Twitter Quip

    Adventures in video rentals–the unrated version!

    I’ve got a great idea for a new game show–it’s called “English…or Gay?” The game consists of two people: a subject and a contestant. The subject is asked a series of questions by the contestant (heritage and sexuality questions not allowed) who then must determine if the subject is English…or gay. You’d hafta use some sorta voice-altering equipment otherwise that would be a dead give away–but the video can remain the same. That’s what makes it a challenge–’cause English guys look so gay. I should call Mark Burnett. Or is this more of a Merv Griffin game?


    While at Blockbuster video today, I noticed something. The movie industry really can’t be that hard to break into because it appears the studios will make anything. I was shocked at the colossal amount of garbage I saw–goofy straight to video flicks that I’ve never heard of–usually starring Tom Arnold (now that James Brown is dead, I think it’s safe to call Tom Arnold ‘The Hardest Working Man in Show Business’–he’s in freakin’ everything). And apparently slapping the words “UNRATED” across a DVD increases sales–’cause it seems like all these whacky comedies are unrated.

    I was walking up and down the aisle, trying to find something good. You’d think with a billion videos per store, they’d have classic hits like “History of the World.” After spending 20 minutes frantically searching (I even searched the historical drama section in case it was misplaced), I asked a clerk for help. Although the store has 27 copies of the latest “American Pie,” “History of the World” was something that location didn’t carry.

    I gotta laugh at these films. I consider myself to be a bit of a minor film buff–I know numerous actors and their bodies of work. When I spot a movie that stars three names I’ve never heard–and advertises those names in big letter above the title–I start to doubt my expertise (luckily a quick IMDB check confirms that these folks are no ones).

    Is there really a demand for movies like “Find Me Guilty” (described as “A wise guy turns his own trial upside down by serving as his own lawyer in this comedy drama based on a true story“) or “Dr. Dolittle 3: The Daughter is In.” Seriously?

    Who watches this crap? I’m sure they’re cheaper to make than the latest Kevin Costner flick (and probably far superior), but do enough people buy these straight to DVD movies to make them profitable? And who are these people? I demand a list of names so I can slap each and every one of them.

    National Lampoon has its own aisle of garbage. I think National Lampoon’s movie division has the same philosophy as their magazine department: a new product every month. Just look at this small list of movies that have “National Lampoon’s” in front of the title:

    Blackball (2003)
    Gold Diggers (2003)
    Dorm Daze (2003)
    Barely Legal (2003)
    Christmas Vacation 2: Cousin Eddie’s Island Adventure (2003) (huh?)
    Adam & Eve (2005)
    Strip Poker (2005)
    Teed Off: Just Fore Laughs (2005)
    Pucked (2006)
    Pledge This! (2006)
    Last Guy On Earth (2006)
    Dorm Daze 2 (2006)
    TV the movie (2006)
    Teed Off Too (2006)

    And the majority of them are unrated and have a seductively posed/dressed chik on the cover (oh, and they probably star Tom Arnold).

    Aisles and aisles of crap. I’m blown away by the number of movies in the New Release section that I’ve never heard of. I’m usually pretty good at knowing movies titles–all of these flicks are making their money from straight to DVD sales. And business must be good ’cause Hollywood keeps making them.

    Eventually, I picked out some DVDs (“Firewall” and “Sex and the City” season two) and headed to the check out. The clerk started making small talk with me.

    “I’m not trying to talk you out of it,” she said, “but you oughta know ‘Entertainment Weekly’ voted ‘Firewall’ to be the worst movie of 2006.”

    “I appreciate the tip,” I said. “But I’m renting ‘Sex and the City’ for cripes’ sake–clearly I have little taste or credibility.”

    As if renting ‘Sex and the City’ isn’t bad enough, I was renting season two: meaning not only did I see season one, I found it interesting enough to go out of my way to see season two–thus, eliminating any delusions of taste or manhood I may have ever had.

    But if she didn’t see this, I wasn’t gonna tell her–let me have some dignity.

    Comments are closed.