Here is an e-mail I received in response to my review of “Apocalypto.” The writer did not sign his name, but his e-mail address says “xtopher.” Of course, when I replied to it, the e-mail bounced back as undeliverable, so perhaps it’s a fictitious address. Still, we’ll assume his name is Christopher, or Xtopher, if he prefers.

I read your review of ‘Apocalypto’ and wanted to let you know that the movie did quite well for it’s first weekend, $14.1 million from Friday to Sunday. [Even if $14.1 million really were a great opening-weekend score, which it isn't, and even if financial success meant a film was good, which it doesn't, it would still be a moot point for this e-mail, considering I LIKED the movie and gave it a B grade.]

I get the feeling you don’t like Mel Gibson at all. Am I wrong? I’m thinking your movie review is waaaay biased by your hatred toward the man. Are you Jewish? Did you hate him before the “tirade” earlier this year? Sounds like you hated Passion as well. Pretty obvoius that the way people went out to see Passion it was abviously well received by audiences. I suspect this one is pretty good too.

Let’s look at your personal attack comments:
It is the work of a crazy person, a raving lunatic whose name is Mel Gibson.
it’s hard not to become disgusted with Gibson’s arrogance and megalomania

As I said your waaaay too biased to review this movie.

Next!

Now, I have a policy of not debating the content of movies with people who have not seen them. But this letter is more about Mel Gibson than it is about “Apocalypto”; plus, Xtopher’s sentiments were echoed by a few people who posted comments on the review on this site. To wit:

Mercy, Eric. You seem to hate Mel like he does the Jews. I can’t help but compare you to mother who is excessively dissapointed in her boy’s work. Why all the references to what Mel likes? I did not see slapstick humor in the previous two movies you noted. Futhermore why on earth would you spend your opening lines on belittling the man instead of examining the movie. Why? I can’t help but think that this movie was reviewed with the blinders of prejudice on… Whatever they are. Okay, here it is. I dont know what to think of the movie because you just sound angry and nonprofessional. That’s all.

And:

Judge the film, not the character of the man who made the film, Eric. It is very obvious that you are biased and extremely emotional towards the man, hence, you lost you objectivity. Your feelings about Mel and your rational effort to analyze and critique the film are all mixed up. I find it unacceptable. You are consumed by the “mindless” words of a man in drunken stupor. So I feel sorry for you.

I guess I didn’t do a very good job expressing myself if this many readers got the wrong idea from the review, so I’ll elaborate now. Before seeing “Apocalypto,” I had no strong feelings about Mel Gibson one way or the other. I got that he was anti-Semitic from his now-legendary DUI incident, and I was amused by that whole trainwreck. But honestly and truly? No strong opinions about him. Just another celebrity, albeit a rather fascinating one in recent months.

And then I saw “Apocalypto.” My description of Gibson as crazy, arrogant, megalomaniacal, and loony is the result of THE MOVIE. It is not how I felt about him before; it’s how I felt about him after watching the movie, which makes it perfectly suitable fodder for a film review. Watching the movie, I thought: My goodness, this is the work of a crazy person! And I think if you watched “Apocalypto” without knowing who made it, you’d think the same thing: Whoever made this film is NUTS!

So “why all the references to what Mel likes”? Because it’s a review of a movie that Mel made, for crying out loud! Would it not be relevant in a review of a Michael Bay film to say that Michael Bay likes making stuff blow up? Or to mention in a Steven Spielberg review that Spielberg has often used fractured families and poor father-son relationships as fodder? When a director has themes that have recurred in his previous movies, it’s quite appropriate — expected, even — to point them out when they appear again. This is especially true if, as in “Apocalypto,” the director has wedged one of his favorite themes (i.e., slapstick comedy) into a place where it doesn’t fit, to the detriment of the movie.

No, there is no slapstick comedy in “Passion of the Christ” or “Braveheart,” nor did I say there was. (I cited those two films as examples of violence — and actually, it’s been too long since I saw “Braveheart” to recall if maybe there wasn’t some frat-brother type of jocularity among the Scottish in the early scenes.) But there is in many of the films Gibson has starred in, and he’s mentioned numerous times in interviews that he’s a fan of the Three Stooges and all that. I don’t think Gibson’s fondness for slapstick comedy is a matter of dispute, and since it’s so out-of-place in “Apocalypto,” it seemed useful to mention it. It’s in there not because it works, but because Gibson likes it.

This is one of the most baffling angry letters I’ve ever received, and an alarming indictment of our education system. I literally had to read it three times before I could figure out what it meant.

First, the e-mail’s subject line: i thought of little man was wrong!!!

And then the e-mail:

I thought Little Man was pretty funny and well put together.
But I thought your opinion was stupid and unreasonable , because your opinion about scary movies was “While I found myself laughing at quite a bit of “Scary Movie” which I didn’t it was a movies thrown with ignorant comments and scenes. I won’t lie “Little Man” had the same scene with a little ignorants to, but it was well put together.

Now, if the person who wrote this e-mail (”Martha Walker,” according to her return address) were a sentient human being with even modest language skills, here is what she would have written. At least, this is my best guess at an interpretation:

“I thought ‘Little Man’ was pretty funny and well put-together. Your opinions are invalid to me because you liked ‘Scary Movie’ (from the same writers and director as ‘Little Man’), saying in your review, ‘I found myself laughing at quite a bit of “Scary Movie.”‘ I thought ‘Scary Movie’ had a lot of ignorant comments and scenes. [I didn't know how to translate that.] I admit, ‘Little Man’ had a bit of that, too, but overall it was good.”

I am glad we live in the Internet age. Fifteen years ago, this person could have communicated with me only by writing a letter, and surely that process — writing something by hand, addressing an envelope, mailing it, etc. — would have been beyond her capabilities.

Because I was tired of people asking me for celebrities’ e-mail addresses — even though nothing on my site implies I would have them — I put a warning on my e-mail page saying this:

STOP: If you are going to ask Eric how to contact a celebrity, DON’T. Eric has no such information for ANY famous person. If you ask him anyway, despite this warning, Eric will write back and tell you how stupid you are. And he’ll be right to do so.

There has been a distinct drop-off in e-mail-address requests since then, but I do still get one occasionally. And when I get one, I do indeed respond and tell the person how stupid he or she is.

Here is the latest:

Hi! I just want to know the e-mai adress of elizabeth winstead. Plaese! Can I have it?? I promise I will not give it to anyone because I also care for her privacy.. Please reply! She is really beautiful and I like her very much. I just want her to be my friend. I’m one of her biggest fans!! I would really appreciate your kindness!!

From,
Angel

I replied:

The page you just e-mailed me from says this:

[I repeat the above-quoted warning.]

So: You’re a very stupid person. It says specifically that I don’t have contact info for any celebrity, and yet you asked me anyway. That is stupid.

Eric

Angel replied:

Oh!!! I’m sorry and CHILL!!!! Don’t call me stupid bcoz i’m not been raised as a stupid one bcoz im studying and im a scholar and also a valedectorian!!!!! So please be careful of your words!!! Bcoz some1 is being hurt!!!! Thank u, anyways!! For your politeness!! And remember that im not stupid! its just a simple question though!!! I asked only for the e-mailadd of mary elizabeth! You can reply Nicely!!DUH!!! Who are you anyway and are you close to mary elizabeth winstead???

Sigh. All that, and she STILL thinks I know Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s e-mail address. I don’t even know who she is! (An actress, apparently. I’m guessing she was in a movie I reviewed, but I don’t feel like looking her up.)

We have a very special angry letter to discuss today. It comes from Robert Mackey, a 40-something who runs “Amanda Bynes NOW!,” a Web site obsessively devoted to the 20-year-old actress.

If the name Robert Mackey rings a bell, it’s because he has written two previous angry letters. The first came when I reviewed Amanda Bynes’ film “She’s the Man” and described it (and I’m paraphrasing here) as a putrescent, horrifically unfunny comedy made all the worse by Bynes’ embarrassing performance.

A few months later, I reviewed Lindsay Lohan’s “Just My Luck” and mentioned that it was the worst movie I’d seen since, well, “She’s the Man.” This struck Robert Mackey as an unjustified attack on his beloved Amanda Bynes, so he wrote me again to say so.

Well, then the DVD of Lohan’s “Just My Luck” came out, and I screened it for DVD Talk. The “movie review” portion of the DVD review was essentially the same as the theatrical review had been, including the Amanda Bynes reference. Obviously, Robert Mackey could not let this grievance pass unremarked. He sent me this e-mail:

I read your review of “Just My Luck,” and in the future, leave “She’s the Man” out of it. Again, you have this problem that Amanda Bynes is a punchline whenever you need to refer to a bad movie. You review films and DVDs on their own merits, don’t you?

In the future, when you hate a movie, just speak your piece, allow me to slam you for it, and move on to the next thing. Kapiche, a-hole?

Now, before we go any further, I urge you to look over Mackey’s previous e-mails, and to peruse his site, too. It really is a hilarious site. His devotion to Amanda Bynes is impressive in its fervency and creepiness. What’s more, he HATES anyone in Bynes’ demographic, seeing them all as competition. Lindsay Lohan, Mandy Moore, Hilary Duff — all grievously untalented trainwrecks in Mackey’s view. Amanda Bynes is the only teen queen worthy of adoration!

He also hates the TV show “Ghost Whisperer” and its star, Jennifer Love Hewitt. Why? Because it was on at the same time as Bynes’ “What I Like About You” last season, and its vastly superior ratings were, in Mackey’s estimation, one of the reasons “What I Like About You” got canceled. Somehow, that means “Ghost Whisperer” must be a terrible, evil show, and Jennifer Love Hewitt the spawn of Satan himself.

Oh, and when teen- or TV-focused magazines have someone on the cover who is not Amanda Bynes, they have exercised terribly poor judgment. When they have someone like Lindsay Lohan or Hilary Duff on the cover, you can practically feel Mackey’s rage surging across the Internet.

Anyway, upon receiving this latest angry e-mail from him, I replied with this:

Hooray! I was hoping for another e-mail from the crazy Amanda Bynes-obsessed middle-aged man!

As I was editing my theatrical review of “Just My Luck” for the DVD review, I noticed the Bynes reference (which you chided me for back in May, too). I thought: If I leave this in, will it elicit another response from creepy ol’ Robert Mackey? And sure enough, you did not disappoint me. I thank you for that.

“She’s the Man” is the worst movie I’ve seen all year (followed just barely by “Just My Luck”), and Bynes’ goggle-eyed performance is one of the worst things about it. It is only natural, then, that I should refer to it when the subject of awful movies arises. If your odd, disquieting love for Bynes is so vast that you cannot fathom such a reaction to her work, then I would say that is your problem, not mine.

Here’s to more petty and childish obsessions with teen queens!

Eric

He did not reply. Indeed, though I have replied every time he has e-mailed me, he has never replied back.

We have a backlog of Angry Letters to sort through, so put on your asbestos gloves and protective goggles and let’s get to reading!

First a quick one from someone who used the form on the E-mail Eric page. He marked “general” as the subject, so I don’t know what his letter is in response to. In the “name” field, he put “SNIDERHATER.” For “e-mail address,” he put “sniderhater@yahoo.com.” (I checked; this is not a real e-mail address, sadly.) He writes:

Try to talk yourself out of this…

YOU’RE A [nickname for RICHARD]!

SNIDERHATER makes a lot of good points here and I will not attempt to refute them. Sure, he’s an anonymous coward — I may be a Richard, but at least I sign my name to my work and tell people how to contact me — but he’s an anonymous coward who speaks the truth. I am cut to the quick. Touché, SNIDERHATER. Touché.

The stupidity of this next writer was affirmed before I even read her letter: She had sent the e-mail not through my e-mail page, but through the “Ask Eric Stuff” page, which is quite clearly labeled as a place that is ONLY for non-serious questions that you intend as setups for “Snide Remarks” jokes. If you have an ACTUAL comment or question, the “Ask Eric Stuff” page is not the place to send it. There’s not even a spot on the “Ask Eric Stuff” page for you to include your e-mail address, so how would I reply?

Anyway, the person signed her name “Gertrude Irvingale,” which clearly is not real. But here’s what she had to say:

I just have a teensy question. I read the movie reviews for Channing Tatum and I think that you rated all the movies wrongly… or at least most of them. I realize that this is just your opinion but I think you desperately need to reevaluate your movie reviews if you wish to look cool and stuff like that, u no?

Ha Ha

Ha ha indeed! I’m sure Gertrude Irvingale is right, actually. If I wish to look cool to 15-year-old girls (which I assume she is), then yes, I should probably start evaluating Channing Tatum’s movies differently, i.e., I should give them all A+ grades because Channing Tatum is SUPA FIIIIINNNE! DAYUMN!!!

He’s actually not a bad actor at all. In “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints” (just now being released in select theaters), he plays a conflicted Italian-American kid (!) and is pretty impressive in the role. I think it may be a breakthrough for him after paying his dues with crap like “Supercross” and “She’s the Man.” I suspect “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints” is the film Gertrude thinks I got “right” (I gave it a B, the highest of any Channing Tatum film), yet ironically, I doubt she would enjoy it, what with the serious plot and believable characters and intelligent dialogue and so forth. He does have his shirt off a couple times, though, so maybe it would win her over.

But it is foolish to spend time belittling pseudonymous teenagers when there are grown-ups to harass. Here’s what a fellow named Bill had to say about my review of the current Will Ferrell opus:

You have lost your mind and should not be allowed a forum to review any more movies. That was the worst movie of all time (or tied with some others). What a useless waste of film production and distribution. Not funny, entertaining, or amusing, with some very twisted gender bending, not to mention JUST BAD ACTING. THE FILM STUNK.
Even my daughter hated it. Did somebody pay you to give this pile of crap a good review? Go back to film school and work on your studies a bit more before you review anything again. Thank you. Bill

It happened to be my birthday the day I got this, and I was feeling playful. So I sent this reply:

You have lost your mind and should not be allowed a forum to send any more e-mails. That was the worst response to a review I’ve ever read. What a waste of time. Did someone pay you to send me that e-mail? Go back to e-mail school and work on your studies a bit more before you respond to any more reviews. Thank you.

I’m thinking of using that as a form letter, actually.

Next up: An e-mail from someone whose “From” line says Sean, though his e-mail address is john811416usa@netscape.net. Maybe his name is Sean John. He didn’t sign it at all, so it’s hard to say. In fact, the e-mail itself was vague. It reads:

What do you base your reviews on? Are you, or were you an actor at anytime? How long have you been doing this? You seem to be a real punk, who loves attention and needs a swift kick in the [donkey]. YOUR website is boring, kind of like your reviews. Your writing has no creativity and needs a lot of work. And by the way, who in the hell would buy your crap anyway? My advice, go back to starbucks, if you really apply yourself, you just might make assistant manager in about 7-years! You’re Pathetic

Actually, now that I look at it, the capitalization of “You’re Pathetic” and the fact that it occurs at the end of the e-mail makes me think maybe that’s his name. Hmm.

My response to You’re Pathetic was as follows:

Thank you for your mature, well-reasoned e-mail.

To answer your questions, I am not an actor, and I have been reviewing movies since 1999.

Was there a particular review that angered you? Or just life in general?

He did not reply. Once again I fail to understand how someone can become so enraged by a mere movie review. Oh well. Back to Starbucks with me!

In my review of “The Ant Bully,” I cracked a joke about how the wasps “should have had snooty New Hampshire accents — you know, WASPs.” I shouldn’t be surprised that EVERYTHING can be offensive to someone, but I wasn’t expecting this kind of response….

Dear Eric,

Thank you for writing the review on this movie. It was helpful.

However, I resent your comment made about those “snooty New Hampsire accents.” Please, this was really not necessary. Make your review and stick to that, as you do well. However, when you throw slander, bias and prejudice to an entire state, you just offend people.

As you pointed out in your review about that movie, there were certain elements that didn’t even need to be there. Do the right thing and remove the crass remarks about the people who live in the state of New Hampsire. They just don’t need to be there.

Thank you,

Bill
Wakefield, NH

Dumbfounded that someone could actually be bothered by such an innocuous remark, I replied:

This is a joke, right? You weren’t ACTUALLY offended by my reference to “snooty New Hampshire accents,” right?

Bill from New Hampshire responded:

Offended? To be honest, it takes a lot to really offend me. So I’m not going to say I was offended when I really didn’t take it personally. But, I did think it could have gone without saying. I don’t know you, and you don’t know me. So given that you write a public article like that, and me not knowing the author well, I just thought it was a out-of-place. Any link of a general population as ’snooty’ or to a click of people called “WASP”s is just not really needed. I don’t like that association personally.

Please consider this nothing more than a friendly request to remove or alter those remarks. There are no threats that I would ever attach to such a request or ever will. It’s completely in your court to do anything as you see fit.

I personally would just like to see the comments removed.

Thank you for your response and your consideration on this. And thank you for the movie article. I hope to see this movie with a couple of special young girls in my life this week.

Bill seemed like a nice enough guy, but I just couldn’t figure out what the big deal was. I responded:

Well, I was going off the fact that there ARE a lot of snooty WASPs in New Hampshire. That’s not to say all New Hampshire residents fit that description, just that it’s a common perception with some validity. The reader will read it and think, “Yeah, I know what he’s talking about.” Someone might make reference to a “hick Kentucky accent” or a “surfer dude California accent.” And the people in those areas, if they are honest, would say, “Yep, there are a lot of people around here who talk like that.”

I guess it just goes to show that no matter how benign a joke is, there’s always someone, somewhere, who will be bothered by it…

His next reply began to shed light on what the big deal was:

In your comments, you mention WASPs, as the acronym to associate to the insect. Clever association, but you linked in my state there with the acronym. Do you understand what WASP stands for and what they did? The acronym stands for While Anglo-Saxon Protestant. It was a group that frequently touted that the “white race” was the supreme race. They were racists. They also had ties with the KKK.

Although I may fit the physical description of WASP, I certainly don’t care for anything this group stood for. Put in the word “NAZI” v.s. “WASP” and the connotation that goes along with that, and you get the feeling a New Hampshire person might get by being associated with that group.

Ahhhhhh. I replied:

It sounds like the whole problem here stems from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word “WASP.” I don’t think the general association most people have with that term is the same as yours, i.e., the racists, KKK, etc. I think most people, when they hear “WASP,” just think of white, upper-middle-class Americans. I can see why you would object so much to the term if its connotation for you is racism, but truly, I don’t think that’s how most people take the term.

And his reply:

I assure you that I have no misunderstanding of the meaning of the word wasps as in “W.A.S.P.”s. Which is the association you make in your review. You are a little younger than myself, and so for your generation, that may be the case. Ask the opinion of those you may know, who are 10 years older or more than you, if they would mind that association, and you might get a different viewpoint than the one you have.

It is an acronym as I have already stated for this group. And although to your generation, you may not be aware of this group, those older than you are very much aware. There are some people that still adhere to this belief system.

In any case, I promised that I would not really put anything further on this request and I am not. You have made your decision. Just adding more to the dialog and information.

On a side, it may prove to be an interesting social experiment. To see who reacts in what way to this verbiage. In talking with a younger lady last night, she had no idea what WASPs meant. This adds to your viewpoint, and also to mine.

All right, folks, I’m putting it to you. When you hear “WASP,” do you think of racism or the KKK? Or do you just think of Eleanor Roosevelt? (Well, maybe not her specifically, but that type: white, upper-class, maybe snooty.) I’m perfectly willing to be wrong about this. If the term has a different connotation, a much more negative one, than I’m familiar with, I’d like to know about it.

About a month ago, I wrote a brief blog item on the show “So You Think You Can Dance?” Included in my remarks was this paragraph:

The name “Jaymz” is such a trainwreck that I think if I ever met him, I would only want to slap him. However, I found some unexpected glee on his bio page on the show’s Web site. First, in his own words: “My girlfriend was diagnosed with a disease called ‘Endometriosis.’ ” The disease is capitalized and in quotation marks because evidently Jaymz thinks it is a title. “Endometriosis! The Musical,” perhaps. Second, his girlfriend’s name is Mekenna. I bet it’s pronounced the same as McKenna, but spelled differently because her parents thought it would be cute. Did you know that having a dumbly spelled name is one of the leading causes of “Endometriosis”? How does that make you feel, Mr. and Mrs. Mekenna’s Parents?

Well, guess what. Yesterday I got a MySpace message from Jaymz himzelf! (Why a MySpace message instead of an e-mail? I can only guess it’s because he didn’t want me to have his e-mail address.) Here is what it says:

So my girlfriend thought it’d be cute to google our names together and guess what popped up! Your blog! Amazing right? Thanks for taking the time to write about us. Aren’t we beautiful? We can’t help it. And I thought Eric was spelled Erik. hmmm….Maybe your parents thought it’d be cute to add a c at the end instead of a k because then you would come before the other Erik’s on the roll call in school for sure! Maybe they thought it’d make you feel special and lets be honest you are pretty “special”. And anytime you wanna meet me in real life to slap me in the face let me know because I’d love to let you. From what I hear, writers are really good fighters. Well my friend, PEACE OUT!!!

Regards,
Jaymz and Mekenna
(That’s prounounced James and Mckenna if you didn’t understand)

Good for Jaymz, responding to my snotty blog item with more snottiness! He could use some work on his form — “Eric” isn’t exactly an uncommon spelling of the name, and in fact is far more common than “Erik” — but I admire his moxie! It’s a shame that being named Jaymz, no one will ever, ever take him seriously.

There is some question as to this really being Jaymz who wrote to me, though. The tenor of the message sounds right, but the MySpace page it came from says that Jaymz is only 14 years old. Profiles for users that young are not viewable unless the user accepts you as a friend. Is Jaymz fibbing about his age in order to keep his account closed to the general public? Or is this someone who merely WANTS to be Jaymz and is already acting as if he were? Creeeee-py!

A few concerned readers wondered whether my column “I Was a Junket Whore,” in which I discussed the wasteful and elaborate means by which movie studios secure fluffy news coverage, would have any repercussions for me. I figured the worst that could happen is I wouldn’t get invited to any more publicity junkets (where you interview the cast and director), which is fine, because I wouldn’t want to go anyway.

But no! Paramount Pictures has gone a step further. They have barred me from all Paramount press screenings. And Allied Advertising, the Seattle branch of which handles Paramount screenings in my area, has decided (no doubt under pressure from Paramount) to ban me from screenings for the other studios it represents, too.

Now, it’s not as bad as it sounds. The studios affected are Paramount, Weinstein Co., Dimension and Miramax. The bigger ones — Warner Bros., Universal, 20th Century Fox, etc. — are handled by different P.R. agencies in Seattle and Portland, so they’re not involved. For the studios that are affected, it means that while in the past I’ve been able to go to advance screenings and run my reviews on opening day, now I may not be able to see the films until they open, meaning my reviews may be a day or two late. But again, it’s not that many movies that will actually be affected.

It’s amusing that Paramount’s response to my airing their dirty laundry is to ban me from their screenings. Has my reliability or professionalism as a film critic been called into question? No; they just don’t like that I made fun of their junket system, the inner workings of which are apparently some kind of secret. In my conversation with the Seattle publicist — who I like and who was just reporting what she’d been told — there was no mention that I had broken a specific rule or violated any contract. Paramount had never said, “Don’t write articles making fun of our junkets.” So banning me from screenings is entirely retributive: We’re mad at you, and this is how we’re going to punish you.

After “World Trade Center” (which was the focus of the junket I attended), Paramount’s next release is “Jackass: Number Two,” the further adventures of Johnny Knoxville and his friends stapling things to themselves while wearing jock straps. So you can see why Paramount would want people to take the studio seriously.

UPDATE: I had suspected this, but now I have it confirmed: Paramount wants me to remove the article from my site — but even if I do, I still won’t be invited to screenings. But they want me to take it down anyway. Why on earth would I remove the article if doing so would benefit me in no way whatsoever? That question seems to have evaded them. (I probably wouldn’t do it anyway, but if removing it would get me reinstated, I would at least think about it for a few minutes before saying no.)

Remember those “Akeelah and the Bee” e-mails I got a couple months back? I just got another one, which I’ll include later in this post. But first I want to publish an exchange I had with a reader named Frank, lo, almost two months ago now.

It’s an instructive back-and-forth, I think. Watch how the arguments start out being about lofty things like race and tolerance, and then eventually boil down to what the REAL issue was all along: “How could you possibly not like a movie that I liked?!”

Frank writes:

I do think that you missed the point in your review of Akeelah. Allow me to quote:

[This is Eric quoting someone who had previously written to him]“But here, in racist America, in post-manumission times, just 141 years on the other side of centuries of atrocity and just forty years on the other side of Civil Rights, people who have been held from reading and writing, people who have been held from enterprising, such as movie-making, are trying their hand at it.

[This was Eric's response.] “All of this is true enough … and yet it has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Unless your point is that since blacks have been oppressed for so long, we ought to cut them some slack and like their movies just because they went to the trouble of making them, whether they’re any good or not.”

[This is Frank again.] No it means that if you cannot understand how some people may find this movie refreshing and enjoyable your lens is quite racist; at the very least you are insensitive to the African American experience, which unlike some other dominant group who will remain nameless, has not afforded us centuries of ethnocentric propaganda from which to grow weary of cliched messages of love, community and personal triumph. [In other words: Sure, it was full of clichés. But for the first time, it was BLACK characters experiencing those clichés! That makes it new and fresh and exciting!]

I replied:

See, but I CAN understand how some people may find this movie refreshing and enjoyable. I’m just not one of them.

Frank writes back:

Your complete disregard for the responders of your article on Akeelah as well as the tone of the article itself would suggest that you dont.

My response:

You may recall that one of those responders implied I was racist for not liking the film, and another said it outright. If that kind of foolishness doesn’t deserve to be disregarded, I don’t know what does.

As for the article itself, ALL movie reviews express the reviewer’s own opinion. Unless he says specifically that he can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with him, I think it can be assumed that he allows for the possibility.

Frank says:

I would argue the latter. Whether or not you agree with it, your insistence on calling it foolishness denotes insensitivity and a lack of deeper understanding.

We aren’t talking about ALL movie reviews. We’re talking about this one. And frankly by insisting that the film was utterly derivative, 100-percent-recycled, completely forgettable while facilely referring to two films about Italian American athletes to support your claim, you reveal your shortcomings as a film critic, precisely for your failure to comprehend (or acknowledge) how race works in American film. It’s not so much that your review says that it’s not possible for people to disagree with your “opinion” but the tone that implies to do so is laughable. I would argue that for the disproportionate numbers of African American who were brought to tears by this film, your review essentially mocking them naturally resonates as offensive.

I say:

It’s not so much that your review says that it’s not possible for people to disagree with your “opinion� but the tone that implies to do so is laughable.

I assure you, that was not my intention. My intention was only to say what I thought of the FILM, not what I thought of people who like it. I can think a movie is derivative and generic but still respect the people who enjoy it. It happens all the time. We can all be friends, even if we don’t agree on the movies.

Frank:

I can think a movie is derivative and generic but still respect the people who enjoy it.

The film is no more generic than half the violent movies you give positive ratings to. The different here is the PG rating, XX chromosomes and high melanin content of the lead character — the new twist, by the way, that makes this film different from your Italian American fairy tales. [I'm sorry, but the same old cliches don't suddenly become new merely by being applied to a new race.] Obviously you can’t force yourself to enjoy a film that you don’t like. But there’s no way you can argue, convincingly at least, that race had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Me:

See, and that’s where you lose me. Since you can’t imagine any good reason why I didn’t like it, it MUST be because of race. And that’s preposterous.

Where in my review do you find support for the idea that the reason I didn’t like it was because of the race of the characters? The only time I even mentioned race was at the end, when I said the movie deserved credit for showing African-Americans in a different light than they are usually shown in Hollywood movies — a POSITIVE observation, you will notice, not a negative one.

I’m telling you race had nothing to do with it. I know me pretty well. I’ve been well-acquainted with me for more than 30 years. I would know if race were a factor in my dislike of the film. And I’m telling you it’s not. Now, if you, a stranger who only knows me from glancing at a couple movie reviews, want to psychoanalyze me and tell me race WAS a factor and I just don’t know it — well, then be my guest. But don’t expect me to take you seriously, any more than you would take me seriously if I started trying to tell you about your motivations.

The reasons I didn’t like the film are clearly enumerated in my review. Race is not one of them. Period.

Someone suggested that when people say I’m racist for not liking a movie about African-Americans, I should just reply, “You’re right. I hate black people. You can imagine how difficult it is for me when I have to watch movies about them.” But what purpose would sarcasm serve, really?

Also, I wonder what people like Frank say to the black critics who didn’t like this movie.

Anyway, a few days ago I got this e-mail from someone named Robert:

I’m not sure who you are, or what makes you a venerated movie critic. [Who says I'm venerated?]But after stumbling upon your review of “Akeelah and the Bee” I can assure you that I won’t be reading your comments again. [Bah. You'll be back. They always come back.]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a critic miss it as badly as you missed it with this film.

One of the most enjoyable films I’ve ever seen.

A solid 7.5 out of 10. Maybe 8. [My C- grade would be about a 4 on a 10-point scale, and you only give it a 7.5 or 8. And I'm the furthest off you've ever seen someone? You never saw a 10-point movie that a critic only gave a 1 or 2? Come on!]

Dude, if I were you I’d choose another line of work. [You're right. If one guy disagrees with me about one movie, I pretty much have no choice but to start over in a new profession.]

Eh, at least he didn’t play the race card. Good thing, because you know how I hate those black people.

But you know who I REALLY hate? Child molesters. There, I said it. And I said it in my review of “Peaceful Warrior,” which was directed by a confessed child molester, Victor Salva. I pointed out the man’s prior record, which prompted a reader named Chris to write in — yes — defending him.

I’ve known Victor Salva for a number of years and it pains me when I see ‘hit’ descriptions like you included in your interview. He’s a realy nice guy and he paid the price. For someone who objects to moral preaching in film, perhaps you should adhere to your advice and take it out of your reviews.

As to the film, I saw it, and found it to be inspiring. I didn’t read the book, but I imagine it wasn’t very easy to translate. I’d love to see you try..

Yeah, and I’d love to see you try to write a movie review, too.

Anyway, I don’t consider coming out against child molestation to be “moral preaching.” If that qualifies as moral preaching, then what else does? Saying I don’t think people should murder each other? Coming out in favor of curing cancer?

I’m sorry, but if you molest a kid, you’re tarred with it for life. It’s on your permanent record. The best way to avoid being known forever as a child molester is to not molest children. I’m just sayin’.

Finally, my dis of “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” elicited this response from a reader named Trevor. Trevor’s e-mail address implies he was born in 1988, so take what he says with an 18-year-old grain of salt.

I think critics are the most annoying people in the entire world, especially you. [You don't know the half of it. Try eating with me!] you want to know why? [No.] well, i will tell you. [Damn.] critics completely miss the point of movies. you are supposed to go in, sit down and get comfortable and be taken away into a different world. movies are made so that we can forget about our own lives, and be entertained. and critics walk into the movie, waiting to see what they can bash first, which completely destroys the magic. [We do?! All of us?! Every time?! Why wasn't I taught that at Film Critic University?!] it’s like you were tying to NOT like the movie, so that you can seem like you know what your talking about.

and what the heck was up with your whole popcorn reference? “People call flicks like this “popcorn movies,” but I think cotton candy is a more accurate comparison. Popcorn comes from an actual food product and has some substance to it. You could live on popcorn, at least for a little while. Cotton candy is light and fluffy and not only has no nutritional value, but doesn’t even really fill you up, either.” that has nothing to do with the movie at all!!! [It's what we call a metaphor. It's when you compare one thing to another thing. This isn't even a very complicated metaphor. If Trevor truly doesn't understand what I'm saying, then I have to conclude that Trevor needs to retake freshman English.] i wanted to know how the movie was, not to get nutritional facts about popcorn and cotton candy. [Oh. My bad. Here's how the movie was: not very good.]

and besides, you said dead man’s chest wasn’t entertaining? [Well, no, I didn't say that. I said it was dazzling and amusing, but not in any kind of memorable way.] well i felt like i was in the theatre for half an hour! and forgetful you say? [Um, again, no. "Forgettable" would be closer, though still a paraphrase.] AND superman returns (which you gave an A- for…) was the most anti climactic movie i have ever watched. i think the movie should hav ended once he landed the plane in the baseball field, just as much as i think you should stop writing reviews

I wrote back to Trevor, quoted his last line — “I think you should stop writing reviews” — and said, “I’ll take that under advisement.” He apparently thought I was telling HIM to stop writing reviews, because he responded: “cool. cos i’ve never actually written one……yeahhh”

So he’s pretty smart, that Trevor.

Let’s get this one out of the way first. In a previous blog entry, I made fun of somebody dumb who kept writing to me wanting a certain starlet’s e-mail address. That prompted someone whose e-mail address is “cutie4eva_573″ to write me in that person’s defense:

I cannot believe how u treated Keyamaz u idiot! no 1 is stupid but u. the way how u treat people is proof that ur an [swear word],idiot,[swear word] and trash.

Surely “no 1 is stupid but u” is one of the more ironic statements I’ve read this week.

Publishing my reviews at DVD Talk has opened me up to a whole new group of angry people. One discussion thread on the message boards over there is devoted to my review of “The Da Vinci Code,” with some people saying I was biased from the get-go (they think I hated the book, missing the part in my review where I said I liked the book), and others arguing the opposite. It’s noteworthy because many of the people writing make valid points, though I do wonder why some of them get so worked up about it.

In the non-rational, non-valid department, someone posted a message there in response to my review of the “Tristan & Isolde” DVD. It’s a real delight, actually, from a teenage girl named Camille. It recalls some of the very emotional response I got to my “Titanic” column lo those many years ago:

eric d. SNIDER is a BIG loser, who in some points of his “review” was right, ( ex: Franco had kind of a stupid accent) but he was over all wrong. NUMBER ONE SNIDER, It’s a movie targeted MAINLY for teen audiences. So give it a break, because it got to the teen audiences. NUMBER TWO, “we belong together” by gavin Degraw, is a great song. I know this is your opinion, but i think you, being the USELESS critic that you are, probably just listened to 5 seconds of it. It describes Tristan and Isolde’s true love for each other. NUMBER THREE, Sophia Miles was wonderful in this movie ( do you think you could’ve done better??) and James Franco doesn’t just have one facial expression. Over all, this was a great movie, and i know it can be cheesy at times, but otherwise, its a great movie ( not what i would call an EPIC, but a great move none the less)
I DISAGREE very much with the utter stupidity of Snyder’s review.
THANK YOU.

No, thank YOU! That was a great letter, maybe a little bad in parts, but otherwise a great letter (not a FANTASTIC letter, of course, but a great one nonetheless). Really, I mean it, a great letter — notwithstanding its flaws, which are noticeable — but overall a great letter.