It’s time for another edition of Eric’s Sack of Mail, where I respond to e-mails I’ve gotten that were neither angry, stupid or ill-conceived.

First up is Mike, who often send me e-mails just to hear himself talk, I think. He asks:

With all the movies you watch, do you ever get completely sick of movies? Are you still able to watch movies for fun, or does that feel too much like work? Are there ever major-release movies that you skip because you just know they’re going to be awful and you’ve seen too much crap recently?

I answer, in order:

With all the movies you watch, do you ever get completely sick of movies?

Not really. I suppose there’s a day every now and then when I don’t really feel like watching anything, but I reckon that’s true of most jobs and hobbies. Even a die-hard golfer probably has the occasional day where he’s just not in the mood.

Are you still able to watch movies for fun, or does that feel too much like work?

Well, even when I’m “working” (i.e., I have to write a review), it’s still fun to watch the movie, or at least it’s as fun as the movie itself allows it to be. That is, I don’t have the attitude of “I’m going to work” when I go to a screening; I’m going to the movies! And movies are fun! (Except when they aren’t.)

But I get what you’re asking: Do I watch movies in my spare time, with no obligation to write a review? And the answer is yes. I wish I had time to do it more often, in fact, but the new releases keep me pretty busy. I regularly scan Turner Classic Movies and the Independent Film Channel to see what’s coming up that I haven’t seen before, and my TiVo is full of movies to watch. If one of the local theaters is showing something of interest, I’ll go catch that, too, as when I saw the Coen Brothers’ “Blood Simple” a few months back, or the newly restored print of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” that’s been making the rounds. And I confess to watching most of “Tommy Boy” a few weeks ago when I only meant to check out the DVD extras.

Are there ever major-release movies that you skip because you just know they’re going to be awful and you’ve seen too much crap recently?

No sir. I look at it this way: How can I accurately compile my Best and Worst Movies lists at the end of the year if I haven’t seen all the contenders?

When something looks awful, I actually kind of look forward to it. The negative reviews are fun to write, and sitting through a bad movie with colleagues can be enjoyable, too. It’s like we’re survivors who endured a horrible tragedy together. It bonds us together and makes us stronger.

That said, I almost always think the bad movie is going to be more fun than it really is. It’s like being given a chocolate cake and thinking, “I’m going to eat this ENTIRE cake! It will be sinfully delicious and so bad for me, and I’ll probably feel sick afterward, but it will be FUN!” And then afterward you’re like, “Holy crap, what was I THINKING? Why did I DO that? Why do I do this to myself?”

I’d be more likely to skip a movie that I knew was going to be C-grade — not good enough to be recommendable but not bad enough to be hateworthy. A movie like that, that inspires no strong feelings one way or the other, is 1) very hard to write about and 2) probably going to be forgotten by everyone in a couple months anyway.

But I try not to skip anything at all, because I’m a completist and I figure it’s my job. It’s what I do.

Speaking of movie reviews (which we just were), someone allegedly named J-dawg wrote in with this question several weeks back:

Do you notice critic’s responses to movies you haven’t yet seen? If yes, can you discern whether or not they affect you?

The agenda behind my questions is that I wonder whether M. Night [Shyamalan]’s recent movies have been “meta-criticized” (for lack of a better term) — in other words, critics seem to be influenced by other critics’ comments (in his case, to his detriment) more than is the case w/ a regular movie. I just worry that he is not getting the same level of objectivity — whatever that actually means. (Perhaps there are other external factors, like his reputation as preachy, self-righteous, egocentrical etc.)

I love all of M. Night’s major productions, and I might not be credible because I can tell that I really want to like them. I give him a huge benefit of the doubt, and I hate to see him lambasted by the critics. At least he is doing something interesting that will be seen by the mainstream of Americans, whereas all the other interesting directors seem relegated to smaller venues.

Anyway, any thoughts?

A most intriguing question. In general, no, I don’t notice other critics’ responses to movies. The reason is simple: We’re usually all seeing the movie within a couple days of each other and not publishing our reviews until opening day. So we don’t know what our fellow critics think until we read their reviews, usually the same day our own are published.

This is a common misconception, I think. People think critics will all jump on the bandwagon, but the fact is, we’re usually seeing everything at the same time. In the case of some art films, which open in NYC and LA and then spread out, yes, there can be some bandwagon-jumping at times. But for an ordinary wide release, opening everywhere at once? Nope.

(For the record, in cases where I am reviewing a movie for which reviews are already available, I don’t read any of them until I’ve written mine.)

As for Shyamalan, it really wasn’t until “The Village” that critics in general stopped liking him. You always had a few who hated him, who found him self-indulgent. But overall, “Sixth Sense,” “Unbreakable” and “Signs” were well-received.

A lot of people (critics and viewers alike) HATED “The Village,” though, and it’s possible some critics started to rethink their favorable views toward his earlier films. Are critics eager to hate “Lady in the Water”? I dunno, some, maybe. But there are lots of filmmakers who are not generally well-regarded among critics, where critics salivate at the chance to pick them apart. It’s true of any filmmaker who is different or unusual in any way: Some people love him and some people hate him.

Next: A fellow named Adam wrote in with a Foxx-related question:

I’ve read several of your reviews where mention being surprised that Jamie Foxx was as good as he was (Any Given Sunday, Collateral, Ray).

I haven’t come accross any yet where you actually found him annoying. Could you point me to a few of his movies which initially caused you to “dislike him with a strong, violent passion?” [See the "Collateral" review for the genesis of that quotation.] I guess I’ve only seen the “good” version of him.

“Held Up” and “Bait” would be good examples of the annoying Jamie Foxx. My initial impressions of him were mostly formed from seeing him on television, though, particularly “In Living Color.” I cringe just remembering it.

Moving on, we come to Matt, who writes very thoughtfully on the semantics involved in the global warming and evolution debates.

I’ve read your stuff for years and though I’ve often been tempted to send an email, I’ve never been able to muster enough gumption. I do have a comment about this global warming debate that has rankled me just enough to open this window and write something in it.

I just have two points to make, and you can do whatever you like with them.

Point 1: In one of the letters you received concerning the controversy, a writer said that global warming is “just a theory,” and hasn’t “passed the scientific test to become a law.” This statement, used over and over again in letters to the editor to talk about things like global warming and evolution, is just plain ignorant. In science, [if something is] a “theory,” [that means it] has passed the scientific test, most times over and over again. Folks outside of the science community often confuse the term “theory” with “hypothesis” (remember learning about the scientific method in high school?) and think that it’s just something that was dreamt up by a liberal scientist in an office.

More on the semantics of the word “theory”: a theory is something to explain something that has been decided by the scientific community to be irrefutable fact. Theories regarding, say, dinosaurs don’t hypothesize the existence of dinosaurs, but seek to explain different aspects of their lives. Evolution is the same thing. When someone talks about the “theory of evolution,” they are assuming that evolution is a comfirmed fact, so they use a theory like natural selection to explain it.

When scientists talk about theories in conjunction with global warming, they are observing the phenomenon and seeking to explain it. The controversy, therefore, isn’t that the earth is warming up (that’s considered a fact) but what is causing it, if it’s caused by humans, and if there’s anything we can do about it. There’s plenty of room here for debate, and scientists, contrary to what a lot of right-wing folks like to think, LOVE to disagree with one another. That’s how they make a name for themselves.

Point 2: (hopefully shorter) The word law, as in “the law of gravity,” is treated by these same folks as some kind of ironclad thing. Gravity must exist because that word “law” is in there somewhere. Newton’s law of gravity, though, while elegant and easy to understand and effective enough to send rockets to the moon and back, isn’t the best explanation of gravity. Einstein came up with a better one that holds up on super small levels where Newton’s falls apart. Yet Einstein’s explanation is called a theory and Newton’s a law.

All I’m really trying to say is that dismissing Global Warming as “just a theory” is one of the dumbest arguments you can make. It disregards decades of grueling data collection, analysis and interpretation and drives scientists crazy.

Hope you loved it.

I loved it immensely. You make some points I had not considered before, being a non-scientific layperson type myself.

And finally, speaking of loving things, a reader named Joshua wrote in to say this:

In response to your ["Snide Remarks"] comment — “The serving sizes on junk food are always ridiculous. A pint of Ben & Jerry’s is allegedly four servings, but I’ve often eaten the entire thing in one sitting, usually while watching TV and sometimes while crying.” I thought you might be interested in this website if you haven’t already seen it: Crying While Eating.

I had not seen Crying While Eating before, and I am forever grateful that you have shown it to me. I urge everyone to visit this site at once and behold its absurdist glory. You will find many 30-second viewer-submitted video clips in which people cry while eating (or eat while crying). Each clip is labeled with what the participants are eating and an explanation of why they are crying. The deconstructionist in me wants to tell you why, exactly, some of these clips are so pants-wettingly funny to me, but I won’t spoil the magic by analyzing it.

Thus another edition of Eric’s Sack of Mail comes to a close. Your questions and comments are always welcome, and every single one is read by me personally, except for the boring ones, which I have the Laotian kids in the sweatshop decipher for me.

Ahoy! It’s time for Eric’s Sack of Mail, where I respond to e-mails I’ve gotten that were neither stupid nor angry. (Don’t worry; we have some stupid/angry letters to respond to tomorrow.)

First up is Steve, who has this response to my review of Adam Sandler’s latest opus, “Click”:

I just read your Click review and I think you got it wrong. I really enjoyed the film. Yes, it rips off many films, but I think you underestimate the feelings of 30ish guys who feel like they don’t get enough time with thier family. Films like this will touch them.

Also, you said: “Why, if Michael can skip ahead a few chapters, he can’t also skip BACK a few chapters if he fears he’s gone too far is not explained.”

It is explained, I think you weren’t paying attention. He DOES go back many times in the film (you even comment about going back to 1976). If he FF’s or SKIP’s a chapter, he is still “living” it on “auto-pilot” … so going BACK would allow him to SEE himself, but not “re-do” the moment. He does this many times in the film, how could you miss it?

Regarding the first paragraph: I understand those feelings. I just also understand that the same idea (workaholic dad comes to realize family is most important) has been done — and done better — in 1,000,000,000,000,000 other movies already. But yeah, if a viewer hasn’t seen any of them, I suppose “Click” will do the job.

Regarding the rest: Yes, I saw those scenes, and their existence strengthens my point. I wasn’t suggesting he go back and re-do the scenes he slept-walked through. I was suggesting he go back and at least re-watch them, partly to learn information he needed, and partly to at least WATCH his kids grow up, if not actually interact with them. I mean, if he really feels like he missed out on his kids’ childhood, why not get out the home movies, as it were, and watch ‘em?

Now that we’ve discussed the metaphysics of the Adam Sandler movie, let’s see what “Snide Remarks” reader Tina has to say:

I have a complaint. I hesitate to mention it because in general, I’m a huge fan of all things Snider. [This is the right way to begin an e-mail, by the way.] I commend you Eric for your exceptionally entertaining and informative movie reviews, and your usually-high-quality columns. I say usually because I find the “ask Eric” installments to be a distinct drop on the humor scale from the standard columns. I understand that I am only one reader, and it is possible that there is a large segment of readers who look forward to the “Ask Eric” columns. It is my hope however, that my comment will join a throng of similiar comments and together they will have the power to enact the change I wish to see in the world. Thank you for your time.

Well, I respect Tina’s desire to change the world for good. The “Ask Eric Stuff” columns (sort of a parody of Dear Abby, where people write in with questions and I give unhelpful answers) were hugely popular when I first started doing them in 2001. But it’s true, I haven’t heard much about them lately.

What do you say, “Snide Remarks” subscribers? You likey? No likey? Don’t worry about hurting my feelings, for I have none.

Finally, Alisha writes in with a question that actually required a bit of research to answer. For that I am bitter and angry.

The other day I was reading some article that referred to a movie as being made on video rather than on film, or something to that effect. I can’t remember where I read the article, so I can’t reference it for you–I don’t even remember the film the article discussed. My question is, what’s the difference?

Good question. The technological differences between video and film are complicated, but the key thing is the way the finished products look.

When something is shot on film, it’s really taking 24 still pictures of the subject every second. When those pictures are viewed quickly one after another, it gives the appearance of movement.

Video, on the other hand, records 30 images per second. Plus, each image is divided into two separate fields that interlace to form a complete image — in other words, 60 separate half-resolution images are recorded every second. You get a lot less blurring with 60 images per second as opposed to 24. This is closer to the way human vision works, which is why video looks more “real” than film.

And that’s the chief difference: Video looks more real. For comparison, look at a soap opera (they’re shot on video) and a show like “CSI” (which is shot on film). The soap opera will look more immediate and natural, like it could be happening there in your well-appointed living room. “CSI” looks more like a movie: slightly grainy, slightly detached from what real life looks like. (There are other differences, too, such as lighting and photo-developing techniques, but the video/film difference is the main one.)

Theatrical movies are almost never shot on video. Video looks cheaper than film (which it is), and so shot-on-video movies tend to look amateurish and homemade. You see them a lot at film festivals, but they rarely make it beyond that.

Of course, now we’re starting to see digital video, which is a much higher-quality video that doesn’t look homemade and which has been embraced by major directors such as George Lucas and Robert Rodriguez. Some argue it’s the way of the future; some, like Steven Spielberg, vow they’ll never stop shooting on good old-fashioned film.

Whew! Someone with more technological expertise than myself might have a better, more succinct answer to the video-vs-film question, but I think that basically sums it up. If any brainy readers do have a better one, or if I’ve gotten something wrong, please let me know. And in the meantime, thanks to everyone who contributed to this edition of Eric’s Sack of Mail!

Here are some more recent items in Eric’s Sack of Mail, the place for e-mails I get that are neither angry nor stupid. They cover a wide range of topics, so put your thinking caps on!

First, a reader whose name I neglected to keep pointed out an amusing paragraph in a recent edition of The Daily Universe at BYU.

I thought of you when I read this. It’s from a front-page article printed in the The Daily Universe on May 25 about the rising cost of gas:

“I’m shocked and appalled,” said JaNae Besendorfer, a senior from Nephi. “It will just be so expensive to go anywhere.”

I especially like that her name is “JaNae.”

I agree! Made-up Mormon names with two capital letters are the best when using expressions like “shocked and appalled.”

Next, a fellow named Rod stumbled across my site and read my somewhat infamous Ann Landers “Snide Remarks” column, to which one angry-letter writer tried to pass off “dishonest” as a normal, common definition of “snide.” Rod had this to say:

I came across your Ann Landers column while seeking a definition of “snide”. Frankly I share the view of those readers who thought it was in very poor taste, though I don’t want to get self-righteous about it, since lots of things I like are in bad taste. By the way, I’m not sure you’re right that no one uses snide to mean dishonest - what led me to your column was reading “Fingersmith” by Sarah Waters, where the leading character describes fake jewelry as snide. However, this may be a Victorian usage, as the novel is set in Victorian times. One online source quotes a 1913 edition of Webster as referring to “snide goods”, but says this usage is archaic. This other source has more on the origin and history of the word “snide.”

That is actually pretty fascinating. I’ll summarize what the second link says: While people generally assume “snide” came from German “schneiden” or Dutch “snijden” — both meaning “to cut,” which lines up with the modern definition of “snide” — in fact “snide” in English ORIGINALLY meant “false, bogus, counterfeit.” That definition of it goes back to 1859, while the current meaning (sarcastic, snooty, sneering, etc.) is only traceable to 1933. So we actually don’t know where the English word “snide” came from — or, if it did come from German or Dutch, why we changed it to mean “fake” before eventually going back to a meaning closer to the German/Dutch one.

Or maybe it’s only interesting to people named Snider and/or people who write columns called “Snide Remarks.”

Next, Justin writes in with a question about my movie reviews:

When you give a film a C+, does that mean the film can be counted as a “good film,” or a “bad film?” (Or a “neutral film?”) Let’s take Hollywood Homicide for example. That’s a perfect example of a movie that I cannot say I feel is a GOOD movie…however, I still cannot say I feel that it is a BAD movie. So in my mind, it’s neutral. (You gave it a C+.) So would it count as a “good” or “bad” film? (I kept thinking about this, especially since your reviews are posted on Rotten Tomatoes, where it has to be either one or the other.)

Rotten Tomatoes has the cut-off at B-, so by their reckoning, C+ is “rotten.” But they don’t leave room for the middle ground: movies that aren’t good, exactly, but aren’t bad either.

As you guessed, that’s where the C+ comes in. Here’s how I think of a C+ movie: You wouldn’t see it on purpose, but if you’re standing at the theater and you’ve seen everything else and the C+ movie starts in 10 minutes, then sure, go ahead and see it. It’s better than not seeing anything.

A straight C grade to me means the film inspires no strong feelings one way or the other, a completely neutral film. C- is where I start using the word “bad” to describe it, and of course it gets worse from there.

(By the way, Justin’s e-mail address bounced when I tried to send this response to him, so I hope he’s reading this.)

Finally, a reader named Mike has a similar question regarding how I rank movie reviews. He writes:

I scanned your movie reviews and noticed that you haven’t given any teeny bopper movies an A rating. That’s as far as I looked, so maybe you’ve given one a “good” rating, I don’t know.

So, my question is whether you have given a teeny bopper movie a good rating, like above a B? You said to some guy on your blog that you try to evaluate three things when you review a movie: what’s it trying to accomplish, does it accomplish it, why. Do any teeny boppers, um, bop teens well? That is, where do most teeny bopper movies fall short?

I think it’s important to point out that I don’t give very many movies of ANY genre an A or A- grade. Since those grades are less common in general, it makes sense that if you narrow it down to a particular genre, there are going to be even fewer.

Second, I guess it depends on what you consider a “teeny-bopper” movie. If you mean movies aimed at teenagers, especially teenage girls — that’s what I think when I think “teeny-bopper” — then “Bring It on,” “Stick It,” “Crazy/Beautiful,” “Anywhere But Here” and “Mean Girls” all got very high marks from me. (Those are the first few that come to mind.) But “teeny-bopper” is kind of a vague term.

RE: “You try to evaluate three things when you review a movie: what’s it trying to accomplish, does it accomplish it, why.”

When I consider those questions, I’m not taking into account who the movie has been marketed toward. What a movie is “trying to accomplish” means what its storytelling goals are, not who it’s trying to appeal to. Plenty of very bad movies meet the goal of appealing to an audience. Saying that a movie achieves that is the same as saying, “It will make a lot of money,” which says nothing about its actual quality.

Many teen-oriented movies are bad simply because they treat the audiences like they’re stupid, talking down to them with idiot plots, unoriginal dialogue and cookie-cutter characters. The movies I cited above all buck that trend by being smart and mature. There is probably a great percentage of teen movies that are bad than with some other genres, simply because with teens, so many filmmakers (and the studios behind them) don’t even TRY to be good. They only want to appeal to teens on a superficial level.

That does it for Eric’s Sack of Mail for now. But soon there will be a new installment addressing “An Inconvenient Truth” and people’s opinions of it. Well, not of the movie, since I don’t think any of the people who have written to me about it have actually seen it, but about global warming in general. So, you know, you can look forward to that.

We’ve had a lot of letters recently that belong in Eric’s Sack of Mail — correspondence that is NOT angry, irrational or stupid — so we’re going to present some of them today and some of them in another installment. And here we go!

A reader named Garrett responds to my review of “The Da Vinci Code,” where I made fun of a particular detail in the plot:

I didn’t particularly like the Da Vinci Code film, but I don’t think twitting the filmmakers for using a bank account’s “safe passage clause” as a plot point is very fair. Maybe if the bank account was really, really old, back to the times where safe conduct agreements and edicts were more common. Still not very reasonable, I suppose. What is more likely is that the bank manager (in light of his true motives) was making that up in order to get them under his control.

We can, I suppose, fault the two main characters for their naive acceptance of such a ridiculous contrivance.

Was there a time when a “safe passage clause” was common in bank accounts? Like in the Wild West or something? I’ll have to look into that.

But yeah, I think you’re right that the real problem with the movie’s use of it is how the Hanks and Tautou characters accept it like it’s perfectly normal. (Also normal: Declaring “I’ve got to get to a library, FAST!!” in a loud, urgent voice.)

Speaking of big movies where characters say and do ridiculous things, a DVD Talk reader named Brad wrote in response to my review of “X-Men: The Last Stand” (which was listed after two other reviews, by the way; you’ll need to know that). I mentioned some other trilogies where the third entry was the lowest in quality, prompting Brad to say:

I respect your opinion, HOWEVER…

Back to the future III? Jurassic Park III? Godfather III? Okay, I’ll give you that last one.

But BF3 was at least as good as the first one, and better that the second by a mile.

JP3 is, in my humble opinion, much better than the first one. And don’t get me started on Lost World!!

*takes deep breath* I’m alright…I’m okay…

Anyway, all trilogizing aside, no hard feelings, and keep up the good work.

BTW, d’ja notice that of the three [reviews] of this movie, YOURS IS THE THIRD? Coincidence. I think not. What goes around…

Just kidding. 8 > )

“Back to the Future III” and “Jurassic Park III” as good as the originals?! Surely you smoke crack, sir.

And if my review was the weakest of the three, just think how bad the FOURTH one will be!

Ah, good-natured jesting! It is my favorite.

My “X3″ review also mentioned the absurd line, “I’m the Juggernaut, b****!” Consequently, a reader whose name I didn’t get wrote in with this information:

I was checking out your review (great review!) and I noticed that you mentioned Juggernaut’s line “I’m the Juggernaut, B****!” as “an effort to produce the Worst Line of 2006.” I’m sure you’ve had plenty of people inform you of this since you posted that, but in case they didn’t, that line comes from a parody that’s spreading like wildfire over Myspace and YouTube. Some guys dubbed their voices over an episode of [the animated TV series] X-men.

I was aware of that, and it actually makes the line worse, in my opinion. Not only is it a bad line by itself, but it was included for a stupid reason (i.e., as a shout-out to fanboys).

Nonetheless, I had not seen the animated dub in question, and the reader was good enough to provide a link. Here is where the little mini-phenomenon can be seen. (WARNING: It contains non-stop R-rated language. Don’t click it if you don’t want to hear it.) And here is the creators’ MySpace page. One of their blog entries chronicles their elation at discovering their line was being featured in the movie, which is kind of adorable. (By the way: I have a friend who honestly believes — and has strong evidence in support of it — that the line in “Pulp Fiction” about “it’s always time for pie” came from her. I’ll have to tell you the story sometime.)

Finally, I wrote a blog entry criticizing Fox News for snottily implying Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” was a failure for grossing “only” $350,000 over its opening weekend when it was only playing in four theaters at which nearly every screening was sold-out. Brandon writes in with this additional insight:

You lambasted Fox News (and rightfully so) for claiming “An Inconvenient Truth” was not a sucess for grossing about $350,000 over the weekend while playing at only four theaters nationwide.

While I’d agree the movie cannot be considered a failure, I’m hesitant to view it as a blockbuster success as you seem to right now. Your argument that every single showing of the movie was sold out at every theater over the weekend reminds me of NASCAR fans. NASCAR fans are quick to point out that the main race for NASCAR sells out to a tune of over 200,000 seats every week. Other sports, they claim, hardly have any teams that sell out on a consistent basis. Here’s why I feel they are wrong:

There were only 200,000 seats available! It’s only available one day of the week! If you took every NFL team and was somehow able to put them into an arena and have them play each other in one game every week, that would sell hundreds of thosands of seats years in advance. Same goes for the NBA or MLB, in my opinion.

Mr. Gore’s movie was available to a limited number of people in limited areas, much like NASCAR. My guess is that those who really really wanted to see it went out of their way to catch it the opening weekend. These people are not few in number, but can hardly rival the numbers of people who have seen and still want to see “X-men”.

I’m willing to bet that if you’d opened “House of 1000 Corpses” to only 4 theaters over one weekend, it would have earned $350,000, too.

You cannot compare the release of “X-men” to the release of “An Inconvenient Truth” in either a positive or negative way, in my view.

Those are good points. “An Inconvenient Truth” is not a blockbuster, and likely never will be. Documentaries that gross huge amounts of money are extremely rare. And you’re right that if the film HAD played in 3,000 theaters, the per-theater average would have been miniscule.

My point was simply that, contrary to Fox’s snotty implication, less than half a million dollars is NOT a disappointment under the circumstances. By all accepted measures within the film industry, $350,000 in four theaters is stupendous, regardless of what “kind” of film it is or what audience it appeals to. A per-theater average of $90,000 over four days is good, period. No one in the film industry would dispute that.

But when Fox News says, “X3 made $120 million! Ooooh, and poor Al Gore’s movie only made half a million,” they’re being disingenuous. The average viewer is going to take the implication — Gore’s movie is a flop — at face value because Fox didn’t MENTION that it was only playing in four theaters and that its take was actually quite good. They took the outcome they wanted — Gore fails — and found a way to phrase the facts to fit that.

“An Inconvenient Truth” has dropped in per-theater average as it has expanded to more theaters, of course. That’s partly because with each passing week more and more people who want to see it have already done so, and also because the potential audience for documentaries in general is so small. It’s grossed $3 million so far. If it makes it to even $12 million, it will be among the top five highest-grossing docs of all time.

That’s it for Eric’s Sack of Mail this time. Keep those sensible and intelligent cards and letters coming!

I have a regular feature in “Snide Remarks” called “Ask Eric Stuff,” where people ask me advice questions, a la Dear Abby, and I give sarcastic, unhelpful answers. It’s a comedy bit, not intended for serious questions.

The place where you can submit questions, here, makes it very clear what they’re for: By submitting a question to “Ask Eric Stuff,” you’re providing me with a set-up for a joke. If you have a REAL question to ask of me, you don’t submit it through “Ask Eric Stuff.” “Ask Eric Stuff” doesn’t ask for your e-mail address, so even if I wanted to reply, I wouldn’t know how to contact you. To send me a real e-mail, you use the regular contact form, such as can be found on 99 percent of all Web sites.

But still, I get about one “Ask Eric Stuff” question a week that is obviously a real question, sent by someone who wants an actual piece of information from me. Why would a smart person submit a real question through “Ask Eric Stuff”? Ah! It’s a trick question! A smart person wouldn’t.

It should be no surprise, then, that many of these e-mails are not only submitted the wrong way, but consist of very stupid questions to boot. (I have had two so far asking me for Raven-Symone’s e-mail address.) Here’s the latest:

I want to know when will you be coming to Dallas Tx. and will you be doing the play “The Nerd” again? Thank you

I’m guessing this person (he signed his name Arthur) stumbled across one of my theater reviews for the play “The Nerd,” and then made the following errors:

1. He concluded that since he had found the review on my site, I must be the one who performed in the play. (Performed in it, and then wrote a review of myself, I guess.)

2. He figured that not only do I star in this play, but I also take it on the road and must surely have Dallas on my itinerary.

3. He found the “Ask Eric Stuff” link and, failing to read even one word of the text above the “submit your question” box, sent me his query, failing to include an e-mail address so I could respond with the information he requested.

4. He continued to live and breathe even though he is very, very dumb.

Here we go, kids! Time for Eric’s Sack of Mail, where we read letters from people who weren’t angry or irrational!

This first one is pretty mellow, dude. It comes to us from “Kidg1000,” who writes in response to my observation that the movie “Grandma’s Boy” has no plot:

Obviously you have never smoked bud. ["Bud" is what the potheads call pot.] if you have, you would know that an actual plot would bog a movie like this down. its made simply to watch while high.

And that was my problem: I wasn’t high when I watched it. Of course, I’m pretty sure EVERYTHING is funny when you’re high, so I’m not sure that’s the best way of judging a film’s merits.

In this week’s “Snide Remarks,” I talked about my new MySpace page. This caused a reader calling himself Humpty Dumpty (e-mail address “littleskeezy”) to feel disillusioned:

I think you were more of a bada** BEFORE the myspace account. How did you ever finally allow yourself to get conned into getting one? Your logic was so good…having your own website, blog, “thousands” of readers…which I really don’t consider to be too far of a stretch….

Anyway, who needs a silly, trendy myspace? What’s it coming to?

Yes, I’m a total sellout. Next stop: podcasts!

A long-time correspondent named Craig writes in next with this question:

I was wondering if you’ve seen other films follow this pattern:

Netflix just informed me of a “film that I might enjoy,” based on my previous ratings of “Tadpole” and “Igby Goes Down,” called “One Last Thing.” I had never heard of this film, and I guess they didn’t offer it for your review either. Netflix and IMDB show it as having a release date of 2005. I checked out the reviews linked from Netflix and they’re all dated May 5, 2006 (the presumed theatrical release date), but the DVD release is set for May 23.

That seems awfully quick. I mean I’ve heard of direct to video, but are such short runs with preplanned early video releases common nowadays?

It’s not common yet, but this particular indie studio (Magnolias Pictures) is trying it. It’s basically for movies that are going direct-to-DVD after having played at film festivals or whatever, and they’re giving them a brief, cursory theatrical release first.

Why? An experiment, mostly. Presumably, people who see it in the theater won’t be aware of its imminent DVD release. So ideally, they see it, they love it — and then three weeks later, while it’s still fresh in their minds, they see it at the video store and buy it. If it were months and months later that they saw it available for purchase, they might have forgotten how much they liked it and not consider buying it.

The big studios are using the same logic with kids’ films, especially: Get that sucker out on DVD while the kids are still talking about it. If you wait nine months before releasing the DVD, kids’ enthusiasm will have cooled and they’re less likely to harass their parents into buying it for them.

“One Last Thing” did indeed open on a handful of screens on May 5, including one here in Portland. It was done without much warning, promotion or press screenings. It played for a week, I think, and that was it.

Moving on: Marie writes in regards to a previous blog entry:

You noted the age difference of the married characters in “Slither.” When I saw the movie I immediately thought that the double name of the older man, “Grant Grant” was a reference to “Humbert Humbert” from “Lolita.”

Fascinating, no?

Fascinating, YES! I hadn’t thought of that, and it could be a coincidence, but it’s a nice one.

Finally, in 2003 I wrote a column about Hostess mini-doughnuts, which they call “donettes.” I observed that “Donette” would be a pretty name for a girl. And now a girl named Donette has written to me!!

Hi There, My name is Donette, Do you think that is a pretty name for a girl? I was born before Hostess came out with donettes. It is a combination of my Mom and Dad’s first names. Anyway I was very self consious about my name until I was about 25 years old. My recommendation to parents is to not make up weird mnames for thier kids. Life is hard enough…

I agree whole-heartedly about parents not making up names, ESPECIALLY if the way they’re doing it is by combining their own names. That said, “Donette” isn’t TOO strange a name, and rather pretty. Though I would spell it Dawnette, so it least it looks like a girl’s name.

And with that we seal up the ol’ Sack of Mail until next time. Keep those rational, intelligent e-mails coming!

Here’s another edition of Eric’s Sack of Mail, where we respond to e-mails of general interest that are not angry or stupid. You can always reach me through the e-mail link at the top of this page.

First, a reader named Casey writes in with a correction:

The review for “Ultraviolet” reads: “I guess it makes sense, being known as ‘Hemophages,’ but I didn’t remember what ‘-phage’ meant, only ‘hemo-.’ My Latin isn’t what it should be.”

And yet “hemo-” and “-phage” are both from Greek. The equivalent Latin word is “sanguivore” (from “sanguis,” “blood,” and “voro,” “I eat”), which, a quick search reveals, is a real word people use.

Doh! Casey is right, of course. My secret shame is that I often confuse Greek and Latin things, not just with word origins but all their crazy gods, too. (OK, the gods were weren’t “Latin,” per se, but Roman. But you know what I mean.) I must work harder on this in the future.

Next, Zoe wrote in with some comments on the movie “The Cookout.”

You’re probably WAY OVER this topic, but I had the “pleasure” of watching the cookout for the first time today (thank God, for free!). And I too came upon your site by accident. Why? Because half way through the movie I couldn’t take anymore and I frantically looked up the film to find out who directed it. That’s how I found your review. I read it. All of it.

Now I don’t know how you feel about Black people, but I am a Black woman, and I hate this movie. Hate might be a strong word, but yes, I think I hate this movie. You were rather diplomatic in your review. Bless your heart. This was a piece of crap. And I don’t usually call films crap being that I am a filmmaker myself. But it just baffles me to no end how in the new millennium there can still be a market for this horrible stereotyping of ANYBODY. And it got funding! Wow. And why is Mr. Danny Glover in here? Sorry, I could go on, but I won’t torture you. Thanks for your review. I fully agree. Just sad.

I like black people just fine, Zoe, but thank you for asking.

To tell you the truth, I had honestly forgotten this movie existed until Zoe brought it up, and even then I had to re-read my review to bring any details to mind. Sometimes I use the word “forgettable” to describe a bad movie, and apparently that was literally true in this case.

Our next letter comes from Tim, who has noticed a recent trend in my reviews. He writes:

What’s with your recent obsession with age differences in movie reviews? You’ve mentioned the (surprisingly large) age differences of the actors in the movies “The Benchwarmers,” “The Shaggy Dog,” “Slither,” and another one that you gave a bad review to that I can’t think of off the top of my head.

Just wondered if this was some new thing that you’ve decided to make particular note of when reviewing bad movies, or “Slither.”

I think it’s a coincidence, actually. I’ve mentioned it for different reasons.

In “Slither,” the age difference between one character and his wife is actually acknowledged in the movie itself and figures into the plot. (She married him for financial security.) So my mentioning it wasn’t a criticism but merely part of the plot summary. In “The Benchwarmers,” I mentioned it to point out a logical flaw, in that David Spade and Jon Heder are supposed to have gone to school together, yet in real life they are 15 years apart. And in “The Shaggy Dog,” I mentioned it for the reason you’d think: Tim Allen is old and busted while his wife is young and hot. (Hollywood has a history of giving leading men love interest who are much younger.)

That said, if it’s a bad movie, an unrealistic age difference between characters can be worth mentioning, if only to pile on one more thing that’s wrong with the movie.

Oh, and I don’t know what the other review would have been. I thought it might be “Firewall,” where Harrison Ford is 63 and Virginia Madsen is 44, but a quick glance at my review shows I didn’t mention it. I remember noticing it, though, and even writing about it at one point before changing my mind. Did you read my rough draft?

Finally, a reader named Ben has this question:

Hey, why is “Brick” rated R? I read another review of it that said there is literally no swearing in it, and no sex/nudity. Is the violence really enough to warrant an “R”?

There is indeed literally no swearing in it, nor sex, nor nudity. The R comes from one scene where someone gets shot, and it’s shown fairly realistically. The only violence besides that is a lot of fistfighting. Unless someone is particularly bothered by violence, they should ignore the R rating in this case and pretend it’s a PG-13.

That does it for this round of Eric’s Sack of Mail. Thanks for reading, and thanks for writing letters that aren’t stupid or angry!

We have two letters to discuss in this installment of Eric’s Sack of Mail. First, a reader named Carl wrote in response to my review of “Madea’s Family Reunion,” which ends: “‘Madea’s Family Reunion’ is better than its predecessor, but only in the same way that the bomb on Nagasaki was better than the one on Hiroshima.” Carl writes:

While I’ve generally agreed with your movie reviews for the last seven years, this is the first time I’ve wondered enough about your choice of imagery to write an email. Specifically, I wonder how appropriate is the comparison of the two atomic bombs and two crappy movies? Seems like the death toll from the movies is smaller. It also seems like the mention of a nuclear bomb is a little strong for the average person; especially when it’s the only nuclear bomb ever used against another country. I just think it’s a little strong even as a joke. Of course, I did read your review of The Aristocrats so maybe I’m a little off the mark as to what makes a good joke. I don’t know for sure, I never majored in journalism or film, so maybe my thoughts on a choice of words doesn’t mean much.

The question of whether the mention of an atomic bomb in a joke is too much for the average person is a fair one. I can say that yours is the only e-mail I’ve gotten so far.

The thing about jokes is that everyone has an internal list of things that they consider off-limits — and everyone’s list is different. What offends one person might not bother someone else at all. That’s why I rely on my readers to let me know if they feel like I’ve crossed a line, and so I thank you for letting me know that for you, I did.

Next, Sara has a question about my review of “Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story” — specifically, the part at the end where I explain the film’s potentially objectionable content: “Rated R, a fair amount of harsh profanity, some strong (but comic and non-sensual) sexuality, brief nudity.” Sara says:

I’m curious as to what “some strong (but comic and non-sensual) sexuality” means. I get the “comic” part, but am a little fuzzy on “non-sensual sexuality.”

Well, it’s a man and his wife in bed, having marital relations under the covers, but no naked bits are visible, and it’s happening very mechanically and dully. It’s very obviously being done out of duty, with neither of them enjoying it. That makes it not only funny, but very non-sexy, in my book. I meant for “non-sensual” to suggest that there’s no way anyone would find it arousing or lascivious.

That’s all for this edition of Eric’s Sack of Mail. Keep those cards and letters coming!

In Eric’s Sack of Mail, we answer letters that warrant polite replies (i.e., letters that aren’t angry or stupid). So here are a couple non-angry e-mails that need answered. (That sentence included foreshadowing, by the way.)

First, a long-time reader named Ian writes:

May I ask a frivolous language-related question? In your review of “Firewall” a line reads “OMG, she’s even working for another Jack!” I’m wondering where you first ran across that “OMG” usage; I have it in my mind that it is a Pacific Northwestism, but I could be wrong. I lived in Portland until just recently and the first time I ever heard it used was by my boss there last year — she kind of dragged it out as follows: “O…M…G…” (as “Friends” star Matthew Perry does with the actual words). For some reason I found it extremely funny and at the same time I wanted to know where it got started.

You may have noticed the Northwest has its own, sometimes quaint, vernacular. For example:

“My car needs washed.”
“My house needs cleaned.”
“The baby wants picked up.”

I believe the latter is a fairly common (though not universal) speech pattern up there — at least I heard it enough to make me think so.

See the foreshadowing now? DO YOU???

To answer Ian’s question, I’ve actually never heard ANYONE say “O.M.G.,” in Portland or elsewhere. I just liked the idea of incorporating chat room slang into more formal writing, and it seemed like a situation that called for an OMG.

I guess I did hear Jack on “Will & Grace” say “BTW” the other night, so maybe that sort of thing is catching on.

As for “My car needs washed,” etc., I’m familiar with that construction, though I haven’t heard it in Portland yet. I do believe it’s a regionalism found in all of the Western/cowboy/frontier states, Oregon included. I can’t imagine ever using it myself, though I do like this murder defense that I’ve seen quoted here and there: “He needed killing.” If someone ever actually used that as his defense, that’s awesome.

Next comes this correction from Marianne:

Thought I’d let you know that, although I liked your review [of "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada"], you made a factual error in your comments regarding what someone might be capable of regarding his own redemption. Saul had his conversion experience on the road to Damascus, not Tarsus. Saul is known sometimes as Saul of Tarsus because that is where he was from.

Doh! Marianne is right, of course, and I’ve corrected the error in my review. What’s funny about this is that when I first posted the review, it said Saul had his conversion on the road to “Tarses.” A helpful reader wrote to tell me it was actually spelled “Tarsus,” and she and I both overlooked the fact that I had the wrong town altogether. It reminds me of a dumb joke from my childhood:

Q: How do you pronounce the capital of Louisiana: “New OR-leans” or “New Or-LEANS?”
A: Neither. I pronounce it “Baton Rouge.”

It’s time to open Eric’s Sack of Mail again, to respond to e-mails I’ve received that were neither angry nor stupid, but that merit some response nonetheless.

First is this question, sent anonymously to the “Ask Eric Stuff” feature of “Snide Remarks.” Questions sent there are meant to be fodder for jokes and aren’t usually real questions that the person expects a real answer to. But this one is interesting, and it’s one I’ve been asked several times in seriousness, so I thought I’d give a reply. It is:

Do you prefer live theatre or films and why? Which is easier to review?

For me, films are easier to review for the simple fact that they are the same every time you watch them (assuming there are no problems with the projector or sound system). When there are flaws in a play, you have to consider: Is this an “opening night” problem that will be fixed by tomorrow? Was that a choice the actor made, or was it a one-time mistake? Is the entire cast having an “off” night, and if so, does it seem likely they will repair themselves for future performances, or is this probably as good as they get? All of that makes live theater trickier to review.

There’s also the fact that when you are reviewing theater, it is generally in the city where you live, and so there is the likelihood of meeting the actors and directors personally. Movie critics are generally much more distanced from their subjects, which helps them to be impartial. It’s very hard to be completely honest, either in positive or negative terms, when you have had personal communication with the participants.

As for which medium I personally prefer, it’s hard to say. I would choose movies, but only for logistical reasons: Movie theater seats are about 10 times more comfortable than most playhouse seats, and usually with more legroom. If you’re going to be seeing a lot of something, the physical comfort of the experience is not an irrelevant factor.

But the experiences tend to be very different. Live theater can have an energy that film can’t. On the other hand, movies can provide a sense of visual wonder that a play could only hint at. Maybe this tells you something: The times that I have seen a play and then seen a movie based on it, I have almost always thought the play was better.

Speaking of plays and movies, here is an e-mail from a reader named Chris. He writes:

ive been reading other reviews of “the producers” and they have all given it terrible ratings! And in my view it is one of the best films i have ever seen and it is probably the best film on offer at the moment! i was shocked at other critics views of the film and your the only one to appreciate the brilliant twisted humor of mel brooks bravo! other critics dared to call the timing and directing bad! i could of screamed! This film did not only dazel me but inspire me to see it and others on stage, if it can do it for me and other teenagers then that is surely worth a round of applause for just that! If you could see to the other critics getting some sort of verbal attack for there remarks this would also be greatly apprectaited!…..maybe not even verbal!!!!

Well, I’m probably not going to beat up any of my colleagues, but I’m glad you liked my review and the film. Stay in school and pay more attention in English class.

Finally, a reader named Alisha noticed the opening paragraph to a recent “Snide Remarks” column, which went like this: “I am a big fan of planning things. Telling TiVo to record a show as soon as it appears on the schedule, mapping out which films I’ll see at Sundance, making an appointment with my gynecologist as soon as the six-month reminder card arrives — this is like crack for me, my friends. Hot, buttered crack!”

Alisha makes this observation:

I saw the opening blurb for the most recent Snide Remarks, “French Kiss Off.” I liked the joke about a six-month exam reminder card from the gynecologist. I especially appreciated the unintentional humor, as gynecological exams are annual.

Ha! Maybe for you they are. But I like to get mine every six months, whether I need it or not.