1985: The Year that Indiana Jones Put the Moves on a Hot Amish Chick

I'm sorry, I just can't get over that. Not that my scarce experiences with the Amish have led me to believe that they're ugly exactly, but this girl was pretty much right off the runway. I'll get to that point when I get to that movie. Anyway, this was a bit of an odd year. Nothing in it was bad per se. Some just didn't meet expectations or weren't as good as they could've been. Which still beats a year full of crap like I've been sitting through lately. So I can't complain. Although I probably will anyway.

Especially about this film: The Color Purple, which was a bit of a major letdown considering that it was directed by Spielberg. You know, Spielberg reminds me of Shakespeare a little bit. And yeah that's probably one of the more random things I've said and to tell you the truth, I actually find that statement insulting (not sure to which man though). But here's why: as I previously stated WAY long ago in a rant about Billy Shakes, when you read or see his super famous pieces of work like "Macbeth" or "Othello" you see why he's as famous as he is. But then you start to notice that he wrote about 30 more plays than the ones you usually hear about and that those plays aren't too impressive (at least by comparison). Spielberg is the same, he has such an impressive variety of work that he's done that we forget that he also did things like this movie and Amistad (which I haven't seen all the way through but it's not that great from what I've seen). Yet still, I expect a lot from the man because he's probably the most well-known director out there today. And this movie is by no means a bad movie. It just has a few things that drag it down, not all of which are its fault. I'm being very cryptic today...what I mean to say is that Oprah drags the movie down and so does Whoopi Goldberg. It's not the movie's fault that I know them as an annoying talk show host and the goofy center square. Because even if Oprah's show was on back then (don't care enough to check) it certainly wasn't as well-known as it is today. Yet still, she's suppoed to be playing this rebellious woman and I couldn't take her seriously at all. The scenes were supposed to be heroic and dramatic and they played like an SNL sketch. And Whoopi has largely become a caricature of herself. When I was running through the entire run of every Star Trek series, after 30-some episodes that she was in I still had a tough time buying her in the role of the wise bartender Guinan. Because she's just a nut, plain and simple. Does she do a good job in the movie? I honestly couldn't tell you. It would seem to me that she did a pretty good job but who knows? I'll tell you who was good: Danny Glover, stepping out of his usual type of role and playing the abusive husband. He pretty much saved the movie for me, even though he's mostly a supporting character. The film's focus is on Whoopi's character and her letters to the sister that was taken from her long ago. And I will say that even with my issues with the film, the events leading up to their reunion was still really powerful. Even with the sub-par music, which wasn't composed by John Williams! What's up with that? Pretty much every other Spielberg movie in existence is scored by Johnny, and his scores are a large part of why the films are so good. This is literally the only film of his that Williams didn't score, and it shows. The music sounds a bit like his, but not enough. A Williams score wouldn't have fixed the problems with the film, but it would've improved the film greatly.

Now here's a shocker for you, the movie that I thought was going to suck the most in this year turned out to be my favorite: Kiss of the Spider Woman. It sounds like a cheap Tarzan serial, but it's actually an intense character study. The reason I thought it would be terrible is because it stars William Hurt, my new least-favorite person. And he's playing a gay guy, so I thought it'd be 2 hours of Hurt putting on a bad lisp. But he gives a pretty incredible performance in the film, and I think it explains why his other roles are no good. He did such a great job here and rightfully won the Oscar, that people wanted him in everything. Even for roles that didn't fit him, like oh say...every other role I've seen him in lately. But let's be positive about the man, because it's probably our only chance. It's largely a two-man show between his character and Raul Julia's. And yes, his name has accent marks at various places but this website makes it annoying to put them there. So live with it. Anyway, Hurt's character is a gay man in a Brazilian prison for, ermm..."corrupting a young boy" and Julia's character is a political prisoner (a revolutionary against the government). The two form an unlikely respect and fondness for one another but not in a traditional "Buddy Cop" movie way. It's a tough road, and both actors are superb and totally sell the relationship. Though there are many differences between the two characters, one of the most interesting is the manner in which they deal with their imprisonment. Hurt decides to indulge in fantasy by "remembering" a movie, a Nazi propaganda film, and relaying it to his cellmate. There are interesting and subtle parallels between the story of the film-within-a-film and the film itself. That's really the whole movie and I know it sounds obscure, but to say more would ruin the experience. It's an excellent movie that can have its entire plot described in fewer words than I used, but the real substance of the film has to be viewed. I will say that it loses a little bit of steam in the last 15 minutes because it changes the dynamic, but it's an appropriate change so they really only lose you for a few minutes. All in all, it was maybe a little too out there to be a winner that year, but I think it was the best film of the 5 selections. It was also the first independent film to be nominated (and still one of the only I believe). So enjoy this nice William Hurt moment while it lasts. Take a good look, because it's the last time.

This next movie is pretty odd, but I loved it: Prizzi's Honor. I'd never heard of it before, not even in passing, but it's a bit of a gem. It stars Jack Nicholson and Kathleen Turner as a pre-modern Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Well, instead of spies they're mob hitmen but it's the same basic dynamic. They fall for each other and are eventually tasked with killing each other, for reasons that are deliberately convoluted and darkly funny. Which is how you could describe the whole movie. It sort of has a similar tone to Dr. Strangelove in that it's dealing with serious things in a completely not serious, and even mundane, manner. But it's either more blatant than Kubrick's masterpiece or less blatant, I'm not sure which. I'm not sure of a lot of things today, either 1985 was a glitch in the Matrix or I'm losing it. Either way, I'll explain the tone in this way: one of the best scenes is where everyone is sitting around plotting the demise of everyone else and then the head honcho mafia don all of a sudden says, "would you like a cookie?" and holds up a plate full of desserts. It's really not funny, but it's hilarious! He's this griseled old Don Corleone type dude, and he discusses killing people while offering cookies. Disturbing, yet awesome. This pretty much describes the whole movie, which has very little actual killing in it but a lot of dark themes. And I normally don't like to spoil stuff, but this is just too good (you've been warned). Instead of ending the movie where they both kill all the mobsters or they run off to Cabo or they both die, they do, in fact, carry out the hits on one another. She misses him with a gunshot and he hits her in the neck with a knife. So after a whole movie of: "I won't go after her, I love her!" and "he's my whole life, I can't kill him!" they just decided they didn't really care. And the movie ends about 30 seconds after Nicholson kills Turner, and he picks up the phone to ask out the daughter of one of the other mobsters. Maybe I'm disturbed in the head, but I thought that was awesome.

Now here's what I was talking about earlier, the little summer blockbuster that could: Witness. I phrase it that way because it has all the elements of a summer blockbuster: romance with hot girl, shootout, humor, warming of the heart, etc. I feel like some network executive pointed at one of his writers and said, "make me a blockbuster that involves the Amish!" Why do this? Because it hadn't been done I suppose. Wikipedia tells me it came out in February, but whatever. You don't have to come out in summer to be a summer blockbuster, plus in February it's summer in Australia or another such place. Anyway, I really found this movie to be a bit goofy. Not because it was bad, just because of the fact that it was nominated and really that it was made at all. I'm just baffled over how the idea for the film came about. Was somebody at a farmer's market while fantasizing about shooting bad guys? Did somebody with an action hero complex find himself oddly aroused by the Amish woman selling the fresh-squeezed orange juice? Maybe both of those things happened and those two screenwriters got together with another one who thought Harrison Ford was the man (this could describe any worthwhile human being). Whatever its inception stemmed from, the movie is definitely enjoyable. It's about an Amish kid who witnesses (oh snap! title of the movie) a cop getting killed, and so he goes into a makeshift "witness protection" (there it was again!) in his own community with Harrison Ford there to protect him, and flirt with his mom. Who was definitely pretty hot. See now, I guess it was impossible to get actual Amish people to play in this movie, given their beliefs, but a lot of it seems like socialites from the big city decided to move out to the country. The way that they speak and act doesn't really mesh with real Amish people that I've seen or with how they've been portrayed in other films/shows. In fact, there was apparently an uproar in the Amish community concerning their portrayal in the film. What the Amish were doing in a movie theater seeing an R-rated movie, I'm not sure. Anyway, the script for the film won for Best Screenplay (for unknown reasons) and the Netflix description touted it as the template for many modern script-writers to this day. I'm not sure why that is, but maybe that's the problem with my script. It could be I'm missing something that this script has and that's why my script won't fly (my best guess is a topless Amish lady). Okay, I've picked on it enough. It's fun and it's even touching at times, but that's all it is. Maybe they were struggling with the same issues back then as today: lacking viewership of the Oscars. So perhaps they wanted to throw in a popular movie just to get people to watch. I can't say I disagree with that as a business decision, and it's nice to have popular movies nominated sometimes. Too bad they couldn't have carried that mentality over to help Batman out in 2008.

I wish I could say that the reason a popular movie was included was because the winner was so much better than everything else, but I was kind of underwhelmed by this year's winner: Out of Africa. I'm a big fan of long movies, and you can't even say I'm opposed to ones that are romances. Because I thought The English Patient was outstanding and I even like Titanic (even though I have its director on my hit list). But this movie had what I call a "complete lack of surprise." Meaning, absolutely nothing happens in it where I go, "hmm that's interesting." I'm not even talking about plot twists, just interesting developments, or interesting scenes in general. There was maybe one in the whole movie, where they both kill a lion and it kind of increases their attraction to each other. That was moderately interesting, but the rest of the movie just sits there. It's beautifully filmed, there's no question about that. A lot of the scenery was just breathtaking, and the acting was really good, and the music was really good. Basically, the movie was done about as well as it could have possibly been done, but it wasn't drawing from anything that I find to be remotely worth telling. Or at least, anything worth telling for 2 hours and 40 minutes. And also, I really don't think Meryl Streep was a good choice for this movie. She put on a great accent, but she still sounded like Meryl Streep. She's like Jimmy Stewart, he always did a great job in a variety of roles but he still sounded like Jimmy Stewart. Jimmy as a lawyer, Jimmy as a killer, whatever. So Meryl always does a great job, but I always just feel like I'm watching her play someone. I never sit there and forget I'm watching someone act (exception: Sophie's Choice). I can't say as I've seen all of her movies, because I haven't seen a ton, but that's my impression from some of her roles. And let's get blunt for a second: I don't think she was attractive enough for this role. I'm going to try to explain myself without sounding like a complete jerk. Robert Redford is a very handsome man even today, back then he was especially handsome. When he was in the African countryside shooting lions looking all rugged and tough, I was about ready to switch teams and make out with this dude. And the woman who he falls in love with is Meryl Streep? She's not ugly, but she's not particularly good looking either. And there are enough ugly jerks going out with gorgeous and nice women in the world that we don't need that kind of dynamic on film too. Apparently Sydney Pollack had the same thought, and Meryl convinced him she was good-looking enough by showing up to her interview with a low-cut top and a push-up bra. Umm...yeah. If that was the only time he thought she was attractive enough then didn't he stop to think that the whole thing takes place in the early 1900s when such things didn't exist? But I digress (about cleavage of all things). Anyway, aside from that whole dynamic some other stuff doesn't work too. Except...wait, that's the whole movie. It's entirely based on their romance. No side plots, nothing. So it's a really beautifully filmed and well-acted representation of not much. Kinda strange. I feel like it had enough big people involved and wonderful scenery that it probably had its name marked down to win from day one, but if you really look at it I don't think there's much there. My mother told me I'd enjoy it more if I was a middle-aged woman. So umm...yeah...as soon as that happens I'll re-blog it and we'll see where we are.

Well I guess that wasn't too painful, as far as the 80s go. And we're halfway through! It seems like just yesterday that William Hurt was forcing me to contemplate which bridge to jump off of. We turned out to be buddies after all, for 1985 anyway. He's returning in '83 so the rivalry lives on...but before that we've got 1984. Which includes 4 movies I know so little about that I can't think up anything clever to describe them, and a winner which is probably one of the best movies I've ever seen. Enticing!

1986: The Year that Charlie Sheen Had Moral Integrity and...Wait, What?

You heard me. As we go farther back into time Tom Cruise gets more talent, Charlie Sheen gets less douchey, and William Hurt...well he stays bad it seems. When I was a kid we went to these caverns where they had this "ghost" stalactite (or stalagmite, yes I do know which is which but I forget whether this was on the ceiling or the ground) that was pale white and kept popping up throughout the tour. You'd be walking along, enjoying the tour and then WHAM! there it was again. And you thought: "oh sweet! That thing is pretty cool." William Hurt is like that, except he's not cool. Or interesting. He keeps popping up on my escapade and all I can think is: "what moronic casting director thought this man was talented?" Ah well, we'll discuss it later.

Nope. Let's discuss it now. The alphabet demands it, because this year's first offering is Children of a Lesser God. Pretty epic title, right? It conjures up images of feuding demi-gods vying for the affection of their parent, a less-powerful-but-still-well-known god of Greek mythology (like Demeter or Dionysus or someone). Well, it's actually about a dude trying to teach deaf kids how to communicate. Still an epic title though, right? Because it implies the film will carry questions such as, "why are these kids not blessed with hearing? Are they cursed by lineage or is it all just a cosmic joke of nature?" Well, let me clarify: it's actually actually about a dude trying to put the moves on a deaf girl whilst teaching deaf kids to speak. If Chris Nolan had been directing back then, maybe the things I mentioned would've come into play. Instead, we've got yet another freaking romantic drama with the real world's very own child of a lesser god: William Hurt. It starts off as a touching story about a man who finds a way to get through to kids that no one else could communicate with. But it becomes a story about a man who says, in sign language, "hey! You're pretty hot, can I take you out sometime?" To which she responds, "hey! I have issues because I'm deaf. Let's have sex just so I can yell at you because you're not deaf and then we'll have more sex and then we'll split up only to get back together about fifteen minutes later." I'd like to tell you that I'm being obtuse by putting it that way, but my way is probably more entertaining than the movie as a whole (and mercifully shorter). Now, I won't say that I didn't find their romance to be sweet on some level. Because I did. And I won't say that I didn't find the dialogue between them to be interesting and well-acted. Because I did, at least when it was being conveyed by Marlee Matlin. But that's the problem: I'd have much rather had subtitles for her sign language than constant interpretation by William Hurt. I know that sounds rather dumb, and feasibly insensitive (it's tough for me to tell because I spend almost no time worrying about being sensitive to such things). But here's why: her performance is very good, and maybe even deserving of the Oscar she received for it, but when WH translates it in his drawling and boring voice it just becomes annoying. First off, it would make no logical sense for him to be translating her if it were in real life. Secondly, it almost belittles her character and the performance by making it so that we can only understand her through him. And by "almost" I mean "certainly." Right then, let's go back to when I said "it's not that I didn't like (yadda yadda) because I did." I rambled more than I meant to and thus lost my segue, what I was going to say was: "but they spend so much time on the monotony of the back-and-forth canned drama of the romance that both stories lose their effect." On TV, and in films too I suppose, you've got the "A" story and the "B" story. The story with the kids should've been the A story. Then the romance wouldn't have gotten stale, and we would've been able to appreciate WH's character for the good work he was doing instead of constantly seeing him through the lens of "stop wishing I was a hearing person!" So to sum it up: I've seen worse movies, but this feels like another Prince of Tides job to me. And by that I mean: a movie where the studio decided to kill the good part of the story in favor of some box office mojo. I could be completely and utterly wrong about that, but I hope not.

A nice aspect of moving backwards through the Oscars is that I'll be able to enjoy some Woody Allen films, starting with Hannah and Her Sisters. Even though it's the last of his films to be nominated, I'm glad it was the first one I watched because it honestly wasn't a great way for him to bow out of Oscar history. It's an enjoyable film, but only in part. Much like the movie I just rambled about, there's a distinct A and B story and only one of them is good. Thankfully, the time they're allotted is much closer to being equal. One focuses on Michael Caine being a philandering douche (the not good story) and the other focuses on Woody Allen being classic Woody Allen (the awesome story). This dynamic led me to experience what I like to call "The Kim Bauer phenomenon." This is based on the infamous Kim Bauer character from 24. She was known for getting into increasingly-stupid situations on the show until she was finally written out. So the reason she gets one of my phenomenons named after her is that whenever I watched the show and her plotline would start up, I'd pretty much just sit through it and wait for the good stuff to return (like Jack threatening to shove towels down people's throats). That's how I felt here: everytime it'd come back to Michael Caine I pretty much just wasted time on my iPhone, half paying attention, until Woody Allen returned. The film's title refers to the story's three sisters, all of whom are truthfully kinda sketchy. MC is married to one of them and in love with another one. WA divorced one of them and had a horrible date with another one, but decided to rekindle things with the second one eventually. For Woody's storyline, it's very entertaining because he's a hypochondriac and he has misadventures with women and we can enjoy all of these things because of his neurotic delivery. If bad things happen to him: it's funny. Because they happen to him, as though by fate. Whereas when things blow up in Michael's face, I just thought to myself: "wow, you're a jerk. You kinda deserved that one." While this creates an interesting juxtaposition between the two, you're still left with the fact that annoyance by design is still annoying. This was the first Woody Allen film that I've seen the whole way through, but given what I've heard about him I'll probably enjoy all of his films. Because he's a kindred spirit to myself, as is Larry David. We're all dudes trying to be nice but who somehow get crapped on all the time or who end up in ridiculous situations beyond our control. Which is why I'm penning my own movie that's not-so-loosely based on my own life. Look for it in theaters sometime this half-century.

Right then, after all that self-promotion let's humble ourselves (or attempt to) with what my friend Erik would call a "pretty religious flick." When he said that, he was talking about The Boondock Saints (which is why it was funny) but he'd be more accurate by saying it about this film: The Mission. This was one of the select few films on the escapade that I had actually seen before but that I decided to rewatch for a specific reason. In this case, it's because I saw it in 10th grade when I was far more interested in people in movies getting shot than I was in artistry. I still enjoy lots of shooting and stabbing though (of course) but nowadays there needs to be something substantive behind it. Which makes it tough to enjoy some stuff I used to like, sadly. But it also adds an unusual amount of awesome to movies like The Matrix (believe it or not). Anyway, this film is about the spread of Christianity in South America. It's a beautifully-filmed movie with wonderful music and solid acting. I enjoyed and was moved by most of it, but I must say: the ending upset me as a shootout-happy 10th grader and it still upset me this time around. Because through the whole movie you have this interesting relationship between Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons, wherein DeNiro is the reformed mercenary and Irons is the compassionate missionary. DeNiro is the more interesting of the two because his character actually gets a journey: from crazed mercenary to reformed man of God. The movie keeps it realistic though, because even though he's come around to the brighter side of things, he's still a bit of a cynic/pragmatist at heart. The relationship reminded me a bit of the "man of science, man of faith" dynamic between Jack and Locke on Lost (although that obviously wasn't around for another 20 years almost). Basically anytime that there are two conflicting philosophies that manifest themselves as characters: I like it. BUT, I don't think they totally pulled it off here. Because DeNiro essentially ends up reverting back to his former line of thinking (in a sense) by leading an attack against the incoming British soldiers (who are looking to destroy the mission for reasons largely lost on me, but they were probably the usual "big bad empire" type things). And Irons decides to stay with his philosophy of non-violence, even going so far as to offer the epitomizing line: "If might is right, then love has no place in the world. It may be so, it may be so. But I don't have the strength to live in a world like that, Rodrigo." As a side note: "epitomizing line" is another one of my fabricated phrases that I use to mean: "a single line that sums up a character perfectly." All of this is well and good but both guys end up dead in the end, along with all of the native people (women and children alike). So there were a few directions they could've gone with this that would've been better: they could've had Irons and DeNiro switch philosophical positions much in the way Jack became the man of faith and Locke became the man of science (or at least lost his faith). That would've made it an interesting character study. Or they could've landed with one philosophy or the other by A) having DeNiro succeed in his attack and show that sometimes pragmatism is the way to go or B) having a cheesy-but-effective scene wherein the emotional church service that Irons leads amidst the attack actually touches the heart of the British general and prevents him from firing. Instead we're left with everyone dying, and maybe they wanted to leave these questions ambiguous, I really don't know. But either way it left a bad taste in my mouth in 10th grade and it did so again a few weeks ago. That being said, up until the end it's a very good movie and the musical score is hauntingly beautiful.

And on that note, let's get dark with this junk. I don't have the strength to deal with two nemeses at once. See like, Batman can fight the Joker and he can fight the Riddler. But if they collaborated it'd be a nightmare because J is an unpredictable psycho and R is a methodical narcissist. Well, I'm knee-deep in my fight against William Hurt and what should rear its ugly head? The British period piece. My old enemy lives again, and I wasn't prepared. This time it's in the form of A Room With a View. I'll be honest with you, I hardly even attempted to watch this movie. Because if the period pieces with Anthony Hopkins were bad enough, the ones without him must really suck. And at least Emma Thompson is moderately attractive but this film stars Helena Bonham-Carter, a woman who has logically made a career out of playing witches and women who bake people into pies. And her love interest is Daniel Day-Lewis. Now, I love that dude. But he didn't have much to do here. I also kept thinking to myself that maybe their future pieces of work would collide and he'd start to say, "my spoon reaches across the room and into your meat pie and I. Eat. Youuuuuuuur Meat Pie. I eat it up!" That would've been freaking awesome, even though it would only be possible in my mind or on Star Trek. So then, what is this movie about? Some girl who wants to marry some dude but she can't because society says she can't. WHO FREAKING CARES. That's what literally all of these movies are about, and all I want to say during them is: "if you British folk are so ashamed of your uppity past then maybe you should move on and make movies about other stuff." Much like I mentioned before: they used to run the world and now they don't. We get it. They used to be slave-trading, sexist, imperialist jerks. We get it. That's why we tossed the tea overboard, you don't need to keep apologizing by making crap movies that go on entirely too long. And there must be more than just five British actors, but you wouldn't know it since the same few people show up in all of these movies. Maggie Smith? Check. Judi Dench? Check. Hugh Grant? Sadly not check, he was probably my age back then. Point being: I'm not a spoiler type dude so I never look far ahead into what the escapade holds for me, but this better be the dying breath of this genre. Because 1985 has more William Hurt and I'm weary.

And "weary" is the unintentionally-perfect word to describe this year's winner: Platoon. I usually complain about Oliver Stone all over the place, I'm sure you've noticed. Well, this is the Vietnam movie that he did correctly. He just tells a story and lets you draw your own conclusions instead of having Tom Cruise ride around on his wheel-clad soapbox for several hours (that was mean). This film also centers on conflicting philosophies, there's Tom Berenger who is the man who has kind of lost his mind in Vietnam and takes the violence too far sometimes. Then there's Willem Dafoe, who is a bit more compassionate, especially as pertaining to the intentional killing of an innocent at one point in the movie. This leads to a rift in the platoon and people start picking sides. Charlie Sheen plays the everyman in this movie, the dude who is kind of stuck in the middle. He represents the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who had to live through Vietnam (or die through it) while people like Berenger and Dafoe bickered about how to run things. Because even though Berenger is obviously the villain, the underlying point is that Vietnam's problem was lack of solidarity with regards to planning. You're either all in or you're not in at all. Being "kinda in" gets you nowhere. But none of this is shoved in your face exactly, you figure it out as you watch it. Or even if you don't, it's a highly-atmospheric movie that depicts the jungles of Vietnam as a frightening and Hellish landscape. You can watch it and simply appreciate it on the level of filmmaking. There are some well-done battle scenes as well as some stirring and emotional vignettes. It depicts Vietnam about as accurately as any of the movies I've seen. Although it's not my favorite Vietnam movie (which I will get the opportunity to discuss a few blog posts down the road) it's probably the most realistic. Because it's also the only one that takes place entirely in the jungle. It starts there and ends there without flashbacks, prologues, or codas. Past lives don't matter, future lives don't either. It's just the soldiers and the jungle. And that's what makes it so good because the jungle was the only reality that the soldiers had, and only within that mindset can we even begin to understand the frame of reference from which they were forced to make every decision. The term "gray area" doesn't even begin to cover it. Although, like I said, Berenger is definitely the bad guy and it feels really good when Charlie machine guns him to death. That's right: as my title implies, Charlie was the good guy here. Heidi Fleiss must've really warped that dude's brain.

Well this year was pretty good, as far as the 80s go. I've been writing this during a tough-to-sit-through 1985 offering, so I'm not sure how well the next year will turn out. There's more WH, and hopefully I'll think of something funny that those two letters can stand for instead by then. But until that time comes, all I know is that the next year will include a National Geographic/chick flick lovechild, a Spielberg movie with music not by John Williams (what's the point?), and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Mennonite Mamacita.

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.