Mike Milik is lucky that impersonating a film critic and impersonating a writer are not felonies. If they were, he would be doing LARGE time.

In his Academy Awards column, Milik wrote, “I tried to sit through ‘The English Patient.’ Unless you are suffering from insomnia, this boorish movie will be no help at all.”

So, Mike, “The English Patient” is a stunning bore? I’ll concede that it isn’t exactly “Die Hard,” even though I feel it is a finely-crafted film. However, it is not a stunning “boor.” “Boor” is defined as a “coarse or rude person.” The film may be a cure for insomnia, but it is most certainly refined and dignified. Here’s a tip, Mike — get a dictionary.

Beyond some seriously poor writing, Milik’s criticism is sorely lacking in depth. His complaint about the plot setup for the brilliant and densely layered “Unforgiven” is typical of his shallow and dubious “criticism.” In the film, the size of a taunted man’s penis sets in motion a complex chain of violence. The situation mimics real-life events; how often in the news do we hear about a small (ahem), seemingly meaningless incident leading to murder? Too often.

Beyond that, “Unforgiven” touches on many themes affecting past and present society. The role of women, the nature of violence, youth searching for meaning and maturity, racial attitudes, the nature of law enforcement — these are but a few of the subjects “Unforgiven” explores. But Milik cannot get past the penis incident. Why is that?

(Oh, and Mike — try writing “penis” sometime instead of “unit.” It’s OK, really. We’re adults.)

Regarding a youthful film-going experience, Milik wrote “I knew a great piece of movie-making when I saw one.” Based on his Oscar column and after reading some of his reviews, I am, at best, skeptical of that statement.

Kevin S. Kirby

Alum, class of 1997