Worse than Ben Lyons - AMCHD

I recently purchased a High Def LCD television and I have been pretty happy with the results. Unfortunately, some channels seem to have a hard time with the whole HD thing, and I am not referring to channels like MSNCB which are not yet producing an HD signal. No, I am referring to the ones that are and don't seem to know how to do it. Watch just about anything on the Food Network, for example, and you will notice faces stretched and distorted all out of proportion. Switch over to the non-HD version of the Food Network and everything looks just fine.

But the worst offender in my book has to be AMCHD, not because everything looks awful but because, well, far too often it does and they should know better. In particular, some movies that appear on AMCHD actually look better when viewed on the regular, non-HD channel. For example, look at the first scan at the top (actually, it's a picture I took with my camera) from The Ox-Bow Incident. The faces of Henry Fonda and Harry Morgan look stretched out horizontally. Now look at the picture below it--this is the same image but with my TV set to the 4:3 aspect ratio instead of 16:9, which is the standard for HD. The 4:3 image looks better!

But it gets worse. The problem comes from the fact that stretching appears at the sides of the screen and not so much in the middle. Since the images above do not have anything in the space in between the two actors, the non-HD version (not pictured) looks about the same as the HD 4:3 version . But if altering your aspect ratio was all you had to do to fix this, then it would simply be a minor annoyance. So lets take a look at a picture where there is something on the edges AND in the middle. That would be the image to the left, which is from AMCHD at 16:9. If you notice, Henry Fonda (on the right side) looks a bit stretched out, and the fellow on the left side of the screen does as well.

Now let's look at the same image on AMCHD at 4:3. The figures on the sides of the screen look better, but now the two men in the middle have their heads squished and narrowed. So on AMCHD, this image (and many others from this movie) don't look correct at either aspect ration. According to IMDB the movie was shot at an aspect ratio of 1.37:1, which is essentially the same as 4:3. What appears to be happening is that the HD version is stretched out of shape in order to fill out the standard 16:9 HD screen size, so much so that when you set your HD TV to shrink it down back to 4:3 it still looks distorted. That means that you cannot get a consistently decent image from the movie in HD regardless of which aspect ratio you choose. You especially notice this distortion when something moves into the picture from the edge of the screen--you can see it squeezing itself into the image as it goes from being more to less distorted.

If you take a look at the non-HD version of this movie on AMC, IT LOOKS BETTER THAN THE HD VERSION IN EITHER ASPECT RATION! It is not distorted at the sides or in the middle. It is, oddly enough, the best of both worlds.

C'mon AMC, get your act together. I have seen HD channels show non-HD, 4:3 content with vertical letterboxing. This may seem like a waste of space, but for movie fans the letterbox is the way that you are used to watching a movie on TV. In properly formatted HD seen at 16:9, movies are often still letterboxed because they are typically shot in either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1, both of which are wider than 16:9. But AMC prefers to punt and give the viewer a distorted image so they feel like they are getting their money's worth and not "wasting" any real estate on their fancy HD TV.

But they aren't getting their money's worth--they are actually just getting a crappier image. If viewers want to do something stupid like stretch out a 4:3 image to a 16:9 ratio, they can set their TV to do that. But the rest of us should just be given the image in the correct ratio so that we can enjoy it as it was meant to be seen.

Dropping knowledge 140 characters at a time

What would an overhyped fad be withouth Ben Lyons jumping on the bandwagon? I don't know, but it wouldn't be Twitter, because Ben Lyons recently signed up.

The apple doesn't fall very far from the tree.His screen name is iamBenLyons--possibly a reference to his favorite movie?--and he has taken to posting pictures of his father posing with famous people (see picture at the right, snagged before it was removed).

I apologize in advance for any misrepresentations of Twitter I might convey, since I have not really gotten into it. Twitter basically looks like Facebook minus the good parts. But suddenly the media are all a-Twitter over this latest fad, especially after a number of members of Congress got caught "Tweeting" during Obama's speech to their entire branch of government. Or rather, their staff members were caught "Tweeting", which is just as bad since the whole point is for a person to give their own personal commentary to a broad audience. You'd think that would be the end of it, but you would be wrong.

There is something quite amusing about Lyons, who has never written an article or film review that anybody can account for, signing up for a service that requires him to constantly put his thoughts to text. I was going to say that he should just put all his tweets together and call it an article and be done with it--but then I read them, which include the following nuggets of wisdom:

• Watching THE PERFECT STORM. John C can do balance comedy and drama as good as anybody. Who else?
  
  
• My LA TWEETERS!! At 630pm on ABC please check out 'At The Movies'. We've got reviews of SUGAR, FAST & FURIOUS, and DVD picks. What up Mank!?
  
  
• Efron told my Footloose didnt happen cuz he wants new roles, new challenges, and to stop with the dancing! For now at least...
  
  
• 'Sorority Row' crew just arrived. Trailer reminds me of I Know What You Did Last Summer..
  

Yes, these are copy-and-pasted quotes. We can only wait for the moment when Lyons is caught tweeting in the middle of a movie . . . anybody want to start a pool?

Criticwatch - The guy who blurbed me

Erik Childress breaks down this week's At the Movies:

Ben: Hey, aren't you Roger Moore?
Sean: Guess again, junior.Lyons was on my side of the fence [on rating the movie Gigantic] and you’ll notice that he wasn’t quick to label it as one of those Sundance-type movies. Probably because it never played at Sundance and Lyons wouldn’t know how to label it any other way, despite this week reviewing (or re-reviewing) three films on the show that played at the Park City festival. Just a few weeks ago he said Sunshine Cleaning was “a Sundance movie in every sense of the word…that quirky, American indie that’s looking to find moments of humor set against the backdrop of some dark, tragic moments.”What does he have to say to Mank in defense of Gigantic?

Lyons: “Zooey Deschanel and Paul Dano, sure, they play quirky indie characters and nobody does it better than them. And I think pairing them together really works. It’s the first time I’ve seen them on screen together and I really enjoy their chemistry and that’s the heart of this movie.”

Nobody does it better than them? From the female side, Deschanel has certainly done her share of independent quirk and few would argue that she hasn’t earned the right to be in the argument. With all due respect to Paul Dano though, Lyons has probably got Little Miss Sunshine (and ONLY Little Miss Sunshine on the brain) where referring to Dano’s indie resume. I somehow doubt he saw Weapons from Sundance a few years back or Explicit Ills which they couldn’t find time to review on the show just last month so they could do early reviews on I Love You, Man and Adventureland; Jesse Eisenberg being one of many who might have a beef (along with Sam Rockwell, Peter Sarsgaard and Joseph Gordon-Levitt) over Lyons’ “nobody does it better” designation. Kinda makes me feel sad for the rest.

Read the entire Criticwatch Ben Lyons Quote of the Week here

At the Movies - Indy-ana Lyons and the Kingdom of the Empty Skull

Lyons. Why'd it have to be Lyons?A few weeks ago on At the Movies, we heard Ben Lyons gush all over the movie Sunshine Cleaning as "a Sundance movie in every sense of the word. It's that quirky American indy that's looking to find moments of humor set against the backdrop of dark, tragic moments," after which he recommended that we merely "Rent it." This week, he further attempted to improve his "indy" street cred--which is especially in danger since he admitted to seeing only 5 movies at the Sundance Film Festival. He did this by, well, saying the word "indy" more often than really necessary in his review of the movie Gigantic.

You can't help but wonder whether this positive review is simply an attempt to bolster his tarnished image as a "stupid person" according to Richard Roeper. Unfortunately, he could have done better to disprove Roeper's point. Some of his comments about this movie included:

First time co-writer/director Matt Aselton brings us Gigantic, starring young indy film vets Paul Dano and Zooey Deschanel . . . Sure, they play quirky, indy characters . . . For me, I was along for the indy ride and I enjoyed it.

Did he mention that it's an "indy" movie? Good thing it's not November, or you could replace "indy" with "Oscar-worthy."

But the real critical sin in this week's episode is Ben's ever-evolving attitude to Adventureland. In the live chat on the AtM Web site back in February, Ben called it a movie he "liked, but would have been more interested in it had the leads been a little funnier."

On last week's review, Ben said:

"I was on the edge of saying 'Rent it', but because of the strong performances of [supporting actors Bill] Hayder and [Kristin] Wiig, I'll say see it."

Ok, fine. But this week, he says:

"We had an early review on last week's show, it opens this weekend, and I say 'See It'. I had a lot of fun with Adventureland."

Then Mank goes on to say that this movie should not be confused with the director's other movie Superbad, a raunchy teen comedy. Lyons responds:

"It's definitely not. It's a lot more heartfelt and it's a little bit more understated in its approach to comedy. The leads really don't have the jokes here, the supporting actors do. I said last week Kristin Wiig and Bill Hayder, they are tremendous, and the best on-screen couple to possibly run an amusement park. It just worked. But Eisenberg and Stewart are much more serious and that's where the film really has its voice."

It sounds like Lyons is trying to prove that he is not confused by the trailer, something that he is embarrassingly notorious for doing. But this is a complete reversal in his explanation of his critique. The movie went from being mildly recommended because the leads just aren't funny enough, to a recommendation based on the leads' more serious approach to the material! Let's hope that next week he doesn't downgrade his rating to "Rent it" because, well, let's be honest, Wiig and Hayder made light of the seriousness of the material as portrayed by Eisenberg and Stewart.

Roeper didn't want to work with "stupid people"

I personally don't listen to the Howard Stern (nor do I recommend it) but a friend of mine caught an interview Stern did with Richard Roeper last week and made it available for me. They talked a lot about Roeper's new book, but there was a very interesting snippet of the conversation about why he left Ebert & Roeper:

Roeper: You get these geniuses [TV producers], Howard, who say after 30 years, they're like, "You know, that balcony set, that's not really a great idea. And we don't really need two thumbs up or two thumbs down. Let's do a different kind of show, let's make it zippier and have stupid people on there reviewing the movies."

Stern: Who was the stupid person?

Roeper: Well, you can watch it now, and find out for yourself. But I left, I thought I'm not going to stick around . . .

Stern: Who'd they try to team you up with that you didn't like?

Roeper: (sighs, pauses) Well, they wanted to bring in Ben Lyons, from the E! Channel. Who's a nice kid, but I don't think had ever reviewed a movie in print or written an article in his life.

Stern: Oh, that's Jeffrey Lyons' kid. His Dad was a movie reviewer so he's becoming one . . . And so you felt he didn't have a legitimate, like, you have a writing background and this kid was not a legitimate movie critic.

Roeper: And you know, honestly it wasn't anything personal against him, it's just not a show that I wanted to be a part of. And it was some of the people who they put in charge of the show who just didn't have any respect for the legacy you just mentioned. You know it's been 10 years since Gene Siskel died? I was on the show with Roger for almost 8 years. And I just felt like Roger, as you just mentioned, he's still doing well and he's writing all his reviews but he can't go on TV anymore, and I thought "I'm not going to go and stomp all over the legacy of the show these guys created." So we moved on and Roger and I are working on another show now, it's going to be coming out soon, and he's going to be behind the scenes as an executive producer. We're going to restore the legacy of the show.

Most of that is known from Roeper's blog post a few weeks ago, except this is the first time that I know of that either Ebert or Roeper have publicly dissed Lyons (although Roger all but called him out by name a few months ago). This is also the first time that Roeper has stated that he left in part because the producers wanted to bring Lyons in--to replace Michael Phillips!

Until now, it just seemed like Roeper left because he didn't like the "new direction" the show was taking, and then Lyons was just one of the guys who happened to replace him. On the contrary, it turns out that Ben Lyons has been a willing participant to "stomping on the legacy" of Siskel & Ebert and has in fact had the entire show upended simply on his account! What a spoiled fucking brat.

This also does not exactly reflect well on Mank, who now looks like the one guy who was actually willing to work with Lyons (unlike everybody else). And any idea (which I admit to having in the past) that either A) the show might dump Lyons and have Mank host with somebody else, or B) Mank would leave the show, both now look highly unlikely.

April fools!

Ok, I think most people have figured it out, but my post yesterday about Mank "storming off the set" was an April fools joke. I required all comments to be moderated so that nobody would get the joke without having to figure it out for themselves. Good thing, too--the first comment at 5am gave it away! I hope this doesn't discourage anybody from commenting in the future, so I'll turn comment moderation back off (so comments should show up instantaneously) and allow all of yesterday's comments to go through. That way, nobody will read that post six months from now and wonder what it was all about.

By the way, I'll have an interesting post tomorrow with a bit of behind the scenes dirt from At the Movies. I promise, this one is real, although not quite as breathtaking as "Mank storming off the set". In fact, it explains why that will probably never happen.

Mank "stormed off the set" of At the Movies

CHICAGO (AP)--After several months as the co-host of the syndicated movie review show At the Movies, film critic Ben Mankiewicz stormed off the set Tuesday following a series of heated exchanges between himself, co-host Ben Lyons, and several staff members.

"Hosting At the Movies, the show previously helmed by Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, has been a real honor," Mankiewicz told the Associated Press. "But let's be honest, this isn't Siskel & Ebert. I don't know if that is even possible anymore, film criticism has changed so much with the Internet. At the very least those are the standards that we should strive for. But I feel like the producers of the show have just stopped trying."

Mankiewicz declined to comment specifically about Lyons, other than to say that he is "a nice kid." As to his future with the show, he said simply of the producers that "the ball is in their court".

Lyons declined to be interviewed for this story.

Since the show parted ways with previous hosts Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper, speculation has been rampant for some time that the show was on the verge of either cancellation or the firing of Lyons or Mankiewicz. A number of highly critical articles in the mainstream press and the blogosphere since the new hosts were hired have helped to cement the opinion among many that the program was in decline along with film criticism in general.

Ironically, after a shaky first few months in which ratings dropped by 23%, the show's viewership rebounded during the period leading up to the Academy Awards. But the story behind the scenes has been far different from the rosy picture painted by the improved ratings.

"Lyons and Mankiewicz have had a very stormy relationship off-screen," says one production assistant for At the Movies who asked to remain anonymous. "Most episodes, there are at least one or two takes which have to be scrapped because Mankiewicz throws up his hands in frustration, rolls his eyes, or just lets out a long sigh. He really hasn't been a team player."

Brian Frons, the ABC/Disney executive in charge of the show, expressed disappointment with the behavior of Mankiewicz but assured the Associated Press that the show would continue with or without him. "There are literally dozens of laid off film critics who would jump at the opportunity to sit across the aisle from Ben Lyons. I am sure that we will have no trouble finding a replacement for him," Frons said in reference to Mankiewicz.

"I produce a hit show," Frons continued. "What did he ever do?"

Nothing official has been announced as to whether or not Mankiewicz will remain, but the anonymous staffer suggested that interviews may have already occurred. "Both Lou Lumenick [of the New York Post] and Roger Moore [of the Orlando Sentinel] have been in the office to talk to Frons. On the other hand, I hear that Lyons has been talking up Shawn Edwards [of WDAF-TV in Kansas City]."

Critics of the show predicted that this is the beginning of the end of At the Movies in its current form. "Hopefully this will now free my Tivo from the Sunday morning recap of At the Movies and restore our faith in the Lord," said Erik Childress, vice president of the Chicago Film Critics Association, who also writes a feature called "Ben Lyons Quote of the Week" that ridicules Lyons' critiques.

"The chickens have come home to roost," said Scott Johnson, the blogger behind the website StopBenLyons.com. "Maybe now Brian Frons can get back to his first love--ruining daytime soap operas."

Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper have both made references on their blogs about starting a new television show. Roeper declined to comment for this article and Ebert did not immediately return a phone call from the Associated Press.

---

On the Net:

At the Movies

Ben Lyons' Written Movie Review Archive