I found that opening paragraph hilarious. Jennifer Aniston has no butt and yet is a sex symbol. Jolie, Portman, all the others have no butt, either. ANiston is held up as a sex symbol, too. [Spoiler Alert]Given that the strategic shaving of a certain area is important during that nude scene, the no butt reference is doubly funny. Plus, I've been in that sort of theatre, with that sort of talking back to the screen happening. I lost it, and the friends I mailed it to lost it. I don't normally mail stuff out, either. Maybe it's a generational thing.

That said, different folks have different ideas of funny. This was a very ironic movie, and it is not for some folks. It is not going to delve deeply into how we screw up our relationships. I think the only profound thing in the movie is how bullheaded people can be about small things. This was a high class, big ticket Judge Judy breakup case without the courtroom.

I did find War of the Roses to be hilarious, too. I'm happily married, so I can laugh at the profoundly stupid things people do when breaking up, like nitpick and deliberately mess with minds. It's funnier to see it on screen than to live it.

For some, I suspect this movie will dredge up bad memories. Aniston is so Type A that one does not want to sympathize and Vaugn is very, very smlo. If you've lived through a friend's similiar breakup, you will get the movie. If not, you won't.

Outside of Salon's hothouse world, other people are not upset by the reference to her flat butt. It is a metaphor for everything else that is not there. It is a reference to how conventional and commercial Aniston is. It's a reference to the "Emperor's New Cothes" quality she has. Some reviewers think she is OK in the movie, none think she is good. She gets lots of attention, but is she worth it?

The butt reference is no where near as insulting to me as to some people here. It's flat, and that's funny. Her nudity is supposed to distract him from a video game, and a lot of people went "ReallY?"

I did not see it as an insult. I saw it as a statement of fact. SHe did the nude scene. Am I obliged to ignore it, because commenting on it upsets some WOmen Studies major's sensitivities?

Let me put it this way: it IS a crime what is still legal. The people bitching about SOX are like teens bitching about cleaning a massively messy room- if they had been doing it from the first, it would not have been a problem, and it's far too little anyway.The real driver was stock shares, and that must be fixed. People do illegal and just plain stupid stuff to juice the share price.

As little as SOX does (it does not rein in ridiculous CEO salaries, idiotic executive behavior, or a host of other ills), it is better than allowing people to lie to shareholders and the public at will. That led to Enron, the California blackouts, and a host of other ills.

As for Anderson, it was not just one lawyer. The consultants and others who reviewed Enron were involved in systematic incompetence and a few times, fraud. This worker here may not have been, but that corruption began at the top and was systematic to other top executives in Anderson. Anderson deserved to die as a corrupt company. Did I like seeing people lose jobs? No, I have relatives who lost jobs and pensions in the Enron/WorldCom mess. But blame the right people- the boards and top executives at Anderson were crooks who screwed up, just like the ones at Enron et al. The top executives caused these people to lose their jobs by turning a blind eye or helping cover up illegal acts. Blame the executives, not SOX, not some mythical overkill. The workers were sideswiped. They could have been laid off anyway to juice stock prices, anyway. Until this country decides to reward working over investing (i.e. a more sophisticated version of gambling) this stuff will continue to happen.