A pair of observations

#1: The Marvel Studios Formula for a successful superhero movie, as evidenced by Iron Man (smash hit) and The Incredible Hulk (give it time): Take one well-known but difficult-to-translate character; add one completely unexpected, incredibly risky but undeniably interesting fmaous creative personality who could be a disaster but also makes a perverse kind of sense in either the writing, directing or acting capacity; roll dice.

#2: It has been a running cigars-and-brandy joke among old-guard film snobs that Hollywood is now treating *snort!* "superhero movies" like it used to treat Shakespeare. Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw.

With these observations in mind, take note that Variety has reported that Kenneth Brannagh is, apparently, being offered the director's chair on "The Mighty Thor."
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117993032.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Yikes.

Want to know a great irony of our age? If he were alive and working today, Sir Alec Guiness would be FIGHTING for the role of Obi-Wan Kenobi...

Eagle Eye

Could someone please tell Shia LeBeouf that we like him? That people are aware of his name? That even if they didn't/weren't it doesn't matter because Steven Spielberg has decided to turn him into the next big thing? I don't think he knows - it's the only explanation for why an otherwise fine young star keeps making such awful movies. Between this and "Transformers," he's now starred in two of the worst tech-related action thrillers of the millenium.

"Eagle Eye" is a relentlessly stupid movie with a smart brain, which just means it takes longer to let you down. See how quickly YOU figure out what the "big surprise" is about who the mysterious hacker/terrorist is, and after that see how quickly you figure out that the capabilities we eventually witness make the ENTIRE FUCKING SETUP of the film completely useless. It's a two hour film as LeBeouf and Michelle Monaghan bounce around the country following cryptic messages from the mystery baddies, but it's apparently all too quickly that the whole first 110 minutes didn't logically need to occur. At all.

INTERMISSION: YOU LIKE ME, YOU REALLY LIKE ME!

LarryD from Acts of the Apostasy has graciously awarded me with, um, an award. Of course, I have to pay for it by completing a meme, but given my track record with awards, I’ll take what I can get.

This time around it’s the One-Word Meme. Now, long time readers of this blog know that anytime I get ambushed with a meme, I try to maintain my shtick while completing it. So everyone gather round while I make the desperate attempt to answer the following questions using only one-word movie titles.

01. Where is your cell phone? CASTAWAY
02. Where is your significant other? UNLEASHED
03. Your hair color? MAHOGANY
04. Your mother? SUPERSTAR
05. Your father? BRAVEHEART
06. Your favorite thing? SERENITY
07. Your dream last night? SENSELESS
08. Your dream/goal? DELIVERANCE
09. The room you're in? INNERSPACE
10. Your hobby? WORDPLAY
11. Your fear? BREAKDOWN
12. Where do you want to be in 6 years? BEACHES
13. Where were you last night? HOUSE
14. What you're not? UNFORGIVEN
15. One of your wish-list items? EUROTRIP
16. Where you grew up? HELLHOLE
17. The last thing you did? BLINK
18. What are you wearing? SMILE
19. Your TV? BIG
20. Your pet? PSYCHO
21. Your computer? DINOSAUR
22. Your mood? MANIAC
23. Missing someone? PAYCHECK
24. Your car? GAS-S-S-S
25. Something you're not wearing? ENOUGH
26. Favorite store? BORDERS
27. Your summer? NUTS
28. Love someone? BEDAZZLED
29. Your favorite color? BLUE
30. When is the last time you laughed? ALWAYS
31. Last time you cried? CLUELESS

Whew. Now I’m supposed to link to at least 7 other blogs which is always a problem because by the time a meme reaches me it’s usually already circled the universe and traveled through every known alternate dimension, twice. So if by some chance you’re reading this and haven’t done this meme yet, you are tagged.

Mega Man 9

The retro-gaming thing has been on such a high kick for awhile now, which makes the innevitable backlash all the more innevitable and depressing. Does nostalgia make us call things classics that aren't? Sure, all the time.

But y'know what else? It's spot-on just as often. As far as I'm concerned, this game (new, but designed as though it wasn't) is all the necessary proof that old-line fans have been right all along that Mega Man just works BEST in 8-bits and scored by MIDI.

The game just kicks IMMESURABLE levels of ass. Buy it. It's awesome. It's downloadable on Wii now, PS3 by the weekend, 360 next week. Pick it up. This sort of thing needs to be encouraged, people - I wanna be shaking my head in disgust at obscene Splash Woman fan-fiction by no later than Sunday.

NOW SHOWING AT A BLOG NEAR YOU: THE CATHOLIC VOTE

Alright, I know this is more political stuff, but man, I’m a sucker for this kind of cinematic treatment. (Anybody know the music? I feel like I know the theme, but can’t quite put my finger on it.)  This is the latest advertisement being put out by CatholicVote.com both on their website and YouTube. I hope it gets some television airplay.

WEEKLY NEWSREEL

Good evening Mr. & Mrs. Catholic, and all you other Christians at sea. One of the fun things about reading the entire Bible a second or third time is that your familiarity with the big stories allows you to notice some of the odd stuff that might have slipped by the first time through. So when we here at the Newsreel decided it was time to take another tour through the whole thing (using The Coming Home Network’s guide to reading the Bible and the Catechism in a year), we thought it would be interesting to keep track of some of the weird little tidbits that don’t usually make it into the A-List Bible studies. As such, over the next year, our intrepid reporters will be presenting to you the B-Side of the Bible as things grab our attention. Now off to press.

DATELINE: GENESIS CHAPTER 46 – After Joseph has been reunited with his family and is in the process of bringing them to Egypt so they might survive the seven year long famine, he offers them this quirky piece of advice. “When Pharaoh calls you, and says, `What is your occupation?' you shall say, `Your servants have been keepers of cattle from our youth even until now, both we and our fathers,' in order that you may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians." The story moves quickly on, but we here at the Newsreel couldn't help but wonder just what inspired this horror of hairy sweaty animal-smelling men or just why Joseph thought it was a good idea to frighten the Egyptians with it.

Authors Caryn Aviv and David Shneer suggest that "over the course of several centuries, Jews added various cultural strategies for remembering the homeland while firmly “rooting” themselves in local places... [they] created a sense of home while simultaneously marking themselves as apart from those around them." Basically, the Jews felt that if God went through the trouble of making a covenant with them, it was probably a good idea to make they weren't bred out of existence by mixing with the locals. A number of rabbis suggest that Joseph accomplished this voluntary segregation on his watch by emphasizing a Jewish occupation which would have freaked out the Egyptians, a race who refused to eat mutton or lamb chops because it would dishonor the ram-headed god of Thebes, Amun. And it worked. The Pharaoh welcomed the Jews for Joseph's sake, but was more than happy to let them keep their sacrilegious sheep tending ways out in the boondocks.

It's a plausible explanation, but sometimes we have to wonder if perhaps it didn't have something to do with the sheep themselves. Sometimes, those things are just eeevil....

DATELINE: GENESIS CHAPTER 24 - "Now Abraham was old, well advanced in years; and the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things. And Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his house, who had charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and of the earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell, but will go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son Isaac." Now, obviously, this is another passage concerned with maintaining the purity of the burgeoning Jewish race. But 'why' is not the question this passage raises for us here at the Newsreel. Ours is a more straight-forward query... "Put my hand where?"

As it turns out, there are a number of theories on just where the hand was placed in this ritual often referred to as the Yarek Oath. The Hebrew word Yarek is often translated as 'thigh' and so some experts believe the hand was placed on the muscular inner thigh, a symbol of power, just below the naughty bits. But others believe "under the thigh" was a Hebrew euphemism for... something else. Dr. Peter Charles Remondino, writing in his book History of Circumcision from the Earliest Times to the Present, notes that "Among the Egyptians the circumcised phallus, as well as the rite of circumcision, seemed to be the symbol of the religious as well as of the political community, and the circumcised member was emblematical of civil patriotism as well as of the orthodox religion of the nation. To the Egyptian, his circumcised phallus was the symbol of national and religious honor; and as the Anglo-Saxon holds aloft his right hand, with his left resting on the holy Bible, while taking an oath, so the ancient Egyptian raised his circumcised phallus in token of sincerity, - a practice not altogether forgotten by his descendants of today. It was partly this custom of swearing, or of affirming, with the hand under the thigh, by the early Israelites, that caused many to believe that their circumcision was borrowed from the Egyptians, especially by M. Voltaire, who insists that it was the phallus that the hand was placed on." Egads!

Ah, those wacky ancients. Perhaps we moderns are simply too squeamish, but it's nice to know that we no longer participate in strange rituals involving... sensitive parts of the body. Or do we...

And on that note, we bid those of you still standing a fond farewell until next time. As always, we leave you with the words of the great Les Nessman, “Good evening, and may the good news be yours.”

Lakeview Terrace

Not bad, but still basically a B-movie about an interracial couple dueling with a bigoted, possibly psychotic neighbor who happens to be a cop "goosed" by making the evil bigot a black guy. Well performed and subtle up to a point, but hard to distinguish from any other potboiler outside of the hooks. Of course, given that LaBute's last movie was "The Wicker Man" maybe vanishing into the background is a good move for him.

OUTTAKES #019

SHORT FEATURE – ASTRO DISASTER

Since Tuesday’s short feature was a little on the somber side, I thought I’d slide another one in here, one with dialog and special effects ALMOST as bad as those in the upcoming Starcrash.

You know, what happens in Astro Disaster isn’t really what the Catechism was talking about, but it does bring to mind that part of paragraph 1789 which, referencing scripture, reminds us that “it is right not to… do anything that makes your brother stumble." (Ba-dom-dom)

No, what the Catechism is talking about is what the New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 defines as Scandal. “In moral theology… scandal signifies not so much something shameful and therefore likely to cause a reaction of indignation and outrage, but something that provides occasion and incitement to the sin of another. It is not necessary that sin be actually committed in consequence of it; it is enough that the evil act or word provides incitement to wrongdoing, and it is precisely in this that the sin of scandal consists.”

The tricky part, as St. Paul pointed out, is that scandal can exist "even when the particular actions involved are in themselves good or at least indifferent. If we perceive that scandal is the likely result of a certain act, we should refrain from that act, if this can easily be done, while making it clear at the same time that we are not refraining from it because we regard it as wrong. St. Paul, after making it clear to the Corinthians that they were permitted to eat food even though it had been sacrificed to idols, nevertheless went on to advise them: "Still, take care lest perhaps this right of yours become a stumbling block to the weak... if food scandalizes my brother, I will eat flesh no more forever, lest I scandalize my brother" (1 Cor 8.9, 13)."

Tough stuff. Believe me, I know. But nobody said it would be easy. Well, except for that Oprah And Friends: A Course in Miracles thing. I meant nobody you should take seriously.

Green Lantern

"In brightest day,
In darkest night,
No evil shall escape my sight.

Let all who worship evil's might
Beware my power,
Green Lantern's light!"
--Green Lantern Corps Oath.

Find an actor who can deliver those six lines without a wink, flippant-shrug or slightest hint of irony, a team of filmmakers who understands that the recitation of such needs/deserves (in context, I stress) to be framed as the relative-equivalent of "They may take our lives but they'll never take our freedom," "With great power comes great responsibility," "May the Force be with you" and "The list is life" and a musical composer to score the moment with appropriate gravitas and you'll have a good "Green Lantern" movie. Seriously. This is the "is the shark scary?" core of this particular franchise - if this works, and the movie around it is operating at about the same level, the movie works. Period.

Latino Review (hat-tip: Chud) has a modestly spoiler-free review of what's apparently the screenplay for Warner's all-but officially in-production Green Lantern movie:
http://www.latinoreview.com/news/green-lantern-story-details-and-casting-update-5395

What I like most about the prospect of a Green Lantern movie is that it's just an ever-so-slightly skewed version of the traditional superhero yarn thanks to the 'rules' of the character. The "Green Lantern Corps" are an intergalactic police force, not vigilantes or hyper-idealistic do-gooders. It helps power through some of the usual genre hangups (silly costume? "I was issued this, it's my uniform.") and removes the need for too much story contrivance - anything you want GL to do or avoid doing can be chalked up to "orders and regulations."

What details are provided are encouragingly fan-friendly: Hal Jordan as the main GL, Abin Sur, Oa and Kiliwog all accounted for, moderately-obscure heavy Hector Hammond as a principal baddie, apparent out-loud mentions of both Guy Gardner and Clark Kent (!!!) and a tease about "golden age" GL Alan Scott playing some kind of part? So far, so good. Apparently Carol Ferris is already in the story as Jordan's girflfriend, which could potentially gives the hoped-for franchise the most interesting recurring female role in recent superhero movies - in the books, Carol undergoes a tragic transformation into the supervillianess Star Sapphire.

I am curious to see how Warners handles the innevitable "race issue" that's going to come up down the road. Historically, there have been five (human) Green Lanterns, Jordan being the best known and generally favored among fans. However, third (?) GL John Stewart - the first black man to wear the uniform/ring - was drafted as the resident-Lantern on the four seasons of "Justice League" cartoons (to help balance-out what would've been an otherwise lily-white principal cast) which were probably watched by more people than read GL comics by a pretty big margin. It's been said that, thanks to the character's appearance on this series, the John Stewart Green Lantern is probably the best known "black superhero" right now. So one wonders what fans who came to the franchise from that starting-point will think of the movie GL being another white guy.

SHORT FEATURE: PINK FLOYD – SET THE CONTROLS FOR THE HEART OF THE SUN

I hope everyone will indulge me just a bit while I take a break from the humor for this one post. I know that the music of Pink Floyd, especially the early stuff, is not to everyone’s taste, but the group has been, and always will be, my favorite rock act. So I’m a little melancholy over the passing of keyboardist Richard Wright, who succumbed to cancer on Monday.

We can discuss the hows and whys at a more appropriate time, but for now it’s sufficient to say we Catholics pray for our departed. Here’s one of the common ones.

God our Father,
Your power brings us to birth,
Your providence guides our lives,
and by Your command we return to dust.

Lord, those who die still live in Your presence,
their lives change but do not end.
I pray in hope for my family,
relatives and friends,
and for all the dead known to You alone.

In company with Christ,
Who died and now lives,
may they rejoice in Your kingdom,
where all our tears are wiped away.
Unite us together again in one family,
to sing Your praise forever and ever.

Amen.

Godspeed, Rick, I don’t know what your personal beliefs were, but no matter what, I like to have hope that you’ll squeeze by on the mercy of God. (Hey, it’s the only way I’m gonna make it through the door.) Maybe I just like the idea of jamming with the Floyd when the time comes for all that singing and praising. Great Gig In The Sky indeed.

COMING ATTRACTIONS: STARCRASH

Because there’s no way to run a blog like this and not eventually have to get around to this movie, it’s 1979’s Starcrash. Watch the trailer and feel the desire to see this movie consume you. Resistance is most definitely futile!

Righteous Kill

Yeah... don't bother. Not bad as B-grade cop movies go, but nothing special; and it turns on a twist that A.) You're going to see coming after about five minutes and B.) Only works thanks to a mechanical screenwriting cheat. No one seems to be having any fun, not even DeNiro and HE gets to pretend-fuck Carla Gugino. And who the hell casts Al Pacino in something this schlocky and then (apparently) tells him to dial it DOWN?

MOTEL HELL

THE TAGLINE

“It takes all kinds of critters to make Farmer Vincent fritters. You might just die... laughing!”

THE PLOT

Odd things are going on at the Motel Hello. It seems the establishment’s proprietor Vincent Smith and his sister Ida are in the habit of capturing passing strangers and “planting” them in a secret garden behind the motel for tenderizing and seasoning. After the proper amount of time has passed, the siblings harvest their “crop” to use as the secret ingredient in Vincent’s prize-winning preservative-free smoked meats. Things go along this way until the night Vincent ambushes Terry, an attractive young woman whom he immediately becomes smitten with. Rather than add her to the livestock, Vincent decides to bring Terry home, hoping to win her affections. Over the next few weeks, oblivious to Vincent and Ida’s late night activities, the fragile and confused Terry slowly grows to love the much older man, attracted by his decency and simple way of life. This upsets not only Ida, who would prefer to see Terry become a sausage rather than her sister-in-law, but also Vincent’s younger brother Bruce, the town’s oafish sheriff who wants Terry for himself. After some misadventures and close calls, things finally fall apart for Vincent when Bruce and Terry discover what’s going on in the smokehouse and the “secret ingredients” escape the garden looking for revenge. Realizing Terry will not be the one with whom he can share his mission and meat making secrets with, Vincent forlornly dons his giant pig mask, prepares to turn Terry into beef jerky, and challenges his little brother to a chainsaw duel to the death.

THE POINT

A number of articles suggest that, as of this writing, there are over twenty horror movie remakes in various stages of development. One of the titles being tossed around is 1980’s Motel Hell, the rights to which were recently purchased by Twisted Pictures, the same folks who bring us a new entry in the Saw franchise every year. This info has prompted the staff here at The B-Movie Catechism to draft an open letter to those responsible for any potential remake of Motel Hell.

Dear Unimaginative Hacks…

(No, wait, stop! That’s uncharitable. And though the odds favor our interpretation, we don’t really know 100% yet whether that’s a true statement or not. Let’s try again.)

Dear Filmmakers,

(They do, in fact, make films. Of course, so did the Nazis. But we digress again.)

To Whom It May Concern,

We, the movie going public, are not adverse to horror movie remakes. House of Wax (1953), Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1978), The Thing (1982), and many others we could name, are all good, enjoyable movies. But let’s face it, the veritable avalanche of horror remakes over the past few years has resulted in mostly unwatchable wastes of celluloid churned out solely to suck cash out of the pockets of undiscerning young teens. And suck they have! But never mind that; let's optimistically assume you who plan to remake Motel Hell actually have the desire to make a good movie, one which retains some of the qualities which made the original into the beloved cult gem it is today. The staff here at The B-Movie Catechism would like to offer our (completely unsolicited) opinion on how we feel you could accomplish this by pointing out some films representative of the kind of movie Motel Hell SHOULD NOT BE.

(1) THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE – Though he eventually dropped out, we know that original Chainsaw director Tobe Hooper had planned to helm Motel Hell. And why not? Both movies share a similar “people as meat” story line and both feature scenes with some nut-job swinging a chainsaw around. But that’s all window dressing. At their core the movies are two different animals. Take, for instance, the way in which mealtimes are handled. Chainsaw’s infamous dinner table scene is excruciatingly tense as the assembled family watch their 100+ year old patriarch feebly attempt time and time again to deliver a killing blow to the forehead of their young screeching captive. In Motel Hell, you get the three Smith siblings and Terry having a picnic in their Sunday best discussing Vincent’s childhood. The talk veers into the weird as the Smith’s relate the touching story of how the family smoked and ate grandma’s favorite dog after it died because the old woman taught them that “meat is meat, and a man's gotta eat!". Not being Chinese, Terry is appropriately weirded out, yet continues to unknowingly munch on one of Vincent’s victims the whole time. While there is horror in both scenes, Chainsaw focuses on dread and shock whereas Motel Hell concentrates on dark humor. Should some unimaginative hack substitute the former for the latter, one of Motel Hell’s greatest strengths would be (ahem) gutted. Speaking of which, that brings to mind…

(2) HOSTEL – You might think, given the gruesome subject matter, it would be a no-brainer to ape Eli Roth’s pathetic exercise in cruelty in which a group of grotesquely unlikable kids visit a brothel before being graphically tortured to death. But don’t you do it! Even though cannibalism is central to the storyline, the original Motel Hell is shockingly low on blood, guts, and bare butts. One of the best examples of this is the scene in which a pair of goofy swingers, lured to the Motel Hello by a phony ad, are set upon in their room. Despite the potential for some good old fashioned sex and bloodletting, the set piece is played out entirely for laughs as the unwitting duo mistakes Vincent and Ida’s appearance in their doorway, laden with ropes and gas masks, as nothing more than part of some kinky bondage foreplay. It ends with the giggling idiots willingly allowing themselves to be hogtied and rendered unconscious, all without a shred of nudity or violence. Now we can understand the temptation, especially for some kind of unimaginative hack, to amp up this kind of scene with tons of sleaze and gore, but it would be completely out of character for the Smiths. Which leads us to…

(3) THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS – Now, bear with us, this is probably the most important thing to get right, so it’s going to take a little bit longer to explain. Wes Craven’s 1991 production, like Motel Hell before it, is also a horror-comedy featuring a brother & sister duo who secretly do terrible things to strangers. More important is the fact that both pairs of siblings espouse traditional family values and feel that Providence is on their side in what they’re doing. But despite these surface similarities, the portrayal of the two families couldn’t be more different. This is because The People Under The Stairs is an allegorical parody which takes broad swipes at the perceived eeevils of (wait for it) late 80s Reaganomics (yes, we’ve been there before) and the Religious Right. Craven’s movie is so over-the-top that it may as well have been called The Poor Homeless People Under The Stairs and The Filthy Racist Republicans Who Walk All Over Them. The humor often crosses the line into slapstick and the actors purposely play their roles with all the subtlety of professional wrestlers. And for the most part, that approach works for the kind of film Craven wanted to make.

But Motel Hell isn’t that kind of film. It isn’t interested in politicized sermons on social justice; it just wants to tell a story. The old-fashioned values and religious beliefs expressed by the Smith family aren’t just tacked on to make fun of “those hypocritical conservatives”, they’re actually part of who these people are. In fact, its probably fair to say that, at least in Vincent’s case, his faith is at the core of all his actions. He’s never cruel to the people he captures. Like any good steward, he keeps them healthy and well fed until their time has come, at which point he uses an elaborate hypnotic device to calm them so he can painlessly snap their necks. Vincent is preternaturally calm, only becoming unstrung in a few instances which offend his sense of morality. One is when Terry offers herself to him and Vincent, truly taken aback, angrily exclaims such a thing is wrong outside of marriage. Another is when Bruce bursts in on Terry in the bath desperately trying to convince her not to marry his brother, an intrusion which causes Vincent to rush in to protect the honor of his loved one old-school style with a double barreled shotgun. Otherwise, Vincent donates to the local radio preacher, gives free jerky to the kids, and spends most of the movie with a big sincere grin on his face. All in all, he ends up being the most decent and likable guy in the whole movie.

Well, you know, for a murdering cannibal, that is. You see, despite all of his good points, something’s gone terribly wrong somewhere inside Vincent. And the clue to just what that it is can be found in his final words as he lies dying in his brother’s arms. Knowing death is imminent, Vincent, like any good Christian, feels compelled to clean the slate and confess his sins. “My whole life has been a lie.” he gasps, “I’ve been the biggest hypocrite of all. I… I used… preservatives.” Now you would think that maybe, just maybe, after all the kidnapping of tourists, clipping their vocal cords, burying them up to their necks, force feeding them gruel, then digging them up and turning them into Hickory Farms style gift baskets, you might think all of that stuff would give Vincent a few pangs of guilt right there at the end. But that’s not the case. Since Vincent truly believed in his heart that those actions were part of God’s will, the only thing really weighing on his conscience was the knowledge that he lied about the ingredients in his Bratwurst. Vincent’s problem is a malformed conscience.

Now, according to the Catechism, “Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed… A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.” Which raises an interesting question. Since Vincent was following his conscience, warped as it was, can his soul really be held accountable for the evil of his actions? It was St. Thomas Aquinas, after all, who wrote in the Summa Theologica that “when erring reason proposes something as being commanded by God, then to scorn the dictate of reason is to scorn the commandment of God.” Or to put it in a way I can understand it, if your conscience tells you to do something, even if it ultimately turns out to be wrong, you HAVE to do it. That sounds like Vincent might get a break, but before we let him completely off the hook, we should probably check the qualifiers.

“It can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” the Catechism continues, BUT “this ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. (Uh Oh) This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin." In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.” It’s never really explained how Vincent arrived at his beliefs (Bruce claims the old man has syphilis of the brain, but you know, Bruce has some jealousy issues), however there’s nothing shown in the movie to suggest that he is being willfully ignorant of right and wrong. So it’s back to the Catechism. “If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him.” So, while the actions themselves remain evil, it appears Vincent could ultimately escape judgement for them.

Then again, he might not. In a 1991 lecture entitled Conscience and Truth, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had this to say. “It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at—in fact, one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place, by having stifled the protest of the anamnesis of being.” This anamnesis is, as Brian Lewis of Australian Catholic University explains, "a sort of original memory of the good and the true implanted in the depths of our being by our Creator, in whose image we are made and towards whom we are drawn. It is not a memory that we can put into words. It is so to speak an inner sense, an abiding capacity to recall, that is triggered by something that crops up in our experience and either strikes a responsive chord within us or clashes with us.” If one ignores or stifles conscience on this level, Cardinal Ratzinger explains, “The guilt lies then in a different place, much deeper—not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth. For this reason, criminals of conviction like Hitler and Stalin are guilty.” And for stifling that innate sense of right and wrong over the course of his life, Vincent might be guilty also. That’s a shame, because he seemed like such a nice guy. For a murdering cannibal.

And that’s the big reason, dear filmmakers (Thought we had forgotten, didn’t you?), that Motel Hell is not the same kind of movie as The People Under The Stairs. Whereas Craven’s movie gives us nothing but caricatures whose sole purpose is to drive home Wes’ notion that conservatives are bad, bad people, Motel Hell gives us real characters (comparatively speaking) with just enough depth to make us willing to invest in them for an hour and a half, and maybe even think about them after the credits have rolled. If you want to make a worthy remake, then please, put a little effort into the characters. But if all you’re interested in is the quick buck, then I suppose all you have to do is trot out the standard Hollywood stereotype of the deranged toothless backwoods evangelical. But that would be unconscionable.

Thank you for listening to our little diatribe, we hope we have been of some help as you make your decision. Unimaginative hacks.

Sincerely,

The staff of The B-Movie Catechism

THE STINGER

Speaking of consciences, I may as well clear mine. The reason I’ve posted little over the past two weeks has been my complete inability to quit watching the political circus going on right now. I just can’t turn away. And apparently, neither can the U. S. Bishops :)

And if you’ve made it this far then you deserve a treat. Here’s a little something I found on Flickr: Motel Hell in Legos.

OverThinker update

Hey look, another one:
http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2008/09/episode-twelve-sir-mix-lot-would.html

Supercollider

Does it make me a bad person if, when I woke up this morning and turned on the news to find NO reports of antimatter-charged symbiotic head-crabs, carbon-devouring land octopi or even time-displaced Pre-Cambrian Megafauna swarming out of a freshly-born gravity well on the Franco/Swiss border... I was just a little bit dissapointed?

Lipstick on a pig

Yeesh...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5766012

Barack, Barack, Barack... y'know how you fell into this one? Someone on your within the last week showed you some data about how poorly you're connecting with "rural voters," so you decided to start peppering your delivery with redneck coloquialisms that you don't generally use in conversation and are thus likely to mis-use. Don't do that again. The only Democrat who could get away with the "Don't be afraid, I'm a bit of a hillbilly too!" bit was Bill Clinton... because it was TRUE. You're a black Liberal Democrat from the North... NOBODY who'd be inclined to feel linguistic-kinship with someone who uses the phrase "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" was EVER going to vote for you.

This guy...

I'm gonna take a stab in the dark that most of my readership probably isn't fond of Sarah Palin. Can't say I'm entirely enamored myself. I do, however, have kind of a feeling that her husband Todd is the next breakout "fun" character from the Election Show; which needs a new one, now that those lovable Clintons are off on their spinoff series (they'll be playing two insanely-powerful political masterminds covertly destroying their own party's candidate for long-term personal gain. I smell a smash.)

For a visual-refresher, here they are:
http://multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/923d3f82a2_palin.jpg

Y'know what I like about this guy? In every photo, he's ALWAYS got an expression like she just signed them both up a year of weekly ballroom-dancing lessons without asking him first. I dunno, I just get the sense that this fella is gonna be a goldmine of press-conference-generating 'oopsie' quotes. (Oh please please please PLEASE let him have colorful drinkin' buddies with big mouths!)

Incidentally, don't bother with "Bangkok Dangerous," it's just not very good. They missed the whole point of why you use Nicholas Cage in generic 'insert-actor-here' roles: Because he's a nutty, "ticky" actor who makes such roles bearable. It doesn't WORK if you don't let him be weird about it. Here you've got a movie with Nicholas Cage tutoring a Thai pickpocket in kung-fu and playing target-practice with watermelons and he's not even allowed to do an "aww, REALLY!!??" What a waste...

Mandate

Enough is enough. I'm tired of going weeks without posting anything here because I can't form a cogent essay or edit a video fast enough. From now on, I'm making it a point to put something here at least once a day, even if it's just tiny snarky commentary about the news.

So, then, for today: In regards to this business about the MTV Video Music Awards and the fucking "Purity Ring" movement (seriously... the HELL? It's like someone found some old 'Straight Edge' clips on YouTube and said "Pfft! We can be soooo much more square than that!") let me just say that, as far as I'm concerned, ANYTHING that's apparently helping to discourage Jordin Sparks and the Jonas Brothers from contributing material to the gene pool can't be ALL bad.

INTERMISSION: THE SKILLED USE OF BLUNT OBJECTS

The Catechism ensures us that "The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen." In short, we are encouraged to vote our (well formed) consciences.

But, as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops reminds us in the document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, that doesn't give us free reign "There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. These intrinsically evil acts must always be rejected and never supported. A preeminent example is the intentional taking of human life through abortion. It is always morally wrong to destroy innocent human beings. A legal system that allows the right to life to be violated on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed... As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support."

Based on that guideline, our choices this election season, well... they aren't so great are they? Still, I think it's fair to say that the Democrats sound the more loony on this single issue right now what with Pelosi's moronic statements on Meet The Press and Obama's history of rabid defense of abortion of any kind. And there's nothing more we like here at the B-Movie Catechism than taking pot-shots at loony stuff. So with a little help from 1977's American Raspberry, we give you a glimpse into the future Obama style. (Profanity warnings in alert for those who want to avoid that kind of stuff.)