Almost Everyone’s a Movie Critic

Kenneth Turan has done it again! In his cover story on the re-release of John Huston’s “The Man Who Would Be King” (April 9), he socks it to James Cameron and “Titanic” without ever mentioning their names.

In his praise for the film (which it deserves), Turan cleverly avoids these icebergs by saying, “What is missing in today’s movie market is intelligent popular entertainment” (read: unlike stupid “Titanic”) “. . . that doesn’t assume anyone in the audience is dead from the neck up” (read: like those idiots that flock to see the result of Cameron’s dumb script). Even the headline (“The ‘King’ of Adventure”) looks a little malicious if compared to the director’s Oscar acceptance speech, in which he crowned himself “King of the World.”

Seems like the stupid ones are the readers of The Times, like myself, who believed that the feud was over.

HANS J. SPURKEL, Woodland Hills

*

I completely agree with Turan that this is an adventure film for the thinking masses. And it has an intelligent moral basis, too. I love this film and I never miss a chance to see it again.

As for Turan’s assertion that “political correctness and this film are not exactly on speaking terms,” what in God’s holy trousers is he talking about?

The moral of this story could not be more “politically correct.” Slime does not pay and imperialism inevitably meets with its own just rewards. The little woman bites the hand that fondles her and pronounces, “This man is not a god!”

What could possibly be more “politically correct” than the horrific punishment meted out to these two outrageous self-absorbed woman-enslaving God-pretending white male imperialistic exploiters?

PATRICIA SCHWARZ, via e-mail

*

When interviewing Gheorghe Muresan, writer Brett Johnson thought he was listening to a “thickly accented Slavic baritone” (“An NBA Player With a New Frame of Reference,” April 7).

Muresan may be tall, he may be a baritone, but Slavic he’s not. Romanian is the romance language of Romania.

DANIEL B. CONOVER, Glendale

*

Either your writer or the makers of “The Prince of Egypt” needs a history lesson (“A Big Gamble in the Making,” by Amy Wallace, April 6). The pyramids were not built by slaves, Hebrew or otherwise. They were built by Egyptian laborers in lieu of paying taxes or serving in the military. And at the time of Moses and Ramses, the pyramids were already 1,500 years old.

The Hebrews may have been forced to build some of Ramses’ projects as related in Exodus, but they did not build the pyramids.

CAROLYN TODD, La Quinta

*

I realize that whoever got the “Barney’s Great Adventure” review assignment probably got the short straw at the meeting, but why send someone so relentlessly cynical and contemptuous of the character to review his movie (“Barney Chases Magical Egg in ‘Adventure,’ ” by David Kronke, April 3)? Have we learned nothing from the Kenneth Turan/”Titanic” controversy?

As the parent of a child who loves Barney, I would not go expecting to be entertained at the same level as my child. God help me if I were. But I would like to find out from a review if the children enjoyed the film. Is it special? Does it have more impact than a video? Is it worth making it my child’s first film experience?

I sense Kronke thinks not, but that information is so buried in bile and contempt for the “marketing machinery” of the Barney empire it’s hard to tell.

DAWN GREENE, Tujunga

*

“Barney bashing” has become quite the thing to those people who have not really listened to the messages that this purple dinosaur is sending out.

My own 4-year-old has learned manners, safety rules, colors, shapes, numbers, games, songs, animals, etc., from Barney--but most importantly has learned how to laugh and just have fun with a wholesome character and his friends whose main message is love for yourself and one another. You can’t tell me that there is anything wrong with that.

MIMI CLARK, Reseda