After what felt like an eternity-long wait (we feel your pain, Edward), we finally got to sink our teeth into the highly anticipated Twilight movie this weekend. So it's about time we have a spoilerific discussion of one of the biggest films of the fall.
I've seen the vamp flick twice so far -- once at a press screening and later during the midnight release -- and I'm surprised by what a difference the audience can make. During the first show, with a crowd mostly made up of journalists and a few lucky fans who nabbed spare seats, the mood was fairly sedate. Sure, there were a few woots and hand claps when Robert Pattison first appeared on screen, but that was about it. I left the theater pretty jazzed about what I had just seen. But after attending Thursday's midnight showing, where gaggles of girls giggled throughout the entire film -- frequently during parts that weren't intended to be funny -- I felt slightly less enthused. Perhaps I'm easily influenced, or perhaps the movie doesn't hold up to a second viewing, but after twirl No. 2 with Twilight, the movie seemed cheesier than I had remembered. That said, I do like the movie overall. But what about you? I'll start our rehash with a few of my specific likes and dislikes, after the jump.
Greetings from Texas, PopWatchers, where I have taken yet another vacation to attend a music festival, because I am a crazy person! Yes, I came home for this year's Austin City Limits fest, three days that appealed to me for a variety of reasons: 1) I love Austin, 2) I've never been to ACL, 3) I haven't seen Beck or the Foo Fighters yet this summer, 4) third headliner the Mars Volta scares the crap out of me, so I can just take a couple pictures that night and then go see Drive By Truckers at Emo's...
and 5), and most important, I have devised a genius way to cover the festival without having to lift a pen: I have asked the cast of Friday Night Lights to write about it for me! (That said, I will be attempting to Twitter from on site, but I am betting $5 that my editors tell me to stop doing it by 3pm Saturday. Follow our feed at Twitter.com/EWPopWatch.)
So watch this space starting Saturday morning, because Scott Porter, Adrianne Palicki, EWwy nominee Connie Britton, Jesse Plemons, Aimee Teegarden, and Gaius Charles have all agreed to participate in my little guest-blogging experiment, and are taking at least one band each. Thus far I know Scott's writing up N.E.R.D., Palicki wants Blues Traveler, and Connie has requested Beck -- but I would like to emphasize the experimental nature of this project, and I make no guarantees it's going to work. (Though how kickass is it gonna be when it does?!?) Meanwhile, I'll be taking pictures that we'll maybe slap into a gallery on Monday, and if you happen to be at ACL this weekend and feel like writing up a band or two yourself, go ahead and do it in the comments as we go along. Together, we can prevent Whitney from working on her days off! Do it for the children!
I can't be the only gal in town who harbors a...lack of like (?) for the be-muscled Matthew McConaughey. Don't get me wrong -- I like a well-toned set of pecs as much as the next person. But I've never been one for the male bimbo look, especially when (as the folks at Defamer reported) said male bimbo bares his, ahem, "peen" (to quote my esteemed colleague Michael Slezak), while playing the didgeridoo. (I remember that guy from the campus quad at college, and it's not something I need to see ever again, even under the guise of farce.) So, IMHO, even though my colleague Nicole Sperling makes a perfectly reasoned argument that the film tanked due to lack of interest, no distribution, and a dismal Metacritic score, my feeling is that, at least in Matthew McConaughey's* case, some jewels are best wrapped up and left under the tree.
Feel free to disagree, of course -- I'm guessing some of you will. But let me ask: Would you, or have you, ever seen a film just because your favorite actor reveals more than his or her prodigious acting talents?
As if being a 31-year-old Hills devotee wasn’t bad enough, last night I found myself in a chat room game with other Hills devotees (who were probably half my age and up past their bedtimes), competing for points based on my oh-so-witty comments about the show. Whaaa, you say? Yes, it’s true: Lauren, Heidi, and Whitney have not only invaded the television, fashion and music markets, they've moved into cyberspace, too.
Here’s how it works. Once on the backchannel site, you log in and wait for the next game to start. Not only can you play on Tuesday nights, but also during reruns (there’s probably a game going on right now, can you stand it?!). Once a game starts, you wait your turn to post your brilliant observations and sincerest comments. You know, something mind-bending like, "What’s up with Lauren’s hair?" Or, "Spencer really is the Devil." When people like your comments, they click on them. The more clicks your receive, the bigger your comment appears, and the more points you get. So if lots of people agree that Justin Bobby is looking fine in a particular scene, it will look like you screamed, JUSTIN BOBBY IS SO HOT...if someone actually thought that, not me, OK fine, me. But I digress. When it’s not your turn to comment, you click on other people’s comments that you like. If other people also like the comments you choose and click on them right after you, you also get points. It’s not brain surgery, people! Just a venting room for us pathetic dedicated Hills watchers.
Ok, so this sounds pretty stupid, and I admit when I first logged on I was quite embarrassed. But the more I played, the more I longed for my fellow gamers' approval. But alas, I did not fare so well (I blame the generational gap). After last night’s new episode, I only scored 338 points (the winner scored 958), and I came in 19 out of 34 in my particular chat room. Pretty disappointing. My most popular comment was about Audrina’s horse teeth (she’s pretty, but she really does have big chompers). Anyway, I can’t say that I will go back next week, but if you are home, alone, feeling sad that you are in your 30s and watching 20-somethings dribble on about their pathetic love lives and staring oh-so-deeply into space -- know you are not alone, that there’s a whole game dedicated to people just like us.
So what do you think, Hills fans: Will you try this game next Tuesday? Or should I get a life, never watch the Hills again, and pick up an age-appropriate hobby such as knitting?
Last weekend, ABC debuted At the Movies, the successor to At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper. The new show takes the basic concept that Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert pioneered 33 years ago -- two guys debate the week's film releases -- and tries to update it for a younger, hipper audience. And it doesn't really work.
First is the matter of the hosts themselves: Ben Lyons, the 26-year-old "film expert" from E! Entertainment, and Ben Mankiewicz, the 41-year-old host for Turner Classic Movies. Unlike Siskel and Ebert, neither of these men are newspaper film critics. While Siskel and Ebert honed their criticism skills by writing about movies at great length, Lyons and Mankiewicz are more comfortable in the realm of the sound bite. As a result, the dialogue between the new hosts sounds more like a series of scripted quips than a real conversation.
And then there's the show's hasty editing. The program moves at a bam-bam-bam pace that feels artificially forced and awkward. This is especially apparent during the "Critics Roundup" segment, in which three additional critics provide their opinions via satellite. The segment could be a venue for a dynamic five-person discussion, a la ESPN's Around the Horn. Instead, each guest critic has barely enough time to deliver a complete thought.
However, At the Movies' most baffling flaw might also be the easiest to fix: The show presents movie clips in a widescreen format, with bright orange bars on the top and bottom. Within the bars are animated shooting stars and other strange oscillating lines, and the effect is flat-out distracting. Instead of being able to focus on the clip, I couldn't stop staring at those bizarre psychedelic bars.
Devotees of Siskel & Ebert and Ebert & Roeper, what do you think of the new At the Movies? Do you miss the old hosts, or enjoy this format better?
That's what Blender thinks (h/t). Or at least that's what Blender is willing to say in order to stir up some controversy and sell their newest issue. 'Pac just topped the music mag's sarcasm-drenched list of "The 33 Most Overrated People, Places, Trends and Other Junk in Rock," beating out such worthy contenders as "God" (No. 16), "Getting Backstage" (No. 27) and "Sexin' All Night Long" (No. 33). Most of the entries are little conceptual jokes like those, making it even more obvious that they're just bidding for attention by bashing Tupac so prominently. Ha ha! But... well... do they have a point about 'Pac?
Look, his death was a real tragedy. He was a charismatic cultural figure who inspired (and continues to inspire) millions. And he definitely recorded a handful of classic songs. He was even a pretty solid actor! But I'd be lying if I said Tupac's lyrical efforts always impressed me — emphasis on "always." Blender's blurb here is actually a lot more thoughtful than that scare headline would suggest (links contain NSFW lyrics): "...while Tupac's musical highs were epic — the pro-feminist 'Keep Ya
Head Up,' the terrifying 'Hail Mary,' the boisterous 'California
Love' — that still leaves 15,837 other songs. He was a good rapper, not a
great one." Yep. I respect the guy's legacy, I really enjoy an album or so's worth out of his hugely voluminous catalog, but no one who recorded as much forgettable filler as 'Pac will ever be in my personal top 10 emcees.
Of course, "overrated" is a silly, subjective category. And saying Tupac gets more disproportionate praise than anyone or anything seems like a real stretch to me — especially when, like, Vampire effin' Weekend is still getting taken seriously. But whatever. I'm really much more offended by the editors' decision to put "the music you loved as a teenager" at No. 23 on their list. Screw you, Blender, the music I loved as a teenager is my jam! (Including a couple of Tupac songs.) But you tell me: Does Tupac's reputation deserve to be taken down a peg or two, or what?
Some of you are undoubtedly still recovering from Labor Day weekend festivities, but America’s Got Talent is back to save you from those midweek blues. Because what's more cheerful than watching 10 people compete for a top spot in the “showbiz capital of the world”? (And no, not New York, or L.A., or even Bollywood -- we’re talking Vegas. The stakes are that high, folks.) To quote Piers, “We’re not running a tea party" -- to which Jerry so wittily retorted, “Last time we had a tea party, you guys lost.” In case you forgot, this show is about America!
Joining the final 20 from last week, we had Paul Salos (who I want to adopt as my grandpa), the Wright Kids, Daniel Jens, Queen Emily, and the ZOOperstars!, who the judges tragically picked over Beyond Belief Dance Co. The first act this week were the Texas State Strutters, and oddly enough they were the second act to dance to "Boogie Wonderland" in as many weeks. I hope this becomes a tradition. Unfortunately, they were buzzed by all three judges. Overall, the judges seemed a little buzz-happy last night, with Michael Strelo-Smith getting buzzed twice as well.
Then there was Bruce Block. I can’t tell who would be more offended by this act, the midget or the equestrian community, but I feel like a lot of people are going to be pissed. It didn’t help that he performed the most obvious trick in the book: fake horse goes in the box, real horse comes out. (Watch the video below.) He didn’t even spin it around to prove there were no trap doors. But who needs trap doors when you have a PONY! In another shockingly predictable moment, drag queen Shequida sang an opera version of “I Will Survive,” because no one has ever heard a transvestite sing that song before.
Variety reports that some TV critics are upset that the CW has decided not to send out advance review copies of its new 90210 to reviewers before the show premieres on Sept. 2. My first thought upon hearing of this decision was, what took them so long?
As a critic, part of my job is to preview new shows for you, to describe them and provide some guidance about whether you’d be interested in watching. (Thus, to point to just one example, EW's annual, massively thorough Fall TV Preview.)
But the CW knows damn well it has just about the only show that’s creating real buzz this season, and it just makes good business-sense on their part to avoid any chance of buzzkill by not sending it out to critics, some of whom are inevitably going to give it a negative review, or — even more predictably — whine that it's not as good as the original Beverly Hills 90210. Variety notes that a piece in the St. Louis Post Dispatch has already appeared in the wake of the CW's review-copy ban, headlined, "How Much Does The New '90210' Suck?" That’s exactly the kind of old-media, preemptive negativity that the CW is trying to defuse.
Does it seem like I'm a traitor, standing on the side of the network against my colleagues and my own best interests as a reviewer? Not at all. In today's 24/7 media world, either I or my TV critic colleague Gillian Flynn will undoubtedly watch 90210’s premiere along with the rest of America, and file a review immediately for EW.com. That situation seems like a win-win to me: We watch along with you, we publish our reaction — positive, negative, or mixed — and you get to respond, because you've also been watching.
No one’s freedom to express an opinion has been squelched. We all know where we stand. If the CW doesn't want to send out advance copies, it still can't stifle opinion — and if anything, it's inviting you to make immediate comments even more critical of or positive about the show than I might be.
In short: Game on, CW. EW and EW's readers will be waiting to get a look at 90210. Then we, the viewers, will be the ones in control of the spin and the judgments, not the CW.
E! Online recently wondered whether Carrie Underwood's performance as the war widow in her video "Just a Dream" (watch it here) actually distracts from the moving song. I say yes.
Slezak says he likes it when singers at least try to act in their videos, and normally, I'd agree. But when you're going for this much emotion, you need to deliver (like LeAnn Rimes did in "Probably Wouldn't Be This Way" — you forget it's her). In short, there's a reason Juliette Lewis is playing crazy in "Come to My Window" and not Melissa Etheridge.
What's your position on music-video acting? And which artists are best — and worst — at it? (Arguments with links are strongly encouraged.)
Is this the right order? I haven't seen Step Brothers yet, but I find it hard to believe that anything could beat the four-part harmony of "Afternoon Delight" (embedded after the jump). Though maybe credit should go to Steve Carell for that one.
I'm not (well, at least I think I'm not), but I most certainly have a couple friends I would classify as clinical pop-culture bullies. But what does it mean to be inflicted by this malady, you ask? Amy's Theory of PCBs is expressed through two specific (though not necessarily mutually exclusive) forms:
1. The Manhandler The classic manhandler feels the need to proselytize their pop-culture favorites to anyone willing (or unwilling) to listen. This behavior is often accompanied by sudden and frequent urges to force friends to read, listen, or watch said favorites. Exhibit A is my friend "D." D has made me endure many an unwelcome pop-culture advance including repeated YouTube viewings of "D--- in a Box" and a barrage of Margaret Cho comedy CDs. The most egregious offense, however, has to be the dozen or so forced viewings of a Mitsubishi Eclipse commercial spoof (featuring a slow-mo wardrobe malfunction) from Chappelle's Show. (D used this clip as a hazing ritual for new visitors to his apartment, and as someone who spent many hours there, I often had to witness these unfortunate events.)
2. The Insulter People suffering from this complex tend to criticize or make fun of their friends' pop-culture preferences. "K" displays all the signs of a typical insulter, having recently left this uncomplimentary message on my Facebook wall regarding one of my favorite TV shows:
"Dude, 'My Life on the D-List' sucks. Sorry to break it to you."
Wow, way to brighten someone's day!
I like to think that PCBs mean well -- that they're just trying to keep me on the pop-culture straight-and-narrow. And I have actually discovered a few faves thanks to some incessant bullying (after the fifth viewing, "D--- in a Box" actually became funny to me). But for the most part, I just find this behavior annoying and sometimes hurtful. What say you, PopWatchers? Do any of you exhibit signs of PCB? Or have you been bullied into watching, listening, or reading something you really don't want to? Let's not suffer in silence any longer!
Ever get pissed at one of those "In order to love you, I have to let you go" endings? (See: The Bodyguard. There's no reason that Whitney Houston and Kevin Costner couldn't be together since he's no longer protecting her, and we've already suspended belief enough to see them together in the first place.) Or, maybe there's an ambiguous ending that's always annoyed you. (They start conversations, yes, but sometimes what we're saying is, "We've followed your vision for two hours, Mr./Ms. Director. Don't wimp out at the end. It's your story — make a choice.")
Well, now you can address those resolutions — or, at least whine about them to people who might second your frustrations — in the comments section below. "Endings" can mean the actual final moments of a movie, TV series, or book, or the sign-off of a particular storyline or character throughout. Two rules: (1) Please list the name of the show, movie, or book you're altering first, IN ALL CAPS, so spoiler-phobes can decide whether or not to read your entry. (I figured The Bodyguard was a safe enough example to picture since "I Will Always Love You," below, is kinda self-explanatory, and famous.) (2) Do not get mad at PopWatch if you can't stop yourself and read something you shouldn't.
In a society obsessed with inane reality shows (So You Think Your Ferret Can Dance!), hulu.com webcasts (ooh look, Just the Ten of Us on demand!) and other stupid human tricks, is reading books ever a bad thing? According to The New York Times, it can be — especially when it comes to romance. In last Sunday's Book Review, the paper of record ran an essay suggesting that clashing literary tastes could ruin a budding relationship. What if you dig Proust, and she loves Picoult (as in Jodi, the best-selling, if decidedly middlebrow, author of works like the current chart-topper Change of Heart)? Or your beloved lives for Jane Austen, while you prefer Dean Koontz? Some of the so-called deal breakers in the Times story include Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged ("grandiosely heartless ‘philosophy’") and Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections ("'Overrated!' 'Brilliant!' 'Overrated!' 'Brilliant!'"). But what about all the mass-market paperbacks out there? Does someone reading the Oprah-sanctioned The Secret tell you they're an earnest, soulful truth-seeker, or a flaky quick-fix sucker? What about Elizabeth Gilbert's ubiquitous Eat, Pray, Love? Or, conversely, the guy conspicuously carting around a battered copy of some Nabokov novel he's clearly never read past the tenth page? Is pretending to read classic literature more egregious than reading stuff you like, even if it's not considered "literary"?
Personally, I'm a pretty voracious if not always picky reader (subway commutes are like free library time!), though I also admit to be being Judgey McSnobberson when it comes to books with embossed lettering and/or anything featuring hot pink and kicky high heels on the cover. My boyfriend, an archeologist, only reads non-fiction, which initially kind of bummed me out. Then again, he doesn't call me out for not reading 200-page tomes about rock formations, so why should I bug him for not caring about the latest hotshot British novelist? Plus, we have plenty of other entertainment tastes in common, like '80s action movies when Bruce Willis actually had hair and Arnold Schwarzenegger was just a robot from the future; so on reading, we can agree to disagree.
What about you, readers? Is there any reading material that could lead you to ditch a blind date, or even a long-term love? Do you think a person's choice in books tells you something real and meaningful about who they are? Or maybe you and your muffin disagree completely on books, but you've managed to overcome your literary differences and live happily ever after? Tell us your stories!
In the April issue of Out magazine, Ms. Swinton is quoted as saying, "I'm loath to say anything good about going to boarding school, which
is one of the reasons why I'm not a believer in Harry Potter. Because
I believe it fetishizes boarding school for children." She was explaining why she would've turned down a role in HP. Most of you are probably thinking "whatever," whereas I feel compelled to "go there," much like The N, and have decided that despite her hangup, Tilda would make a great ambiguously evil boarding-school-marm type in a movie. I'm thinkin' a precise hybrid of Miss Hannigan from Annie and Miss Clavel from the old-school animated Madeline videos (pictured, inset). Yes? Yes!
By the way, can I propose a moratorium on referring to Tilda Swinton as "the milky actress"? Ewww.
Okay, here's your chance to be the critic -- and get some feedback from our own man about the movies, Owen Gleiberman, in the next issue of Entertainment Weekly. In his review of the Josh Hartnett horror vehicle30 Days of Night, Owen claims "the undead look like they're pining for a good long nap," and "the extended time period is vividly conveyed, since the movie itself feels about a month long." He then deals the film a final blow with a near-failing grade of D. But the movie was No. 1 at the box office this weekend with an estimated $16 million haul. So, what do you think? Was Owen on the money when he chopped the head off this "one-note" splatterfest?
"The Big Chill by way of Jerry Springer" is how Owen describes Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married?in his B- review. But he adds that writer-director-actor Tyler Perry has a "sensitivity to women" that's a tonic, and lauds the performance of costar Jill Scott. What did you think of the ensemble dramedy -- which is still raking in the box-office booty?
Weigh in on Owen's reviews right now -- and be sure to include your email address before you post your comments, which we may pick up in upcoming issues of EW.
After what felt like an eternity-long wait (we feel your pain, Edward), we finally got to sink our teeth into the highly anticipated Twilight movie this weekend. So it's about time we have a spoilerific discussion of one of the biggest films of the fall.
Tony Dow, who starred as Wally Cleaver on Leave It to Beaver, will have some of 
Greetings from Texas, PopWatchers, where I have taken yet another vacation to attend a music festival, because I am a crazy person! Yes, I came home for this year's 
I can't be the only gal in town who harbors a...lack of like (?) for the be-muscled Matthew McConaughey. Don't get me wrong -- I like a well-toned set of pecs as much as the next person. But I've never been one for the male bimbo look, especially when (as the folks at Defamer reported) said male bimbo bares his, ahem, "peen" (to quote my esteemed colleague Michael Slezak), while 
As if being a 31-year-old 
Last weekend, ABC debuted 
That's what Blender thinks (
We love 
I'm not (well, at least I think I'm not), but I most certainly have a couple friends I would classify as clinical pop-culture bullies. But what does it mean to be inflicted by this malady, you ask? Amy's Theory of PCBs is expressed through two specific (though not necessarily mutually exclusive) forms:
In a society obsessed with inane reality shows (So You Think Your Ferret Can Dance!), hulu.com webcasts (ooh look, Just the Ten of Us on demand!) and other stupid human tricks, is reading books ever a bad thing? According to The New York Times, it can be — especially when it comes to romance. In last Sunday's Book Review, the paper of record ran an essay suggesting that 
In the April issue of Out magazine, Ms. Swinton is quoted as saying, "I'm loath to say anything good about going to boarding school, which
is one of the reasons why I'm not a believer in Harry Potter. Because
I believe it fetishizes boarding school for children." She was explaining why she would've turned down a role in HP. Most of you are probably thinking "whatever," whereas I feel compelled to "go there," much like The N, and have decided that despite her hangup, Tilda would make a great ambiguously evil boarding-school-marm type in a movie. I'm thinkin' a precise hybrid of Miss Hannigan from Annie and Miss Clavel from the old-school animated Madeline videos (pictured, inset). Yes? Yes!
Okay, here's your chance to be the critic -- and get some feedback from our own man about the movies, Owen Gleiberman, in the next issue of Entertainment Weekly. 
