Fear comes in many forms, everything from being startled to deep psychological terror. Few movies reach that final level, but when they do they leave a scar on our culture. With that in mind, let’s talk about the twenty most significant horror films. These aren’t necessarily the best or the most scary or even my favorites, but when you die . . .  these will be on the test.

Father Merrin had come to save Regan from Satan’s fluorescent lightbulbs.

1. Night of the Living Dead (1968): The importance of this film cannot be overstated. This film brought horror movies to adult audiences. Before ‘Dead,’ horror was costumed monsters aimed at kids. The film also kick-started the zombie craze which continues unabated today in film and within the Democratic party, and it established all the conventions for the zombie subgenre. “Yes we can . . . yes we can.”

2. The Omen (1976): ‘The Omen’ spawned the “Satan is coming” subgenre and gave us Damien Thorn, a figure who now represents pure evil in popular culture. There are even indications this film influenced the American view of Satan and the ‘Book of Revelations.’ And Gregory Peck playing Damien’s father made it respectable for big name stars to do horror movies. “Let him that hath understanding count tonight’s lotto numbers: 6 – 6 – 2.”

3. The Exorcist (1973): Before ‘Rosie O’Donnell’s Potty-Cam Extravaganza,’ ‘The Exorcist’ was considered by many to be the scariest movie of all time. This film brought exorcism to the public consciousness and spawned a demonic possession craze in modern horror films. It also introduced the now-clichéd idea of pitting a demon against a priest who lost his faith . . .  gimme $20 on the priest. “The Power of Christ compels you, and your little dog too!”

4. Alien (1979): ‘Alien’ brought modern horror into the realm of science fiction. It established director Ridley Scott (who would redefine science fiction with ‘Alien’ and ‘Blade Runner’) and it taught us that some aliens want to do worse to us than probe our nether regions. “In space, no one can hear you squeal like a pig, boy!”

5. Jaws (1975): ‘Jaws’ sparked a nationwide panic over and fascination with sharks, which continues to this day. ‘Jaws’ is particularly noteworthy for waiting to reveal the monster until later in the film to build suspense, though ironically this wasn’t intentional. The filmmakers just had a hard time making the mechanical shark work. Serves ‘em right or hiring a union shark. “Be a real shame if something happened to your boat.”

6. Halloween (1978): Though tame by modern standards, ‘Halloween’ established the slasher film in popular culture. The shocker gave us Michael Myers, as a masked, speechless, killing machine who escapes a mental hospital and returns home to kill his family and everyone else in town. And they say you can never go home again? This murderous Marcel Marceau has become the template for modern slasher villains.

7. The Shining (1980): One of the most iconic and oft-referenced horror films, ‘The Shining’ is the story of Jack Torrance, who ostensibly goes insane while working as the winter caretaker of a haunted hotel . . . ** cough ** drama queen. This movie, more than any other, defined Jack Nicholson and made Stephen King stories a staple of horror films (though, ironically, King wasn’t happy with the film). “All work and no play increases Jack’s take home pay!”

"There's no zipper inspector."

8. The Ring (2002): At a time when slasher flicks had become the norm, this film brought a Japanese sensibility to the genre – visions of creepy, but non-gory children – or Hello Kitty – terrorize the heroine. It also taught us how bad computer viruses can get. A whole slew of knock-off films followed (e.g. ‘The Grudge,’ ‘Dark Water,’ ‘The Eye,’ ‘Children of a Lesser Godzilla,’ etc.). “It’s the Michael Jackson sex tape!”

9. The Haunting (1963): This oft-remade and copied story of a group of paranormal investigators who deserve everything they get for spending several nights in a HAUNTED house established the haunted house subgenre. Seriously, what part of HAUNTED did they not understand? Idiots.

10. 28 Days Later (2002): This movie revived the slowly dying zombie sub-genre by introducing fast-twitch zombies. Suddenly, zombies became a whole lot more menacing. “Repent, the end is extremely f**king nigh.”

11. Resident Evil (2002): ‘Resident Evil’ helped prove video games could be turned into successful film franchises for which we’re all thankful. It also popularized the use of scantily-clad, young women as the butt-kicking heroes, for which we’re all thankful. “You’re all going to die down here. . . and not in a good way.”

12. Poltergeist (1982): This anti-clown diatribe introduced the country to the poltergeist, not a ghost but a malevolent force that haunts people rather than places. This has since replaced simple hauntings in films. It also told ghost hunters what kind of equipment they’re supposed to bring, and it introduced ideas like the blinding white light you see after paying your taxes. “They’re here. . . and they brought beer!”

13. Friday the 13th (1980): The story of risen-from-the-dead, hockey-mask-wearing, chainsaw-wielding Jason Voorhees, this film added a supernatural element to the silent, killing-machine first seen in ‘Halloween.’ It also gave us motive-less killers who can’t be stopped no matter how many times you shoot, stab or drop a piano on them . . . unless you use dip. This movie also taught us not to go skinny dipping when you’re in a horror movie. “They call this place Camp Psycho-Bait.”

14. Scream (1996): The story of a killer who’s watched too much ‘Sesame Street,’ ‘Scream’ revived the horror genre for younger audiences by setting the film around thirty-year-old teen charactors and following like a hipper, totally like cynical, tongue-in-cheek style or whatever. “Obama let me down!”

15. Saw (2004): A snuff film with little else to recommend it, ‘Saw’ opened the door for modern torture porn, which all but abandons story in favor of 90-minute, sadistic bloodbaths . . . a real leap forward for the human spirit. “Let’s play a game. How about Clue?”

"You want us to cut through our wrists. . . but only when it's funny?!"

16. The Blair Witch Project (1999): Shot like a home movie, this story of three film students, who vanish chasing an urban legend started the “found footage” horror film subgenre. “We shouldn’t have meddled!”

17. Nightmare on Elm Street (1984): ‘Elm Street’ gave us Freddie Krueger, who can kill you in your dreams . . . just like noctosoriasis. This film is referenced in dozens of later movies, inspired numerous sequels and copies and encouraged slasher films to step up the special effects and creativity by 16 percent. “Your eyes are getting sleeeeepy.”

18. The Amityville Horror (1979): Father goes crazy, repeats the murderous rampage of the prior owner, blames house. Now that’s creative lawyering! This film popularized the fake “true” horror story, which has become a bit of a cottage industry. “Honey, I got a killer deal on a repossession!”

19. The Evil Dead (1981): Gory, silly and primitive, ‘Evil Dead’ is not a good film, but it has a devout following among horror aficionados who will hate this sentence. The story of four people in a cabin who prove things actually can go wrong when you open a doorway to hell, this film made Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi Hollywood names. “Pass me some sugar, baby!”

20. Rosemary’s Baby (1968): Four out of five Satanists think Rosemary’s baby is the Antichrist. This film made Roman Polanski famous before he made himself infamous. It also taught us that perfectly normal looking people could be Satanists. . . or Obamatologists. “He sleeps above his crib. . . three feet above his crib.”

Again, these aren’t necessarily the best or scariest movies, nor are they my favorites. But they will be on the test, so know them. And if you’ve missed any, October is the perfect month to catch up on them.

So what did I miss? Or better yet, what are your favorites?

—–

James Bomb

We begin as we always do, with Roger Moore’s portrayal of 007.  There’s not much forward progress in his interpretation of the role, as it’s pretty much a reply of what he accomplished in The Spy Who Loved Me.  And yet, we must give Mr. Moore tremendous credit, for he is able to ground an absurd film.  His sophistication and British charm really does count for a lot, and is really the saving grace of the movie.  There is a throwaway line early on, after bedding one of Drax’s workers, where he says to her, “Take care of yourself.”  It’s a stupid line, and it’s played entirely on her, but what makes Roger Moore so wonderful is that he delivers it totally convincingly – as if he actually cares.  Other than that, I have little to add.

The Story

Anytime you see a terrible film, chances are the script was awful.  In this case, it certainly is.  Any movie that begins with the space shuttle being hijacked off the back of its airplane transport is not going to be a good film, for who would believe the shuttle to be fully fueled during transport? The ludicrous plot holes just pile up one after another.  It’s a total insult to the audience.  He’s given a wrist dart gun, which includes cyanide tipped darts, and yet fails to use them on occasions when it would save his life – such as the attack by Jaws on the cable car.  And once again, we have a nutty scientist bent on destroying the world so his master race can live on.   And the multiple opportunities for the villain to just point a gun at Bond and eliminate him that go unused.  And that wonderful line, as Jaws and Dolly sail back into Earth’s atmosphere, “They’ll be alright.  It’s only a hundred miles to Earth” (never mind that the remains of the space station would burn up well before).  U.S. Space Marines?  Why even kill Bond in the cable car?  Why not just blow him away when he exits the darn thing?  A gondola that converts to a hovercraft, with Bond nonchalantly driving through the Venice streets amidst “funny” reaction shots?  Ugh.  I can’t go on.

Characters

Jaws goes from a rather sinister nemesis in Spy Who Loved Me to a source of goofy comic relief.  The whole insta-romance with Dolly is unrealistic, silly, and irritating.  Again, it’s a shame, because the switching of Jaws alliance is itself an interesting storyline.  Michael Lonsdale, who is a rather interesting actor (Name of the Rose, Munich), is wasted as Drax (the role was originally offered to James Mason–now HE would’ve made a great villain if given a meaty role).

By this point, I’m sorry to say that the asexual villain wearing a brown tunic is no longer interesting (Dr. No, Blofeld over and over again, etc. etc).  It’s a terrible waste, because this might have been a character superior to Bond in every way – sophistication, refinement, a scientist – but why bother?  Lois Chiles is uninteresting as a Bond woman and not a terribly strong actress.  Again, she could have been a new Diana Rigg given her attributes but…why bother?  Ugh.  I can’t go on.

Filmmaking

It’s a shame that the movie isn’t very good, because the skydiving fight is really great.  Remember, we hadn’t seen this level of stunt work in films much at this point in history, and there’s some very impressive aerial photography in this sequence.  It was accomplished under second unit director John Glen, who would later deservedly earn several shots as director.  Mr. Glen has a gift for shooting action sequences, and it’s about the only part of the movie that really stands out.

I must give kudos to the masterful production designer Ken Adam who, given the largest budget he probably had yet on a Bond film, delivers with fabulous sets from Drax’s chateau to the You Only Live Twice homage of the launch station to the beautiful set of the space station itself (and once again, circles everywhere to indicate evil).  John Barry’s score is his worst, replacing the brass-driven arrangements with more classical strings.  “Lumbering” is how I would describe the music.  The one bright spot otherwise is outstanding special effects.  All the space stuff comes off very wel….that is, except for the late 70’s version of the slow-motion underwater fight in Thunderball – floating U.S. Space Marines vs. Drax soldiers.

The Rating

I don’t need to further justify the MPBFRS rating of one star on this film.

To recap all the films:

4 Stars

Goldfinger

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service

The Man With The Golden Gun

3 Stars

Dr. No

From Russia With Love

2 Stars

Thunderball

Diamonds Are Forever

The Spy Who Loved Me

1 Star

You Only Live Twice

Live and Let Die

Moonraker

James Bond will return in For Your Eyes Only.

In many popular narratives of the period, it was the Baby Boomers (born 1943-1960) who “ruined” the movies. Here’s the pretentious film snob summary of the death of Hollywood’s alleged second Golden Age, as popularized by Peter Biskind. The seventies were filled with bold, dark art and transgressive intellectualism. Then the greedy Baby Boomers – like Steven Spielberg and George Lucas – made “Jaws,” “Star Wars,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” and “E.T.” All of a sudden Hollywood did not want to make serious, grown-up pictures. Now it was the age of blockbusters so simple that 3-year-olds can summarize them.

It was the 1980s when Boomer Blockbuster filmmaking would arrive in the event pictures of Jerry Bruckheimer and Don Simpson. We see this tendency further in the films of arch-Boomers Ron Howard and Brian Grazer. For a definition of Boomer cinema just look at the output of their company Imagine Entertainment. These aren’t the New Wave-influenced pictures of Roger L. Simon’s generation.

It was the Boomers who also gave us our most strident and simpleminded cinematic leftists: Spike Lee, Oliver Stone, and Michael Moore. Think about these three careers. Over the past 30 years have any of them shifted an inch in their political thinking? Of course not and neither have most Boomers who are still arguing over sex, race, and the Vietnam War as though it were still 1975.

If I speak with some hostility about the Boomers’ failings and excesses it’s partially because that’s my nature as a Millennial/Gen Yer. According to William Strauss and Neil Howe’s books each generation acts as a check on the excesses of its parent generation. As young adults in the ‘60s and ‘70s the Baby Boomers declared war on the cultural institutions of their GI Generation parents. The GIs (born 1900-1924) are what Howe and Strauss describe as a “civic” generation; they were driven toward creating social harmony. The Boomers (an “idealist” generation) were a check on that, fomenting greater individualism in the 1970s and culture wars in the 1990s. That our electoral maps are so split today is their fault. When the Civic GI President Ronald Reagan won in 1984 it was almost a solid red map. My generation – also a Civic generation – is a reaction against Baby Boomer extremes and will seek to create greater social harmony. This will become much more apparent as the younger Gen Yers in junior high and high school now start to make waves in 10 years.

Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright David Mamet (born 1957) has been emblematic of the divisive Boomer paradigm for his whole career. His plays and films are famous for the “Mamet style” of short bursts of memorable dialogue and the mainstreaming of casual profanity.

And so in his book detailing his rightward shift away from a “Brain-Dead” Hollywood leftist, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture, the reader finds this same mindset applied to the political essay. The need to divide the world into clear cut categories of Liberalism and Conservatism pervades the text. Mamet even capitalizes them to Emphasize the Great Importance of the Political War between Boomer Liberalism and Boomer Conservatism. Gone is Simon’s sense of skepticism in Turning Right at Hollywood and Vine.

The Secret Knowledge is a collection of 39 short essays. Mamet has crafted an experience like the signature Boomer film “Forrest Gump.” Life is like a box of chocolates – and devouring the delicious morsels of Mamet’s book is an addictive treat, filled with surprises. Who cares if it’s just a political sugar rush? Most conservatives are familiar with the bibliography Mamet cribs his ideas from: Sowell, Hayek, VDH, Friedman, etc. Thus they won’t learn anything life-changing but will still enjoy the thrill of Mr. Mamet’s Wild Ride. And if that sentiment doesn’t summarize the Boomer cinema of Lucas-Spielberg-Bruckheimer-Moore-Stone then what does?

The endowment of the Baby Boomer Hollywood Apostates is the call to fight, the drive to confront with big special effects, and the need to divide ourselves from the intolerable. This makes for satisfying blockbuster popcorn films and effective (James Carville-Karl Rove style) political warfare. While there is plenty to critique in the failings of the Boomer presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush credit must be given: the Boomer political strategists were masters. Too bad they wasted their brains on winning the electoral fights while ignoring (and sometimes exacerbating) the more vital policy fights.

In Part 4 of the Hollywood Revolt, we’ll see how the Gen X leader Andrew Breitbart is reinventing this confrontational spirit – what he calls Righteous Indignation — and redirecting it in a more pragmatic, effective way than the Boomers ever could.

The opportunity arose when we both finished interviews on radio row.  I approached Dreyfuss, put out my hand, and said “Hi, I am David Bossie, President of Citizens United.”  Dreyfuss’ eyes lit up like he just saw Jaws and he said, “You’re going to have a hard time getting into heaven if you believe in that sort of stuff.”  I was taken aback and asked, “Why?” Dreyfuss then went on a diatribe equating the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision to the Khmer Rouge.  He compared me to Pol Pot “stacking skulls” back at my office.  He actually used his hands to seemingly act out the stacking of skulls.  I replied by saying, “I thought you would have been supportive of my First Amendment Supreme Court case because you are in the business of supporting the First Amendment.”  He did not have a clear response and looked like a frustrated, institution-bound Dr. Leo Marvin from his Oscar-worthy performance in What About Bob?

For someone who was at CPAC to promote a civics and civility campaign, calling me one of the worst mass murderers in history strikes me as awfully hypocritical. But this is not the first time Dreyfuss has used extreme and offensive language to make a political point.  He once compared former Vice President Dick Cheney to Adolf Hitler and agreed with comments that wished Cheney dead (though later apologized). 

Citizens United and our United States Supreme Court case has struck a nerve with the crazy Left.  We won a victory for free speech and the Left will stop at nothing to demonize it with false claims.  I consider it a badge of honor to be the subject of vitriolic rhetoric from the likes of Richard Dreyfuss.  Dreyfuss lives in a Hollywood cocoon filled with out-of-touch liberal elitists, and does not understand how most of America works or what the First Amendment actually states. 

To complete this Hollywood ending, I ran into Dreyfuss the next day and said, “I know we disagree on the First Amendment, but Citizens United Productions is working on a children’s film about American history.”  His eyes lit up again, but this time he invited me to his house in San Diego to talk about the project.  I wonder if I should bring my stack of skulls to the meeting.  Only in Hollywood.

For the movie anthropologist, Lethal Weapon (1987) is the missing link.  It is the Big Bang of movies with big bangs.  It is the well-spring of a hundred lame imitations, a few good ones, and a lot of parodies.  It is where the most hackneyed of buddy-cop movie clichés were born.  At the time, they were awesome.

It is a movie about many things beyond the slam-bam action and witty banter, including about getting older and looking back, which is particularly apt here.  Looking back at the 1980’s, which I spent in high school, at UC San Diego (go whatever the hell your mascot is – I was too busy partying to care) and the Army, what is striking is how many definitive movies came along and how they led to Hollywood’s present – for better or for worse.  Lethal Weapon remains an archetypal specimen of the kind of movie only Hollywood can make well (despite how often it does it badly) – slick popcorn adventure/comedies with memorable action set-pieces paired with laugh-out-loud hilarity and featuring big stars and top shelf production values.

People natter about the late-60’s and early-70’s as a second Hollywood golden age, but the great films of those years – the Godfathers, the American Graffitis, the Chinatowns did not really change anything.  Sure, they made you look at movies differently, but you look at what flashes across today’s screens and there is no indication these movies ever existed.  Rather, it was in the later 1970’s, starting with Jaws (1975) through Star Wars (1977), that really began the trends we see today – the rollercoaster thriller.  

Following after in the 1980’s, you would go to the movies and constantly see something new.  The great 48 Hours (1982) blew minds with violence and profanity blended with Eddie Murphy’s boundary pushing racial humor.  In 1984, The Terminator set down an archetype of slick, no-flab Roger Corman-esque pulp matched to a real budget and a charismatic superstar wielding the latest high-powered weaponry.  Dirty Harry’s .44 magnum wheel gun went right out the window.  Lethal Weapon was the next logical step.

—–

Lethal Weapon came out around spring break in 1987.  I was taking finals in my second-to-last trimester of senior year, which for me meant not taking any finals at all because I chose only the lamest, easiest classes to run out the clock, like Introduction to Feminist Theater 101.  We thought the movie would be cool – the ads looked okay and back then Mel Gibson was a star instead of a cautionary example – so we beered up and made our way to the theater.

Holy crap – we had never seen anything like it.  But boy, would we ever see it again.  We had just seen the template for every action movie that would follow over the next two and a half decades.

Re-watch it sometime while playing my favorite drinking game, “Spot the Cliché!”  Start with the opening credits in that mod, slanted typeface, which looks like an italicized Franklin Gothic font.  When The Simpsons did its Biblical action movie parody, there they were again.  Chug, chug.

Then you have Danny Glover’s character Detective Murtaugh introduced with a comfortable but chaotic home life.  Chug.  He’s just about to retire.  Chug.  Mel Gibson’s Martin Riggs is an ex-special forces guy.  Chug.  He has a wild shootout at a Christmas tree lot in which he single handedly dispatches a herd of thugs with his trusty Beretta 92F, aka the M9 pistol.  This demonstrates both his awesomeness as well as his craziness – and starts us on yet another beer!

Riggs and Murtaugh team up, hating each other at first.  Chug.  An old Army pal of Murtaugh asks him to investigate the death of his daughter.  Chug.  This uncovers a group of drug importers.  Chug.  Riggs and Murtaugh wisecrack and shoot their way across LA to uncover the conspiracy.  Chug.

Let’s just assume a cliché-fueled chug from here on in after every plot point, shall we?

During their escapades a house detonates in front of them – parodied in The Other Guys but back in 1986 unexpected and kind of cool.  A gunman with a machine gun in a helicopter materializes out of nowhere – apparently the chopper was that sneaky, silent kind that exists only in action movies – to kill a character in mid-exposition with a machine gun.  They also talk a jumper off a roof – another point parodied in Will Ferrell’s latest.  And Murtaugh announces – several times – that he’s too old for this . . . stuff.

—–

Eventually they get captured and abused – pretty graphically too.  The bad guys take Murtaugh’s daughter hostage and our heroes proceed to kill everyone in their way.  The final MMA fight between Gibson and the terrific Gary Busey as psycho villain Mr. Joshua is the climax – and yes, they do kill the guy when he comes back after you think it’s all over. 

If you’ve dared the Chug-Per-Cliché Challenge, just make sure you have someone to help you find your way to your bed to sleep it off.

Some interesting points:  One the prevalence of Vietnam as a theme.  Both Riggs and Murtaugh are veterans, as is the father of the dead girl and all of the bad guys.  Remember that America pulled out of Vietnam in 1973, so you could be a Vietnam vet and in your early thirties at the time this movie was made (I was surprised to realize that this week is the 20th anniversary of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, which led to Desert Storm, yet I recall it like yesterday).  It was one of the first non-artsy, non-message, pure entertainment movies to discuss Vietnam at all.

Richard Donner, the director, and Glover were no conservatives.  Today, Glover can’t wait to slobber all over scummy Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.  In Lethal Weapon, they were only too happy to have CIA mercenaries as villains.  In the unworthy sequels, the villains include South Africans and gun runners – hilariously, one of the most gun obsessed film series of all times rails against guns – at least guns for the rest of us.

And the guns….   All the villains carried the latest weapons – H&K MP5s or M16s.  Back in 1986, when we wore onions on our belts because it was the style of the day, cops carried .38 revolvers or maybe a M1911A1 .45.  Now, here was a cop carrying the most then-cutting edge of automatics, the Beretta – Riggs remarks about Murtaugh’s .38 that “A lot of old timers carry those.”  And the way Gibson used his automatic was remarkable too – he fired fast, accurately and casually, and he shoots a couple guys almost off-handedly.  There had never been anything like it on screen before.  I’ve owned and carried the M9 for well over a decade and I’ve never been nearly as comfortable with it as Gibson makes himself appear on screen.  Now that’s conservative acting.

This is actually a great performance by Mel Gibson.  When he sticks his gun to his head to try to kill himself, there was a level of convincing torment in the character evoked by Gibson’s performance that really is better than a flick like this deserves.  The character is definitely troubled, and whether Gibson is performing or – as his recent meltdowns indicate – merely behaving, you buy it lock, stock and smoking barrel.  Another aspect is the manifestation of the Mel Martyr Complex – the torture scene where they work him over is brutal.  But then, Mel’s characters always find themselves brutalized – look at how he is abused as Mad Max in The Road Warrior or in the climax of Braveheart.  If you are a shrink and Mel Gibson shows up at your office, ka-ching!  You can feel pretty safe about dropping a down payment on that new BMW 750i.

Lethal Weapon holds up remarkably well (and a big part of the credit goes to Shane Black’s script) – it’s still exciting, funny and its one of those movies you can come across half-way through and watch to the end.  A hundred other films bear its fingerprints – Die Hard (1988) and Kick-Ass (2010) both carry its DNA, as do many others.  For better or worse, The Godfather is a much better film but Lethal Weapon has influenced many more movies than it ever will.   

And it’s not likely any of us will ever be too old for this…stuff…anytime soon.

“Pulp Fiction” had the feel of an event movie for college-aged kids. “Reservoir Dogs” and “True Romance” had developed cult followings in frat houses and dorm rooms everywhere, and the buzz surrounding “Pulp Fiction” strangely intensified after it won the Palme D’Or at Cannes. There aren’t many mainstream hits to be found on the list of films to win the Palme D’Or between 1990 and 2009. Some great movies, but nothing approaching the level of fun Tarantino injects into three interwoven stories of L.A.’s criminal underbelly. I don’t recall, for example, midnight showings of Jane Campion’s previous films complete with party atmosphere and booze the weekend that “The Piano” opened, at least not in Athens, Georgia. But the weekend “Pulp Fiction” opened, the Georgia Theater unspooled “Reservoir Dogs” to a raucous crowd who cheered when Tarantino’s name danced across the screen. He was more than a director, he was a rock star. His movies have continued to be events, which sometimes works against him.

We’ve all seen it, some of us love it, some of us hate it. In no particular order, here are my ten favorite moments from “Pulp Fiction.”

1)   The ultimate piercing. A great, tense sequence. Love how Vincent Vega stammers as he relates to Lance all the trouble they’ll both be in if Mia Wallace dies on the carpet. Catch the subtle moment between Vega and Mia in a subsequent scene, after Butch double-crosses Marcellus.

2) “Check out the big brain on Brett!” Hilarious, fraught with tension, each line of dialogue is better than the last. Christian Slater delivered a similar query to Bronson Pinchot in “True Romance.” but didn’t sound quiiiiite as scary. Darkly funny set up for later: “Marcellus Wallace don’t like to get fucked by anyone except by Mrs. Wallace.”

3) “Any of you fucking pricks move, and I’ll execute every motherfucking last one of ya!” Love the freeze frame before Honeybunny has finished delivering the line. That these two freelance armed robbers disappear from the movie only to show up in the final act when they’re forced to confront real badasses, is one of the movie’s many pleasures.

4) “Step aside, Butch.” A simple line that leads to Marcellus Wallace’s great speech. Something about the simplicity of the line gives it an oh, shit, here it comes, quality that I like better than the obvious, “I’ma get medieval on your ass!” line that follows.

5) “I didn’t call you a mongoloid, I called you a retard.” Or is it the other way around? In any event, Butch talking to his forgetful French girlfriend in the mongoloid voice – “My name is Fabi!” – cracks me up every time. Who hasn’t mocked their forgetful boyfriend/girlfriend like this?

6)  Butch/Vincent staredown. I’ve witnessed white guys who hang out with black guys lashing out at new white guys trying to enter the fold. As though they want to impress the black guys.  Or maybe Vincent just thought Butch was a chump. Whatever – it’s a quiet but great moment in the movie.

7)  “It’s the one that says Bad Motherfucker.”

Butch singing along to “Flowers on the Wall” by the Statler brothers and hitting the low note. There’s an authenticity to the low note that adds to the scene, just before Butch is caught.

9) “I’m the Foot Fuckin’ Master.” Again, great dialogue that sets up so much for later.

10) Vincent Vega’s death. Butch fires as the Pop Tarts (it was Pop Tarts, right?) eject from the toaster. Fire alarm screams, and continues screaming as Butch exits for his getaway. Don’t know why that detail makes me smile, but it does.

Of course, depending on my mood, I could find ten more moments that stick with me better than these ten. “Pulp Fiction” is probably not the best movie ever. I know it has its detractors, people who say the non-linear storytelling hides the flaws in the story. I personally don’t buy this argument, because the movie is what it is. I don’t think you can argue that if it’s something it’s not, it’s no longer good. If “Casablanca” was told in a linear fashion, would it be the same movie? I dunno. Fact is, it’s not linear.

I will allow you to retort below.

The Sean Penn-Naomi Watts “starrer” (hey, it’s fun using unnecessarily awkward Variety-speak!) revisits the Valerie Plame Wilson scandal, an episode I’m not even going to bother recapping, because to do so would simply be coma-inducing for all of us. Besides, I already summed up the affair and dissected the screenplay’s political slant for Big Hollywood here. Suffice it to say, it’s a tale the Hollywood Left is hell-bent on getting Americans to care about.

As are its water-carriers in the media. In a deceptive puff piece an article last week for the Los Angeles Times, Rachel Abramowitz discusses the film and interviews its director Doug Liman. The first clue that we’re about to be sold a crockpot of hooey comes when she describes Valerie Plame as “the undercover CIA operative whose name was leaked to the media by the Bush White House in an effort to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson.”

Notice how matter-of-factly those lies are delivered. Matter-of-fact because the left-dominated entertainment industry clings to its anti-Bush narrative about the affair as received wisdom: courageous patriot Joe Wilson dared speak truth to power by exposing the lies neocons used to promote a “war of choice,” and then the wicked Bush and his flying monkeys Rove and Cheney plotted vengeance against him from their White House lair.

Once again, people: there is no evidence that the “Bush White House” conspired to leak Plame’s name to the media, or that it was done to discredit her husband or expose her identity. Even the Obama Justice Department dismissed the Wilsons’ attempt to sue Rove, Cheney, and Libby, stating flatly that Joe Wilson had provided no evidence that the three officials had caused him harm.

But back to the media sleight-of-hand. Ms. Abramowitz then refers to “the eventual trial and conviction of ‘Scooter’ Libby, a top aide to then-Vice President Dick Cheney,” without clarifying what he was convicted of. Her phrasing, and the screenplay itself, suggest that Libby was guilty of the leak (and Cheney as well, via guilt-by-association). No, Libby perjured himself to investigators by concealing what he knew and when he knew it; it was State Dept. official Richard Armitage, by his own admission, who leaked Plame’s name. And he did it not in retaliation for her husband’s criticism of the administration, but inadvertently, claiming he didn’t realize she was covert. But as I wrote before at Big Hollywood, his name does not appear in the script. That’s because it would utterly suck the wind out of the movie’s already limp sails to admit that “the Bush White House” did not conspire to punish the Wilsons.

Abramowitz says that, according to Liman, “events in the movie follow the facts.” Yes, if after “the facts” you add “according to the anti-war Left’s willful delusion.” Having thus established for her readers that the film is “true-to-life,” Ms. Abramowitz then gets to the article’s astonishing central claim: that in Fair Game, “ Liman pushed the politics of the events into the background.”

Yes, if by “background” she means “foreground.” The Valerie Plame story is political in its very essence. The whole point of the Wilsons’ story is their claim that they were targeted for retaliation for challenging the administration’s justification for war. Removing that linchpin by “pushing the politics into the background” would simply cause the entire story to vanish.

Armitage: left on the cutting room floor

The filmmakers “leave the political debate largely off screen,” Abramowitz continues, “and much of the activity of the Bush White House officials is presented in news clips.” True, as I noted in my previous piece, top figures like Bush and Cheney are presented in Fair Game only in film footage; but those clips are carefully selected to suggest a White House cover-up, and the script itself hammers that theory home. The scenes that do fictionally depict White House officials show Rove’s and Libby’s characters conspiring to “out” Plame’s CIA identity.

Liman chimes in, describing how producer Janet Zucker “was particularly impassioned about the behavior of the Bush administration… It was actually very helpful to have this incredibly strong-willed, liberal-minded producer in the mix because it put me in a very reactionary mood, which ultimately drove the politics out of the movie.” (A liberal-minded producer in Hollywood? Who knew?!)

Drove the politics out of the movie? Not the movie I read. Liman is claiming that he and Zucker balanced each other out and created a compromise in which politics is merely a walk-on character. I find it impossible to believe that an “incredibly strong-willed, liberal-minded producer,” whose driving motivation for pursuing this story was to expose Bush wrongdoing, would accept such a compromise. I also find it impossible to believe the Wilsons themselves would be happy having the crux of their story redacted from the film (the real Valerie Plame, by the way, went to Cannes to promote it).

Politically neutral?

And what about the star Sean Penn? Raise your hand if you believe that the openly far-left activist Penn would cheerily go along with a politically neutral take on this affair… Uh huh. As I expected, not a single hand.

In all fairness, I haven’t yet seen the movie, so perhaps it now bears little resemblance to the openly partisan script I previously examined on Big Hollywood. But based on that screenplay, to say that the movie is about the Wilsons’ strained relationship and only marginally about politics is, well, let’s be charitable and call it disingenuous. After all, no sooner does the Times article claim that Fair Game is a politics-free zone, when Liman contradicts himself with a revealing analogy to Spielberg’s Jaws: “The shark is a lot scarier when you see less of it. I decided to apply that approach to the White House.” Sounds like the politics hasn’t so much been driven out of the movie as elevated to a central, ominous presence.

The Bush White House

Lest one question why we shouldn’t take Liman at his word, he helpfully points out that “I’m used to manipulating people. That’s one of the main criteria of making it as a director in Hollywood… You have to be a con artist.” With this in mind, one can’t help but wonder if he and L.A. Times enabler Rachel Abramowitz are trying to pull off a con themselves: to reassure readers that Fair Game isn’t just another leftist, politicized attack on the Iraq War – because they know, as I have written before, that that would be met with even greater audience indifference than was Matt Damon’s dud The Green Zone (Abramowitz herself raises the fearsome specter of that movie’s failure.)

Audience indifference except at Cannes, of course, where international cinema sophisticates gather to congratulate themselves on their anti-Americanism, and among the media leftists like reviewer Jeffrey Wells, who giddily predicts Cannes-and-Oscar glory for a ”film which exposes right-wing scumbaggery.” 

They eagerly embrace Fair Game’s political slant – a slant the L.A. Times denies the movie has.

My apologies for bringing up old crap, but Clooney’s statement, especially the part about how he’s so proud to be out of touch, is one of the most bafflingly odd things I’ve ever heard coming from Clooney, who’s also famous for telling anyone who’ll listen that everybody tells him all the time how brave he was for making a black and white movie about the red scare. It’s very revealing that Clooney would say this, to cheers, a mere three years after a child-rapist was handed an award by that same Academy.

Cut to the present, the child-rapist is caught, and much of Hollywood is outraged. “He should be allowed to live his life,” wrote Peter Bart, his words practically streaked with tears. Hey, guess what, Pete? He has been allowed to live his life. They’re all like Clooney, proud be out of touch. But why? To answer this question, we turn to the genius of one George Costanza.

They’re different than the rest of us. They’re “delicate geniuses.”

Back to the Academy Awards, who can forget Sean Penn humorlessly, smugly, embarrassingly chiding Chris Rock for poking fun at fellow delicate genius Jude Law? Rock’s offense? A joke, dripping with truth, which pointed out that Jude Law is not a box office draw. The box office doesn’t matter to them. Hell, look at the movies they nominate nowadays. They’ve grown more out of touch than ever. You think “The Sting” would get nominated for Best Picture today? Much less win? Or “Jaws”?

And then there’s David Cross (of “Arrested Development” fame), who brags that he snorted coke near Obama. If you don’t think that’s super-cool, then you’re probably a stupid Christian. He’s one of those atheists for whom it’s not nearly enough to just not believe in God, he has to build a stand-up career out of his atheism. He’s always been strangely uninformed about Christianity, but that doesn’t stop him from cracking hipster jokes about Christians. Back in 1999, he joked that he couldn’t wait to make fun of Christians when Y2K turned out to be a global non-factor. In this hilarious segment, Cross discussed Y2K more than my Southern Baptist Pastor did in an entire year.

Cross’ cocaine story, coupled with the story last week about Academy Award fixture Hilary Swank–the she sashays around the house nude in front of her boyfriend’s six-year-old kid–illustrates what’s gone wrong with the delicate geniuses.  Hilary, please, put us on a need-to-know basis. You were way cooler when you were the underdog, the “Next Karate Kid” made good. We simply know too much about the delicate geniuses. The delicate geniuses would be more respected and adored by their audiences if they embraced a little mystery. Remember when Sean Penn crazily demanded privacy? He was sooooo much cooler then. We all knew Paul Newman was a liberal, but I never got the impression that he thought that made him smarter than his audience.

But that’s exactly how the current stars sound when they take credit for the Civil Rights Movement, or wish shame on the grandchildren of people with different opinions than their own (that’s you, Mr. Penn), or indulge us with their stories about getting a snootful of Bolivian Marching Powder while in the company of The Savior, or traipsing around nekkid in the company of kids. They’re enlightened, you see, and we’re the uneducated masses.

Hot.  Muggy.  Sluggish. School approaches; summer vacations are over or nearly so. The new television season is weeks away. And even in a good movie year  – which 2009 has decidedly not been – all the best blockbusters have come and gone by now.

What to do?  You could watch that stupid cat video on YouTube for the 1,000th time, or…you could watch a surfer get a major bite down from a giant man-eating fish.  Sweet!

Yes friends, The Discovery Channel has the answer for our late-summer, entertainment withdrawal doldrums. For twenty-two years now, Discovery has devoted an entire week of August or July programming to real life sea monsters: They called it Shark Week, and lo, it was good.

Shark Week is always fun, but this year’s installment has been especially tasty. ”Blood In The Water” kicked it off, a terrific two-hour documentary about the real-life happenings that inspired Peter Benchley’s Jaws – the 1916 New Jersey shark massacre.

In July of 1916 (a brutally hot summer all over the Northeastern United States), 5 people were attacked, and four killed, by sharks in New Jersey waters. Freakishly, some of the attacks occurred miles upstream in tiny Matawan Creek, a freshwater stream that empties in Raritan Bay just south of Staten Island. Scientists have been debating the identity of the culprit ever since, but a few days after the last attack, a large White Shark was caught in Raritan Bay. The shark’s stomach contained remains identified as human.  Horrifying – but riveting television.

Other great shows on Discovery’s shark menu this year include another installment of “Air Jaws,” featuring astonishing footage of the White Sharks of South Africa who have a unique method of hunting: Having spotted a seal on the surface, they dive to deep waters, then launch themselves into a vertical attack that sends them flinging their entire massive bodies into the air as they snatch their prey. Why do they do this in South Africa, and no where else? Who knows. Who cares, as long as the cameras roll. Sometimes the sharks miss on their first strike, after which an astounding ballet ensues as the seal performs sea/aerial acrobatics to avoid being breakfast. The footage must be seen to be believed.

Also great: “Shark After Dark,” which is not some bizarre amalgam of Discovery and Playboy, but rather a fascinating study of night-time shark behavior. And “Great White Appetite” which tries to pass itself off as a serious study of Great White feeding habits, but is really just a couple of dudes throwing a bunch of shit into the water to see what and how much the shark will eat. Yes, it’s as cool as it sounds.

True, there’s some ‘message moments’ in Shark Week, talk about shark conservation, scientific research, yada yada.  But it’s all just window dressing for the real red meat – watching sharks feed. Discovery, thankfully, knows this, and keeps the message to a tolerable minimum.

The most incredible thing to me about Shark Week has always been the interviews with shark attack survivors, most of whom voice some variation of the, “I don’t blame the shark, I blame myself for being in the water,” rubbish.  Just once I would like to see a survivor go Ahab and say “You know what?  That shark took my arm. I’m going to get that motherfucker if it’s the last thing I do.” Less Oprah, “My shark tried to eat me and I forgive him,” and more of The Onion, “Man vs. Nature: The Road to Victory.”

But these are minor quibbles. Shark Week is great fun, and certainly the best of August television. The fear of the looming water beast must be among our most ancient and deep-felt fears. Benchley and Spielberg certainly understood when they made their respective novel/film masterpieces – there is no invented monster more terrible than that which already lurks beneath the waves.

With the film hogging 81% of all ticket sales at Fandango.com as well as the covers of Newsweek, Entertainment Weekly and Wired (which Abrams guest edited), the director has just done a great sit down with Charlie Rose. 

Now Rose can be an enormous chucklehead when interviewing Hollywood types (especially pretty ones), but that doesn’t matter. Abrams is smart enough to make it interesting on his own.

He talks about the influence of Richard Donner’s “Superman,” which he says gave “a kind of legitimacy” to comic book subjects they’d never received before. Donner “respected the characters as much as the audience,” Abrams says. “They were funny. They were real.”

He remembers seeing “Superman’s” poster promising “You Will Believe A Man Can Fly,” and feeling the film delivered on that promise: It was real and made you believe its fantastic circumstances.

“Clark Kent was a character,” says Abrams. “He was no longer a comic book.

I couldn’t agree more.

For more on “Superman,” as well as Abrams on his meeting with Stephen Spielberg and Tom Cruise and his love for “Jaws,” “The Twilight Zone” and “Die Hard,” click here.