<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics: Comments on <i>The Jerk</i>: 26th Anniversary DVD Review</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:43:34 EDT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by Matt Paprocki</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/29/184950.php#comment-193231</link>
<description>Love the Holy Grail. Probably would put it up there. Life of Brian too. However, I find their other stuff, like Flying Cirucs, to be unbearable. I&#039;m not big on sketch comedy.

Can&#039;t say I&#039;ve ever seen Meatballs. I may have, but if I did, I don&#039;t remember it. I may have to though. A lot of Ghostbusters crew involved there. 

Looking over Allen&#039;s list on IMDB, and nothing is coming to mind. I&#039;ve seen some of the stuff he&#039;s been in, but not directed or written.

Now, most of Mel Brooks work, that&#039;s gold. Spaceballs, Men in Tights, History of the World, etc. 

I also have that fondness for Airplane!, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, and lots of slapsticks and parodies (UHF). </description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">193231@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:43:34 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by El Bicho</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/29/184950.php#comment-193223</link>
<description>Hmm, we&#039;ve got to try and isolate the problem if we are ever going to find a cure.

How about &quot;Meatballs&quot; or any of Woody&#039;s comedies or &quot;MP and the Holy Grail.&quot;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">193223@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:31:33 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Matt Paprocki</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/29/184950.php#comment-193113</link>
<description>See, it can&#039;t be the era El. Blazing Saddles and Animal House remain my favorite comedies of all time. That just can&#039;t be it. I don&#039;t know what I don&#039;t see. 

Young Frankenstein... ugh. I probably should watch it again now that I have a fondness for Universal&#039;s Frankie flicks. When I watched it as a kid, I had never seen them. Most of the comedy was probably lost on me too. 

As for the song, I&#039;ll switch it out, but there should be some mention of the 50s version in there. </description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">193113@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2005 09:09:30 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by El Bicho</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/29/184950.php#comment-193000</link>
<description>Wow, you should stop reviewing all comedies from this decade.  There is obviously something missing from DNA that doesn&#039;t allow you to enjoy these classics.  What are you going to blast next: &quot;Smokey and the Bandit&quot; or &quot;Young Frankenstein&quot;?

And for clarification, it&#039;s your post that has the factual error.  

&quot;Tonight You Belong To Me&quot; (Words &amp; Music by Billy Rose &amp; Lee David) was performed by Gene Austin in 1927 before being recorded by Patience &amp; Prudence in 1956.  

Janet Kelly (Ukulele Girl) performs these songs for a living.  You should have trusted her.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">193000@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2005 01:49:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Phillip Winn</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/29/184950.php#comment-192999</link>
<description>Man, I just clicked through to Amazon. For that price ($13.99 as I checked it just now), I think I&#039;m buying it.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">192999@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2005 01:48:21 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Matt Paprocki</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/29/184950.php#comment-192995</link>
<description>Ah, I had the idea as far as where I was going with that line, but I guess it didn&#039;t surface when I typed it. Thanks for picking it out. </description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">192995@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2005 01:43:07 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Phillip Winn</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/29/184950.php#comment-192981</link>
<description>I was confused by the reference to &quot;the latter&quot; when I hadn&#039;t seen two contrasted options, but I do realize that some people just don&#039;t &quot;get&quot; &lt;i&gt;The Jerk&lt;/i&gt;. Their loss, is what I think.

I&#039;m glad this is finally widescreen. </description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">192981@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2005 01:20:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>