AN OPEN TOP SECRET LETTER TO LARRY MANTLE

Larry Mantle is a radio talk show host at Pasadena City College's KPCC 89.3. FM. He hosts two shows, "Airtalk" and "FilmWeek."

Dear Larry,

We here at Criticide would like to extend to you an invitation to join us in our fight against some of the most egomaniacal, wickedly corrupt individuals working within the entertainment industry today. No, I'm not referring to messenger service couriers, stage moms, or even promotional street teams. I'm referring to film critics.

Below, I have outlined a three-stage plan that, if implemented, will not only make the world a safer place from misguided deconstructionists, but will undoubtedly make your show more accessible, more lively, and more unpredictable.

Stage 1: Introduce a Joe Schmo critic into your mix. Your regular guests will find it amusing at first. They certainly won't feel threatened. This is a good thing, as they won't suspect an end game. With their guards lowered, they will accommodate Joe Schmo, make him feel like an equal, allowing him to come off as cute and endearing. Just an ordinary guy with ordinary thoughts. A migrant farmworker. Has an accent. Charming. Keep him on as a regular for about six or seven weeks. Watch as the smiles on the professional critics begin to weaken, if only slightly.

Stage 2: Dump a regular. In her place, a housewife. Has three kids. Likes Brad Pitt. A lot. She can only do this just this one time, but here she is. The smiles of the remaining regulars may be further weakened at this juncture, but what can they do? Alienate foreigners and mothers? Of course not. It's same old, same old. "Werner Herzog is a genius," "It's hard to believe Ben and Casey Affleck share the same genes, ha ha ha," etc.

Stage 3: One Friday later, announce your new "FilmWeek" format. Your regulars will no longer be regulars. From this point forward, you will now be joined by laypeople who will vary from week to week... veterinarians, schoolteachers, mattress salesmen, you name it. Unfortunately, it will be necessary to remove our good friend, the migrant worker. By this time, either his ego will have gotten to him or certain parties with vested interests will have.

Salty Milkduds

Hey Ella, Don't Make It Bad...

I've had to let this movie percolate with me and the result is I am percolating with love for it. Love, love, love!!!

Some rules for me- I never read a review before I see a movie and I sometimes don't even like to see the preview... Both can give away way too much and both can give the wrong impression. After seeing the movie, I read the reviews... You know- as though we shared the same experience and now it's time to discuss.

Enter: "Across The Universe." I saw the preview, gasped and thought "Wow! I hope it's actually good and not like 'Moulin Rouge.'" Then, I averted my eyes and ears and switched channels or fast-forwarded through all previews of it and angstly waited for it to come out. So sure, was I, that it was going to be like "Moulin Rouge" which for me was like an ADHD heart attack nightmare. I was nervous for "Across The Universe."

So, there I sat in the theater... And for the 1st 2 minutes I wanted to fall in love with "Across The Universe," I even felt my heart swell. Then, the dancing began and with all my might I wanted to find something wrong with the dancing and choreography and dancers (because I have been burned too many times recently with so-called dance movies) and I can't. At all. It was dead on. I could clap my hands right now in appreciation for the simple fact that I saw all the (real) dancers dancing and their feet weren't cut off!!! And then the movie continued and I still hadn't made up my mind. Did I love it? I was being moved drastically all the way through... from song to song, from absurdity to absurdity. And then I started crying. READ: "Let It Be" should ONLY be sung by a small African American boy and a gospel choir with a backdrop of the Detroit riots and it's consequences. ONLY. Yes, there were masks and there were puppets, and teensy quasi celeb cameos, and moments where I laughed at the movie itself and thought, "Really?" But, I also cried at the end and throughout the middle, too. And after all the credits had rolled and songs had played, I drove home and couldn't stop thinking about it. For days. Like I was crushing the movie HARD! Here I am in love and happy. Giddy. I can't wait to go back and see it again. I have to listen to the soundtrack over and over...

Time to read the reviews and start the discussion.

Ella Taylor's LA Weekly review titled "Across The Universe: HELP!" was annoying enough for starters and then...

"Across the Universe, which filters the cultural revolt through a blizzard of early Beatles songs, ends up both reductive and smugly condescending to a presumptively know-nothing audience."

She clearly only saw an extended preview set to "All My Loving." Since when are "I Am The Walrus" "Revolution" "Black Bird" "Dear Prudence" "I Want You/She's So Heavy" "Helter Skelter" (and on and on...) early Beatles songs? I must be real dense because I completely missed the smugly condescending parts... I'm presumptively the know-nothing audience she's referring to. Thanks Ms. Taylor.

She continues by giving away most of the movie's great moments overwritten with a snotty tone (dare I say reductive and smugly condescending) and finally trails off and ends her review with:

"Rather than spend your pennies on this tiresome movie, you might want to run out and rent the best account I’ve seen of the hopes and fears of that twitchy, narcissistic, wonderfully high-minded time — Swiss director Alain Tanner’s quiet little 1976 movie Jonah, Who Will Be 25 in the Year 2000, whose disappointed hippies pin their hopes for the future on a little boy born into their failed commune. Wherever he is now, Jonah has hit 32, and if he’s not selling roach clips on Telegraph Avenue or something ineffably sad like that, I like to think he’s joined the Greens, thus ensuring that his parents’ great adventure will not, as it were, have gone to pot."

Uh. Forgive me, but what movie was she reviewing? Also- EARTH TO ELLA - movies don't cost anywhere near pennies anymore. Not even nickels! I am really curious to know how many pennies she spent "on this tiresome movie." I don't even know where to begin or end with her haughtily disdainful (thank you thesaurus!) 2 in 1 movie review so....

I quickly moved on to Stephen Holden's review titled "Lovers In The 60s Take A Magical Mystery Tour." The title alone is a breath of fresh air because yes- he got it right on the nose. He writes:

"From its first moments, when a solitary dreamer on a beach turns to the camera and sings, unaccompanied, the opening lines of the Beatles’ song “Girl,” Julie Taymor’s ’60s musical fantasia, “Across the Universe,” reveals its intention to use the Beatles’ catalog to tell two stories at once, one personal, the other generational. That young man, Jude (Jim Sturgess), is a cheeky Liverpool dockworker with a twinkle in his eye. He quickly emerges as a winsome vocal composite of John Lennon and Paul McCartney, with a personality to match."

Yes! Go on!

"From here the movie only gets better. Somewhere around its midpoint, “Across the Universe” captured my heart, and I realized that falling in love with a movie is like falling in love with another person. Imperfections, however glaring, become endearing quirks once you’ve tumbled."

Bravo Stephen! I give you a standing ovation!! You put my feelings into words beautifully! Go on!

"The story, briefly: ..."

Screeeeeeeeech!!!! Whoah! Don't tell me the story!! Don't even go on for ELEVEN paragraphs ???? (briefly- ha!) telling me the story. Yes- eleven paragraphs. If I had read this review before seeing the movie I would have nothing to look forward to!!! I manage to get to the bottom of the review barely able to pay attention to what I'm reading any more and he ends it all with:

"And during the time it lasts, the intoxicating passion of Jude and Lucy, both innocents by today’s standards, convinces, for a moment, that love is all you need."

There you are! Back to your old first coupla paragraphs self... I'll ask you now,

Dear Mr. Holden,
Did someone make you put those ELEVEN paragraphs in there? I bet someone did. You shouldn't have listened. I like you trimmed down better. I really do. It makes it all just a tad too superfluous.

And Dear Ms. Taylor,
Open up your heart and let the sunshine in.
Love,
Mrs. Pibb

MYBUTTER HAS TOUCHED ANOTHER READER

IMDB user Mybutterhastouchedanotherfood (from Canada) is a breath of fresh air. His (or her) critique of the new Jodie Foster movie, "The Brave One," is nothing short of spectacular. This summer's emotional rollercoaster of a tour de force. It's a little bit F.X. Feeney, only this scribe doesn't write like someone who got his lunch stolen from him daily at community college. Each word like a perfectly pitched note. Every phrase lyrical. The entire piece plays like an opus performed by a virtuoso with the wisdom of the oldest living child prodigy. The first time I read it, it blew my mind. The second time I read it, it blew my heart. I'm actually afraid to read it a third time.

Think I'm the only one who was blown away by this write-up? Think again. The stats right out of the gate were crazy phenomenal (18 out of 29 people found his/her comments useful). It was clear to me, as it was to those 18 others, that Mybutterhastouchedanotherfood would prove to someday be not only a presence felt by Hollywood's major players, but also a household name.

The title of the review is "Great Acting, Bad Message." Succinct, to the point, and it does not break my fifth commandment ("Thou shalt not try to be funny"). What I like most about this title is that it "pretty much" is the review.

"Great acting, bad message Jodie Foster was amazing in this. She pretty much made the film. I'm pretty sure she'll get an Oscar nomination for this. The film was also very well made."

Whatever typographical or grammatical errors made by the writer can certainly be corrected with the help of some sort of computer software or a smart relative. This is a minor problem that I mention only to warn this and other upstart critics. To some people, poor grammar is the indicator of an uneducated person who grew up in squalor, but for most people it is the telltale sign of a writer who doesn't care much about his or her subject.

"As it stands as a film, ignoring what seems to be its ultimate message, definitely worthy of 12.50$ tickets (or whatever they cost in your city). However, the movie seems to justify the "take the law into my own hands" attitude. It almost promoted murder... taking away people's right to trial and what not. I know no one wants to hear this and no one really cares, most just want to see a movie that entertains them… BUT, I saw this film at the Toronto International Film Festival, and before the film Neil Jordan said: "I don't want this movie to answer any questions, only to ask more". Unfortunately the movie in no way reciprocates this message. It pretty much just says murdering criminals is OK. I am almost disappointed in Neil Jordan for making a film like this, that similar to 24 will only make unacceptable behavior more acceptable in the eyes of the general public. I only wish that the film would provoke people to discuss it further when they walk out of the theater."

Seems pretty non-threatening, doesn't it? Nothing overtly subversive here. I mean, taking a pot-shot at "24?" Big whoop-whoop, right? Well, for some reason somebody somewhere did not want this out there. What we do know is that this review by Mybutterhastouchedotherfood, sometime over this past weekend was pulled from IMDB without warning. Whether Warner Bros., a rogue band of professional critics, or Kiefer was behind it is something we don't know. In fact, we may never know.

It is my belief that just as people are fleeing from Network TV and flocking towards VOD and Youtube, so too shall they turn their backs on this nation's leading critics in favor of the common man's opinion. Mybutter represents the common man (even if he's a woman). There are more like him in the world than there are like Gene Shalit. I am convinced that International Movie Database poses a real threat to the elite when they spread the word of the Mybutters across the world. In order to level their competition, however, they must refuse to turn a blind eye to the obvious studio-backed reviews and must instead back the genuine articles (and their genuine articles), now matter how controversial, from any form of persecution, including its removal.

SALTY'S TEN COMMANDMENTS OF FILM CRITICISM

1. See the movie before you review it.

Most film critics are much too busy getting hysterectomies or de-balling surgeries to be bothered by anything as time-consuming as sitting through an entire movie. If they can't watch it on a DVD provided to them in a diamond-encrusted jewel case by the studio, they'll either get their cues from IMDB user reviewers or base their opinions on the trailer. I urge you to take the high road. Don't follow the group. It's possible to be both ethical and a film critic. Don't let them suck you in and convince you otherwise. Remember, you're supposed to like going to the movies. That's why you got into this in the first place. If you're really too busy, buy a pirated DVD version... and tell the doctor to go easy on the anesthesia.

2. No using French words.

Movies with subtitles are bad enough. Movie reviews that need subtitles are intolerable.

3. Don't try to be funny.

If you want to make people laugh, recommend a movie with Ben Stiller in it.

4. Keep it brief.

Ideally, a film review should be no longer than a couple, three words. Beyond "See it" or "Don't see it," there's not much else that needs to be expressed. If you believe your review should include a qualifier, such as "But don't bring the kids" or "Unless you're trying to cheer up your recently widowed grandmother or get laid," that's fine. But, be careful not to break the third commandment.

5. Make sure the title of your review contains no puns or other wordplay.

Puns used to be the lowest form of humor. Now, it's Dane Cook. As for Other Wordplay, it's just not appropriate. If it's a great movie you're reviewing, don't trivialize it. If it's a bad movie, remember - it's still somebody's baby. I'm not saying don't kill the baby. Just put yourself in the film maker's shoes and show a little respect for someone who's about to go through the grieving process.

6. Attempts to be quotable are strictly forbidden.

Hoping to be picked up by the Blurb people is one thing, but writing a review around your bon mots specifically to further your agenda of one day attaining immortality does not serve the public. Besides, your intentions will be obvious to anyone with a trained eye. Winding up on the poster of a Jason Biggs movie is just not worth the risk of coming across as a fame seeker.

7. Any mention of any aspect of your personal life is unacceptable.

Nobody cares about your private life. If you want the world to hear your life story, do something interesting with your life and write a book. Then, get it made into a movie. It's that simple.

8. Judge foreign films by the same standards as you would American films.

For some reason, critics tend to treat foreign films the way Angelina Jolie treats her adopted children. Talking trash about your own and excessively coddling somebody else's is not a sign of good parenting. And it's not a sign of good movie reviewing. What's more, it's insulting to the great foreign film makers. Since this trend in film critiquing has taken hold and virtually become law, have you noticed how much worse our own movies have gotten? Could there possibly be a connection? Could it be that our critics are inadvertently encouraging our directors to learn from and copy the works of overpraised filmmakers from overseas? Count on it!

9. No spoilers.

If you can't tell a story without telling the whole story, you're not a journalist. Take note, if you write "it has a surprise twist ending that you'll never see coming," you've managed to undermine the intention of the film maker - to surprise the audience. Unless you're writing an April Fool's Day review and there is no actual surprise, don't spill the beans.

10. Do not accept cash for your opinions.

An opinion that's paid for is always questionable. Who's to say that you aren't friends with a producer with a new movie that needs hyping? Who's to say you aren't banging an actress who needs a little career push? Who's to say you're not the relative of a lousy screenwriter who's promised to give you a piece of the action?

Warning: If you've already taken studio or production company bribes, we probably already know who you are. We will be posting a list of names on our site in the coming months. If you are on this list and would like to have your name removed from it before we post it, please contact us immediately. We'll work something out.