...don't buy a ticket to his new movie, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, which astonishingly includes only one scene in which dude shows skin.

(Though it pains me to admit that the film isn't completely terrible. McConaughey's character is a tool, no doubt, but somehow the actor gets more tolerable as the Christmas Carol-meets-every-romantic-comedy-ever story wears on. I'm not suggesting you run out and see it. But I did laugh a couple of times, with each giggle followed by an intense bout of self-hatred.)

Anyway, if you are interested in a cinematic history of McConaughey's flesh, Entertainment Weekly put together a rather amusing slideshow.

And the stronger-stomached -- or actual fans? -- among you are sure to find some beefcake on his personal Web site. I got as far as its home page, where irritating reggae music assaults you and instructions invite you to choose between entering "easy" or "real easy."

Now there's the McConaughey I know and loathe!

Despite layoffs aplenty and rumors that it may starting swinging exclusively online, Entertainment Weekly will continue to be published by Time Inc., according to Gawker.

Whew. My reaction to the news that Time might kill the mag's dead-tree edition went something like this: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

Go ahead, knock it all you want. EW may be drivel, but it's my favorite kind of drivel, and I want it in my hands every night -- er, I'm a slow reader -- soothing my tired eyes and brain after a long day of staring at the infernal computer.

Not to mention that sometimes, on not-so-great weeks, I kinda like learning that I'm not the only critic who thought that, say, Choke was a pretty good movie. (Go Owen!)

I've been burned by Time's promises before, though. (Anyone want a case of Songs 4 Worship cassettes, liner notes edited by yours truly?) But until that dark day when I discover I need to log on to read the Hit List, I'll cherish every issue.

With its 1001st issue, Entertainment Weekly unveiled a redesign of the entire magazine. I am not a foe of redesigns. Time's for instance, has drawn all manner of ridicule, but I think it's really good---it's clean-looking (thank you, The Economist!), and it's already shown that it can withstand the loss of ideas that don't work, like that photo timeline on the opening spread, which teased stories that didn't appear in the magazine. Hopefully, soon its Wiki-style flexibility will allow the loss of the shockingly predictable Pop Chart.

EW's redesign, though, looks cheap. There's an opening spread that looks like it wandered over from OK!, and I don't think Sound Bites has been improved by floating the funny quotes comic-book-style, above photos of their speakers' heads, but the real bummer is the way every article contains a boldface phrase. It's extremely distracting. Maybe the point is to make it easier for publicists to find blurb gold like "absolutely marvelous," but I suspect it's born of a misguided attempt to make EW's articles, which aren't that long anyway, look more bloggy.

Curiously, the online versions of the reviews omit the goofy formatting. Stick with those for now.