Two years ago, I went to a special press screening of the early footage of Beowulf in RealD 3D. It was a small event for press that missed the big public event the night before, so I was in a small crowd of a dozen or so people. Now, I had seen high-quality 3D presentations before, including an old polarized 3D presentation of the original House of Wax when I was a kid and all the IMAX 3D films over the years.

However, there was something special with the digital projection system and the new 3D presentation that blew me away. The ten-minute sample of a nearly nude Angelina Jolie blew my pants off. Literally. (Yes, I literally lost my pants in the theater, but got them back on before the house lights went up.)

After the presentation, I had a chance to chat with the guys who were helping roll RealD out to theaters around the world. They assured us that the technology was getting even better, and there was even a possibility of bringing to the home video market within a decade.

This experience prompted me to write a glowing endorsement of RealD on this very site. Shortly after this, 3D exploded onto the American cinema scene, with digital projection coming to more than 1000 theaters while Hollywood started releasing digital 3D movies practically every weekend.

There’s no doubt about it that with the exception of a few flops (like Fly Me to the Moon, Battle for Terra and The Jonas Brother Concert Experience), 3D movies have made mad money this year.

Yet, still people are claiming that it’s still just a gimmick?

What the fad?

I personally am a huge fan of 3D, and have been ever since the red-blue anaglyph glasses and cheesy movies like Friday the 13th: Part 3. Now, the technology has come up to speed, and 3D is now fully realized.

Here’s my beef with the 3D haters out there. First, some movies are just more fun in 3D. And yes, these are kids’ movies, which I am constantly being ridiculed for enjoying. Flicks like G-Force, Monsters vs. Aliens and even last year’s Bolt, were even better in 3D. Just watch the box office receipts for Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs coming out this week, and you’ll see that this gimmick still works.

For me, 3D is awesome because it enhances a movie experience. While I hated The Final Destination, it was better in 3D simply for the carnival sideshow nature of the film. And My Bloody Valentine 3D was a blast in February.

The rush to 3D for some films is a little much, like with Iron Man 2. This after-the-fact upgrade goes a bit too far, giving us a mediocre 3D experience (which I experienced first-hand with Superman Returns a few years back).

But the bottom line is that as far-reaching as digital 3D is, it’s still not universal. With the exception of the Disney concert films (i.e., Hannah Montana and The Jonas Brothers), every movie that is released in 3D is also released in 2D. So why the hating?

If you don’t want to watch bloated post-production 3D effects in Iron Man 2, you can still see it in its traditional format. With the exception of a few critics I know who have to see movies in limited press screenings, no one is forcing anyone to watch a movie in 3D.

Haters out there want 3D to be a fleeting experience, but it won’t be. Right now, it is the only part of the cinematic experience that requires you to be in a theater to see. You can get a 90-inch plasma HD TV, hook it up to a kick-ass sound system and watch a Blu-ray at home, giving you a movie-watching experience that is just as good, if not better than what you see in the theater. But until the folks at RealD give us a home video platform that can handle this high-quality 3D, the theaters will have a monopoly on the effect. And people are paying premium prices for it… and they will continue to pay for it. I know I will.

Will 3D movies become the standard in years to come? I doubt that. Maybe if Avatar does big enough business and if the Iron Man 2 upgrade fills the seats, we’ll see 3D employed on more blockbusters. But I don’t expect the next Jane Austen adaptation to be shown in IMAX 3D. But for big event movies, it is inevitable.

For more of Kevin Carr’s constantly questioning rants, visit the WTF Archive. Also, we urge you to consider what your life is lacking, then realize that it is that you don’t follow Kevin on Twitter via twitter.com/kevincarr

When I was graduating high school and heading into college, there were three films that I considered to be my favorites: Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life, the very similar A Clockwork Orange by Stanley Kubrick and Michael Lehmann’s dark high school masterpiece Heathers.

Not only did Heathers usher in a long-term crush on Winona Ryder (which was quickly squashed several years later by a pixie haircut, truly awful performances in films like Girl, Interrupted and a high profile shoplifting case), but it also helped whet my taste for independent and strangely dark cinema.

I have loved Heathers for years because of its daring storyline, its brilliant hyper-realism, its sardonic humor and its unflinching tone. However, a piece of news hit the entertainment wire this week that made me shudder more than if J.D. himself was pointing a gun filled with “ich luge” bullets at me.

The word that strikes fear in the hearts of Heathers lovers the world over: Remake. Add two more words, and it gets worse: Remake on TV.

What the fuck me gently with a chainsaw?

This could possibly be the worst idea in the history of cinema. Haven’t they already been trying to remake this movie in various forms, like Jawbreaker and Mean Girls? Remaking Heathers would be like remaking Psycho. It was a beautifully crafted film that clicked perfectly in its own era.

Then, they want to put it on television because, according to the news story in Variety, Lakeshore Entertainment’s president Gary Lucchesi said, “doing it for TV seemed like a fresh and original idea.”

I already see where this is going. They want to make a teenage version of Sex and the City featuring a wicked-mean clan of popular girls that rule the school. That might work if the CW didn’t already do that with Gossip Girl.

The sad thing about this whole concept is that the catch to Heathers wasn’t the cliques and the title of the film. It was a dark look at the idolization of teenage suicide victims and how popularity can be a double-edged sword. It also presented one of the best teen anti-heroes in decades with Christian Slater playing J.D.

In the post-Columbine age where all the major networks are wringing their hands about being politically correct, especially when presenting a television series to a teenage audience, do you think this is possible? I submit that the original film Heathers would be unfilmable now. After all, it dealt with teen murder, faking suicides and a whacked-out kid in a black trench coat who brings a gun to school and tries to blow up the frakking senior class during an assembly. That’s just not going to fly on telvision today.

If this idea comes to fruition, we’ll be left with a sanitized version of the original film. Or worse yet, the show would have the characters commit the same acts, then pretentiously shake its virtual finger at the audience while blaming the incidents on everything from Red Dye #40 to mercury preservatives in vaccines.

I’ve gotta ask this about the folks planning this God-forsaken remake: Did they have a brain tumor for breakfast?

Oh well, I’ve gotta motor if I wanna be ready for that party tonight.

Ever since I was a pre-teen in the early 80s and VCRs hit the market, I have been in love with home video. Screw commercial television! Why not watch what you want when you want, unedited, in the comfort of your home.

Since those early days of home video, the market has just gotten better and better. Today, we have DVRs that will literally allow you to pause live TV. We also have video on demand options on our home cable systems and over the internet.

But even with all this digital downloading available, there is still nothing as awesome as holding a disc in your hand that you can load up into your player and watch at home, complete with special features.

DVD was excellent, introducing us to a non-linear video system that didn’t require any blotchy “Be Kind, Rewind” sticker. Bonus material, commentary tracks, a freeze frame that doesn’t get dorked up with video static. This was the first incarnation of home video awesomeness.

For many people, the next incarnation of home video awesomeness was Blu-ray. Some might argue it was HD DVD, but let’s forget about that right now since that has gone the way of Beta.

I joined the Blu-ray fold finally, after waiting out the aforementioned format war, and I got my Blu-ray set up. And yes, the high definition picture and sound is quite awesome. But there is a downside to Blu-ray, which I discovered when I put in my first disc months ago…

…and waited for like 10 minutes for the damn thing to boot up.

What the format?

Like I said, the hi-def picture and sound is awesome. I’m not denying that. Getting the latest blockbuster on Blu-ray can be a great experience once you get things up and running. But the Blu-ray format can be a real pain in the ass sometimes. It’s supposed to be superior technology, but the damn platform has more bugs, problems and annoyances than DVD ever had.

So here’s my official bitch list about why Blu-ray is, in fact, not a superior platform…

Slow load – I understand that a Blu-ray disc is loaded with like 10 times the data of a DVD. But why does it take so long to load? If the video and audio image can be pulled from the disc at such speed, why can’t the machine process the damn main menu faster?

Recall – When I pop a DVD out of my machine, I can put it back into the player days or even weeks later, and it remembers where I was? Not so on any Blu-ray disc I have watched (and I have watched dozens). Heck, here’s a place where VHS actually trumps Blu-ray, and that’s just crazy talk.

Navigation – Top menu? Pop-up menu? Home? Options? Why are there so many choices to get back to the menu screen. And depending on the studio, these options do different things. And woe to anyone coming out of the movie and going back to the boot-up screen, ‘cause like I just said in the previous point, your player can’t remember that.

No Features – This isn’t a coding problem as much as it is a studio problem. Too many discs are released without any special features. You can’t tell me there isn’t even room to put the damn trailer on the menu. And some releases – like the relatively recent I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry BD release – doesn’t even have the same special features that are found on the original DVD release.

U-Control – Yeah, this can have some nice features that embed into the film itself. However, depending on the authoring, the branching features aren’t always easy to access. Call me an idiot, but I can’t get my U-Control features to work on Coraline at all. Oh, I can see the picture-in-picture mode, but for the life of me, I can’t access the audio… even though there’s an “audio” toggle button on my remote. The Lost: Season One and the Finding Nemo DVDs have similar features that can be accessed without a problem. Why is it so complicated on Blu-ray?

BD-Live – Here is the motherload… the most staggeringly worthless feature I’ve ever seen on Blu-ray discs. First, a lot of players require you to plug in your own flash drive for an extra gig or two of cache storage. But since I just spent $300 on the player, why doesn’t it have its own factory-installed external memory, which is only a couple bucks wholesale. Then, when you finally get that installed, depending on who authored the disc, it can take several minutes to even access the BD-Live server. In one instance, accessing an external BD-Live server crashed my machine so hard that I had to unplug the machine and give it a fresh reboot. (Thanks, Warner Bros.)

And after all this, the features found on BD-Live are, let’s face it, hella-stupid as Eric Cartman would say. If you’re lucky, you might be able to share your favorite scenes with your friends that you can’t find on the online platform. But even then, most of the time when I access the BD-Live feed, it’s nothing but crappy trailers for other films being released by the studio.

Even when there are extras to be downloaded, these are short video segments or additional episodes of a show. But this begs the question that with all that storage space on a Blu-ray disc, why can’t they have just added that ten minutes of video to the disc itself? You know there’s room.

So, there you have my rage against Blu-ray. Sure, I love the surface features, but the functionality of the machines and the discs themselves are a bit of a step backwards in my book.

Okay, so by now you’ve heard that Paramount has made the executive decision to not screen their new film G.I. Joe: The Rise of COBRA for critics. In fact, this little maneuver has made more news recently than the questionable quality of the film.

I know, I know… you’ve heard a lot about this already. But this is what’s pissing me off this week, especially considering that the studio has been heavily promoting the film in Columbus, Ohio, which is where I live and where I’m on both television and radio.

Hello dead horse, prepare to be beaten.

With the exception of a half-dozen anointed internet journalists (including AICN’s Head Geek and our illustrious Executive Editor Neil Miller) and a handful that have snuck into public screenings, Paramount has kept the Joe under strict security from critics’ prying eyes.

And what is their reasoning? According to an AP story, Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures, explained this decision based on the overwhelming negative reviews for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: “After the chasm we experienced with Transformers 2 between the response of audiences and critics, we chose to forgo opening-day print and broadcast reviews as a strategy to promote G.I. Joe. We want audiences to define this film.”

What the flop?

There is no logic to this argument at all. Screening Transformers 2 for the press nationwide proved to work perfectly. Even though it got slammed by 80 percent of the critics, the movie was a monster success. Why is that?

Two reasons: 1) By offering a film for press screenings, you get the film covered. It gets ink (or phosphorus, or liquid crystal, or whatever the hell they put in iPhone screens). This raises awareness and saturates the market. 2) Most reviewers, even those who hated it, acknowledged that it was a full-blown Michael Bay movie and if you were looking for whip-ass action with giant robots, the film delivered that.

As a result of shamelessly putting Transformers 2 out there for people to see before and after the release date, the film is now approaching $400 million domestic, easily the biggest hit of the year.

So it’s not bad reviews that Paramount is worried about. It’s something else, at least that’s what the message becomes when a studio restricts a film from the press. It appears they want to hide something, and this reeks of desperation. I guess that’s what you can expect from a movie that has Channing Tatum as its anchor star.

Right now, G.I. Joe: The Rise of COBRA is rocking a whopping 91% on the Tomatometer, with only one negative review. How many people out there thinks that rating is going to hold up once the midnight shows start tomorrow? A show of hands? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

And how is Paramount curtailing the negative Twitter buzz, which comes from regular viewers like you (like this tweet from @sirflo: “Just watching G.I.Joe. Worst. Movie. Ever.”)?

What is Paramount going to do if G.I. Joe flops, or is a disappointment (which I cannot imagine it won’t be considering the reported $175 million budget, which would need a Transformers-sized B.O. haul to break even)? They can’t blame any box office failure on the press in this go-round.

If they were to follow the Transformers model, they should screen it for everyone everywhere, and pray for bad reviews. Then maybe they’d make $400 million as well.

I generally like Paramount and its releases, and they make some great films. But on this issue, like Matt Lauer, Paramount can suck it!

Unlike many people out there (and like even more people out there), I didn’t get a chance to go to Comic-Con this year. After covering the event for Film School Rejects for the past two years, budgetary restrictions kept me from making it out to San Diego.

That’s right. I just blamed the economy, bitches, like everyone else does.

What the finances?

The Comic-Con gods have not been good to us lately. I’ve had to stay in Ohio along with a former Comic-Con reject. Editors Neil Miller and Cole Abaius were pinched on the way there, rotting away in a Nye County jail, awaiting their fate from a Pahrump judge who bears a striking resemblance to John Goodman. Fortunately, rage enthusiast Robert Fure and a few other rejects managed to make it to the convention center this year, and they’re doing a bang-up job.

However, as I sit here on my couch in my underwear eating a big bowl of Trix cereal, I realized that missing Comic-Con isn’t killing me this year. And we have the glorious internet to thank for that.

I may have raged out last week against social networks, but the explosion of the Twitterverse powered by wireless signals at the convention center along with an army of iPhones has brought Comic-Con to us. In fact, I’m enjoying the spoils of Comic-Con from said couch in said underwear, thanks to the 100,000 lucky geeks who managed to get to San Diego and the fortunate 8000 or so who were able to get into Hall H.

Hell, even my wife has broken out her iPhone and has been gobbling up the digital coverage of her beloved Twilight, Psych and Burn Notice.

This may be all justification for not laying out the cash to visit the Mecca of Geekdom that happens in San Diego every year at the end of July, but I don’t care. At least I’m saving money on hotels and food (as well as enjoying the very low body odor index in my own house). Sadly, I won’t be able to get a pedicab ride from that ridiculously hot blond chick like I did last year. (And yes, that’s a literal reference and did not come with a happy ending… sadly.)

Because of people tweeting during the presentation and live-blogging the panels, I’m getting near-real-time updates here in Ohio. The moment something is revealed – whether it be the early images and poster for A Nightmare on Elm Street or the pants-wetting announcement about when Batman 3 will start shooting – it is available on my computer within seconds.

Thanks to bloggers and internet reporters like our fine (albeit skeleton) crew at FSR, we’re getting reports and write-ups within minutes, as opposed to the day or two wait that we had five or six years ago.

Sure, I didn’t get to see the brilliant new footage from James Cameron’s Avatar or the 3D panel for Tron: Legacy. But let’s face it… even if you made it into the massive meeting rooms for this, chances are you’re so far away, Zach Galifianakis could have come out pretending to be James Cameron, and you wouldn’t be the wiser.

And we know that bootlegs of these videos will be rolling out throughout the weekend. The same thing happened last year with the surprise Wolverine trailer.

So there are some things that you can only experience at Comic-Con, like said footage and in-person celebrity sightings, as well exclusive screenings like District 9 (which I hear was almost worth the plane ticket itself). But thanks to our new medium of film journalism, FSR (and various other masters of the web) is bringing Comic-Con to you at home.

Now, if you’ll excuse me. I need another bowl of Trix.

In case you were wondering where the WTF column disappeared to for the last couple of weeks, I haven’t been sucked into the Church of Bay after not writing about Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I also haven’t joined another cult like Scientology, the Moonies or the Accolades of ShamWow.

I also didn’t disappear to an anger management seminar which caused me to leave my WTF attitude behind.

Nope. I was simply on vacation, thank you very much. And a week or so of relaxing by the Atlantic Ocean on Hilton Head Island has a calming effect on you. So, my rage was quelled for a couple weeks. But now that one of the biggest films of the summer is tearing through the box office, hopefully gunning for Transformers’ spot in the record books, I’ve found something else to bitch about.

About four months ago, I gave into the urge and set up a Facebook account, later followed by a Twitter account (and, in the spirit of shameless self-promotion, if you want to follow me on either, hit me up at Facebook.com/fatguysatthemovies and Twitter.com/kevincarr). But all the warm and fuzzy feelings about these social networking platforms came crashing down this week while I was waiting for the advanced screening of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince to start.

I sent out a braggadocious tweet about seeing the movie early, and I followed it up with a similar update on my Facebook status. Not five minutes later, one of the people on my friend list dropped the biggest spoiler imaginable in the comments section. And mind you, it was a big freaking spoiler, the equivalent of “Darth Vader is Luke’s father” being dropped two days before The Empire Strikes Back opened in 1980.

What the Facebook?

Fortunately, I had my trusty iPhone with me, and I was able to delete the comment and remove the guy from my friends list. I was also able to shoot an email flame to him, giving him a digital tongue-lashing about posting spoilers on my Facebook page.

The sad thing is that in a short four months of using Facebook and Twitter, this isn’t the first time I’ve dropped someone from my friends list for splattering my wall with spoilers.

I understand these sites are for social networking. I understand it’s a virtual way for people to chat with each other about topical things. But spoilers are simply unacceptable.

I suppose that some people don’t realize that anything posted on my Facebook wall propagates to the walls of everyone on my list (including the Warner Bros. rep in charge of the regional Harry Potter screenings). Others have told me that this is what the medium is meant for: people to talk about similar topics of interest.

The bottom line is that spoilers are unacceptable, whether you’re talking around the water cooler or twittering in cyberspace. I understand if something has become part of popular culture and is a spoiler for a movie released years ago. After all, if you haven’t seen Citizen Kane yet, don’t be pissed off if someone tells you the true meaning of Rosebud.

But when it comes to current movies, television shows and the like – even if it’s from a book that was published years ago – spoilers need to come with a warning.

The social networking universe is a wonderful thing, but let’s not be obnoxious to everyone following you on Twitter or reading your Facebook wall. Have some respect, people. And remember that spoilers are like spit in your food. Just because you don’t mind having someone’s saliva in your meal doesn’t mean that it makes it okay for everyone else.

So, come join me on Facebook or Twitter, and we’ll have fun. But be warned of my wrath if you drop a spoiler. I just may hunt you down and kill you (or at least take you off my friend list).

With all the hype surrounding the latest Baygasm to hit the movie screens, one might think that FilmSchoolRejects is being sponsored by the summer juggernaut known as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. After all, a single glance at the home page, and you’d find no less than a half dozen stories on the film.

But I refuse to make this article about Transformers. I refuse to talk about how awful of an actor Megan Fox is, who cannot even effectively scream “Saaaaaaam!” I refuse to espouse on the ridiculous plot. I refuse to complain about seeing John Turturro’s hairy buttcheeks in my face, 20 feet high.

I know what you’re thinking…

What the Fallen? What’s not to love about John Turturro’s hairy buttcheeks?

You see, there are so many other things to talk about… like Jon and Kate Gosselin. According to FSR’s own Robert Fure, he’d “hit” Kate were it not for her eight kids. To me, that’s the most interesting thing about that story. Couples get divorced all the time. Not every women gets publicly propositioned by Robert Fure. Of course, I think he’s just attracted to her hair because it reminds him of Jetfire’s beard from Transfor… aw, shit. I said I wasn’t going to talk about that.

Let’s talk about Ed McMahon. May he rest in peace. Loved the guy on Johnny Carson’s show, but let’s face it. He was as old as Jetfire from… Oops.

Maybe I can talk about the silly notion of ten nominees for Best Picture. Now that the Academy has decided to open up the loser field to nine, it will have a chance to placate the fanboys who bemoaned the fact that The Dark Knight was snubbed in last year’s running. Come early 2010, I wouldn’t be surprised if Star Trek is given a polite nod by the Academy. Just don’t expect one for Transfor… Shit!

I could talk about how Michael Nathanson of Sanford C. Bernstein Media has blasted Paramount and Viacom for its business practices after the flop known as Imagine That with Eddie Murphy. This doesn’t seem quite right, though, since the studio is about to enjoy the biggest movie return of the summer with Trans… Dammit!

Lets see… maybe I can talk about the speculation that Shia LaBeouf will continue the Indiana Jones franchise. Unlike many critics, I enjoyed LaBeouf in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but he’s not the beginning and end of action movies. I think he really should take a break from both that franchise and from Transfor… Jesus H. Christ!

Okay. Let’s try this again. How ‘bout we talk about the new Iron Man 2 poster? Do you think it will be a bigger movie than Transformers… Crap!

Well, let’s talk about the fact that no movie has enjoyed a $100 million weekend yet this year. That is, until Sunday when we see the returns for Transfor… Aw shit. Did it again.

Crap, I can’t even talk about the something political like the media hot button of race relations without my mudflaps skidding into a discussion of this week’s biggest movie.

Monkey balls! I guess that all roads do lead to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Apparently Michael Bay is taking over the universe. My personal theory is that he might just be a Decepitcon, and there’s nothing awesome about that.

This past week, I saw a movie (as I do multiple times every week), and I encountered something that I’m sure everyone else in America has. I was seated about half-way back in a relatively large 400+ seat room watching an early screening of The Proposal, and in the front row, some lunkhead had her iPhone out periodically during the movie.

I understand if you’re expecting a call and check to see who’s ringing before you sneak outside to take it. Or, I know that many people use their phones as a watch, so you might be checking the time because you’re bored with the film. An occasional blip from an LCD screen is fine, but this chick was ridiculous.

She was actually surfing the internet during the film! I know this because even from 100 feet away, I could see new windows popping up in her Safari browser.

So, like the aggressive bastard that I am, I marched down to the front row and said to her, “Do you realize that everyone in the damn theater can see that thing?” She actually looked stunned – not because I had the gall to scold her, but apparently because she didn’t realize that the miniature sun in her hand throws its light all the way to the back row.

Crisis averted for now. But this isn’t the first time, and it surely won’t be the last time for something like this. Even worse, I’ve seen people come into movies wearing a friggin’ bluetooth in their ear, completely oblivious to the fact that those things blink every 30 seconds or so, and I’ve gotta watch that… through the whole freakin’ movie!

But I’m not venting about the douchebags who text and surf during movies. I’m not ranting about the idiots who talk non-stop during a film. I’m not upset right now at the parents who bring a crying child into movies like The Hangover and Feast (two R-rated films that I personally saw someone bring a toddler to).

If you want to read about someone complaining about this jerkoffs, there are plenty of other pieces on the web you can check.

I’m pissed off at everyone else in the theater. I’m pissed off at the average moviegoing audience who sits through this obnoxious and disrespectful behavior and does nothing.

Remember I said the movie house was a 400+ seat room, and it was a packed early screening of The Proposal.

What the four hundred pushovers?

Out of more than 400 people, I was the only one with enough sense to actually tell this moron to stop surfing the internet during the movie. No one – especially those sitting directly behind her – stood up for themselves.

Come on, people! You don’t have to make a scene, but there’s nothing wrong with politely asking the people around you to be respectful of others. The reality is that most people, when they are shushed or asked to turn off their portable devices, will do so. The idiot girl in the front row of The Proposal did so. And if someone continues to be obnoxious, get the theater management. That’s what they’re there for.

The reality is that 95% of the people watching movies in theaters today follow the rules. They keep quiet and don’t talk during the film. They don’t send texts to each other and surf the internet. They have the good sense to get a babysitter when they go to the movies with their significant other. The only thing they don’t do is stand up for themselves and call the assholes out who ruin the movie for everyone else.

I’m sure all of you can tell me a great story about how some nimrod in a movie theater was a rude ass. But how many of you can tell me what you did about it?

Consider this a call to arms. Stand up for your rights in a movie theater! If you hear someone talking, tell them to be quiet. If you see someone using their phone, ask them to put it away. If something is bothering you during the film, speak up!

Viva le cinema!

If you watch enough DVDs, particularly the behind-the-scenes featurettes and the commentary tracks, you’ll hear a slew of cliches paraded about.

These cliches include self-congratulatory interviews with the cast and crew talking about how clever the movie is (even if it’s not really that clever, like in Nobel Son or The Machinist).

Or, how the director fawns over a particular actor or actress, saying they were their first and only choice (which is ridiculously stupid to say about actors like D-list nobody Martin Henderson being Gurinder Chadha’s first choice for the lead in Bride & Prejudice).

Or my personal pet peeve is hearing television showrunners talk about how they want to “make Los Angeles a character” in series like Private Practice and Shark. (Hint, hint… no one living outside of L.A. notices the L.A. shots… to them, it’s just another big city near an ocean.)

The latest cliche I’ve heard popping up in interviews and discussion about films are particularly for movies that are 15 or 20 years old that are now seeing a new release on DVD or a never-before-released Blu-ray edition. The example I’ll pull is from the new “Deluxe Edition” of 1993’s Falling Down (and I put “Deluxe Edition” in quotes because there’s barely enough content – just a commentary track and a lone featurette – on the disc to call it a standard edition… but that complaint is for another week).

In the retrospective featurette of Falling Down, Michael Douglas says that this movie was so controversial, it wouldn’t be made today by a major studio.

What the Falling Down?

I’d like to give Douglas the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he means that were Falling Down made today that it would have been a different movie. After all, he knows a lot about movies. He just received the AFI’s Lifetime Achievement Award this week. I’d like to give him that benefit of the doubt, but I really don’t think that’s what he meant.

He can’t be saying that Falling Down was really all that controversial, just because you had a white guy shooting up L.A. He can’t be saying that all the social problems addressed in the film – the gang violence, the traffic congestion, the hate crimes – are something that studios wouldn’t touch today. He can’t be saying that gritty street violence with innocent people getting hurt or killed is too taboo.

Don’t we see worse things in film all the time nowadays? And don’t we see this kind of stuff on television cop shows each week – from The Shield to The Closer?

The reality is, were Falling Down made today, it would be more violent, more controversial and more shocking than in 1993, regardless of the fact that they were filming during the Rodney King race riots. Did Douglas forget that his character only killed one guy in the movie, and that was a Neo Nazi nutjob? That’s hardly stepping over a line.

Let’s be realistic folks and not congratulate ourselves too much on production decisions from just a few years ago. Let’s leave the “they wouldn’t make that movie today” for films that really deserve it… like Birth of a Nation or The Jazz Singer, or even the much missed but wildly politically incorrect Song of the South.

I’m sorry, but Michael Douglas blowing away a phone booth with a machine gun isn’t that controversial today… or ever.

Sometimes box office pundits piss me off. And while they aren’t pissing me off to the degree they did when they suggested that people didn’t see Valkyrie in mass numbers because Tom Cruise wore an eye patch, they have been yanking my chain for several weeks now.

With box office receipts soaring, delivering mega-hit after mega-hit, the pundits are now wringing their hands and wondering if we are going to see the seemingly elusive $100 million weekend.

What the finance?

Anyone who follows the numbers knows that Hollywood seems to be the only industry not affected by the economic woes that have been plaguing America. Sure, there hasn’t been a $100 million weekend yet, but that doesn’t seem to be hurting the revenue stream.

All you have to do is look at the overall box office of 2009 compared to recent years. Even without a $100 million weekend (which had already happened by this time in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004), the overall box office has racked up more than $4.1 billion, representing anywhere from a 12% to 22% leap in numbers from previous years… and in this economy, no less.

Who do we have to thank for this? It’s not just the Enterprise crew or Monsters fighting Aliens. Internet fanboys and stuffy critics alike will reluctantly have to give kudos to a fat mall cop, Hannah Montana, Tyler Perry, Liam Neeson on a rampage and original parts themselves, Vin Diesel and Paul Walker.

All of these movies have done surprisingly well, and Americans are happy to spend the money to see even mediocre movies this year. It’s these smaller films with roaring successes that are giving the industry a banner year.

Only eleven movies in the history of time (or twelve if you count Iron Man’s Thursday numbers last year) have hit the $100 milllion milestone in a single weekend. The original Spider-Man was the first to break the number with almost $115 million 2002, and it didn’t happen again for two years when Shrek 2 came out of the gates with $108 million. But each year since then, we’ve had at least one take home the title.

Like the four-minute mile, once Spider-Man achieved this feat, people have come to expect it to happen at least a few times each year, but isn’t it a little early to start worrying that it won’t happen? It’s barely June, for crying out loud!

The reality is that this monster opening weekend does not paint a definitive picture of a great film, or even a bona fide commercial hit.

In the list of eleven (or twelve), there are some fantastic movies, like The Dark Knight (which currently holds the record as the fastest film to $100 million) and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. But close to half of the list include films whose lights have dimmed a bit, historically speaking.

For example, during the Revenge of the Thirds summer in 2007, three films had $100 million weekends: Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End. Any one of these might be a guilty pleasure for some, but they’re not exactly the best summer movies on record. And 2006’s X-Men: The Last Stand nearly killed the franchise before Huge Jackman helped revive it this summer.

So while there hasn’t been a weekend of $100 million in 2009 yet, things look pretty darn good for Hollywood. It’s churning out more hits than misses. And even some of these misses (like the lukewarm box office of Watchmen and the tumbling numbers for Terminator: Salvation) are still bringing in decent ticket sales. There’s relatively few Jonas Brothers films out there, which is a good thing on many fronts.

Oh, the $100 million weekend will come, most likely with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen in a few weeks, and definitely with Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince in July

A lot of noise has been made on the interwebs this week whether Terminator: Salvation is any good. I fall in the camp of it being not so good, evidenced by my rants with Neil Miller during Fat Guys at the Movies and the weekly FSR Report Card.

But my venom for this film has gotten me in a bit of hot water. My review’s pull quote for RottenTomatoes.com was thus:

the whole ordeal made me fantasize about building a time machine so I could send a cyborg into the past to terminate McG’s mother before she could give birth to him

I thought this was rather appropriate, actually. I managed to convey my distaste of McG’s directing with a clever reference to the plot of the original film.

Well, apparently some people didn’t get the joke. Here’s a few select comments from RottenTomatoes.com readers in response to my very valid film criticism:

Sounds like a thinly-veiled death threat to me…
- Don’t Tase Me Bro

the movie was weak but this is an extremely classless comment
- scifimark

Careful, or I’ll have to revoke your hyperbole license. You wouldn’t be the first
- CaptainSiberia

Kevin, You’re better than this.
- sfcx

What the fatality?

Sounds like the thinly-veiled plot to the first movie, Mr. Bro (if that is your real name).

Death threat? Classless? Did these people even see James Cameron’s original film? Do these people even get the joke?

It’s not like I said that I hoped McG would die, or wished any sort of real ill will to the man. I know some folks might complain that I’m threatening his family, but I’m not. It’s not a real threat, people. After all, to carry this out, I would actually have to build a cyborg and a time machine. If one or the other were possible, I could see the point, but I’m just waaaay to lazy to do this.

So, you’ve heard it here first. I refuse to apologize for this. Unlike Alec Baldwin, who recently apologized to the Filipino government for joking that he’d get a mail-order bride from them, I won’t bow to politically correct pressure.

Moreover, McG himself has made similar jokes. In an interview with Empire Magazine from April 2009, he says about his famed nickname (which is an abbreviation for his real middle name of McGinty):

It’s really fuckin’ stupid, innit? That’s why I killed my parents. I wanted to change it after I spent my youth in juvi but Jeff Goldblum was already taken so I was all like fuck it.

‘Nuff said.

I know I’ve been reticent on the WTF front lately, and I apologize to my loyal readers. Heck, I apologize to my not-so-loyal readers who have just swerved into this article today. Maybe it’s because everything that’s been making me shout WTF lately has been in my personal life and not at all movie related. Maybe I’ve just been plain lazy. Or maybe I was just wiped out from my Star Wars/Star Trek tussle with Josh Radde last week.

In any case, as what happens with this column periodically, while working on this article about the colossal turd Rajan Zed and his campaign against Angels & Demons, I was watching Penn & Teller: Bullshit – Season Six, which comes out on DVD this week.

Because I don’t have Showtime, I’ve never watched this show before the publicist sent me a copy. At first, I wasn’t a big fan. The snarky after-the-fact commentary by Penn Jillette reminded me a little too much of the revisionist and retrofitted narration of a Michael Moore movie. But after a few episodes, the show grew on me.

Then I came to episode 6-04… the one about dolphins.

When it comes to crackpots, this episode was a doozy. Amid the mix of dolphin psychics, $2000-a-person dolphin communication seminars in the desert and information about dolphin slaughtering porpoises, there was a arguably certifiable woman who runs an “institute” (and note the word “institute” is deliberately put in quotes) that manages dolphin-assisted births.

As a father of three kids, one of which was delivered by a last-minute emergency C-section due to his heart rate dropping every time his mother had a contraction, you’d expect me to throw out my favorite WTF line. And here it goes…

What the Flipper?

But that’s not the craziest thing.

What really freaked me out was when I did a quick Google search for dolphin-assisted birth. I found the following page from BabyCenter.com, a pretty respectable online baby resource.

If you’re too busy to follow the link, I’ll drop in some real quotes from real mothers that appear this discussion forum:

It seems like it has many benefits to mother and baby. I think if I lived in an area that it was possible I would totally do it. – Jen… If I knew what it was like to have four kids… I would have swallowed! [And yes, that’s the chick’s honest-to-god signature.]

How interesting. It’s reassuring to know that there is a birth option out there for everyone. I can certainly understand how dolphins would bring a peaceful aspect to the birth. – Angela

I would do it in a heartbeat! Dolphins are so cool. – AJ

I have always wanted to swim with dolphins, imagine the experience giving birth with them! I think it is kind of intriguing. – Liz

I’m trying to figure out how my mom would respond if I told her I was going to try this. I hope I dream about it tonight! LOL That will be fun! – Tricia

I’m terrified for the babies popping out of these women. The fact that someone would actually consider this blows my mind.

Forget the fact the any birth involves blood, and everyone knows blood in the water attracts sharks. After all, there’s a reason we have the colloquialism “blood in the water.” Forget the fact that the open ocean is different than a tub in a birthing room, where emergency medical personnel an whisk the mother away in an instant. Forget the fact that dolphins are sharp-toothed carnivores and, more importantly, wild freakin’ animals! Wolves are cute, too, but I don’t want them present at the birth of my next child.

I expected to nut jobs on Penn & Teller’s show. After all, this is how they do their thing. But these women who entertain the idea… well, let’s just say that if there was ever a case to be made for forced sterilization, these ladies are making it. I pity the children that they’ve already pooped out.

To steal a line from the illustrious Penn & Teller… This is bullshit!

Last year I knew that the release of The Love Guru was a no-win situation. I knew that if this mega-turd of a movie did well that it would only empower Mike Myers to make The Love Guru 2, and the rest of Hollywood would follow suit with more fake guru fu.

I know what you’re thinking… The Love Guru was one of the biggest bombs of 2008. What could be the downside of that?

Well, here’s the rub. The utter failure of The Love Guru became a rallying cry behind douche-bag of the year, Rajan Zed, a self-appointed Hindu leader who waged a vicious spam email campaign against the film. He took issue with The Love Guru’s portrayal and satirization of the Hindu religion. (Of course, he never quite realized that the movie didn’t poke fun at Hinduism as much as it poked fun at our lazy culture’s bandwagon approach to self-help gurus like Deepak Chopra.)

Still, the movie failed, and Zed claimed victory.

What’s the harm in that? Well, now the guy has built a business around demanding censorship of films that have even the slightest hint of religious controversy. His latest target: Angels & Demons.

What the fanatic?

You see, it’s not just the Catholics who are pissed off about this Ron Howard film.

Here’s an excerpt from Zed’s own piece of spam (which I continue to receive in spite of several requests to remove me from his list… a clear violation of the CAN SPAM Act of 2003):

Hindus want “Angels & Demons” movie rated as “R”

Wonderful. I want a lap dance from Jessica Biel, but that ain’t gonna happen… at least not yet.

Zed, who is president of Universal Society of Hinduism, further said CARA should ask the makers of “Angels & Demons” to insert a disclaimer in bold letters in the beginning and towards the end of the movie explaining that it was purely the work of fiction. Same information about its fictional character should be included in all the publicity material and trailers.

Uh, dill-hole, this isn’t how any movie works in Hollywood. It’s just a movie. Even the “true” ones are fiction, and pretty much everyone understands that. Heck, even most of the documentaries we see are partly works of fiction nowadays.

Rajan Zed stressed that cinema was a powerful medium and it could create stereotypes in the minds of some audiences, especially the younger ones, who were passing through an impressionable phase. We did not want our next generation to be growing up with a distorted view of religion.

You sound like that feminist I railed about a few weeks ago. Let’s get specific Zed-man. What stereotypes is this movie supporting? How exactly is this distorting religion? Have you even read the book? How about the Wikipedia entry? No? Nothing?

Is there anyone out there who doesn’t know that Angels & Demons is a work of fiction? Hell, the movie doesn’t even present itself as “inspired by a true story,” which has been used by other entirely fictional movies like Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights and Dreamer: Inspired by a True Story. But even if it did, there are plenty of facts in the film.

For example, the Illuminati did in fact exist and served as a rallying cry against organized religion years ago… Galileo was in fact persecuted by the church… the Vatican does in fact have a sketchy history with secular dissension… and above all else, if you actually watch the movie, it doesn’t really smear the Catholic church or the Vatican itself, but rather uses it as a backdrop for the story.

Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad if this Indian version of Jerry Falwell would check his ego. He is now referring to himself as “acclaimed Hindu statesman” and ultimately wants to scrap the First Amendment of our beloved Constitution.

Furthermore, if you actually read the entire email (which can be found at the bottom of this page), it’s clear that Zed has no frickin’ idea what the movie is about. He talks about no specifics as to what Angels & Demons does to belittle religion. (If anything, the film presents the necessity of religion and handles the Catholic faithfuls in relatively high regard.) Unlike The Love Guru, which purposely was not screened for his whack-job group prior to its release, Angels & Demons has been available in book form since 2000.

On the controversy angle, Angels & Demons is a far cry from The Da Vinci Code, which did present some ideas that, while not terribly earth-shattering or even original to your average thinking person, could shake the faith of died-in-the-wool Christians who interpret the Bible in a strict literal sense.

Here’s the bottom line: I’m getting tired of people taking issue with words like “retard.” I’m sick of people demanding apologies for date-rape scenes. And I’m sick and tired of Rajan Zed lining his pockets while standing on the back of intimidation and censorship.

Get a life, Rajan Zed!

And now for something not-so-completely different…

WHAT FOLLOWS IS THE FULL TEXT OF RAJAN ZED’S POORLY-WRITTEN EMAIL:

[NOTE: Read at your own risk of dropping IQ points by the end. This guy’s emails are even more annoying than those from the whack-job conspiracy theorists that claim Scarlett Johanssen is a clone of a nice girl named Scarlett Galabekian... and that’s really saying something.]

SENT FROM: zed.rjn@gmail.com

SENT TO: kevin@filmschoolrejects.com

*For favor of publication/broadcasting*

Hindus want “Angels & Demons” movie rated as “R”

Hindus have censured* *Classification and Rating Administration (CARA) of USA for assigning upcoming film “Angels & Demons” a PG-13 (Parents Strongly Cautioned) rating, which they stress deserved R (Restricted) rating.

Acclaimed Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada (USA) today, said that this film was unnecessarily playing with the sentiments of the faithful for mercantile greed. He has urged CARA to reconsider its earlier rating decision and raise its rating to “R” (Restricted: Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian)

Zed, who is president of Universal Society of Hinduism, further said CARA should ask the makers of “Angels & Demons” to insert a disclaimer in bold letters in the beginning and towards the end of the movie explaining that it was purely the work of fiction. Same information about its fictional character should be included in all the publicity material and trailers.

Rajan Zed stressed that cinema was a powerful medium and it could create stereotypes in the minds of some audiences, especially the younger ones, who were passing through an impressionable phase. We did not want our next generation to be growing up with a distorted view of religion.

Zed argued that faith was something sacred and attempts at belittling it hurt the devotees. Filmmakers should be more sensitive and careful while handling faith related subjects. Movies like this brought more confusion and helped creating stereotypes in the minds of some audiences.

Replying to the question of why Hindus were concerned while the movie deals with Roman Catholic Church, Rajan Zed said that despite our seriously different traditions, we were all fellow seekers of the Ultimate Reality and we were all headed in the same direction. So, we should help each other on our journey towards truth and have some sort of trust and mutual loyalty.

Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and National Association of Theater Owners operate the movie ratings system and a board of parents who comprise CARA gives ratings. Founded in 1922, the MPAA serves as the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries from its offices in Los Angeles and Washington DC. Its Board includes Paramount, Sony Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal City Studios, Walt Disney Studios, and Warner Brothers. Dan Glickman is the Chairman.

“Angels & Demons”; a Sony-Columbia-Imagine mystery based on Dan Brown’s novel and directed by Ron Howard with Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer; is being released in most of the world on May 13-14-15 next.

Roman Catholic Church, headed by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, is the largest of the Christian denominations. Hinduism, oldest and third largest religion of the world, has about one billion adherents and moksha (liberation) is its ultimate goal.

So I’m surfing entertainment news the other day, and I saw the most ridiculous headline I’ve seen in a long time:

Darfur genocide inspires actress hunger strike.

I go on to read about Mia Farrow, who’s most famous for being Woody Allen’s main squeeze before he went on to bang her daughter, is planning a hunger strike to show solidarity for the people of Darfur after the Sudanese government cut off all aid last month.

I know that hunger strikes have been somewhat effective in some cases, but that’s usually from people in the situation (e.g., the Guantanamo Bay hunger strikes) or a political leader that has a large number of followers (e.g., Gandhi). But Mia Farrow?

What the fasting?

Now don’t worry… I’m not about to take any pro-genocide stance. For the record, genocide is an awful, awful thing. It’s… well, it’s an atrocity. It’s one of the reasons we have a word like “atrocity.”

However, some skinny-ass celebrity going on a hunger strike isn’t doing anything to stop genocide, or other atrocities for that matter. Sure, a has-been actress like Mia Farrow can raise a certain awareness of what is happening. But seriously, is there anyone in this world who hasn’t heard about the genocide that’s happening in Darfur?

At least the documentary filmmakers who make movies about the atrocities in Dafur are bringing the message home. Sadly, Farrow’s ridiculous hunger strike is doing nothing but her name in the news.

A greater cause for a hunger strike would be to protest the fact that Popeye’s Fried Chicken has discontinued its spicy chicken strips. You can only get the regular ones now.

I’d like to call for a hunger strike for this, since it makes more sense than what Mia Farrow is doing. After all, a hunger strike against Popeye’s Fried Chicken would ensure that we no longer eat Popeye’s Fried Chicken. And, if they ever give in to my demands for the return of spicy chicken strips, we can celebrate the end of the hunger strike by eating those delicious spicy chicken strips.

The same reasoning falls apart for some crazy American celebrity refusing to eat to send a strong message to anyone.

I really doubt that anyone in the Sudanese government or the Janjaweed, the group that is committing the numerous atrocities, is going to say, “Holy crap! Some scatterbrained celebrity is starving herself. I guess we should stop a-rapin’ and a-murderin’!”

Moreover, I really don’t think that anyone starving to death in Darfur is going to be comforted by Farrow’s sign of solidarity… especially since she’s consulting with her doctor and has now declared that she is limiting her hunger strike to only 21 days.

Sheesh. What a lightweight!

The people of Darfur thank you, Ms. Farrow.

People are calling for apologies because of the dumbest things nowadays. It no longer takes Michael Richards saying the n-word during a comedy club rant. It no longer takes Don Imus calling a basketball team a bunch of “nappy-headed hoes.” It no longer takes Mike Myers to play a love guru that’s only offensive to snooty self-appointed Hindu leaders. It no longer takes Robert Downey Jr. in blackface telling Tugg Speedman to never go full retard.

Now it takes a box office turd like Observe and Report to have a date rape scene… and people have called for apologies.

I personally hated the film Observe and Report, but it wasn’t just because the hero date raped the drunk, vomit-covered perfume whore that set me off. I hated it because it was a sucky movie, beginning to end. And when the box office numbers came in on Sunday, it was clear that it wasn’t a film that connected with a wide audience.

But feminist groups have weighed in on the film, calling it irresponsible for showing a date rape scene committed by the hero. (I know we’ve heard enough about this lately, especially on this site with comments by Neil Miller and Robert Fure… but bear with me while I throw my hat in the ring.)

Apparently feminists are afraid that the film will send the wrong message. According to the stereotypically homely Courtney from Feministing.com in her “Friday Feminist Fuck You” column from April 10, she thinks that the film will give permission to date rape willy-nilly:

a whole lot of your bromen are confused about what consensual sex is. Is the laugh you get worth making them even more confused? Basically giving them permission from one of the most adored dudes of the moment to not take rape seriously?

What the feminist?

Just because there’s a joke about date rape doesn’t mean that rape isn not taken seriously by society, the authorities and your so-called “bromen.” There’s jokes about murder, child molestation, torture and abuse all over our pop culture scene, but that doesn’t mean that the actual crimes aren’t taken seriously. And since when does something that happens in a movie give permission to its viewers to commit the acts? This reminds me of how do-gooders in the media were blaming films like The Matrix and Basketball Diaries for the shootings at Columbine back in 1999.

Courtney needs to take a word of advice from the original advertisements for Wes Craven’s rape-filled horror flick The Last House on the Left: Keep repeating, It’s only a movie… Only a movie… Only a movie… Only a movie… Only a movie…

Later in her rant, Courtney calls for an apology from Seth Rogen for his “inappropriate humor.” Oddly, she doesn’t demand an apology from writer/director Jody Hill (who is the source of the inappropriate humor, mind you), or from Anna Faris for going along with the joke, or from Warner Bros. who distributed the film.

Yup, it’s all about Seth Rogen. He’s the cause of all date rape now. If only we could get rid of him.

In case you’re wondering exactly what Courtney said, you can see her “Friday Feminist Fuck You” video below:

You know what, Courtney? I’m offended. I’m offended that you think Seth Rogen is solely responsible for perpetrating the date rape problem. I’m offended that you’re not putting the responsibilities on the actual people who commit the rapes.

I think you owe Seth Rogen an apology.

The bottom line is that while you can dislike movies like Observe and Report (which I did hate), there’s nothing wrong with making them, especially since it was obviously rated R and not aiming for a younger crowd.

So consider this your Friday FSR Fuck You. Learn who’s responsible for making movies. And give filmgoers a little more credit. Do you really think that people are going to commit date rape because it was shown in a movie? I suppose it’s okay to shoot people too.

And, going with your logic, it must be okay to engage in illegal street racing if you’ve seen Fast & Furious, steal millions of dollars if you’ve seen the Oceans Eleven series and drug people to make them have wicked shits if you’ve seen Wedding Crashers.

Over the years, I have developed a bit of a reputation by local critic friends as being an apologist for the Walt Disney company. I am routinely chided and ridiculed by colleagues and radio show hosts for giving relatively positive reviews to films like Beverly Hills Chihuahua, High School Musical 3: Senior Year and this week’s new release of Hannah Montana: The Movie.

But I stand by my reviews and opinions, which stretch beyond the Mouse House to other films like Paul Blart: Mall Cop and The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2. These are all movies that didn’t appeal to the average stuffy film critic. Rather, they targeted their audience and proved time and again that movies can do well without the support of the rabid online fanboys or local art-scene gurus.

Case in point… I was at a screening of Hannah Montana: The Movie earlier this week, and the audience with populated with young girls and their parents. And these kids frickin’ loved the movie.

I was one of the few local critics that showed up to the screenings, but I don’t really blame those that stayed home. After all, critics who write for online men’s magazines or review films for the local NPR station don’t really need to be covering Hannah Montana: The Movie for their audience. In fact, I’m sure that an online outlet targeting males ages 18 to 35 isn’t the ideal audience for Hannah Montana (unless they have daughters at home or are just your garden variety pervert).

But I do blame the various folks I’ve talked to about the film afterwards who didn’t think the movie did enough to reach an audience outside of Hannah Montana’s television and pop music fan base.

Case in point, after watching the film, I was talking with the son of one of the local reps. He complained that he didn’t really like the movie, an my response to him was, “Well, what did you expect? You’re also not an eleven-year-old girl.”

Later, as I was preparing radio spots with hosts in various markets, I was asked if the film reached out to anyone beyond the audience that watches the show on television. And that led me to say…

What the financial cash cow?

Why should a film like Hannah Montana: The Movie try to reach a greater audience? The movie had a modest budget and was specifically targeting the tween girls. This formula has proved very profitable in the past, with Miley Cyrus’ 3-D concert movie last year raking in the dough.

This would be like expecting Kevin Smith to have tried to speak to the tween audience with his film Zack & Miri Make a Porno… or for last week’s inexplicable box office champion Fast & Furious to have tried to connect with the born-again Christian crowd.

Sometimes, filmmakers have to try for a greater audience when their movie costs so much that it can’t live on fan support alone. The box office disappointment that was Watchmen is a great example of a movie that was brilliantly done but didn’t connect with a wider audience, even though it needed to in order to justify its reported $120 million budget.

What’s wrong with targeting an audience? The Walt Disney Company is unapologetic about making movies and television shows for a very narrow demographic, and they have been wildly profitable doing this. (I’d love to be able to cash in on this media machine… wouldn’t you?)

Are films like Beverly Hills Chihuahua, High School Musical and the Hannah Montana product line bad movies? If you’re looking for something deep and contemplative that will be a serious contender for the Best Picture Oscar… then sure they are.

But they are made for a specific audience. They are marketed to that audience. And anyone who sees these movies expecting it to be something more than what they are is an utter fool.

It’s been a tough few months – from your average blue-collar worker to Barack Obama himself. As a country, we’re knee-deep in a recession, and no one quite knows when it will end.

Things have gotten so bad that even popular television series are paying homage to the recession demons. A recent South Park saw Eric Cartman taking to the streets as the superhero the Coon to fight crime in a city torn apart by a bad economy.

Even Desperate Housewives has had multiple storylines about how everyone is feeling a pinch in this economy. (Of course, the people writing for Desperate Housewives seem to forget that the current season is actually taking place more than five years in the future, so I guess we’re in for another big recession in 2014 if Marc Cherry has anything to say about it.)

It’s enough to make me say…

What the financial crisis?

Frankly, I just don’t buy it. Oh, I know we’re in a recession. And I know people have lost jobs. And I know that many aspects of the economy from the Dow Jones Industrial Average to your average American’s bank account are showing serious signs of stress.

But are all the bad things that are happening really a result of a bad economy… or is this just being used as an excuse.

For example, in my home town of Columbus, Ohio, the major daily print film critic has been let go from the paper. Moreover, the paper itself has slashed its arts coverage considerably. They blame it on the economy, but wouldn’t it be fair to say that film criticism in print outlets is a dying breed. I think the death of the print film critic has been happening for years. The papers are just using the state of the economy as an excuse to trim the fat and skirt blame in the process.

Another example is what has been happening nationwide with early film screenings. Over the past three months, there has been an uncharacteristic number of films that haven’t been pre-screened for critics, or the screenings have been cut from everywhere but the biggest markets.

I never expected Lionsgate to screen Madea Goes to Jail, and after seeing Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li, I am not surprised in the least that FOX refused to show this movie to any critic.

So far this year, the following films have had limited or no screenings for the press:

The Unborn (Rogue Pictures, January 9)
My Bloody Valentine 3D (Lionsgate, January 16)
Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (Screen Gems, January 23)
The Uninvited (Universal, January 30)
Taken (20th Century Fox, January 30)
He’s Just Not That Into You (New Line Cinema, February 6)
Madea Goes to Jail (Lionsgate, February 20)
Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience (Disney, February 27)
Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li (20th Century Fox, February 27)
Sunshine Cleaning (Overture Films, March 13)
The Last House on the Left (Rogue Pictures, March 13)
Duplicity (Universal, March 20)
12 Rounds (Fox Atomic, March 27)
Fast & Furious (Universal, April 3)

That’s a lot of movies to hold back on, even for the first few months of the year. Some, I expected like The Last House on the Left and 12 Rounds. But Taken and He’s Just Not That Into You ended up with pretty solid reviews and became bona fide hits.

Still, even with some rogue elements, most of the films that aren’t screened in all market are exactly the type you’d expect not to be screened. The studios are just afraid to admit that they don’t want to show press films they are likely to pan. And now, they’re just blaming the economy for being cowards.

I just don’t buy the fact that studios like Universal or Fox can’t afford to hold early screenings for their films. After all, amid all the economy blahs, one major news story has been how movies are still bringing in the bucks (presumably for their relatively low ticket prices compared to other entertainment options like concerts and Broadway).

Suck it up, Hollywood. Quit hiding behind the excuse of the economy for trying to control the press.

Either that or make better movies… but I’m not holding my breath for that option.

To quote a famous one-eyed sailor, “I am disgustipated.”

That’s not an easy feat, mind you. I can take a lot on the silver screen, but I have to say that when I saw last week’s new remake The Last House on the Left, I was pretty much disgustipated.

Then I started hearing feedback for my review, and it disgustipated me even more.

Here’s an excerpt from my review that ran on my web site 7mpictures.com and was linked to from RottenTomatoes.com:

The one thing that kept going through my mind as I watched “The Last House on the Left” was how unnecessary the film it.

Oh, the fans of the original and this new remake will most likely insult my intelligence by suggesting that I just didn’t get the movie. Don’t worry. I got the movie. And I still didn’t like it.

I know that the original has been held up as a “video nasty” horror classic because of the movie’s “It could happen” potential. And yes, I will concede that the reality of a band of raping, murdering psychopaths is far more likely than any scenario involving werewolves, vampires or zombies. But the bottom line is that I don’t enjoy watching innocent people get brutalized on screen. And call me crazy, but I really detest rape scenes in films.

Then I read some comments from RottenTomatoes.com readers like these:

He’s missing the point completely. He just didn’t expect to be horrified when he walked into a true horror flick and he’s lashing out at others who can handle it…. You’re supposed to be shaken, disgusted and sick to your stomach. That fact that this film evoked such raw emotions from you so effectively is to be applauded, not criticized for.
- Bloody Mathias

The movie did what it was supposed to do, Kevin. No way…a scary horror film that actually was horrific?
- Josh M.

What the fake rape?

There’s a lot of things in movies that people consider awful that I can stomach. Heck, I’ve seen all the SAW movies, and I actually liked the Hostel films. Yet filmgoers have been turning their nose up at most torture porn lately. But with $14 million at the box office last weekend, I suppose we’re okay with rape… just don’t torture anyone.

Now I know that FSR’s own Rob Hunter saw The Last House on the Left and liked it quite a bit. But I have to agree with FSR’s Robert Fure on his feedback to Hunter’s review in the comments section:

In 1972 this film was like nothing else that had really been done, so damn sure that’s shocking. But viewed today by a young generation of horror veterans, it is kind of laughable at parts.

Fure’s absolutely correct. Rape is nothing new on the American cinema screen. In fact, there was a string of movies in the mid-1990s – from crap like Showgirls to fine movies like Rob Roy – that featured pretty graphic depictions. So sitting here in 2009, these scenes are not really shocking any more like the original 1972 Last House on the Left. Rather, they’re just unnecessary.

The RT readers cited above suggest that I don’t get the movie because I don’t understand this was a way to horrify the audience. Let’s forget for a moment that I actually say in my review that I do get it; I just don’t like it. (That’ll show how often people just read the pull quotes and not the full review.) My question is whether full blown graphic rape scenes are really that necessary, even in a movie like this.

After all, the villains in The Last House on the Left already kidnap, beat-up and threaten the girls, eventually stabbing one to death in the stomach. Earlier in the movie, they kill two deputies, strangling one with a seat belt while showing him a picture of his children and telling him he’ll never see them again. Can you tell me that adding rape to their list of crimes makes them any less awful?

Oh sure, the rape seems to clinch the revenge plot of the parents, but isn’t it bad enough that they shoot their daughter and leave her for dead in a lake? But even beyond that, I ask why it’s necessary to show all of the crime on screen? Does it make the act any less awful? Is it really necessary to show Sara Paxton face down in a patch of dirt while John Henry the Terminator forces himself on her?

Why not just have them slaughter kittens? Or strangle puppies? Or force the girls to watch a Pauly Shore movie marathon? Those are all surely horrifying, but I don’t want to watch that on screen. It’s like watching the death of children in a movie. Films like The Mist and Reservation Road managed to depict this without splattering it onto the screen. Hell, even Funny Games handles this stuff off-screen. Call me old fashioned, but for rape scenes, I’d rather just fade to black and trust that it happened off screen.

With all that said, when the big-budget Hollywood movie Slaughter the Kittens comes out, I’ll be first in line to see it.

Fuck Grey’s Anatomy.

I know, them’s fighting words for a lot of you folks out there (probably fewer than elsewhere, but I’m sure there’s plenty of McDreamy fans in the FSR herd). But that’s how I feel right now. That stupid show, which jumped the shark long before its first lesbian storyline, is having too much of an impact on television today.

I haven’t dropped the f-bomb lately, trying to shake things up for the readership with witty, insightful puns on the WTF theme. But after enduring weeks of copycat television, I have to say…

What the Fuck Grey’s Anatomy!

First, there the fat-girl empowerment that show has spawned. I have nothing against a little meat on my leading ladies, but Grey’s Anatomy has taken things too far. First, there was Katherine Heigl, who has some really nice curves on her. But she got too big for her britches (figuratively, no literally) and complained about movies like Knocked Up – which put her on the A-list map, by the way – being too sexist.

Then there was Chandra Wilson as the very short and very round resident Dr. Bailey. I actually love Wilson as an actor, but now she’s trying to stretch, and it’s ruining her character. (This feat was done to Heigl as well, who complained about busted storylines and ends up with a brain tumor, boinking her dead lover, the Comedian himself Eddie Blake.)

Finally, there’s Sara Ramirez, who is a hottie in her own right, but can’t figure out whether she likes the dudes or the ladies. She almost had a shot with the incompetent resident Sadie, but then Melissa George was dropped from the show almost as fast as Brooke Smith, who played Ramirez’s caustic on-screen lover.

If you’ve seen showrunner Shonda Rhimes (whose dreadful Shondaland production studio logo at the end of each show looks more like a failed ghetto spraypaint job than anything respectable), you’ll know why she favors chubby lesbian chicks. I think that Rhimes might just be using the show to get laid.

And all this for a show whose title character probably weighs about 87 pounds, soaking wet. God, I wish the character of Meredith Grey had just decided to stay dead in the third season.

But let’s forget the chubby chasing for a minute. The real reason why I have a deep-seeded hatred for this show now is that it has had a huge impact on the weekly television show model. It’s had such an impact that even though there isn’t even a new episode of this frakking show for the past few weeks, I still am reminded of it when I watch almost anything.

Now, every show seems to demand a montage at the end, with slow pans across characters, often with some pretentious voice over and a weepy, whiney pop song playing in the background.

Is this pop-song end montage the new freeze frame over the credits that we all had to endure in the 1970s. It’s not a terribly new convention… after all, I seem to remember Scrubs doing it now and then in a much more elegant fashion, but Grey’s has perfected it into a cliche.

Some day, I believe that America will wake up and realize that Grey’s Anatomy has become a terrible show, jumping the shark seasons ago and desperately trying to find new characters before dropping them a couple weeks into their run.

I just wish that Greg House would hop a plane from New Jersey to Seattle and kick some sense into this whiney, angst-filled, asshole group of doctors that inhabit Seattle Grace Hospital. Now, that’s something I’d gladly endure under a whiney pop-song montage.

So here we are in the official Hollywood hangover week. The Oscars are a thing of the past. Slumdog brought home the bacon. Mickey Rourke didn’t get to give a wacky acceptance speech. Hugh Jackman was praised for doing less than anyone else had in the past. We have only two non-reviewed movies releasing this weekend. And Tyler Perry in a fat suit is box office gold.

There’s so much to reflect upon this last week and the coming weekend that I had to do a bit of a hodge podge, so let’s get started…

OSCAR RATINGS – The big news on Monday was that this year’s Oscars saw a ratings bump, up 11 percent from last year.

What the failing audience?

Sure, we saw better numbers than last year, but the 2008 ceremony was the least watched Oscar weekend in movie history… since the dawn of time. The numbers for the first part of the ceremony this year saw 33.57 million viewers, only up a tick from last year’s 32.01 million. And that ballyhooed stat was only up a smidge from the 2003 ceremony (the lowest rated on record until 2008), which only brought in 33.04 million. Compare this to 2007’s viewership of 40.17 million, and it’s still a dismal night.

HUGE JACKMAN – More buzz on Monday was how much people loooooooved Huge Jackman as the Oscar host. And I have to say that he did fine, but did anyone else notice how he disappeared for about an hour in the middle? Then he returned for a completely irrelevant song-and-dance number with Beyonce.

What the fancy foot work?

How can you only offer 30-odd seconds to Peter Gabriel, but then happily declare the movie musical is back (which I thought happened in 2003 when the musical Chicago won the Best Picture award) based solely on Mamma Mia’s success?

SHAKING THINGS UP – Was that really what happened? Did the Academy really shake things up?

What the five winners from the past?

Sure, there was that cute opening number with Huge Jackman and Anne Hathaway, but it was only a small step from the Billy Crystal numbers from ten years ago. And sure, the five winners per actor slot was a nice touch, but the ceremony just seemed to come to a screeching halt every time this happened?

WILL SMITH – Boom goes the dynamite? Seriously?

What the flub?

I guess we now see that the biggest star in Hollywood is a total dumbass without a script… Wait a minute… He did have a script. He’s just a dumbass.

TYLER PERRY – I may not be a fan of this guy’s movies, but I respect the hell out of him for finding an audience and exploiting it to the fullest extent of the law. But when the box office pundits talked about the $41 million haul from Madea’s Family Reunion, the numbers were compared to… get this… other films in the “fat suit comedy” genre.

What the fat suit?

You can’t tell me that Box Office Mojo’s Brandon Gray really thinks that people see movies based on who is in a fat suit? Yet this talking-head dumbass actually lumps the Madea movies in a falsified genre that includes films like Norbit, Big Momma’s House and Mrs. Doubtfire. Why didn’t he include The Santa Clause and Shallow Hal to boot?

Wouldn’t this be like lumping Austin Powers, Time Bandits, Death at a Funeral, In Bruges and The Wizard of Oz in the same category called “midget movies.”