Al’s legend I just finished reading Bronwen Hruska’s article on Al Pacino ( 196, Nov. 12), and though I think it was shorter than any interview with Pacino should be, I loved it. Al Pacino has been my hero since I was 7 years old, and I’m glad to see that he is getting the kind of movie-legend attention he deserves. I also loved the review of Carlito’s Way by Owen Gleiberman, but I was disappointed that there wasn’t a section where Pacino’s older films were reviewed. Thanks for the great photos and interview with my favorite actor. Derek Reed Farmington, Maine
A note of thanks for the article on Al Pacino. I’ve been a fan of his since his first major hit, The Godfather. Although very young at the time, I appreciated his intensity and talent as a film actor. Now, years later, I still enjoy his work immensely. Nina Brugellis Elmont, N.Y.
I love your magazine, but I am 25 years old, and if I have to hear myself and my peers referred to one more time as Generation X, I will positively scream! Just because you baby boomers love having some silly little nickname to sum up everything you stand for doesn’t mean we want the same. And what the hell is that supposed to mean anyway-Generation X? Knock it off! Debbie Ruttendjie-Millett Madison, Wis.
There I was, gripping my copy of Entertainment Weekly, and I immediately turned to the feature article on the new film The Three Musketeers. What a rush of disappointment when I saw that, except for a single quote that was infinitely wittier than those of all his testosterone-laden colleagues combined (”Swordplay is sexy. Isn’t that why they keep making this story?”), Tim Curry was barely mentioned. Having been a fan of Curry’s for a very long time, I was terribly disappointed to see such short mention of him. One does not have to be a twentysomething or one of those Hollywood bad boys to be enthralling, as Curry (who plays the evil Cardinal Richelieu) has manged to demonstrate in so few words. Nicole Carbellano Brooklyn
DE PALMA reading
While it may be perfectly fine and often illuminating to make comparisons between the works of two directors, the evocation of Alfred Hitchcock’s name when referring to the films of Brian De Palma has reached the point of absurdity. When was the last time a review of one of De Palma’s films contained a comparison with Hitchcock’s work that was used to make a valid point? Nowadays Hitchcock’s name is simply trotted out, free of associations, as if the name alone were supposed to signify something. I’ve heard this referred to as critical shorthand, but to me it smells more like laziness on the part of critics who have nothing enlightening to say and so fall back on meaningless cliches. Kenneth English Mesquite, Tex.