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

                    Letters to Hell - December 2000

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


Contents
========

  o Introduction
  o Thanks
  o Tons
  o Two Words:  Rhetorical Question, Bud
  o Esoteric-Type Movies
  o Pet Parity
  o That Thar Mind-Reading Thang
  o Confusion
  o Laughter
  o My Brother in Boston Weighs in
  o Non-Stop, Wall-To-Wall Carrey And That Mouth Full of Teeth
  o But Boy We're People Balling in the Theater!
  o Give Hanks Another Oscar?  Not For This Role


Introduction
============

Hey, hey, here are the year's last letters to Hell, from both mail 
correspondence and newsgroup postings.  All identities have been 
concealed, to protect the original authors from embarrassment, such 
as Carrie in Cary, whose *own* letter to Hell inspired a few others 
reprinted below.  Enjoy!


Thanks
======

[ From: Angela ]

> Nice opinion... ass.
>


Tons
====

[ From: Ellen in Raleigh ]

> > Yule laugh out loud.
>  
> How much fun did you have writing that sentence?


Two Words:  Rhetorical Question, Bud
====================================

[ From: Someone, Somewhere ]
[ Re: UNBREAKABLE ]

> > And what does the history of pictorial storytelling have to do 
> > with it all?
>
> It explains the madness of "Mr. Glass."


Esoteric-Type Movies
====================

[ From: Angel in Cary ]

> I'm looking for a web site where I can purchase an esoteric-type 
> movie on VHS.  Amazon doesn't carry it.  Any other suggestions?

[ Try performing a Web search on the movie title itself.  You may 
  get "hits" from retailer sites that stock same.  Now if I just
  knew what "esoteric" meant... ]


Pet Parity
==========

[ From: Sara in Raleigh ]
[ Re: 102 DALMATIANS ]

> > Grade: C
>
> Would you have given it a better grade if it was about cats?

[ Insert own, off-color pun using variation of "puss" ]


That Thar Mind-Reading Thang
============================

[ From: Bonnie in Mebane ]
[ Re: WHAT WOMEN WANT ]

> > Oh, and for sci-fi minded nit-pickers in the audience, since
> > when does telepathy work over the telephone? 
>
> Telepathy works anywhere/everywhere.  See?  And you just thought,  
> "Sheeeyut."

[ Ayup ]


Confusion
=========

[ From: Carrie in Cary ]
[ Re: THE GRINCH ]

> For such a crappy sounding review, the film gets a "B minus" ???   
> I'm confused!!


[ From: Linda in Cary ]

> I was with you all the way until I saw the grade:  "B minus" ???  
>

[ Uh... it's for kids ]


Laughter
========

[ From: Ruth in Raleigh ] 
[ Re: THE GRINCH ]

> I'd have to agree that it was a *slow* movie, but it did have a 
> few funny parts.  By the way, I caught *your* outbursts of laugh-
> ter...

[ Moi?  Laugh? ]


My Brother in Boston Weighs In
==============================

[ From: Tim ]

> Forget Christmas, THE GRINCH stole my $8.75!  

[ I hear ya... ]


Non-Stop, Wall-to-Wall Carrey And That Mouth Full of Teeth
==========================================================

[ From: Someone, Somewhere ]
[ Re: THE GRINCH ]

> If there is a Movie Hell, and I happen to be relegated there, I 
> know the fare will be non-stop, wall-to-wall Carrey and that 
> mouth-full of teeth.  That's why I'm starting to pray 24 hours a 
> day, to maybe keep me out of that Hell and, thus, never have to 
> even *consider* the possibility of seeing Carrey again.  Thank 
> God, I say, for giving me the final chance.  Just reading about 
> this film makes my stomach hurt.

[ Amen ]


But Boy Were The People Balling in the Theater!
===============================================

[ From: Trees Ann in Raleigh ]
[ Re: Carrie in Cary's November Letter to Hell ]

> I would've stayed to watch!
>


[ From: Bonnie in Mebane ]

> Was spell-check on strike, or do you think there was X-rated ac-
> tivity going on?


[ From: Miranda in London ]

> Perhaps she meant "bawling?"  In the UK, we're a few months be-
> hind so the film's not been released here, but from her descrip-
> tion, it doesn't sound like an NC-17 flick.

[ I suspect the letter writer was on vacation, visiting Times 
  Square, and probably watching a movie titled LAY IT FORWARD ]


Give Hanks Another Oscar?  Not For This Role
============================================

[ From: Trees Ann in Raleigh ]
[ Re: CAST AWAY ]

> My husband and I saw this last week and came out of the theater 
> *quite* under-whelmed.  Then I read your review, and wondered if 
> we had seen the same version of the movie!  In fact, I wondered 
> if we had seen the same version that *most* critics have seen!  
> While we enjoyed Hanks just fine (until after the rescue, at 
> least), we were able to shred the film without any trouble at 
> all.  And which I'm very surprised you didn't do in your review!  
> We thought the pacing was awfully slow in parts (felt like we'd 
> been on the island with Hanks the whole four years!), thought 
> there were a number of elements which made no sense and/or dif-
> ference to the story, and were surprised at how poorly-construc-
> ted the whole after-rescue section of the story was.  Give Hanks 
> another Oscar?  Not for this role, uh-uh.

[ Would you at least consider a supporting nod for Wilson the Vol-
  leyball??

  Good night everybody! ]   

Copyright 2000 by Michael J. Legeros
Movie Hell is a trademark of Michael J. Legeros



Home   |   Recommended   |   Reviews   |   Views   |   Letters   |   Links   |   FAQ   |   Search!

Copyright 2001 by Michael J. Legeros -Movie Hell™ is a trademark of Michael J. Legeros