I laughed a lot, but it's still nowhere near the category of classic Simpsons episodes (Scorpio, Bart with the fake ID, Lisa taking the bus to the Egyption exhibit, the Clinton-Dole alien replicas on Treehouse of Terror, just to give you some idea of the one's I'm refeering to...of course there are far too many great episodes for me to remember even a fraction of them for a decent list). You barely see the supporting characters at all, and generally they are funnier than the nuclear family. It's good, but it isn't great. It's better than many of the episodes we've gotten in recent years, I will say that.

It only causes you to focus on it even more, and reinforce the ditty's persistence in your mind. Think of other things. I don't mean try to block it out. Take an "okay, that's playing in my head. And consider other thoughts that are poping into your head at the time: what's going on in your life, what that person next to you is doing, where you are going for lunch. Let that ditty be background noise, if it must. The less attention you pay, the less frequently it will pop up.

the foursome of legendary directors whose work created and defined the art-film market in the years after World War II, the others being Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa and François Truffaut.

Excuse me? Godard didn't create and define the art-film market?

The first time I've read an O'Hehir piece and thought, what the hell are you saying?

You nailed it. Thanks for getting it right.

I will grant you that comparing the choreographed action sequences with a Fred Astaire dance sequence is an interesting one. However, where Fred Astaire's dance is graceful, smooth and obviously choreopraphed, the Bourne fights are disjointed and rough in their nature. Thus Greengrass decides to film them as such.

I wonder if a comparison with Jerome Robbins's choreography would have been more apt.

So is a person like me who, from the time of the low-speed Bronco chase until today, finds himself watching every OJ headline. I don't even follow sports, and here I am clicking on the article to find out what is going on in the former football player/present unincarcerated murderer's warped mind. Why should I care? I shouldn't. Why should I give it my attention? I don't know, but I do.

At least I never bought any of the OJ books. And I certainly wouldn't buy this latest thing in any form, whatever it might bring to the Goldmans. Frankly, they have come to seem as creepy and deranged to me as OJ. Seemed so even before the first trial was over.

"I've been waiting for this," she told the crowd. "This gives us a real sense of reality with my being here."

But what could have less of a "sense of reality" than that very phrase? She's so programmed, false, and manipulative. How anyone can consider voting for her is beyond me. Why Salon adores her (and it clearly does) is equally beyond my understanding. She has no committment except to herself. She'd be very bad for the country.

Yes, the men should not have been forced to march in the parade (as opposite the intentions of any pride parade as I can imagine). Yes, calling the guys "assholes" was startlingly rude. Why does the San Diego gay community have an issue with firefighters?

But it is not sexual harassment? Please lose the gender-neutral "all things to all sexes" approach. Guys are generally more sexually aggressive, and women more reserved. To a woman, yes hearing such a thing from an unwanted source is harassment. To men, no. I can't imagine any man really feeling victimized by such language—and that doesn't sound like it was the case here. They were forced into something they didn't want, and that noboday else wanted either. The situation was tense and they go pissed. Clearly this mistake should not be repeated. But harassment? Get real.

And I should add that I do think there are instances of sexual harassment men face, or an individual man might face. I just don't think the sexes repsond to language and feel persecuted by language the same way.

Sorry for misspellings and odd punctuation. Hope the though still gets through.

Instead of dealing with the study's tedious scientific details, media reports are trumpeting it with headlines like "Feminine Men Make Perfect Partners, Say Women" and "Why Women Are Now Looking for More Feminine Men."

Kinda like you did?

He caved, he went along, and any "revelations" he make will only be to save his own sorry political ass. Too bad, he could have saved a lot of lives and changed the course of history. He chose otherwise.

I noticed this in Zacharek's review of The Bourne Ultimatum, too. There she wrote:

Greengrass knows how to use a movie frame so we know where to look every instant

which was almost word-for-word from any number of Kael reviews. And here we have:

"Stardust" is imaginative and intricate, but it's also joyfully casual, maybe to the point of being a little messy in places.

Plus the constant reference to how a movie "feels," as if it were a pair of shoes or a sweater we were slipping into.

This is pure Kael vocabulary. It's hers. When asked what she thought about critics imitating her style, she said "It creeps me out." If you love her as much as I sense, don't gross her out beyond the grave.

Please, Stephanie Zacharek, stick to your own voice and style. I often enjoy your reviews when you do, and think you have some good insights (I disagree with you about Heathers, but so what?).