-------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Letters to Hell - August, 1998
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Contents
========

 - Completely Wrong
 - The Right to Review
 - Making Passes
 - I'd Have to Disagree
 - Questions
 - Revenue Man
 - No Accounting
 - Lethal Injections
 - It Won't Be Another Titanic


Completely Wrong
================

[ From: Bluesgirl ]
[ Re: THE WEDDING SINGER ]

> Hello, Mr. Legeros.   The only problem with your review is that 
> it was completely *wrong*!  Obviously THE WEDDING SINGER wasn't 
> big-name enough for you, since no one like Kevin Costner was in 
> it!

[ Obviously. ]


The Right to Review
===================

[ From: Soleil ] 
[ Re: MICHAEL ]

> 1. The movie was supposed to be entertaining-- which it definite-
>    ly was-- and *not* realistic or deep...
>
> 2. They went to *Iowa*, not Ohio.  You're entitled to your own 
>    opinion but at least get the facts straight!
>
> 3. Leaving a movie early doesn't entitle you to the right to re-
>    view it.

[ Obviously not. ]


Making Passes
=============

[ From: Jason ]

> I have a couple questions for you regarding studio press passes.
> First off, how do you acquire them?  I've talked to theaters and
> even prepared a resume for myself, but their managers say that 
> theater chains don't give out passes.  Could you help me out by 
> giving me some information?          

[ Press passes can be acquired from studio publicity offices-- that
  is, if you're lucky enough to be allowed on their mailing lists!      
  To date, I've only been able to break into Universal, Sony/Colum-
  bia/TriStar, MGM, and Miramax.  In our area, most of the majors 
  are handled by ad agencies in Atlanta. ]


I'd Have to Disagree
====================

[ From: Seffan in Chapel Hill ]
[ Re: THE MASK OF ZORRO ]

> > Disappointments don't come much bigger than THE MASK OF ZORRO--
> > 130+ excruciating minutes of moldy cliches, heavy-handed
> > action, all-too-obvious comedy, and what may be composer James
> > Horner's most intrusive score of all time.
>
> I'd have to disagree with this assessment.  I enjoyed the hell 
> out of it-- good acting, great swashbuckling, great swordplay.
> Weak plot, I'll grant you, but who goes to swashbuckling movies 
> for plot?  I didn't even notice the music, which implies to me 
> that it's neither great nor bad.  Overall, I recommend it.

[ And there you go. ]
         

Questions
=========

[ From: Jorge ]

> Can you please help me?  In a trivia quiz, the last question
> says:  "What does the yellow shirt of the Big Lebowski read?"
>
> A) Donny
> B) Art
> C) Champ
> D) JR
> E) Austin
>
> Can you please tell me the correct answer?
                 

[ From: Sverre in Norway ]  

> Who were the main characters in the first BLUES BROTHERS movie?
>
>  Please let me know.  Reply as quickly as possible.

[ Uhhhh... ]


Revenue Man
===========

[ From: Larry ]
[ Re: Summer Sneak Preview ]

> I read your posting about this and last year's movies.  I'm in-
> terested in where you found last year's revenue numbers.  I use 
> the Internet Movie Database, http://us.imdb.com, for my info. and 
> have found it useful, but I'm always looking for better or more-
> detailed data (like how much came in from video sales).

[ Check my movie site, for a link to Chuck Kahn's worldwide box-
  office tally. ]


No Accounting
=============

[ From: R&B ]    
[ Re: Summer Sneak Preview ]

> I haven't read the rest of your list, but after reading your
> critique of 1997's releases, I thought I would complain.  You
> said that all of them sucked.  CONTACT sucked?  COPLAND sucked?
> G.I. JANE sucked?  FACE/OFF sucked?  THE FIFTH ELEMENT sucked?
> All of these films were reviewed very well, and both CONTACT and
> COPLAND ended up on my 1997 Top Ten list.  I was wondering what
> your line of taste tends toward.

[ My "top nine" from 1997:  BREAKDOWN, GOOD WILL HUNTING, THE ICE
  STORM, JACKIE BROWN, THE LOST WORLD, MA VIE EN ROSE, THE SWEET
  HEREAFTER, ULEE'S GOLD, and WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. ]

                        
Lethal Injections
=================

[ From: Scott in Dallas ] 

> It's sad to see a movie critic actually like LETHAL WEAPON 4 as
> much if not more than SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.  And you call yourself
> a movie critic?  LOL!

        
[ From: My Brother Tim in Boston ]

> LETHAL WEAPON 4 is so bad... I just moaned for about 15 minutes
> before I couldn't stand it any more and marched out and demanded
> my money back!
                                      

[ From: Sherrard in Winston-Salem ] 

> A "B" for LETHAL WEAPON 4?  C'mon!  I must admit I haven't seen
> it yet and I have a pretty good feeling that I won't until it
> hits HBO.  Your description seems to be exactly what I think 
> it'll be like-- the only difference is that they'll probably 
> lose me about 45 minutes into the movie.  I think Chris Rock is 
> hilarious and that still doesn't provide me with enough motiva-
> tion to go see it.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would imagine 
> that this film doesn't allow him to be as raunchy as is required?  
> Or maybe you haven't seen his stand-up?

[ He's not that raunchy. ]


It Won't Be Another Titanic
===========================
            
[ From: Chris in Raleigh ]
[ Re: GONE WITH THE WIND ]

> > Friends, if you give a damn, skip Scarlett at the Raleigh
> > Grand.  (It's also playing at the Plaza in Chapel Hill.) Poor
> > sound, fuzzy focus, no curtain to crop the restored 1.33:1
> > aspect ratio, and, worst of all, those dogdamn safety lights
> > left lit.  (I asked for my money back after fifteen minutes.)
> > Attendance was high, however, which may mean more bookings come
> > Friday.  But that's another day...
>
> I saw GWTW on Friday night.  I saw the entire movie, and I have a
> different take on it. 
>
> No - the sound wasn't some THX-enhanced rumble-fest (but you 
> could hear the rumblings from the next theater through the 
> walls).  And I did hear some annoying drop-outs during the scene
> when Scarlett, Melanie, India Wilkes and Mrs. Mead were waiting
> for Rhett to bring Ashley home.  But it was digitally-enhanced to
> sound as close to it sounded back in 1939.  I would not want
> GWTW's audio track to be altered the way that other movies have
> been colorized-- creating something that wasn't there originally
> just to please the masses.  The picture suffered from some things
> that bothered me-- the print appeared a little too dark to me -
> there wasn't much detail and texture in the shadow areas (dark
> hair appeared to have no detail whatsoever), but the colors were
> still vibrant and yet very mellow.
>              
> Which brings up another topic-- did the original reviewer go to
> The Grand expecting to see some computerized bastardization of
> the movie, with some computer-work on every frame to make it look
> and sound like another TITANIC?  Wasn't seeing the movie the same
> way it appeared in 1939 just one of the most awesome things you 
> have ever seen?  It was for me!  Do you want to go see CASABLANCA 
> in the theater in B&W or in color?  Give me the original-- albeit 
> a restored original-- every time. 
>                                    
> Michael, go see GWTW another time and try to appreciate the movie
> for what it was and is, not what you want it to be.  It won't be 
> another TITANIC, but it's still a damn good movie!
 
[ And thank goodness for that!  I mean, I've only seen James 
  Cameron's film, what, twelve times?  Or is it thirteen??  
  
  Good night everybody! ]