So, there was a gripe letter in the paper about my movie reviews. Or more to the point, that I didn't like "Fahrenheit 9/11" I know, boo-freakin-hoo. I guess some people prefer to be lied to if the lie is palatable (and that goes for folks on the Rush Limbaugh side of the fence, too...)

Of course, being the good little obsessive compulsive that I am, I checked out the guy. This individual, whose initials are Brian Nermyr, called me all sorts of nasty names and said unpleasant things. Here's his response. (link dead) Actually, I thought about doing a response letter, but was vetoed by the powers that be. Here it is:

Brian Nermyr it's good to hear from you. Thanks for your interest in the paper and in particular my column. It's a shame that you couldn't put together something a bit less condescending, but in fairness I'm sure your letter was written in the spur of the moment. You raised some interesting points and I felt that I should probably respond to a couple of them.

Now it may be a shock to you that I really don't much care if you agree with my review. That's the beauty of the whole thing: I'm entitled to my opinion and you yours and if you prefer the Washington Post or the LA Times, then that's just peachy by me. You can even think I'm a hack writer and you can say that I'm ignorant or biased because I don't check my mind at the door when I enter a theater, again, your prerogative. One thing I would ask, though: could you at least make sure you spell my name right? It's right at the top with that dashing picture. You got it most of the time, but you dropped that pesky "i" in there at least once.

I'd appreciate it. Thanks

Now, you said some pretty unpleasant things about me and I'm not one to push an issue but before you call me ignorant, perhaps just the briefest look into the "facts" may be in order. I suspect that you had no qualms about my drubbing of, say, "Catwoman" or "From Justin to Kelly" which, in all fairness, I made considerably less intelligent arguments about. But instead of responding to my arguments it seems it was easier to make spiteful comments because I didn't like it. Now I'm not about to delve into a partisan debate with you over the content of Michael Moore's little diatribe because, believe it or not, that was never the basis of my critique.

Let me reiterate: if you want to produce an extended political commercial, then fine, but don't call it a documentary. And as for me pointing out that Michael Moore, throughout his self-righteous polemic committed the exact same offenses for which he was castigating the Bush Administration--well that's exactly what my position is for--critiquing something on the basis of substance and vision. Perhaps you'd consider a meaningful review to be devoted solely to the cinematography and foley work? I'm kidding, of course, but the point remains that someone puts a film out there I'm not going to sit back and believe everything it says--whether it's "Fahrenheit 9/11" "The Passion of the Christ" or (God forbid) "Baby Geniuses 2." Perhaps that's Moore's influence on me rearing its head--just because it's on the screen put out by someone with a lot of money doesn't necessarily make it true.

Now if by questioning Moore's approach I somehow dared to oppose your political ideology than perhaps that should be what you bring to the forefront instead of questioning my attendance policy. I stand fully behind my review--Moore's gift for filmmaking was never questioned (or did you skip the whole first half of the review?) however any non-partisan source you check on "Fahrenheit 9/11" (I'd personally recommend Spinsanity.org) will quickly indicate that many of Moore's claims are "disingenuous" (which is polite speak for lying without actually lying). But perhaps it's easier to assume that "due diligence" was done when it's something you want to agree with instead of actually checking for yourself. Don't feel bad, it's a mistake people all over the political spectrum seem willing to make,

And finally, just because you don't like me is no reason to take it out on "Spider Man 2." What did Spidey ever do to you?

Thanks for reading, Mr. Nermyr.

Now, you see, that's how a decent human being would respond to a half-ass bunch of criticism. Of course, since I don't have to be diplomatic (cuz, you know, it's my site...) I can really say what I wanted to:
Brian Nermyr is an ***bag.

Now, when he Googles his name (let's face it, we all do it...) he can see it right alongside "***bag" and that makes me smile. I checked into him, and if it's the same guy, it seems Mr Nermyr is the frustrated filmmaker wannabe whose resume includes "industrial films for the Phoenix zoo." Now I've never made a movie and honestly, have no particular drive to do so, but to call someone a wannabe when your feature credits include something along the lines of "What's Up Mr. Wallaby?" or "Gotta Get Me Some Penguins" perhaps the person you're really angry with is the one looking you in the mirror. I guess I probably would've gotten the same response if I'd said "The Passion of the Christ" was stupid, but that of course raises the question of who ol' Brian prays to. I got no problem praying to a fat man for guidance--as long as it's the Buddha... or maybe Santa Claus.

Which brings me around to another point: check out the wonderful interview courtesy of the guys from Spinsanity.org. The wonderfully BS-free site that builds healthy bodies 12 ways. They won't call you nasty names if you disagree with them or insult your ability, they'll just sort through countless records to find how you're lying. And that's cool.

-Joe

PS- Brian, the word is "drivel" not "dribble." I know they sound similar but one little consonant can change a whole word. Thought you'd like to know...