I hadn't seen the original in a few years so I thought it would be worth seeing within 48 hours after seeing the remake, and I was shocked at how good the first film was, better than I remembered, and how dismal and witless the remake turned out to be.

The main fault is changing the through line. Michael Rennie's Klaatu has come to warn earth against its violence and never stops trying to speak to leaders who can listen. Keanu Reeves gives up much too easily, and his mission is less sensible.

Then there's the character of the two Klaatus. Michael Rennie is bemused, compassionate, curious, and angry when need be. Keanu Reeves plays Klaatu as an emotionless cypher who apparently has done much less research on earthlings than his previous version has.

From there, it's a steady devolution. The new spaceship is lovely and shiny, but we don't get to go inside as we do in the 1951 version. The new little kid is whiny and one-dimensional and doesn't move the plot forward; the original is curious, spunky and plays a significant role in the story. Even Professor Barnhardt's equation has some meaning in the original movie since it's related to "celestial mechanics," but in the remake it's just there on the blackboard and proof of Klaatu's intelligence. And the music is forgettable, unlike the gripping Bernard Herrmann score.

I loved the almost noirish feel of the original, while the remake felt muddy and wasn't really beautiful to look at scene-by-scene.

I relished the wit and literacy of the screenplay, but there was barely a line in the new version that didn't seem clichéd ("We can change! We can change! We can change!")

Last but not remotely least, there's Gort, who actually serves a purpose in the original, and looks scary since he's not CGI. Watching the 1951 version left me curious to see it again some time; watching the remake just left me feeling suckered.

I didn't mind the steals from "The Andromeda Strain" and "Close Encounters" and even "War Games;" they were woven into something that felt almost new at times. But the script leached all the wit and tension out of the original. Gort's role is too weak, despite the special effects, and Klaatu doesn't get to deliver his message. Worse than that is the sloppy ending that says nothing and does so unclearly. How's that for a double whammy? Final Grade: C, because any remake that leaves out one of the most famous sci-fi lines of all time (you know which one I mean) doesn't deserve more.

Why aren't they shouting from the rooftops that the GOP doesn't care about saving American jobs? That the GOP is committing economic suicide (or murder)? Where are the Democratic firebrands? Where's the passion and outrage and power? They WON the election and still react like losers. Reid has to go. He's no better than Deputy Dawg.

Why isn't there a companion piece--so to speak--about young men no longer shaving their balls and pubes? Does salon truly care about hair down there?

I think we should call in the best forensics team possible to exam the photo as carefully as possible and determine whether the hand in question was indeed cupped and groping or flat and its fingers spread out. Only then can we truly determine the severity of punishment necessary for either the perpetrator--or those who have risen in outrage against him.

Of course, on the other hand, it might be time to summon a psychiatrist to discuss CFFS: Cardboard Figure Fetish Syndrome. And then Favreau could do community service and share his shame with Oprah.

The traditional media has been trumpeting his "regrets" and "apologies" but the whole tone of his interview is oddly detached, as if all this happened to someone else and he had nothing to do with it. More disturbing is his simply not making literal sense (which raises the question--is he drinking again?). Here's a notable excerpt:

Gibson eventually followed up: "Do you feel in any way responsible for what's happening?"

Bush replied: "You know, I'm the President during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President."

Joan, Justin Frank argues in Bush on the Couch that the media has avoided any talk of his alcoholism over the last eight years (except to say "he gave up drink when he found religion") because they were afraid. What's your opinion? Even Salon seems to have steered away from the subject.

It's been coming on for years, as Chalmers Johnson has shown in his brilliant trilogy: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis. We are no longer a Republic but a militarized empire with hundreds of colonies (bases) around the world. No major candidate ever talks about this reality, and how it's draining our economy and destroying our reputation.

Bush after 9/11 has led to the use of the military as props and implicit support by appearing with troops as his backdrop in various military-style jackets and constantly talking about being America's commander-in-chief. This has totally distorted all public discourse because that formulation is aped all the time. But no president is America's commander-in-chief. He or she is only commander in chief of the armed forces, according to that quaint old document the Constitution.

So in language, imagery and reality, we have totally changed the nature of this country--and how will we find our way back? Johnson isn't sanguine.