web
counter
 

Adult-Oriented Films Aren't Dying

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (39)



state-of-play-3.jpg

The big news this week in Hollywood is something that I touched upon in this weekend’s box-office report: The death of the adult-oriented film. But THR explained the reason behind the shift away from adult-oriented dramas better than I did: It’s the economy, of course. As the recession deepens, adults are steering clear of movie theaters, which is why some believe that State of Play underperformed, despite the presence of Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck.

It makes some sense, but for the fact that box-office grosses, overall, are on a healthy uptick over 2008, so far. One studio exec explained it like this, “Not as many adults are going to the movies because of the recession,” a highly placed studio exec lamented. “More and more, it’s the kids who come out and support the pictures over opening weekend and not as much the older adults.” It’s because movies are cheaper than a baby-sitter, and mommy and daddy need some backseat-loving time.

And perhaps that’s true. But I wonder how true that is. Could it be that the adult-oriented fare that the studios are putting out just doesn’t have a lot of appeal, even among more mature audiences? I dug State of Play, but Ben Affleck’s star power has been dim for years now, and Russell Crowe hasn’t exactly been cleaning up. Body of Lies was disappointing, and I’d daresay that Crowe’s image hasn’t been the same since A Good Year, though American Gangster did perform well. But then again, how many people feel compelled by the subject material in State of Play? A movie adapted from a BBC mini-series that’s partially about the death of the newspaper industry doesn’t exactly sound like a blockbuster, no matter who is starring in it. Likewise, the other big adult-oriented flop this year,Duplicity, starred Julia Roberts — who hasn’t had a hit in years — and Clive Owen, who has never been able to carry a movie on his own.

I think it’s too early to say the adult-oriented film is dying: Just look at four months ago, when The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and even Valkyrie performed extremely well at the box office. For good or bad, adults aren’t that much different from kids: They want gimmicks and explosions and spies and suspense and attractive stars doing nasty things to each other. Adults are less inclined to bother with the hassle of going to the movies, so it takes more than a BBC miniseries or a recycled spy comedy to bring them into the theaters. Brad Pitt and Matt Damon can still bring in adult audiences. So can Denzel, and The Taking of Pelham 123 will be a better gauge of the state of adult-oriented films, as will the performance of this weekend’s The Soloist, starring Robert Downey, Jr.

And for example of what has worked in adult dramas this year, one need look no further than Liam Neeson’s Taken. Here’s a movie with a familiar star, but not exactly a box-office monster. And yet Taken pulled in $142 million - it’s the third highest-grossing film of 2009. Why did it do so well?

“Adults are a harder audience to motivate, and the problem with some adult movies is compounded by their not being high-concept films that you can boil down to 30-second spots,” a top studio exec said. “With ‘Taken,’ it was, ‘You took my kid, motherfucker, and you’re going to pay.’ “

That’s probably the coolest thing a studio exec has ever said. That man must have poured Red Bull into his cereal this morning. And he’s right, too. The problem is the marketing. How many more adults would’ve seen State of Play if it could’ve been boiled down to this: “You killed my hot mistress, motherfucker, and I’m going to blow the fucking lid off your corporate conspiracy.” Or Duplicity: “You’re a greedy corporate motherfucker, and I’m going to screw you out of every cent you own.”

Hell, I love Robert Downey, Jr., but I’m not that excited about The Soloist. A journalist pulls a homeless musician off the street? That doesn’t sound appealing. But what about this: Iron Man pulls a crazy, homeless motherfucker off the street and makes him famous! Now that’s a movie I’d pay to see.

You want to attract an adult audience? Fit “motherfucker” into your movie’s description. Boom: $100 million.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Caught Stealing Book Review | Paper Hearts Trailer









Comments

I said it before, for >8 euros / >10 bucks there better be some explosions on the canvas, otherwise I'll just wait out for the dvd.

Posted by: Adere at April 21, 2009 10:03 AM

I think you make some valid arguments Dustin. But I tend to disagree. The reason I don't go to the theater much any more is for a few different reasons:
-I have a really nice set-up at home where I can enjoy the beverage and snack of my choice at a reasonable price.
-I don't have to deal with the other shit-heads in a theater.
-For the price of taking my wife and I, I can own the damn thing and watch it whenever I want.
-No babysitter required.
-I'm sometimes afraid that I'll drop $40-50 and see a piece of shit.

I don't think the economy is to blame as kids 0-15 generally get their money from mom & dad.

Posted by: admin at April 21, 2009 10:05 AM

I'm pretty sure there's a formula to this...

(Money + Corporate) x (motherfucker)2 / [ln(number of kids) x e(number of kiddie movies)2] = Box Office Performance in Hundreds of dollars.

...And that is why I'm failing calculus.

Posted by: Jeremy Feist at April 21, 2009 10:08 AM

Adere's right, I save anything not visually compelling for the small screen, where it's cheaper to watch and I can turn on the subtitles if they start running through Very Important Dialogue too fast for me to get every word.

Unfortunately, me watching Transformers 2 on the big screen and Michael Clayton on the small screen doesn't help the numbers - if I promise to watch 'Moon' on the big screen will they promise to hire an actual writer for the Shadow of the Colossus movie? (God, it still is physically painful to type that.)

Posted by: twig at April 21, 2009 10:09 AM

Is it possible that mummy and daddy can't go to the cinema because they've spent all their spare cash indulging their childrens' every wish? I wish the parents who live around me would shut up about the cost of college when I see them spend $200 on Miley Cyrus concert tickets.

Posted by: PaddyDog at April 21, 2009 10:18 AM

I agree with Adere and twig. Other than very few exceptions ("Slumdog Millionaire" and "No Country For Old Men" are the only two that come to mind), pretty much every movie I've gone to a theater to see is because I felt like there was some visual component to it that would work better on the "big screen" and justify the expense and, more importantly, the annoyance of going to the theater.

The same will likely hold true for this year. So far I think I've only seen the beforementioned "Slumdog" and "Watchmen." This summer, it will likely be "Wolverine", "Terminator", "Transformers 2", "Star Trek" and maybe something else, though probably not too much more. I know going in that quality-wise those aren't likely to be anywhere near the best films to be released over the summer, but they will be the ones that I will see on the big screen because of the effects/sound and what not.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at April 21, 2009 10:22 AM

Researching films takes a lot of work, it really is understandable that most adults just want it to be summed up easily. Nice on the motherfucker.

Posted by: George at April 21, 2009 10:23 AM

I don't go to the cinema nearly as much as I used to, for reasons others have already covered. It's expensive (I'm in London so you're talking £10 a pop, and that's not in the West End). You have to put up with kids or adults behaving in infuriating ways, talking, crinkling sweet wrappers, phones ringing (and being answered!), and when being asked to be quiet you get death threats (as I said, I live in London, it's happened more than once).

Unless the film is huge and something I'm really excited about, I'll wait the three months until it comes out on DVD and I can happily rent it on my Love Film account. I've spent too much money seeing crap at the cinema and it just isn't really worth it any more.

Posted by: Carrie at April 21, 2009 10:26 AM

I go because I think I'm going to enjoy the movie. I prefer my heartbreaking drama couched in TV shows about cops and spaceships. I absolutely love the theater experience though. It has, in no way, been reproduced. I go when it's convenient for me and when I'll feel relaxed and just soak it in. So I have no problem with making the trip or spending the money as opposed to waiting for a home release, I just have to want to watch the movie in the first place.

Posted by: Jay at April 21, 2009 10:27 AM

Reason I don't go to the movies? The theatre by my place smells like feet.

Posted by: Janey at April 21, 2009 10:33 AM

I will go to the full-price movies if it is a) something I have been dying to see and don't want to wait for DVD and/or b) it will simply be a thousand times better on the big screen.

That probably explains why the only full-price movies I've seen this year have been Watchmen and Coraline 3D. I'll probably also go see Harry Potter when it's released, too, though that's because heck, I've taken my kid to see all the rest of them in the theater. But that will be it unless something super-fantastic-awesome is released that I haven't yet heard about.

Now, the $2 theater? That's where I go to watch movies I'm certain are going to suck suck suck. On a rainy day, with smuggled snacks, with a friend who has terrible taste in movies, but I get a laugh out of the suckitude sometimes.

Posted by: Wednesday at April 21, 2009 10:39 AM

Posted by: PaddyDog at April 21, 2009 10:18 AM

And an ass whoopin' or two wouldn't hurt.

Posted by: admin at April 21, 2009 10:40 AM

Wait...the "motherfucker" theory explains EVERYTHING!

Titanic: Mother fucking remembers the night the motherfucking Titanic motherfucking sank. Motherfucking iceberg sinks motherfucking ship, mother fucking fucks steerage boy in a motherfucking attempt to ditch her sniveling motherfucker fiance. Motherfucking David Warner pwns, motherfucking Bernard Hill steers the ship, and motherfucking Victor Garber built it with his motherfucking hands!

Dark Knight: The motherfucking Batman motherfucking squares off against the motherfucking Joker in a motherfucking battle of motherfucking good versus motherfucking evil in motherfucking Gotham (Motherfucking) City. Motherfucking Rachel Dawes gets blown to bits, which motherfucking primes motherfucking motherfucker Harvey Dent into a motherfucking killing spree (including motherfucking Eric Roberts as a motherfucking corpse). Throw in classy motherfuckers like Michael Motherfucking Caine, Gary Motherfucking Oldman, and Motherfucking Morgan "Shoot this Motherfucker" Freeman, and you have a motherfucking Chris Nolan motherfuck of a picture.

Don't even get me started on Watchmen...

Posted by: Doctor Controversy at April 21, 2009 10:55 AM

I think PaddyDog is onto something. A lot of parents indulge their kids way too much and lose their identities.

My husband and I hardy ever go see movies at the theater unless it's something that has to be viewed on the big screen. No splosions, no kick-ass fight scenes, no eye-popping visuals and we see it at home on our small big-screen. Movies even in our small North Florida town are too damned expensive.

Posted by: stardust savant at April 21, 2009 11:04 AM

Adults these days are more interested in animated movies than ever before - atleast in the ages of early 20s to mid 30s.
15 years ago a couple in their early 20s would go on a date and see something like 'Philadelphia'. Now they are going out and seeing the latest Pixar flick or whatever.
I do agree with previous commenters as well - I just don't rush out to see dramatic movies in theater. The blockbuster is best viewed in the theater, whereas the serious drama is probably best viewed in the comfort of your quiet home.

Posted by: CoolWhip416 at April 21, 2009 11:06 AM

As others have said, if I'm paying $12 to go see a movie and have to deal with obnoxious theatergoers chatting and texting on their phones as though they're the only person on the planet, then I'm going to save it for something that is going to be good big and loud (The LotRs, the Harry Potters). State of Play sounds interesting, but I'll rent it, thanks. Unless I can take a day off work and go see a matinee when all the stupid children are at school, in which case I might go then, but I always wind up running out of time because of catching up with errands I can't get done during work hours.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at April 21, 2009 11:14 AM

We haven't rented a DVD in a long time. We (Mrs. , and I) go to the theater. We tend to go at odd times, like Monday matinees, when there aren't nearly as many other people in the theater to be annoying, and we can get in for $5-$6 each. That also tends to be a more adult crowd, except in the summer, so it's not nearly the hassle some of you describe. I'd like to see "State of Play," and Mrs. , wants to see "The Soloist," and I'm pretty sure we'll do one or both next weekend.

That said, I'm calling bullshit on the recession theory. Was there a recession when movies in theaters now were green-lighted? When they were filmed? It's a handy excuse in retrospect until you think about it. Hollywood just doesn't want to come right out and admit that it has almost completely sold its soul and integrity to the teens and tweeners, even when that's pretty clearly what's happening.

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at April 21, 2009 11:18 AM

Could it be that the adult-oriented fare that the studios are putting out just doesn’t have a lot of appeal, even among more mature audiences?

Or could it be that most of what they put out sucks it hard, so people stay away. Most of the films listed as performing below expectations were bad films: Duplicity and Body of Lies, for example. Eck. I haven't seen State of Play, and the concept doesn't seem to be connecting with people, but a $14M opening on a non-holiday spring weekend ain't bad.

I don't care for Benjamin Button, but plenty of critics loved it, and audiences followed.

A down economy means people have less money for putrid shit, but they'll still see something good. You have to convince them with a good product.

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at April 21, 2009 11:20 AM

Actually I'm the exact opposite, I tend to go to movies because of the audience. Cosplayers are hilarious to watch and movies that attract nerds tend to be kind of fun on opening night. The Phantom Menace sucked but the crowd at the Edwards Theater was a lot of fun, there were tons of people with light sabers and beach balls and the crowd's reaction to parts of the movie were more entertaining than the movie itself.

Posted by: vi at April 21, 2009 12:15 PM

While I don't see nearly as many films in the theater as I used to, it's has nothing to do with the price. It's the shit-poor offerings that keep me away.

I think the fault of "adult-orientated" films lies with the filmmakers themselves. Let's see, we can either make a film that's entertaining and educational/interesting or we can just make something where shit blows up. What's easier? What'll attract more people? What's more marketable?

Another part of the problem lies in the "disposable" income teenagers have, whether its from their parents or a parttime job. The entertainment industry has known this since the 50s and always direct most of their offerings toward that younger crowd. If adults show up, fine, but the money's to be made in kid dollars. That's why you have 40 & 50 year olds writting music for Miley, the J Bros., Kelly Clarkson, etc. Same goes with films. Rarely does a filmmaker aim a film at his own age group. Most the the goofs responsible for teen sex comedies are double the age of their intended audience. Maybe they're just brain damaged, but more likely, they know where the bucks are. And it ain't in deep-thinking movies.

Another problem is in casting. You can't make a movie like State of Play without some star power or it will get no press. And if you don't have stars, you have no marketing ability. Hence, the film's price tag jerks skywards because these "actors" demand $10 million+ a film. So to recoup the costs (and it's all about making money) is extremely difficult. Again, what's easier? An interesting, well thought out film about something that may matter, or a film like Transformers where it's mindless, poorly written, badly act, based on a freakin' toy, and a lot of shit blows up?

Posted by: B-Unit at April 21, 2009 1:22 PM

I think part of it is just that there aren't that many truly appealing Adult Movies. State of Play might interest a small group of people, and I'm not one of them. I wouldn't pay to go see this on a big screen; I'd probably wait for the DVD. I don't particularly feel compelled to pay all that money for a movie that will be enjoyed just as well at home, you know? If I'm going to the movies I want to see something spectacular, that will be better seen at a big scale.

Kids' movies do well because it's the easiest thing to do to entertain your kids. Why wait for the DVD if you can just shut them up for 2 hours?

And hasn't it ALWAYS been like this? I don't know if it's really a new thing.

Posted by: figgy at April 21, 2009 1:55 PM

I haven't been to the movies since Dark Knight. I kind of want to go see Watchmen, but is it really worth paying all that money, and be surrounded by obnoxious people? nah. I can wait.

Posted by: figgy at April 21, 2009 1:56 PM

Let's face it: For the older generation, the movie-going experience is just too unpleasant. Many of us recall the amazing experience of going to a theater as one to be savored, enjoying the ambiance of old-school art deco movie houses, huge screens, plush seating... it was as memorable as the movies we saw.
I'll never forget going to the Strand Theater in my hometown and settling in for '2001' when I was all of 13 (my first solo outing to see a film)and it was/is one of the reasons I still love movies.
I've no need to explain to any of you what misery it is to try and see a film at the local googolplex these days, as you've all been through that particular hell. Honestly, there are movies I would LOVE to see on a big screen but I just don't want to throw that kind of dough away on what is almost sure to be a disappointing experience.
Yeah, I'm old and cranky... now get OFFA my lawn!

Posted by: Spender at April 21, 2009 2:06 PM

Hollywood puts a lot of stock in box office receipts because it's the only realm in which they fell like they can control the experience.

But it's a dying model of media consumption, and therefore, an unreliable metric.

Kinda like the Billboard charts, or Arbitron ratings, or Nielsen ratings.

Posted by: Big Daddy Bacchus at April 21, 2009 2:11 PM

I am planning to go to the movies a lot this summer. Star Trek, Wolverine, Harry Potter, Transformers. Better enjoyed on the big screen.

I want to watch things go BOOM. BIG BOOM. A LOT. Don't judge me.

Posted by: figgy at April 21, 2009 2:16 PM

I'm curious as to where you people all live where the "movie going experience is too unpleasant" to sit through? The prices are one thing, and partially one's own fault. I mean, can't you sit through a 2 hour film without stuffing overpriced popcorn down your throat?

Maybe it's being here in the Midwest, but I can't recall a single bad experience at a movie that would keep me away from seeing a film I wanted to. Sure, someone talks once in a while, or a cell phone rings, but I get those same distractions at home - in fact, more often than in a darkened theater.

Posted by: B-Unit at April 21, 2009 2:40 PM

I think a lot of you guys are selling the "non-explosion" movies short by skipping them in the theater. While, perhaps, not as visually compelling as your typical Michael Bay movie, I really enjoy small movies on the big screen. Unlike at home (where there are constant distractions - especially if the movie is, "deliberately" paced) I can be totally engrossed in the film in the theater.

Of course, having said that, it has become increasingly difficult to enjoy ANY movies in the theater, what with all the jackasses pissing their money away to not watch the film. Even the normally wonderful Alamo Drafthouse is starting to attract more talkers, texters and late arrivals (no, I can't just move over, jackass - you should have shown up BEFORE the goddamn movie started!). It won't be long before there's nowhere to watch a movie in peace.

Speaking of, I'd totally be down with a membership-only theater...maybe 21 and up, good food/drinks, comfy seats, and a zero tolerance policy for disturbances - you talk and you're out for good. Hell, I'd pay $20 a ticket for a movie-going experience like that!

Posted by: cmr at April 21, 2009 2:41 PM

That's a big part of it, cmr. I don't have the patience anymore to deal with douches talking and cellphones ringing and people being late. And with a quiet movie, it all becomes even MORE irritating. Don't even get me started on horror movies. So with Movies That Go Boom! one can ignore the douches a bit more easily. A good, quiet, thoughtful movie will likely be ruined by the people watching it, so I'd rather wait and watch it at home.

Posted by: figgy at April 21, 2009 2:52 PM

I love going to theaters for movies, but there just hasn't been anything interesting enough to tempt me lately. I have no interest in most retreads and reboots, I'm over most of the horror stuff, and what passes for comedy these days is a crying shame. If there's a borderline movie that I think I might want to see, I'm inclined to just wait for the DVD/PPV option.

Hell, I love Robert Downey, Jr., but I’m not that excited about The Soloist.

60 Minutes covered the story in 15 mnutes, and that's about how long it held my interest. I can't see it as a feature film, even if RDJ was naked the entire time.

Posted by: Cindy at April 21, 2009 3:06 PM

Good point figgy...I'd also expand that to include broad comedies.

Posted by: cmr at April 21, 2009 3:12 PM

60 Minutes covered the story in 15 minutes, and that's about how long it held my interest. I can't see it as a feature film, even if RDJ was naked the entire time.

Exactly. Though, I could probably watch Jamie Foxx on fire for a month straight.

Posted by: jM at April 21, 2009 3:20 PM

I'm way more likely to see a little indie movie with no explosions in the theater than any of the big blockbusters. This is because I don't like multi-plexes, stale popcorn, most teenagers, or paying $10 to sit and watch car commercials before they'll let me see the movie.
So I stick to the little arty theater with the cool ceiling and no ampitheater seating. If they make the movie-watching experience at the multi-plex better, I'll go. Until then, I'll spend that money on wildly overpriced live music.

Posted by: king at April 21, 2009 3:52 PM

I'm with admin's earliest response here - there's a reason the godtopus gave us rentals and home theatre setups. I'll make exceptions for the rare movie event that needs a big screen (especially IMAX) to be fully enjoyed, but those are few and far between. Not only are there too many d-bags in theatres these days, not only are snacks and drinks exorbitantly priced, but there's so much noise in the lobby and too many ads before the show, that if any gits open their faceholes during the movie I get kinda stabby, and I'm running out of theatres that don't escort me off the property on sight.

Posted by: lordhelmet at April 21, 2009 5:15 PM

I'm an adult with no kids. The last movie I saw in a theater was "Sunshine Cleaning." No explosions (there was a fire, though). I enjoyed it, it was worth the $8 (I think it was 8). I think I saw "Taken" some time before that and it was enormously entertaining watching Liam Neeson kill various scuzzy human traffickers. I mean, the movie was ridiculous, in real life, he'd be in jail within 24 hours and they deliberately made the ex-wife a mega bitch so we'd feel that much more sympathetic towards him, but who cares? He's killing creeps who kidnaped his innocent young daughter. That's entertainment.

I'll pay to see a good movie, but not just because they stick a mega star in it. "Benjamin Button" just sounded boring. "State of Play" is probably better when it's "All the President's Men" (at least that's kinda what the TV spots make it look like). "The Soloist" looks like another "white guy saves a black person" movie, and that shit is old. Past old, really. Even with RDJ in it.

I do think that adults with kids (as opposed to teenagers who have nothing better to do with their spare time) are not as free to go to movies whenever they want. If they have young kids, they probably go to the kid movies, because they don't want to pay for a movie plus a babysitter. Or they just stay home. Lots of people with kids work all damn week, when the weekend rolls around, they want to stay home and chill. My theory, anyway. People don't watch TV or movies the way they used to back in the '50s or whatever period of history the assholes who run networks and studios are still wishing would return. And I think there's something to the idea that people who have giant TVs and DVR at home are probably not gonna want to shell out more money (plus the always delightful drive) to see a mediocre movie in a theater.

Posted by: Slash at April 21, 2009 5:33 PM

I don't know what it is, but I just love going to the theater to see a movie. I complain about the ridiculous prices, the asshole fellow theater-goers, how disgusting the place is, and I have a pretty great set-up at home. But still, I probably go at least once a month, if not more. *shrug*

Posted by: Mimi at April 21, 2009 6:15 PM

'So the cops knew that Internal Affairs was setting them up?'

Maybe we're not not at the 'Death of the Author' stage (yet), but we've absolutely become bedfellows with the 'Death of the Work Ethic and Standards' beast. Every movie is just a re-hash of something that didn't capture my attention a fortnight ago. What have we got? We've got:

-Taut, political thriller (this time with conspiracies!) See also:

The Bentham Co-Efficient
The Whitsun Stratification
The Doctorow Culmination
The Schenkerian Topography
The Michelmas Syllogism
The Yaws Configuration
The Mountbatten Trajectory
The Gmork Re-Animation

or whatever.


-Romantic comedies starring the ubiquitous and supremely annoying 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl'- to borrow from Nathan Rabin.'The world is so magical. Puberty robs you of your ability to experience the myriad wonders of everyday life. That's I never went through it. Stop being so tightly wound, be in the moment. Let me open your eyes and enrich your life by systematically dismantling it. Do you like my breasts? They're flat! Giggle, giggle.'

Or, romantic comedies about 'Business Lady Special', whose professional success can't fill the gaping void in her life and legs. If it weren't for her workaholism and disease of a personality, she'd have the wedding of her dreams. It's probably too late for her, I mean, she IS almost 26! Mama, no!

Gut-boiling-ly dull and self-important 'Serious Adult Relationship Dramas (SARDS)', to borrow from Dustin. 'Don't shut me out! Why can't you be more open with me? Why won't you let me in? Passive aggression! You know, you really hurt me, when...' *BANG*

Oh, I'm sorry. Well, get the lighter.

Corset Costume Drama, brought to you by Schick Lady Quattro.

Anthropomorphized, jive-talkin', sass-backin', culture-referencin' animated crap (they can't all be Pixar, although Coraline was really good). Oh, the pigs talk? 'Show me the muddy!' Well, I can see why THIS is so popular.

Vin Willis in: GET DEAD 36: The Penultimate Perturbance.

Some Bland as Fuck Loser in: 3 Stone to Oscar

Some Bland as Fuck Loser in: The Day the Stripper Cried

Some Bland as Fuck Loser in: Not Without My Death Scene.

Snatch'ems: Will he lose it before he graduates from Gymboree? One Hundred Wanks of Solitude.

Bio-Pics. Seeing as one about Dali one is upcoming, we'll call it, The Grand Oscar-Baiter.

Et cetera. It goes on, Judah. I'm not terribly keen in seeing the same eight faces over and over again. I'm not a fan of Scarlett Johansson, so there goes 78 per cent of my yearly film choices.

I'm just not interested.

Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at April 21, 2009 6:44 PM

Word, Jo 'Mama' Besser. That was the best rant I've read about the state of movies in a long time.

As for local theaters, I would love to go to my local arthouse movie theater. Except my town doesn't have one. My new age-y beach town with a thriving arts scene does not have an arthouse theater. It has a pub theater with sticky floors and a super-old mall theater with unreliable sound and picture and sticky floors, but no arthouse theater. Until the new multiplex opens, we have to drive 45 minutes to the metro area to even get to a decent theater let alone an arthouse theater.

Posted by: stardust savant at April 21, 2009 7:00 PM

Jo Mama, Your rants are the best, the BEST.

Also: I'm in love with you.

But I think if I married you I'd have to kill you.

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at April 21, 2009 11:39 PM

Heh. Very sweet posts, thank-you. I'll remember these kind words next time I get dumped.

Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at April 21, 2009 11:54 PM