Don't worry, Corwood. At least I'm not sending you pissed-off "How could you inflict that on me!" e-mail. I did like it.It might not be gender; possibly my background in Westerns is what's insufficient. If it's a groundbreaker, maybe I lose out from not knowing what the ground looked like before. Or maybe individual camera shots don't mean that much to me, even with there being impressive ones. I give props for the film having a definite vision not arrived at from showing the end to focus groups, which is beginning to feel rare these days.

askye, I was just alarmed that it looked like the best performance in the movie came from Jessica Simpson.

I've never seen the show, though. I lived a DoH free childhood. I think my parents were offended by it or something.

I just got back in from seeingbuying a ticket for War of the WorldsBatman Begins. The alleged fiance of Katie Holmes wasn't as bad as I feared, but it's not a good sign when you're out-acted by the movie's principal child actressactor. Tim RobbinsChristian Bale was compelling as a man driven to psychosis by personal tragedy and facing overwhelming odds, however. And Morgan Freeman, as always, is a pleasure to hear in the intro and epiloguesee.

It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but if you're bored and want to see a popcorn movie, I can recommend plunking down matinee ticket price just like I did.

I'll never hear "Willy Wonka" again without laughing to myself.

Here come the inevitable "Wonka's Willy" jokes again...

I was terribly chuffed by how many Brits were in the movie, actually. And not just as villains!

Ha! A Brit friend has complained bitterly to me about how the English are always bad guys in American movies. I keep trying to convince him that it's compliment, but I don't think he's buying it.

I finally saw Batman Begins

One question: Was it explained why the poison didn't effect people whenever water vaporized, and thus drive everyday Gothamians insane in their showers and as they made tea from the moment Dr. Crane started releasing it? Because that point bothered me to the extent of very nearly spoiling the movie for me. (I know, I am a stickler on odd points. But you like me anyhow, right?)

I finally saw the Serenity trailer in the movies! It continues to amaze me that they really made that movie.

It was in front of Land of the Dead, which was entertaining. Cutehead Simon Baker! And Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo! Also, a little class warfare with the zombies.

Lyra Jane, I am pretty sure that plot point you're describing made no sense, from start to finish.

Movie theatres make next to nothing on ticket sales. Profit comes from ads and popcorn.

The reason theatres make no profit on tickets, though, is that the distributors demand wildly high percentages of the first weeks of the movie, right? Like 80%, 90%, and then going down in % as the run goes on. Which is why movies have huge openings and enormous marketing pushes for their first weekend and showings on 2-3 screens in a single theatre -- the distributor wants all the revenue.

But since everybody sees the movie in the first 2 weeks of its release, the actual tickets sold drop off precipitously just as it's becoming profitable to the theatre owner to sell them again. So movies disappear from theatres after 4-6 weeks to make room for the next big release, and the theatre's only method for making money is to gouge the theatre-goers in every way except the ticket.

How this business model got set up I can't say, but it seems pretty well doomed to fail eventually. I mean, it has resulted in good second-run theatres, getting movies as few as 6 weeks after they came out in the big theatres, and the Somerville's tickets max out at $6.50. But I don't think the Loews chain was intending to drive its customers to the Somerville, you know?

I don't really understand the "can't talk before the movie anymore" complaint -- has anyone ever really been shushed for talking during a Fanta ad?

Those Fanta chicks bellow their theme song so loudly I can't possibly talk during the ad. I could scream, but I think nobody would hear by desperate cry for help.

A Brit friend has complained bitterly to me about how the English are always bad guys in American movies. I keep trying to convince him that it's compliment, but I don't think he's buying it.

This is so totally true. All the bloody time. 'We need somebody villainous - quick, let's get a Brit. Or, or at least let's get someone to do an English accent. Yeah. That'll sound evil. And it'll be so satisfying when we kick their ass!'

It's like the US movie industry is constantly replaying the whole bloody War of Independence in some kind of pathetic Oedipal thing again and again and again - watch us defeat those nasty Brits, they think they're better than us with their superior cut-glass accents but we're going to kick their pansy asses into the middle of next week.

Get the fuck over it! You won! We don't all sound like we went to Eton! We don't have some kind of Villains R Us thing going on. We don't have all the power, damn it, you do.

bangs head on desk.

....I may have some issues here.

Compliment how, exactly?

Compliment in the sense that, generally speaking, British actors have more training and can play villainy without looking like total fools?

Also, everybody knows that villains enunciate more than heroes do.

No, I have no explanation, although I'll offer the idea that perceived social class is also at the root of it. So many Americans hear British and think So Incredibly Cultured, They Have A Queen You Know, and get resentful and all We Are Free And Excitingly Uncultured Heroes, Smashing Free of The Dead Old World, And Did I Mention Free?. (I don't know if this is so for, you know, non-Beeb accents, but historically, Beeb-talk predominated among the actorly imports.)