Critical Mass Hysteria

Aaron Landy’s letter was so hilarious (Letters, Jan. 6), I thought Phil Hendrie had branched out from radio to print, creating the “consummate frustrated independent filmmaker”: bitter, irate, principled, artistic, underappreciated, paranoid, underfinanced and overwrought. If the Big Bad Corporate World “buys” favorable reviews from respected but corrupt critics (his oxymoron), then why would they review many small films so positively?

I have been lured to “artsy” movies by rapturous reviews, only to be frequently disappointed. (But not bitterly; it’s only a movie, after all.)

I don’t feel betrayed by a diabolical intellectual conspiracy of effete critics. Dreck is in the eye of the beholder, but so are the Machiavellian machinations of greedy, soulless, all-powerful conglomerates.

Mr. Landy needs to be reminded that glowing reviews by the most powerful critics cannot create a blockbuster, just as a universal panning couldn’t sink “Titanic.” Perhaps “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” was reviewed positively because critics had read the books, appreciated the adaptation and (horrors!) were actually entertained.

Dazed in his anti-corporate frenzy, Mr. Landy reacted to the film (“in mute horror”) as if the hobbits were drinking Bud Light in the Prancing Pony.

Most moviegoers older than age 4 know that 15 to 20 minutes of commercialism and self-promotion precede the main attraction.

It is not the critic’s job to analyze “cross-platforming.” All they have to do is tell a potential consumer if the film is good, bad or a blend of both, and why.

KATHY JONES

Dana Point