A few books I’ve read recently that I can recommend with a clear conscience. (Some books, you know, if you recommend them you feel bad about it.) The links take you to Amazon, where if you buy anything — even if it’s not the original item you clicked on — I get a tiny kickback, which helps support the site. So buy lots of stuff at Amazon! And check out these books, too.

“The Areas of My Expertise,” by John Hodgman. John Hodgman is perhaps best-known at the moment for being the P.C. in those P.C./Mac commercials. His book is an exercise in absurd erudition, being a faux-intellectual compendium of such “facts” as which presidents had hooks for hands and which colonial jobs involved eels. He also gives a lot of information about hoboes, including a list of 700 hobo names. The book is extremely funny, though it may be too much of a good thing. Best to read it in small doses, not big chunks.

“Consider the Lobster,” by David Foster Wallace. Another very smart man, a writer’s writer, a lover of words and a lover of footnotes, that is David Foster Wallace. This collection of previously published essays covers a variety of topics, from the porn academy awards to a lobster festival, from a Los Angeles talk show host to a review of a new book on grammar and usage (a review which extends to the ongoing debate among traditionalists and modernists). His writing is always intelligent and very often hilarious. As a lover of words myself, I found this one of the most intellectually exciting books I’ve read in a while.

“A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius,” by David Eggers. David Eggers founded McSweeney’s, both the quarterly publication and the ongoing Internet concern. (John Hodgman and David Foster Wallace have both written for McSweeney’s, by the way, and I picture the two of them and David Eggers sitting around being smart and witty together.) This book is nonfiction, Eggers’ memoir of how his parents died and he found himself, at the age of 22, caring for his 8-year-old brother. It’s the mid-90s when this happens, and Eggers is heavily into the ironic hipster culture, trying to start a Gen-X magazine, trying to meet women, trying to raise his little brother at the same time. The book is affectionate, funny, poignant, and perhaps more meaningful to people Eggers’ age (e.g., myself) than others. It’s undeniably well-written, however, even if you have little tolerance for 22-year-old hipsters who fancy themselves brilliant writers.

It’s a lukewarm week for movies. Of the wide releases, we have two C+’s and a B-. At Rotten Tomatoes, B- is the cutoff for a “Fresh” rating, so I adopted that as my unofficial standard some years ago. But it’s tricky. A B- movie is “recommended,” but just barely, while a C+ is NOT recommended, but also just barely. Either way, B- or C+, we’re dealing with movies that are sort of OK but not particularly noteworthy. And you have plenty of those to choose from this weekend!

I saw “The Guardian” more than three weeks ago. Why they screened it so early, and subsequently had about six more screenings, I don’t know. Well, I do know. They were trying to build positive word-of-mouth. But why they thought this particular film was so worthy of it, THAT part I don’t know.

“School for Scoundrels,” meanwhile, is a Dimension product, which means I am not invited to screenings, as Paramount harassed Dimension into joining them in their boycott of me a couple months ago. However! The film screened in “sneak previews” last Saturday in about 1,500 theaters nationwide. Sneak previews are not promo screenings; they’re regular pay-for-a-ticket showings that are open to anyone. So I went to one of those and there WASN’T A DAMN THING PARAMOUNT COULD DO TO STOP ME. I’m hardcore like that. (And yes, of course I paid for a different movie and sneaked into “School for Scoundrels” so that Dimension wouldn’t get my money. I’m hardcore like that, too. The list of ways in which I am hardcore is lengthy.)

It had been a while since I’d been to one of these week-early “sneak preview” screenings. I recall going to a few back in Utah, either because I wanted to get the film out of the way without waiting for the press screening the following Monday or Tuesday, or because there wasn’t a press screening. The thing I remember about them, though, is that they were always packed. This one, for “School for Scoundrels,” had maybe 25 people in it. Was it because they put it on so many screens in so many cities, thus dispersing the audience? Did they not publicize the sneak previews well enough? Or were the ones in Utah always packed only because there was nothing else to do in Utah on a Saturday night?

The third major release this weekend is “Open Season,” an animated tale of whimsy featuring the voices of Martin Lawrence and Ashton Kutcher. I knew I didn’t like Martin Lawrence when I could see him; turns out I don’t care for him when it’s just his voice, either.

In limited release is a documentary called “The U.S. vs. John Lennon” (no review yet, sorry), detailing the Nixon administration’s paranoia with regard to the ex-Beatle and his activist/bad-influence wife Yoko Ono, what with their anti-war protesting and love-ins and so forth. Lots and lots of footage from the early 1970s is included, along with new interviews of some of the participants.

The film was screened Wednesday night at Portland’s Fox Tower (an excellent arthouse multiplex), and sitting in the very front row was a man who was VERY passionate about the film’s subject matter. To wit: Every time a John Lennon song played, the man would raise his arms above his head and sway them back and forth. When Lennon would say something especially profound, the man would make his fingers into peace signs. When Richard Nixon or G. Gordon Liddy or some such person would appear, the man would flip them off. Over time, his reactions to the film became vocal, too, with shouts of “RIGHT ON!” or “[EXPLETIVE] YOU!”

Now, once was funny. The audience chuckled at his exuberance. All the subsequent outbursts, however, were annoying. Near the end of the film, with Lennon’s immigration status in question and Nixon winning re-election, it was finally too much for the insane man. He stood up with a roar and stomped toward the exit, apparently unable to take any more. But he calmed down and returned to his seat, swearing at the person near him who had said, “Go ahead and use that exit.”

You may know that these advance screenings always have a representative on hand to make sure things go smoothly. Most of these reps are impressively efficient and resourceful and are a joy to have nearby when there’s a problem. The rep on duty this time, however, is not particularly fond of confrontations, and thus spent the entire film pretending not to notice that there was a lunatic shouting things. FINALLY, with five minutes to go, he went and tried to escort the man out of the theater. They got as far as the aisle, and then the man said, “No, I’ll see the end!” and went and sat on the floor in front of the theater’s second section. The rep made no effort to prevent this, and the man stayed.

Afterward, as I left the theater and walked down the street, I spied the lunatic just ahead of me. He was ranting a bit, to no one in particular. He looked to be in his mid-50s, scrawny and stringy-haired. As I drew closer, I realized he wasn’t crazy, necessarily: He was stoned. Stoned out of his mind. (My first guess, actually, would have been drunk, but he didn’t smell like alcohol at all.) He said, “Did you see the movie?” Seeing this as my opportunity to have one of the post-movie confrontations that I always fantasize about but rarely engage in, I said, “Yes. Why were you yelling the whole time?”

“Was I yelling the whole time?”

“Yes! You kept shouting stuff at the screen!”

“Yeah.”

“Why were you doing that? What makes you think that’s OK? It wasn’t a concert, or a rally. It was a movie theater. You’re supposed to be quiet in movie theaters.”

He stonedly explained how he was very interested in the subject. I said, “Maybe you shouldn’t get stoned before you go to the movies.” He replied, “But I ALWAYS get stoned before I go to the movies!”

Now the whole thing was just funny, not annoying, because he was SOOOOO high. It was hilarious. He asked if he could talk to me while we waited for the light rail, and I said no because I had to go across the street to use the ATM (which was true). As I walked away, he shouted, “FINE, THEN!!”

Don’t do drugs, kids. And especially don’t do drugs and then go to the movies.

I don’t watch much TV news, having learned years ago that most of it is unintentionally superficial and unintentionally funny. (I prefer to watch things that are superficial and funny on purpose.) I do catch clips online now and then, however, when something is brought to my attention that’s worth noting.

Keith Olbermann’s 10-minute commentary on his MSNBC program “Countdown” earlier this week, which you can watch here, fits that description. I enjoyed Olbermann’s sense of humor when he was an L.A. sportscaster in the 1980s, and I’ve recently been entertained by his constant harassment of Bill O’Reilly on “Countdown.”

But I never would have expected the level of gravitas and incisive commentary that he displays here. He reminds me of Edward R. Murrow (whose commentaries were dramatized in “Good Night and Good Luck”) in that it’s not enough to read the transcript of his remarks. You have to watch his face and hear his delivery to get the full effect of the scathing things he’s saying.

(By the way, you can watch the Bill Clinton interview from two days earlier, which Olbermann’s piece is partly a response to, here.)

Having watched the Olbermann clip without much introduction and having been stirred by it, I poked around the Interwebs to see how the conservative blogs were responding. I don’t read many political blogs of any denomination, so I had to do some Googling to find conservative ones.

The few I found that mentioned it at all were depressingly predictable: They harp on Olbermann’s manner and delivery and don’t even try to rebut the things he actually SAID.

“Watching this douche clumsily trying to channel his paranoid rage into lofty rhetoric has been one of the true joys of blogging these past few weeks.”

“It appears to me like it’s almost as if he feels he has to top himself with each new commentary. Be more outlandish … more daring … more critical.”

“I think Olbermann’s ‘Special Comment’ testifies eloquently to his and his fans’ ‘issues’ and requires little elaboration.”

I guess the reasoning is that if you’re writing a conservative blog for conservative readers, you don’t need to explain why Olbermann is so wrong. Your readers already KNOW why. So I wish someone would explain it to me, a more-liberal-than-conservative person who doesn’t read the political blogs every day and doesn’t know why Olbermann’s commentary is so off-base. He seemed to me to be making excellent points and to be making them exceptionally well. He’s actually SAYING something, which is more than any of the bloggers (that I could find) did in response to him.

P.S. I know liberal bloggers do the same thing: A conservative says something, they automatically mock and ridicule him without regard for what he actually said. It’s the major reason I don’t read political blogs, because both sides are equally jackassish about it. The Olbermann thing is what happens to be on my mind at the moment, that’s all.

“Shark” (Thursdays, CBS): What’s not to love about James Woods? “Shark,” in which he plays a conniving defense attorney who must start using his weaselly powers for good when he joins the district attorney’s team, gives him snarky dialogue, a lovably arrogant attitude, and plenty of fellow lawyers to bounce his craziness off of. The show also gives him a teenage daughter to care for, and what appears to be an actual three-dimensional personality. I do have to take points off for using two cliché lines that no one in real life ever says. After being approached by the mayor to join the DA’s office, Woods says, “Give me one reason why I should do this.” (Only TV and movie characters say that.) And later, when Woods learns his daughter might move to New York with her mother, he is forlorn, causing a colleague to say, “You look like you just lost your best friend.” (Again: No one ever says that.) Woods compounds the offense by replying soberly, “I’m about to lose more than that.” Aaaaaagggghhh. Anyway, those two instances notwithstanding, the writing is sharp and fast-paced. I like the idea of the prosecution being as snaky about putting away criminals as the defenders are about exonerating them. But my TiVo verdict is that I have too many legal shows to watch as it is. If you have an open slot, however, I recommend this one.

“Heroes” (Mondays, NBC): One of the most-hyped new shows of the season turns out to be one of the best, too. The pilot episode of this series about young people discovering they have supernatural powers was only OK, save for a couple of unforeseen twists near the end. But previews for upcoming episodes show that the series — an “X-Men” clone, obviously, but so what? — has some very original ideas up its sleeve. If the writing becomes as interesting as the premise now that the exposition is out of the way, we could have a truly great series on our hands. TiVo verdict: Season Pass.

“Help Me Help You” (Tuesdays, ABC): I hate the title, but this sitcom (with no laugh track!) about a know-it-all shrink whose personal life is a wreck is actually pretty funny. Ted Danson plays the psychiatrist the same likable way he played Sam Malone on “Cheers”: cocky and dumb at the same time. Jane Kaczmarek (the mom from “Malcolm in the Middle”) plays his soon-to-be ex-wife, and the loonies who comprise Danson’s group therapy patients are all amusing in their own quirky ways. Writing seems snappy and the direction is deadpan, no huge wacky stuff. TiVo verdict: It’s a keeper.

More reviews of the new fall shows are trickling in….

“Men in Trees” (Fridays, ABC): Anne Heche, far more cute and likable than I would have suspected, plays a relationship coach who — get this — HAS TROUBLE WITH HER OWN RELATIONSHIPS!! I know, it’s crazy. So crazy it just … might … work. After her fiance cheats on her and dumps her, she flees to Elmo, Alaska, an isolated little town that’s just the place for her to clear her head and start over. Jokes about how backward the place is abound (They don’t know what soy lattes or spinning classes are! If she uses a hair dryer, it short-circuits the whole building!), and that sort of thing gets old pretty fast for me. But it’s a perky show, “Northern Exposure” meets “Ally McBeal,” and quite harmless. Let’s face it, if you’re home on Fridays nights, you might as well be watching a show about someone who can’t get a date either. TiVo verdict: Meh. It’s not for me.

“Smith” (Tuesdays, CBS): Ray Liotta plays a thief (art, jewels, etc.) whose wife and children think he’s just a regular ol’ corporate businessman. He has a team of heist-meisters who assist him in his grand operations, which in the pilot episode included ripping off a Chicago museum, and they all have personal lives of their own and oh WOW do I ever not care. I made it through half of the first episode before I quit. Evidently we’re supposed to find these people interesting solely because they’re criminals who lead double lives. But guess what? Characters have to say or do something noteworthy, funny, unusual, clever or dazzling in order for us to find them interesting. And these people speak generic dialogue about generic things, and don’t even seem to be enjoying themselves while they do it. TiVo verdict: It would be an insult to my TiVo to make it record this show.

“Jericho” (Wednesdays, CBS): Who says the apocalypse can’t be fun? Skeet Ulrich plays a 32-year-old guy who returns home to Jericho, Kan., after an unexplained five-year absence. The next day, a mushroom cloud is seen in faraway Denver, and all of Jericho’s communications technology ceases to function. What the sam hill is going on? Is it war? An accident? An attack? I really liked Gerald McRaney as Skeet’s dad, also the town’s mayor, trying to urge calm and reason among the citizens before panic sets in and the casualties begin. I like the idea of the show, and the general level of excitement in the first episode entices me to keep with it. TiVo verdict: Season Pass, at least for now.

“Kidnapped” (Wednesdays, NBC): After just one episode I already like this better than Fox’s generic “Vanished.” A millionaire’s teenage son is abducted and the millionaire calls in a specialist, a freelancer named Knapp (Jeremy Sisto) who specializes in, um, getting kidnapped people back. The cops and the FBI will just screw it up, the reasoning goes. Knapp GETS THE JOB DONE. Already cool, but then “Kidnapped” kicks it up a notch by bringing the FBI in anyway: The kid’s bodyguard was wounded in the abduction, which caught the attention of an FBI buddy of his (Delroy Lindo), and now the Feds are involved, like it or not. The FBI and Knapp butt heads over procedure, while I presume details about the family’s past will illuminate clues as to the culprit’s identity. The creator/writer is Jason Smilovic, whose “Karen Sisco” was an unwatched gem a few years ago and whose recent film “Lucky Number Slevin” is worth watching. “Kidnapped” feels smarter and more intriguing than its plain premise (it’s just a kidnapping, after all) would suggest. Minus points for using a song by 3 Doors Down in the pilot. You might just as well stab chopsticks in my ears.TiVo verdict: Me likey. Season Pass.

I used to know a fellow named Scott Haycock, aka Puppet Guy, a talented puppet-maker and all-around creative type who was lots of fun at parties and who would sometimes freak people out. (It may be apocryphal, but I’m told he kept a small vial of his own blood in his refrigerator.) But who cares? He made me laugh.

For a short time in 2001-2002, he produced a children’s show, populated mostly by puppets, for Provo’s local cable channel. I do not remember the name of the show, or how many episodes were made, or whether it actually ever aired on television. But one time he asked me to appear as a guest on the show, singing a song about safety, which was evidently a favorite theme among the puppet characters. Scott wrote the song, setting it to the tune of the Mormon hymn “Choose the Right.” I revised some of Scott’s lyrics, jazzed up the music, and performed it with two of the puppet characters coming in on the choruses.

Scott subsequently sent me a digital copy of the performance, which has sat on my hard drive for more than four years, waiting for me to do something with it. It is now on YouTube, for all the world to see.

That’s Scott as “Li’l Scott” at the beginning; I don’t remember the name of the other puppet, nor of its puppeteer, nor of the cameraman. (Sorry.) I do remember that I had the lyrics taped to the far right side of the piano, just out of camera range, and that we did three takes, of which this was evidently the best (?) one.

The lyrics, in case you can’t make them out:

Safety first, everywhere you look there’s danger
Safety first, there’s peril all around
Safety first, there’s poison in the kitchen
Live through every day both safe and sound

Safety first! Safety first!
Let safety mark the way before
Safety first! Safety first!
Let zero accidents be your goal

Safety first, don’t drive faster than you’re supposed to
Safety first, don’t put salt into your eyes
Safety first, especially when handling chicken
“Danger is fun” is one of TV’s lies

Safety first! Safety first!
Let safety mark the way before
Safety first! Safety first!
Let living till you’re 90 be your goal

Safety first, the Drano’s not for drinking
Safety first, don’t try to touch the sun
Safety first, don’t leave the house at nighttime
It’s better to be safe than to have fun

Safety first! Safety first!
Let safety mark the way before
Safety first! Safety first!
Let not dying gruesomely be your goal
Let not falling into quicksand be your goal
Let not losing any fingers be your goal

You can expect the slump the box office has been in to end this weekend, thanks to a little arthouse film called “Jackass Number Two.” It’s a Paramount film (and how proud they must be), so I won’t have a review of it for you until later this afternoon. I strongly suspect that you already know whether you want to see it, though.

[EDIT: Sure enough, here’s the review.]

When I was last in Utah visiting my brother Jeff, our sainted mother was there, too, and while channel-surfing Jeff made the mistake of pausing on an episode of “Jackass” (or perhaps one of its spinoffs). We were just in time to see one of the idiots get his each of his butt cheeks pierced, and then fastened together with a thin metal rod. All viewers were traumatized.

Also opening today is what Jet Li says will be his last big-budget high-flyin’ action movie, “Fearless.” This one screened a few weeks ago, but only for a couple of specially invited critics. There was never any subsequent screening for general press, nor even a public promotional screening. Make of that what you will. I’ll try to get to it today or tomorrow.

Now for movies I DO have reviews of. “Flyboys,” starring James Franco as an American flying for France in the early days of World War I, is well-meaning but heavily generic. “All the King’s Men,” starring Sean Penn as a flawed Louisiana politician in the ’50s, is not well-meaning: It wants to win Oscars, and seems to have been made for no other purpose. Alas, its designs will fail, as it’s not very good.

Opening in a few markets today and going wider next week is “The Science of Sleep,” Michel Gondry’s follow-up to the wonderful “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.” It stars Gael Garcia Bernal as a Mexican-born man living in France who has trouble separating his dreams from reality, and it’s just as whimsical and imaginative as can be. It was one of the highlights for me at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, and I might just go see it now that it’s available.

“Feast,” a horror comedy made during Season 3 of “Project Greenlight,” is opening in select theaters today — and playing only tonight and tomorrow. Then it’s coming out on DVD on Oct. 17. Why bother with the theatrical release at all? Is it to avoid the stigma of going “direct-to-DVD”? All I know is, I’m not going to bother reviewing a film that a) is only staying in theaters for two days and b) I can watch on DVD in three weeks anyway if I want to.

More first impressions of the new fall shows.

“The Class” (Mondays, CBS): Premise: To celebrate the 20th anniversary of the day he met his fiancee, a Nice Normal Guy hosts a reunion of their 3rd grade class. Fiancee dumps him at the party; guests at the party reconnect with each other; a sitcom is born. What’s unusual about this one, which stars the uber-likable Jason Ritter as the Nice Normal Guy, is how much focus seems to be placed on the people as characters and not just as punchline delivery systems. In the 22-minute pilot there were several decent laughs and some genuine poignancy, too; kudos to the actors for doing so much with their characters in so little time. TiVo verdict: Season Pass, at least for now.

“Standoff” (Tuesdays, Fox): It’s a drama about FBI hostage negotiators, with the added twist that the two lead negotiators (a man and a woman) are secretly dating each other. The first episode suggests the focus will be on hostage-related crises, not personal ones, and that’s a good choice. Pretty good tension with the standoffs, mild surprises in the way they’re resolved, and the characters are likable enough. I won’t watch it every week, but it seems light and enjoyable enough to catch now and then. TiVo verdict: Low-priority Season Pass, ignored if something more urgent is on.

“Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” (Mondays, NBC): Never having watched “SportsNight” or “The West Wing,” I was personally unfamiliar with the legendary writing talents of Aaron Sorkin. Now I see what I’ve been missing: sheer genius. My friends, THIS is a TV show! It’s set behind the scenes at a “Saturday Night Live”-style sketch comedy show, focusing on the backstage drama and mayhem that go into working for network TV. The dialogue is fast-paced and snappily written, the energy high, the acting (by Matthew Perry and Amanda Peet, notably) impeccable. It helps that it’s about one of my favorite things — the inner workings of TV — but even if it were something else, I suspect I’d find these characters and situations fascinating, so compelling is the writing and direction of the show. TiVo verdict: Season Pass.

The Online Film Critics Society, in honor of its 10th anniversary, recently held a survey among its members to determine the best 100 movies of the last 10 years. We all worked to produce a list of 400 worthy films from 1996-2005, and then everyone chose their personal top 50. Now those top 50 lists have been used to compile the group’s official Top 100.

(The Top 100 is finished, but it hasn’t been announced yet. I don’t know why.)

Here is my top 50 list. I didn’t spend hours and hours on it, so I don’t know if every single film is exactly where it should be. For instance, is “Kung Fu Hustle” (#33) necessarily better than “The Royal Tenenbaums” (#34)? Or should they be switched? I don’t know. But in general, the order of the list reflects my true opinions.

I count seven animated films, one documentary, six foreign-language movies, three musicals, 10 films that played at Sundance, and three movies with “Lord of the Rings” in the title. I’m surprised there are that many cartoons, not surprised there are that many Sundance movies, surprised there aren’t more foreign films.

What films that aren’t included here would be on your top 50 for 1996-2005?

Eric’s Top 50 Films of the Past 10 Years

1. Fight Club
2. Toy Story 2
3. Waiting for Guffman
4. Memento
5. Requiem for a Dream
6. About a Boy
7. Moulin Rouge
8. Far from Heaven
9. A History of Violence
10. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
11. Spider-Man 2
12. Run Lola Run
13. Spirited Away
14. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
15. Kill Bill, Volume 2
16. The Incredibles
17. Road to Perdition
18. 28 Days Later
19. About Schmidt
20. Adaptation
21. Billy Elliot
22. The Blair Witch Project
23. The Hunchback of Notre Dame
24. Life is Beautiful
25. L.I.E.
26. The Triplets of Belleville
27. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy
28. Sin City
29. The Iron Giant
30. The Sixth Sense
31. South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut
32. O Brother, Where Art Thou?
33. Kung Fu Hustle
34. The Royal Tenenbaums
35. Being John Malkovich
36. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
37. Brokeback Mountain
38. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
39. Dark City
40. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
41. The Game
42. Kill Bill, Vol. 1
43. Shaun of the Dead
44. The Spanish Prisoner
45. Super Size Me
46. The Sweet Hereafter
47. Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr.
48. Nobody Knows
49. The Saddest Music in the World
50. Hedwig and the Angry Inch

I noticed something interesting in the trailer for the new version of “My Friend Flicka,” which is just being called “Flicka” this time. Now, I don’t appear to be the film’s target audience — I’m neither a young girl nor a fan of country music, and both of those elements are featured in the ads — but here’s what I noticed.

At one point Tim McGraw angrily asks his daughter Alison Lohman, in regards to the untamed mustang called Flicka, “How do you know a damn thing about that creature?!” And Alison Lohman replies, “Because we’re the same!” You see, she and Flicka are both rebellious and wild at heart and live on a diet of oats and hay.

A few seconds later in the same trailer, we see Tim McGraw’s wife, Maria Bello, ask him, perhaps rhetorically, “When are you gonna look at your daughter and realize that she’s you?” Father and daughter are a lot a like, is what Maria Bello is saying.

But if X=Y and Z=X, then X=Y=Z. If Alison Lohman and Flicka are the same, and Tim McGraw and Alison Lohman are the same, that means Tim McGraw and Flicka are the same, too. And Tim McGraw HATES Flicka! Doh!

No new column this week, sorry. The one I was working on didn’t come together the way I thought it would, and since I’m not obligated to publish anything I didn’t want to publish something subpar.

I have lots of good bloggy stuff to post, though, so I’ll try to clear some of that out this week. It will be like “Snide Remarks,” only bloggier.

I would like to call your attention to two very funny Web sites I’ve recently discovered.

First is The Comics Curmudgeon, a daily blog in which writer Josh Fruhlinger discusses a couple of that day’s comic strips, usually bashing them (quite humorously) for their ineptitude and/or unfunniness. Josh is particularly obsessed with “Mary Worth,” hates “B.C.” and “The Family Circus” (doesn’t everyone?), and is recently fascinated by the trainwreck that is “Pluggers.” His observations are astute and witty, and he posts copies of the strips he discusses in case you haven’t seen them.

It was actually a link on that site that led me to this one: Spamusement!, in which artist Steven Frank draws cartoons inspired by the actual subject lines from spam e-mails he’s gotten. Many of the subject lines are meant to be suggestive and/or dirty (“Give her more meat” says one), so Frank’s cartoons are always the opposite (a forlorn woman looking at a dinner plate with a tiny chicken leg on it).

The first cartoon is dated July 15, 2004, and the first several show that he was still finding his way. Once he got going, though, the cartoons were often laugh-out-loud hysterical, and the archives are a great way to kill an hour.

I’m particularly impressed with Frank’s imagination. Take the subject line “they like to take turns,” for example. The cartoon will surely involve two people or animals (Frank likes animals) taking turns at something, right? So what does he draw? Mayor McCheese, with two birds taking turns chomping bites out of his hamburger head. (What the?!) Or the subject line “I did it again,” which leads to a cartoon of a man cursing himself, having just stuffed a cooked turkey into a mailbox. (What the?!) The cartoons are almost all like that, surprising and delightful and absurd.

As I’ve mentioned in previous entries, for some reason I often get e-mails from people wanting contact information for famous people. Raven-Symone’s fans are the worst about it, though other celebrities have been requested, too. It’s never anyone huge like Brad Pitt or Will Smith. It’s always mid-range celebrities. I guess people figure even if I DID have Brad Pitt’s e-mail address, I wouldn’t give it out. But Raven-Symone, sure! She’s not THAT famous.

Anyway, these stupid requests became so frequent that I finally had to put a notice on the page from which you can e-mail me that reads:

STOP: If you are going to ask Eric how to contact a celebrity, DON’T. Eric has no such information for ANY famous person. If you ask him anyway, despite this warning, Eric will write back and tell you how stupid you are. And he’ll be right to do so.

That has curtailed the requests considerably. Yet still there are people who slip through. The other day I got this one, from someone signing her name “Temmy,” with the e-mail address “dollies_04eva@somethingsomething.com.” She writes:

Four wide releases to deal with this week, so let’s get a-crackin’.

First, “The Last Kiss” is a Paramount product, which means my review won’t be available until about 3 p.m. today. Check back then. [EDIT: Sure enough, I posted it just after 3 p.m. You can read it here.

The real big news this week is “The Black Dahlia,” director Brian De Palma’s first film in four years. There are people who are rabidly devoted to De Palma, dissecting his every film as a new masterpiece, justify its lousiness in any way possible. I think he usually makes trash, but he usually makes it very well. “The Black Dahlia” is like that: exceedingly well-made, yet in many ways completely worthless. (“Carrie,” “The Untouchables,” “Dressed to Kill” and “Scarface” are among his previous films, if the name doesn’t ring a bell. He directed the first “Mission: Impossible” movie, too.)

Meanwhile, The Rock (aka Dwayne Johnson) stars in “Gridiron Gang,” which is yet another inspiring sports movie about yet another underdog team. I saw this film accidentally, believe it or not, back in August. I knew there was a screening of SOMETHING at 7 p.m. one Thursday night, and I thought it might be “Material Girls,” scheduled to open the next day. But nope, “Material Girls” didn’t screen at all (nor should it have), and what was playing was “Gridiron Gang,” fully four weeks before it was set to open. It was probably an attempt to create word-of-mouth, which is a shame, because I don’t think I mentioned the film to anyone during those four weeks.

For animation fans, 2006 has been both great and terrible. Great because there have been so many animated films (eight so far, with more on the way), and terrible because so many of them have been mediocre. Add “Everyone’s Hero” to that list. It’s a movie about a talking baseball, for crying out loud. I’m also a little miffed that Raven-Symone has a role in it, because mentioning her in the review will increase this site’s Raven-Symone quotient on Google, which will result in more e-mails from stupid Raven-Symone fans. (Which reminds me: I got another one the other day that I need to post. It begins “hey wots raven symone email address,” but it gets better from there.)

“In the Dark” continues to be a useful weekly e-mail full of the latest reviews, DVD releases and other vital movie-related info. If you have not yet subscribed to it, surely now is the time to do so. It’s free, of course; we just like seeing the list of subscribers grow. Makes us happy.

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.

In my review of “The Ant Bully,” I cracked a joke about how the wasps “should have had snooty New Hampshire accents — you know, WASPs.” I shouldn’t be surprised that EVERYTHING can be offensive to someone, but I wasn’t expecting this kind of response….

Dear Eric,

Thank you for writing the review on this movie. It was helpful.

However, I resent your comment made about those “snooty New Hampsire accents.” Please, this was really not necessary. Make your review and stick to that, as you do well. However, when you throw slander, bias and prejudice to an entire state, you just offend people.

As you pointed out in your review about that movie, there were certain elements that didn’t even need to be there. Do the right thing and remove the crass remarks about the people who live in the state of New Hampsire. They just don’t need to be there.

Thank you,

Bill
Wakefield, NH

Dumbfounded that someone could actually be bothered by such an innocuous remark, I replied:

This is a joke, right? You weren’t ACTUALLY offended by my reference to “snooty New Hampshire accents,” right?

Bill from New Hampshire responded:

Offended? To be honest, it takes a lot to really offend me. So I’m not going to say I was offended when I really didn’t take it personally. But, I did think it could have gone without saying. I don’t know you, and you don’t know me. So given that you write a public article like that, and me not knowing the author well, I just thought it was a out-of-place. Any link of a general population as ‘snooty’ or to a click of people called “WASP”s is just not really needed. I don’t like that association personally.

Please consider this nothing more than a friendly request to remove or alter those remarks. There are no threats that I would ever attach to such a request or ever will. It’s completely in your court to do anything as you see fit.

I personally would just like to see the comments removed.

Thank you for your response and your consideration on this. And thank you for the movie article. I hope to see this movie with a couple of special young girls in my life this week.

Bill seemed like a nice enough guy, but I just couldn’t figure out what the big deal was. I responded:

Well, I was going off the fact that there ARE a lot of snooty WASPs in New Hampshire. That’s not to say all New Hampshire residents fit that description, just that it’s a common perception with some validity. The reader will read it and think, “Yeah, I know what he’s talking about.” Someone might make reference to a “hick Kentucky accent” or a “surfer dude California accent.” And the people in those areas, if they are honest, would say, “Yep, there are a lot of people around here who talk like that.”

I guess it just goes to show that no matter how benign a joke is, there’s always someone, somewhere, who will be bothered by it…

His next reply began to shed light on what the big deal was:

In your comments, you mention WASPs, as the acronym to associate to the insect. Clever association, but you linked in my state there with the acronym. Do you understand what WASP stands for and what they did? The acronym stands for While Anglo-Saxon Protestant. It was a group that frequently touted that the “white race” was the supreme race. They were racists. They also had ties with the KKK.

Although I may fit the physical description of WASP, I certainly don’t care for anything this group stood for. Put in the word “NAZI” v.s. “WASP” and the connotation that goes along with that, and you get the feeling a New Hampshire person might get by being associated with that group.

Ahhhhhh. I replied:

It sounds like the whole problem here stems from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word “WASP.” I don’t think the general association most people have with that term is the same as yours, i.e., the racists, KKK, etc. I think most people, when they hear “WASP,” just think of white, upper-middle-class Americans. I can see why you would object so much to the term if its connotation for you is racism, but truly, I don’t think that’s how most people take the term.

And his reply:

I assure you that I have no misunderstanding of the meaning of the word wasps as in “W.A.S.P.”s. Which is the association you make in your review. You are a little younger than myself, and so for your generation, that may be the case. Ask the opinion of those you may know, who are 10 years older or more than you, if they would mind that association, and you might get a different viewpoint than the one you have.

It is an acronym as I have already stated for this group. And although to your generation, you may not be aware of this group, those older than you are very much aware. There are some people that still adhere to this belief system.

In any case, I promised that I would not really put anything further on this request and I am not. You have made your decision. Just adding more to the dialog and information.

On a side, it may prove to be an interesting social experiment. To see who reacts in what way to this verbiage. In talking with a younger lady last night, she had no idea what WASPs meant. This adds to your viewpoint, and also to mine.

All right, folks, I’m putting it to you. When you hear “WASP,” do you think of racism or the KKK? Or do you just think of Eleanor Roosevelt? (Well, maybe not her specifically, but that type: white, upper-class, maybe snooty.) I’m perfectly willing to be wrong about this. If the term has a different connotation, a much more negative one, than I’m familiar with, I’d like to know about it.

About a month ago, I wrote a brief blog item on the show “So You Think You Can Dance?” Included in my remarks was this paragraph:

The name “Jaymz” is such a trainwreck that I think if I ever met him, I would only want to slap him. However, I found some unexpected glee on his bio page on the show’s Web site. First, in his own words: “My girlfriend was diagnosed with a disease called ‘Endometriosis.’ ” The disease is capitalized and in quotation marks because evidently Jaymz thinks it is a title. “Endometriosis! The Musical,” perhaps. Second, his girlfriend’s name is Mekenna. I bet it’s pronounced the same as McKenna, but spelled differently because her parents thought it would be cute. Did you know that having a dumbly spelled name is one of the leading causes of “Endometriosis”? How does that make you feel, Mr. and Mrs. Mekenna’s Parents?

Well, guess what. Yesterday I got a MySpace message from Jaymz himzelf! (Why a MySpace message instead of an e-mail? I can only guess it’s because he didn’t want me to have his e-mail address.) Here is what it says:

So my girlfriend thought it’d be cute to google our names together and guess what popped up! Your blog! Amazing right? Thanks for taking the time to write about us. Aren’t we beautiful? We can’t help it. And I thought Eric was spelled Erik. hmmm….Maybe your parents thought it’d be cute to add a c at the end instead of a k because then you would come before the other Erik’s on the roll call in school for sure! Maybe they thought it’d make you feel special and lets be honest you are pretty “special”. And anytime you wanna meet me in real life to slap me in the face let me know because I’d love to let you. From what I hear, writers are really good fighters. Well my friend, PEACE OUT!!!

Regards,
Jaymz and Mekenna
(That’s prounounced James and Mckenna if you didn’t understand)

Good for Jaymz, responding to my snotty blog item with more snottiness! He could use some work on his form — “Eric” isn’t exactly an uncommon spelling of the name, and in fact is far more common than “Erik” — but I admire his moxie! It’s a shame that being named Jaymz, no one will ever, ever take him seriously.

There is some question as to this really being Jaymz who wrote to me, though. The tenor of the message sounds right, but the MySpace page it came from says that Jaymz is only 14 years old. Profiles for users that young are not viewable unless the user accepts you as a friend. Is Jaymz fibbing about his age in order to keep his account closed to the general public? Or is this someone who merely WANTS to be Jaymz and is already acting as if he were? Creeeee-py!

‘Twas a swell birthday I had Saturday, a swell birthday indeed. To my Jehovah’s Witness friends, of whom I have none, let me say that you don’t know what you’re missing.

The morning mail arrived with two items. One was an envelope bearing a card accompanied by a check for a generous sum of money. This was from my parents. The other was a large package from my friend Lisa Valentine Clark, member of the Garrens Comedy Troupe (back in the day) and a funny, lovely woman. The package contained: a box of Wheat Thins, a box of Chocolate Fudge Pop-Tarts, a bag of Oreos, a container of the Wal-Mart store brand of little chocolate donuts, and a loaf of Grandma Sycamore’s white bread. You wonder what these items have in common, and it is this: They are my very favorite TV-watchin’ foods! Lisa Valentine Clark has watched countless hours of TV with me, so she knows which snacks I favor.

(You are perhaps also thinking: Grandma Sycamore’s white bread? What, does Eric just sit there and eat plain, unadorned bread, right out of the bag? The answer is yes, yes he does. It is delicious. And to both predict and answer you next question, yes, the Wal-Mart store brand of little chocolate donuts is my favorite, even better than Hostess. They are fresh, moist, and have just a hint of dark chocolate. They are divine.)

At 11 a.m., I had lunch at Typhoon in downtown Portland with my friend Rob. I had rarely eaten Thai food before Rob started making me do it a year or so ago, and now I like it very much. I like it especially when someone else is paying for it. And I believe it is best to eat at Typhoon as often as possible now, before a massively destructive typhoon strikes someone in the world, kills thousands, and renders the restaurant’s name distasteful.

Later in the afternoon, I paid a visit to my friend and movie-critic colleague Dawn Taylor. Dawn used to be a pastry chef, and she had kindly volunteered to bake me a birthday cake, from scratch, using the finest recipe she could discover. I gave her only my very basic cake guidelines — chocolate, and no nuts of any kind — and off she went.

The finished product was a devil’s food item, and to reiterate, it was made completely by hand from scratch. It is without hyperbole that I say it was the single most delightful thing I have ever put in my mouth. Moist (but not too moist), dense (but not too dense), chocolatey (but not too sweet), and baked to complete perfection. I wish I could share it with all of you. In fact, the next day, when it was gone due to my eating it and sharing it with others, I wished, addict-like, that I could have more, more, MORE of it. Regardless of what sins Dawn may have committed in her life — and boy howdy, that’s a long list — I am confident she will go to heaven despite them, based solely on the merits of this cake.

I enjoyed a slice with Dawn and her husband, then went to dinner with my friends Mark & Mark (but not the Funky Bunch). They had left choosing the restaurant to me, and as they are both prosperous and generous, I knew the sky was the limit, menu-wise. Yet I am a man with simple tastes. In discussing our dining options with Mark, I said, “You know, I actually would really just like to go to the Outback, but I’m afraid you’ll make fun of me. You guys are all hip and trendy, and the Outback is so ordinary. Are you going to mock me behind my back? ‘Oh, the Outback? What, was Olive Garden closed? Couldn’t get a reservation at Red Lobster?'” Mark assured me that such was not the case, and that he and Mark sometimes eat at the Outback themselves (but not, I am given to understand, Olive Garden or Red Lobster).

It was a fine, steaky dinner at Outback, and then we went home to eat more of Dawn’s cake, then to digest a bit before heading out for a night on the town, the town in this case being Portland.

Somewhere in all that, my parents and my sister and one of my brothers called. Two other brothers and a sister were in absentia, though I’m sure their birthday wishes for me were implied. A few friends called with greetings, while others e-mailed or sent MySpace messages. The friends who failed to remember it was my birthday, despite my having remembered theirs, will forever live in the toxic cloud of my smugness.

But truly, it’s nice to feel loved and appreciated now and then, to have all these people in your life, some of whom only flit in and out occasionally, step up one day out of the year and make you feel all fuzzy inside. It is also nice when they mail you food, or make food for you, or take you to a restaurant and pay for your food.

In March 2004, Eric D. Snider’s “Snide Remarks” relaunched as an online humor column, available only to subscribers. People actually had to PAY to read it. What’s shocking is not that Eric pulled such a stunt, but that people actually went along with it.

But now, after 2 1/2 years of exclusivity, the gates have been flung open and “Snide Remarks” is once again FREE, completely and totally. That includes access to the archives. That includes all future columns. Even if someone comes along and tells Eric, “I will pay you to write this column,” Eric will say NO. “Snide Remarks” is meant to be free, available to all people at all times. Eric is thiiiiis close to being a socialist.

Maybe you were once a “Snide Remarks” subscriber. Maybe you never did subscribe, even though you love “Snide Remarks.” Maybe you are a friend of Eric’s and have been waiting all this time for Eric to give you a complimentary subscription. MAYBE YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT “SNIDE REMARKS” IS. Maybe you are a unicorn. What do we care?

The point is, you can now visit EricDSnider.com each Monday to read a new edition of “Snide Remarks.” Since it doesn’t cost money anymore, the only possible reason you could have for not reading it is that you just don’t like it. Which is totally cool with us.

Now, Eric is going to take a break this Monday, Aug. 28, because he has been writing for 129 weeks straight and wants a vacation. But that means there are 129 archived columns waiting to be perused, columns that were once bond and are now free. Plus there are the 375 columns from before that, some of which you may have missed or forgotten.

So go ahead and spend the next eight or nine hours browsing the “Snide Remarks” archives. And then come back next Monday, Sept. 4, to read a fresh, new column. It’s free! Just remember, you get what you pay for.

Sincerely,
The Laotian kids in Eric’s sweatshop

P.S. So that you don’t miss a column, there is a mailing list you can join that will send each new “Snide Remarks” to you the moment it is published. You can sign up (for free, duh) here.

P.P.S. Spread the word! Lots of people used to read “Snide Remarks,” and lots of them lost track of it over time. Help us get the word out about the new liberation of “Snide Remarks.”

P.P.P.S. The e-mail sent out to subscribers announcing the end of their subscriptions is here.

No Friday movie roundup this week, not because I forgot to do it (like I did a few weeks ago), but because I am swamped with other writing projects that require immediate completion. Nothing interesting, believe me, or even particularly profitable. Just necessary.

I have just enough time to plug “In the Dark,” a weekly e-mail of all the latest reviews, DVD releases and other film-related merriment. It is free and you should subscribe to it.

And now I must labor on dull, unprofitable writing projects that I should not have committed to in the first place. Excelsior!

About once a month, someone e-mails me to ask whether the old Garrens Comedy Troupe CDs are still available. Sadly, the answer has been no. One of them, “The Garrens Comedy Troupe Live!” (1996) was mass-produced and was even available through Deseret Book for a while, but no more. The other, “Songs of Love and BYU” (1999) was more of a homemade production, and there are no remaining copies for sale. A previous release, a cassette-only thing called “Songs Only a Mother Could Love” (1994), is even rarer, for obvious reasons.

But we have good news! My brother Jeff, who was the Garrens’ business manager for about five minutes before the group disbanded in 2001, recently found a cache of 20 copies of “The Garrens Comedy Troupe Live!” in a closet somewhere. For real, all this time we’ve been telling people there are no more copies, when in fact there were 20 copies hiding from us.

We’re selling them for $12 apiece. Once these 20 copies are gone, the CD is officially out of print and no longer available, so now’s your chance. If you were at BYU between 1993 and 1996, or know someone who was, you might especially want to grab a copy.

Details are on the merchandise page. Get ’em while they’re lukewarm!

Some books I’ve read recently and can recommend to you. The links in the titles take you to Amazon.com, where if you buy anything — even if it’s not the item you originally clicked on — I get a tiny kickback. So click on a link and do a lot of Amazon shopping, is my point.

“Fablehaven,” by Brandon Mull. With J.K. Rowling about to wrap up her Harry Potter series, the world needs a strong new children’s fantasy series, and I believe “Fablehaven” has every right to be it. Set on a Connecticut preserve for “whimsical creatures” (fairies and brownies, as well as less peaceful beasts), the first book in the series has two children, a brother and sister, visiting their grandparents, who are caretakers of this magical land. Naturally, there is trouble. Mull creates an exciting, imaginative new world, and writes with wit and intelligence. (For once the kids actually talk and act like KIDS.) It’s a few pages before the magic kicks in, but once it does, it’s a fantastic and thrilling read.

“The Brief History of the Dead,” by Kevin Brockmeier. The genius of a good book is in the intangibles, the deft turn of a phrase, the subtle but powerful command of the language. That’s what this intriguing, contemplative novel has going for it, along with a fantastic premise. The chapters alternate between two locations. One is the “city of the dead,” where everyone goes after they die to dwell for a time before finally moving on … to where, no one knows. (No one knows for sure what determines how long they stay here in limbo, either.) The other locale is Antarctica, where a woman is on a research expedition and has thus missed out on the virus that has wiped out most of the world’s population. It’s a sweet, sometimes comical book about life and death and important stuff like that.

“King Dork,” by Frank Portman. Tenth grader Tom Henderson is a misfit and an outcast, forever coming up with band names for his would-be rock group (starring him and his one friend) and trying to stay under the bullies’ radar. He finds his dead father’s copy of “Catcher in the Rye” in the basement, and some notes scribbled in it send him on a search for clues about his old man’s life. The novel is hilariously written from Tom’s point of view, with trenchant observations about high school, rock ‘n’ roll and life in general. One of my favorite funny books of recent months.

Bob Garfield of National Public Radio’s “On the Media” program interviewed me Thursday morning for this week’s edition of the show. It was a 20-minute interview, but (and not being a regular listener, I was unaware this would happen) it was edited down to about 7 minutes. They’re professionals over there at NPR, though, and didn’t edit my comments out of context to make me sound stupid — that is to say, if I sound stupid, it is because I actually sounded stupid.

You can find out when your local NPR affiliate airs “On the Media” by going here, or you can just go to the “On the Media” site and listen to the interview there at your leisure. (Here is a link directly to an MP3 of my segment.)

[EDIT: It’s too late to hear it on the radio now, of course. Go to the site to listen. They have also added a transcript, if you prefer reading over listening.]

The topics were my “I Was a Junket Whore” article, my subsequent blog about Tim Nasson’s shady journalism tactics, and journalism ethics in general. Bob was a friendly and well-prepared interviewer — again, they’re professionals over there at NPR — and I greatly enjoyed the experience.

(If Bob is reading this, though, he should know that he mispronounced “Willamette.” It’s Will-AM-ette, not WILL-am-ette. You can remember it because “Willamette” rhymes with “dammit.”)

If you’re wondering how the recording sounds so clear when it must have been a phone interview, the answer is IT WASN’T. They arranged for me to go to the local NPR affiliate, Oregon Public Radio, except they were booked up that day, so I went to another recording facility in SW Portland and they had a link-up and satellites were probably involved and it was very high-tech.

At last the day has arrived: Today “Snakes on a Plane” stops being “eagerly awaited” and starts being the only movie this summer that has been exactly what you expected it to be.

I’ve been onboard with the whole SoaP thing for a year, ever since I discovered there was a movie with that title. The title, as you know, says it all. When you inform someone that there’s a movie coming out called “Snakes on a Plane,” that person has one of two reactions. Either it’s a skeptical, disgusted “Really?,” or it’s an excited “Really?!!” The latter group is who I want to be friends with.

Or who I WANTED to be friends with, anyway. Before long, looking forward to SoaP got to be so hip it was unhip. It went mainstream. It lost its luster.

I am glad, then, that upon actually SEEING the film, my zeal for it is renewed. It’s a fun movie, and it’s exactly what you’d expect a movie called “Snakes on a Plane” to be. You have to admire that.

New Line did not screen the film for critics. Now, when a studio doesn’t screen a film in advance, that almost always means the movie is so bad that even the studio knows it’s bad. And considering how good studios are at deluding themselves, that’s saying something.

But New Line’s official reason for withholding SoaP was that since its pre-release popularity had been fan-driven, they wanted to let the fans — not the critics — be the first ones to see it.

Fair enough. But it demonstrates yet again that Hollywood has no idea how to deal with movie critics. The prevailing attitude among the studios is that critics don’t like horror movies. Hence, of the 20 movies so far this year that have been released without pre-screenings (or with only last-minute Thursday night screenings), 10 have been horror films.

The thing is, we DO like horror films — when they’re good. (We do have that stipulation.) The reason we keep bashing the horror flicks isn’t that we just don’t like the genre. It’s that the ones we’ve been seeing have been lousy.

A few months ago, in accordance with the “hide scary movies from critics” policy, the outstanding horror/comedy “Slither” was released cold. It flopped. Yet nearly all of the critics who eventually saw it loved it. So there’s a case where if they had screened it in advance, opening day would have been full of positive reviews encouraging people to see a movie that they apparently weren’t considering otherwise. Hiding it from us hurt the film’s box office, and it’s all because studio execs can’t distinguish between a good horror movie and a bad one.

The same applies to “Snakes on a Plane.” The New Line thinking holds that Movie Critics and People Who Are Looking Forward To SoaP are two separate, mutually exclusive groups. But in fact lots of my fellow critics and I were eager to see it, as giddy as anyone else over the absurdity of the title, the big, silly grins we would surely get from watching it.

Of course, as much as I try to insist that movie critics are regular movie fans, too, there are always going to be snotty critics serving as evidence to the contrary. But I think they’re in the minority. Among the couple dozen critics I know and interact with personally, I can only think of two or three who are the pretentious kind. Most of us are, you know, normal.

* * * *

I caught SoaP at a 10 p.m. showing last night with my pals Dawn Taylor and her husband Patrick. The theater was packed, almost entirely by people younger than ourselves. This was an enthusiastic crowd, to say the least. Whenever they felt too much time had elapsed without a snake appearing onscreen, they would hiss, as if to coax the snakes out of hiding. Everything Samuel L. Jackson did was greeted with roars of approval, and when he finally uttered his already-famous line — the one that’s only in the movie because the filmmakers went back and added it after Internet message boards practically demanded it — that line being “I have had it with these m*****f****** snakes on this m*****f****** plane!” — he got a standing ovation from some of the crowd.

In general, I do not like audience shenanigans, and in truth many of the snake-related things they were yelling grew tiresome after a few minutes. (Luckily, most of them realized that, too, and they stopped.) But I was delighted by one particular instance of audience participation. In the film, a stewardess tries to put two young passengers at ease by telling them a famous rapper is onboard. She says, “Do you know who’s on the plane?” At that moment about 75 percent of the audience yelled with one voice, “SNAKES!!” It was pretty awesome, actually.

* * * *

Apart from the business with the snakes and the plane, there are two wide releases today. One is “Material Girls,” starring not just Hilary Duff, and not just Haylie Duff, but Hilary AND Haylie Duff. OMG is right! Alas, it was not screened for us, though the trailer alone is enough to make me despair of ever knowing happiness again. A review will appear sometime next week.

The other new release is “Accepted,” a surprisingly funny teen comedy. The ads for it are silly, though: “From the studio that brought you ‘American Pie,'” they say. From the STUDIO?! From the writer, from the director, OK. I’ll even accept a “from the producers.” But the studio? Studios are vast, multinational conglomerations that release dozens upon dozens of movies, often with little or no creative input from the studio heads whatsoever. Observing that “Accepted” is from the studio that brought you “American Pie” is like saying tacos are from the country that brought you Pancho Villa. It’s true, but neither product has anything to do with the other one.

These reviews and more can be found in this week’s edition of “In the Dark,” a free and sassy e-zine that’s sent to your mailbox every Friday with reviews, DVD releases and other movie-related stuff. If you haven’t subscribed, you should, won’t you?

Ryan Ritchey from The Flux interviewed me Thursday for his weekly podcast. The subject: The junket whore article, of course, and Paramount’s reaction to it. It’s the Aug. 11 edition; look for it here.

In a recent “Snide Remarks” column entitled “I Was a Junket Whore,” I cited one instance of a fellow junketeer stretching the truth in his blog. From my column:

Let me jump forward in time a couple days to quote what one of the Web site writers posted on his site’s gossipy blog regarding this roundtable with [Oliver] Stone: “[I] just finished up lunch with the director — a plate of fruit and cheese, and crackers — none of which Stone touched, he just wanted his coffee — and learned that Stone has decided to release a director’s director’s cut of ‘Alexander.'” “Lunch with the director” makes it sound like he sat one-on-one with Stone and chatted over lunch, doesn’t it? And I’m sure that was the point: to make it sound like this guy had lunch with Oliver Stone, to impress you. When in fact this guy shared a table with a half-dozen other people, and the only one having lunch was Stone. (It’s true Stone didn’t actually eat anything; that part wasn’t a lie.)

I didn’t name the writer in question (nor any of the others on the junket) because I didn’t intend for the article to be a declaration of war on anyone. But I’m naming him now — Tim Nasson, of Wild About Movies — and I’m doing it because I have more to tell you about him. It’s more or less journalism at its very worst, and it deserves to be exposed.

While reading Nasson’s feature recounting his “World Trade Center” interviews, I discovered two alarming things:

1) He is one of the worst writers I’ve ever read. I mean truly, just a miserable grasp of the English language. Try to make sense of this tortured paragraph:

“World Trade Center” tells the story of the two PAPD (Port Authority Police Department) cops who were buried alive, when one of the towers collapsed on top of them, and who were dug out and rescued a day later — all while enduring a gun that went off was shooting at them, accidentally, from one of the other PAPD cop’s guns, also buried (dead) with them. (Yes, that really happened. When you see the movie, you’ll know what I am talking about.)

At least he offers hope that at some point in the future you will know what he’s talking about.

2) Not a single one of the quotes he attributes to the celebrities involved is an actual quote.

This is by far the more serious charge. What he has done is to paraphrase the people and put quotation marks around it. He doesn’t change the IDEA of what the people said; he just rewrites it in his own words.

Now, the top three rules of journalism, even entertainment journalism, are Don’t Plagiarize, Don’t Make Stuff Up and Don’t Put Quotation Marks Around Something Unless It’s the Person’s ACTUAL EXACT WORDS.

So how do I know he’s misquoting everyone? Because I was in the same interviews he was, and I had a tape recorder. (I thought he had one, too, but either my memory is mistaken or he chose not to use his recording.)

I wrote to Nasson to give him a chance to fix things. I thought maybe he had the tape and could refer to it now that he’d been called out on his lazy quoting methods. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, said I didn’t know what his background was, maybe it was an honest misunderstanding of journalism protocol, etc., etc. He responded with this:

Thanks for your email. I am have been attending junkets for fifteen years, and interviewed the entire [“World Trade Center”] cast on set, in NYC, twice, in addition to being in Seattle. The Seattle trip was one of three times I spoke to each of the cast about the movie. What I chose to write in my feature from whichever time I spoke to them, was up to me.

If I may pull a Nasson and paraphrase his e-mail, he was saying this: “The quotes are all accurate. They came from the OTHER times I interviewed everyone. Not in Seattle, with you, but other times. The times when you weren’t there.” (See also: Bart Simpson, “I won it in a truth-telling contest two towns over.”)

I thought: Maybe that’s true. Maybe he interviewed everyone in New York, too, and maybe everyone got asked the same questions they were asked in Seattle, and gave similar answers. And maybe he chose not to use ANY quotes from the Seattle interviews. Not a single one. (Any quote claiming to be from the Seattle interviews would be a lie, because nothing in the story matches what anyone said in Seattle.)

But while scanning Nasson’s feature again, I found this paragraph:

“A lot of people, most people,�? says Stone, sitting in a suite at Hotel 1000 in downtown Seattle, a hop skip and a jump from The Space Needle, one of the possible American landmarks targeted by terrorists on September 11, 2001, “think I am this left wing nutcase. And when they hear that I chose to direct this picture [“World Trade Center�?] all the bells and whistles start sounding. ‘What agenda is he going to bring to this picture?’ they ask. And what I say is ‘This is America. Every citizen, of which I am one, has the right to speak up, whenever he wants to. The fact is, in between my pictures, my political comments may be picked up and played out in the media. But my comments have nothing at all to do the way I direct any movie. I dare anyone to watch ‘JFK’ and find anything in it that would remotely paint that picture as an agenda picture. I took no sides. It just so happens that a lot of the stories I am attracted to, most, in fact, are based on true events and real people.�?

Did you catch it? Oliver Stone said the things in this paragraph while sitting “in a suite at Hotel 1000 in downtown Seattle.” In other words, during the same interview I was present for, and which I have a tape recording of.

Here is a breakdown of what Nasson has Stone saying and what Stone ACTUALLY said:

NASSON’S VERSION: “A lot of people, most people, think I am this left wing nutcase. And when they hear that I chose to direct this picture all the bells and whistles start sounding. ‘What agenda is he going to bring to this picture?’ they ask.

STONE’S ACTUAL STATEMENTS: Actually, Stone didn’t say any of that. In regard to his politics, he said: “I consider myself an independent, a radical independent if you want, or whatever you want to use. Centrist. I’m a conservative in some ways, I’m a liberal in others.” The stuff about “bells and whistles” and “agenda” — not in the interview. Pure fabrication.

NASSON’S VERSION: “It just so happens that a lot of the stories I am attracted to, most, in fact, are based on true events and real people.”

CLOSEST THING I COULD FIND IN THE ACTUAL INTERVIEW: “I’ve generally worked a lot with real subjects, and I work closely with them, sit in the same room with them and listen. It goes back and forth on the set.”

NASSON: “And what I say is ‘This is America. Every citizen, of which I am one, has the right to speak up, whenever he wants to.”

WHAT STONE REALLY SAID: “I consider myself John Q. Citizen. I just don’t consider myself a director, I consider myself to have the rights of a citizen. I have the right to speak out as you do.”

NASSON: “The fact is, in between my pictures, my political comments may be picked up and played out in the media. But my comments have nothing at all to do the way I direct any movie.”

ACTUAL QUOTE: “I think my problem is I probably have been outspoken politically in between movies, and they confuse that with the movies.”

NASSON: “I dare anyone to watch ‘JFK’ and find anything in it that would remotely paint that picture as an agenda picture. I took no sides.”

ACTUAL QUOTE: “If you look at ‘JFK’ and ‘Nixon,’ they defy type. ‘Nixon’ was attacked by the right wing before they saw it, but in fact it’s very empathetic to the character, the humanity of Nixon. ‘JFK’ is neither left nor right, it’s a question mark, it’s a radical question mark.”

Elsewhere in his article, Nasson asks everyone where they were on 9/11. He gives Stone’s response as: “I was in bed. My wife woke me up. I was in Los Angeles. It was about 9:00 AM. I was shell-shocked.”

In our roundtable interview, Stone actually gave this answer: “I was asleep in L.A. My wife woke me up. It was early, it was 5:30. My wife woke me up, put on the TV, and the rest you know.”

Now, maybe when Nasson interviewed Stone those other times, Stone gave a different answer and that’s the one Nasson quoted. And maybe Stone really did get the time wrong when he talked to Nasson the first time, saying it was 9:00 in L.A. when in fact it was more like 5:30.

At the end, Nasson “quotes” Stone as follows:

“‘Nixon’ was painful. ‘Heaven and Earth’ was painful. “Alexander” was the biggest disappointment for me. I had the attitude of ‘[expletive] it.’ I am doing the third version of “Alexander” for DVD, a 3 3/4 hour version. The Cecille B. DeMille version. I shot a million, two hundred thousand feet on ‘Alexander.’ But that was the most I have ever shot on a film. I recently heard of a director, of a one and a half hour comedy, that shot one million feet! I can’t waist film. I am going to put every inch of ‘Alexander’ to good use.”

This is obviously from the Seattle interview. The news about the “Alexander” DVD was new, and Stone’s discussion of how much film stock he uses was in response to a direct, specific question about it.

So here’s another breakdown of Nasson’s version vs. what Stone really said:

NASSON: “‘Nixon’ was painful. ‘Heaven and Earth’ was painful. ‘Alexander’ was the biggest disappointment for me.’

REAL QUOTE: “‘Nixon’ was painful, ‘Heaven and Earth’ was a tremendous setback for me, because that was a lot of work on that, a lot of energy. 1993. ‘Alexander’ was probably the biggest visible blotch, in America and England only. I have to say that it was top 20 abroad, which is significant.”

NASSON: “I had the attitude of ‘[expletive] it.’ I am doing the third version of “Alexander” for DVD, a 3 3/4 hour version. The Cecille B. DeMille version.”

REAL QUOTE: [answering why he didn’t release the director’s cut of “Alexander” in theaters] “I had the attitude of [expletive] it. I just, I don’t want to fight this war anymore. I’m going to put it out, because I did feel it was a structurally correct version. And I’m doing a third version, by the way, on DVD, not theatrical at all, so it’s not made for theatrical. I’m gonna do a Cecil B. DeMille, Oliver Stone, three hours 45-minute thing.”

NASSON: “I shot a million, two hundred thousand feet on ‘Alexander.’ But that was the most I have ever shot on a film. I recently heard of a director, of a one and a half hour comedy, that shot one million feet! I can’t waist film. I am going to put every inch of ‘Alexander’ to good use.”

REAL QUOTE: “The most I ever shot was a million two or three on ‘Alexander,’ and that’s a big story. But usually I try to keep it down. I mean, this movie [‘World Trade Center’] we shot with 300,000 feet, which is — I heard about one director recently, did a million feet on a domestic comedy or something. I mean, there ought to be a rigor to this thing. But I’m a film school student, so we had to struggle in those days to get our stock, and I never lost that sense of, you know, ‘A thousand feet is a thousand feet!’ I make my camera crew — I don’t shorthand, I say, ‘Make sure you roll it down to the very end, and tell me if you’re going to lose more than two, three hundred feet, or even a hundred feet, tell me, because I may do the take differently.’ I don’t want to waste — I just can’t waste film. It’s a habit.”

Notice the real quotes are actually more interesting than the made-up ones Nasson uses. That stuff about Stone not wanting to waste film, how it’s a habit from his film-school days — that’s fascinating to a film buff! It gives you some small insight into Stone’s personality and character, and it contradicts many people’s preconceived notions (i.e., that he’s a bombastic, extravagant filmmaker).

I don’t know why Nasson didn’t use the real quotes. Maybe his tape recorder malfunctioned and he had to go by his notes or memory. Maybe he didn’t have a recorder to begin with. When I wrote back to him with my refutation of his “the quotes were from different interviews” story, he never responded. I suggested he either take the story down or replace the fake quotes with real ones, figuring if he did one of those two things, I’d leave him alone. Since he didn’t, though, here it is, for everyone to see.

If he’s a junket whore, fine. I was once a junket whore, too, for a day. And we’ve all made errors in judgment before. But shoddy journalism — especially being unapologetic about it when confronted — makes us all look bad.

My pal Mike Russell, who visits KUFO’s Cort & Fatboy every Friday evening to review movies, had once again not seen one of the major releases and so once again called upon me to come lend a hand last night.

He reviewed “The Descent” while I handled “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.” The whole thing can be heard on Cort & Fatboy’s site. We appear just a couple minutes into the show, and a good time is had by all.

It’s common enough for films I saw at Sundance to open in regular theaters later, but usually only in limited release. Yet this weekend there are two from Sundance 2006, and both are opening wide.

They are “The Night Listener” and “The Descent,” both being advertised as suspense thrillers, though only “The Descent” actually is. “The Night Listener” is good but not great; “The Descent,” on the other hand, is fantastic. It’s truly one of the scariest films I’ve seen in years, about six women who go spelunking and encounter all manner of terror down below.

“The Descent” actually opened in England last year and is already on DVD over there. The American version is the same except for a slightly different ending — the British version was a little more bleak. Rest assured that both endings will be on the U.S. DVD when the time comes. Seeing the flick was one of the high points of a fairly lackluster Sundance lineup earlier this year.

Also opening today is “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby,” which is in the same spirit as “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy,” with the same star (Will Ferrell), same director (Adam McKay) and same writers (Ferrell and McKay). “Anchorman” made my top 10 list in 2004 and is easily one of my favorite comedies of all time. “Talladega Nights” doesn’t quite reach those heights, but it’s certainly a worthy follow-up in the Ferrell/McKay canon. And it’s obvious the DVD will be full of deleted scenes, just like “Anchorman” was.

Finally, there’s “Barnyard,” the third animated flick in three weeks, which is a colossal mistake. We saw it last weekend when “The Ant Bully” failed to make a dent against “Monster House,” and we’ll see it again this weekend, when “Barnyard” fails to make a dent against either of them. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

All this and more is in this week’s edition of “In the Dark,” which is free and which you should totally subscribe to. (We had problems with our Web host this week that prevented the e-mail from going out in a timely manner, so if you’re already an “In the Dark” subscriber and want to see today’s issue, it’s on the “In the Dark” sign-up page.)

A few concerned readers wondered whether my column “I Was a Junket Whore,” in which I discussed the wasteful and elaborate means by which movie studios secure fluffy news coverage, would have any repercussions for me. I figured the worst that could happen is I wouldn’t get invited to any more publicity junkets (where you interview the cast and director), which is fine, because I wouldn’t want to go anyway.

But no! Paramount Pictures has gone a step further. They have barred me from all Paramount press screenings. And Allied Advertising, the Seattle branch of which handles Paramount screenings in my area, has decided (no doubt under pressure from Paramount) to ban me from screenings for the other studios it represents, too.

Now, it’s not as bad as it sounds. The studios affected are Paramount, Weinstein Co., Dimension and Miramax. The bigger ones — Warner Bros., Universal, 20th Century Fox, etc. — are handled by different P.R. agencies in Seattle and Portland, so they’re not involved. For the studios that are affected, it means that while in the past I’ve been able to go to advance screenings and run my reviews on opening day, now I may not be able to see the films until they open, meaning my reviews may be a day or two late. But again, it’s not that many movies that will actually be affected.

It’s amusing that Paramount’s response to my airing their dirty laundry is to ban me from their screenings. Has my reliability or professionalism as a film critic been called into question? No; they just don’t like that I made fun of their junket system, the inner workings of which are apparently some kind of secret. In my conversation with the Seattle publicist — who I like and who was just reporting what she’d been told — there was no mention that I had broken a specific rule or violated any contract. Paramount had never said, “Don’t write articles making fun of our junkets.” So banning me from screenings is entirely retributive: We’re mad at you, and this is how we’re going to punish you.

After “World Trade Center” (which was the focus of the junket I attended), Paramount’s next release is “Jackass: Number Two,” the further adventures of Johnny Knoxville and his friends stapling things to themselves while wearing jock straps. So you can see why Paramount would want people to take the studio seriously.

UPDATE: I had suspected this, but now I have it confirmed: Paramount wants me to remove the article from my site — but even if I do, I still won’t be invited to screenings. But they want me to take it down anyway. Why on earth would I remove the article if doing so would benefit me in no way whatsoever? That question seems to have evaded them. (I probably wouldn’t do it anyway, but if removing it would get me reinstated, I would at least think about it for a few minutes before saying no.)

I forgot to tell you that last week’s “Snide Remarks” column is available to be read by all mankind, not just subscribers. It’s called “I Was a Junket Whore,” and it’s an in-depth look at how studios waste money wining and dining nobodies like me in the hopes that we’ll write nice stories about their movies. The column can be found here. It even has photos.

I’ve caught only glimpses of Fox’s “So You Think You Can Dance? Really? You Call That Dancing?,” but a lack of intimacy with the show does not prevent me from commenting.

– Whenever the guys are doing their freestyle dancing, they wear the same costumes: long, raggedy shorts and sleeveless shirts, barefoot. They look like the Lost Boys in “Hook.”

– “Modern dance” — the writhing around in semi-balletic poses — particularly when the dancers look like super-serious Lost Boys — always makes me laugh. Always. I do not think this is the intended effect.

– The name “Jaymz” is such a trainwreck that I think if I ever met him, I would only want to slap him. However, I found some unexpected glee on his bio page on the show’s Web site. First, in his own words: “My girlfriend was diagnosed with a disease called ‘Endometriosis.'” The disease is capitalized and in quotation marks because evidently Jaymz thinks it is a title. “Endometriosis! The Musical,” perhaps. Second, his girlfriend’s name is Mekenna. I bet it’s pronounced the same as McKenna, but spelled differently because her parents thought it would be cute. Did you know that having a dumbly spelled name is one of the leading causes of “Endometriosis”? How does that make you feel, Mr. and Mrs. Mekenna’s Parents?

– This isn’t really about the dancing show, but at the same time on a different channel there’s “America’s Got Talent,” which I think should also end with a question mark (“America’s Got Talent? Really? And This Is It?”). One of the judges is David Hasselhoff. David Hasselhoff judging a talent show is like — it’s like — it’s like Paula Abdul judging a singing contest, OK? There, I said it.