My friend Dawn recently sent me a text message while waiting for a film to start. I was out in the theater lobby, about to enter the same screening, but she didn’t know that yet. This was the first text message she had ever sent anyone, and she was excited about it, as you can see from what she wrote:

About to watch movie hahaha gah baa

Dawn makes a living as a professional writer.

I like to give the new fall shows a spin to see if any of them are worth adding to my TiVo lineup. As I do, I’ll try to throw together brief reviews, perhaps aiding you in making your TV decisions, too.

“‘Til Death” (Thursdays, Fox): A fairly generic sitcom, complete with grating laugh track. Brad Garrett, the goliath mopey brother from “Everybody Loves Raymond,” plays a guy who’s been married forever. A newlywed couple moves in next door, and Garrett tries to share his marital wisdom with the kids. Hilarity ensues. The pilot had too many jokes about the next-door neighbors’ last name (Woodcock), and took it a step too far by suggesting the guy didn’t know his name might inspire titters at the high school he works at. (Hasn’t he had that name all his life? And its joke potential never occurred to him?) There were a couple of amusing insights about marriage wedged in there, but overall it’s just too formulaic and familiar to be of any appeal to me. TiVo verdict: Won’t bother.

“Happy Hour” (Thursdays, Fox): Another rather ordinary sitcom, with “ordinary” in this case referring to modern sitcoms, where the word “balls” can be used for comedic effect. (I’m not saying it’s not funny, just that you should know what you’re in for.) A young guy has moved to Chicago with his girlfriend only to be dumped by her two months later, so he moves in with a quirky stranger and starts hanging out with him and his platonic lady friend. I laughed a few times during the first episode, while also noting that every single female character was negative in some way: controlling, desperate, bitter and/or emasculating. Also, the quirky friend character — who listens to Dean Martin CDs and wants to bring back the old-fashioned 4:00 martini — is too one-dimensional to be the co-star. He needs to be the fourth or fifth lead, not the No. 2. TiVo verdict: No Season Pass yet, but I’ll watch the next episode to see where it goes.

“Justice” (Wednesdays, Fox): You know how you’re always sobbing about how there just aren’t enough TV shows about lawyers? Well, uber-producer Jerry Bruckheimer has heard your plaintive wails and produced “Justice,” the first episode of which I found absolutely delightful. It focuses on a firm of high-powered defense attorneys (making it a nice contrast to all the “Law & Order” I watch) with Victor Garber (most recently Sydney’s dad on “Alias”) as the head shark. The lawyers are sharp and confident, a couple of them appear to have souls, and they use every tool in their arsenal to defend their clients. It’s fast-paced, clever, and devilishly interesting to law junkies like myself. The best part: Each episode ends with a flashback to what actually happened when the crime took place, letting us know whether the defendant was innocent or guilty. TiVo verdict: Season Pass.

“Vanished” (Mondays, Fox): This series is part of the new trend where the show’s premise sounds like it can only last for about one season. In this case, a senator’s wife has been kidnapped. I know, it sounds like one 2-hour movie at the most. But no! It is a series, an hour a week, running indefinitely. Anyway, each breathless episode furthers the investigation, with the senator, his teenage children, the FBI agents and the TV news reporters all having dark secrets and convoluted backstories just waiting to be brought into the mix. I am curious to see how it all fits together, to see how elaborate the whole kidnapping conspiracy is. But at the same time, after two episodes the characters aren’t particularly interesting nor am I all that anxious about the victim’s whereabouts. I wish I could fast-forward to the end. TiVo verdict: Season Pass, but grudgingly. I will gladly cancel it if the show doesn’t hold my interest.

It’s time for another edition of Eric’s Sack of Mail, where I respond to e-mails I’ve gotten that were neither angry, stupid or ill-conceived.

First up is Mike, who often send me e-mails just to hear himself talk, I think. He asks:

With all the movies you watch, do you ever get completely sick of movies? Are you still able to watch movies for fun, or does that feel too much like work? Are there ever major-release movies that you skip because you just know they’re going to be awful and you’ve seen too much crap recently?

I answer, in order:

With all the movies you watch, do you ever get completely sick of movies?

Not really. I suppose there’s a day every now and then when I don’t really feel like watching anything, but I reckon that’s true of most jobs and hobbies. Even a die-hard golfer probably has the occasional day where he’s just not in the mood.

Are you still able to watch movies for fun, or does that feel too much like work?

Well, even when I’m “working” (i.e., I have to write a review), it’s still fun to watch the movie, or at least it’s as fun as the movie itself allows it to be. That is, I don’t have the attitude of “I’m going to work” when I go to a screening; I’m going to the movies! And movies are fun! (Except when they aren’t.)

But I get what you’re asking: Do I watch movies in my spare time, with no obligation to write a review? And the answer is yes. I wish I had time to do it more often, in fact, but the new releases keep me pretty busy. I regularly scan Turner Classic Movies and the Independent Film Channel to see what’s coming up that I haven’t seen before, and my TiVo is full of movies to watch. If one of the local theaters is showing something of interest, I’ll go catch that, too, as when I saw the Coen Brothers’ “Blood Simple” a few months back, or the newly restored print of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” that’s been making the rounds. And I confess to watching most of “Tommy Boy” a few weeks ago when I only meant to check out the DVD extras.

Are there ever major-release movies that you skip because you just know they’re going to be awful and you’ve seen too much crap recently?

No sir. I look at it this way: How can I accurately compile my Best and Worst Movies lists at the end of the year if I haven’t seen all the contenders?

When something looks awful, I actually kind of look forward to it. The negative reviews are fun to write, and sitting through a bad movie with colleagues can be enjoyable, too. It’s like we’re survivors who endured a horrible tragedy together. It bonds us together and makes us stronger.

That said, I almost always think the bad movie is going to be more fun than it really is. It’s like being given a chocolate cake and thinking, “I’m going to eat this ENTIRE cake! It will be sinfully delicious and so bad for me, and I’ll probably feel sick afterward, but it will be FUN!” And then afterward you’re like, “Holy crap, what was I THINKING? Why did I DO that? Why do I do this to myself?”

I’d be more likely to skip a movie that I knew was going to be C-grade — not good enough to be recommendable but not bad enough to be hateworthy. A movie like that, that inspires no strong feelings one way or the other, is 1) very hard to write about and 2) probably going to be forgotten by everyone in a couple months anyway.

But I try not to skip anything at all, because I’m a completist and I figure it’s my job. It’s what I do.

Speaking of movie reviews (which we just were), someone allegedly named J-dawg wrote in with this question several weeks back:

Do you notice critic’s responses to movies you haven’t yet seen? If yes, can you discern whether or not they affect you?

The agenda behind my questions is that I wonder whether M. Night [Shyamalan]‘s recent movies have been “meta-criticized” (for lack of a better term) — in other words, critics seem to be influenced by other critics’ comments (in his case, to his detriment) more than is the case w/ a regular movie. I just worry that he is not getting the same level of objectivity — whatever that actually means. (Perhaps there are other external factors, like his reputation as preachy, self-righteous, egocentrical etc.)

I love all of M. Night’s major productions, and I might not be credible because I can tell that I really want to like them. I give him a huge benefit of the doubt, and I hate to see him lambasted by the critics. At least he is doing something interesting that will be seen by the mainstream of Americans, whereas all the other interesting directors seem relegated to smaller venues.

Anyway, any thoughts?

A most intriguing question. In general, no, I don’t notice other critics’ responses to movies. The reason is simple: We’re usually all seeing the movie within a couple days of each other and not publishing our reviews until opening day. So we don’t know what our fellow critics think until we read their reviews, usually the same day our own are published.

This is a common misconception, I think. People think critics will all jump on the bandwagon, but the fact is, we’re usually seeing everything at the same time. In the case of some art films, which open in NYC and LA and then spread out, yes, there can be some bandwagon-jumping at times. But for an ordinary wide release, opening everywhere at once? Nope.

(For the record, in cases where I am reviewing a movie for which reviews are already available, I don’t read any of them until I’ve written mine.)

As for Shyamalan, it really wasn’t until “The Village” that critics in general stopped liking him. You always had a few who hated him, who found him self-indulgent. But overall, “Sixth Sense,” “Unbreakable” and “Signs” were well-received.

A lot of people (critics and viewers alike) HATED “The Village,” though, and it’s possible some critics started to rethink their favorable views toward his earlier films. Are critics eager to hate “Lady in the Water”? I dunno, some, maybe. But there are lots of filmmakers who are not generally well-regarded among critics, where critics salivate at the chance to pick them apart. It’s true of any filmmaker who is different or unusual in any way: Some people love him and some people hate him.

Next: A fellow named Adam wrote in with a Foxx-related question:

I’ve read several of your reviews where mention being surprised that Jamie Foxx was as good as he was (Any Given Sunday, Collateral, Ray).

I haven’t come accross any yet where you actually found him annoying. Could you point me to a few of his movies which initially caused you to “dislike him with a strong, violent passion?” [See the "Collateral" review for the genesis of that quotation.] I guess I’ve only seen the “good” version of him.

“Held Up” and “Bait” would be good examples of the annoying Jamie Foxx. My initial impressions of him were mostly formed from seeing him on television, though, particularly “In Living Color.” I cringe just remembering it.

Moving on, we come to Matt, who writes very thoughtfully on the semantics involved in the global warming and evolution debates.

I’ve read your stuff for years and though I’ve often been tempted to send an email, I’ve never been able to muster enough gumption. I do have a comment about this global warming debate that has rankled me just enough to open this window and write something in it.

I just have two points to make, and you can do whatever you like with them.

Point 1: In one of the letters you received concerning the controversy, a writer said that global warming is “just a theory,” and hasn’t “passed the scientific test to become a law.” This statement, used over and over again in letters to the editor to talk about things like global warming and evolution, is just plain ignorant. In science, [if something is] a “theory,” [that means it] has passed the scientific test, most times over and over again. Folks outside of the science community often confuse the term “theory” with “hypothesis” (remember learning about the scientific method in high school?) and think that it’s just something that was dreamt up by a liberal scientist in an office.

More on the semantics of the word “theory”: a theory is something to explain something that has been decided by the scientific community to be irrefutable fact. Theories regarding, say, dinosaurs don’t hypothesize the existence of dinosaurs, but seek to explain different aspects of their lives. Evolution is the same thing. When someone talks about the “theory of evolution,” they are assuming that evolution is a comfirmed fact, so they use a theory like natural selection to explain it.

When scientists talk about theories in conjunction with global warming, they are observing the phenomenon and seeking to explain it. The controversy, therefore, isn’t that the earth is warming up (that’s considered a fact) but what is causing it, if it’s caused by humans, and if there’s anything we can do about it. There’s plenty of room here for debate, and scientists, contrary to what a lot of right-wing folks like to think, LOVE to disagree with one another. That’s how they make a name for themselves.

Point 2: (hopefully shorter) The word law, as in “the law of gravity,” is treated by these same folks as some kind of ironclad thing. Gravity must exist because that word “law” is in there somewhere. Newton’s law of gravity, though, while elegant and easy to understand and effective enough to send rockets to the moon and back, isn’t the best explanation of gravity. Einstein came up with a better one that holds up on super small levels where Newton’s falls apart. Yet Einstein’s explanation is called a theory and Newton’s a law.

All I’m really trying to say is that dismissing Global Warming as “just a theory” is one of the dumbest arguments you can make. It disregards decades of grueling data collection, analysis and interpretation and drives scientists crazy.

Hope you loved it.

I loved it immensely. You make some points I had not considered before, being a non-scientific layperson type myself.

And finally, speaking of loving things, a reader named Joshua wrote in to say this:

In response to your ["Snide Remarks"] comment — “The serving sizes on junk food are always ridiculous. A pint of Ben & Jerry’s is allegedly four servings, but I’ve often eaten the entire thing in one sitting, usually while watching TV and sometimes while crying.” I thought you might be interested in this website if you haven’t already seen it: Crying While Eating.

I had not seen Crying While Eating before, and I am forever grateful that you have shown it to me. I urge everyone to visit this site at once and behold its absurdist glory. You will find many 30-second viewer-submitted video clips in which people cry while eating (or eat while crying). Each clip is labeled with what the participants are eating and an explanation of why they are crying. The deconstructionist in me wants to tell you why, exactly, some of these clips are so pants-wettingly funny to me, but I won’t spoil the magic by analyzing it.

Thus another edition of Eric’s Sack of Mail comes to a close. Your questions and comments are always welcome, and every single one is read by me personally, except for the boring ones, which I have the Laotian kids in the sweatshop decipher for me.

It’s a rather slow week for movies, with three wide releases, one of them not screened, and none of them really stirring up much pre-release excitement.

The one I’ve seen is “Hollywoodland,” which turns out to be an excellent modern film noir about the mysterious death of George Reeves, who played TV’s Superman in the 1950s. Probably the most surprising thing about the film is that Ben Affleck, as Reeves, is remarkably good. Look at his last several films: “Surviving Christmas,” “Jersey Girl,” “Paycheck,” “Gigli,” “Daredevil,” “The Sum of All Fears.” What do they have in common? That’s right: They all suck to some degree. This guy’s bad films far outnumber his good ones, so it’s a thrill to see him do something so spot-on in “Hollywoodland.”

“The Covenant,” about teenage boys who are witches or some darn thing, wasn’t screened for critics. There was a promotional screening last night, but it conflicted with a screening of something more pressing, so I did not attend. I’ll get to it this weekend and post a review Monday-ish.

“The Protector” is the third new release, a Thai film starring Tony Jaa. If you have not seen Mr. Jaa’s other film, Ong Bak,” I urge you to do so at once. Jaa is an action star of stunning ability, and the big gimmick in “Ong Bak” was that he didn’t use any wires, stuntmen or CGI. Knowing that as you watch the film will give you a greater appreciation for his superhuman talents.

Anyway, “The Protector” is his follow-up (same director, even), in which he goes to Australia to rescue a stolen elephant or something. The important thing is, he kicks butt. Or so I assume. The film was screened, but it is being released by The Weinstein Company, which is one of the studios whose local publicist was bullied by Paramount into dropping me from its press list. As I have not yet found a suitable pair of dark glasses and identity-masking rubber nose, I was unable to sneak into the screening. Again, I’ll catch it this weekend and post a review Monday-ish.

(If you think it somehow wrong that I should put money into the pocket of a studio that banned me, rest assured that I will buy a ticket to something else and sneak into “The Protector.” They’re not getting my $8.50/$6.50 matinee!)

Gentleman, start your TiVos! Here is a list of the networks’ season premiere dates (with a couple cable shows thrown in, too). New shows are marked with an asterisk. A few of these have already occurred, so I hope you were paying attention and didn’t miss them.

Monday 8/21 – Prison Break (Fox)
*Monday 8/21 – Vanished (Fox)

*Tuesday 8/29 – Celebrity Duets (Fox) (hereafter on Thursdays)

Wednesday 8/30 – Bones (Fox)
*Wednesday 8/30 – Justice (Fox)

*Tuesday 9/5 – Standoff (Fox)
Tuesday 9/5 – House (Fox)
Tuesday 9/5 – Nip/Tuck (FX)

*Thursday 9/7 – ‘Til Death (Fox)
*Thursday 9/7 – Happy Hour (Fox)

Friday 9/8 – Nanny 911 (Fox)
Friday 9/8 – 20/20 (ABC)

Saturday 9/9 – Cops (Fox)
Saturday 9/9 – America’s Most Wanted (Fox)

Sunday 9/10 – The Simpsons (Fox)
Sunday 9/10 – American Dad (Fox)
Sunday 9/10 – Family Guy (Fox)
Sunday 9/10 – The War at Home (Fox)

Sunday 9/10 – The Wire (HBO)

Tuesday 9/12 – Dancing With the Stars (ABC)
*Tuesday 9/12 – Men In Trees (ABC) (hereafter on Fridays)

Thursday 9/14 – Survivor: Cook Islands (CBS)

Saturday 9/16 – MADtv (Fox)

Sunday 9/17 – The Amazing Race 10 (CBS)

Monday 9/18 – Wife Swap (ABC)
*Monday 9/18 – The Class (CBS)
Monday 9/18 – How I Met Your Mother (CBS)
Monday 9/18 – Two And A Half Men (CBS)
Monday 9/18 – The New Adventures of Old Christine (CBS)
Monday 9/18 – CSI: Miami (CBS)
*Monday 9/18 – Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (NBC)

Tuesday 9/19 – NCIS (CBS)
Tuesday 9/19 – Law & Order CI (NBC)
Tuesday 9/19 – The Unit (CBS)
*Tuesday 9/19 – Smith (CBS)
Tuesday 9/19 – Law & Order SVU (NBC)
Tuesday 9/19 – Boston Legal (ABC)

*Wednesday 9/20 – Jericho (CBS)
Wednesday 9/20 – America’s Next Top Model (CW)
Wednesday 9/20 – The Biggest Loser (NBC)
Wednesday 9/20 – Criminal Minds (CBS)
*Wednesday 9/20 – Kidnapped (NBC)
Wednesday 9/20 – CSI: NY (CBS)

Thursday 9/21 – My Name Is Earl (NBC)
Thursday 9/21 – The Office (NBC)
Thursday 9/21 – Grey’s Anatomy (ABC)
*Thursday 9/21 – Six Degrees (ABC)
Thursday 9/21 – CSI (CBS)
*Thursday 9/21 – Shark (CBS)
Thursday 9/21 – ER (NBC)

Friday 9/22 – Friday Night Smackdown (CW)
Friday 9/22 – Ghost Whisperer (CBS)
Friday 9/22 – Close To Home (CBS)
Friday 9/22 – Numb3rs (CBS)
Friday 9/22 – Law & Order (NBC)

Sunday 9/24 – Extreme Makeover: Home Edition (ABC)
Sunday 9/24 – 60 Minutes (CBS)
Sunday 9/24 – Desperate Housewives (ABC)
Sunday 9/24 – Cold Case (CBS)
*Sunday 9/24 – Brothers & Sisters (ABC)
Sunday 9/24 – Without a Trace (CBS)

Monday 9/25 – 7th Heaven (CW)
*Monday 9/25 – Runaway (CW)
*Monday 9/25 – Heroes (NBC)

Tuesday 9/26 – Gilmore Girls (CW)
*Tuesday 9/26 – Help Me Help You (ABC)

Wednesday 9/27 – One Tree Hill (CW)

*Thursday 9/28 – Ugly Betty (ABC)
Thursday 9/28 – Smallville (CW)
Thursday 9/28 – Supernatural (CW)

Saturday 9/30 – Saturday Night Live (NBC)

Sunday 10/1 – America’s Funniest Home Videos (ABC)
Sunday 10/1 – Everybody Hates Chris (CW)
Sunday 10/1 – All of Us (CW)
Sunday 10/1 – Girlfriends (CW)
*Sunday 10/1 – The Game (CW)
Sunday 10/1 – Campus Ladies (Oxygen)

Monday 10/2 – The Bachelor: Rome (ABC)

*Tuesday 10/3 – Friday Night Lights (NBC)
Tuesday 10/3 – Veronica Mars (CW)

*Wednesday 10/4 – 20 Good Years (NBC)
Wednesday 10/4 – Lost (ABC)
*Wednesday 10/4 – The Nine (ABC)
Wednesday 10/4 – South Park (Comedy Central)

*Thursday 10/5 – Big Day (ABC)
*Thursday 10/5 – Notes From The Underbelly (ABC)

Friday 10/6 – Trading Spouses (Fox)

Monday 10/9 – What About Brian (ABC)

*Wednesday 10/11 – 30 Rock (NBC)

*Tuesday 10/17 – The Knights of Prosperity (ABC)

Friday 10/20 – Crossing Jordan (NBC)
Friday 10/20 – Las Vegas (NBC)

Thursday 11/2 – The OC (Fox)

*Wednesday 11/15 – Day Break (ABC)

I made my third appearance on KUFO’s Cort & Fatboy show last Friday evening, once again to help out my pal Mike Russell in his reviewing duties. His dereliction was not due to laziness this time, however: Two of the movies had screened at the same time, so it would have been impossible to see them both.

I reviewed “Crank” while Mike dealt with “The Wicker Man.” The event can be heard on Cort & Fatboy’s site, with Mike and me appearing just a couple minutes into the show. (Note: Like most rock-station DJs, Cort and Fatboy use a bit of PG-rated language now and then. Listener discretion is advised.)

Just a reminder that while my weekly “Snide Remarks” column used to be available only to subscribers, it is now 100 percent FREE, so free that it requires capital letters to convey just how free it is. The first column written under this new liberated system, “The Summer of Our Discontent,” is now available for your perusal. So peruse away!

Labor Day Weekend is almost always slow at the box office — the most any film has ever made on this weekend is $20 million — and in the interest of perpetuating that cycle, Hollywood generally puts out inferior product. Hence today we have the dismal drama “Crossover,” the smug comedy “Trust the Man” (which opened last week in NYC and LA and goes wide today), and two they didn’t even bother to screen: “The Wicker Man” and “Crank.”

Now, a note on those two. I discuss it in this week’s edition of “In the Dark,” but both “The Wicker Man” and “Crank” actually were screened — at 10 p.m. last night. It’s a studio tactic to prevent opening-day reviews from appearing in the newspapers while avoiding the stigma of not screening the film at all. Those of us with half a brain in our heads know what they’re up to, though, and we declare: “Baloney!” (Or words to that effect.)

I couldn’t be in two places at once last night, so I went to “Crank,” because that’s where my pal Dawn Taylor and her faithful husband Patrick were going, and also because it was playing at a theater much closer to my house. I soon learned that Lionsgate had found a way to make the 10 p.m. screening even more annoying than it already was: Hold it at a movie theater that’s inside a mall that closes at 9! All the doors were locked when I arrived at Portland’s Lloyd Mall at 9:30. The only way I got in is that someone happened to be leaving and I caught the door before it closed.

Dawn and I imagined the studio’s conversation. “Where should we hold this screening? Is there an abandoned warehouse someplace?” “What about an old condemned school cafeteria?” “Maybe a shuttered mental hospital on the outskirts of town?” “Ah, I’ve got it! A mall that’s closed with all its doors locked!”

Anyway, despite the initial inconvenience, the movie was more or less a hoot. Lionsgate’s refusal to screen it in the regular fashion is symptomatic of a problem we’ve seen several times this year, including with “Snakes on a Plane” and “Slither.” Studios think that critics just don’t like “this kind” of movie and that there’s no point in showing them to us. But in fact the two I just mentioned got mostly good reviews when critics did finally see them, and I suspect “Crank” will, too.

Note also that “Slither” and “Snakes” both tanked at the box office, and I won’t be surprised if “Crank” does. If they’d screened ‘em, they’d have had all those positive reviews in the Friday papers, almost certainly helping to raise awareness and boost attendance. It’s a case where critics could have been useful to the studios, instead of being the bane of their existence like they apparently are most of the time.

Moving back in time a bit, I saw “Crossover” Wednesday night, and I believe I was the only critic in attendance. (Someone slipped in at the last minute who might have been, but he was sitting at the other end of the row and I didn’t recognize him.) The film was not good at all, and the studio rep and I were having a bit of a giggle at its expense, and then, at the 75-minute mark, the film broke. It got jammed up in the projector and we saw the frame it stopped on burn up before our eyes. Frames are only supposed to pass in front of that very, very hot bulb for a fraction of a second. If they pause for longer than that, poof!

The only other time I can recall this happening was during the press screening for “Pearl Harbor,” way back in 2001. In that case, it took them about 20 minutes to fix the print and get it rolling again. This time, they said it should only take them five minutes. I was suspicious. Five minutes later, they announced that the problem was worse than previously suspected and they would not be able to fix it at all. The audience was dismissed. One of the security guards had seen it at a previous screening, though, and she was on hand to tell interested parties what happened in the last 15 minutes. Not much, it turns out.