I agree that the camera work is excessive: quick cuts, jittery hand held camera, quick zoom. That and the faux thriller movie music make you feel the producers didn't trust the material and felt they had to tart it up. So it's languid and lurid at the same time. Odd mix.

I'm sticking with it, though, but it's not great Dickens (on screen) or even great TV per se, aside from Gillian Anderson and perhaps Charles Dance. It lacks the humor and wildness of Dickens. Note, for instance, how much funnier and creepier the spontaneous combustion is in the novel, the way it's discovered.

Yes, yes, yes, I know that's a book and this is visual--but I still find the mini-series somewhat lacking in style, charm, substance.

I've never been much of a Dickens fan; I prefer Thackerey and other Victorians. This Bleak House adaptation is mildly intriguing, but hardly the revelation and cultural monument described in this article. It's far too logey. I think the camera angles try capturing the frantic nature of the book, but otherwise this is something of a snooze.

I thought the Trollope adaptation, The Way We Live Now, was much sharper, better acted, and more compelling. Ditto Daniel Deronda. Hell, even The Golden Bowl from 30 years ago was better. Or any of the number of Henry James they did, like The Spoils of Poynton. Gillian Anderson, however, is superb, and it's good to hear her get props for The House of Mirth. Though she was physically wrong for the part, she had its soul.

See, the immorality has spread from Wyoming down to the animal kingdom! Nobody, no creature is safe from the homosexual agenda. I urge all concerned parents to check hamster cages and goldfish bowls for untoward propinquities and take the appropriate steps. Hollywood is destroying our moral fiber at every level, and next time you feel a twinge or have a migraine, it's most likely the threat of gay marriage undermining your reality.

Reality-based community member? I did not apologize to the Congressman. It seems you misread my letter. "But I'm sorry that you said" means "But I regret that you said--" I thought that was obvious. And I do indeed regret that his wife was ejected. Neither woman should have been removed from the House. I was not remotely trying to make the Congressman feel better, but call him to account on his inconsistency.

Fax Congressman Young and respectfully let him know that his standards don't add up. His D.C. office number is 202-225-9764. Here's what I wrote:

February 2, 2006

The Honorable C. W. (Bill) Young

United States House of Representatives

2407 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515-0910

by fax: 202-225-9764

Dear Congressman Young:

I’m outraged that your wife was ejected from the House because of her t-shirt. That was stupid and indefensible.

But I'm sorry that you've said in regards to Cindy Sheehan, "I totally disagree with everything she stands for."

Everything? Does that include freedom of expression?

Sincerely,

Why bother having hearings at all when the consistent message from the White House is: "Trust us, we know what we're doing."

That is, when they're not saying, "It's none of your business."

Specter doesn't have the balls to issue a subpoena and this will fade like every other abuse of power over the past five years has faded.

Repent! Repent! The end is near. Hell, the end is queer.

If Montanans sink into the cesspool of vice that this movie represents, then clearly the whole country is headed for "homosexualization."

The horror! The horror! Straight men will be moisturizing and hitting the gym in record numbers. And one shudders to think what their wives and girlfriends will be getting up to meanwhile. But won't it be hot to watch, wow-- Hey, if that's the price we have to pay for--

Sorry, I got carried away.

How could Hollywood lead us into this moral dead end?

Montana is starting to sound like the setting for a novel by a Republican.

Is it just me, or the quality of the recording, or does he sound slurry and unwell? He's having trouble speaking clearly, enunciating.

It's very revealing that Oliver North mentions Gallipoli in connection with Iraq. It shows you his unconscious at work.

Gallipoli was a huge disaster for the Allies: under-manned, poorly planned, expensive in blood and treasure, and it did not have the intended effects at all. Sound familiar?

Clearly, North feels the War is a disaster, but can't admit it or even admit the awareness into consciousness.

Gee, why does he hate America?

Hello? The problems originated right here at home, since if it's Afghanistan he means, then we helped create the Taliban monster and sponsor Osama. That's a lot closer than 7,000 miles.

It is more than ironic, in a country where irony flows down mightily the way justice should, that Cindy Sheehan was ejected from the House and arrested for wearing a t-shirt that listed the number of dead American soldiers in the Iraq War and asked "how many more?"

The media have gotten the story very wrong when they've bothered to report it. Here's Sheehan's account:

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/02/con06043.html

How come there's no mention of Cindy Sheehan's arrest in the Capitol before the SOTU and the false statements about what happened and why?

I enjoy and respect Keith Olbermann for his unrelenting focus on idiocy and villainy, but his imitation of O'Reilly was far less convincing and funny than Steven Colbert's. Olbermann ended up sounding as childish and petty as O'Reilly, which doesn't speak truth to power, just gives it a Bronx cheer.

This movie was actually a great horror spoof, sexy and funny, with good acting (even from Usher), and Stewart was great. A real surprise all around.

In addition to signature, I think we should also be asked to include photo, age, sexual preference(s) and astrological sign to make it easier to hook up with letter writers whose work we admire.

:-)