ReelThoughts

ReelThoughts

Choose the month you would like to access:

February 4, 2006 (Saturday):

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

Yes, I expect some hate mail from this...

Orignally, I was going to write something about James Frey and his fact-or-fiction "memoir," A Million Little Pieces. However, not having read the book, I realized I didn't have much of intelligence to add to the conversation. In order to write about the subject, I would have to read the book, and I don't have a burning desire to do so (regardless of how much of it really happened). But there is one related subject I can pontificate about: does truth matter?

In news, unlike politics (the subject matter of much news), it apparently does. Witness what happened to journalists Stephen Glass (The New Republic) and Jason Blair (The New York Times) when their fabrications were uncovered. Granted, there was no public outcry, but they lost their jobs. And the repercussions were far-ranging when CBS News aired uncorroborated and perhaps untrue stories about President Bush's National Guard record. In the end, that debacle cost anchor Dan Rather his job. Rather did not knowingly lie, but he improperly and ineffectually fact-checked the story because he wanted it to be true. In effect, that amounts to the same thing.

That brings us to the movies. On one side, there are the documentaries: fact-based explorations of one subject or another. On the other side, there's everything else (a category dominated by, but not exclusive to, narrative features). It's easy to explain the exaggerations, omissions, and additions of "based on true story" fictional films - their primary reponsibility is not to history or the truth, but to the entertainment and/or enrichment of their audience. As I have often said, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. And that's fine as long as it's understood that what we're viewing is a fictionalized interpretation of real events.

Documentaries, on the other hand, must be truthful and fact-based. That doesn't mean they cannot have an opinion or point-of-view, but they cannot lie or distort the facts to promote that perspective. Like news pieces or articles, documentaries need to be rigorously fact-checked to ensure that they are not knowingly or unknowingly providing false or misleading information. And that brings us to Michael Moore.

Moore is guilty in the cinematic realm of being as untruthful as Frey is in the literary realm. In all of his films, but most especially Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore wilfully and knowingly violates the tenets of documentaries, distorting the facts and employing staged events. This wouldn't be a problem if Moore's works were presented as propaganda or op-ed pieces, but they are universally accepted as documentaries. (Bowling for Columbine won an Oscar in the documentary category.)

Moore is a skilfull and persuasive propagandist. Watching Fahrenheit 9/11, it's easy to assume we're being given factual information. It takes research above and beyond the movie to uncover the tricks and omissions employed by Moore to bend events to reflect the reality he wants them to show. Dan Rather's reputation was shredded because he reported something he believed to be true. Moore, on the other hand, puts things on screen he knows to be untrue. Which is worse?

I would like to hear Moore's opinion of Frey's transgression, because they share the same sin. The difference appears to be one of power. Moore, despite his pretense of being a "little man," wields a tremendous amount of clout. The same cannot be said of Frey. His deer-in-the-headlights appearance on Oprah's show exposed him as ineffecutal and inarticulate. So one is castigated on national television while the other continues to operate freely. This proves a point we have known for a long time: only lie if you have the voice to drown out those who try to point out the truth. Few people are louder than Moore.

I would never discourage anyone to discount Moore's films outright. Indeed, I highly recommended Bowling for Columbine (despite the Charlton Heston bushwhack). Moore makes good points and challenges people to think. But he doesn't play fair, and those who view the movies need to watch them with a healthy degree of skepticism. Even back in the time of Roger and Me, Moore was not a documentarian. Many of the events depicted on screen in that picture were either staged or re-created. From the beginning, he has been in the business of propaganda. That's the thing to remember when you put one of his movies in the DVD player or sit down to a future theatrical screening of Sicko.

February 13, 2006 (Monday):

Let's Talk about the Weather

After what happened after my previous column (the one about Michael Moore), I decided to write about something nice and safe... like the weather. Unfortunately, after this weekend, there's nothing nice or safe about the weather. Normally, I like snow storms. It's probably a leftover from when I was a kid and derived the usual pleasure from hearing those three magical words: "School is canceled." Sunday, however, there were two elements that conspired to curb my enthusiasm. A huge tree toppled in my backyard. (The good news: it didn't hit anything. The bad news: it will cost in excess of $1000 to remove.) Then, when it came time to shovel, I discovered that the snow wasn't light and fluffy. It was wet and heavy. My snowblower couldn't handle it. So that meant a lot of shoveling. Four hours of shoveling. By the time I came inside, I was so sore that the thought of doing anything other than collapsing on the couch and mindlessly watching the Olympics was beyond my capacity.

So much for the weather. But it calls to mind a popular cliche: Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

The Michael Moore ReelThought sparked an e-mail storm the likes of which I have never before seen. By my calculations, ReelThoughts has about 3000 regular readers. Fully 1/5 of them sent responses to "The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth." I said I expected hate mail, but nothing prepared me for the nastiness of some of the missives that arrived in my electronic mailbox.

The majority of those e-mails were from devoted Michael Moore supporters - those who believe that a word said against the man is tantamount to blasphemy. Many of these electronic bombs didn't just sound passionate (which would be understandable); they sounded disturbed. It's the kind of thing one might expect from an article advocating pedophilia or arguing the merits of the KKK. One person said I was a "right-wing nazi republican hack with my nose so far up George Bush's ass that [I] can't see daylight." Another compared me to Leni Riefenstahl (with Bush playing the role of Hitler). The rationale went something like this: my writings are as much pro-Bush propaganda (see, I spelled it right this time) as Riefenstahl's films were pro-Hitler propaganda. This is perhaps the most outlandish thing anyone has sent me in a non-spam e-mail.

To be fair, there were a number of e-mails from people voicing their agreement. A significant percentage were from self-professed liberals who believe that Moore is hurting, not helping, their political cause. "Mainstream voters think he's the voice of the left and that scares them off," wrote one woman. Another called Moore a "slick con man" who cares more about himself than the people he "supposedly champions." (For what it's worth, I think Moore is sincere. But I also think his ego has gotten so big that it goads him into doing things that hurt, rather than help, his cause.)

I went nine days without a new ReelThought because I was trying to respond to as many e-mails as possible. It was exhausting. At first, the only ones I ingored were those that called me a "dickwad" or something similar. Eventually, however, I had to resort to curt replies or none at all. If you wrote and didn't get a response, my apologies. But rest assured that I read what you wrote. I read what everyone wrote.

For my next non-controversial post, I will explain why I think President Bush is the fourth worst president of the last 100 years.

Just kidding. (I'll leave it to you to decide what I'm kidding about.)

Actually, I'm now going to move on to a three-part series about nudity and the Oscars.

On an unrelated note, don't expect to see a review of Date Movie. When I saw it was rated PG-13, I got a bad feeling. (How can you lampoon R-rated movies like American Pie with something that's PG-13?) But when I noticed there was no press screening, I decided to give it a pass. This does not mean it's a bad movie. I haven't seen it, so I can't make such a judgment. What I am saying is that I have no desire to see it, and don't plan to.

Enough ramblings for today. Time to get back to reading that hate mail...

February 17, 2006 (Friday):

No Longer the Largest Non-Commercial Movie Review Site on the Net

The naked Oscar nominees will have to wait a day or two, but I will get to them.

First, however, it's necessary to inform everyone that I have decided to go commercial - sort of. No banner ads or pop-ups; just a couple of text links. But they are paid for, so the "non commercial" designation has to go. The contract should be signed this weeked with the links prominently displayed on Monday. Never fear - clicking on the links will not send you to Big Al's Adult Toy Emporium. The sites are reputible - IGN FilmForce and Rotten Tomatoes. Since some of you probably arrived at ReelViews via Rotten Tomatoes, there's a certain symmetry to this.

Of course, this opens the door to other ads being "permitted," but I don't plan to run out and solicit - at least not right away. If it gets to the point where I need income from ReelViews to be able to continue reviewing, then there will be more ads (but never so many that they damage the usefulness of the site). The IGN deal is one I can live with, and the links go to quality sites. If you have never visited Rotten Tomatoes, don't even wait for the link - go there now (www.rottentomatoes.com).

Not Screened for Critics

The number of films being dumped into theaters without advance screenings is growing at an alarming rate. Thus far this year, the list includes Grandma's Boy, Hostel, Underworld: Evolution, and When a Stranger Calls. I made the mistake of seeing all of those, and not really enjoying any of them. (Bloodrayne was also not screened, but I skipped that one.) So I have made a resolution of sorts: unless it's something I really want to see, I will no longer subject myself to movies without advance screenings. And there are a lot on the way.

This weekend, Date Movie is being regurgitated into theaters. Next weekend, there's Madea's Family Reunion and Doogal. Rumor has it that there may not be screenings for Ultraviolet, either. (May see that one anyway.) By missing many of these films, I might be skipping something I would enjoy. I acknowledge that to be a possibility. But it's not a likelihood. And it will give me time to stockpile a few more DVD reviews that I will need to have in reserve when I re-open Video Views.

The fact is that I can't review every new movie. There's not enough time. So skipping these potentially marginal candidates represents a good first level of filtering. (The second level involves missing films that open in undesirable locations.)

Now, on to the naked ladies. I promise.

February 23, 2006 (Thursday):

Raise the Orange Lantern???

I know, I have promised something about naked Oscar winners, but I instead have delivered a DVD rant... Please be patient. Or take a cold shower. Or both.

I started buying DVDs in 1997. Over nine years, my collection has grown from a few dozen to north of 1000. Most of those are purchased with my own hard-earned dollars; less than 100 are freebies. One by one, I have seen my favorites arrive in DVD format, and one-by-one I have discarded faded VHS copies and overweight (overpriced) laserdiscs. But there remain some glaring omissions. One was removed late last year when the 1933 version of King Kong made its small disc debut. (Was it worth the wait? Considering the quality of the transfer and the supplementary material - yes.)

The DVD I would most like to own that is currently not available is Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet. I have the movie on laserdisc, but my laserdisc player has grown erratic from lack of use. According to industry sources, a special edition of the film is in the works as I write this, due to hit shelves before the end of the year. I would willingly settle for a movie-only version, but the multi-disc set is apparently going to have a number of special features.

Another movie I have been waiting for is Raise the Red Lantern. A few weeks ago, while perusing "soon to be released" lists, I discovered that the title was about to become available, so I ordered it. Then I received a warning e-mail earlier this week indicating that the quality of the transfer was not good. After slipping the disc in a player yesterday, I have to write that "not good" is an understatement. This is one of the worst transfers I have seen.

The Raise the Red Lantern DVD is a crappy money-grab. Much as I love the movie, I can't advise anyone to buy the DVD. It appears that someone took a second-generation VHS copy and used it for the transfer. The print looks horrible, the colors are smeared and washed out. (The red lantern looks like a jack-o-lantern.) And, to add insult to injury, the 2.35:1 picture is not anamorphically enhanced. (That was acceptable in 1997; it's practically unheard of in 2006.) Okay, I can play with the controls on my TV to get an undistorted version of the picture to appear, but then I lose the subtitles. So I have to watch it letter-boxed and window-boxed to see everything.

The chief source of disappointment with this DVD is that it means we probably won't be seeing a quality copy any time soon. This is what happens when people who don't care about movies get into the DVD production business. The disc isn't outrageously expensive but, even at $14 (discounted), it's $14 too much. Raise the Red Lantern is a beautiful film; it's too bad anyone having the misfortune to watch this DVD won't share that opinion. They'll think it's the work of a second-rate hack using a decade-old camcorder.

The company perpetrating this atrocity is Razor Digital Entertainment, and I'll be giving their future releases the kind of wide berth I should have given Raise the Red Lantern. (Thanks, by the way, to the e-mailer who alerted me to this situation. At least I was forewarned.)

In other DVD news, North American Doctor Who fans can finally legally see the first season of the new program. The Region 1 DVD set is currently available in Canada, and can be ordered from any Canadian DVD distributor. (Amazon.ca is offering he usual discount.) The U.S. DVD date was postponed to July to allow the series to have a first run on the Science Fiction Channel (where it starts March 17), but the content and price of the Canadian DVDs are identical to what will eventually be available in the United States, so there's no practical reason for a fan not to order it now.

February 25, 2006 (Saturday):

Taking It All Off (Part One)

While regarding the cover of a certain magazine depicting revealing images of Kiera Knightley and Scarlett Johanssen, several random thoughts came to mind. One was to wonder how many Oscar nominated actresses have done nude scenes during their careers. The more I considered this, the more intrigued I became about looking into the statistics. Was there a difference in the percentages between Lead Actresses and Supporting Actresses? Was such nudity more prevalent in the '80s, '90s, and/or '00s? Ideally, I would have liked to compare the nudity by award-winners to the nudity of the female acting community at large, but I don't have the time to analyze the filmographies of a representative population. (If someone else would care to do this, I'll publish the findings.)

This will be a three-part series that may be too dry for some and too salacious for others. The first part sets the parameters. The second part presents the results. And the third part provides some observations. If I get enough sufficently interesting e-mail responses, I'll print them in a future installment.

The first thing I had to decide when embarking upon this study is with which year I wanted to begin. The Hays Code prevented nudity in American movies for much of the 20th century. It wasn't until the late 1960s and 1970s and the advent of the current MPAA ratings system that screen nudity became mainstream. For my purposes, I wanted to start at a time when nakedness was commonplace. The choice of 1980 is arbitrary, but seems as good a place as any to start.

Having established a starting point, the next issue was to define "screen nudity." It may seem like a no-brainer, but there are gray areas. Is it nudity if a woman displays her breasts with her nipples discreetly covered? (Scarlett Johansson in A Love Song for Bobby Long) What about when a nipple is accidentally revealed, and can only be seen when the film is stepped through frame-by-frame? (Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman.) Or when a blurred nipple can be see through frosted glass? (Winona Ryder in Autumn in New York) My criteria for screen nudity is that buns, nipples, and/or the pubic region must be visible for more than a few frames, and the exposure has to be intentional, not accidental. That means the three examples indicated above don't count.

The study reflects three measurements. The first is "naked nominations." Since 1980, there have been 135 nominees in both the Lead and Supporting Actress categories. This indicates how many of those nominations featured an actress who has done screen nudity at some time during her career. The second is "naked nominees." This eliminates duplicates. While an actress nominated five times would count five times for "naked nominations," she would count only once for "naked nominees." Finally, there are "naked winners" - how many Oscar winners over the past 27 years have done screen nudity. (There are two duplicates in the Lead Actress field - Sally Field and Jodie Foster - and one in the Supporting Actress field - Dianne Wiest. Each is counted once.)

I can't claim that the results are 100% accurate. With some actresses (mostly older ones who appeared in European films), it can be difficult to ascertain whether they appeared in nude scenes. So assume an error factor of about plus/minus 4%.

Finally, what about Lead Actors and Supporting Actors? The fact is, it's far more rare for actors to do nude scenes. Plus, since I'm a guy, it's less interesting for me to research male nudity than the female kind. If any of my female (or gay) readers would like to embark upon this study, I'll put up the results. Now, on to the percentages. (If you are hoping for screen caps, you're going to be sorely disappointed.)

February 26, 2006 (Sunday):

Taking It All Off (Part Two)

There are two ways to look at all the numbers I'm about to throw out: "Just the fact, ma'am" or "There are three kinds of untruths: lies, damn lies, and statistics."

It's said there's no time like the present, so let's start there, with the last three years (2004, 2005, and 2006).

(Note: nude credits are examples, and not meant to be comprehensive listings.)

In 2004, on the Lead Actress side, nude nominees were four out of five, with the understandable exception being Keisha Castle-Hughes. The others: Charlize Theron (winner; nudity in The Devil's Advocate, Monster), Diane Keaton (nudity in Something's Gotta Give), Samantha Morton (nudity in Under the Skin, In America), and Naomi Watts (nudity in Mulholland Drive, 21 Grams).

Turning to the Supporting Actress side, three out of five were nude nominees: Patricia Clarkson (not a lot, but enough to qualify between Wendigo and Pieces of April), Marcia Gay Harden (nudity in Happy New Year), and Holly Hunter (nudity in The Piano, Thirteen). Non-nude nominees: Renee Zellweger (winner) and Shohreh Aghdashloo.

In 2005, nude Lead Actresses were three out of five with an asterisk. The one with no nude credits is Catalina Sandino Moreno, who at this point had only made one movie. Then there's Imelda Staunton. I couldn't find any evidence that she has done a nude scene, but I suspect that, over her long career, she may have. (Most British actresses have.) However, until I get proof of a title, I'll leave her in the non-nude category. The naked ones are: Hilary Swank (winner; nudity in Boys Don't Cry), Annette Bening (nudity in The Grifters), and Kate Winslet (nudity in Jude).

For 2005 Supporting Actresses, it was a slim year, with only Laura Linney (nudity in Kinsey) and Virginia Madsen (nudity in The Hot Spot) having nude credits. Thus far, Cate Blanchett (winner), Natalie Portman, and Sophie Okonedo have kept their clothing on. All are young enough that there's still hope. :)

This year, things are looking better, with a 10-for-10 sweep across both categories. For Lead Actresses: Reese Witherspoon (nudity in Twilight), Kiera Knightley (nudity in The Jacket), Charlize Theron (nudity in The Devil's Advocate), Felicity Huffman (nudity in Transamerica), and Judi Dench (nudity in 1978's Langrishe Go Down). For Supporting Actresses: Rachel Weisz (nudity in Stealing Beauty, The Constant Gardener), Michelle Williams (nudity in Brokeback Moutain), Catherine Keener (nudity in Living in Oblivion), Amy Adams (nudity in Psycho Beach Party), and Frances McDormand (nudity in Laurel Canyon).

So, over the last three years, here are the totals. In the Lead Actress category, 12 out of 15 nominees have done nudity during their careers (80%). All three winners have done career nudity. (Since 2006 was a sweep, it doesn't matter who the winner is.) But only 5 out of 15 (33%) did a nude scene as part of the nominated performance. In the Supporting actress category, 10 out of 15 nominees have done career nudity (67%). One of three winners has done career nudity (33%). And 5 out of 15 (33%) did a nude scene as part of the nominated performance.

Now, let's expand things and look at the 1990s and 2000s as a whole. I'm not going to give a year-by-year breakdown. If you're interested in a specific nominee, feel free to ask by e-mail. I have everything recorded; I'm just not going to regurgitate it here.

For Lead Actresses from 1990 through 2006, there were 67 out of 85 naked nominations (79%); 47 out of 64 naked nominees (73%); and 16/17 naked winners (94%). The only Oscar winning actress in this period to have never done an (intentional) nude scene is Julia Roberts. As indicated yesterday, I don't consider her obscure Pretty Woman nip-slip to be valid. For Supporting Actresses from 1990 through 2006, were 57 out of 85 naked nominations (67%); 48 out of 72 naked nominees (67%); and 9 out of 17 naked winners (53%).

Here are the results for the entire 27-year period from 1980 through 2006. For Lead Actresses, there were 109 out of 135 naked nominations (81%); 62 out of 85 naked nominees (73%); and 21 out of 25 naked winners (80%). The non-nude winners were: Katharine Hepburn (1982), Geraldine Page (1986), Cher (1988), and the aforementioned Julia Roberts (2001). Only 27 out of 135 (20%) featured a nominated actress performing a nude scene in that movie. For Supporting Actresses, there were 84 out of 135 naked nominations (62%); 69 out of 115 naked nominess (60%); and 13 out of 26 naked winners (50%). Only 14 out of 135 (10%) featured a nominated actress performing a nude scene in that movie.

A few curiosities... 2006 is only the second time there was a 10-for-10 sweep. The other time was 2000: Leads Hilary Swank, Annette Bening, Julianne Moore (nudity in Short Cuts), Meryl Streep (nudity in Silkwood), Janet McTeer (nudity in The Intended), and Supports Angelina Jolie (nudity in Gia), Catherine Keener, Chloe Sevigny (nudity in Boys Don't Cry), Toni Collette (nudity in Lilian's Story), Samantha Morton.

There have been three 5-for-5 Supporting sweeps (2000, 2001, and 2006) and ten 5-for-5 Lead sweeps (1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2006). In the Supporting category, there was one 0-for-5 shutout. This was in 1988: Olympia Dukakis (winner), Anne Archer, Norma Aleandro, Anne Ramsey, Ann Southern. There has not been a 0-for-5 shutout in the Leading category. The "low water mark" came in 1986, when only 2 of the 5 nominees had done nudity.

In part three, I'll offer some thoughts and observations, all of which should be taken with heaping spoonfuls of salt.

February 27, 2006 (Monday):

Taking It All Off (Part Three)

So what does it all mean? Damned if I know. So here are few musings and guesses. Feel free to disagree. This is 100% opinion.

The roughly 80% for Lead Actresses seems like a high number. My guess is that it's higher than that of the actress population as a whole. So does that mean that talented, high-profile actresses take their clothing off more than their colleagues? I would argue that's probably the case. But it comes with the territory. The better an actress, the less likely it is that she'll have hang-ups about doing scenes that require disrobing. There are some notable exceptions, like Julia Roberts and Cate Blanchett, but on the whole, it seems to be that the middle-of-the-road (talentwise) actresses are the ones most skittish when it comes to doing naked scenes. (Obviously, those in the bottom tier can't be picky, and many end up appearing in exploitation flicks where nudity is a primary requirement to be cast.) Pick any ten actresses who have never done a nude scene and you're likely to find that most of them are (1) not near the top of their craft and (2) they're not Canadian or European. In terms of major film industries, only China and Bollywood lag behind the United States in terms of keeping things hidden. (Gong Li and Zhang Ziyi, arguably China's biggest female stars, have yet to bare anthing worth noting.)

What about the gap between Lead Actress nudity (about 80%) and Supporting Actress nudity (67%)? It's significant enough to be more than a statistical anomaly, and recurs frequently (although the gap has diminished greatly in recent years). I think two things contribute to it. Supporting actresses generally have less screen time than lead actresses. This reduces the likelihood that they're going to have the opportunity to get naked. Secondly, many supporting actress roles are those of mothers, grandmothers, and daughters - all outside the normal prime ages for nudity. For every Jessica Tandy (Camilla), Kathy Bates (About Schmidt), or Helen Mirren (pick a movie - any movie), there are dozens of less than "physically ideal" actresses who stay buttoned up. My guess is that the supporting actress percentages are pretty close to those of the general population.

One statistic that surprised me is the low percentage of actresses who are nude in their winning roles. I'm not sure what this means. I don't think the Academy is biased against nudity, but it may be that the more "prestigious" films don't feature many naked bodies. Often, when an actress wins an Oscar for a performance in which she disrobes, it's one of those "courageous" parts (Charlize Theron in Monster, Halle Berry in Monster's Ball, Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry, etc.) The only one who would qualify in 2006 is Felicity Huffman, but I don't think she'll win.

As to the question about whether nudity for Oscar-winners is increasing or decreasing, the numbers suggest it hasn't varied much over the past 27 years. There are indications it has been trending upwards in recent years, but it will take another three or four Oscar ceremonies to determine whether or not this is a "blip." I'll keep tracking things, and perhaps provide an annual update. It gives me something to do around Oscar time rather than write the usual boring column about who should win versus who will win.

A few final thoughts about screen nudity in general... Clearly, while there are some American actresses who have problems with nudity, either for moral reasons (Renee Zellweger) or because they're not comfortable with it (Julia Roberts), most serious actresses are willing to do what's best for the role. In England, Italy, and France, it's difficult to find an actress with more than six films on her resume who hasn't done a nude scene. There are a few in the U.K., but I went through a list of my 12 favorite French actresses, and discovered that all of them have done nude scenes. So if you want the certainty of being able to seeing your favorite female celebrity take it all off, choose someone who's French.

Comments, of course, are welcome. I have already gotten a few (including a confirmation that Imelda Staunton has done a nude scene.) I may follow up on this study in a week or so, after collecting all the e-mail. In the meantime, I have to grit my teeth and write my annual Oscar prediction column, so everyone can laugh at me if I make too many wrong calls.

February 28, 2006 (Tuesday):

Unfocused

This is another one of those entries in which I ramble. I'm not sure whether that's indicative of having too much or too little to write. Or whether I'm procrastinating with the Oscar picks. I can only delay for so long. Of course, if I wait until Monday morning, I'll be assured of 100% accuracy.

I fully plan to sleep through at least a portion of the Oscar telecast. One sad truth is that I almost always fall asleep while watching television. (This is usually not the case if I'm watching a movie, although I have been known to doze off during film festivals. Then again, so does everybody else, from time-to-time.) I can't get through an entire baseball game, and the Olympics are an invitation to slumber. The danger is the commercial break. That's usually when I shut my eyes - then open them two hours later.

Speaking of the Olympics, when is NBC going to get a clue? Prime time "recap" shows are a thing of the past. No one wants to watch sports of any kind unless it's live. Bite the bullet if it happens half-way 'round the world. Show the big events live at 7 am or 10 am or 1 pm, then provide a prime time recap on a cable network for the dwindling audience that likes that kind of thing. If people want to watch something at night, let them record it then view it later. Until NBC can figure out how to properly program the Olympics, the network is going to continue to bleed viewers and absorb criticism. The '08 summer games are going to be a challenge with prime time coverage ending as the next day's live events begin.

A new television program has entered my regular rotation, replacing Lost, which has fallen out of favor. I endured enough teasing during my school years that I don't need to relive the experience on those occasional Wednesday evenings when one of Lost's seemingly rare first run episodes airs. The new show I have been watching is on the National Geographic Channel (stop laughing). It's called Seconds from Disaster. It seems to be on just about every Tuesday night, with two airings (9 pm ET and midnight ET). Maybe it makes me ghoulish, but I enjoy the detailed chronologies and autopsies of well-publicized disasters. I especially enjoyed the programs detailing the crashes of TWA Flight 800 and the Concord. This week is Mount Saint Helen's. Next week is one of those weeks when it is inexplicably replaced by Megastructures, which means I'll be watching House instead.

Why am I seeing Aquamarine? I have been asked that question more than once since I put up this week's upcoming reviews. The answer is simple: there's a convenient screening. Also, my goal is to have as many weeks with no fewer than three reviews as is possible. That means seeing Aquamarine as well as Ultraviolet (no advance screenings for that one, so I have to see it when it opens - bad sign). Plus, how can I effectively review M. Night Shyamalan's upcoming mermaid tale if all I have to compare it to is Splash?

Finally, I have completed 2006 improvement #1 to the website. I am referring to the RSS feed that sprung up overnight with little fanfare. If you don't know what RSS is, you can safely ignore this. It won't impact your viewing of the site and if you're really curious, you can Google it. (I believe this is the first time I have ever used that verb - at least since I outgrew baby talk.) If you're "into" RSS, hopefully this will enhance your reading pleasure. Eventually, I'll probably split the feed into three pieces (one for new reviews, one for video reviews, one for ReelThoughts entries), but not at the moment. Now, on to revamping Video Views.

Oh, and the running 2006 list is now up. I snuck that one in, too.

Now on to March, the Oscars, and the return of yardwork.

Back To New Movies Page