Just when I thought everyone had forgotten all about the scandals at Denver International Airport, Patricia Calhoun comes along with her February 6 column, "Soar Loser." I don't know if Richard Boulware would have done a better job of telling us the truth about all the delays at DIA, but I know he could not have done a worse one than Webb, DeLong and company.
Keep the stories coming in '97, Patricia!
What is Mark Wilburn (Letters, February 6) talking about? Kenny Be is not only the best thing in Westword, he's the best thing in Denver, and maybe the world.
If his humor is just too hard for you to understand (last week's "The Webb to Watch" had me on the floor), then maybe you should just leave the planet.
Or go back to "Peanuts."
In regard to Michael Sragow's "review" of Star Wars ("The Force Is Almost With You," January 30), I am left wondering only one thing: Were you beaten as a child? Is that why you must pick at one of the most enjoyable, visceral movie experiences ever? Did your parents not take you to see it even though "all your friends were going"? Or were you too young, or too old? Your pseudo-review of the twenty-year-old movie only reinforces my opinion, and that of others, that for a great many of the "intellectual elite" in this pretentious community, a movie has to be playing at the Mayan or another faux art house to get respect. I'm glad that your personal opinion of yourself is so high that you can ridicule at best, and downright insult at worst, the millions of fans of the Star Wars trilogy around the world, as well as the thousands here in Denver.
Yes, Star Wars can be cheesy. The dialogue is dense at times, and the whole thing is superficial at first look. However, there is a reason it has endured, and that is because the heroes, the villains and the places are infinitely more real than those in the movies being made these days. And the movie is fun. All three movies are fun. (By the way, your listing of Empire as the best one gives further support that you are a pretentious twit.)
In the future, please spare us your regurgitated "views" on a movie that has been torn apart and examined since its first release. Quite honestly, Mr. Sragow, no one cares.
Well, first of all, I don't want to start out sounding like some lame-ass Star Wars/Star Trek freak, but rather as a fan of the most unforgettable movies I ever saw, at least in my childhood. I mean, Star Wars had lasers, spaceships, light sabers and wookies--all these cool things nobody had ever seen before. It also pioneered a brand-new kind of technology and really advanced moviemaking as far as special effects go. Do you really think that movies like Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 would have been possible without the genius that went into making the Star Wars movies? I know that some of the script was corny and some of the effects could be seen through easier than the California air, but give them a break. They made up all of those tricks as they were going along, and that THX noise is (pardon the French) fucking cool, especially if you have Surround Sound. All I'm asking is that you give the guy some credit. Yeah, there's a lot of marketing to this, but it's also to help get everyone ready for the new Star Wars movies that will be coming out in 1998. Besides, now all the kids can watch it on the big screen again. Now, that's fun to me.
P.S. Your newspaper has a bad attitude.
Jeffrey J. Prince
via the Internet
Dear Michael Sragow,
Regarding your Star Wars review:
Contempt of His Court
Karen Bowers's January 23 story, "Beyond Contempt," just serves to remind us that there is nothing lower than a lawyer. Except a lawyer who becomes a judge.
Your story on "Judge" Barnhill, "Beyond Contempt," reminded me of my own close encounter with this person and the "justice" system he represents. I was the plaintiff in 1989 in a civil lawsuit against my doctor; after Barnhill threw out most of the initial charges, those that remained were negligence and breach of fiduciary responsibility.
Barnhill would not allow the jury to hear and consider this evidence at trial. The way he disposed of the facts was to state that breach of fiduciary responsibility was a part of negligence, so that even though the evidence on breach of fiduciary was not allowed to be presented in court, it didn't matter, since evidence concerning the charge of negligence was presented. Both the Colorado Court of Appeals and the Colorado Supreme Court upheld "Judge" Barnhill in denying the jury the opportunity to hear all the evidence in the case.