Well, I will tell you: HD DVD is a fantastic product, superior in almost every way to Blu-ray (I say this with experience, because I have both players; own and have watched many, many discs in both formats), but it lost the competition, because most studios decided to go exclusively with Blu-ray. (I have a conspiracy theory that Blu-ray backers Sony and/or Disney paid companies off; I'm looking at you, Netflix! -- but that could just be my own anger at the loss of my favorite format.)

When I first bought my HD DVD and Blu-ray players, I received 10 free discs in each format, so I had plenty of time to see which format I liked better. I chose HD DVD for a few reasons:

1. The machine works better. This might just be the Samsung Blu-ray player I bought, but I have had to call Samsung more than once and have to reset my Blu-ray player all the time, because it gets stuck in the "LOAD" mode when I turn it on. (Resetting is a pain; it requires holding down the fast-forward for 11 seconds, turning off the player, unplugging it for a couple minutes, plugging back in, and trying again.)

2. The discs look better. In a side-by-side comparison, HD DVDs just look better -- at least on my TV. I've taken a couple discs that are available on both formats and compared them, and every time, the HD DVD version has been crisper, clearer and more vibrant.

3. Upconversion. Put a standard, old-school DVD into your HD DVD player and it's automatically converted to a higher-definition format. It's not as high-definition as an HD DVD or a Blu-ray, obviously, but it's so much prettier than in standard definition. I can't even watch a DVD on a regular, old DVD player anymore. It hurts my eyes to look at such a bland, colorless format. (I know, I know... some Blu-ray players also upconvert, but for my money, Toshiba's HD DVD players do it better. Again with the side-by-side comparisons.)

4. More and better special features. One aspect of HD DVD that has, without a doubt, surpassed Blu-ray are DVD extras. Many HD DVD and Blu-ray discs offer exclusive features not available on the standard-definition DVD. However, only HD DVD has been offering the "In Movie Experience" and picture-in-picture commentaries since nearly the inception of the format. These extras, which are available on discs too numerous to list here, offer something more than you can get on Blu-ray and DVD, because they let you watch the movie with not just a commentary, but a commentary that can also show you how a scene was shot, or that can break dissect a movie in the corner while the movie's playing.

If you watch a special-effects-filled movie such as Beowulf, for example, with the picture-in-picture commentary on, you are going to see what was actually shot in the picture-in-picture window while you'll see what it looks like in its final movie form in the big window. Beowulf isn't exactly a great film, but it's pretty astonishing to see how greatly what the actors wore and did differs from the finished product. HD DVD makes this possible. Even in a movie with very few effects, such as Knocked Up, the picture-in-picture offers something special: You get to watch the filming as it actually happened, with goof-ups, ad-libs, outtakes, interviews with cast and crew, and more.

So, feeling the way I did about the two formats, I've long believed HD DVD would have to win out. Unfortunately, I was wrong. The good news is that this has made it possible for me to snatch up more HD DVDs than I care to admit (OK, I'll admit it; since the announcement that the format would come to an end and the price-cutting started, I've bought around 60 HD DVDs -- as many or more that I haven't seen as that I have) at a price of somewhere around $10 a disc. Compare that to Blu-ray prices (the most inexpensive ones I can find are more than $15, and they go way up from there), though, and I've saved boatloads of money.

The weird thing is that right now, I'm not even alone. HD DVDs have been topping the HD -- and sometimes even overall -- sales charts since the announcement. Surely this is because other folks have been trying to get their hands on as many titles as they can before there are no more. Lately, retailers have even started raising prices on the discs and the players again, a sign they know they can get more than bargain-basement prices out of them.

Still, I realize that eventually I could end up being a lone wolf in the HD DVD wilderness when everyone else relents and embraces Blu-ray, but I'm sticking with it: HD DVD is the best format, the winner in my eyes, and I'll keep buying the discs as long as I can. -- DeAnn Welker

They needed someone kind of innately uptight for the role of Dave. Someone like a David Hyde Pierce, who just looks like the kind of guy who'd lose his shit when a bunch of poop-eating, pop-singing, smartassy rodents disobey him. Someone who's really too high maintenance to be sharing his house with a trio of hantavirus carriers, but who'd be just frustrated and stubborn enough stake his entire career and livelihood on them. Jason Lee, who I've loved since his first turn as Kevin Smith's Brodie, just doesn't scream "uptight" to me. I know it's acting, of course, but the association Lee brings to mind is that of a skateboarding, easygoing messenger of karma. He'd be the guy stumbling into an Alvin and the Chipmunks concert, thinking he was on a helluva trip and enjoying the ride. Casting Lee for the role is like casting squirrels for the chipmunks. They're both great! But not quite the right fit.

Actually, you know who would have been perfect for the role of Dave Seville? Tom Cruise. No, seriously. I mean, there's no way he would have touched this movie with a ten foot pole (if only for the fear of the inevitable Leno/Letterman jokes about being cast as one of the chipmunks himself) but otherwise? Who better to bring that certain high-strung need for order to a role? Can't you see him working himself into a froth over Alvin's irrepressible singing? It wouldn't have been the first time a Big Movie Star made the transition to kiddie pics, either, especially with "well, I have kids now" as a convenient explanation.

Save Jason Lee for movies you can bring your grown-up friends to see, or TV shows about miscreants-gone-good. Leave the CGI rodent nostalgia for the other guys.

Compare these films, little more than a collection of unrelated gags, to the great spoofs of movies past. The great Airplane! was very specific (and didn't have to be called Disaster Movie) and actually had a plot, albeit a silly one, to carry it from beginning to end. The other films in the genre spawned by Airplane!, even the lesser ones such as the Hot Shots! movies, also zeroed in on their satirical targets without relying on the broad. Can you imagine anyone trying to make the underrated Top Secret today? Try selling a spoof that tosses Elvis movies, Beach Party movies and WWII tales into a blender and hits puree?

Look back even further at Mel Brooks' heyday. Watch Young Frankenstein and admire the care taken with its cinematography and even some of the same sets used in the Frankenstein films of the 1930s. The lowest common denominator is alive and well. I just wish they'd cut to the chase and start naming some films Crap Movie and just add Roman numerals after them (or Arabic numbers if you find the Roman numerals too highbrow).