What Are Your Top Five John Cusack Movies (One Crazy Summer)

The release of Hot Tub Time Machine, the new comedy starring John Cusack, inspired discussion and curiosity. The adoration for the actor never left. Remembering the films on his resume might seem like a trip back in time. Recalling Hoops McCann from One Crazy Summer or Rob Gordon from High Fidelity, very different roles encompassing the sameness of John Cusack that we, as an audience, have grown to enjoy reminiscing about over and over again.

As John Cusack grew up, so did the characters he portrayed. Hoops McCann, from One Crazy Summer, was the hapless high school graduate who didn't live up to his namesake. He expressed himself through the narration used accommodate his animated drawings depicting a rhinoceros in search of the elusive, love. This film, however, isn't just about love, it is about the summer after high school graduation. It is about overcoming fears, dealing with half truths, and friendships. It has become an iconic John Cusack film that defined an era complete with memorable lines and a soundtrack to match.

I got a chuckle at the fact that One Crazy Summer came out in 1986 - which is coincidental in that our heroes of Hot Tub Time Machine travel back to the that year - a year in which Cusack's Hoops is supposed to be 18 and graduating high school. This is a movie that plants itself in the timelessly bad comedy that is so good to watch. All the jokes are exaggerated and over-the-top. Consider the biker gang leader with hair so spiky that it can kill fish or the little girl that has an amazing power to induce revenge upon anyone poking fun at her dog or finally the evil, fuzzy, little bunnies. Does it all sound ridiculous? Absolutely, but that's the fun of this movie. It's what makes you look at John Cusack and say, "2012 has John Cusack? I'd see that! Hot Tub Time Machine - going to be great!" Cusack as played the everyman for years - perhaps even years before Tom Hanks was tagged with that attribute.

But, the "everyman" of what? I suppose I never thought of John Cusack playing the everyman but rather the anti-hero. When I reflect on the characters John Cusack has been tasked within the past, the sameness I reference above embodies this guy who has had his share of strike outs and bad luck. Hot Tub Time Machine opens with our lead wandering around his half empty house post break-up, for example. In One Crazy Summer, Hoops McCann repeatedly misses the trash can when trying to toss sketched paper he wants to discard. His graduation gift is a street cleaner and his mom allows his graduation gown to shrink in the laundry before the ceremony. This is the underdog. I think the rooting from the audience is perpetuated by these characters and wanting him to succeed surpasses wanting him to be average.

I think that's what the everyman of our generation has turned into. They're the lovable loser. At the heart of it all, Hoops, Adam and various other John Cusack characters say the things that we wish we could and do the things we wish we could do after enduring for what feels a lifetime. Hoops has struggled before we know him and when we sit down in the seat to watch Hoops - we relate. Even Hoops early wins feel like a loss. To save the girl, he has to throw thousands of dollars in a gas station parking lot to escape the motorcycle gang chasing his new girl friend. Alicia, you've already mentioned the bittersweet moment of graduating high school in a gown that is shrunk to fit a five year old. The point is, we all may not be lovable losers, but certainly in those moments of small wins, there feels a defeat that will last forever - and is quickly forgotten due - in great part - to the next adventure that lies around the corner.

Part of the reason this movie is so much fun is - as Alicia said due to the mixture of music with timeless memorable gags. I laugh every time George is forgotten while buried in the sad - with only his head sticking out as Credence's, "Down by the Corner" plays. "No - not chili!"

Then there is Bobcat Goldthwait in a Godzilla costume which is a highlight in its own sort of odd way. The dialogue with lines that make you turn your head to the side and the clever, or overly obvious, foreshadowing relating to the consequences of making fun of that poor dog and Hoops McCann's uncanny ability to suck at basketball. The movie has a way of keeping the formula of a fun, silly comedy together and making the unbelievable come to life. Even Cassandra's awful awful band and various wardrobes of the cast make it fun to re-watch One Crazy Summer.

We may not agree what the "everyman" is, but I think we can agree that this movie (this and Better Off Dead that is) is the beginning of the Cusack era. There has never been an actor like him - one who has redefined the qualities of a hero blending them with that of a loser. That's not to mention he can still star in movies that draw $100M. I can remember watching this for the first time with my friend Adam - from my childhold. I was about 15 or so, and we watched Better Off Dead the same weekend. He kept laughing at Cusack commenting at how great he was, but that he was such a loser. I just liked him. I felt a connection to him. I felt like I could win over the cooler, prettier brunette (those blondes were so shallow and ugly on the inside weren't they?). Whether it was Lane Meyer, Hoops McCann or Adam (Hot Tub Time Machine), John Cusack has this quality that always shows us that the silver lining or the blonde bombshell or the Great White Buffalo isn't always what what's best - in fact, maybe it wasn't even good in the first place. He says - see any John Cusack movie mentioned above!

You Want Fries With That? (Super Size Me)

We're going out of order again - not to mention that we're starting after a five month hiatus. Tonight's film is one that we felt the need to watch due to a special visit from it's director and subject - Morgan Spurlock. By now everyone knows his story. Morgan posed the question, "What would happen to me if I ate nothing but McDonald's food for 30 days?" So begins the mission of Morgan v. McDonald's. The idea came to him on Thanksgiving of 2003 while watching a news story about the two obese girls and their families who sued McDonald's for their chronic illnesses and unhealthy lifestyles. At first, Morgan believed the lawsuit to be frivolous - but upon listening to further argument, he found validity in what they were saying.

I think part of the intrigue of this documentary is that we all know eating at McDonald's, and other fast food establishments, is harmful. I think the degree and/or severity of the harm isn't anything that has been investigated in such a way that is both informative and entertaining. Spurlock does this by introducing the audience to who he is and the risk he is willing to take. Like any good suspenseful film, we want to know what happens at the end - in this case, what will be the results of the 30-day McDonald's diet.

Sure McDonald's took the bullet for Taco Bell, Burger King, Pizza Hut and many other fast food restaurants - but hey, they're the biggest right? That's not to mention that they were the defendant in a multimillion dollar lawsuit.

The rules are as follows: he can not eat or drink anything that isn't on the McDonald's menu. He must eat three square meals a day. He has to eat everything that is on the McDonald's menu over the course of those thirty days. He can not exercise - because a majority of people that choose to eat items from the menu multiple times a week also do not exercise. He must Super Size the meal if asked at the counter or drive-thru. Seems pretty simple? What's the worst that can happen? Well, before I go there, let's talk about some of the things that McDonald's lawyers argued. They stated that McDonald's cannot be held responsible for free choice that consumers make when eating at their restaurants - if they know that eating the food is unhealthy for them. Let's review that. McDonald's conceded that eating their food is unhealthy - and that we should all know that as common knowledge. This seemed to be a logical assumption for most of us once we reach the age of adulthood. So knowing this, topped with the admission of McDonald's about their food being unhealthy should send us running in the other direction. Morgan travelled the U.S. while investigating the epidemic obesity and what causes it.

When watching the film this time, I noticed how happy Spurlock seemed when he began the first day. He seemed absolutely thrilled to have the opportunity to document each menu item he devoured. He describes each item he chooses with energy and fervor. At one point, he even kisses the Big Mac he orders. To see the transition from this fun, happy state at the beginning of the experiment to the other extreme as the film progresses, is interesting. It reminds me of the things we think were so yummy as kids and then, as adults, we change our opinion. I think some of it relates to memories we had as kids and how we relate these things to food and experiences. When watching this, it appears as if, Morgan Spurlock started the experiment with the gusto of a kid with great memories of McDonalds. It doesn't take long, however, for everything to change. It might even be day three when the pain is evident.

There's no doubt that Spurlock has a charismatic personality that we're drawn to. Like Michael Moore before him - he approaches interviews with humor and determination - yet sympathy for his subjects. Never does Spurlock dismiss the personal choices that people make - but neither does he completely blame them for choices they've been conditioned to make since early childhood. From Happy Meals to Playlands to billions of dollars spent on advertising annually it's a wonder that all of us have not turned our three meals a day over to McDonald's. While watching him at ISU, it was interesting about some of the observations he made of his critics. Some argued that you could eat healthy when ordering from McDonald's - if you ordered one hamburger, the children's fries (or an apple) and a Diet Coke - never mind that you'd have to have no ketchup on your burger and have to discard one of the buns in order to stay under the recommended calories for one meal (that's not even considering the saturated fat contained in the meal). Morgan asked, "Who the fuck does that?" Indeed. Who? Perhaps if you're forced into eating McDonald's on a bet you may discard the bun and order a McApple. However, it's safe to say that less than 1% of the people that enter a McDonald's are considering the healthy options of the McMenu. It's the same reason that when you go to Kuma's Corner you order the burger - it's what they're known for. You're going there for what they do best. No one walks into a place like that considering ordering something they can buy else where for less money and better quality. At the end of the first week of Morgan's McDiet, he was informed by his dietitian that he was ingesting 5000 calories - which is over twice the recommended needed per day.

Sure this review has nearly turned into a criticism of McDonald's - easy target right? Let's talk about the movie. This movie narrows its focus and keeps on topic. He successfully tracks the laziness with which we live in the U.S. in everything from our physical activity to the choices we make. There's nothing in this movie that's mind-blowing other than how quickly his health decreases. At 21 days into the diet, Morgan gained over 20 pounds and was essentially pickling his liver - much like an alcoholic on a binge would do after two or three weeks of heavy drinking. However, every physician was stunned that the body could deteriorate so quickly. I also observed in my last viewing that of the top 15 most obese cities in the United States, all five of the most impoverished cities were contained in that top 15. Alicia and I have watched this movie four times now, and though I would not say that it's one that you will watch with repeat viewing - it's certainly not a waste of time to watch it multiple times. I found that I pulled something new with each viewing and was drawn to Morgan's personality and ability to tell a story - as well as expose truths we refuse to acknowledge.

Although McDonald's or other fast food establishments mentioned in this blog entry have not admitted to changing menu items or marketing campaigns in response to the film, to me, it seems obvious. Maybe it is a coincidence that McDonald's discontinued "Super Sizing" and included apples as a Happy Meal option in the place of french fries, but I noticed a change going on around me following the release of the film. Was it a response to getting hands caught in the cookie jar, per se, or was it just time to make a change. There is a 'healthier foods' trend that continues to flood advertising and other social internet feeds. I don't think everything is finely tuned and figured out - by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think that 'healthy' has a new name and a new image. I think the idea for this experiment gained so much attention that action needed to be taken. The naysayers who argue the concept was unrealistic and the supporters who have turned vegan, perhaps, or have boycotted fast food or even just limited visits. Changes have been made - especially for Morgan Spurlock.

Paradise Lost and John Locke (Lost - Seasons 1-5)

I am departing a bit - which is why the text is in black. Alicia has not been much of a Lost fan - but I can admit that I am truly addicted. This show has sucked me in since the moment Jack (Matthew Fox) opened his eye. In completing the last episode of Season 5 and being that Seasons 1-4 are on our movie shelf - I had a few thoughts - they're as follows:

Ok – I was wrong, wrong, wrong – WRONG about Jacob being John Locke. However, I did feel somewhat satisfied to see that John Locke was not really John Locke at the end of the episode (well not satisfied in the Ben stabs Jacob in the heart satisfied – but the I knew that John Locke was a key to the entire show – who didn’t know that right?). There was something right about John Locke being Jacob – and there still is - . I have a bunch of thoughts and this post will be constructed throughout the day when I have time – and copy and pasted into the comments section later. Who says BSG had the most complex plot laced with religion on TV – short of Robert Tilton – whoever that is ;) – let’s stick with Lost, shall we?

Jacob and Esau – Free Will vs. Destiny:
This makes a lot of sense, and I feel very foolish for not seeing it before. It’s been the thing with which nearly everyone on the island has struggled. However, regardless of destiny or chaos, free will or predestination – there has been manipulation. By introducing Jacob and Esau to be whom they appear to be, we realize that they are the master puppeteers of everyone on the island. These two guys are obviously the big picture string-pulling gods. However, I have to pose a question that we’ve been able to wrap our heads around better as a society in the last 20 years – with the emergence of reality TV. Does not the introduction of any external influence into an environment – specifically knowing you’re being watched – alter the natural flow of things? In other words, does not the very existence of Jacob and Esau still imply that some sort of destiny is inevitable – and by extension the existence of Benjamin, John Locke, Desmond – the list could go on and on . . . shape destiny? Perhaps the question that is more pertinent is whether we are free to choose from limited destinies – as Jack, Kate, Sawyer and Juliet’s of the world? Are we not equipped with a certain set of gifts in life that direct us to those big picture items? Sure! We can teach or we can work in a factory or we can stay at home with children – but aren’t we still going to do the big picture things that were always fated for us – and the rest are simply details to the story? The apple will still be eaten. Consummation will still take place and children will be born to continue the cycle. Lost simply has been very good at illustrating whether or not we will continuously act within the nature that is wired in our DNA or our predestined strings. It must be noted, however, that temptation constantly is introduced to the characters attempting to alter the choices which would normally come natural to them – more on that in the next section.

God and Lucifer – Don’t Forget Milton Already Did This:
No. I know you’re all disappointed – I’m not going to talk about L'Allegro or Il Penseroso – or am I? Shakespeare asked us “What’s in a name?” implying the question – what’s in a word? After all, a rose is still rose and a turd a turd - by any other name – more or less. See, it was when I started thinking about God and Lucifer that I starting thinking about Lost and Milton. Sure when we focused on Jack’s eye over five years ago, we assumed the show would be about all these people that are lost and they need to get home (having gone astray or missed the way; bewildered as to place, direction, etc). However, there’s another meaning to lost – destroyed or ruined; distracted; distraught; desperate, hopeless – this is the Milton sense of the word. This is Paradise Lost. This is the theme that is timeless and what we as an audience care about. There’s a reason that you watch Gilligan’s Island and chuckle at its cuteness and a reason you sit every Wednesday with white knuckles (thanks for the term from your first Lost book Nik), desperately yearning for the next week’s, next season’s episode. This is a story about the loss that everyone has had to endure in order – what we hope – prevail in the end. This is the real destiny vs. freedom confrontation – because we all know that with real freedom comes a loss.

The reason – as a modern society that we cannot associate good vs. evil to fate vs. free will is because freedom has become heroic. It is a sign of coming of age. It’s a virtue of our young new world order – well middle-aged new world order. However, if you’re a Biblical-type, the first choice – or the first act of declaring freedom was Lucifer’s fall – as illustrated in Paradise Lost. The first significant character introduced in the poem is Satan (was that really your eye Jack?). We know that to yearn for free will is a sin – one that Satan talks Eve into committing – with Adam following. However, it is hugely important that the pride of Lucifer and ultimate revolt (better to rule in hell than serve in heaven boys!) is the first act of free will. Again, it is free will – from a Biblical sense – that makes us human. But the very same thing that makes all of us human is what also brought us death and loss of innocence.

"They sat them down to weep, nor only tears/ Rained at their eyes, but high winds worse within/ Began to rise, high passions, anger, hate,/ Mistrust, suspicion, discord, and shook greatly/ Their inward state of mind."

These are emotions and feelings all of the major characters of Lost have experienced – via manipulation – whether it be from Ben (who can remember Jack being forced to watch Kate with Sawyer) or from Jacob and Esau. The most interesting though I considered as I reviewed Paradise Lost was the use of the serpent by Satan to trick Eve into eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. This goes back to my thoughts on free will – and whether there is any real freedom when the characters are but marionettes controlled by two puppeteers at the same time. On one hand, sure, they are making choices that shape and form their futures. However, the choices with which all these characters are faced are relentless and never-ending. One has to wonder when the final choice to prove faith, worthiness, love or whatever it is Jacob and Esau seek will occur. Or do their strings keep being pulled one way or the other until they make the wrong choice with no chance at redemption – but wait – we do have time travel that can now give us that second chance at proving ourselves – or redemption from sin (even though these people were pulled onto the island against their will – no free will there). In gaining choice – in gaining freedom – safety is lost. We’re now subject to the consequences of our incorrect or wrong choices. Do we stay on the beach or do we go to the caves? Do we pursue Kate or do we lead with a clear mind? Do we stab Jacob in the heart or do we stand firm against our pride and savor the moment for which we’ve waited our entire lives?

Return to Eden
There’s a book that I read for a class on Literature of the Old Testament called The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden. This book contained what would be called an anthology of lost books of the bible – some of which were thought to have been undiscovered until after the first publication of early versions and others considered to be apocryphal. Contained within were two books called The Book of Adam and Eve I & II (also known as The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan). Though it didn’t occur to me until very recently, the entire season has been about a return to the island. It’s about a return to Eden. This is the miracle jungle that heals the sick and is hidden from the rest of the world – minus a select few. In the Books of Adam and Eve, once the two are banished from the Garden, Adam and Eve are full of sorrow. They are so stricken with grief once the realize that they cannot return to Eden that they try to take their own lives over and over. The leap from cliffs only to be spared by a God that feels sorry for them. I thought of Jack quite a bit here – he wanted to go back. He was so stricken with sorrow that he’d drank himself into addiction, alienated the love of his life and was completely broken. However, returning to the island was not even good enough to satisfy his quest to return to paradise. He had to make them go back – go back to before the plane crashed and land safely in LAX. He wanted his innocence back – which is what Adam really wanted back – as seen in both Paradise Lost and The Book of Adam and Eve. At some point, Jack has realized that he’s been tricked into losing something so significant that he’s willing to lose everything that he’d gained in his time on the island – and Juliet is able to articulate it best – if the plane never crashes, she doesn’t have to love and lose Sawyer. Again, this is the use of the world loss, lost, lose with which the show’s double meaning engulfs us.

Jesus Christ and the John Locke Resurrection:
What would Biblical text be without Jesus Christ? I suppose it’d be the Old Testament. What would Lost be without a Jesus-figure – Gilligan’s Island? Really, we’ve been toyed with a bit on the theme of resurrection throughout the course of the show, and time and again – we’ve watched John Locke rise to the occasion – pun intended. Locke has been the most interesting, complex, confusing characters in recent television. Now, Paradise Lost doesn’t focus much on The Son of God – other than to offer himself as sacrifice to God on behalf of Adam and Eve – or mankind 2000 years later (if you’re going to sacrifice yourself – might as well get your bang for your buck). The important thing to note in Paradise Lost is that – unlike The New Testament – Jesus Christ is not the main character. He is a side character at best, because the purpose of Paradise Lost is not to chronicle saving mankind. It’s to illustrate the humanity in its loss. I think it’s pretty hard to try to explain what Milton was thinking or intended when he penned that piece. However, I know my feelings when reading it is that Adam, Eve – hell even Satan – all have human qualities prior to their falls. They are vain, prideful, independent and argumentative. They – just like our lovely cast from Lost – exhibit qualities of humanity. It is not a matter of whether they will rise above all the noise to sacrifice for and save one another – it’s a matter of whom. So far it seems like John Locke is the piece of the puzzle that continues to inspire, drive and lead both The Others and The Losties. He’s had his moment of doubt when he shouted at the sky – and refused to press the button. He’s risen more times than a flag in a schoolyard – both from a grave and his sweat lodge. He’s been pulled from the clutches of death so often - that I was no longer surprised when he was still alive. I am not sure of what’s to come in Season Six, but I do feel that John Locke will be back – but he will not be the same man he grew to become. I believe he will once again be broken and shattered, but I do believe that in him lies the key to saving everyone else – doesn’t that make him Jesus’ mini-me in the Lost Universe?

Others:
Betcha think this is going to be about Benjamin and the gang. Nope. I just needed one last section to sort through a few other interesting thoughts, characters and possible ties to Paradise Lost. To quote one of my favorite movies – Blazing Saddles – “Where are all the women?” Okay, so I am missing a qualifier there – but you understand my point. If this is all about Paradise Lost, we’re going to have to start trying to figure out who Eve is. Could be a few people right? Is it Kate? Is it Juliet? Is Jacob really a woman? Who knows. I do know this though – if the theme of our favorite show on TV right now centers around Paradise Lost. A lady’s going to be/or already has been tempted by the serpent. Last time I checked, John Locke’s got a Y in those chromosomes. Could it be Juliet has already eaten her apple by banging on the H-Bomb. Was Jack our fool to be duped by Satan (or one of his demons – in Paradise Lost it is mentioned that Satan worked with Beelzebub – Lord of the Flies)? Did that snake take the form of Daniel? Remember, just because a body wasn’t inhabited doesn’t mean that the power of Jacob (or something) didn’t start impacting the way people thought on the island. I believe that Esau had a similar level of power on the island – and could impact people who resided there as well. Daniel had clearer thoughts and knew what he had to do as he stayed longer – much like John Locke gaining strength of body and mind did throughout seasons 1-3. Speaking of stayed longer – where did he go for three years in the ‘70s? Are we sure the Daniel that influences Jack (people and free will are time travel’s wild card) is really the Daniel that we met present time?

Another thought that I considered was an interesting relationship that Satan has in Paradise Lost. He creates Sin – his daughter which came into being when his plan to overthrow God was conceived. He later spawns Death – with Sin. Sin is an interesting character because – well she is created in the image of her father – and eventual lover – only to spawn an unholy offspring – aptly named Death. I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around who might represent these characters in the story. Do any of them represent Benjamin? Juliet? Kate? It seems to me that it’s important to consider Sin and Death to be represented as characters in Lost if there is a tie to Paradise Lost – as children have also played an important part of this story (or the lack of natural born children on the island – making every child who has been on the island all the more important). So – is Lost an allegory for the fall of angels and man – better known in this post as free will vs. fate? If that’s the case, did the creators of Lost consider Paradise Lost as the main piece of work from which their phenomenon is based? Will we see Sawyer’s book in his carry-on luggage is a piece by Milton? I dunno – but he does like to read.

It's Deep (The Abyss - The Director's Cut)

"I drown, and you tow me back to the rig," is the line delivered with logic and confidence by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio's Lindsey Brigman. As Bud (Virgil as Lindsey like to call him) tries to argue with her knowing he won't win the debate, she explains that he's already wearing the wet suit and that the rig's crew can resuscitate her. He's the stronger swimmer. The water is near freezing, and that will make it easier to resuscitate her. It's the only play - really. With the plan firmly set, water continues to fill the stranded submarine. "No! No! No! I don't want to die," she weeps as logic is battled by her on survival instinct and reality of the rising water sets in - she's going to die. This scene begins the end of a Sci-Fi, action thriller and begins a somber, beautiful drama about sacrifice, loss and the humanity that makes some beyond human.

One of the most difficult things, for me, is writing about movies I didn't buy and put on our shelf. This would be one of them. I didn't dislike The Abyss but I can't say it is anything I would want to watch again. I appreciated the story but the bubbly water sounds soothed me in and out of sleep while I was watching it this second time. I think, perhaps, this may have been the case when I watched it for the first time as well. I do have several types of movies I really enjoy and this just doesn't fit into the genres selected.

I guess the majority of this one will be on me then - which is fine, because tonight we're watching Across the Universe. I'm sure that Alicia will be much more responsive to writing about that. What else is there to say about The Abyss? After Titanic, many hastled Cameron for "King of the World" proclimation at the Oscars - and his reputation suffered for it. He was perceived by many as childish - and by extension his films were as well. That doesn't change the fact that he made some great movies. The Abyss is one of them. It's no secret that Titanic was given to him on the technical reputation he received after completing this. Estimates are that nearly 40% of the scenes in this movie are filmed underwater in a containment building at an unfinished nuclear power plant. The movie is now twenty years old and stands the test of time from a visual point of view due to Cameron's access to the facility. The Director's cut gives us a new theme that adds tremendous meaning to the film. With aliens considering to destroy most of mankind due to their inability to live peacefully - those same aliens witness multiple acts of kindness and sacrifice from Bud and his crew.

Though Cameron will be remembered for The Terminator, T2 and Titanic (how many T-movies does this guy have -- 3), his ground breaking FX from T2 started in The Abyss - look at the scene in which the aliens observe on the crew of the rig using water as there harmless supterfuge. Top those ground breaking FX with Ed Harris, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio and Michael Biehn's (Oscar buzzed - though didn't receive a nod) performances and you have a movie that stands the test of time and tests timeless themes. I strongly urge those of you who love SciFi to own this movie - so long as you find the Director's Cut. I also believe that you'd watch this time and again noticing something interesting about the film with each viewing. This is one of those movies who Special Effects also stand the test of time - bringing us back to watch it believing that a story like this is really something that could take place in the near future. Oh, and it's deep. :)

Hi! I'm a Mac (Accepted)

Why do we watch far-fetched comedies? I ask myself this upon second viewing of Accepted. I thought the reason would be Justin Long. It wasn't. I didn't love Justin Long in the smart-guy Van Wilder-esque role he plays in this movie. The smart guy who has everything figured out but yet isn't able to get into any college for which he applies. He's highly likable and his shady ways seem endearing and with heart. Still, I can't say anything that I found about him funny.
What I did find funny: Lewis Black delivering lines as Lewis Black. I also liked the evolving talents of Jonah Hill, who we see everywhere now, it seems, but, possibly, made his debut appearance in Accepted. He's a little shy, a lot awkward, and has the scream of a 10-year-old girl. Hill seems to make up for the laughs missing elsewhere in the movie.

I've said it for years. I have a weakness for dumb comedies. There are those that aren't high in quality or believability. Accepted falls into this category easily. It doesn't hurt that I too like Justin Long and his Macintosh commercials. Enter Bartleby - or B. He's a guy always trying to buck the system with schemes and facilitating rebellion. However, in his quest to make fake IDs for friends and pull the wool over eyes of teachers and administrators - he failed to do one thing - get into college. The pressure he feels from the disappointment his parents have in him motivates him - with the help of his best friend, Sherman - to created a fake website and letter of acceptance for the South Harmon Institute of Technology. Yes - S.H.I.T. - where you can follow your dreams - and everyone is accepted. When dad gives B $10,000 for his first semester's tuition - Bartleby and his friends rent a dilapidated, closed-down mental hospital and attempt to turn it into their S.H.I.T.

The rest of the story will be about how Bartelby and his friends continue to feign college life and attempt to provide some sort of educational institution to others. The parents stop by for a visit and reality is dodged on several instances. At a huge party of a fake college we are introduced to random characters one-by-one and realize that every ones hero in Bartelby also is soon to become every ones huge let down. We know the big reveal is coming but just not sure when, where, or to what degree. That is one truly great thing about dumb/far-fetched comedies, you can get away with, basically, anything. The story can stray, skateboarding can be a college course, and the resolve can be incredibly planned and tie-up perfectly.

You forgot about the girl Alicia. Bartleby has admired the token blond from afar throughout all of high school - and the hero that he becomes at South Harmon provides the confidence to win her love - regardless of the popular boyfriend she followed to a prestigious college. Of course, we know that Bartleby will end up with her, and we know that her boyfriend will be B's main protagonist. The problem with this is Bartleby really isn't that different than he was in high school. You get the feeling that Justin Long's B has always been liked - and there's no reason for him to not have approached her in high school. I had fun with this movie, but it's a weaker version of Animal House or Van Wilder. Though neither of those two are perfect comedies - but the key to those two is the cool factor of Van Wilder or Bluto or Otter. I do think Bartleby is cool by the time the South Harmon is opened for enrollment, Justin Long's attempt at playing the nervous, clunky, awkward 18 year old doesn't seem to fit with what he becomes. He says, "It's a Renter." I can honestly say that I bought this blind in hopes of it to be a new Animal House or Superbad - but it really only had a few moments that I laughed out loud at. There are things that you'll like about this movie, but if you can't displace your disbelief - you'll be frustrated with it.

Dear Ndugu (About Schmidt)

The movie opens in silence. Life was winding down for Jack Nicholson's Warren Schmidt as he looks up at the the ticking clock illustrating what he's done his whole life - watched time go by quietly. He's retiring after accomplishing little that would be remembered in his company and field - his final title is a Vice President of Underwriting in a life company of an insurance company. Alexander Payne's About Schmidt comes a couple of years before Sideways and a few after Election. The comedy is subtle - only to be trumped by its immense sadness. In that sad comedy lies a truthful look at life - constantly illustrating that the real world is much funnier than what is dreamed up by Hollywood.

Certainly something that I appreciate in this movie are the actors who look like regular, normal people. Warren Schmidt's wife looks like someone who could live next door to you. The couple who invites him to their camper look like...campers. The building Warren Schmidt worked at looks like a regular building and his house looks like a normal house. I could go on. One thing that, I believe, makes the audience find this movie endearing is due to how easy it is to see others you know, or even yourself, in the characters. The way Warren pens his thoughts about his wife, Helen, or the way he comments about the trials of traffic upon a long trip to visit his daughter, you begin to know him and realize you already know someone like him. This element appeals to the charm of the movie. The blue eyeshadow on Jeannie and Hummel figures Warren collects - each detail telling the story and making everything make a little more sense.

I remember watching this movie in the theater. Alicia and I went with friends from work - an insurance company. Even though Alicia and I loved it, our friends - who are little bit older than the two of us - didn't. When I talked with the two of them later to try to get to the bottom of what they didn't like about the movie. They couldn't really point to anything specific. They liked the performances and laughed out loud at some things. I think what they had a problem with was just how real it was - but more poignantly the film forces us to consider, "What's the meaning of life?" It's a question that Schmidt didn't even know he was looking to discover it until the life he knew was over. In order to make something like that work - the people have to look real. The places need to be places that we recognize. There's no romanticism. There's no dream-come-true. It's just a slice of life.

A slice of life served with a side of heartache and despair. I could see the story being a hard one to swallow. I suppose it depends upon what you want to get out of a movie you see. Through the harsh realism, however, there is some strange delight in the quirky characters, empty rooms, tacky weddings, and letters to Ndugu.

Schmidt's journey to find meaning to his life starts with his retirement, the loss of his wife and takes him on a cross country journey to his daughter's wedding - to a man he feels doesn't deserve her. About Schmidt illustrates a coming of age story for someone at the end of his life. Knowing Nicholson - we anticipate him to have a "Jack" moment. When Jeannie's fiance, Randall, approaches him to invest in a pyramid scheme - we expect a "Jack" moment. When Randall's mother screams and curses at her ex-husband - we expect a "Jack" moment - and finally, when asked to give the toast at his daughters wedding, the "Jack" moment never happens. Instead, he goes on with living his life responsibly - true to his nature. And when the movie draws to it's close and we watch Schmidt find meaning in his life - we get our "Jack" moment that is touching, beautiful and real. He says, "It's a buyer." If you're a Jack Nicholson fan, this will be a movie that you'll watch to see a range that we knew Jack had but delivered with a silent, reserved approach that he has never given us. You've seen One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, The Shining and A Few Good Men - but you've never seen Jack like this. Of all my Nicholson movies, I'm glad this is the first I was able to tell you About.

Thirtysomething Going On Thirteen-something (About a Boy)

When sitting down for the first time to watch About a Boy, I really didn't know what to expect. Hugh Grant is cool, but prior to this movie, I can honestly say that I could take him or leave him. The same can be said about Rachel Weisz and Toni Collette - as I'd just not seen enough of them to appreciate them. The only thing I'd seen by the Weitz Brothers was American Pie - which I saw in the theater but walked out feeling a little dirty and childish for laughing at some of the jokes that I did laugh at. About a Boy seems to highlight what's great about all the aforementioned. Hugh Grant is wonderful as the spoiled thirtysomething living the dream life but still missing something meaningful. The Weitz Brothers take Nick Hornby's work and seem to understand it very well and keep it smart. Thinking back, Hornby was the entire reason I was sitting in a theater opening night for this. Alicia had been reading him for years and loved his work. It didn't hurt that I loved High Fidelity - which was also based on his work.

Nick Hornby's story was the cause for my excitement for the movie. Since High Fidelity, Hornby has built a reputation for working with great musicians as well and having the talent to pair fantastic music with the stories he tells. This one isn't any different. He chooses Badly Drawn Boy to create the soundtrack. Coincidentally (or not) I had been listening to Badly Drawn Boy previous to this movie's release. The pairing of the story and the music was enough for me to look forward to seeing it in the theatre.

I've been a fan of Hugh Grant since Four Weddings and a Funeral, which now that I think about it, is a movie I adore that we do not own. As Will, Hugh Grant comes across as, bluntly put, a jerk. He is out for nothing but his own personal gain and isn't accountable for casualties that may happen to get in the way. He uses lies and manipulation to get a date. He lives off the royalties of a Christmas song his father wrote. He does nothing else and has no shame. As an audience, we aren't suppose to like Will and, as an audience, we don't. I like how different Grant plays this role as opposed to other roles he had in past films. He isn't the stumbling but charming guy who we immediately root for from start to finish. He is the overly confident guy who, despite his actual age, needs a lesson in growing up.

Will goes to a support group for single parents that have been dumped. The only problem is that he doesn't have a child. I also get the feeling he'd never been in a relationship in which he was dumped. Grant meets Marcus because he goes on a date with one of the mothers at the support group who agreed to watch Marcus at the same time as his date. When returning Marcus to his mother's they find her unconscious after taking a bottle of pills - a suicide attempt. Marcus decides quickly that he needs extra help to watch over his mother. Though I think Marcus' original intent is to set up his mother (Toni Collette) with Will - he quickly recognizes that it won't work. They're too different - which is funny - because after watching Marcus and Will bond, you realize that they're quite different as well - and what Will needed was someone to need him. I really do love this Oscar nominated script - and pulled for Grant to get a nomination of his own. I believe this to be one worth repeat watching - as you'll laugh at something new every time and enjoy listening to Badly Drawn Boy's perky soundtrack.

Something I've noticed with the film interpretations of Nick Hornby's work is the integrity of the author remains in tact. I have this assumption Hornby was involved with the creation of each film. As a fan of Hornby's work, this is wonderful to see.