The Critic, Cont.

Kenneth Turan does his fellow film reviewers on The Times a disservice by choosing not to review “Amores Perros” and then telling the rest of us why he chose not to (‘Film Critic, Review Thyself,” April 22). In doing so, Turan has undermined the work of others on your staff, notably Kevin Thomas, who wrote the review for your newspaper.

Once Turan dissected the film, which turned out to be a review anyway, he put to question the legitimacy of Thomas’ own review. If he didn’t like the film, did Thomas not want to contradict his major critic knowing that Turan was going to write about it later? If he did like the movie, would Turan be sending a message that Thomas doesn’t know what he is talking about and that his opinion carried greater value? It was a no-win situation for Thomas, and shame on Turan for doing this to him.

Turan tried to show us what a grand gesture he made in choosing not to review a film that was beneath him. All he did was come across as a pompous writer who wants to place himself above the others.

MIKE PEREZ

Studio City

For this Internet film reviewer, Turan’s discourse on why he chose not to review “Amores Perros” struck a familiar chord.

Having reviewed 53 films in 2000 for my Web site, I was surprised by my own lack of interest in reviewing one film last year, “Wonder Boys.” Unusually, I had no desire to review this much-blurbed “American masterpiece.” If I had tried, it would have amounted to: “This film has a really wonderful soundtrack. Get the album.”

I couldn’t explain this singular reaction other than to say I had no opinion “hook,” emotional, analytical or literary, into the film (though the cinematography was outstanding). So, now that I know my hero among reviewers pulls a similar blank now and then, as well, I feel somewhat validated in having taken a pass rather than force out a shallow, uninvolved effort.

JULES BRENNER

Hollywood

*

Tony Venegas claims that the Spanish translation for “Amores Perros” is not “Love Is a Bitch” (Letters, April 29). The translation is correct. It is a figure of speech. When translating words into different languages, meaning is usually lost in the translation. Words are not translated literally.

If they were, this film would have a ridiculous title like “Loves Dogs,” which does not make any sense and is incorrect.

VIVIANA HERNANDEZ

Los Alamitos

*

The only thing more demoralizing than Turan’s self-indulgent and unintentionally funny confession was his announcement that he teaches a course in film reviewing at USC.

Apparently, not only are film schools churning out hundreds of post-adolescent “auteurs” each year, but a whole batch of dedicated acolytes eager to write about them as well.

DAVID MACARAY

Rowland Heights