Now for true high brow entertainment, with expectations, The Simpsons.

It was just like I heard from friends and read in a review. It is an over-long tv episode with additional sight gags, some standard funny laugh out loud jokes but mostly predictable Homer being Homer bad and then good.

Don't expect the best thing ever and you'll be fine. Hopefully the DVD will be loaded with cool extras. I would love to see a table reading especially with Harry's and Hank's many voices crossing over. Wow, that must be nuts.

Solid B for what it is. I enjoyed it like the show; but wouldn't see it again, until the DVD is out. My 14 said the same thing as me and my 10 said it was great and he wants to see it again. There is your audience.

Oh yeah, those three dirty parts made it a PG 13. The ratings board is a joke. That movie was barely PG and could have been G if it weren't for some uptight white people needing to impose a ridgid morality on those of us that can't be saved. Sorry that's another rant but those assholes really get me going.#@&*%$*

Rich, I'm glad you and your children enjoyed The Simpsons Movie. I worked on it and can tell you that the story went through so many permutations (with much of it fully animated and colored) that there is a wealth of material available for DVD extras should the producers be willing to share them.
Since you and your children apparently had no problem seeing it in a cinema I don't understand your rant regarding the PG-13 rating (which was actually sought by the creators), but what puzzles me more is how you know that the members of the Ratings Board are white. The Ratings Board is located in Los Angeles and I can tell you that this city is about as multi-ethnic as they come. I don't know who any of the members are but the odds of them being all white are not 100%. What's your gripe with white people anyway?

I saw the Bourne Ultimatum last night and it was quite the thrill ride. What I like about these movies is the actual real stunts. Less dependence on CGI is wonderful.

I loved how everyone was able to get around NYC so quickly. It would never happen in real life.

The Bourne movies have really turned out to be a solid trilogy and solid entertainment.

Watched Young Frankenstein for the first time in at least 15 years on tv yesterday and apparently I had forgotten nearly everything about the film because it was a lot quirkier and funnier than I remembered it being, and I for one didn't see the surprise ending coming at all. I'm just amazed at how good this film is and also shocked that a movie made in the 70s could have so many sexual references in it. Now to be fair it was nothing like the dialogue or visuals in the Austin Powers or American Pie films, but for 1974 still seemed quite shocking to me anyway. I believe the only other Mel Brooks film I've seen is Robin Hood: Men in Tights which I also found to be quite hilarious but Young Frankenstein to me is the clear winner if only for Gene Wilder's and Peter Boyle's impressive performances.

Re: Young Frankenstein

Network TV used to edit out the comment about the knockers. I don't know if they still do.

Don't know about network tv since I saw it on AMC but the comment about the knockers was definitely there. As were everything else that I could see. I personally can't stand it when tv edits movies for content but as far as I could tell AMC didn't which made me very happy.

I agree with all of the above opinions about Young Frankenstein - in fact, it's one of my favorite movies of all time.

The small scene with Peter Boyle and Gene Hackman (as the blind old man) is classic and worth the price of admission. Also, I can never keep a straight face during the appearances of Kenneth Mars (as the one-armed police inspector).

I'll echo the sentiments for Young Frankenstein. A hilarious comedy on its own merits, the crown jewel in Mel Brook's career.

Or Blazing Saddles. I would endorse either, or both.

"Put...the candle...back."

"Abbey Normal"

Yes, I won't even watch some movies on network TV.

I've always been a fan of old horror movies. It's fun to watch the first three Boris Karloff Frankenstein movies - Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, and Son of Frankenstein - and then watch the Mel Brooks movie. Young Frankenstein spoofs all three of the earlier ones. I have all four movies on DVD.

You don't really have to be a fan of horror movies to appreciate Young Frankenstein. It's just an added bonus.

I agree that Blazing Saddles is great. There is also The Producers.

Glad to see all these fans of Young Frankenstein. Like I said I hadn't seen the film since I was very young but even back then I knew there was something special about it. Now after being reacquainted with it I definitely know there's something special about it. And truth be told I was too busy laughing my head off to even notice it was supposed to be a horror film lol. Now that's what I call a great film.

Watched Evan Almighty and Knocked Up this weekend on DVD and absolutely loved the first movie but merely liked the second one. In my opinion Morgan Freeman was born to play God and was just as good in Evan Almighty as he was in Bruce Almighty. And Steve Carell (who I had never seen before in anything) did a surprisingly excellent job playing the congressman/Noah part. Also the biblical messages were extremely well done in my opinion and honestly I hadn't laughed this hard since seeing Will Ferrell in Kicking & Screaming in 2005. It may not have been quite as deep or profound as Bruce Almighty but it definitely was funnier and the lessons Evan had to learn were just as important as the ones Bruce had to learn as well.

Sadly I didn't feel the same way about Knocked Up, but all in all it wasn't too terrible of a film. It dragged on in places and was just plain dumb in others but it exceeded my expectations anyway, though to be fair they weren't really all that high to begin with. I liked the fact that the lady chose to keep her baby instead of killing it and eventually grew to love and appreciate the father of her child, while at the same time the guy himself learned to grow up somewhat and start acting more like an adult instead of a sex-crazed pothead, but still the movie didn't really blow me away or anything. Again it wasn't bad. I just didn't enjoy it as much as I have other raunch-filled but sweet sex comedies. Namely the American Pie films which in my mind are the king of sweet but raunchy comedies.

Saw my third penguin movie in almost a year and a half last night (Surf's Up) and overall was mostly bored with it. At least it wasn't as sad or depressing as March of the Penguins was to me (though it was definitely just as boring), but at the same time Happy Feet totally blew it out of the water lol. I think what bugged me the most about the movie actually was the fact that the whole thing was shot like a documentary which I've never been a fan of at all, and the characters were just way too silly to be taken seriously too. In my opinion enough is enough when it comes to penguin movies because with the exception of one they've all been crap. Not that Happy Feet was the greatest movie in the world or anything, but at least that movie held my attention throughout and kept me entertained at the same time. Compared to a snoozefest like Surf's Up or March of the Penguins, Happy Feet's practically a masterpiece lol.

I watched The Abandoned on DVD from Netflix yesterday afternoon. Very moody atmospheric chiller filmed in what appears to be Russia. If you like creepy ghost stories, then this one will be right up your alley.

Kinda reminded me of Carnival Of Souls.

I never miss a ghost story, so I went to see The Abandoned during its short theaterical run, which occured without benefit of critic screenings (usually a bad sign). I found it to be genuinely scary. Recommended for Halloween viewing.

Interesting experiment last night. I rented "28 Weeks Later" - I thought "28 Days Later" to be one of the better "zombie" - I know, I know "infected" - films in many years (I am a sucker for the genre). Hell, one of the better horror films that I can remember in recent years.

Anyway, with some movies, I'm not too fond of the 5.1 mix on my Bose system, so unless the mix is done really well, I'll flip to stereo. Went to stereo and there was a narrator; not commentary, but narration. During the opening sequance prior to credits, my wife and I thought it the narration was part of the movie, and it really worked! Giving the scene an interesting extra level of tension.

After the credits, as the narration continued, I flipped back to the 5.1, and sure enough, it was not part of the movie proper. My wife and I opted to listen with the narration - which was someone basically reading the story boards. At some points it did not add anything, but it overall it aided the tension. It added nuance to some shots which you might otherwise not think twice about.

Turns out, the stereo mix - the only available other than the typical movie commentary- was for "the visually impaired." It does beg the un-PC and insensitive question of the visually impaired being interested in a zombie film, as a large amount of their appeal is the visuals (which were pretty damn good). However, I found the interesting extra to make the movie probably better than it really was, but it did make for an entertaining evening.

Sounds like I have to try that mode.

28 Weeks Later was one creepy film. It was probably all those quick hand held shots but I had to look away during many scenes in this movie. A very intense experience when I saw it with Jimbo in NYC.

I have to remember to buy this when I see it in the store.

btw...anyone also think its pretty funny that they made another Elizabeth movie with Cate Blanchett?

I can't help thinking it should be called Elizabeth 2: Now She Kicks Ass!

Plus its been getting so-so reviews around these parts.

Saw "28 Weeks Later" last night for the first time. I liked it better than "28 Days Later". Very well done!

SPOILER ALERT for "30 Days of Night"-----------------------------------

I went to see this today. Had a feeling it might be really good. I was partly correct. A very intense, creepy vampire film. Fantastic setting, incredibly creepy monsters, and decent characterization. Sadly, I found the entire film was destroyed by the horribly fast and choppy editing during action sequences. I don't know what the need is for this. I find it very frustrating to only see blurs and flashes of light during a vampire attack - again and again and again. Ruined the film for me and my wife. Plus there is a badly written scene right at the climax. Boy, I'm pissed!! This one really came close to being good. I just had to vent.

Yo DanO: I saw 30 Days of Night today. I agree about the editing, but this has become commonplace lately. I've seen a bunch of recent action movies where you can't tell who's doing what to whom. Just a blur of images on the screen.

That aside, I had a lot of trouble with the the continuity of this movie. After an initial feeding frenzy, the vampires seem content to lay off for days at a time, when it would be obvious where the humans were holding up. And unless Josh Hartnett was taking time to shave, it looks like 2 or 3 days have gone by, rather than anything close to a month. And night in Barrow lasts longer than 30 days, I believe. Cool-looking vampires though. Rating: C.

It has a great trailer. I have read that they are zombies:

From Yahoo News: Zombie film "30 Days" wins box office bloodbath. The new zombie thriller "30 Days of Night" took a commanding early lead at the North American box office on Saturday, while the serious dramas "Gone Baby Gone," "Rendition" and "Things We Lost in the Fire" were on track for disastrous debuts.

"30 Days of Night," which revolves around a zombie invasion of an Alaskan town shrouded in 24-hour darkness, earned about $6.25 million on its first day of business Friday, according to data issued on Saturday by box office tracking firm Box Office Mojo

I also think Josh Hartnett is one of the worse actors of our day.