'Juno' the best picture of the year? Are you kidding me, Dann?

• Dann: I saw "Juno" today and finally understand your review of it. It was far too cute by half and the dialog bordered on arch. It was indeed the most unrealistic approach I have seen to the issue of teen pregnancy, and the parents, while played very well, were not believable. I also felt it slanted heavily toward the pro-life stance, which I found offensive. The dialogue was very clever and therein lies the problem. Ellen Page is indeed very talented and made the picture her own. Her Oscar nomination is well-deserved; however, "Best Picture"? You've got to be kidding me! -- Kathy Combs, Northbrook

Dear Kathy: Most other movie critics agree with you that "Juno" is not the best picture of 2007. I have seen Jason Reitman's comic gem eight times and I am convinced it is. I agree with you that "Juno" eschews realism. Screenwriter Diablo Cody developed a marvelously glib and stylized patois for her characters, no different than the perfectly crafted diction Damon Runyon created for his stories (the source for the musical "Guys and Dolls") or the artfully executed obscenities David Mamet stuffed into the mouths of his less-delicate characters.

If you went to see "Juno" expecting it to be something it was never intended to be, that could explain your disappointment. "Juno" contains a perfect romantic comedy finale. Juno and Beeker sing a duet on a sidewalk. They have found each other and share a moment of literal harmony. Then, the cross-country runners zip across the screen. They are a metaphorical reminder that life races on.

Yep, "Juno" is the best movie of 2007. No doubts.

As for the film's supposed pro-life slant, I can only reiterate my observation that Juno decides to abort her fetus, and no one dictates her choice. Juno reconsiders her decision when she realizes her baby could bring happiness to another couple, so she changes her mind. Should we consider "Juno" to be a pro-life movie because Juno chooses to have her baby? Or should we consider it to be a pro-choice movie because Juno chooses to do what she wants without mandates from her parents, boyfriend, church and lawmakers?

bull; Dear Dann: Why don't movies ever start at 6 p.m.? They're always at 5 and 7 p.m. -- Lawlady

Dear Lawlady: For the answer, I went straight to the man: Ed Doherty, promotions director of Classic Cinemas, based in Downers Grove. He told me that the industry recognizes the 7 p.m. hour as "prime time" for customers who've had time to eat supper before zipping out to see a movie. But there's much more to scheduling than that.

"We use a computer to schedule all our movies so that we don't have all of them getting out at the same time," Doherty reported. "We also don't want all the movies starting at the same time for the same reason: People would be climbing over each other at the multiplexes."

Doherty says scheduling movies has become such an art, theaters even take into consideration the number of likely restroom visits so nobody waits too long. Further complicating the schedule are movie running times. Some films run less than 90 minutes; others stretch for far more than two hours.

In cases where the same movie runs in two or more theaters, you can actually catch a start time on every hour. I hope that does it, Lawlady.

bull; Attention Dann Gire: Lately, when trying to rent a video or DVD at local video stores, I have not been able to get what I'm looking for in a whole-screen coverage. They seem to be only available in wide-screen format. After talking to a buyer for a video store, I was advised that the studios that produce these videos don't seem to care that many of us are not set up for wide-screen videos. I was also told that a DVD can be produced to accommodate both wide- and whole-screen formats on one disc.

We don't feel that we should have to throw out our current TV, nor can a lot of us afford to do so. Would appreciate anything you could do to alleviate this situation. -- Dot Sheehan, Mount Prospect

Dear Dot: I also have a traditional "Academy ratio" TV set (4-to-5) at home and I enjoy a great many wide-screen movies on it. In fact, I insist on seeing movies only in the wide-screen mode, if that's how they were originally formatted. To watch wide-screen movies on "full-screen" mode would be a violation of cinematic art. Yes, playing wide-screen films on a regular TV set creates black bands at the top and bottom of the screen. So what? That's better than watching a movie where 20 percent to 30 percent of the original image has been ripped off of the sides, producing scenes where two people might be talking to each other, but you can only see one person.

We've both got to get with the times, Dot. I called up the Daily Herald Video Answer Man, Jeff Tuckman, who reports that video manufacturers who used to provide movies in both wide-screen and full-screen formats (such as Universal Pictures) are now only doing wide-screen. In fact, American consumers are overwhelmingly preferring wide-screen to full, a complete reversal from just a few years ago.

Unfortunately, your options are down to two: Learn to ignore black bands on your TV set or go out and purchase a wide-screen one.

Since the 1950s, that's the way an increasing number of motion pictures have been intended to be seen, and the way they will be seen from here on in. Sorry.