I loved The Lives Of Others - saw it at a preview - and so did the audience. Very good!

That said, now that I've seen it, I'm looking forward to catching Ghostrider this weekend.

My ears are bleeding from another use of this new term: "Rom-com". WTF is up with that? Do people really talk this way now? I know it rhymes and everything, but that's not really a good reason to use it.

Please stop using this lame-ass term and just say romantic comedy or simply "movie" or "film" (or a "comedy" if the movie is funny). It's not cheeky or clever and it sure doesn't add a thing to the review except make the reviewer sound like a twit. (And I know Ms. Wagner and Ms. West, who used this awful term recently, are not twits.)

Thank you for listening.

"Rom-Com" is Variety-speak, to quote the Animaniacs. The Stranger's film editor seems to be trying to gain some industry cred.

What I don't get is giving attention to shit movies and completely ignoring important ones. Like someone can't tell from the god damn trailer what kind of movie this is. I suspect it's some kind of lukewarm payola scheme because The Stranger can't even review a bad movie very well.

I generally go with romantic comedy, but rom-com works better as a slightly pejorative adjective (as it was in a previous edit), and I needed to save words. Lindy West can use rom-com whenever she wants, because she flings it with such jaunty pseudo-poseur style. I strongly dislike other Varietyisms--pic, actioner, legit, Blighty, docu as opposed to doc, etc.--but rom-com has its uses.

Brian--first, I must point out that "payola" is itself Variety slang, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which dates the first usage in 1938. But more importantly, which shit movies and what important ones? Promise, no payola, but studios do manipulate which films weekly newspapers can review by scheduling press screenings after we go to press or not doing screenings at all. (Recent examples include BREACH, DADDY'S LITTLE GIRLS, NORBIT, and GHOST RIDER.)

Annie,

Thanks for responding.

>>Unimportant movies (note the revised nomenclature—my bad): Currently MUSIC AND LYRICS. And in general, I can't figure out why a real live 35mm film gets less coverage than a dvd shown in a bar (or restaurant that wants to be a movie theater).

A dvd of DO THE RIGHT THING is not a legit theatrical screening. Does it look or even feel the same when you watch it on video? The emotional impact of the film is most likely not diminished, but the movie-going experience as a whole is.

Now don't get me wrong, I think people should be able to see an important film in the next to least desirable way if they want (the least desirable way being edited for television). However, The Stranger should really differentiate 35mm projection from video in a case like this. You might as well be inviting people over to your living room with video. Where the fuck is Andy Spletzer when you need him?

>>Important movies: Not-so-currently EL TOPO and THE HOLY MOUNTAIN. The list could go on, but ignoring these two really got my goat.

My point is why give Jodorowsky's masterpiece THE HOLY MOUNTAIN a one sentence review, but give MUSIC AND LYRICS a few paragraphs that don't enlighten potential viewer beyond what they could see in the trailer??? It should be the other way around, no? It makes me think that The Stranger is uninterested in the romance of film.

I like to use rom-com because it totally rhymes and everything! WOOOOOOOO!!!!

I'm perhaps too interested in the romance of film (see my exchange with Noel Murray in the Feb 2 edition of This Weekend at the Movies), but since actual theaters are showing digital projections regularly now, it's impossible for us to accurately and comprehensively differentiate between the two. In the near future, I hope to get general guidelines as to digital versus 35/16 projection practices of various venues onto the web site. (Eg: You can generally assume that Central Cinema is going to be showing a DVD of DO THE RIGHT THING, not film. Nonetheless, if you've never seen the movie in any format, it might not be so bad to see it with a beer in hand and pizza delivered to your table, no?)

W/r/t EL TOPO & THE HOLY MOUNTAIN: I would have been very happy to review those films, but I'd never seen them before, and the Grand Illusion got us the screeners late. (The Tuesday before EL TOPO opened, which is the day we go to press.) Dave Segal did write about THE HOLY MOUNTAIN on the Slog, so all was not lost.

In general, given our limited resources, we have to give preference to wide releases that are going to be in the theaters for a long time. (This makes our web calendar search more useful.) And I think pop culture and Hollywood movies tell us a lot about our culture that we'd be fools to ignore. But I try very hard to review the limited-run programming at the Varsity, Northwest Film Forum, and the Grand Illusion as well. I think we're more or less successful at that, though, you're right, it would have been good to be able to cover EL TOPO and THE HOLY MOUNTAIN. Pester the good folks at the GI to get us screeners earlier.

Frankly, The Stranger's web and print calendars leave a lot to be desired. The information is practically hidden on the web site. In print, it's maddening because reviews and theaters are listed separately and no easy way to unite the two.

Regarding Jodorowsky, these films are far from obscure. Sure, distribution was spotty for the past 30-some years, but none of your film writers had seen them? Admittedly, I'd never seen either, but after some research it was painfully obvious I'd been missing out. Bless Dave Segal's heart.

I'm not too concerned about video productions getting video projections or theaters projecting films digitally—the industry is moving that way (a sad fact and should take my next point seriously). What ticks me off is films sourced from a DVD getting treated like they are not. Finding the format of a film at the GI or NWFF is as easy as looking at their respective calendars. It's like giving a concert preview for a band, saying they use live musicians, but showing up and getting a prerecorded DAT!

Annie, I think Brian is raising some very valid points and, frankly, you're not always making a ton of sense.

One thing you seem to be failing to grasp: a bar showing a DVD may be a good time (I'd agree with that), but it's an ILLEGAL screening. Trying reading the text on that blue screen with the FBI logo on every DVD you rent sometime.

Just because some legit venues are using digital projection to show films licensed from the filmmaker or distributer does NOT ipso facto mean that every bar and back room with a digital projector and showing "The Matrix" is a legitimate screening that should be afforded the equal critical and schedule gravity of a legal screening. List it? Fine. Starred review? You gotta be kidding me!

Do I have a warm spot in my heart for illegal backroom sreenings? Sure. Is it something I think the local press should treat as seriously as anything at any actual theater in town? Get real.

I'm stunned by this though: "...we have to give preference to wide releases that are going to be in the theaters for a long time. (This makes our web calendar search more useful.)"

I'm sorry, but that's just a nonsense argument! Your web calendars would be "more useful" PRECISELY for including something besides the long-runs! Your editorial philosophy on this point is completely baffling.

And I gotta say re: screeners for "El Topo" and "Holy Mountain": there's this place in town called Scarecrow Video. They rent DVDs. They've had both films for many years. You might try it sometime. They have others by that Jodorowsky fellow, too.

You're a film critic in a film-literate town: do your homework.