hodgson (janruta@mho.com)

 

I am sorry, but you just DON'T GET IT!!!  You are , of course, allowed to express your opinion but to call this amazing movie 'evil' goes much beyond a credible movie review.  By the way, please do not insult the movie-going public by suggesting that we are fools parting with our movie by going to see "The Passion'.  No one has forced us to elevate it to number 10, and it still has a way to go.......The American public is speaking - is anyone listening?  Mel Gibson is a brave and courageous man.  God bless us all.  Ruta Hodgson 

More love notes for "The Perversion of Christ"

(More fan mail in reaction to my article "The Perversion of Christ:" http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/427 )

 

From Yob Santos (privateproperty24@yahoo.com):

 

well obviously you are one on the anti-semitic protestors. masyado kang apektado ng palabas,sana hindi mo na pinanood at pinag aksayahan pa ng panahon para isulat. ktang kita naman na ikaw ang guilty at pilit mong ikinukubli ang iyong mga kasalanan sa di pagsangayon sa palabas.. lumayas ka SATANAS!!!!!!! lumayas ka sa mundong ito kasama ang mga dmonyong manunulat na kasama mo.guilty lang kayo dahil masyado kayong makasalanan at di nyo iyon kayang tanggapin, aminin nyo..tinamaan din kayo sa palabas kaya TAKOT kayo sa katotohanan. nagkukubli sa ilalim ng mga ballpen at papel. mga mapagkunwari, kayo ang dapat na unang pukulin ng bato hanggang mamatay. mga mapagtatwa!!!!!!!!isinilang ka upang maging kasangkapan ng demonyo,  yun ang purpose mo dito sa lupa kaya di kita massisisi.   

 

Rough translation:

 

well obviously you are one on the anti-semitic protestors. you're too affected by the picture, you shouldn't have watched it and wasted your time writing. it's clear that you are guilty and you're forcing your sins on a movie that you don't agree with. leave SATAN! Leave this world and take your fellow dmon (sic) writers with you. you all feel guilty because you have too many sins and you can't accept it, admit it…the movie hit you so you are AFRAID of the truth. Hiding behind ballpen and paper. pretenders, you should be the ones stoned until dead. fools! you were born to consort with demons, that's your purpose on this world so I can't blame you.

 

Love notes for "The Perversion of Christ"

(Fan mail in reaction to my article "The Perversion of Christ:" http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/427 )

 

From Carl P Pal (cruiser66@lycos.com):

 

read your critique of "The Passion of the Christ" in Business World's Friday edition.  Sobra naman dude ang review mo (Your review's over-the-top, dude). Parang pinersonal mo a (Looks like you took it personally). Pero kahit na ano pang pagdadakdak ang gawin mo kesyo (But no matter if you say things like) "wraps righteousness around his cloak" "cynically marketed", etc, winner pa rin ang movie (the movie's still a winner).  Hundreds of million enjoyed the film both as a cinematic event and a spiritual retreat.  Hindi ko nga alam kung bakit ka pa pinag aksayahan ng panahon ng Business World para i-print ang kagaguhang review mo (I don't know why Businessworld wasted its time printing your asshole review).  It's the worst piece of writing I've read next to Tiktik.  But you're right, hundreds of millions of dollars which you'll never have, several academy awards in the horizon (which you could never dream about), and a mark in history whether religious or cinema (which definitely you will not have). So sinong panalo ditto (So who's the winner)?  Si pareng Mel pa rin di ba (Buddy Mel, right)?  Galling-galling pala ang movie ha. E ang pinagsususulat mo ang galling.  Mahiya ka naman sa Diyos (Movie's great, it's what you wrote that's galling. You should be ashamed before God).  The movie was a personal commitment of the  director. ikaw, makaisip ka kaya ng ganung klaseng masterpiece (you, can you think up of that kind of masterpiece)? Ha?

 

Nga pala, I have a few Israeli friends from the International School.  They did not feel offended at all. There you go.

Cannes vs. Oscars

From pinoyexchange, discussion arose from news that Babae sa Breakwater (Woman of the Breakwater) was accepted into Cannes' Director's Fortnight:

the films in competition have not been screened yet to the general public

The films in both Competition and Director's Fortnight must make their world premieres in Cannes. This rule can be broken, but if I recall not often. Babae sa Breakwater has had its commercial run in Manila.

I can't even remember the last time that the winner of the Palm D' Or also went on to win top prize at the Oscars.

A lot of times it's simply because the film is a foreign film and usually ends up in the Foreign film category. But a Cannes win is not nothing; it carries a lot of weight in the Oscars--if not to win, at least to nominate.

I don't know the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that the number of films which are submitted are significantly less than what the Oscars consider

3,562 feature films and shorts were submitted to Cannes, up from an average of a thousand in the late '90s.

The nominees for Best Foreign Film for the Oscars 2004 were decided from a list of 54 films.

Each country must decide itself which film to send to the Oscars for consideration (different from Cannes, where any producer can send his film); in the case of the Philippines, the Film Academy sent Munting Tinig (Small Voice). Not very, uh, never mind...

I get estimates of 250 to 255 films submitted to the Academy voters each year for consideration for Best Picture, but I can't vouch for the accuracy of that figure (edit--I found out; 254 films were submitted in 2003).

Edit: that's only for Best Picture Oscars, of course, while the above 3,000 plus films (1,325 feature films from 85 countries) are the entire figure for Cannes. And that bit about a screening committee holds--but I don't know that a screening committee is any less valid than the Oscar style of sending 254 names out to its five-thousand-plus members for consideration.

Last year's crop of films in competition was not spectacular

That's true; there was The Brown Bunny. But you should have seen the Oscar Best Picture nominees...

A Child is Waiting

Saw the other night A Child is Waiting, which pairs Burt Lancaster with Judy Garland (?), in a film about special children directed by John Cassavettes (?!). Stanley Kramer produced, and he took away the movie from Cassavettes to produce his own final cut.

Kramer probably put in his own scoring too--the music cuing is standard Hollywood message movie sudsmaking. Aside from the understated performances (from Garland, from Lancaster), and the use of real Down Syndrome and autistic children and a few intriguing handheld shots, you'd hardly know it was Cassavettes.