The NY Times recommends <a
href="http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=276152&8mu">28 Days
Later</a>. I throw my hands up into the air, and beseech the all-powerful 
committees of Hollywood. I ask for intelligent tragedies and horrors, not 
films that start out brightly, and become harrowing only because the 
characters make poor choices. I want to see our best actions undone by 
cruel chance, evil plans, or plain old complexity. 

<p>
The bad thing is that I assume there is a definite marketing reason for this. 
There's probably a bunch of marketing research, indicating that my advocated
plot elements do not play as well as the current elements. Cursory google'ing
found <a href="http://www.gozingsurveys.com/">GoZing</a> which pays you PayPal
cash for each movie trailer you watch and review (fill out <a href="http://www.surveys4money.com/movie-trailers.html">survey</a>). I presume
that similar research is done for the movies themselves. 

<p>
Jeremy Rifkin's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1585420824">The
Age of Access</a> contends that increasingly we pay for our entertainment, that our
recreational activities are tending to revolve around commercial experiences. The 
GoZing site makes me wonder if one could construct the reverse, where we are paid
for our entertainment. This would probably require a malleable notion of entertainment. ;)

<p>