I got this email a few weeks ago from a Film.com reader. It will be relevant for you to know that my author bio at Film.com says this: “Eric has been a film critic since 1999, and a beard wearer since 2008. He holds a degree in journalism and used to work in ‘the newspaper industry,’ back when that was a thing.”

Hi Eric,

May I call you Eric? Ok, how about Mr. Snider? Mr. Mencken? Mr. Pulitzer?

I ask because it appears that you consider yourself a “journalist.” It appears that you seem to feel that writing movie reviews for a Web site puts you above those who write for newspapers — or, at least, when newspapers were actually “a thing.”

I mention this because, as a fairly recently retired sportswriter for a decent-sized paper in Massachusetts, I am fascinated by the cultural change I must face; a change marked by the total reliance on the electronic media by  teenagers.

And we all know that, as Al Capp said, “the only thing a teenager is better at than me is fixing cars and acne.”

I’m sure that Capp won’t mind your stealing his line and using it as your own, mostly because he quite dead. You may Google Al to find out who he is.

At any rate, after spending 40 years pounding keyboards — many that were part of … GASP … a typewriter — I am reasonably upset by your dismissal of words on actual paper. [Yeah, I don't think "reasonably" is the word you're looking for.]

Exactly what are you giving the world of journalism, other than your arrogant use of the word “journalist” to describe yourself?  Well, you are helping to prove that a world of limitless electronic “paper” anyone and everyone can find a publisher. You are giving us the letter “u” as a pronoun, and countless other bastardizations of what used to be a beautiful language — the language of Shakespere [sic], Keats, Shelley, Lardner, and, even in their own way, Woodward and Bernstein.

What used to be essays — some thought-provoking from people like Barnicle; some fantastically funny, from people like Buchwald and Woody Allen — have become “tweets, simple, rarely pithy, often moronic and mostly just another way from Sally to tell the rest of the teenage world that, in the last half-hour, she’s applied “vagina pink” to her fingernails, broken up with Jimmy, and taken an absolutely wonderful crap.

Yes, Eric, you are a 2011 journalist. Aren’t you proud?

M.B.
Agawam, Mass.

 [His email has this signature line at the end of it:]

A sense of humor is what takes a problem and whittles it down to a size where you can handle it. — Billy Clyde Puckett, Semi-Tough

My response:

I think there’s been some misunderstanding. I’m not a teenager; I’m 37 years old. I’ve only been an “online writer” since 2003. Before that, I wrote for newspapers for 18 years, starting when I was 10 and did a news column about my elementary school for the community paper. I earned a B.A. in journalism (print journalism) in 1999. Like you, I love the English language (particularly the word “pontoon”), and I haven’t done anything to bastardize it — nor can I imagine where in my writing you’ve found any indication that I have.

As far as I can tell from your email, your objection is not to anything in particular I’ve written but to the wording of my bio paragraph at Film.com. When I made light of the declining state of the newspaper industry, it was from the perspective of someone who loves newspapers and was part of that world for most of his life, not that of some 20-year-old brat snarking about his forefathers’ ancient means of communication. I’m sorry if your feelings on the subject are too sensitive to allow for jest, but as a wise man once said, a sense of humor is what takes a problem and whittles it down to a size where you can handle it.

In short, your assumptions about me are entirely incorrect. For a journalist, you sure jump to a lot of conclusions!

Best wishes,
Eric D. Snider

I didn’t get a reply.

Several weeks ago, a Twitter person called @LadyRobyn sent me the following succession of messages:

@EricDSnider:You cal yourself a writer & a critic, bon vivant man about town…
@EricDSnider: I call you a brass jackass…
@EricDSnider: … who has about the same amount of talent as a writer as the mess my neighbor’s dog makes @ the local fire hydrant.
@EricDSnider: Yeah… the both of you are on the same level…
@EricDSnider: I take that back. I made a mistake. A major miscarriage of justice…
@EricDSnider: “Mittens” has more talent.
@EricDSnider: Sorry “Mittens”…

People had questioned my talent before, and rightfully so, but this was the first time anyone had doubted that I was a bon vivant and/or a man about town. Such gall!

I replied to @LadyRobyn thus:

Continue reading…

Land sakes! We’ve got ourselves a good old-fashioned angry letter! It’s been so long. Nowadays people usually just post their angry comments directly on the article that upset them. Very few people take the time to send an angry e-mail anymore. It’s a lost art.

This one came from someone calling himself Arlo Fisher, from an AOL address, which probably means that he is actually somebody’s elderly aunt. “Arlo Fisher” writes:

What credentials do you have to be a reviewer?  Some wanna be filmmaker who can’t even get a legitimate or respected periodical to review movies on.  You start your own website from you basement office and some how finagle your way on to rotten tomatoes…You’re never invited to any real screenings with respected credits so you have to pay your own money or download illegally on bit torrent sites to see the movies…you got a picture of Kubrick on your wall somewhere….You’re in the film business, is that what you tell you friends at your Dungeons and Dragons parties.   Sucks to be you….

Sadly, Aunt Arlo didn’t indicate which specific review of mine he disagreed with. What’s fascinating about his diatribe is that every single detail is wrong. He knows very little about me, of course, and has to guess — and everything he guesses is incorrect. Wannabe filmmaker… don’t write for any legitimate publications… basement office… not invited to screenings… illegally download movies… picture of Kubrick… tell people I’m in the film business… Dungeons and Dragons… Wow. Not a single true thing!

From a statistical standpoint, this is amazing. If I were to make up a bunch of facts about someone that I only knew a couple things about, and if I tried to logically come up with things that might be accurate given what little I knew, I’d probably get at least ONE thing right. But not Arlo! Somehow he managed to be wrong even in matters where he had a 50/50 chance of being right, like whether my office is above ground or in a basement. That level of complete wrongness takes skill, my friends.

Someone named Peter posted a comment on my very negative review of “The Informers.” This is what he wrote:

Great movie, Eric and his site blows.

While I don’t dispute the second part of Peter’s statement, I’m curious about his motives. What is his desired goal in posting such a message? I assume he hopes that other readers will have this thought process:

“Hmm, Eric has written a very negative review of this film, explaining what’s wrong with it and why. But on the other hand, Peter says the movie is great, and that Eric and his site both blow. I don’t know who to believe!”

(Or maybe the person is more grammatical and thinks “whom to believe.” I bet Peter didn’t count on that, though.)

Consider also that “The Informers” has been widely panned. Rotten Tomatoes shows 62 negative reviews and only 10 positive. Is Peter visiting all 62 of those critics’ sites and pointing out that the movie is great and that those writers and their sites blow? If not, why was I singled out? Some of those critics hated the movie even more than I did, and some of them and their sites blow even more than my site and I do. Let’s be fair here, Peter.

But then I wonder if maybe I’m misreading Peter’s remarks. The punctuation is a little ambiguous, and the grammar is off. (The third-person plural form of the verb “to blow” is “blow,” not “blows.”) After a little brainstorming, I came up with these alternatives, any of which might reflect Peter’s true intent:

Great movie! Eric and his site blow.

Great — Movie Eric and his site blow.

Great, Movie Eric! And his site blows.

Great movie, Eric! And his site blows.

Great movie? Eric and his site blow?

Great. Movie, Eric, and his site blow.

Peter, if you’re reading this, please let us know what your intentions were so that we may better understand your analysis.

So I wrote that parody of “Twilight” a couple weeks ago, and some of the comments people have posted have demonstrated something I should have thought of beforehand: If you write about a subject that interests teenage girls, a lot of teenage girls will respond, and a lot of teenage girls aren’t very smart!

In particular, there seems to be a lot of confusion over a very non-confusing sentence in the parody’s preface. I wrote:

["Twilight"] has been enjoyed by millions of readers, and hailed as the best book they’ve ever read by people who don’t read a lot of books.

Note that I didn’t say the only people who enjoy the book are those who don’t read much. I said the only people who say it’s the best book they’ve ever read don’t read much. Enjoying the book: fine. Believing it to be the best book you’ve ever read: you don’t read enough.

But apparently some of my readers don’t read enough, because their reading comprehension skills are questionable.

For example, comment #79:

Continue reading…

We’ve already amply covered the subject of negative reviews of “The Dark Knight” being attacked by the movie’s fans (or pre-fans, since most of them hadn’t yet seen it when they went ballistic). But it turns out you can write a glowing, extremely positive review and still upset some of the fanboys!

Here is an e-mail I got yesterday from an anonymous person. His or her — oh heck, let’s assume it’s a guy — e-mail address contains “86,” which usually suggests the year of birth, and the word “kelly.” So it’s probably a 22-year-old guy named Kelly. At any rate, this is what he said:

I have an objection to your superficial and colorless description of the Joker as “the devil.” [Actually, I said he's like the devil.] How very lazy it was for you to make that comparison.

Continue reading…

A now-former “Snide Remarks” reader named Andy sent this in response to this week’s column, “War Is Hell (at the Box Office)”:

Sorry Eric,

Not intrested in your politics. One too many ‘I’ve got serious things to say’ pieces. I just can’t take geo-politics from a guy who piles on teenage girls who like hor-sees.

Also, IT’S NOT WHY I COME TO A HUMOR-MOVE REVIEW WEB SITE.

Peace out, Craker

I assume he’s referring to the incident of Amber the Horse Girl.

I don’t know if he’s calling me a cracker (or “craker”), or if he’s signing his own name there. If it were the latter, “Craker” would probably be on the next line, not the same line as the “Peace out.” Then again, maybe all bets are off when dealing with someone who calls you (or himself) “Craker.”

As always in these cases, “I don’t come here to read your politics” probably means “I don’t agree with your politics.” Which is totally fine. Can we agree on Amber the Horse Girl, though? That was some funny shiz.

Someone named Katrina (not the hurricane) did not appreciate my negative review of “Alvin and the Chipmunks.” Her e-mail reads more or less the way you would expect an e-mail from someone who loved “Alvin and the Chipmunks” to read.

Dear Eric Snider,
I just read your review of the Alvin and the Chipmunks and you have made me extremely mad because you ,yourself, have no idea what you are talking about. Before you try to critizes a movie you need to watch it first. Theodore DID NOT eat Simon’s pop. That is impossable, seeing as how Theordore is the green chipmunk and Simon is the blue. Simon didn’t even eat Theordore’s poop after saying it was a “raisen.” He spit the the poop out and said ” You owe big time.”

I just saw the movie last night and it was written so that it would fit with the cartoon. You know the one called Alvin and the Chipmunks. If you read the dedication at the end of the movie you would of seen that Alvin, Theodore, and Simon were created 50 years ago. You must of not grown up watching the cartoon because if you did you would of seen all the jokes that came from the cartoon that were in the movie. And any one who agrees with you has never seen the cartoons either and has no education. So how about you spend your money and go watch the movie and then write your review.

Big Fan of the Chipmunks,
Katrina

She is correct that I accidentally reversed the roles of pooper and poop-eater in my review. I sincerely regret the error and have fixed it now. As if Theodore would ever eat Simon’s poop! That is totally something Simon would do, as any faithful viewer of the old cartoons would of known.

When I wrote for a paper in Utah whose name escapes me now, one of my favorite things to make fun of was Utah Valley State College, the goofy little cousin to Provo’s more prestigious and selective Brigham Young University. I don’t know which of my UVSC columns a reader named Megan stumbled upon — it could have been this one, this one, this one, or this one (I think it was the second one) — but whichever it was, it roused her enough to send this e-mail:

Honestly I don’t see what you have against UVSC, it’s a really good school and it’s a heck of a lot cheaper than BYU. It must all come down to you being jealous. [She's a graduate of UVSC's fine Logic & Reasoning Department, apparently.] You were probably the one that go shot down to even enter into UVSC, so then you had to go to BYU, Big whoop. [This is like saying, "You couldn't get a job at McDonald's, so you had to take a job as a brain surgeon instead."] You’re an egotistical, presumptuous, and uncultivated man. (I forgive you if your uneducated mind had to look up all of those words but IÂ’ll sum it up for you. I just called you a really big jerk.) Yes, you won you offended me but I can still give you my input (it seems like you’re wanting it or you wouldn’t have written this article). UVSC is a great school and so many talented students have achieved great knowledge there. Though you hear on the TV about BYU and how students are being raped and robbing bars (yes, check the news sometime.) [Thank goodness no UVSC student has ever committed a crime! That would render her argument useless!] But you have no reason to trash UVSC. It’s not like it’s the best college, but neither is BYU. In the real world it doesn’t matter what college you go to just as long as you have a degree in something you’ll get hired for the job. So shut up and grow up. You may be old but you’re really immature and sophomoric.
I’ll be waiting for your reply.

Since she requested a reply, I gave her one. I didn’t say much, but I ended with this:

Thanks for writing. I do hope you enjoy your stay at UVSC, and that you work hard and earn your diploma. Well, not a diploma, of course; what they actually give you is a Chili’s gift certificate and a balloon. But still! Work hard!

Alas, that joke is recycled from one of the above-mentioned columns, but what can you do?

In a shocking development, Horse Girl has responded to yesterday’s post and answered some of our burning questions. Did she misread “uninjured” as “injured”? No! Is she actually a teenage girl? No! Have her reading comprehension skills improved? No! Behold:

Ok Eric, maybe I did get a little worked up but you don’t even know who I am. For one thing i am NOT a teenager, I am a 25 year old mother/riding instructor/horse trainer. Both me and my friends (Simone, Ashley, and Beca) have loved horses ever since we were babies and we have been friends ever since we were babies. I have NEVER GROWN OUT OF LOVING HORSES and nethier have my friends.

Continue reading…