I thought the premise of "Shakespeare in Love" was absolutely brilliant, but failed to reach it's full potential. The one fatal flaw: the two characters supposed to be "in love" are actually in lust. The writer gives us no reason why they want to be together except to do the hokey-pokey.

Truly great romances such as "An Affair to Remember," "Pride and Prejudice" and even "You've Got Mail," give us much deeper reasons why the couple must be together, aside from physical attraction.

Hated both movies, and anything Woody Allen has ever done (except maybe a few chuckles in Sleeper). His work only reflects a nihilistic, narcissistic, smug, elitist, atheist and anti-traditional values point of view. His movies do nothing except leave me bored at best or feeling like listening to nails on a chalkboard at worst.

Here is my take on "Midnight in Paris:"

The Owen Wilson character, while somewhat charming, was fascinated like a school boy with a bunch of self-absorbed 1920's characters. The 1920's characters were portrayed as a superior group of people because they loved art and literature. These people with no apparent responsibilities connected to real life, loved to drone on and on into the pompously high reaches of the intellectual stratosphere where only the truly great dwell. The only time they come down to earth is to get a refill on their alcoholic beverages and look for their next exciting and sophisticated lover who will help them further understand the meaninglessness of life that can only be truly appreciated by the enlightened few. Oh, and the Tea Party sucks.

Hear, hear. I too am LDS and I'm extremely disappointed the more I learn about Mitt. What is further disconcerting is to see fellow Latter-day Saints begin to use the same false justifications that Mitt uses for some of his liberal positions. For example, using the principle of agency to be pro-choice (a logic that was debunked by Elder Oaks himself in the 90's). Mitt isn't just hurting the Republican party now, he is setting a terrible example for gullible Latter-day Saints who are accepting his sophistry and moving further to the left.

Our finances are terrible because we have become an immoral people- willing to sacrifice a baby's life for a moment of pleasure, taking no responsibility for our actions and reshaping the culture to fit what gives us self-esteem. The fact that our politicians are able to spend taxpayer money to bribe citizens is not unrelated to this lack of morality.

We're talking about a human being, not some random thing like a virus in a woman's body. All laws are based on morality, it just depends on which morality you are choosing. We are not free to hurt others. Abortion is taking the life of another.

I am a conservative and I believe the science about vaccines is not settled. This does not mean that I am anti-vaccine and I really don't appreciate other conservatives calling me a flat earther.

Vaccines, our bodies immune system and health in general is extremely complicated. I have read many reports of parents who have successfully helped their autistic children through heavy metal chelation therapy, through a gluten free/casein free diet and through balancing out the gut dysbiosis.

I personally have health problems that have been untreatable through traditional medicine and I have found success through non-traditional means. There is much the scientific community is still learning.

I think the author of this article is doing more harm than good by demonizing those who are trying to find solutions to
autism and using scare-mongering tactics. Just because you question the safety of a vaccine does not mean you are advocating giving up all vaccines, there can be much more balanced approaches- starting by identifying children who may be at risk due to already compromised immune systems and by possibly giving fewer vaccines at one time which can be extremely hard on the body.

Just as it is stupid to think the earth is flat, it is stupid to think that chemicals and solutions we inject into our bodies can have no effect on our overall health. And I'm sorry, but the one study that was done claiming to disprove a link between vaccines and autism seems very weak science indeed. If people really feel that changes happen to their children after having a vaccine, there need to be numerous and thorough studies before the theory is adequately debunked. It is our health we are talking about!

Midnight in Paris...blech. Self absorbed phony intellectual main character loves to hang out with fellow elitists and talk about "art" and really "deep" stuff. Oh, and conservatives are stupid, evil and only care about shopping.

I think the best movie of the year was "War Horse." Excellent story and characters, hit on some real history and emotionally grabs you at the end. And there wasn't a drop of insults or condescension toward anyone in the whole movie.

So that must make you a Mitt supporter, right? No mandates there, no none at all.

This list against Perry is ridiculous compared to the baggage Newt and Mitt have. And Santorum? He couldn't carry his own state. He lost his last election by 19 points. He is not a viable candidate.

Maybe this post is a way to endorse Mitt without the embarrassment of endorsing him, kind of like National Review did.

I'm for Perry 100%. He does more than blow hot air (like some candidates). He has the best record of actually advancing conservatism. Is he perfect? No, but he is as close as we are going to get this election.

And he is absolutely electable. No, he is not perfectly electable but we have to make a calculated risk here. Both Romney and Newt have severe electability challenges (Romney 1%, Newt divorces and other stuff). When looked at as a whole I think Perry has the best electability chances.

In fact, talking with my semi-lib mother last night, she doesn't want Obama anymore. She has reservations about Mitt because he seems to have no grounding principles. Newt scares the crud out of her. She actually seems open to Perry, FWIW.

Perry all the way!