Critique of Critic

to the editor: i have never liked armond white's film reviews. i find him smug and arrogant, a man who clearly believes he knows more than he does about filmmaking and film history, and thinks he is a better writer than he actually is. in this regard, i was shocked-shocked!-that he could not laud from paris with love without also trashing syriana ("sanctimonious"), inglourious basterds ("appalling"), death proof ("piddling") and the hurt locker (less "informed"), among others. indeed, his suggestion that the fifth element (fun popcorn entertainment) is somehow greater or more important than syriana (a truly incisive and disturbing film) is absurd in the extreme, and displays a serious lack of political, historical and cinematic savvy. it is understood that a film review will likely reference other films. however, that mr. white could not make his (arguable, hyperbolic) points about from paris with love without resorting to petulant putdowns of those other films simply shows how much he still has to learn about film reviewing. when are you going to get rid of this clown and hire someone who is more professional and informed?

ian alterman upper west side

letters have been edited for clarity, style and brevity.