I haven't seen the guy's Broadway gigs, but in all of those Harry Potter movies, he's the weakest of the leads--especially once they became teenagers. Radcliffe was lucky that his parents had movie industry connections and had the right look for the part. Neither he nor Emma Watson are anything other than "okay" in those roles.

If we're being honest, Rupert Grint is the one of those three leads that's shown any measurable range of acting in those movies (comedic, dramatic, romantic, etc.). Then again, he had to be better than the other two in acting because he couldn't coast on his looks or his connections.

In a column about the "Star Wars" Blu-ray release, an entertainment blogger claimed that George Lucas' friends describe his "personal humor is one of 'getting your goat'; teasing meant to elicit outrage and vocal dissent."

That means if you're someone that bought those re-re-re-edits every time they came out on a new media format and then were outrageously outraged about how cheated you felt, George Lucas just laughed because the joke's on you.

The Tharks look... puny. I imagined them as powerful four-armed giants with elephantine tusks and green skin. These things look like every other CGI alien developed since 2007.

Dear Hollywood,

Please stop trying to force Zoe Saldana and Rashida Jones on us. They are neither exotic nor memorable in any of their roles.

Thanks,

Everyone Over the Age of Fourteen (or, if you are privately schooled, age nine)

"...in the September of her years..."

You should look for a more recent photo. It's more like "late November."

My take: They will screw this up... The real question is: "How badly will they screw this up?"

Great interview, Carl. I was going wait until the Blu-ray came out to see Exporting Raymond, but now I'll make the extra effort to see it at the cineplex when Sony gives it a wider release.

Exactly right.

That "Carrier" series was fantastic.

I've seen Casablanca and Gone with the Wind on Blu-ray but never considered buying them for my collection for one simple reason: No matter how much a studio spends on a frame-by-frame restoration of the original classic film print from the 1930s or 1940s, it's going to have two huge black bars on either side of my widescreen LCD HDTV. You can clean up all the dirt scratches on the acetate, separate the mono sound for a Dolby 7.1 mix, but can't fix a 4:3 source picture.

If I was the CFO of a big movie studio, I'd be loath to sign the checks for a company to perform a new transfer for our catalogue of pre-widescreen classics to sell on Blu-ray when 1) the DVD transfer from a few years ago--which was probably done in HD quality--is good enough and 2) home cinephiles are more interested in movies that were filmed in widescreen that will look great on a HDTV.

Discs are going to be the de facto standard for high quality movie viewing in your home for 20 years because IP-based delivery technologies like fiber to the home (FTTH) can only be available at a high cost in densely-populated areas. I admit if we all were crammed on top of each other in 600 sq ft South Korean high-rise urban apartments then we'd all get the 100 Mb synchronous FTTH speeds needed to make 1080p streaming video look good enough to replace Blu-ray for less than 200 bucks a month, but in America that's not an option.

Blu-ray is the best option to watch movies as the filmmaker intended in your home. Period. If you can't tell the difference between the Sound of Music DVD and the Sound of Music Blu-ray picture quality on your HDTV then you either have something wrong with your home theater setup or your vision is physically impaired.

I know that statement reads harshly to a lot of people, but it is a fact. If I offended you, then I'm sorry you feel that way... but it is an emotional rather than reasoned response.