Not a lot of e-mails to choose from for this weekend's edition of Civilian Voices. Perhaps you are all too busy watching CNN -- waiting to find out who the next President of the United States will be -- to send me an e-mail. I suppose I can let you slide -- this time. A few of you had your priorities straight. Civilian Voices first, fate of the nation second. First, G.B. on Charlie's Angels...

"The theater I saw it at was full, and people generally enjoyed it. Most people I have talked to around the office have enjoyed it, too. Is it great cinema? Hell, no. Do you remember much about it the next day? No. Will it cause people to go to it a second time? Probably not. Could it have been better? Yes. Is it a lot of fun and an enjoyable way to spend 90 minutes? Yep. And that is why most people go. I know that angers critics to no end, but so be it." --G.B.

And W.S. on Vertical Limit vs. Charlie’s Angels...

"I thought I would weigh in with my opinion on Vertical Limit. Frankly, if the bozos in this world and this fri***n’ vacuous town can blah-blah-blah about how ‘fun’ and what ‘great popcorn entertainment’ CHARLIE'S ANGELS is and they don't go out in droves to experience the true popcorn entertainment that is VERTICAL LIMIT, I'll be befuddled beyond reasoning. "I'm not sure if you jumped in your seat or cringed as much as I did at every harrowing slide down/over the mountainous precipices or got short of breath at some of the dizzying visuals but, from a purely visceral standpoint, this movie deserves at least the business that Chuck’s Cherubims is getting (alas, I do recognize the taste of the unwashed masses is not so)." --W.S.

And from O.B., a mix of recent political events and fiction...

"I was just pondering the other night, while watching this year’s debacle of an election, when I had a deep thought. I thought, I have not been this disappointed in anything since the movie The Patriot. First of all, there are things that are more important, and I do have a life outside movies and politics, thank god! That being said, I came up with some of the same complaints for both the election and The Patriot. The Patriot had moments of brilliance, moments of stupidity, and moments of boredom. The election -- well, for close followers, exactly the same things came to mind. Then there is the real comparison that I drew up. Maybe it is stupid, but far worse ideas have been harbored, remember... Battlefield Earth got made! Consider George Bush as Mel Gibson in The Patriot, and consider Al Gore as director Roland Emmerich. First, we have Mel's opening line: ‘I have long feared that my sins would come back to haunt me, and the cost is more than I could bare.’ Sound reasonable? Then we have the director gravy-training off the huge success of an epic tale that involved love and war and lying from nobles to save their a** in Braveheart. Clinton's reign in the White House, and Gore's gravy-training or lack thereof sound familiar? Both Mel's character, and the director have something in common: they are not from America. That's okay, because both Gore and Bush have not lived in the same America as all us nonpoliticians do. Mel's character not the sharpest tool in the shed, watch him build chairs. The director not most the exciting tool in the shed, watch Mel build chairs. Bush... we have all heard him screw up ideas and names. Gore... we were nearly put to sleep by his early election enthusiasm. Now, the movie or slash the election! Millions of dollars spent on promotions and trailers and TV spots. The campaign millions spent on promotions, trailers, and TV spots. The Patriot: a long saga with a disappointing payoff! The election: a long saga with a disappointing payoff. Bottom line, all these factors might not make sense, but added together I get the same feeling, a little less Patriotic!" --O.B.

Dennis C. hasn't seen Charlie's Angels, but he wants to recommend another critic's review of the film. He didn't think roughcut.com's review was very original. (Next time, we'll remember to hand out cigarettes to our readers to make sure they side with our opinions...)

"Well, I haven't seen Charlie's Angels yet, but I have this strange feeling I'm going to think it's pretty keen. One of the main reasons why (beside all the obvious ones) is the terrific (and terrifically entertaining) review for the movie written by David Edelstein at slate.com. Edelstein is a writer I'd lost track of after he left the Village Voice in the mid-1980s, and I recently rediscovered him flourishing at Michael Kinsley's little site. I wish him long tenure and a huge readership -- he really deserves it. This kind of review -- in which the writer flies in the face of all the predigested pans of the movie so easily found in all the media (including roughcut.com) and spells out his honest, surprised, and delighted reaction -- is a real rarity. He's a very good writer, witty without pretense or condescension, and he knows there's nothing wrong with owning up to and/or analyzing one's honest responses to a piece of work seemingly everyone else has already decided is worthless. Check out his review of Charlie's Angels at slate.com, and dig around in his archives too -- you'll be glad you did. (Disclaimer: I do not know David Edelstein, nor have I ever spoken or written to him. I do, however, know a good writer when I read one.)" -- Dennis Cozzalio

All right, people. You're going to have to wait another week before you find out who will be heading to the White House, so you might as well turn your attention to something else. How about sending me e-mail? If you're seeing Little Nicky this weekend, I'd really like to know what you think. This one will surely be slammed by most critics, but is it funny enough to satisfy the average Adam Sandler fan?

Also, in case you haven't heard, Mario Van Peebles has been cast as Malcolm X in the Michael Mann–directed film about Muhammad Ali. Do you think he can pull it off? Who would you like to see in the role? Do you think Will Smith will make a good Ali? If you could recast any film, which one would it be and who would you replace?

Send me an e-mail, won't you?

 

Send your submissions to civilianvoices@roughcut.com

No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited. Must be age 16 or older to submit a story. Stories will be edited for length and content by representatives of Roughcut. Not all stories will appear online. By submitting this story you agree that Roughcut has the perpetual right to use the submitted story, in any and all media, without limitation, as Roughcut may determine in its sole discretion. You also acknowledge that you will not receive any monetary compensation for the use, if any, of your story.