It’s time once again to open Eric’s Sack of Mail and answer some e-mails I’ve gotten that aren’t insane or stupid enough to qualify as Angry Letters, but that do merit some discussion.

First, a reader named Don has this to say about my review of “King Kong”:

I take exception (you have never read an email that started with those words) with your comment at the bottom of your review indicating that the film contained only “mild profanity”. Multiple uses of the name of deity is not mild in my book or I hope in yours. I was very disappointed that the film, which I otherwise would have enjoyed, contained profane language.

You are correct, the film does contain profane references to deity. Alas, such language is common enough that to most viewers, it qualifies as “mild profanity” — i.e., it’s not the F-word, or any of the other “big” swear words that you can’t say on TV. I do apologize if you felt misled by my description.

Of course, everyone has different thresholds. Some people have no problem with the F-bomb, but if you take the Lord’s name in vain, they cringe. Others are the other way around. Others don’t care either way. My calling something “mild profanity” has little to do with my own personal preferences, and more to do with how it’s generally regarded by society as a whole.

Then a reader named Linda takes issue with something I said in my review of “The Ringer,” the new Johnny Knoxville movie where he pretends to be mentally handicapped. (He prepared for this role by living as a retarded person for 30 years.)

Linda cites this portion of the review –

“And it’s an interesting thing about those friends. You know how in movies, blind people are always supernaturally good at getting around and knowing their surroundings? And deaf people can always read lips phenomenally well? The retarded characters in this movie are the same way. They’re savvy, quick-witted, sagacious and full of insightful wisdom. The only thing “mentally handicapped” about them is the funny way they talk and dress and shuffle around!”

– and then says this:

Your comments of this movie tell me that you truly don’t know anything about the topic that you are reviewing. [Actually, the topic I'm reviewing is the movie, and I do know a thing or two about it, since I, you know, watched it.] I have not yet seen the movie, so I have no idea how well or poorly it is put together. However your comment I quoted above shows me that you haven’t any clue about “retarted” people as you say. [I assure you, I never said "retarted."] Many developmentally delayed people are exactly as you described if people were to let them get close enough to know them even just a little. They just have to do this while over coming many things that “normal” people such as yourself would probably never be able to handle. -and usually lump into a weird category because they walk a bit differently, talk a bit differently. Do you have even an inkling why? No you could probably care less - right.

Being a person with intellectual disability, the new term being thrown around out there, or as people who have no time for anyone in this category usually says retarded people, doesn’t mean they are empty and witless. Come on before you become the expert on a topic at least know a tiny bit about the subject you are talking about and don’t just base is on the stereotype that the world holds.

Give me a break.

“Before you become the expert on a topic at least know a tiny bit about the subject you are talking about” is very good advice. Therefore, I urge Linda to get back to me once she has actually seen the movie.

Yes, of course there are many mentally handicapped people who are highly functional and who are barely different from anyone else. But they still aren’t like the characters in this movie. The only way we know these characters are retarded is from the way they dress, walk and talk — the stereotypes that Linda probably doesn’t like. They are not like real-life mentally handicapped people; they’re not like real-life people of any kind!

As for my use of the word “retarded” in the review, it was an aesthetic choice. I had to use something to describe the characters several times, and saying “mentally handicapped” each time would have been unwieldy. So I varied it between “mentally handicapped,” “mentally challenged” and “retarded.” I did not use “intellectually disabled” or “developmentally delayed” because 1) I had never heard those terms before, and 2) they are outrageously P.C.

Next is my review of “The Chronicles of Narnia,” which has prompted several e-mails. First, “The Slackerman” disagrees with my criticism of the scene where Santa Claus shows up and gives everybody weapons:

If you’re going to gripe about something, you should try to be correct.

Go read the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, again, and you’ll see that the children were visited by Santa Claus!!!

Oh, I know it’s in the book. But that’s more an explanation than an excuse. It’s weird in the book, and it’s even weirder when it happens, in full living color, in the movie.

Someone named Terry had a similar complaint:

The story would not have gone far without the gifts from Santa. Did you expect an x-box?

Read and understand the book.

I did both a) read and b) understand the book, and I get that the gifts prove to be useful later in the story. But again, that doesn’t make it not weird.

What’s Santa doing in the story anyway? The whole thing is a Christian allegory, with Aslan representing Christ. Yet the characters celebrate Christmas, which means Jesus existed in their world, too. Yet they never MENTION Jesus or Christianity, nor do they notice how directly their experiences parallel the story of Jesus. When Aslan sacrifices himself for Edmund’s sins and then is resurrected, nobody says, “Hey! That’s just like what Jesus did! You know, Jesus, whose birthday we celebrated a couple days ago when Santa Claus showed up and gave us crossbows.”

But back to my point: Just because something was “in the book” doesn’t mean one is not valid in criticizing its presence in the movie. Many films omit troublesome or puzzling aspects of their source material, particularly when it would be difficult to successfully translate those elements to film. Whether Santa’s visit is inherently weird or whether the filmmakers just didn’t do a good enough job de-weirding it, I couldn’t say.

Finally, we have this very special e-mail from a reader named Kirsten. She writes:

Hi! I think you could of rated~ The Chronicles of Narnia-The Lion,The Witch and the Wardrobe higher. I dont know about your reviews but i think it could of been much higher. It is a beautiful story that represents christ. It is about 4 children that are sent off to the professor’s home because of the Blitz in WWll. There they find themselvees in a wonderful world led by a wardrobe. Narnia. The land is full of action. While Aslan, the great lion, creates spring. He takes winter away that is powered by the white witch. This story is full of action, love, and a great sacrifice. I don’t know about you, but i would rate it much higher.

I do know about me, and I would rate it much lower. But thank you for the recap nonetheless. I think Kirsten is probably a very young person, so I will remark only that she seems very sweet, and good for her for sharing her opinion with others.

That does it for Eric’s Sack of Mail. Keep those cards and letters coming! And don’t forget your friend Mr. Spellcheck!

Though you wouldn’t know it from reading my blog, not all the e-mails I get are stupid and/or angry. Many of them come from calm people who have interesting things to say or ask. So from time to time, I’d like to open Eric’s Sack of Mail to share some of them with you.

First, Cameron writes in regards to the A- grade I gave “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”:

I was just curious what, in your opinion, stops this movie from being an “A?” I have not seen the movie, nor am I a huge fan (haven’t read the books, but have enjoyed the movies), so I’m in no position to judge yet, but your review was pretty positive. Was it the lack of meaning in the spat with Ron, or did it just lack an “A” caliber?

Good question. My personal philosophy on “A” grades (and this has evolved over the last few years) is that an “A” should be for instant classics — movies that will be just as good or almost as good on repeat viewings. Of course, having watched a movie only once, it’s hard to know whether it will stand up to a second viewing, so I have to guess. I try to err on the side of caution: If I’m not quite sure it’s an instant classic, I’ll go with A-. In this particular case, there are a few details (the spat with Ron being one) that aren’t quite successful in the way they’re conveyed. Not a lot, but just enough to make me think that the movie is juuuuuust shy of being A-worthy. Still a great movie, though!

If you browse the archives, you might find I was not always so conservative with my A’s. I used to hand them out like Halloween candy, to films that really deserved A-minuses or B-pluses. Now I am older and wiser, however.

Our next e-mail comes from Sarah. She writes:

ust an amusing (or sad, if you prefer) anecdote I saw on Meridian Magazine today. Apparently Michael McLean and Co. have opened a musical on Broadway (The Ark) which is getting negative reviews by the New York theater critics. McLean has actually had the audacity to write an article to Meridian begging people to come see his show. He accuses the critics (with a slightly doctored quote from the New York Times) that they don’t like the show because it promotes family values and has a religious context. Having read the original review, I think he’s upset because the Times critic wrote that his show was kitschy, overacted and that the lyrics were “banal.” Granted, I haven’t actually seen the production, but given McLean’s output in the past, I’m inclined to agree with the critic. Sound familar?

Links to the articles:
McLean’s response

New York Times review

I always enjoy your site, even when I don’t agree with you. Glad to see you are still working after all these years.

Thanks, Sarah! Me too! (See, everybody? I told you I was working.)

I’ll add another review to yours, from Variety.

Also, let me clarify that “The Ark” is NOT playing on Broadway, but rather Off-Broadway. Off-Broadway doesn’t just mean it’s playing somewhere but not Broadway; there’s an official league of theaters specifically known as Off-Broadway. It’s sort of like playing in the minor leagues in baseball: pretty high up, but not quite the top.

When you say “Sound familiar?,” I assume you’re referring to your subject line: “The ‘It’s Popular, So It Must Be Good!’ People Strike Again.” And yes, I heard that line of reasoning (”If it’s such a bad show, then how come it’s selling out every night? Huh?!”) a lot when I was a theater critic, and occasionally as a movie critic, too. McLean does seem to be employing it in his article in Meridian (an online and print magazine about Mormon culture).

It’s a little surprising. I would think that after 25 years in the business, he would be better at taking criticism. But I know he’s been working on this project for most of those 25 years, and I’m sure it’s very personal to him. I might be defensive if something I’d worked on for that long got slammed by critics, too.

But still. His response is a little irrational. The Times review, while not positive, was not negative for the reasons McLean has dreamed up (i.e., because the Times is liberal and hates families). He writes:

“Though the producers of the show never anticipated this show being a favorite of the cynical New York press, they were not prepared for the intensity of the attacks on the show, its writers, their religion and their ‘particular set of family values.’”

This is ridiculous. The Times review is NOT an attack on the writers, their religion, or their values. All it says about such things is that for some audience members, those elements may be more important than the show’s actual theatricality quality, which is mediocre. It doesn’t say the writers, their religion or their values are bad; merely that the show they have created is not very good.

Also, if audiences love it so much, and they’re still coming to see it, then what’s the problem? Why the Call to Action? Have the reviews caused sales to drop off? Or is he just afraid they will?

Also, I think it’s funny how he mentioned directing Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Krueger’s Christmas” even though that fact had NOTHING TO DO with what he was saying, i.e., that he likes “It’s a Wonderful Life.”

Also, this line — “The only way for evil to flourish is for good men and women to do nothing” — is obnoxious to the extreme. Is he saying that if “The Ark” were to fail, that would be “evil”? Is he saying that critics who don’t think the show is worth seeing are “evil”? And if the show’s failure would be an “evil” thing, then the show itself must be a “righteous” thing, right? So anyone who loves goodness and righteousness needs to come see “The Ark,” is that it? And anyone who doesn’t buy a ticket must be wicked? Am I following you correctly, Michael? Wow.

(I reviewed “The Ark” twice, once in 1999, once in 2002. Luckily, I liked it both times, so Michael McLean didn’t have to write an article decrying my liberalism.)

Someone calling himself “BOB” sent this terse e-mail:

Liberalism is pretty much the same as AIDS.

I had no idea which article of mine, if any, he was responding to, but I was intrigued by his statement. So I sent this reply:

Do you mean liberalism is transmitted through the exchange of bodily fluids? Do you mean liberalism is often considered a homosexual disease, though in the U.S. it is increasing at an alarming rate among heterosexual black women? Do you mean liberalism is rampant in Africa? I’m sorry, you’ll have to explain what you mean before I can possibly begin to take you seriously.

He replied, his e-mail address this time betraying his real name (Tom A.):

Well all homosexuals are liberals and their dangerous lifestyle puts them at great risk for AIDS! Pretty much if you are sick in the head to some degree and you can’t see things for how they really are you are a liberal.

Ah! Now we had something we could work with. I replied:

Ah. Obviously I have said something that leads you to believe I am a liberal. Your comparison is still not apt, though.

First of all, not ALL homosexuals are liberals, though it’s probably true that most are.

Second of all, as long as we’re talking about “not seeing things for how they really are,” I’m sure you know it’s a gross exaggeration to say that a gay person’s “dangerous lifestyle” puts them at great risk for AIDS. ANY person who has unprotected sex with a lot of partners puts himself or herself at great risk for AIDS. Not all gays lead dangerous lifestyles, though. For that matter, lesbians are at practically zero risk for AIDS, regardless of how many other women they fool around with.

Third, I’m still not making the connection between liberalism and AIDS. Are you saying that all gays are liberals and all gays also have AIDS? Surely not, for that’s ludicrous.

Are you saying that liberalism, like AIDS, spreads quickly when people do not understand the facts? That makes a little more sense, at least from a rhetorical standpoint. But then there’s you, apparently a conservative, suggesting that all gays are liberals and that all gays are also at risk for AIDS — thus making you guilty of the same thing you accuse liberals of (i.e., not seeing things for how they really are).

I suspect liberals feel the same way about conservatives: If they knew more facts, they’d become liberals. It goes both ways, see? Everyone thinks the other side is wrong.

I’m curious, though, what I said that made you think I was a liberal. Or was there nothing, and you just wanted to point out the liberalism/AIDS thing to me?

He came back with this:

Oh I was just poking around on the web and somehow came across and article you wrote on the Michael Moore deal at a Utah College. [He is probably referring to my review of "This Divided State," a documentary about the incident.] Honestly I do not disagree with you that much, and from your writting you seem to be well educated and fair. Obviously I believe liberalism to be disgusting and wrong. I know my e-mail about all homosexuals are liberals is inncorrect but just bairly. I do agree with Michael Savage and his medical views of liberals. Anyways Sir I wish you a good day and thank you for your reply.

P.S. Are you a liberal?

For those fortunate enough to be unaware of Michael Savage, he is an uber-right-wing radio personality who believes (or at least pretends to believe) that liberalism is a mental defect. He gained notoriety in 2003 when MSNBC fired him for telling a gay prank caller that he “should only get AIDS and die.” (What if the guy DID get AIDS and die? Could his family sue Michael Savage for wishing it on him? I’d love to see “Law & Order” tackle that one.)

In 2003, I reviewed a very bad Jessica Alba film (pardon the redundancy) called “Honey,” a “Glitter”-esque trainwreck about a white girl who becomes a famous hip-hop dancer.

Last week, the review prompted an e-mail from someone named Allie, who had read it over at EFilmCritic.com. Allie made the mistake a lot of young and/or stupid people make, wherein she believes she is writing not to the film critic, but to the star of the film, or possibly to the film itself.

Yo this film is quality these got to be a honey 2 because this one was excellent I cant stop watching it I come home the I put it on over and over again

And ive lent some of your moves and they are classy you got to do a honey 2 and you got do do it up tide put more moves in it email me back dog

And tell me what’s going down. And say hi to benney for me k

For the benefit of my readers who do not speak Imbecile, I have hammered out a rough translation:

Hey, this film is high-quality. There has got to be a “Honey 2,” because this one was excellent. I can’t stop watching it: I come home, and I play it over and over again.

Also, I have learned some of your dance moves, and they are classy. You MUST do a “Honey 2,” and you must do it up “tight,” by which I mean full of more great dance moves.

E-mail me back, dawg! Tell me what’s happening with you. And say hi to Benny, a fictional character in your movie played by Lil Romeo, for me, OK?

Our next e-mail came from a concerned reader who had read a post I made on my message board regarding Hurricane Katrina and the South. The post was a few paragraphs long, but at one point I said: “Today in the paper there were harrowing accounts of people barely being rescued, and it’s supposed to be stirring, gripping to read — but one of the people they’re talking about is a woman named Fluffy Sparks. How am I supposed to take a story seriously when it’s about Fluffy Sparks?”

A few weeks later, the concerned reader wrote me this e-mail:

I read a comment you made re: the Katrina evacuees & the stories coming out of the disaster area. I understand the intent of your overall comments, and I sincerely mean this with no disrespect�.But please be careful with what you write. ‘Fluffy’ is a real person with a spirit and personality that is befitting of her nickname which she chose to use when she was interviewed. I’ve met her. The articles you read are a fairy tale compared to what she actually went through. And in looking for her family that is still missing in New Orleans, she read your comment. Despite the old saying about sticks and stones, words do hurt…they do….especially at a time like this.

I replied as follows:

Thanks for the e-mail. I am sorry if Fluffy was offended by what I wrote, and I do wish her and the other victims of the hurricane the best. But at the same time, you can’t tell a reporter that your name is “Fluffy” and then be surprised when people think it’s a funny name when they read it in the paper the next day. I mean, it IS a funny name, especially when it’s juxtaposed with something so serious as Hurricane Katrina.

But I assure you, my amusement is only at her name — and I maintain a person can’t go by the name “Fluffy” and not expect people to think it’s funny — and not at her situation, which of course has my utmost sympathy.

I do hope Fluffy is doing OK, of course. To reiterate: What happened to Fluffy = not funny. Fluffy’s name = funny.

Here is something you probably did not know about me. About twice a month, I get an e-mail from someone wanting the e-mail address of a famous person. Now, nowhere on my Web site does it suggest that I am Directory Assistance for celebrities. My only connection to celebrities is that I review the movies they appear in. This process does not grant me any special access to them; they are not actually THERE when I watch the movies, you see. It’s just photographs being projected on a screen.

Yet still I get these e-mails. Here is the most recent one. It said, in its entirety:

can i have rabes email address

I replied thus:

I don’t know who “rabe” is, and I don’t know why you think I would have his/her e-mail address. Did I mention “rabe” in a movie review? Because all that means is that I saw a movie that had “rabe” in it, and then wrote a review of that movie. That is the extent of my involvement with “rabe”: seeing him or her in a movie, same as you.

I received this reply:

im sorry but i didnt meen rabe.i ment raven symone.do you know who she is?she is a disney channel star.well i hope you give it to me.

I was nonplussed. Had I not just stated that, regardless of who “rabe” was, I would not know how to reach him or her? Did this person think I would say, “Oh, RAVEN! You said ‘rabe,’ and I had no idea who that was. But Raven, of course I’ve got HER e-mail address! Let me get that for you….”?

I think what must happen is, these people Google the celebrity’s name and my site is among the hundreds that pops up, because I have mentioned that person in a movie review. Then the fan comes to my site, sees the “e-mail” link, and e-mails me to ask for information, without even bothering to read what I’ve said about the celebrity in question. Surely if they read the review, they would understand that it’s just a movie review and not an interview with the star. Does Roger Ebert get e-mails like this? Actually, he probably does, because he actually does publish celebrity interviews sometimes and probably actually does have some contact info for them. But why would anyone who actually READ what I wrote think that I would have any connection to anyone?

Anyway, for future reference, here are the famous people that I DO have personal contact information for:

- Dr. Demento
- Richard Dutcher, director of “God’s Army” and “Brigham City”
- Will Swenson, star of “Singles Ward” and other LDS comedies
- Orson Scott Card
- My mom, who was once in extra in something
- Myself, author of many famous movie reviews

And also for future reference, no I will not give you the contact information for any of those people.

I don’t often receive e-mails criticizing my movie reviews. Oh, there’s the occasional “how com you dint like that movie is it cuz ur a retard???,” but most of the feedback I get on film reviews is from people who think that because I watched a movie, that means I know the name of the song that plays when Kate Hudson gets out of the car, or that I know when the film will open in Tupelo.

But actual feedback is rare, and so my attention was grabbed when I received this e-mail regarding my review of “Touching Wild Horses”:

Dear Mr Snide(r) [Yes, even though I write a column called "Snide Remarks," people still think they are being clever when they point out the similarity between my last name and the word "snide."]

I checked in with your preview of the movie, “Touching Wild Horses” and was very disappointed in the language you used in your remarks and feelings about the movie. [I said that while "the film seems to have been made with good intentions," you can "take your good intentions and put them in your bum." I also described the lead character as "bitchy" and "a beeyotch," which I believe is the medical term for her condition.] I don’t know anything about the movie, so your preview of it may well not be the best movie of the year, however, your language in describing your thoughts about it were deeply offensive. [I hate when my language were offensive.] I would have expected much more from a person in your position. [What position? Upright?] It seemed like you gave an R rated preview to a PG movie.

With deep disappointment. . . . The Neilsons

I do not know whether the Neilsons wrote this e-mail as a family, or whether it was one Neilson speaking for everyone. The e-mail address is, predictably, “neilsons@something,” which means they’re one of those families I don’t like where everyone has to share an e-mail account. These are the kinds of super-religious, fundamentalist families that tend to not have doors on their bedrooms, either, because they equate privacy with an assurance that illicit things will occur. (I know the Neilsons are religious not just because of the tone of their e-mails, but because they live in Southern Utah, as indicated by their e-mail provider, an ISP serving that region.)

Anyway, I do hate to disappoint people I don’t know, so I wrote back to the Neilsons:

Sorry you were offended. As for this being an “R rated preview to a PG movie,” I should point out that the expression I used, if it appeared in a movie, would not earn anything stricter than a PG.

Out of curiosity, what “position” is it that you think I’m in that causes you to expect more from me?

I received this prompt reply:

Dear Mr. Snide(r) [Even cleverer the second time]

Thank you very much for your reply. As far as the expression you used in regards to if had of been in a movie and what rating it would have gotten, this is how I feel about that. ["if it had of been" is definitely a Southern Utah-ism -- well, it's an undereducated-ism generally, but Southern Utah specifically]

If something isn’t right, its’ wrong. And, it isn’t possible to make a wrong thing come out right. Only a right thing will go right in the long run. [This paragraph was in a larger font. That and its familiar ring made me suspect it was a quote, but I can't locate its source.]

It’s unfortunate that movie makers puts such crude and crass remarks in their productions. Just because they do, doesn’t make it right, or funny, and it does offend many viewers. Unfortunately, it seems like anymore, if a person goes to see even a PG rated movie, they always have some kind of crudeness in it. That certainly isn’t your fault. But, in our thoughts and talks and writings, we can decide who we want to be. We like to read a review to see if we want to go see the movie or not. Not the other way around. [I don't know what that last part means, but I think I get the Neilsons' general meaning.]

And, to your question. . . . . I guess I was thinking that someone who had a website for reviews or whatever; someone who millions of people can log on to read his opinion of a particular move, ( and I believe your opinion is worth as much or more than anyone else’s), would have enough integrity to give a review for the masses instead of to a select group of people who may think crudeness and crass is the height of sophistication. [Heavens, I never claimed I was being sophisticated when I called Jane Seymour's character a "beeyotch."] I know not everyone does. [So ... the position I'm in that makes the Neilsons expect more of me is that I have a Web site? Yikes. Have they BEEN on the Internet?]

I guess, I believe you are a good person. Too good to use such language. I guess, I believe you have some special and magical talent in you that could be used in a more gracious manner. I guess, I believe there’s people out there who love you; whether it’s your parents or wife, siblings or friends; people you don’t want to disappoint. How easy it would be with your talent to make them proud if they heard your reviews read out loud and not be embarrassed or ashamed. [Because OBVIOUSLY, if the Neilsons are disappointed in my language, so will all those who love me be.]

Thank you for listening, The Neilsons

The Neilsons make a good point, however inelegantly they may express it. A review of a family-friendly, PG-rated movie ought not itself be un-family-friendly or un-PG-rated. Again, though, I point out that my language, though coarse, was not worse than that found in most PG-rated films — this one included. Still, I should take better care to let the reviews fit, where possible, the films being described. I do not wish to fall any further in the Neilson ratings.

Someone who claims to have written “Footprints in the Sand” sent me a crazy, crazy e-mail that I’ve posted for all the world to enjoy. It’s at the bottom of the page here. Enjoy!