SuperSatellite ||

Addiction is an evil, nasty thing. It destroys relationships, eats away at your dignity, and leaves people helpless. It becomes a driving force in a person’s life, taking away a certain degree of free choice. And such is my curse. Forced to give in to unnatural desires and walk with an evil shadow over me.

I couldn’t help it. It’s hard when you have an enabler in your life. Especially one that offers a 40% off sale at your weakest moment (when you have 80 cool dollars burning a hole in your wallet). As a result, I walked out of Blockbuster today 11 movies heavier. Eleven. Only four of those were even on my current wishlist. At this rate, I will easily break 500 movies before the end of the year. That will be a dark day indeed.

This is nothing new. I’ve mentioned it many times, my collecting problem. I just never cease to amaze myself with how quickly I will just grab and pile up movies. I’m back to stacking them on the floor too, having ran out of shelf space yet again. I’m smart about it at least. I always buy previewed, and when there’s a sale. Using today’s sample as an example, I usually end up spend around $7.00 per movie, give or take. I have found that pretty true across the board. Based on that average, spanning 479 titles, that’s $3353.00 in movies, not counting tax (which would bring it up to nearly $3600). I wonder if I should itemize this stuff for insurance purposes…

And, much like a heroin junkie who needs increasing amounts to be satisfied, I keep buying more. I can stand at my shelves endlessly at times, not able to find anything that sounds like it is worth watching. That’s pretty insane when you consider how indiscriminately I purchase movies. Oh, and my wishlist is still about a hundred strong. In fact, it hasn’t shrank really at all over the past couple of years.

The only solution? Hollywood must stop making movies. Then I’d have nothing to buy. Simple, elegant.

In all seriousness, I look forward to having the opportunity to build a home theatre.  I big one.  My dad has built a few for people over the past couple years, and they’re awesome.  You’d never want to watch a normal TV again.  Can’t really do it here though, because my house doesn’t have room for it…yet…Just wait.  I have…ideas.

Here’s some movie news I didn’t really see coming (courtesy of FirstShowing.net, thanks guys!). Apparently the Weinstein Company has bought the rights to the Short Circuit franchise and is planning a remake of the original movie. As a bonus, S.S. Wilson and Brent Maddock, the original creators, are back on board. All told, this is not a terrible formula for a remake (especially compared to other remakes that have come out of Hollywood recently). It’s actually kind of a comfort to know that the guys who started it are on board; who better to protect an image than the people who made it?

But. There has to be a “but.” See, Short Circuit is one of my personal, all time, favorite 80s movies. It’s up there with Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Wargames, Gremlins, and some others. While a modern Johnny #5 is a neat idea, I’m not sure that it will work. 80s movies in this genre, at least ones not directed by James Cameron and Steven Spielberg, just have an interesting 1980’s campy patina to them. That’s the best way I can describe it I think. In an effort to make a good, high quality film on a relatively low (by today’s standards) budget, movies like this found their own kind of quality. Think about Innerspace, or Batteries Not Included, for instance. They made by the best they could, and without the ability for heavy CG reinforcement, they got a movie that had an almost “believable” feel to it. This was partly because when it came to things like the robot, they really scrounged up parts and made a damn robot. And as far as robots go, they don’t get much cooler than Johnny 5 was. I’d go so far as to say it was the most “emotional” and best “acting” robot Hollywood has ever seen (sorry Terminator).

The original film is about a military robot called Number 5 that runs away from the government after it’s struck by lightning and develops a conscience and a personality. With the help of a young woman, Number 5 tries to evade capture and convince his creator that he has truly become alive. As Peter at SlashFilm points out, Bob Weinstein probably noticed all of the discussion comparing Wall-E and Johnny 5 and thought that they could capitalize on the renewed interest. Unfortunately I don’t think that’s going to help turn this into anything good.

You know, one of the reasons that this remake is a little scary is that movies of this kind simply aren’t made anymore. This quasi-fantasy family film genre. It’s all about Narnia, or Harry Potter, or other high value, CG saturated, gimmick films. There is no “simple” anymore, which is where movies like Short Circuit would fall. And updating it would more than likely destroy what makes it great. You can’t replicate what made movies of that era good, it was simply a function of the environment, time, and technology. One of the tenets of film remaking is that you don’t just replicate it, you have to improve it. But I’m not convinced you can improve it. Like I said, a modernized Johnny 5 is a cool thought, it’s just that in bringing everything else up to speed you will lose everything that made it classic.

Be careful boys. This may not be some super beloved franchise, or one that tops millions of people’s top 10 lists, but I love it. And in the end, that’s all that matters, right?

Remember that movie I Am Legend that came out over the holidays? Remember how angry I was at it? Obviously there’s no need for me to rehash the pain and suffering that the ending of that movie caused me. It was a good movie through the first half, acceptable in the third quarter, and viciously worthless in the last quarter.

Really, it was a movie that I think would have benefited greatly the closer it stuck to the original plot, modernization not withstanding. It had a great setting, spectacular acting (why wasn’t Will Smith nominated for Best Actor at the Oscar’s?), and a good feel to it (though I question the quality of the vampires’ CG). The framework Matheson provided was perfect. And they screwed it up. End of story.

Well, it turns out there was an alternate ending. Firstshowing.net mentioned it this morning. Turns out, it actually is better (and blog chatter seems to agree with that across the board). Here, watch, and then continue reading:

Better, no? Better, but not as good as it could have been. It still ignores the key point that (spoiler, highlight to read) Neville was the last man on earth. That was the whole friggin’ point. But at least that alternate ending attempted to give the vampires some additional organized creepy feel. In the book, the vampires were much more humanized, and in the end you almost sympathize with them. The movie had none of that. And this alternate dropped that cheesy as all hell ending where the woman and kid find the town full of people, which was about the most cookie cutter, generic, bad Hollywood ending I have ever seen in a movie. It didn’t even feel remotely natural, more like some random producer just thought it’d be fun to screw up the movie.

Too bad they hadn’t gone with this ending in the first place. I am vaguely reminded of the director’s cut of Independence Day, where the theatrical version was better, because what was in the director’s cut was pretty much trash. It’s like that, only backwards. The stuff they left in I Am Legend is all the stuff that would have been better off out. My question is, what happens next? Should I buy the DVD anyway? It’d be nice if you could watch it with the alternate ending instead, as some DVDs do. That’d be okay I guess. I wonder if Warner Bros. pays attention to any of the blog chatter on matters such as this.

Akiva Schaffer, you are officially fired. Fired. Go to your office, pack your bags, and GTFO. Pam Brady, you too. Don’t even think about it, just leave. You both fail at movies. I watched Hot Rod yesterday, and it was the kind of bad that legends are made of. Not the good legends, but like the bad ones, ones no one remembers because thinking about it makes your brain hurt. They don’t have names for the evil that lurks in people’s souls that brings crap like this out.

I wish I could tell you Akiva Schaffer is known for some good movies in his past. He’s not, so just give up that hope right now. Like the Easter Bunny, the Holy Grail, or Will Farrell’s talent, it does not exist. He’s directed some Saturday Night Live. Oh, and a segment on some show called Channel 101. That’s it. After this movie, you can bet he won’t be lighting up the silver screen with new gems any time soon. Brady has written some South Park and other misc. TV shows. “How could this not turn in to Hollywood gold?!” you might be screaming in question at an unreasonable volume at your computer screen while sitting there in your underwear (…mmm….underwear readers…). Well, let me tell you, that particular equation actually comes out to epic fail.

The film truly had but one redeeming quality, and that is Isla Fisher, the cute starlet who is inexplicably married to Sacha Baron Cohen. But even that isn’t enough to justify spending a single dime on the film. It’s crazy, because I can normally pick crap out from trailers, but this film’s trailer made it look funny. I was fooled. That is a cruel and unfunny joke, however. Beneath the humorous trailer is a film made from anti-funny. Like matter and anti-matter, funny and anti-funny might appear similar at first glance, but they annihilate everything when they come in to contact.

Leading man Andy Samberg was painful in his portrayal of Rod Kimble. He was many things in the film: stale, dumb, unmotivated, uninspired. Things he wasn’t include: funny, creative, or engaged. Of course, what can you expect from a man who’s career highlight reel is capped with the Dick in a Box song. In fact, there isn’t a good character in the entire film. Isla Fisher is cute, yes, but the Denise character makes zero sense. All this is due to bad directing, and the worst writing I’ve heard in years. Example: The plot is driven by Rod, who gets into fights with his step dad to prove that he’s a man. Except he never wins, and the step dads heart starts failing, so Rod decides to do a stunt and raise the money to get him the heart transplant. So that he can beat him up. And prove his manhood. And the crazy part is, it plays out ten times worse than it even sounds.

There was hope in the plot. I am convinced that the right actors and writing can make any concept funny, and as dumb as it sounds, you see moments of potential here and there. Rather than take advantage of it, I genuinely believe the producers sat down and calculated ways to crush any chance whatsoever of anything being done right in the film. It’s so bad, it can’t be on accident. Somewhere, someone is having a good laugh over the whole thing, like it’s some stupid inside joke funny only to them, at the cost of millions of dollars.

FirstShowing.net terribly disappointed me here, giving it a 9 out of 10, and praising the very things that makes it awful. All I can imagine is that their reviewer was stoned, drunk, or confused with when April Fool’s Day is. Or maybe their review scale was flipped, and 10 would be like evilcarnagehitlerpornbad. In which case 9 is just really, really bad.

And that’s all I have to say on the matter. Don’t see it. Don’t think about seeing it. Don’t even talk to people who have seen it. Including me. I am poison now.

Today, you get a very special deal. Two review-like things for the price of one! It’s a holiday special, and everyone wins! I also admit that I am lazy, and didn’t want to spread this over two different posts.

Michaele and I went and saw National Treasure: Book of Secrets last night. I did really enjoy the first one, that is for sure. It was a good movie with a nice, historical basis to it that kept the brain happy. Book of Secrets, however, was not that. I thought that FirstShowing.net did a pretty good review of it, and I pretty much mostly agree with it.

It was not bad at all, so don’t get that impression. I’d rather not spoil anything, but it is mostly the first movie, with rehashed bad guys and a new treasure. But that’s what made the first movie work, and I was fine with it this go around. They could have done better tying things together like they did in the first, but they didn’t. Oh well. It was still a fun holiday movie to go see with some neat trivia, excitement, and relatively good pacing. I am not disappointed, and am not afraid to recommend it to others who enjoyed the first one.

If you’re interested in the Page 47 mystery, I did find this research someone did.  Likely?  Who knows.  I have my own theories.

Okay, die hard liberals are not allowed to criticize me for reading Culture Warrior. For one, I made a promise to. Second, it’s important to be educated about all sides of issues. For the most part, I group Bill O’Reilly at about the same level of Michael Moore. But not quite Ann Coulter. At least he’s still human. The point being that he’s a strongly partisan commentator, and as such, is a little looney to several degrees. Except he has a broader appeal among the right than Moore does with the left, or so is my perception.

Anyway, it’s actually not that bad a read, and it’s a little less political than you might assume at first. I agree on many points about certain aspects of traditional values in the country. Then again, I’ve never read a book that I can agree with on one hand, turn the page, and be completely blown away by the disregard for logic and proper problem solving.

For one, O’Reilly apparently has no concept of the differences between correlation and causation. The way he draws certain conclusions is so flawed, even high school debaters would rip him in half. I also disagree on a fundamental level with his concept of the “culture war” that he claims is in progress. I prefer to look at it as “culture rot.” It’s not a battle between two sides, it’s a disease that is eating us away. His culture war approaches conspiracy theory levels.

O’Reilly also has this strange habit of defending traditional values at the feet of how government here was founded. I call this strange because of other analysis he does. Such as attacking the media that has grown out of a system he directly praises (ideas of free market, etc). He will praise certain systems and principles we have, and then directly criticize the products of those systems. He blatantly ignores founding principles that we learn in elementary school, like the Constitution as a living document designed to grow with time. It comes across more like him resisting needed change in society, changes that are needed at root points to continue thriving as a society that is exponentially larger and more complex than the one that existed at the founding of the nation. We cannot live in the 21st century with an 18th century government and moral structure.

In the end, it makes him come across mostly like a stubborn old man who’s afraid of the future. He spends more time writing vanity text and fluffing his own ego than developing his points in defendable ways. He takes the opportunity to lambaste people who have spoken against him in the past, and between the lines all you can hear is “ha ha, it’s my book and you can’t interrupt me here, I can say as much as I want to and I know my fans will all agree.”

The worst part is that there are a few good trains of thought started. But you have to take care with the knowledge, and follow up on your own if you want to get any real “truth.” It’s a quick read, and as such is probably worthwhile. I would definitely recommend the die-hard left take the time for it. It’ll fire you up, and also give you more insight into the right, so don’t disregard it out of hand. He also does try, if in a biased manner, to approach issues nonpartisanly (if that makes sense, he basically thinks he’s being nonpartisan).