when the laughtrack starts, then the fun starts

Tonight, after work and XDU board meeting, I was feeling too tired to cook and Sarah was equally uninspired so I just grabbed some take-out on my way back from the station. I did stop at the Durham WFM to scan their prepared foods section, but nothing looked particularly appealing. (sidenote: I often feel this way when scanning the prep.foods dept at the Durham store so I'll be interested to see if the new team leader there makes any significant changes to their offerings) Ended up getting Bo's but some combination of dinner and last night's lack o' sleep went off on my system. Lay down around 8. Woke up just before midnight, feeling like I'd eaten a greasy starch bomb. So while I'm drinking a few more glasses of water, I might as well write this, no?
If you haven't already, pop on over to Phil's where he mightily smacks down the Village. I haven't seen it, nor do I plan to. But I agree that Ebert's review was a rare highlight in his usual vapid criticism. Was he always like this? Perhaps the loss of Gene Siskel as critical foil caused him to lose whatever edge he once had. My feeling is that Ebert seems to forget that, unlike him, we don't have to watch every single movie that comes out. The typical current Ebert review consists in finding the one enjoyable feature in a crappy movie, without ever acknowledging that, since it's a crappy movie, you (the reader) probably shouldn't waste your time seeing the movie in the first place. But I digress... After reading Ebert's review, I went online and tracked down the spoiler info. All I can say is that I'm glad I didn't have to pay money to find out that particular "shocking secret." Like Xta, I slogged thru Signs and that was pretty much enough to finish me off with Shyamalan forever. I swear, Signs is a movie that you can see getting dumber frame by frame.