Who knew that the pathetic little life of a clown would have such a strong effect on roughcut.com readers? I'm sorry I had to resort to those violent tactics, but it always seems to work in the movies. That is where I learned everything I needed to know about intelligent decision making. Oh, my parents, teachers, and spiritual advisers might disagree, but what do they know? Yes, the clown will live to see another day. Your e-mail support was overwhelming. I thank you. I'm pretty sure the clown thanks you. (It's hard to understand what the clown is saying through that gag.) I received so many great e-mails that I'll be spreading them out over the next few editions of Civilian Voices. If you don't see your e-mail today, don't worry -- your intelligent observations will end up in this weekend's or in next Tuesday's columns. Phillip W. begins today's column by explaining the lack of e-mail...

"So you want to know why we don't write in? For me, it's the same reason I don't think I'll ever vote again. The fix is in, and very little that we do or say really matters. "The success or failure of a movie has almost as much to do with when it is released, or what it is running up against, or how it is marketed as it does with the quality of the movie itself. "The ever-rising budgets of most movies, so that $80 million makes X-Men a 'low-budget' movie (relatively speaking), ensure that each and every movie must hit a home run all across America (at least) to have a chance of making money. So the scripts are tweaked and re-tweaked, the stars' Q-ratings are checked and rechecked, and the director's "vision" is filtered and refiltered to match what the consultants think are 'middle America's' sensibilities. Then the rough cuts are test screened and re-test screened before being cut and recut, so that what we end up seeing is sure to fail to please everybody more or less equally. "How are we to choose a movie? The reviews are populated by untrustworthy quote whores or reviewers who are either biased against most movies in general, or don't bother to explain their specific biases within the review. The commercials usually reveal too little or too much, or paint a given movie as something other than what it really is. The only trustworthy source on whether a given movie is worth seeing is word-of-mouth, and we've all come to rely on it so much that the first weekend is all that matters anymore. And that just traces back to the marketing campaign, and the ever-rising budgets, and why a quality movie isn't really the key to success anymore, or even the goal of any studio. "After all of that, the various studios will report whatever box-office numbers they think will put them over the top to get the first-week buzz, even adjusting throughout Monday if they think they may have aimed too low. "And nobody cares. "We all know the studios play games with the numbers, but it rarely becomes an issue because what good solution is there? We all know that the best movies rarely survive intact to make it to the big screen, but what can we do? We all recognize that Knowles and his crowd are in it for the ego, but so what? "The fix is in, and with no solution in sight, the result is apathy. And so movie-theater chains all across America spend more and more money building bigger and better theaters, which still have trouble comparing to a good home system, and still they file for bankruptcy semi-regularly because people just aren't interested anymore. "Any similarities between the movie-making business and current American politics are obviously totally coincidental. The fact that the news outlets can't talk about anything else but Florida while the average American wants to talk about anything else but Florida (but watches Fox News Channel religiously) is completely unlike the situation you're in. Right?" -- Phillip Winn Dallas, TX

Now that is the kind of stuff I'm looking for. Insightful, intelligent, and a little teed-off. Thanks Phillip. Next up, Chris P., who has another explanation for me...

"I think the main reason that you aren't getting many e-mails for Civilian Voices is this -- there aren't ANY movies to be passionate about that have been released in the last few months. I write movie reviews for my college paper -- once a week -- and, with one exception, I haven't given a film higher than a B-plus since September. Most films have scored in the C to D range. The only film I've given an A to so far was Almost Famous. "But even that film isn't something to be terribly passionate about. Yes, it is an enormously touching, entertaining, and good-spirited film -- but that's pretty much it. There really isn't much going on beneath the surface to get people TALKING. "This seems to be a trend this year. We all know that 2000 has been a remarkably weak year for films so far, and even the good films have been entirely conventional -- they are just genre films done extremely well. Erin Brockovich was a fantastic legal drama, but broke no new ground. Gladiator and X-Men were summer blockbusters that actually lived up to their hype. Perhaps the only off-beat film to make a ripple was Nurse Betty, but that was more quirky than groundbreaking. "Mostly we've been subjected to one disappointment followed by another. This isn't entirely due to the fact that ALL movies are bad, but rather that interesting ones are being kept from the public at large. Dancer in the Dark and Bamboozled were both, in my opinion, artistic failures -- but they had more ideas and tried more new things than any ten mainstream films released so far this year combined. I live in a fairly big city, Syracuse, but what are the chances of me actually getting to see something like Requiem for a Dream without driving down to New York City? Unfortunately, very slim. "This is a far cry from last year, a groundbreaking year for film. Movies like Three Kings, Being John Malkovich, Fight Club, and Magnolia -- hardly traditional Hollywood fare (read: actually provoke thought and discussion) were largely viewable in local cineplexes. Sure, none of them made much money, but people got passionate about them. Love or hate, they still caused people to talk, and not just about the film but the wider ideas -- political and social -- expressed in them. "That being said, I will tell you about the ONLY film that I've had a truly passionate -- emotional and intellectual -- response to this year: American Psycho. In this, the blandest movie year in memory, American Psycho took huge risks and alienated a lot of people. It's not just a satire on the 1980s but materialism in general, and how we define ourselves not by what's inside but what's outside. It forces the audience to look at their own lives and see how much they have in common with the 'insane' Patrick Bateman. "There have been other successful MOVIES this year that I've enjoyed, but American Psycho is the only successful work of ART that I've seen in the year 2000. It's not an easy film to watch and is certainly not easy to understand in one viewing -- or even a half-dozen. It requires difficult, critical thought -- it is extremely demanding of the viewer. And, unless the trend rapidly changes before January, I'll be passionately defending American Psycho as the year's best film." -- Chris Piazza

Is it too much to ask that a few films be somewhat meaningful? Corbin S. is equally disappointed with this year's crop of films...

"Steve Martin's character in Grand Canyon said that 'All of life's riddles are answered in the movies.' While this may or may not be true, the cinema does, at least, pose the questions. Except it doesn't seem to be happening that much these days. "I just watched Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors the other night, a film that asks the BIG questions. Can there be morality without a belief in God? If someone commits murder and is able to get away with it and doesn't feel any remorse, has, in fact, a crime been committed? "Where are all the meaningful movies? Why are so few movies these days about anything? The Contender pretended to be, but in the end, it subverted its own message; what's worse, Rod Lurie didn't even appear aware of what he'd done. "And why is it that when a movie comes along that has a little class, like The Legend of Bagger Vance, it's just dumped on? It's rare these days when Roger Ebert is one of the few to actually get a movie, but he sure does with Bagger Vance. "Give me something to think about when I leave the theater. Pose an idea. Postulate a theory. Create a moral dilemma. Expand my understanding of the world, I beg of you." -- Corbin Saleken

Thanks for the e-mails Chris and Corbin. I would have to agree that this year has not produced many thought-provoking films. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten a chance to see American Psycho, but Chris's recommendation has motivated me to check it out as soon as possible. It is interesting to note that the films Chris mentioned -- Fight Club, Being John Malkovich, and Three Kings -- were critical successes but box-office failures. Anyone think that perhaps we are seeing such a dearth of groundbreaking films this year because of last year's box office?

Speaking of films that don't take many risks, how about all these remakes and updates? Aren't there any decent, original ideas out there? John H. is more than a little perturbed that Hollywood has made plans to remake Manhunter...

"Few things can make me more angry than reading that Hollywood has decided to greenlight an utterly stupid idea. I think what makes me the most angry is that I am powerless to stop it. The latest Hollywood move that has ticked me off and on to my soapbox is the decision to remake Manhunter, the first movie in the 'Hannibal Lecter’ trilogy. "Remakes are almost a never a good idea in my mind. Let's assume a Hollywood mindset. What a minute...that means we can't have a brain...let me reset. So, I'm a Hollywood exec (or producer) and, since I have no new ideas, I begin to look through old movies to remake. Now I'm sure a Hollywood exec won't look at bad movies, because the thinking is 'hey, it didn't work the first time, so it won't work this time.' Here we encounter the first problem. If you're only going to remake great movies, you will undoubtedly fail the second time around. Making a good film is like catching lighting in a bottle. It's foolhardy to think you can do it at all, much less do it twice. If Hollywood seriously wants to remake their product, then they should pick the ‘almost' movies. Movies that were okay in their own right but maybe missing something. With these films, you can try to improve upon what was missed the first time. When you try to remake good or great films, you are in a lose-lose situation because Hollywood isn't trying to do anything new...it’s trying to make a buck. "Now to Manhunter. Manhunter, while not a great movie, is very, very good. I'm assuming the main reason Dino De Laurentiis wants to make it is because Hannibal Lecter isn't played by Anthony Hopkins in Manhunter. Now...let me see if I can find any good reasons for remaking Manhunter... hold on... I’ll cut to the chase...there aren't any. The only reason to remake Manhunter is to capitalize on the Hannibal Lecter craze that I'm sure will ensue if Hannibal (the film due next February) is any good. In addition, it makes no sense for Hopkins to play Hannibal Lecter in a proposed remake of Manhunter, first, because he is not at all the thrust of that movie (or book for that matter) and second, because he is too damn old. Manhunter occurs pre-Silence of the Lambs. "If they really want to do something with Manhunter, restore it and re-release it. I know many have not seen it, and it is definitely worth a viewing. "I'm sure we could all come up with a list of remakes that were not as good as the originals because, in almost all cases, they aren't good. Do I need to remind everyone of The Haunting? Bedazzled? Need I go on?" -- John Haubrich Dayton, OH

Have you ever seen a remake or update of a film that was better than the original? Believe me, Hollywood has plenty more in the development pipeline. Is there a film you'd like to see remade? Who would you cast and why? B, who sent in his e-mail long before the clown was in jeopardy, has a casting suggestion for a kiddie movie remake...

"I understand that a remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is trying to get underway. Still? Who knows? It dropped off the radar. But I believe producers hoped to lure Chris Rock to play Mr. Wonka. My submission, which could both honor and amplify Gene Wilder's Wonka: Eddie Izzard." -- B

Could anyone fill the shoes of Gene Wilder? Is it even worth it to try? Would you be interested in seeing a new version of Willy Wonka?

And finally, here are a couple readers who pro and con this year's Gladiator. I casually mentioned on Tuesday that the film was over-rated. J Moblo begs to differ...

"Gladiator, over-rated? I'm offended. After a year of blase movies like The Perfect Storm and Erin Brockovich, Gladiator was a refreshing change to the movie scene and I welcomed it with open arms. Hopefully there will be more movies like this in the future, and I can guarantee I will be first in line to buy Gladiator when it hits stores on DVD next week." -- j moblo

And voicing agreement with my assessment of Gladiator is Donner...

"I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who thought that Gladiator was overrated. I keep hearing how wonderful it was, and I'm thinking 'Is that the same movie that I saw?' It was mildly interesting and I'm not sorry I spent the money on it, but it's not the fabulous movie it's being heralded as. Sorry. It's not. "My argument is that I just didn't care about Crowe's character (my god, I forgot his name). Was I supposed to care when his family was killed? Why would I? I didn't know them. They held no sentimental place in my heart. Why didn't the sister kill her brother with poison when she had the chance? She was smart, people liked her, she would have been supported, but she cowers when brother big-a** scares her. Did that make me want Gladiator to knock him down? No, it made me want to slap Sister Girlfriend, that's all. "I could go on and on, but I have to go back to work. Sorry. You hit a hot button for me, and I'm glad we're on the same side of the fence on this one..." -- Donner

Thanks again for so many great e-mails. Like I said before, I'll be spreading them out across the next few columns, so if yours wasn't posted today, it doesn't mean it won't make its way onto the site. Lots of you had something to say about Adam Sandler's Little Nicky, so I'll be making that the focus of this weekend's column, with a few other topics thrown in for good measure.

Those of you who did not submit something are not off the hook. (Neither is the clown. I'm not taking her down until I'm satisfied that you are going to continue sending me great stuff.) I still want to hear from all of you. If you've already sent something, send something else. If you'd like to add your two cents about Mr. Sandler for the weekend column, feel free to do so.

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.