At the Movies With John Anderson

Wondering what to see at the movies this weekend? Join critic John Anderson for a discussion of cinema on Friday, Feb. 8 at 12:30 p.m. ET. He'll recommend what to hit, and tell you what's best to miss.

Anderson, who is writing reviews regularly for the Post during Stephen Hunter's book leave, is a member of the New York Film Critics Circle and the National Society of Film Critics. He has contributed to numerous publications, including Newsday, Variety, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.

Submit questions before or during the discussion.

____________________

John Anderson: Happy Friday everyone. It's really nice to be here -- I've never done this Web chat thing before, so please bear with my lack of fluency. Just want to say, it's nice of the Post to have me do it during Stephen Hunter's book break, although, given some of the movies I've been seeing, I think Hunter picked a good time to take time off.

_______________________

Knoxville, Tenn.: I don't know who you are. Are you the country singer? "Swingin'" was a terrible, terrible song.

John Anderson: Yes I am, and though I have many Grammys, I agree. Terrible song. I will be recording "Let the Eagle Soar" very soon, with the Tijuana Brass. Let me know what you think.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: Is anyone anywhere making comedies that are funny? I define "funny" as a movie where people laugh at jokes, as opposed to listening to the same sex jokes over and over or, on the other end, watching a children's cartoon movie (which ironically often contains the same sex jokes).

John Anderson: I think the kind of sex jokes you hear in most mall movies are largely infantile, because they presume the audience is going to be shocked into laughter. Who's schocked by anything anymore? Recently, "Charlie Wilson's War" had me laughing out loud. "In Bruges" as well.

By the way everybody, pleeez excuse all my typoes and mispelings....

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: About "The Hottie & The Nottie," I take this movie is not what it could have been in the send-up, inside-joke, social-critique department, but one dispatch from Sundance had the trailer deemed unlinkable, due to its offensiveness to the blogger, who happened to be female. How does a movie like this get to Sundance?

John Anderson: The estimable Ms. Hilton's appearance in Park City is an unfortunate symptom of the sundance festival's success. The film wasn't in the festival -- the "Hottie/Nottie" folks came, held an event, siphoned off Sundance cred and pulled a scam of sorts --just as so many hair products have done over the years, and continue to do. It's a parasitic situation, although I don't hear the festival complaining all that loudly about all the press they get from celebutante/jailbird sightings

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Hi John. Your reviews are undeniably entertaining, and it seems like our taste in movies intersects quite a bit. However, you come across as extremely contemptuous of the flicks that you don't like. Is this your intention, or is it circumstantial? In your recent review of "Fool's Gold," it seemed to me that most of the reasons you cited for disliking it had more to do with how the movie was made than what actually appeared on the screen. Which I can relate to, but... aren't you supposed to be reviewing the movie itself?

John Anderson: I'm not sure how you separate the two, or for that matter what exactly you mean. I thought I WAS critiqueing what was on screen: the structure of a film, for instance, is on screen, although it doesn't wear a bathing suit. As for being contemptuous, I guess I get irritated at movies that treat the audience as if it were a gaggle of idiots. "Fool's Gold" is a prime example.

Which raises a point: the job of the critic isn't to put a stamp of approval on something that may in fact be escapist fun -- I like a brainless movie as much as the next guy. But it would be irresponsible to say the same movie had any value as cinema. If that sounds highfalutin' well, critics are elitists, what can I say?

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Hey there!

In the good old days when I was a kid they had a thing called a sneak preview. This was when you paid for a ticket to see one movie (normally something that had been out for a while) and then could stay and see a movie that was due to come out next weekend for free. Sometimes the new movie came on first and then you could stay for the old one. As I look at the dearth of decent films this week and the abundance of them next week, I'm wondering if there's any chance of a sneak preview these days? If there is, how would I know about it? Fandango seems clueless.

John Anderson: I have to plead ignorance on this, although what I think you're asking for -- a free movie! -- seems antithetical to every law of God, man and Hollywood. I haven't heard of this happening in a long time, and not sure whether it's something they would advertise, or, for that matter, just spring on an audience that was, let's say, paying for babysitters. There are so many outlets for as-yet-unreleased movies to generate word of mouth -- I know, because I host one at UCLA -- that the studios wouldn't need to do it, really.

_______________________

Anonymous: "Juno" seems to get a lot of favorable buzz in the Oscar race as an outsider. It was not my favorite film of the year (a little too much of a Hey, We Are Making An Endearingly Quirky Film, and the music, that sounded like kids songs from the 60s, almost drove me out of the theater in the first few minutes), but it was different. I enjoyed "Michael Clayton" more, especially the acting (Tilda Swinton my favorite), but doubt it will win anything.

John Anderson: If "No Country" and "There Will be Blood" somehow cancel each other out (which is possible, I guess, given their particular appeal) "Juno" could be the pregnant Cinderella story of 2008. However, I, like you, found the first half hour excrutiatingly cute. It seemed to find a groove after that.

_______________________

Seattle, Wash.: So what do you think: is "I...drink...your...MILKSHAKE!" going to become the "Say 'ello to my leetle friend!" of the new millennium? A radio talk show host here in Seattle, Luke Burbank, has been playing that sound clip constantly ever since the movie came out.

John Anderson: You certainly heard it a lot during the Super Bowl.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: "In Bruges," wow, is this the movie to see this weekend? The reviews are great.

John Anderson: I loved it. It's smart, witty, different. It'll probably die an ignoble death....

_______________________

Arlington, Va: Does being a film critic require you be really good at the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon?

John Anderson: Who?

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: Who are you, and what are you doing here?

John Anderson: I'm filling in for Stephen Hunter, while he writes another best-seller. I review for Variety, write the occasional feature for the NYTimes and was/am a longtime critic for Newsday. What am I doing here? In L.A.?

_______________________

Anonymous: Thus far this year's crop of movie haven't been that great. I know that this is the time that studio release movies that may not do too well, but when does this end? I'm dying for a decent reason to head to the movie. BTW, any word on "Jumper" opening next week?

John Anderson: I saw the "Jumper" trailer, but don't ask me what the movie's about. Some trailers tell you too much, others leave you in the dark. As for good movies at this time of year, that's like looking for a decent tomato in, uh, February

_______________________

Northampton, Mass.: Dear Mr. Anderson,

You raise an interesting point in your review of "Over Her Dead Body" about the role that a willing suspension of disbelief plays in the success (or failure) of a romantic movie. In the course of doing so, however, I'm afraid you commit something of a howler. The "letters of transit" that propel the plot of "Casablanca" were not signed, as you state, by General De Gaulle. Indeed, as you say, it would have made no sense for the Nazis to have honored such letters. Rather, they were supposedly signed by "General Weygand" -- that is, General Maxime Weygand -- a high ranking member of the collaborationist Petain regime, who in 1941 held military authority over French Northwest Africa. I'm surprised that no one at the "Post" caught this gaffe.

Perhaps more to the point, the whole idea of "letters of transit" was a gimmick dreamed up by the "Casablanca" script writers, which in itself requires some credulity on the part of the audience. The idea that any pass or "letter of transit," once signed, "cannot be rescinded, cannot even be questioned," even if they are known to be stolen, is pretty dubious, but, as you say, the issue is moot once Bergman, Bogart, and the rest of this fine cast work their magic.

Yours truly,

Fred Pelka

John Anderson: Dear Mr. Pelka: Having watched "Casablanca" at least 1,417,568 times, I was shocked -- shocked!-- at your message. So I went back and wacthed it again ("Casablanca" being in my DVD player at all times, just in case of emergencies). I listened. Peter Lorre says "Letters of transit signed by General De Gaulle... cannot be rescinded, not even questioned." Granted, Lorre's got a Hungarian accent, but I can't for the life of me hear anything else. Historically, I'm sure you're correct about who would have signed fictitious, unrescindable letters of transit, but I couldn't hear hear "Weygand" as much as I tried.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: So, does it turn out that Paris Hilton is more than just a photogenic personality and she really can act in "The Hottie and the Nottie," or is the reality that she should leave anything requiring talent to her cute dog?

John Anderson: As they used to say about bad actors, "She's good to her mother." Paris is good to her dog.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Are you the same John Anderson who ran for President in 1980? Love the white hair!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Anderson

John Anderson: Yes! Did you vote for me?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I really liked "Atonement," but it seemed like of the two twenty-somethings, McAvoy is a real actor and Knightley is a stick.

John Anderson: "Atonement" is one of those movies that seems custom-made for a Best Picture Oscar, doesn't it? While i find Keira Knightley distractingly beautiful, I agree. McAvoy I think I would prefer as a villain.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Yes, you are in L.A., which is why I chuckled at a reference to Dulles in your amusing review of "Fool's Gold." You don't know from Dulles right? I assume you wrote it LAX.

John Anderson: Not at all. I wrote Dulles, and I know Washington. I'm originally (and spiritually still ) from NYC.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: We don't know who Stephen Hunter is either. Where's that Desson Howe? He's cuter.

John Anderson: He's adorable

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: While I would agree that "Fool's Gold" is not a great movie, I think you sell short the chemistry between Mathew McConaughey and Kate Hudson. All of the accessory characters make a mess of the movie, especially the dimwitted Gemma and the gay chefs, but there's something to the relationship between the two leads and the two at least make the film watchable. Without those two, the film would have been a complete disaster.

John Anderson: I'm immune to the charms of Hudson/McConaughey, but you're right about the supporting players. If they had thrown the stars overboard early on, it might have worked

_______________________

Berkeley, Calif.: Hi John,

I find your reviews to be incredibly entertaining and your computer ineptitude quite endearing ... reminds me of dear old Dad.

Something about sneak peeks: I think you have to luck into them. When I lived in NYC, I would occasionally run into people handing out tickets for sneak peeks at the movie theater near Columbus Circle. I once had the opportunity to see "Smokin' Aces" a couple weeks early. I passed on that one, of course.

John Anderson: Good tip. And thank for your understanding about my computer skills. If I could type, I could get a real job...

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: While I'm sure many will consider "Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins" to be too low-brow or too ethnically colorful for their tastes, I'm looking forward to it. That said, why are ethnic comedies always overlooked by critics and mainstream audiences, save for maybe one of Tyler Perry's movies and the Eddie Murphy comedies of the '80s that featured a white supporting cast?

John Anderson: You think they're ignored? Not by audiences, they're not. Remember when Chris Rock hosted the Oscars and did that bit where he went to the Magic Johnson theater and asked people if they'd ever heard of any of the nominees? It was hilarious. And considering Rock's nonreturn, probably a bit too real for the Academy

_______________________

Washington: I submitted an early question about how you gave away everything in your review of "In Bruges." Would that you would post it and answer it.

John Anderson: I did. Did it not show up? I apologized, actually. Maybe I'm malfunctioning ...help...

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: It seems that "Cloverfield" was a film that was targeted very specifically to 13 to 30 year olds in its attempt to be hip. Your review and a number of others discard the movie as a "Blair Witch Project" retread, but fail to realize that a number of 13 to 30 year olds probably have never seen the "Blair Witch Project." I thought the film was completely immersive (I'm over 30 BTW), and succeeded on a number of levels to bring the audience into the action. Do you have a hard time appreciating "hip" movies, or are you an old fuddy-duddy movie reviewer?

John Anderson: Do you work for Paramount Pictures?

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: Can I buy you lunch? You are so dang funny. I hope your stint at the Post goes on and on.

John Anderson: Yes, I agree, and it won't.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: About "In Bruges." I saw this film at an advance screening and was very entertained. I had already liked McDonagh as a playwright and had seen his debut short film, "Six Shooter," and he didn't disappoint in his first feature.

But I have to say I was horrified when I read your positive review of "In Bruges" in which you decided to give away the entire plot, start to finish, down to pivotal bits of information. Your writing is fun and lively in general, even if I think in some other reviews you have turned the snark quotient way too high and seem a bit enamored of your own cleverness. But revealing the total plot of a movie, especially a really good one, is disrespectful to the filmmaker and any potential filmgoer. It is no less a sin just because so many of your fellow critics commit it. Why did you do it? Did you have a word quota to fill and were padding with plot points? Ask the Style editors for a smaller space! Please read the piece before you file and stop yourself. Even a few minor tweaks would have made your sin less egregious.

John Anderson: Mea culpa. I didn't think I gave away that much; having already seen the film, it's possible you're bringing something to the review, but I apologize. i usually try NOT to give away too much, and apparently failed here.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Aren't you the lead singer for Yes?

John Anderson: He spells it Jon, but if it gets me anywhere, sure.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Hi John, seen you speak in L.A. and couldn't pass up this chance to "chat" with you about films opening this weekend. First is, can you talk a little about Alex Gibney's "Taxi to the Dark Side" and, if he shoots and interviews in/around D.C. for this film, tell us what those scenes are like, both content-wise and visually?

John Anderson: "Taxi" is a terrific film, but whether Gibney shoots in DC is sort of irrelevant -- the movie is about Bagram Air Base, Abu Ghraib prison, Gitmo, and the torture policies of the current administration. It's possible Alex interviewed some of the MPs here, but those locales really don't matter. I have to say, go see it.

_______________________

Kentwood, La.: Your chat is great, can I have your baby? Jamie Lynn

John Anderson: There are three, and they do nothing i say

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: Regarding "Fool's Gold," I can't get past the rumors that McConaughey didn't ever bathe, to the point where Kate Hudson had to take him aside and explain to him that he stunk too badly for her to perform with him. When I see the previews, his long, lank hair makes him look unwashed. Yuck. Stinky man.

John Anderson: I'd love to confirm this. Anyone?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: People in DC have endless opportunities for free advance screenings. Join the DC Film Society for example, the very modest annual fee is more than paid for after a couple of events. Or for totally free, go to ytic.com and enter dead easy to win contests for passes. Also read the City Paper and look for ads offering free passes. But DCFS is the best bet by far. It has spots in film screenings almost every week (often more than one film per week) and even does the occasional theater freebie for plays at Studio or Woolly Mammoth. No I don't work for them, just glad to see tons of free movies each year.

http://www.dcfilmsociety.org/

John Anderson: And there's our PSA for this session! Seriously, I think the questioner was asking about something different, but that's all great to know.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: My two recent favorites are "No Country for Old Men" and "4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days." Yes, I'm a laugh a minute. Comments on the two films? The Romanian one in particular is astonishing. I can't believe the cinematic flowering there. Two other favorites, "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu" and "12:08: East of Bucharest" are also Romanian and by two other directors. Both on DVD now I would guess.

John Anderson: Romania is happening. I think the last two are indeed on DVD and give the unforgivable neglect of the Academy, "4 Months," which is probably the best movie of the year, will be heading there soon. You have to wonder (maybe it's Stevie Wonder?) who is making the picks for the foreign film Oscar

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Your reply regarding "In Bruges" did not show up, no. Sounds suspicious! Especially from a profligate plot revealer.

John Anderson: What I said earlier, before memorizing and burning my answer, was that I apologize if I gave too much away. i usually try not to. You already saw the movie though, so maybe you're projecting? Either way, mea culpa

_______________________

Lincoln Park: When you go to review a movie, do you go in disguise like a restaurant critic, lest you be recognized and get a better movie experience than your average moviegoer?

John Anderson: I wear a dress. It doesn't get me better movies, or service, but it usually gets me an empty seat on all sides

_______________________

Montreal, Canada: Well, we do have "sneak previews" here in Montreal, at least occasionally at our local AMC.

They generally are Saturday evening showings (sometimes on Saturday mornings or afternoons), a few weeks before the film is released here. You have to pay for them, though, at the going rate.

Sometimes, if you attend one, you're asked to fill out a brief questionnaire to rate the film and to say how likely you'd be to recommend it to others, though that doesn't always happen.

There's usually only one "sneak preview" per film, though recently "27 Dresses" had sneak previews three Saturdays in a row before hitting the cinema fulltime.

By the way, a "sneak preview" isn't to be confused with those showings, usually a couple of days before a film hits the cinemas, for which radio stations and the "alternate" weekly newspapers give out free passes.

John Anderson: Being a critic, I pay for movies about as often as ...never, actually. They used to advertise "sneak preview this friday" or some such, now and then. "27 Dresses"? they could give away all the tickets they want and I don't think anyone would go.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Will the writers settle? Will we get a ceremony to watch? What would you like to see for Best Picture?

John Anderson: A settlement in the strike is imminent, there will be an Oscar ceremony and Whoopi Goldberg will not descend from the heavens. I like "There Will be Blood" for Best Picture. it's fantastic, Daniel Day-Lewis is the best screen actor alive and it's def. a film that should be seen in theaters

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: Here's a story indicating that McConaughey does not wear deodorant, and Hudson called him on it. Perhaps it's an exaggeration to say that he does not bathe. But only perhaps.

http://www.pagesix.com/story/kate+matt+you+stink

John Anderson: We're definitely going to crack this fragrant McConaughey story...

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Hi John!

Welcome to WaPo!

Have you heard/seen anything in advance of th eopening of "Vantage Point"? I saw the trailer in the theater recently and it looks interesting.

Thanks.

John Anderson: It does look cool -- reminded me of "Parallax View" or something like that. A political thriller! Aren't we in the middle of one already...?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Belaboring "In Bruges," no, I'm not projecting. But if I mention the two greatest details you revealed, I will just be making it worse. If you have an email address for ordinary folks to contact you, I will be more specific.

John Anderson: How about extraordinary folks? I may be flattering myself, but putting my personal e-mail out there will probably attract more mail than I can handle -- to say nothing of unspeakably filthy spam about cheerleaders and time-shares. This has really been fun -- i hope you all enjoyed it. I did. xxxjohn

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Come on people, ask the new critic a question! At least he isn't a movie-hating curmudgeon like Stephen Hunter, who was so fixated quibbling about firearms on "No Country" he damned one of the best films of the year.

Mr. Anderson, it appears you have been deserted for the lovely Ms. de Moraes who has just begun her chat.

John Anderson: Thanks.

_______________________

Alvin and the Chipmunks: Hi John,

PLEASE explain why the groaner "Alvin and the Chipmunks" is still in first run? That movie was god-awful bad (much as "27 Dresses").

Thank you.

John Anderson: it's going to have to remain one of life's great mysteries

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Just read the "In Bruges" review, and I don't agree at all there are spoilers... I haven't seen the film, and I'm lost, but intrigued.

John Anderson: That's a wonderful thing to hear. Thanks a lot. Talk to you next time....J

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.