My 5 Favorite Heroes Ever: Volume 3

It occurs to me that exactly 2 of the heroes on my list are actually "heroic." The rest of them are just characters I find fascinating. But this is one who is, in fact, heroic. He's pretty much the epitome of heroism, especially in America. Not just here, everyone around the world knows his name and knows what he stands for. And where is he on my list? Number 3...so that shows you the extent to which my mind is distorted (or the extent to which I know more than everybody about dorkdom). In fact, many would be shocked that he's on the list at all, given my taste for dark characters. And by "many" I mean "the three or so people who read this who are representative of the large amount of people who would also be shocked if they read it." But enough of this French falderal, I'm of course talking about...

3. Superman from...well, Superman. And many other films, shows, and of course comic books. Though the character is traditionally thought of (not inaccurately) as the boy scout who's too much of a wimp to really get the job done without some help from Deus Ex Machina. But this is what makes him interesting, and that's why I put him on the list. Because, much like my movie reviews, I'll end up talking about a bunch of interesting stuff that doesn't exactly relate to the initial subject matter. But you'll still be entertained though, I promise.

Let me begin by saying that I don't think they've ever made "the" Superman movie. Nor do I think there's been a definitive actor who has played him in the same way that we have the ultimate Batman with Christian Bale or Wolverine with Hugh Jackman. I think the actors who have portrayed Superman have all been good, but I'm not sure they completely get the character. Because in many ways, Superman is the most human of all of us. His heroism doesn't stem from his extraordinary powers, it stems from his farmboy upbringing. Think about it: almost no human being (I say almost because I'm keeping people like Mother Teresa in mind) would use Superman's abilities for purely benevolent purposes. Even the best of us would eventually start to descend, a little bit at a time, until we abused those powers. For instance, in Superman Returns Lois is raising a child with another man. And Superman suffers in silence. Sure, he tries to win her back in a quasi-romantic fashion but he mostly just kind of hangs back out of respect for Lois and her son. When I saw the film, the incredibly annoying guy in back of me said, "come on Supes! Just fry that dude and get your girl back!" I was, of course, infuriated at the time but you know what? That's probably exactly what I'd do if I was Superman. If I came back from a long journey to find that the love of my life had shacked up with some other dude, I'd want to kill the guy! So would most people, women and men alike. Most murders on TV and in real life are influenced by relationships gone wrong. So if you're an all-powerful being who can't be locked in a prison (stop thinking about kryptonite, I'll address that in the next paragraph) and can't be killed very easily, why wouldn't you fry the guy? It's no wonder Lex Luthor wants to destroy the guy, he's dangerous! He is a legitimate threat to Earth.

BUT we need him too much. And here's where the idea becomes truly interesting of how much power Superman really has. The existence of Superman is like a drug for the masses. Once he's there, you can't go on without him. In the abysmally horrifying Superman IV, Superman hurls all of the world's nuclear weapons into the sun. Which is a bit preachy within the context of the film, because if it was that easy in real life then it would've been done already. But within the world of Superman, it is that easy. And so if you have a person who can save you from almost any danger, wouldn't you go to any lengths to see that he still wants you around? To see that he's happy and has his way? So even though you could feasibly shoot him with a kryptonite bullet or keep him in a room lit by a red sun, why would you? Tomorrow there could be an asteroid hurtling towards Earth or a volcano erupting onto a small village or a frigging giant ant attack (remember, we're in the world of comics). And you know who's not going to help you anymore? Our man, the last son of Krypton. Because you locked him up for frying some douche that stole his girlfriend. Because he's so vitally important to the safety of Earth, Superman is quite literally a god among men. And this means that if he wanted to, he could get away with whatever he wants whenever he wants to do it. If Batman or Spider-Man start getting a little out of control, they can be cast out. Sure, they help the crime problem. But only on a small scale (like, one city at a time small). And with big things they're really no use at all. Train hurtling off a cliff and towards its doom? Forget it. Nuclear weapon launched by a mad scientist straight into the heart of San Diego? Yeah try tossing a batarang at that, see how it works out. No one worships the ground Batman walks on more than I do, but he is only human and he has limits. Superman is the savior of Earth, and Earth could never do without him after he started donning the cape.

But he doesn't do any of that. If the government locked him up, tortured him, and killed his dog Krypto, he'd still go out and save the planet a minute later. Even if in his heart of hearts he thinks humanity is worthless overall (for the record that's not what he thinks), he'll keep doing what he's doing because he knows there are good people out there like his parents and Jimmy Olsen. He knows he could never forgive himself for letting a tragedy occur, no matter the personal cost to himself. And he knows precisely how drunk on power he could become and that's why he stays restrained. He'll never take a life, he'll never hesitate to do anything he can to save a life. THAT is what makes him Earth's greatest hero, not what he can do but what he stops himself from doing. If his powers disappeared due to sunspots or solar flares or whatever sci-fi nonsense they came up with, and he had the opportunity to save someone from muggers (this time at actual physical risk to himself) I can guarantee he would. Because he's all heart (this is his actual weakness, which I'll discuss in the next paragraph). But let's put a dark twist on this, since it is me writing it. Superman was initially created as a representation of an immigrant who comes to America looking to do his best and fit in with the new society. He's come to represent more than that since his first appearance in 1938, but that's essentially still the core of his character. No matter how long he wears the glasses and pretends to be one of us, he's not. He might believe he's one of us sometimes, but he's really a strange visitor from another planet. He wants to be accepted as a human being because there are no more of his own people, and if we don't accept him then he'll be all alone. Even if he doesn't consciously think about it, in his mind I think he believes that if he didn't go out and put his best foot forward at all times then no one would care about him. There are probably plenty of days where he doesn't feel like going and saving a falling plane. And stopping bank robberies gets really old after a while, I'm sure. But I'm going to slightly contradict what I said before and add that in a moment of crisis humanity will always turn to him, when they need him most, but in the inbetween time they would most certainly turn their backs on him if he even screwed up once. That's part of the tragedy: he might not be incorrect in his assumption that if he didn't put his best foot forward at all times he'd be cast out. Because public opinion is very fickle, especially when literally everyone knows you. And so once he decided that he was going to be a nice guy all the time, he's stuck for life. Everybody loves a villain who's turned good again, and they can get away with any amount of being nice because anything is better than the way they were before. But if you start out nice then that's all you can ever be. So it's a heavy burden that Superman must bear, because he has to live with the knowledge that he could take full advantage of his powers at any time but then he'd lose the one thing that's important to him: acceptance.

And herein lies his true weakness. No it's not really kryptonite, which was invented on the radio show so that the regular voice actor could have a week off by the way (they brought in some other guy to cough and moan because Superman was "injured" and didn't sound like himself). People aren't brought down by physical weaknesses, they're brought down by emotional ones. Superman is smart enough to avoid being in any serious danger with the few physical weaknesses he has but his emotions often compromise him. Dealing with high-danger situations often involves a lot of gray area, and Superman does not exist in gray area whatsoever. That's not too good. Because in real life, magical solutions never present themselves where everybody wins in the unwinnable situation. I won't completely dork out on you and provide actual examples, but Superman's inability to be a pragmatist along the lines of my last hero, Captain Kirk, has gotten him into trouble on several occasions. He is so driven by his heart, that his mind often gets no say in the matter whatsoever. When he does the whole "reverse the planet and make everything right again" thing in the first movie, that makes me mad. Because A) it's a bit ridiculous even for that genre and B) it completely removes him from having to make tough decisions. I'm not saying I want Lois to die, but Superman is ripped apart by the fact that he can't save everyone. As was written in one of my favorite comics about him: "sometimes faster than a speeding bullet isn't fast enough." I love that, because Superman has to live with the knowledge that he can save more people than anyone else alive, but that's still not enough. Imagine being the greatest hero the world has ever known and yet still punishing yourself internally because you failed to save one person. This is why Superman's greatest weakness is his own heart, because that's no way to live. Although I suppose that's what makes him who he is. If he wasn't always striving for the impossible then he would get tired of saving people all the time. But somehow, he always gets up and does it time and again.

So there you go, Superman turned out to be a bit tragic after all didn't he? Those who are expected to do great things always have to suffer I suppose, especially in fiction. But no one does it in a more positive way and with more optimism than our buddy Kal-El. So even though he's a boy scout, I think we could all do to be a bit more like him. He's not as interesting or as complex as my top 2 heroes, but it's tough to beat him in terms of actually being heroic. Speaking as a man who tries to follow the rules and be a nice guy, it comforts me to think that though nice guys get a lot of crap in return, it's worth it for the positive impact it can have on the lives of others. And I'm not sure I'd feel that way at all if I hadn't grown up watching Superman go out and help people, even if he'd rather be doing anything else.

My 5 Favorite Heroes Ever: Volume 2

Might as well just crank out a bunch of these since I have the time. And it's not like I have to sit down and think hard about who my favorite heroes are, because I model myself after them every day of my life. Or I at least strive to annoy people with quotes from their movies and TV shows as often as possible. In case I forgot to mention it, the whole reason for writing about all of this in the first place is to respond to an article I read about the best heroes and villains ever and how I thought the list was crap. But then again people might think my list is crap (if they're dumb). True, there's a lot of childhood-induced hero worship going on here, but that's unavoidable. Oddly enough, today's hero I'll be mentioning didn't actually become a part of my life until early 2008.

4. Captain Kirk from Star Trek. You're probably all shocked that I haven't been a fan for longer than that. Well, I watched Voyager for the last few seasons with my mom when I was a kid, and I saw The Wrath of Khan with my dad when I was in my early teens, but I never really experienced the whole franchise. Until I was incredibly bored in early 2008 and decided that I needed 726 episodes, spanning 5 series and 28 seasons to watch. It all went by pretty quickly actually, except for the Animated Series which is horrible. Something that will shock you even more is that none of my top heroes are from Star Wars. Which is odd because that's the film series I watch when I'm depressed, sick, or once a year just for fun anyway. It's true magic, its music is what engrossed me in the world of film scores. And as you know, it birthed my number 1 favorite villain of all time. All the characters are mostly there for fun though, and they're iconic and they're amazing and if this was a list of 10 one or two would make it on here. But we're being objective here (or trying to be) so now I'm done with my exposition and here we go.

Captain Kirk is the ultimate pragmatist. Over time, Shatner has gotten a lot of crap from people for his portrayal of Kirk. These are mostly based on the film performances, which are way different from the show. This also comes from the same school of thought that coined the term "red shirts" and said Kirk was a big time womanizer, well I've seen the original series twice and there's really not much of either. But what there's a bunch of is pragmatism. Meaning: practicality no matter what that entails. I've seen Kirk lie, detonate, and vaporize in order to secure the safety of his crew. People usually point to Picard as the ultimate captain, but he's more of a diplomat. He'd send Riker to do his dirty work, and Riker is kind of a tool. Kirk is the amalgamation of both emotion and logic. Spock provides him with a logical course of action and Dr. McCoy gives him an emotional response. Sometimes he listens to one, and sometimes the other. Just as we all must contend with the battle between heart and head in every aspect of our lives. This conflict was dealt with in one of my favorite episodes, which was written by Twilight Zone writer and sci-fi legend Richard Matheson, entitled "The Enemy Within." And in case you were wondering, no I didn't have to look up the title and yes I am a huge dork. I'm not a Trekky though, they make costumes and speak Klingon, I'm a Trekker which means I'm far enough in to watch it all but I haven't fully immersed myself yet. Anyway, the episode in question split Captain Kirk into two people, each one focusing on a different side of his personality. One of them was a no-nonsense man almost to the point of being evil. The other one was pretty much a hippie wimp. Neither would be an effective captain, because sometimes Kirk's heart is what causes him to keep striving to save his crew or an indigenous people but when he's facing a ruthless enemy his brain has to take over.

Since the show aired in the 60s, it's true that Kirk rarely (if ever) made a mistake and so he's perhaps not as flawed as he would've been today. That being said, he was a kind of role model back then and he frequently lied to have his way. Not malicious gossip about all those scantily clad ensigns wandering around the ship, just misdirection. You know, the kind that's actually useful in life. Kirk reminds us that sometimes we need to bend the rules in order to get the job done. And not in the over-used Steven Seagal "bend the rules" kind of way. Kirk doesn't bend the rules because he enjoys it (well, maybe a little) he bends them when it's the best course of action to do so. In another episode I didn't have to look up online entitled "The Corbomite Maneuver" the Enterprise is about to be destroyed by some alien sphere that is being piloted by what turns out to be a baby with the voice of a man (don't ask). The important part of the episode though, is how Kirk completely invents a material called "corbomite," which allegedly makes up a big part of the ship and explodes on impact, so it'll destroy any attacking ships at the same time. There's enough jargon on the show that the audience would be buying this too if the rest of the crew wasn't looking at each other and thinking, "what the hell is he talking about?" It of course worked and the day was saved, blah blah blah. But there are plenty of other characters (Picard included) who would never have pulled a stunt like that. Because they don't want to give their superiors a bad name, they don't want to become as bad as their enemies, etc. Kirk could care less about arbitrary labels like that. And that's exactly what they are: arbitrary. If you choose to think of yourself as being as bad as your enemies for using a similar tactic, then that's your own perception. Kirk is on a mission of diplomacy, yes. But remember: he's going where no man has gone before. Who knows what's out there? Some friendly species, to be sure. However, if 28 seasons taught us anything it's that a large number of the species out there are either enemies in general or need help from their own enemies. There's some scary crap out there. And you can choose to hold on to the morals which work fine in your particular branch of the universe, or you can choose to adapt and ensure your survival. I've seen Kirk flat out murder members of another species (even if it's not played quite that seriously). I've seen him give weapons to locals and take sides in a war. He's blown up entire starships full of another species, none of whom were "evil" exactly and not all of whom were even hostile.

Given my descriptions, most would say that my #5 hero is pretty heroic and my #4 isn't. Well, consider this: for little orc children that grow up in Mordor and are raised from day one to be warriors against the world of men, Samwise Gamgee probably isn't too high on the heroes list. This is why I think we can't entirely base our ideas of what a "hero" is on just their actions. Because sometimes heroic or admirable actions are often stupid and morally questionable actions are the most logical course of action. For instance, in real life when Sir Thomas More refused to give King Henry VIII a divorce, that was admirable. But since our poor lad Thomas got his head lopped off and Henry ended up with a divorce anyway, it wasn't the smartest course of action (speaking outside of moral parameters, naturally). On the flipside of this is an occurrence within one of the most famous episodes of the original series: "The City on the Edge of Forever." The plot is basically that Kirk, Spock, and McCoy end up back in the 1930s (or maybe it was the 20s, since I don't remember there might be hope for me yet) and Kirk falls in love with a woman who helps the homeless. Through some sci-fi cockamame, they find out that this woman eventually became a diplomat and was able to stop Hitler from attacking Poland. Though this may seem extraordinary, it caused a chain reaction that eventually led to an even greater World War, the non-existence of Starfleet, and lots of other bad things. Initially, she had been hit by a car and killed before any of this could happen. And so Kirk must make the inevitable choice of whether to save her or not. He chooses to let history take its course because in order for many to live, she had to die (don't make me quote Khan at you to complete that sentiment). Most TV writers would have come up with some third choice whereby they would've transported her to the future, or left a crew member behind to ensure she didn't become a diplomat, or some other easily fixed crap which would've been completely uninteresting. Instead, viewers were given a far more interesting lesson in real life. Sometimes there is no "right" choice. Kirk understood that, but he never said anything about it. He simply remarked on their return to their own time that they should "get the hell out of here" which was an unusually blunt and cold thing for him to say. Outstanding stuff, from a viewpoint of fiction. And thought-provoking from a viewpoint of philosophy.

And that's something else a great character does: they make you think. Kirk was the only person to pass the "unpassable test" in Starfleet Academy, how did he do it? He cheated. But in real life the only rules are the laws of what's physically possible and what isn't. He said he didn't believe in unwinnable situations, and so he gave himself the advantage. Does that mean it's okay to cheat all the time? Obviously not, it just means to keep your options open. And this brings me to a large part of how I define "hero." It's not just measured by the inherent implications of acts themselves, but the motivation behind them. If you have a character who will lie, cheat, and wisecrack in order to save the crew that he loves dearly, I'd say that's pretty heroic. There are exceptions of course, as there are things that are wrong in any circumstance, but I think overall we can say that the people we admire are the people who "go to the mats for us." We like when people bend the rules because it means they care more about us than they do about societal norms. And I can guarantee you that if Captain Kirk has known you for his entire life or for a few minutes, he'd lay his reputation or his life on the line to help you out.

My 5 Favorite Heroes Ever: Volume 1

Well, as promised, I now embark on a journey into the minds of my favorite heroes. I wrote that first sentence over a year ago. Not sure why I stopped with the list of heroes...but the important thing is I'm continuing it now. Mostly because I'm bored enough and I'm cut off from nominees for a few days so I say why not? Everything from this next sentence to "they manage to do heroic things anyway" is original last June material (not much I know). They're significantly more difficult to define than villains, because villains wreak havoc and have daddy issues and yadda yadda yadda. Heroes, on the other hand, come in many varieties. As one might recall, this was my criticism of numerous lists of heroes in recent years. Indiana Jones is an archaeologist, not a hero. In fact, my favorite scene in Raiders is where he refuses to blow up the Ark of the Covenant because he wanted to see the contents as much as the bad guy. A hero wouldn't have done that, that's what makes him a very interesting character, and he's certainly an action hero, but he's not really a hero. Heroes are self-sacrificing. They either proactively save people or they are placed in extraordinary circumstances and react in a heroic way. I think there should be absolutely no question about who my number 1 will be, if you've met me at all, but I tried to get a bit of variety with 2-5 so here we go:

5. Samwise Gamgee from The Lord of the Rings trilogy. An odd choice you say? Yes, there are certainly people who fight more in the films, and Frodo certainly goes through more emotional turmoil, but you know what? Sam sacrifices more than anybody, because whereas the adventure was thrust upon the other hobbits (who are also heroic), Sam could've stayed home. But he didn't, because he was loyal. He went to Hell and back out of loyalty, when he could've been sitting in the Shire enjoying some taters and a nice coney stew. Aragorn is the main hero of the piece, but he was a mercenary before he was king. He has no fear of battle. And Legolas is pretty much an assassin, so he not only has no fear of battle, he enjoys it. This is why the most important scene in the trilogy is after Aragorn is crowned and he tells the hobbits, "my friends, you bow to no one." The best heroes are the ones who are quite average, but who manage to do heroic things anyway. I chose Sam because he represents a lot of unsung heroes within film. He stays true even as his whole world dissolves around him, and that's a powerful thing. I'm going to start sounding like those hippies I hate on all the time, but he shows us that true unconditional love (not in the romantic sense, for all of you fetishists out there) is more powerful than any Ring of Power could be (okay that was venturing into some seriously cheesy territory).

I mean it though, and I'm a big softy at heart. If you consider it, Sam catches a lot of crap from people throughout the movies. When everybody is getting gifts from the elves even the Laurel and Hardy of the trilogy get daggers. Know what Sam got? Rope. Freaking rope. Not a new bow, not a sweet weapon, not a glowy light thingy that repels giant spiders (oh how this must sound to someone who hasn't watched the movies). And when he asked if he could get a dagger, Galadriel pretty much looked at him as if to say: "what was your name again?" But did Sam throw a fit? Did Sam turn to the dark side? No he did not. He sat and took the crap. And I suppose the rope came in handy for the first 12 minutes of the second movie or so, if that's any consolation. Plus as you may recall, the main reason he ended up on the journey at all was that he was far too attentive as a gardener. He was trying to make Mr. Frodo's garden look all presentable by putting in some extra hours, free of charge. And how is he rewarded? Some wizard dude tells him he needs to embark on an epic quest into the pit of Hell to destroy some piece of jewelry that his boss's uncle was too needy to destroy and that his boss is too wimpy to destroy alone. Did anyone ever think that maybe poor Sam just wanted to go out with the chick from the pub and grow some tomatoes for the rest of his life? But that's the way true heroism works. I forget which graphic novel I read it in, but the man doing the introduction said that "villains want to be heroes and as they strive for it they become corrupted, real heroes have responsibility thrust upon them." I think there's a lot of truth in that, and if you look back on my list of villains it's pretty apparent that they all want to be saviors in one way or another.

But not Sam, I think you'll find that except for his distrust and dislike of Gollum he's a pretty easygoing guy (especially considering all the nonsense he gets put through). This is what makes him the most recognizable and realistic hero of my entire list. Which means you don't have to read the other 4, lucky you. Seriously though, having the ability to care about your friends enough to put up with crap and also do anything to help them out, even if they hate you for it, is some real heroism. I feel certain that during J.R.R. Tolkien's time in the military, he had at least one Sam making sure that he didn't lose his way. The luckiest of us all have a Sam that we can count on, because without him we're lost. Because after all the crap he put up with, none of which he asked for, he's the positive one at the end of the second movie. He's the one that tells the audience, "you know what? It's going to be okay." This trend continues into the third film, especially in some of the added scenes for the extended cut. And it leads you to wonder: would he be this positive if his life had always been easy? Probably not. Sam shows us that it is through hardship, especially the kind that nothing but the cruelty and unfairness of life brought upon you, can we start to be better. He appreciates the little things because the little things are all he has. He's literally the "everyman." So even though every guy dreams of being Aragorn, the ruggedly handsome action hero who becomes king and marries the hot elf, nobody really gets that kind of opportunity. We all dream of being the people who will take up the rest of my list, but really there's no chance of that. But I'd say that if we can have the courage to take life's pitfalls with a smile, stand by our friends at all times, and then lead a simple life growing tomatoes with the girl from the pub, then that's pretty good. So our buddy Sammy might be hanging around the bottom of the list, but I think that's exactly the way he'd want it.

Well that's part one of my 5 favorite heroes, it took me longer to write than any other blog entry if you get right down to it. So I hope you enjoyed it, especially if you like warm and fuzzy feelings. Because at least 3 of the other 4 aren't too cheery. In fact, contrary to my opening paragraph, they're not particularly "heroic" in the classic sense. They're messed up people trying to do the best they can. That's what makes them interesting, but re-read the previous few paragraphs if you're looking for a role model. Because if you actually model yourself after literally anything that these guys do, you'll probably go to jail. You've been warned.

1987: The Year that The Chinese Empire Died Along with Nic Cage's Talent

Much like Tom Cruise, Nicolas Cage seems to be better the farther back in time you go. I still haven't seen his Oscar-winning performance from the 90s, but his performance in this year is actually pretty good. What happened? Apparently he's actually against scientology and speaks out against it, so it can't be that. Unless...maybe he was kidnapped by scientologists and had one of those electro-shock therapies put on him against his will...so that his acting would be just as bad as Tom Cruise. It all makes sense now! Either way, his "cute but not great" film in this year is sadly the year's best offering in many ways. The upshot of this fact is that my birth year is not the worst year for nominees anymore (suck it 1987!) but the down...shot, if that's a word, is that there are 7 more years of the 80s to get through.

Let's begin with yet another film in the same style that I ranted on in my 1988 post: Broadcast News. Now I know that my reviews and rants can be tricky sometimes because I over-emphasize things for what I hope comes off as humor. There are movies that I don't dislike as much as I let on (I'll make brownies for whoever can pick them out) and I simply exaggerate because it's a lot more interesting than saying "meh, that movie was so-so." But let's be real for a second: if I have to sit through one more freaking romantic comedy with literally the EXACT same plot, I'm going to put a list of dangerous addictions into a hat and start incorporating one of them into my everyday life. The reason I mentioned my hyperbole before is this: I'm not even exaggerating when I say they have the same plot. This even has the same actor as The Accidental Tourist (William Hurt) so it's pretty much the same frickin' movie! On that fateful day a long, long time from now when I finish the escapade I'm actually going to count how many of these films there are. And I'll send the grand total to the Academy with a picture of me in a Batman suit flicking them off and saying in a word bubble: "no love for the Caped Crusader?" The only difference between all of these movies is the profession the dude has that leads to the two people meeting. Jack Nicholson was a writer, William Hurt was a writer, William Hurt the second time was a broadcast journalist...wait a minute. Those are all the same! So in this movie he's a TV writer basically, except for non-fiction since it's the news. Still, the news is just "info-tainment" at the end of the day, they're still selling you a story. The women also get progressively less attractive in my not-so-humble opinion. Helen Hunt is pretty hot, Geena Davis is cute, Holly Hunter (in this movie) isn't unattractive but her voice is seriously annoying. I had no idea how much worse The Piano could've been if instead of playing a deaf-mute her character could actually talk. It's the stuff of nightmares. And yet again this film sits around the same basic running time of about 2 hours and 15 which is WAY too long for a movie like this (as I believe I've mentioned several times). I'm sure there's some sort of interesting phenomenon about how the writers of film and television all have tenuous love lives that somewhat resemble the plots in these types of movies (or inspire them rather) but you know what? I don't care. I'm all for putting aspects of one's life into a body of work, but at least tack something fairly interesting on there. Or give it some snappy dialogue like Juno did. Do ANYTHING, but don't keep churning out the same stuff. I get enough of real life in my real life, I'd like to see something a tad more interesting and thought-provoking in an Oscar nominee.

Which you won't find in Fatal Attraction, I can tell you that right now. Although, as my mother pointed out: it was a lot more shocking when it first came out because people had never really seen something like that before. I realize that's often the case with some of these films I can't quite get into, but then I think about how something like Lawrence of Arabia was a spectacle to behold when it first came out and it still is today. Or to use a more recent example, Viggo Mortensen who played Aragorn in LOTR once said, and I'm paraphrasing, that "hard as it may be to believe, the special effects in these films will someday look cheap and outdated. But the story will live on." And that's totally true, I don't let it bother me when I watch a movie from the 40s and someone gets shot and there's no blood and no bullet hole. Because that's not what matters. So with this movie, I can certainly understand the morbid fascination that people had with it when it came out, but I don't think it particularly stood the test of time. The film, much like many Michael Douglas films if you check and see, is about a dude who has a fling with a woman who turns out to be a psycho. Maybe that was original when Clint Eastwood did it in 1971 with Play Misty For Me, but it's certainly not in 1987 (it probably wasn't original with Clint either, it's an age-old story). Perhaps the level it goes to was more original, such as the bunny being boiled on the stove. That was disturbing even for me...but other than that the whole thing is pretty much predictable. I will say that Glenn Close gives a really solid performance, but casting her in the movie wasn't a great choice overall. This leads me to my main problem with the film: lack of overall believability (which could've been fixed with a few minor changes). First off, Michael Douglas' character isn't a previous philanderer (or if he is then it's not mentioned). If he had been, then you'd get a "this is his comeuppance for years of cheating on his wife" feel, and then he can realize how bad he's been, learn a lesson, yadda yadda. Kinda cheesy, but it'd make more sense. Since it's the only time he's done this, they should've A) made his home life a lot more strenuous or B) cast someone way hotter than Glenn Close. I know this is all a touchy subject because asses like his character pull crap like this every day and are sadly not attacked with knives, but within the world of film you need more believability. Because lies require more proof than the truth (did I just blow your freaking mind?). With either of those changes, we could've at least understood his decision on the level of "people are bad and things are complicated" if obviously not on a moral level. Something else that bothered me is that Glenn's character is presumably about the same age as Glenn herself, so about 40 within the film. Her psychological issues probably aren't new, so why is this the first time she's gone psycho on a guy after a fling? Michael Douglas really isn't that special (I don't think) and nor was he particularly forward with her when they began their fling. If the woman had been fresh out of college and discovering the wide world of business and power for the first time, I'd have bought that. If she had been hot too, I'd have bought the situation even more. So I respect that they chose someone with the best acting talent instead of a pretty face, but they should've changed certain aspects of the movie to better suit this and it would've worked a lot better. Since I'm attempting to be not quite as hyperbolic in this entry, I'll say that the movie wasn't bad at all and was even enjoyable at times. But it's still a far cry from a nominee, unless that was a year of REALLY slim pickens.

Which it may well have been, because I'm really not sure what to make of the film Hope and Glory. There have been very few occasions where I had such a small response to a movie, either positive or negative. The overall plot seems to quite possibly be a big influence on the 1998 film Life is Beautiful. Except that movie is incredible and made me cry, and I just kind of sat and watched this one. It's essentially a quasi-biography of the director's life growing up during World War II. So it kind of shows the war through the eyes of an 8-year-old boy, which is a fascinating concept. Because even if a young boy was interested enough in global politics to ascertain why the war was happening, even the adults in his situation didn't fully grasp the entire situation because there's no way they could have. The only way to even begin to understand all of it is from a historical perspective today. Which is, once again, what makes the idea of this film so fascinating. I think it was a bit too British for me though...I often appreciate and love British things but there are aspects of their humor that are lost on me. And since the movie is supposed to be a comedy of sorts, I really wasn't sure what was supposed to be funny and what was meant to be ironic and what was meant to be sobering. I certainly recognize it as being well-done and even deeply personal given that it's largely the director's story. But for some reason I just couldn't connect with it. Maybe I'm not British enough or maybe I just wasn't in the right mindset, I don't know. Or maybe I'm still sick of sitting through WWII films, because once you've seen Patton and Saving Private Ryan you really don't need to watch anything else (anything relatively recent anyway). I also realize it's bad to say a film isn't great because a similar movie that was made 11 years later was better...but for all I know when I reach 1974 or something there will be something that this ripped off. Still in all, I suppose the movie was a breath of fresh air just because I didn't hate it.

Nor did I hate Moonstruck, but I didn't love it either. Yes, it's a romantic comedy. But it's not in the same formula as the stuff I've been ranting about as of late. It's got a bit more of an edge to it. Because it's about Italians! Say what you want about my race of people, but they're pretty hilarious all the time. It's not quite as funny when some of the ridiculous crap is actually happening around you...but when you see it satirized on a show like Everybody Loves Raymond it's absolutely hysterical. Just as that show is the classic sitcom with a twist, this movie is the classic romantic comedy with a twist. And I never thought I'd enjoy Cher in a movie, or anywhere, but she actually does a pretty great job. And so does Nicolas Cage! This movie was clearly made in the Twilight Zone. The basic plot is that Cher's character was married once before and her husband died, and now she's 37 with not much hope of finding "Mr. Right" and so when her schmuck boyfriend proposes to her (in probably the most pathetic/hilarious way I've seen) she says yes because her options are few. Well, not too long after that she meets her soon-to-be-brother-in-law, played by our buddy Nic. She initially meets with him to convince him to forget about the bad blood with his brother and come to the wedding. And just when you're starting to think, "oh this is going to be one of those not serious things that Italians make really serious and blow out of proportion," he reveals that his right hand is made of frigging wood! Due to the fact that his actual hand burned off. Oh, and then the woman he was going to marry left him. All because his brother really needed some fresh bread from the hot oven, and fast. I'd be pissed too. So you've got that aspect of the film giving it a nice twinge of darkness. Then there's the fairly morbid humor surrounding her first husband's death. All of this makes for a somewhat dark, but pretty enjoyable comedy. She of course ends up with Nic even though he's a bit younger than her and they don't exactly live happily ever after (because they're Italian) but they're better off than they were before. So it's a cute little movie and it uses Dean Martin's "That's Amore." That makes it pretty good in my book and exactly what I needed to get me back into the escapade, after it was brought to a halt by...wait for it...

The winner for the year: The Last Emperor. It sounds exactly like something I would like, doesn't it? The idea of being the last of one's kind is something I've always found fascinating and hauntingly sad. I love movies about emperors and empires, because as far back as I can remember I always wanted to rule the world. And I figure I can pick up a few pointers from all the failed empires and avoid those mistakes. So by all means I should've liked this movie. But it sucked. Aspects of it were interesting, but I kept remembering that it won 9 Academy Awards. Freaking nine! That's almost as much as LOTR, more than The English Patient, and more than either Godfather. That's craziness, but I know why all of that happened. This was the first (and maybe only) Western film that was allowed to be filmed within China's "Forbidden City." So that makes this a political and diplomatic film. Because since China is a bunch of commie psychos who refrain from destroying us for the sole reason that we buy all of their products, the Academy probably thought it'd be a nice (and safe) gesture to throw them a bone. But did they really need to throw them nine bones? That's just insulting. And no, it seems many of the other films that year weren't particularly good either. But still, the movie is about basically nothing and it's not too well-done. The kid speaks perfect English when he's like, 3. And then when he gets older he speaks fragmented English with a Chinese accent. None of that makes any sense! Plus we never see him do anything as Emperor, except for breastfeed from a mid-wife up until he's 8 and protest when his chosen wife is 17 and he's 14. Maybe I screwed up those years, I don't feel like checking. Points being: A) gross and B) what kind of teenager wants to marry someone who's like 12 instead of 17? And let me add C) why should I care? Well, all of the interesting aspects of the story, such as how he's a puppet for some Japanese regime, were either left on the cutting room floor (there's a director's cut that's about an hour longer but 2 hours and 45 minutes was plenty already, believe me) or were never included in the film in the first place. So what we have instead is a film that is about a real-life person who was involved in interesting events, but we never get to see them. We just see all of his cabana boys following him around the city and him being a whiner because his brother wore yellow and he's the only one who can wear yellow. The kid's your classic spoiled brat, except that he also runs a country. So that makes him the ultimate spoiled brat. Why would I cheer for this person? Answer: I do not. Which is why I completely don't care that he ends up as a prisoner and subsequently a peasant. Because he didn't really have a "fatal flaw" that led to his downfall, and though we can say he was a victim of the world around him and of the times, we don't care enough about him enough to feel any sympathy. I will admit that the final scene was pretty good, even though it involved a grasshopper that somehow survived in a jar for 50 years (don't ask). Bottom line: I'm glad we avoided World War III by giving this movie an award, but it's a Catch-22 because then we have to live in a world where movies like this get Best Picture and I'm not sure it's worth it.

But of course it's worth it! Because remember in the 90s write-ups when I used to say, "I overall agree with the Academy's decision?" Those were some good times. Good times I hope to have again soon. And though I understand that hope is what kills a man, I still have some optimism in my heart for 1986. Truly. I already know I like the winner well enough, so who knows? Maybe my slump will end. All I can say for the moment is that it will include Robert DeNiro opting not to kill people, Charlie Sheen being not a self-centered jerk, and freaking William Hurt hopefully being not in a derivative piece of crap.

1988: The Year that the World Was Introduced To a Man of Shocking Genius, and Dustin Hoffman Played One Too

The first genius I'm referring to is, of course, myself. Coincidentally, I was actually compared to the title character of 1988's winner at dinner tonight. And it's pretty accurate, although I'm obviously more suave than he is (and pretty much everybody). Overall though, I was pretty disappointed with this year of films. This was my birth year people! And there were a grand total of two good movies that got nominated. That's like an all-time low. The Academy and I were at war since before I was born. I think I just quasi quoted a movie, but I'm not sure...I probably did since I'm not sure I say much of anything that's not from something. I looked it up almost a week later, as I'm finishing this and the movie I was quoting was Terminator Salvation. Boom.

But I certainly wouldn't quote much of anything from this year of nominees, especially not The Accidental Tourist. Talk about a movie that started off as being somewhat interesting and ended up as redundant drivel. I get really tired of these movies where it follows the pattern: dude with a character flaw meets girl who's crazy, they fall in love and she fixes him, he walks away from her for about twenty minutes to get some canned drama in there, and then they reunite at the end (completely forgetting about all the problems he had at the beginning of the movie of course). The beginning of this movie actually reminded me of Up in the Air, it's about a guy who hates traveling but who travels a lot so he can write travel guides. And the Clooney one was about a guy who traveled a lot because he didn't really have anything else to do. Those are wonderfully twisted ideas, and in the beginning I actually thought I'd like this movie. But once it falls into the category I described earlier it gets boring. The same thing happened in As Good As It Gets wherein the crotchety guy gets fixed only to discover that his non-distorted self is horrendously not interesting. And the love interest for this movie is Geena Davis, who I find mildly frightening (especially in eighties getup). She won the Academy Award for this role! See now, the girl in Clooney's movie was Anna Kendrick and she is adorable. Geena Davis, not so much. I'm starting to think a lot of these movies are just mob-backed or something and they force the Academy to give them awards. Because I knew the Academy was pretty dumb, but this is just ridiculous. And I haven't even gotten to the year's worst offering yet! It was a rough year. Somewhere in there he gets back with his wife for essentially no good reason, mostly because the movie needed to fill up an extra half an hour I suppose. Well next time these people should just have a movie that's an hour and a half. If nothing else, it would've been 30 fewer minutes that I had to endure the torture.

Now's the part where I'd like to chime in with how the next movie on the list is at least marginally better, but sadly it is not. The film is Dangerous Liaisons and though it sounds like a spy thriller where stuff blows up, guns get fired, and other exciting things happen, nothing could be farther from the truth. I actually completed a previous blog entry while the movie's last 30 minutes were playing because it was pretty boring. The film is essentially about some French people who...well, does it matter? Much like myself, you're probably already disinterested because it's about Frenchies. But I'll blather about it anyway, these two French aristocrats basically start playing some mind games with some other aristocrats by sleeping with people's lovers, and telling other people that other people were sleeping with their lovers. Why do they do this exactly? There's really no reason, except that they're rotten and bored. So we're watching rotten and bored people bore us. The casting is kind of all over the place with the film, because Glenn Close and John Malkovich are the stars, but Keanu Reeves is in it too. He actually says the words, in his Keanu voice, "sublime, don't you find?" in response to an opera he just viewed. How could anyone take a movie seriously that contains that piece of dialogue? And to be honest, Glenn and John aren't particularly great either. Which is unusual for them, but I think it shows that directors are a big part of an actor's performance. If the director doesn't connect with the actors all that well, then performances may suffer. Everyone in this movie speaks as though they're on stage, and not in a good way. In an "I've said this line so many times it's horrifically boring for me to get the words out because I'm in a 3rd grade production of Hamlet" way. My rule about rotten characters is that they either have to be simultaneously hilarious when they're terrible (a la Seinfeld or It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) or they have to be interesting characters with a deep back story (like all five of my Favorite Villains I wrote about a while ago). And on top of that, even if I were to go along with the story as it is, these two people are seducing younger and more attractive people left and right. I don't know about you, but if any actress is going to seduce me away from my spouse it's probably not going to be Glenn Close. And I can't speak for the ladies but John Malkovich, really? So there you have it, the movie pretty much falls flat on every level. The overall story was probably a lot better in the original book because then I could imagine the characters however I wanted (probably George Clooney and Natalie Portman, just saying).

Mercifully, I actually liked Mississippi Burning. It doesn't do anything that's completely interesting or original, but it's a really solid and well-done film. It centers around the true story of three murders that happened in Mississippi in the Civil Rights era of the 60s, and the subsequent investigation. It's really a two-man show of a movie between Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe, both of whom are their usual excellent. Gene plays the old-time cop who is more of a Dirty Harry type guy (or more specifically a Popeye Doyle I suppose) and Willem plays more of the type of guy that Dirty Harry thinks is useless. He's all by-the-book and idealistic and such. Until near the end of the movie of course when he sees that he's getting nowhere. As I said, it's a pretty straightforward film but the pacing, supporting cast, and atmospheric direction are all excellent. It provides the usual commentary you'd expect on Southern racism (as the three who were killed were Civil Rights activists and one of them was black), but not in a blatant way. Or perhaps, not in a protesty way. It instead shows us the entire situation from an investigative point of view, and how the law is hindered by witnesses with a strong bias, as well as by local law enforcement and politicians. Nobody in town wants to talk to the FBI agents conducting the investigation, and as such the viewer is frustrated along with the characters. This is an effective tactic, because if you start out saying "Gene Hackman is too extreme, I'm glad the cops aren't like that" as Willem first believes, by the time it's the end of the film you see the merit in how Gene wanted to do things. And thus we see another example of the "slow progression." In other words, you end up with a different mindset at the end of the movie due to a specific set of frustrating events. This is one of my favorite filmmaking tactics because it allows the viewer to see how characters in both fiction and real life become the way they are. No one starts out extreme, they're made that way. All of this culminates in an excellent interrogation scene which isn't exactly violent, but it's potent and it's a breath of fresh air after an hour and forty-five minutes of nonsense from the townspeople. So there you go, the movie doesn't too anything too outstanding but it's solid. And it's easily the second best film of the nominees for this year (not that it's up against much, if Any Which Way But Loose came out in this year it would've topped the other crap).

And yes, I barely even know what that last movie is that I referenced. If you really care, you can find it online. In fact, you should have Wikipedia open at all times when reading my work. Because my brain is like Wikipedia...on crack-soaked speed. I learned about those drugs abstractly in class. I learned about them firsthand when I was driven to drug abuse by Working Girl. Had I been around a bridge, I'd have jumped off. I haven't watched a nominee in a week and a half and this movie is the reason. It actually broke me. It broke my mind and it broke my soul. It's...horrible. You can actually take the slew of movies I've referred to as "horrible" in the past and now label them "not so bad." We actually live in a world where John Ford's The Searchers wasn't nominated for Best Picture and this movie was (Spielberg called that his favorite film of all time). We live in a world where a poorly-written, over-acted piece of crap like this actually had a shot at being called the best film in a single year. I usually don't endorse time travel, because you never know what you might change and how the world will be worse off, but I am now going to devote efforts to creating time travel solely so I can stop this movie from being nominated. If that destroys the world, I don't care. Because whatever world we live in now has clearly gone terribly wrong. It's the Mirror-verse from Star Trek with goateed Spock. It's the alternate timeline from Back to the Future Part II where Biff is married to Marty's mom. I'm convinced, and I'm going to go to that other universe where people can keep their fishtanks, their cars don't get hit by tires, and they aren't awakened in the middle of the night by the people above them playing Coldplay's "Speed of Sound" on the piano (horribly). Right then, now that that mini-blog is done with, here's the plot (such as it is): girl gets taken under the wing of her company's CEO, CEO gets injured and leaves girl in charge, girl takes CEO's boyfriend and her job. Not even kidding. They make the CEO look like a serious villain because she passed off the main girl's idea as her own. SO FREAKING WHAT? She also left the main character in charge of the company, so if she had gone through proper channels she probably could've had the woman's job eventually anyway. And she stole the CEO's boyfriend! And he was played by Harrison Ford, so that had to hurt (only one man is man enough to survive the worlds of both Star Wars and Indiana Jones). I know we're asked to cheer for this girl because she's the main character and because she's Melanie Griffith (who I don't find attractive, certainly not in nasty 80s getup. When I saw the cast listing I got her confused with Kathy Griffin, who I actually think would've made the movie better in a bizarre way). Even if the movie was done well, and it isn't, it would still be (at best) a glorified chick flick. And people were nominated for acting Oscars in it too...ridiculous! Sometimes I wonder if what I perceive as bad acting and poor dialogue is simply a byproduct of being too used to television dialogue and acting that I see once a week for years and thus grow accustomed to, no matter the quality level that it was at the beginning. But I recently had to sit through a scene from this movie again during a game of Scene-It, and a good friend of mine who is an actress looked as though she was about to gag. So I'm vindicated, the movie sucks. Anyone interested in donating time or materials to my "risk tearing the fabric of the universe to prevent this film from being nominated" foundation can please post a comment on the blog.

Well now that everyone reading this probably wants to go back in time and stop my blog from existing, I guess this next part doesn't matter. But I'll write it anyway, because it's for an actually great movie that came out and won in 1988: Rain Man. It's tough to say a whole lot about the movie (although I'm sure I'll find a way) because what makes it so good is very simple. But that's often what makes for the best movies. The plot of the Lord of the Rings films really isn't too complicated, but it's the delivery and the full package that's so excellent. This movie is simply about a man whose father dies and he discovers that a portion of the inheritance belongs to a brother he didn't know he had. That brother, of course, is the quirky genius played by Dustin Hoffman. Apparently they originally wrote him as an autistic man who was very friendly and outgoing, and that would've made the movie mediocre at best. It was Hoffman himself who wanted to make him a stand-offish, OCD idiot savant. If he had been friendly from the beginning then the character would have nowhere to go. Instead, the story goes exactly where you'd expect: Tom Cruise becomes less of a jerk because of his relationship with his brother, and his brother gets to go and experience things he never could before because of the roadtrip that encompasses the movie. Predictable, but touching. And it ends in not quite the manner you'd expect. It's overall a happy ending, but not quite as stereotypical as you might think. Though it's somewhat predictable, the writing and the acting are so good that you don't care. Tom Cruise is even pretty good in the movie, lending creedence to my "the younger he gets the more talent he has" theory. Maybe it was all of those negative whatevers that the Scientology people zapped out of his brain. I'm not sure what any of those things are actually called and I won't look them up to dignify their existence, so let's just say that what the Scientologists zapped out of his psyche was "talent." Anyway, it's certainly a movie everybody should watch at some point. It goes a little bit deeper than just a "feel good" film, but it achieves the same purpose wonderfully.

So that's it for my birth year. Nonsensical crap, bending the rules, and an oddball genius. Sounds like my life. How apropos, anyone doubting that The Truman Show is actually the film adaptation of The Domenic Show which I live through every day, can look at my catalogue of blog posts and decide for themselves. I prefer to think that the wacky things that happen to me are the result of lazy writing/May sweeps. You can read about it in my autobiography I'll write someday entitled "Refusing to Color: The Story of a Man Too Smart for His Own Good." Where does the title come from? I'd love to tell you, for just $19.95. Until then, you can continue reading the condensed version on the blog. Next time around (if I am able to keep watching the nonsense) will include more buying that Glenn Close is a home-wrecker, Nicolas Cage and Cher in the same film, and 2 hours and 45 minutes of nothing happening within China's "Forbidden City." Umm, yeah the escapade would stop here if I wasn't so bored because that all sounds terrible.

1989: The Year that No One Could Walk, Or Drive Themselves for That Matter

Yeah you heard me. It's the year of cripples and bums. Wow that was cruel, especially considering that both disabled characters are actually based on real people. One of them has a unique and uplifting story. The other one has the same story as literally millions of Americans throughout history, and yet decided that he needed to write a book about it, which would become a vehicle for Oliver Stone to douche it up some more. Oh and there were good movies in 1989 too...I neglected to mention that.

But first, let's deal with this Oliver Stone nonsense: Born on the Fourth of July. I've seen a lot of Vietnam movies, and I can honestly say this is the first one I haven't liked. And as we'll see when I get to 1986, I even like Oliver Stone's other big Vietnam movie. But this is just overdone, hyperbolized nonsense. And to me, the person on whom it is based is really kind of a jerk. It pains me to say that because I have nothing but respect for our veterans, but this guy went off and got injured and used that injury as a means of exploitative protest. In other words, "how could you not oppose the war? Look what happened to me!" Not only is this faulty logic (although I do agree with his overall point of view, just not why he has it) it also undermines every other disabled veteran because it turns an injury into a soapbox. But enough real-life tangenting, which is oddly not a word, let's talk about the movie. It charts Ron's life from childhood through his years after the war and how his views change, especially pertaining to his views on war and conflict. This could be good if done with some subtlety, but it's not. Everything is SO in your face that it's really quite annoying. The over-the-top stuff at the beginning is all, "well gee Pop I'd sure like to go fight for the country! JFK said I should go kill yellow people so golly shucks darn whiz that's what I'm a gonna do!" And during this they might as well be holding up a sign that says, "this is ironic and sad because he's going to get injured and we're going to lose." Now if there were say, just one line at the beginning of the film in the style of Titanic's "not even God could sink this ship" that would've been effective. But instead Stone throws it in your face every chance he gets. Which is not only poor filmmaking, it's once again kind of rotten because it's basically winking to the audience and causing them to wink back about one of America's greatest failures. I don't personally find Vietnam too wink-able, I don't know about you. And the movie drags on in this fashion for about two-and-a-half hours. Somewhere in there is a twenty-minute stretch where Tom Cruise (neglected to mention he's the star, which makes it even worse) and Willem Dafoe get high in Mexico while picking up prostitutes. Which has nothing to do with anything, but it happened to the real guy so I guess they felt the need to put it in the movie. Those scenes just devolve into the characters arguing about who killed more babies, spitting on each other repeatedly, and then fighting each other on the ground. It reminded me of South Park, honestly. Stupid. It's also kind of a waste of a John Williams score. The music by itself is excellent obviously, but since the film itself doesn't really deliver it just goes to show that as incredible as the music is within movies, it can only enhance what's there. Anyway, I think you've got the point and I've been decidedly unfunny so far and I've probably lost my 3 fans but let's do some more just in case.

Another oddly unfunny movie, but a really good one, is Dead Poets Society. And yes I've checked and there's no "the" at the beginning of the title, which really bugs me...but anyway, it's admittedly been a few years since I've seen this film but it always stuck with me. It was the first time I'd seen Robin Williams in a serious role, although as I've recently discovered he's done a lot more serious roles than I'd ever thought, and he really delivered. The film is kind of about a bunch of hippie stuff, but they don't tell you in a hippie way. It's a tightly and cleverly written film, and it's pretty dark too. Seriously though! You're just watching the movie and enjoying yourself, laughing a good bit, learning some stuff, and then one of the main dudes up and kills himself! What's up with that? But it actually propels the movie into real life, and elevates it from an enjoyable-but-forgettable film to one that I can still recount about five years later and accurately review. Because the movie makes you a part of this society of friends, so that when the guy kills himself you don't go "gee that's sad," you really feel some pain! I once had an idea for a TV show wherein we'd follow a group of friends as they went through college and maybe even high school, and then became like mobsters and cops and stuff and it'd turn all tragic. Because that'd be the only way to feel some true emotion with regards to a story of that nature. But America would accuse me of screwing with them for 10 seasons (or however long it'd go on) and they'd probably be correct to do so. Maybe as a movie? That's a pretty good idea...but let's get back to this movie. If you haven't seen it, I don't want to ruin the ending for you but it's quite moving. It could easily be REALLY cheesy, but it's not. It makes me cry every time, and the tears don't just well up. One actually falls out, sometimes. Real life can be pretty cheesy, and I think that's why we get all upset with cheesy stuff. Because we've seen it every day in real life! And the reason it falls flat in the theater is because we see a bunch of stuff happen that never could, and it all ends in a way that's just so goofy it's almost real. But this movie doesn't do that, it feels real every step of the way. I have no idea how writers achieve that, but I'm super jealous. Because the only kind of "real" dialogue I can ever muster is what I sound like...and the only real person who sounds like me is me. Huge bummer.

And now's the part where I say, "know what else is a huge bummer? (whatever crap movie I'm talking about at the time)." I'm happy to report that instead the next movie is Field of Dreams. I had only seen this movie once, and that was when I was a kid. So when I was nearing the end of 1989, I made a last-minute decision with my Netflix (who should totally pay me royalties for all the exposure I give them) to watch this movie again, so I could have a more matured look at the film. Well, most of it plays like a touching, if not a little hokey, episode of The Twilight Zone. Crazy stuff happens, and no explanation is given. Which is FINE by the way, because the whole point of the story is that people are given a second chance to do what they always wanted to do in their lives. The point is: to do it that way the first time around. Like I said, hokey. But still relevant. I think that as Sweeney Todd said, "the years no doubt have changed me" and movies like this come off as goofy to me. But there's just something about the film...Kevin Costner is more tolerable than usual. I will say that his wife is a little annoying. But JAMES FREAKING EARL JONES is in it! Darth Vader people! Come on now, how could that not be completely awesome? And when he gives his speech about how baseball remains as a remnant of what once made America great, and what it could be again, the chills started to rise up my spine as though I was watching my first movie again. The whole movie, which revolves around a dude who builds a baseball field for a bunch of dead people to play on, would fall flat without that speech. But also without the final scene. And here's where I lost it (in an emotional way, not a quality of film way). I actually don't want to mention the final scene, because it should be viewed by pretty much everyone. But I'll tell you that 2, count them: 2! tears actually fell from my eyes during the scene. That's pretty much a new record. If it can tug on the 1 and 1/2 heartstrings I have left after all these years of cynicism, it'll get yours too. There are no individual pieces of the film (music, directing, etc.) that I'd say are Oscar-worthy, but somehow it all comes together so well that I'm glad it got the nomination.

Not so sure about My Left Foot though. It's one of those films I frequently refer to as an "acting movie." Which is to say, does it have a great performance? Yes. Is there anything else, and I mean anything else, that's notable about the film in any way? Not at all. So give Daniel Day-Lewis the Oscar (and they did) but nominate some other movie that has more than one good thing about it. The movie is the true story of a man in working-class society of Ireland who could only move his left foot. He could barely even speak at the beginning of the film. Also near the beginning he gets some female attention from a girl in the neighborhood. Which means that just within the 1989 nominees, the list of characters with better luck with women than myself are: the crotchety guy confined to a wheelchair and the dude who can only move his left foot. I'm of course being facetious, but all of that was a tweet I wanted to tweet way back but it's too many characters. Anyway, the supporting performances in the film are what I would describe as: there. Are they bad? No. Are they good? No. Are they on the level of acting mediocrity limbo like Kevin Costner? Thankfully no. But it's Mr. Day-Lewis we've come to see, and he delivers. The man actually made me believe he was the real dude. And I don't say that too often. Usually I think they overdo it, especially with this type of role, but this was done exactly the way I like it. The performance doesn't take itself too seriously, or throw things in your face, but it also doesn't make light of the situation. That's a tricky balance, that few master. So on that level I'm glad I watched the film, but it really gets old after a while. He's in love with the girl who taught him how to speak, but she doesn't love him. Well that's tragic and everything and I feel for the real-life dude, but I don't exactly need it to take up as much space in the movie as it does. Overall I have mixed feelings, because I'd say the performance is worth seeing, but not the movie itself...if that makes any sense.

It probably doesn't, but I don't care. I'm lucky if half of what I say makes any sense anyway. The winner for this year is an odd choice...but maybe when I'm writing about it I'll have an epiphany (as I sometimes do). The film is an adorably charming movie, with fairly serious undertones: Driving Miss Daisy. For those who haven't seen it, or any of the 50 million references to it on sitcoms, it's about a "proper" Southern woman who gets driven around town by an older black guy and how they form a strange friendship. And here comes cynical Domenic: basically this tells me that the film got the attention it did because of the issues it addresses. It's about accepting other people, and putting race issues behind us, so on and so forth. That's all well and good. But the movie itself is really not over-the-top great. I completely enjoyed watching it. It was endearing and thoughtful and sweet. There's really nothing wrong with it, but it also doesn't venture into much new territory. There are some solid performances from the likes of Morgan Freeman (who is always good) and Jessica Tandy. Although it's not super hard for a feisty old lady to play a feisty old Southern lady...ordinarily I'd IMDB this junk and see if she actually was from the South, making my point even stronger, but I'm not feeling up to it. Plus I feel like no one knows how to use the internet effectively, so go look it up yourself! Anyway, this is all based on a stage play, and it shows. I sometimes dislike when a playwrite does the adaptation for the movie version. Because writing a play isn't the same as writing a movie (I've obviously done both at length). A movie has to be about more than just the actors, as opposed to a play which is completely fueled by the actors (that last parenthetical quip was a joke, but I realized you might believe I've done those things since my blog is so awesome). Unusually, this format seems to work for the film. Maybe because there's not much you could do with it directorially anyway, or maybe because the writing is of such quality that you don't care. I have no idea, but either way it works. Does it work on the level of Best Picture? No. Is it up against much? No. So there you have it, given the choice between a few movies that are really just enjoyable and not artistically great, I say go with the socially-conscious one every time. It's great PR.

Well that's it for this installment, I'm also done with 1988 but I'm such a bum lately that I haven't written anything. And yes, I realize I said that 1989 was the year of cripples and bums. I feel secure saying that because I'm at least half of that description, and should therefore be able to poke fun at it at least half of the time. Either way, next year is very important because (gasp!) it was the year I was born! And man did the Academy have some crap that year. That actually depresses me. The year should've been the appropriate hailing of the soon-to-be-crowned world's finest film critic! Instead it's drivel after drivel after drivel with two good movies in there. I think that's an all-time low, as far as the escapade goes. By means of a preview of this nonsense, it'll include: Green Goblin and Lex Luthor investigating lynchings, a Graduate and Jerry Maguire on a life-altering field trip, and some other crap that's not nearly as interesting (not even close).