Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: "Flames" of Endearment (possible spoiler?)
Message-ID: <369@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 4-Dec-83 00:23:15 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.369
Posted: Sun Dec  4 00:23:15 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Dec-83 22:54:26 EST
References: <4124@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 24

Well, I responded to all the good reviews, and saw "Terms of Endearment"
tonight.  I am at a loss to understand the kind of critical acclaim this
movie has received.  For me, it was a self-conscious, dishonest,
manipulative movie filled with eccentrics and ciphers, none of whom were at
all believable or especially likable.  

Why do we accept Nicholson's standard wild-man pap which he's played again
and again ever since "Easy Rider"?  Shirley MacLaine's character strays
dangerously toward perpetuating the stereotype of the frigid older woman
who just needs a man to loosen her up.  Outrageous!  But the audience laps
it up, presented as it is in such a neat, "upscale" package.  There are
also a number of cheap shots at urban life, specifically New York City,
which are notable only for their hit-and-run punch lines and lack of
any real insight.  The last third of the film had most of the audience
crying and sobbing, when in fact it's the standard "Love Story" deus
ex machina, updated for the 80's extended family.  (Jenny and Oliver
had only themselves--a portent of the 70's "Me decade".)

I fear I may be just a voice crying in the wilderness here, overrun by
good reviews and word of mouth.  But don't tell me I didn't tell you so!
-- 
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca