I may not know a lot about the Marvel comics character Iron Man, but I do know how these movies usually work. We are introduced to a character (who usually possesses some brilliant talent) who is set in their ways before they undergo a tremendous transformation of some kind enabling them to see things in a different light and use their abilities for good. Iron Man (for the most part) is a by-the-books comic book adaptation and origin story. It may be one of the best I have seen lately, but that does not make it great. What works so refreshingly well in the film is it's humor. That and it's leading man, Robert Downey Jr. Let's get something straight, Iron Man is not top shelf comic material (let the insults begin here). He is not Superman, Batman, Spider-Man or even the X-Men (movies that have all featured the origin story to varying degrees of creative success). Iron Man the character is more along the lines of the Incredible Hulk, or the Fantastic Four in terms of iconic status. He's second tier. Jon Favreau (the director of Iron Man and that other epic fantasy origin story, Elf) gives us a very entertaining and ultimately uninspiring take on the formula. It's almost as if the filmmakers were trying to not make Iron Man conventional Hollywood summer blockbuster fare but they fell back on those very same trappings every time there was no place for a witty verbal exchange. What makes this film work and soar along is the presence of Downey in the title role (although there's a fire-extinguisher robot in the film that gives him a run for his money). If you want the truth, this is a film for Downey fans. Not superhero movie fans. You have all of the trademark Downey business in this film: Downey says quick one-liners; Downey talks dirty and beds hot chicks; Downey gives teary-eyed monologues; Downey gets knocked hard into walls; etc (not sure about that last one). It's as if the film was tailor-made for his unique gifts as an actor. But what about the character? Maybe this film should have been called "Iron Downey Jr."?

Tony Stark (Iron Man's true name) is a world-famous drunk. I may not know much about the comic book series but even I knew that about his character. Where was this in the movie? A companion of mine said not to worry, that would all be in the second movie. The second movie? It kinda makes my stomach turn when I sit down to watch a film and I have to start thinking about how many sequels they're foreshadowing or developing before the first one has even started. Shouldn't a movie just be a movie? The answer is: not if it's a superhero movie. Don't get me wrong, Iron Man is not a bad film. Spider-Man 3 is a BAD film. Superman Returns was a BAD film. Iron Man is what these other movies should have been: enjoyable. I like the movie, but I'm not going to be disillusioned about it. After watching such crap as Superman Returns, Spider-Man 3, Hulk, Daredevil, The Punisher, Elektra, Catwoman or the Fantastic Four movies, Iron Man seems like Lawrence of Arabia. But it ain't. Iron Man is just another franchise. It may be one of the most genuine first efforts in a potential series, but that still does not make it any more than an amusing (if a tad bit stretched) two hours of Downey just being Downey. Yeah, the suit is cool and the rest of the main cast is tops (come on, who would have ever made Jeff Bridges the bad guy?) including Paul Bettany (in voice only) and Terrence Howard who was lovable even as a pimp (in 2005's Hustle & Flow). Even Gwyneth Paltrow makes an impressive comeback as Tony Stark's secretary and love interest. It's like I said, the cast is what keeps things going. That's Iron Man. In an iron-clad nutshell. I'll be getting the blu-ray when it's inevitably released later this year. But that's mainly because I loved Downey in this film. Oh, and if you stay till the very end of the credits you will be treated to a star cameo who appears to herald in the obligatory sequel. I wouldn't dare spoil it for you, but I will say if you're anything like me, you'll be running to the nearest trash can in the lobby to ralph-up your bucket of popcorn and large cherry coke. Does this last 30 seconds of ridiculous nonsense ruin the whole movie? I'm personally not sure yet, but it does prove once and for all that Hollywood has lost whatever fuckin' mind it ever had. But then there are those people who thought Samuel L. Jackson was perfectly cast in the Star Wars prequels (oh, did I just give something away?). You be the judge.

3 1/2 out of 5 stars

Incidentally, Jon Favreau describes his film as: "a kind of independent film-espionage thriller crossbreed; a Robert Altman-directed Superman (78), with shades of Tom Clancy novels, James Bond films, RoboCop (87), and Batman Begins (05)."

I think somebody (Mr. Favreau) needs to go straight to the top of the calm-down list. I'll go along with "RoboCop" but "Robert Altman"? Is he high?

"Stranger stop and wish me well,
Just say a prayer for my soul in hell.
I was a good fellow, most people said,
Betrayed by a woman dressed all in red"


It was an "orange dress" to be exact but the lights of the Biograph theater on the North side of Chicago in the neighborhood of Lincoln Park made the dress appear red in color. That's where American bank robber and celebrity John Herbert Dillinger was killed by law enforcement agents one hot July night in 1934 while exiting the movie theater. The last film he saw was Manhattan Melodrama with Clark Gable and William Powell. The poem above was later anonymously scribbled on the wall in the alley where Dillinger fell and met his death. I have always had an attraction to John Dillinger going back to my own small-town childhood in the suburbs of Baltimore. I didn't hear any stories of his exploits from my elders, in fact, I can't remember the first time I became aware of the man. I think it might have been a book on Dillinger that I picked up from my school library. I saw the famous image of Dillinger with his squinty eyes and devilish grin on the cover and I believe I was hooked ever since. Johnny Depp will be portraying Dillinger in a film shooting now in Chicago, Indiana and Wisconsin called Public Enemies. It's being directed by veteran movie maverick Michael Mann (Manhunter, Heat, The Insider) and I believe it will mostly be based on Bryan Burrough's nonfiction bestseller of the same name.

There was already a movie made about Dillinger in the seventies by another maverick film director, writer and producer named John Milius (The Wind and the Lion, Conan the Barbarian, Red Dawn) who is more famous for writing or contributing to such classic films as Dirty Harry, Jaws, Apocalypse Now and was most recently the creator of the HBO series Rome. Milius' film on Dillinger (called simply: Dillinger) is a mixed bag. On the one hand it stars the late, great Warren Oates as the popular gangster. Oates not only looked like John Dillinger but he lends a certain grace, viciousness and authenticity to the character that will be hard to imitate. It also helped that he looked entirely too much like Dillinger for his own good. Strangely enough, Dillinger is not one of my favorite Oates performances. You would think that one of my favorite actors portraying one of my favorite historical figures should be a no-brainer but Milius' film has many problems. Even using the information on Dillinger and his cohorts known at the time the film strays too wildly into the mythic. It's portrayal of G-Man and Dillinger's final nemesis Melvin Purvis (here played by Academy Award winner Ben Johnson) is just too off-the-wall. Milius makes Purvis out to look like John Wayne (a feat not too difficult for Johnson, the often co-star of John Wayne) on crack and he even lets Purvis get the kill shot on Dillinger in the end -- which historically and factually is a plain lie.

Johhny Depp

Michael Mann

Christian Bale

The "real" Melvin Purvis

In actuality, Melvin Purvis (being played by Christian Bale in the upcoming Depp/Mann movie) was as far from Ben Johnson and John Wayne as you could get. Purvis was there when Dillinger was killed in front of the Biograph theater, in fact, he clumsily orchestrated the whole hit. He waited out front for the crowd to come out after the movie had ended. He became nervous as suddenly there were dozens of people (women and children included) now pouring onto the street while he waited for Dillinger and his two female companions to emerge. Didn't Purvis expect there to be this many bystanders and potential victims in a place as public as a movie theater? Not to mention the fact that Purvis had already exhausted every chance he had to catch the wily crook and this was his last resort -- a planned turkey shoot. That's right. The FBI led by Purvis were not there to apprehend John Dillinger that night, they were there to shoot him dead. A feat they luckily managed to finally get right. Purvis stood there sweating, knees shaking, waiting for the signal. The now infamous "woman in red" was on one arm of Dillinger while Polly Hamilton (a girlfriend) was on the other.

The "woman in red" was actually an illegal immigrant from Romania with a criminal record named Ana Cumpanas who was facing deportation charges for running a brothel. Purvis offered her a deal: give them Dillinger or face deportation. After what seemed like forever but was actually more like seconds, they emerged. Dillinger seemed completely unaware that he was walking into a trap. Purvis held a shaking cigar between his quivering lips as he raised a match to light it. This was to signal the hired guns waiting on the street and in the alley that the target was in place. But something unexpected happened. Purvis scanned the scene for his men and found some of them arguing with local policemen who had been called by a theater worker who thought the Federal Agents hanging around outside looked like crooks. Purvis drew another match in hopes of alerting someone that the fish was almost in the fryer. It appeared to him at first that no one was paying attention. He panicked even more. It was reported that he even muttered under his breath: "Come on" as he waited for Dillinger to be completely out on the street. Then, there he was, just a few feet in front of him. For just a split second the two men's eyes met. Purvis must have thought that the gig was up. In actuality, Dillinger had no idea what Purvis looked like in person. And the criminal kept moving toward an alley at the end of the block. By that time, Purvis had no need to worry. His agents in the alleyway were already alert and another man was already on the street and walking directly behind Dillinger. He was so close he could have touched him on the shoulder.

No one is sure at what point Dillinger became aware but he did glance behind him for a moment and used his peripheral vision to see that he was being followed. As he reached the alley it all happened so fast. A total of six shots were fired at Dillinger before he could even draw a gun. Witnesses claim it sounded like only one shot because they were all fired in such close proximity. What is known to be mostly true is Dillinger may have tried to make a dash for the alley but he was slowed down by a few things. First, there were the women at his sides who were abruptly pushed away as Dillinger crouched down in order to make a run for it. Then there was another woman who was passing by on the street who in some accounts Dillinger bumped into before he was shot and in others he bumps into her after he is shot. Either way, he didn't get very far after crouching as the bullets rang out and sliced through him at several angles. The worst being the shot from behind that entered through his neck (severing his spinal cord) passed through his brain and exited through his right eye. This was the fatal gunshot. Witnesses say that Dillinger was hit so many times that he actually spun around like a top before crashing dead to the ground face-first on the street at the entrance to the alley. A moment later, two women cried out that they had been shot.

the Biograph Theater as it stands today

the Biograph with the alley where Dillinger was murdered in view

the infamous death photo of Dillinger with the "arm" looking suspiciously like a "sexual organ" (that was later removed from all photos in circulation)

Ana Cumpanas (aka: Anna Sage, aka: The Woman in Red)

J Edgar Hoover (a photo most likely from the 'Dillinger era')

little seen photograph of Federal Agent Charles Winstead, the man who killed John Dillinger

One was the woman that Dillinger bumped into who may or may not have been struck by one of the actual bullets that passed though Dillinger himself. Another could have been struck by a fragment of bullet or brick from the nearby wall. It's surprising to me that more people weren't injured that hot July night in Chicago. The rest of the story goes that Dillinger hit the ground so hard that the brim of his straw hat broke as he smashed into the pavement. One of the agents (Charles Winstead who was finally credited with the Dillinger kill-shot) rushed up to the body and crouched down to hear Dillinger mutter his final words, but they were only gibberish. My guess is they weren't words at all but blood gargling through his mouth as he lay dying. A moment after that, Purvis approached the body and leaned over to take the gun from Dillinger's dead hand. Here's where I have my problems. Purvis removed the gun from Dillinger that he most likely was trying to pull out from his front pants pocket when he crouched down just before he was shot multiple times. The gun that no one claimed they saw him actually pull out on the street. How did it get in his hand when Purvis arrived at the death scene? I doubt Dillinger even had a gun on him -- crazy as that sounds he being a fugitive and all. I think Purvis used the story that he pulled the gun off Dillinger's dead body in an attempt to justify his hasty actions that fateful night -- just like he did in several news reports claiming that he called out to Dillinger to halt in the name of the law. Then again, the whole thing about the gun could be entirely true. What is not debated is the pool of Dillinger's blood that formed around his body that people in the crowd were dipping handkerchiefs and garments into as a momento of the tragic occasion. Ana Cumpanas, the woman in red was soon deported despite her deal with Purvis. She died in Romania in 1947 from liver problems. Purvis eventually shot himself to death in 1960 at the age of 56. Some say he was even murdered on orders from J. Edgar Hoover (the subject of many controversies), his own boss during the Dillinger days and Director of the FBI. The two men apparently had an unsettled rivalry. Hoover was obsessed with Dillinger and was said to have talked about him almost every day of his life. Hoover died in 1972.

There are several good books written about Dillinger if you want to draw your own conclusions. The first is Public Enemies by Burrough and another good one (albeit problematic) is John Dillinger: The Life and Death of America's First Celebrity Criminal by Dary Matera (Dillinger was certainly not the "First Celebrity Criminal" America ever knew, if you count Jesse James and Al Capone). I like Burrough's book because it incorporates the entire season of crime that took place in the Midwest between the years of 1933 and 1934 and the formation of the FBI as a direct result. If you want to know strictly more about Dillinger then Matera's book might be for you (with his hipster prose style and all). I'm looking forward to Mann's film which is set to be released sometime next year in 2009. I find it even more awesome that we are just as much enamored with John Dillinger in the 21st century as we have ever been. I suppose it's true what actress Helen Hayes once said: "Legends die hard. They survive as truth rarely does." Right on.

John Herbert Dillinger
June 22, 1903 – July 22, 1934

Well, it's Oscar time again. It just wouldn't be right without the obligatory 'who I think is going to win' list. It's anybody's game this year and Oscar is always fickle. So, without further ado, here goes:

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

George Clooney for Michael Clayton
Clooney is probably the biggest contender this year just under Day-Lewis. Why? I have no idea. Clooney just keeps on playing variations of the "George Clooney" character that he's created over the years and Hollywood just keeps on loving him for it. How else can anyone explain the Ocean's movies? I guess you could liken this to Robert Redford in the seventies and eighties (also a better director than he is actor). Out of all of them, I prefer "Fat Clooney" who won Supporting honors for Syriana. Still, he's no fuckin' De Niro.

Daniel Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood
Who else is sick of the "milkshake" references already? Oohh, Me! Me! Fuck it. If you wanna eat up the scenery and spit it out with the best of 'em (re: Anthony Hopkins and Al Pacino) you can find no better actor than Mr. Day-Lewis. I have enormous respect for him but he has done better work than this (The Boxer, The Age of Innocence) without awards or nominations. And he will continue to do so. But, it's his year. Let's just see how many times he mentions Heath Ledger in his acceptance speech.

Johnny Depp for Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
THE GREATEST LIVING ACTOR OF OUR GENERATION. What's that? Didn't get it the first time? I'll repeat it for you: THE GREATEST LIVING ACTOR OF OUR GENERATION. Period. No awards necessary. Still, he should have got one for this. He was simply mind-blowing as Tim Burton's demon barber. And he didn't even need to bring up his milkshake either.

Tommy Lee Jones for In the Valley of Elah
What a heartrending performance. Tommy Lee never ceases to amaze me. He just keeps getting better with age too. I was glad to see him nominated (as I always am) but Hollywood loves it's Sam Gerard's (The Fugitive), not it's grieving fathers.

Viggo Mortensen for Eastern Promises
Viggo. He should just get the award for coolest name. His was the dark horse nominee this year. This last spot could have just as easily gone to Ryan Gosling for Lars and the Real Girl or to James McAvoy for Atonement or to Emile Hirsch for Into the Wild or to Denzel Washington for American Gangster or to Mathieu Amalric for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly...the list goes on. Viggo got it though. Good for him. Anyone nominated in this category is a winner (it's like Best in Show for acting). I haven't seen Mr. Cronenberg's film but I heard it's better than his last one (also with Viggo) A History of Violence. Then again, I've seen some Ernest movies better than A History of Violence.

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Casey Affleck for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Casey was incredible in this underrated film from the director of the underrated Chopper with Eric Bana a few years back. If a man by the name of Javier Bardem wasn't born and hadn't gave the performance of his lifetime I would say Casey deserves to win. Either way, see The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. It was breathtaking. Even Brad Pitt didn't suck. And while you're at it, watch Casey in big brother Ben's directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone. He will knock your socks off in that one too.

Javier Bardem for No Country for Old Men
When an actor gives the best performance of his career it's hard not to sit back and just be in awe. This was one of those times. Javier is a leading man in a supporting turn here, but he re-defined evil in this film and earned a place amongst the cinema's most honored villains and psychos. Hannibal Lecter eat your heart out. Friend-o.

Philip Seymour Hoffman for Charlie Wilson's War
I'm still kinda pissed he won for Capote. But whatever. I always said Heath Ledger should have won that year (for Brokeback Mountain). I think Hoffman is a journeyman actor in the making -- but he just ain't there yet. I love it -- they'll nominate this guy for this but they won't give a guy like Paul Giamatti a nomination for American Splendor or Sideways. Bullshit.

Hal Holbrook for Into the Wild
Who the hell is Hal Holbrook? Just kidding, just kidding! He's one of the greatest stage, television and screen actors of all-time. He's still performing as Mark Twain on stage and he probably will until he drops dead on the boards. We should all be so lucky to devote our lives to a craft that we love. He's not just the 'old fart' in the race this year. He's earned his chops over the years and they just could easily be giving him a lifetime achievement award along with this nomination. Which, in essence, I think they are.

Tom Wilkinson for Michael Clayton
Tom Wilkinson annoys me. He gets on my nerves. I don't know what it is. I think it might be his dreadful American accents that make Michael Caine sound like he was born in Brooklyn. I don't know. He's not a bad actor. He was quite moving in In the Bedroom. I loved him in The Full Monty. I just think this nomination stinks too heavily of a Peter Finch in Network award. Of course, Finch had to suddenly die in real life to receive the damn thing but at least he fuckin' deserved it. I don't know.

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

It's either Julie Christie for Away From Her or Marion Cotillard for La Vie en Rose. Of course they could just give it to the underdog, Ellen Page for Juno, but I doubt it. I'm going to go with Christie on this one. She's a classy lady. And a Brit. Then again, they gave the award in this category to a classy lady Brit last year didn't they (Helen Mirren)? I just don't know. Oh, what the fuck, I'm gonna say Ellen Page will win. Either that or the French girl. Or Julie Christie. Wait, who exactly did I say will win?

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

I thought Amy Ryan deserved to win for Gone Baby Gone. But that was actually before I saw the movie. Ryan is quite weak and unbelievable as Boston white trash in the film. You can see her acting her way through it in all of her three scenes in the film. She tackles the part the same way she would Portia in The Merchant of Venice or Desdemona in Othello on stage. The only difference is, those are probably roles within her depth. Gone Baby Gone's despicable dead-beat mom should have been played by someone more naturally. And someone you really should have hated more. That leaves Cate Blanchett as Bob Dylan in I'm Not There and Ruby Dee for American Gangster. Blanchett is just ridiculous as Dylan and Ruby Dee has like two lines of dialogue in Gangster. I'm going to say none of them deserve to win and Amy Ryan will probably get it.

DIRECTING

It should go to Julian Schnabel for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly so that means it will probably go to the Coens for No Country for Old Men or to Paul Thomas Anderson for There Will Be Blood. Either way, whoever is taking home the award for director this year will not be sharing it with Best Picture. It's just a hunch I have. They fucked over Sean Penn for Into the Wild and Tim Burton for Sweeney Todd by nominating Jason Reitman (Juno) and Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton) so I really don't care who wins in this category this year. My guess is it will be Joel Coen and Ethan Coen but being as how they will probably win Apated Screenplay I will say it's going to go to Anderson. There I said it.

BEST PICTURE

Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood

Can't help thinking it's been kind of a shitty year for movies, huh? Not that all of these movies were bad. Just some of them a little, well, slight you might say. I'm guessing it's either going to be Atonement (why even fucking nominate it, right?) or No Country. It's been a while since an old fashioned Hollywood epic won Best Picture. No Country is a bit of a horror western. Do "horror westerns" win Oscars? I don't know, but Fargo was nominated in this category once upon a time. That movie wasn't a horror film or a western but it sure as hell changed how the category was judged ever since. Maybe it's time a little indie dramedy won (Juno) or a smart and slick thriller that's not quite the morality tale it thinks it is (Michael Clayton). There Will Be Blood is strictly a Terrence Malick movie in disguise. So...who is going to win? I kinda think the Coens should win Picture and Director but that would be too appropriate. No Country has made just about everyone forget their last few fuck ups (Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers) and rightly so. I predict No Country will become an American classic. As time tested as The Graduate or Singin' in the Rain. Well, maybe a little more like Silence of the Lambs. Being as how I've changed my mind a hundred different times during this post -- I'm gonna say No Country for Old Men. If you hadn't already guessed.

Whew. That wasn't too long of a post, was it?

Roy Scheider
1932 - 2008

I grew up watching Roy Scheider movies. In a lot of ways, he was my favorite actor growing up. He was an enormous character actor as well as a leading man. His most triumphant role will always be the Academy Award nominated All That Jazz, but most people will remember him for his Chief Brody in Jaws. Of course there was Blue Thunder and Tiger Town (both from 1983) when I was a kid but my favorite of all his films to this day is still 2010: The Year We Make Contact. I will always remember him as a combination of Dr. Heywood Floyd (in that vastly under-rated film) and Brody. His talent for drawing an audience into his likable screen persona was effortless. On screen he could play a man you would follow into battle or maybe just someone you'd like to have a beer with after work. He was that kind of 'everyman' that in a way I always aspired to be. People always talk about how Tom Hanks and Kevin Costner are the James Stewarts and Gary Coopers of our generation, but who will be our new Roy Scheider?

The films I really loved him in were:

Klute (1971)
The French Connection (1971)
The Seven-Ups (1973)
Jaws (1975)
Marathon Man (1976)
Sorcerer (1977)
All That Jazz (1979)
2010 (1984)
52 Pick-Up (1986)
The Russia House (1990)


he will be missed.

MUST SEE

Several years ago I happened across a little movie that instantly became one of my perennial favorites. It was a documentary from 1997 called Trekkies. That film was about the Star Trek phenomenon and it's rabid group of followers who devote their time, money and entire life force to their favorite television show. In short, it was terrifying and entertaining all at the same time. They even made a sequel several years later that didn't quite have the charm or originality of the first one but was still watchable. I'll say it now. I love Star Trek. I am partial to the original series mainly but I grew up watching the first 4 feature films over and over until every line of dialogue was stored somewhere in my subconscious. It's a part of my psyche. However, I do not consider my love of those shows and original cast movies to be anywhere near as rabid or intense as the folks on display in the Trekkies films. They belong to a large, yet select group of people that is open to just about anyone who has the time or the love for that stuff. I watched a new film the other night that instantly just replaced Trekkies as my "favorite little movie" of all-time. And it's about an even smaller, MORE select group of obsessed, intense people that to my knowledge have never before been infiltrated to this degree. They call themselves classic gamers. They play original arcade video games mainly from the 1980's. Things like: Pacman, Centipede, Space Invaders and the pièce de résistance, Donkey Kong.

I'm not going to begin to describe the inner workings of these small bands of gamers nor the history of the games and gaming (I'll leave that for this enormously entertaining and engrossing film) but I will tell you that the people on display in this documentary are 100% real, just as dedicated and probably more rabid than those who proudly wear the moniker of "Trekkie". You couldn't have made these people up if you wanted. Some of it is so goddamn funny and twisted it almost seems scripted. But it's not. In a way, it's too real. I know, I'm getting ahead of myself. You probably don't even know what this film is about. Or what it is called. The title is The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters and as I hinted at before, it mainly centers on the select few gamers in the world (mostly middle-aged white males) who devote their lives to playing Donkey Kong. To be honest, the film is about two of these men. The two greatest men who have ever played the game. One, Billy Mitchell, was a skinny 17 year old who set the Donkey Kong record back in the early 80's and held it for nearly 25 years. He went on to become a hot sauce entrepreneur who still looks and dresses like he never left 1982. He acts like a rock star diva and is shown as the true Machiavellian villain of the film. His opponent couldn't be more opposite. Steve Wiebe (pronounced: Wee-bee) was a down-on-his-luck family man who discovered he had an uncanny knack for the game after he was laid-off for several months from a previous job. He went on to topple Mitchell's unbeatable score but that's where the controversy starts. It's almost like something out of an Oliver Stone movie. Wiebe sent in the video tape of him beating the game (something that up until recently was an acceptable form of proof) and the next thing his wife knew was there were strange men showing up at his house uninvited wanting to see his Donkey Kong machine. They were there to uncover whether it was rigged or not. And that's just the beginning. Steve Wiebe ends up being the real-life Rocky Balboa of the film and an instant rivalry is formed between the two champs that continues on and even off the film.

If this is starting to sound like something you've never seen or heard of before -- that's because it probably is. Trust me, by the end of this film, I was sitting up in front of the TV yelling at some of the people in the film while rooting for my favorite player to come through. It was an unbelievable experience. I don't remember the last movie that made me feel or act this way. It simply must be seen to be believed. This is more than a cult film. It's a real-life Revenge of the Nerds meets Rocky with more heart than any film I have seen in the past several years. And don't forget: it's all REAL. Once you watch Mitchell and his countless minions spying on Wiebe and scheming to shut him down (he even manipulates an old woman) you will never want to eat hot sauce ever again. At least the brand made by Mitchell. And once a man known as "Mr. Awesome" (Roy Shildt) shows up, you wont know whether to laugh out loud or run screaming. Ultimately, this was probably the second best film from last year that I have seen. Zodiac is still my favorite. Sweeney Todd is also on the short list. Don't pass up King of Kong. I'm tellin' ya, it's an instant classic that's sure to become one of your all-time favorites. Of any genre.

5 stars

stand-up guy

I didn't want to keep making posts on this subject but some things deserve our attention more than others. Heath Ledger is dead and Daniel Day-Lewis is going to win the Oscar for Best Actor for There Will Be Blood. I know that. In my heart of hearts I wanted Johnny Depp to win Best Actor for Sweeney Todd but the simple truth is, it's just not his year (yet again). The award belongs to Mr. Day-Lewis. So what does any of this Oscar nonsense have to do with the tragic loss of Heath Ledger? Daniel Day-Lewis just won the Screen Actors Guild Award for Best Actor. He dedicated the award to Heath Ledger. Not only that, he had to stand up for the young actor when across the street from the Shrine Auditorium in downtown Los Angeles, religious protesters had assembled carrying signs that read: "Heath's In Hell" referring to his performance as a homosexual cowboy in Brokeback Mountain. This really made me mad when I read this. And it also made me respect Mr. Day-Lewis for being more than one of our greatest living actors. He was also recently on Oprah to talk about his current Oscar nominated role but instead of kissing Oprah's butt like anyone else or talking about himself he focused on how wrecked he was upon hearing the news of Heath Ledger's death. And the 50 year old Best Actor winner for My Left Foot never even knew Ledger personally. Is Day-Lewis playing some kind of Hollywood political card in going on about Ledger's death in the midst of the award show season? Absolutely not. Day-Lewis does not need the publicity or the awards. In fact, he could care less. He's simply stating in public something that many of us are feeling inside. It is possible to mourn the death of an actor whose performances have moved and entertained us and to be confused about the shock of such an abrupt end to such a bright young light. No, Mr Day-Lewis is speaking from his heart. Something that most people in Hollywood can't do these days without an agenda. As for the "religious protesters" carrying the signs, I have no words. I thought when I set out to write this blog this morning that I would end up ripping them some new assholes -- but in the end, that's all they really are. Assholes. I guess if I had to come up with some words, I would say to them: anybody that takes you seriously is an asshole too. If I were President of the United States I would make an example out of you and your pathetic behavior. But I'm not. And I don't suspect that the one we have now even knows who Heath Ledger is. All I can really say to you is, we'll see what kind of "Hell" you are in come November when there's either a Woman or a Black Man running the country. Or both. Man, is it gonna suck to be you or what?

For those of you who don't know, Heath Ledger was in the middle of working on a movie for director Terry Gilliam when he was found dead in his NYC apartment earlier this week. The Australian born Ledger was only 28 years old but he leaves behind one Academy Award nominated performance and a legacy of some of the most dramatic and daring work to be put on screen by anyone in a long, long time. Terry Gilliam is no stranger to unexpected tragedies during the making (or in some cases: un-making) of his movies. Watch the exceptional documentary film Lost in La Mancha about the disasters that befell him and his crew while trying to bring his story of Don Quixote to the screen. That movie would have starred Johnny Depp in his second pairing with Gilliam. The first being the epic Hunter S. Thompson trip-movie Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The new movie Gilliam and Ledger were working on was to be called The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus and it had something to do with multiple worlds (a favorite subject of Gilliam) and time travel (another recurring theme in his work). I was reading how they had shot everything with Ledger up to a certain point in the film when his character enters a so-called fantasy world. They were about to begin shooting green-screen effects with the other-worldly talented Ledger when it was reported that he had died. Aside from the obvious feelings of grief and remorse for Heath and his family, Terry must have felt like he had been here before.

The obvious question was: What happens now with the movie? Do they re-shoot? Do they re-cast? Do they scrap it altogether? The film began shooting back in December and was virtually at a half-way point in terms of one of the two worlds depicted in the film having already been completed. Ledger's character was to now enter some sort of portal and emerge in a totally different world. What to do? Enter Johnny Depp. Perhaps it was Gilliam who contacted Johnny and asked him if he would be interested in stepping-in and filming the fantasy scenes that Ledger would have completed had he lived. Perhaps he felt that Johnny might still owe him a role after his infamous Don Quixote debacle. Johnny is after all in between projects at the moment (he is set to star in Michael Mann's new John Dillinger gangster project filming later this year) and it would not take long (in relative movie terms) to film the remaining scenes in Gilliam's film. This would mean that Heath and Johnny would essentially be playing the same part. One character -- two actors. Heath in the "reality world" and Johnny in the "fantasy world". It's some heavy, high-concept stuff. But if anyone could pull a stunt like this off it would be Terry Gilliam. When I first heard this news, I thought it would be a fitting tribute to Heath Ledger to have his final work on film be completed and not tucked away into an editor's scrap drawer for who knows how long. Maybe forever. And I think it would just be a thrill to see Gilliam pull this off -- especially after Quixote and the not-so-private battles he waged (and lost) with Miramax executives over the final cut of The Brothers Grimm movie (also starring Heath). Frankly, I'm rooting for Mr. Gilliam. His last film, Tideland, was a true return to form for him. And nobody seemed to care about it. One thing I can promise you now is, if Gilliam can pull this next trick off, everyone will be watching. And maybe, just maybe, he will finally get his dues. The fate of Doctor Parnassus is still up in the air as it has yet to be announced whether or not Mr. Depp has officially signed on. I hope that he does. It would be a fitting tribute to the legacy of a young actor who died way too young, and way before his time.

In a truly strange endnote to all this, I read in the paper the other day how Jack Nicholson had recently commented on Heath's death. Heath's last completed film to be released this year is The Dark Knight (the second Chris Nolan Batman film). Heath of course is following in Jack's footsteps as the Caped-Crusader's arch-nemesis The Joker. It has been released that Heath was having a lot of problems sleeping following his stint as the psychotically evil Clown Prince of Crime in Nolan's dark film. He was taking sleeping pills and possibly other drugs to help with his extreme fatigue and insomnia. It's no secret that these drugs may have directly caused his untimely death. Does Jack offer his sympathies along with the rest of a stunned industry of colleagues and admirers? No. This is all that he says: "I warned him."

Strange indeed.