The Irish actor sports a disheveled nose and an accent that sounds like it belongs in a pub where the bar stools date back to the Second World War. And when Neeson puts up his dukes on screen, there’s no “Matrix”-style effects to give him cover. It’s all loping jabs and hay makers.

It’s why audiences are responding to his latest action film, “The Grey.” The film came in first over the just-wrapped weekend, earning $20 million without any big stars beyond Neeson and no existing brand to bank on. Neeson stars as a depressed sharpshooter who must survive the elements, and a hungry pack of nearby wolves, when his plane goes down in freezing terrain.

Compare the box office results for “The Grey” to the opening weekend haul of Taylor Lautner’s “Abduction” from late last year:

“The Grey” – $20 million

“Abduction” – $10.9 million

Lautner’s got Neeson by 40-odd years, and you just know Neeson doesn’t have six-pack abs like Mr. “Twilight.” Audiences didn’t care. They responded to the way Neeson goes about his business on screen. It’s never smooth or calculated, but Neeson’s characters settle scores and survive in a way that hearkens back to how male movie stars used to behave on screen.

He’s a man’s man, and that makes him a rarity in today’s Hollywood.

Neeson rejuvenated his career with “Taken,” the 2008 surprise smash that cast him as an older spy who could still crush anyone who gets in his way. Even “Unknown,” a deeply silly action film, earned a respectable sum with Neeson going through the motions.

Actors typically don’t reinvent themselves as action heroes later in life. The elder statesmen of the action genre – think Sylvester Stallone, Chuck Norris and Harrison Ford – are simply giving audiences more of what they’ve come to expect from them.

What middle-aged actor would turn to his agent and say, after years of playing serious roles, that he wants to be the next Steven Seagal?

The soon to be 60-year-old Neeson matters because he’s bringing something fresh to theaters, the sense of a fully capable alpha male who doesn’t regret taking decisive action. And assuming a bum knee doesn’t force his exit from the action genre, who’s to say we won’t be watching Neeson wrecking havoc on his cinematic foes well into his 60s.

“Where to find a little workout inspiration?,” I wondered. “Ah, yes, Rocky IV.”  Watching it for the 5,849,948th time, I am compelled to share with you my thoughts on… the greatest film ever made.  Yes, that is not mere opinion but fact.  Rate it on a sheer entertainment, emotions-evoking, never-goes-stale standard and surely you’ll agree.

To be fair, “Rocky IV” is not an overly political film, nor was it intended to be.  But it nonetheless encapsulates several key conservative points, so much so that it was, and still is, slammed by leftist critics as right-wing propaganda.  Behold, the top 10 conservative lessons of “Rocky IV”:

1) Communism… (let me be succinct and find the right word here…) sucks.

a) It allows no hint of individualism. Not only is Drago forbidden from speaking and behaves as a robot but, in a moment of raw honesty during the final fight, fed up with the commands of his superiors, he finally breaks free emotionally, looks up at the Politburo in attendance, and shouts: “I fight for me! For ME!!!”  (which, based on my repeated viewings, I can tell you sounds like “Ya-te-beeah!” in Russian, without evening cueing the DVD)

b) Who wants to live in that system? Does any one of us envy Drago? Uh, no.  Need we even ruminate what happened to him after he lost and publicly humiliated Mother Russia? Shipped off to a Siberian labor camp.

c) It keeps people in order through violence. During a (rare) sober moment, Pauly says it best when addressing the Soviet rep at the press conference: “Hey, WE don’t keep our people behind a wall with machine guns!” (I’d love to ask Stallone how he ever got a Hollywood studio to green-light that line.)

d) They cheat (doped-up Drago) and manipulate public opinion (really? They honestly felt ‘unsafe’ in the U.S. and the fight had to be in Moscow? On Christmas Day, no less?).

e) Loyalty to the State takes precedence over all else. Although not explicitly stated, you know cold-as-ice, calmly-smoking-a cigarette-while-her-husband-boxes Brigitte Nielsen’s character would spy on and sell out Drago in a heartbeat.

f) There is no, and I mean NO, freedom. Rocky is assigned steely-eyed “official chaperones” (a.k.a., spies) during his stay.

To be sure, Rocky understands the majority of the Soviet people themselves are victims. He doesn’t put down the individuals in the Moscow audience and instead appeals to the idea that they “can change.”

2) There are wealthy people who are also (gasp!) perfectly good people. Rocky’s a filthy rich guy – yes, he’s got the smokin’ hot black Lamborghini, the gaudy mansion, and can buy his wife fancy, albeit tacky, jewelry (a gold snake bracelet? That’s what “the guy at the store” recommended, Roc?). But he earned it. And, as we saw in “Rocky III”, he’s generous and does his part for charity, too (including having his as* whooped by the scary-Viking-chief-looking Hulk Hogan). Yet Rocky’s in the 1 percent the Occupy movement would have us resent – I ask you, who could hate on a guy like Rocky?

3) Traditional family values are beautiful.  As annoying a buzz-kill as Adrian can be sometimes, Rocky has stood by her and seems just as in love with his wife as he was the day of their wedding. Sure, he could’ve dumped her and married a younger, hotter, glass-heels-wearing stripper, but Rocky’s no fool – he’s a traditional guy who stays true, knowing he’s got a good woman at his side. The series also emphasizes the emotional support and value a spouse can provide in one’s life – who else could’ve motivated him the way Adrian did in “Rocky II”? (“There’s something I want you do for me… Win. Win!”) Indeed, while we’re on the subject – notice there are no gratuitous, unnecessary sex scenes in the “Rocky” franchise.  Hollywood, take note: it is possible to have a wildly entertaining, appealing film without the need to show our leads gettin’ it on.

4) Patriotism.  Three words:  APOLLO ’effing CREED.  One of cinematic history’s greatest characters, period.  Apollo’s unbridled enthusiasm for his country never gets old, no matter how many times I watch this masterpiece, and it’s particularly touching that the fiercely patriotic, no-apologies-for-American-exceptionalism-found-here / “if you’re looking for someone to put this country down, look elsewhere” character … is a black male.  What’s not to love?  He-llo, the man is wearing an Abe-Lincoln-style red-white-and-blue hat and matching boxing trunks. Liberals recoil in horror.  And James Brown’s “Living in America”? Goosebumps. Best of all, we get to watch the Godfather of Soul himself (who, incidentally, was an outspoken conservative!) perform it, with American flags waving all around. (As if a patriotic black male weren’t offensive enough, liberals’ heads must explode in this scene – in fact, I reckon one would be hard-pressed to find a true leftist who’s able to sit through the whole film, sans spontaneous combustion “Spinal Tap”-drummer style).

5) Color-blind race relations are the way to go.  No affirmative action style ‘token’ minority characters but rather an authentic lead in Apollo – a strong role model who simply happens to be African-American. A true patriot who shuns Leftist mentality, Apollo has no counter-productive resentment towards whites – in fact, in “Rocky III” he trains Rocky against a fellow black boxer (perfectly played by Mr. T).  We grow so fond of Apollo that, when (***spoiler alert to any and all FOOLS out there who haven’t already seen this gem***) he dies, I dare you not to weep.  If only Rocky had thrown “the damn towel”…  In a flashback to “Rocky III”’s beach-training sequence, we are treated to the beautiful visual of Rocky and Apollo, embracing in exaltation on the sand:  a black man and a white man — neither of whom sees color, just his buddy.  (Indeed, a comment on a YouTube clip of this scene rightly notes: “When white people and black people work together, they can accomplish anything.”  Hear, hear.)

6) There is no room for moral relativism.  Apollo, stressing to Rocky the importance of his fight against Soviet Drago: “This is not just an exhibition fight that doesn’t mean anything. This is us against THEM!”  Bam — clear lines of good and evil.  (Could I love Apollo any more?  I think not.)

7) Faith in God is paramount.  Rocky kneels in prayer twice before his fight (in an earlier franchise installment, he even stops by church for his priest’s blessing and, upon beating Apollo in “Rocky II”, he thanks God “most of all” – a Tebow forerunner, if you will).  Nowadays, this would naturally be edited out of the film so as to not offend anyone.  Rocky, Apollo, and Duke always have their crosses hanging from their neck, throughout the films. And there’s an ode to Judaism in Rocky’s lovable trainer, Mickey Goldmill, whose faith is highlighted via Mickey’s synagogue burial and the Star of David on his mausoleum plaque.  The message?  Judeo-Christian beliefs are as American as apple pie.

8 ) Manliness personified.  No liberal, hand-holding wimpy ideals here. Rocky knows there’s a job that has to be done and sets out to do it.  “I just gotta doooo what I gotta dooooo,” he matter-of-factly tells Adrian. It’s all about duty and honor. Rocky is exactly like our soldiers – just in the boxing world instead of the military.  100 percent alpha and not a hint of beta.

9) Think for yourself rather than going with the tides.  Adrian to Rocky: “Why can’t you change your thinking?! Everybody else does!”  But does Rocky? Nope. The opposite of robotic Drago, he is offended by the mere suggestion and sticks to his guns (cue the roar of the Lamborghini’s engine and the chills-inducing, best-motivational-song-ever:  Robert Tepper’s “There’s No Easy Way Out”). You think Rocky would’ve been caught up in the 2008 wave of Obama-mania? Wrong.

10) If you apply yourself and work hard, success is attainable:  i.e., the very essence of capitalism.  Rocky shows us that, even with the odds stacked against you, a person can succeed. Duke’s pep-talk to Rocky when they arrive in Russia: “I know you’re gonna have to do almost everything alone. . . . Now you’re gonna have to go through hell, worse than any nightmare that you ever dreamed. But in the end, I know you’ll be the one standing.” (a lesson the ‘gimme, gimme’ entitlement-crowd laying about at an Occupy rally would do well to learn… )

So there you have it – “Rocky IV”, the greatest unintentionally-conservative film ever made and, not coincidentally, a cultural masterpiece.

*Sidebar lessons:  A) The Soviet anthem is a stunning musical composition and, were it not a Communist sing-song… hey, I’d like it!  B) Drago demonstrates it’s possible to take a needle in the arm without flinching or even blinking. Channel him during your next flu shot – it works.

(Drago, taking the needle at the 1:57 mark, in the greatest film-montage ever. If you ever need to show someone ‘juxtaposition’ done right, here it is!)

What do you all think?  Is “Rocky IV” indeed a masterpiece? Any conservative points I missed? And, should I follow through on my urge to show up at an Occupy rally decked out as Apollo and blastin’ “Living in America” from a boombox? I say ‘yes.’

Clint Eastwood disobeyed two of those three movie commandments with 1978’s “Every Which Way But Loose,” arguably the most eccentric film in the movie star’s canon.

The action comedy, Eastwood’s first, should have been the equivalent of Sylvester Stallone’s “Oscar” … or “Rhinestone” or “Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot.” An unmitigated disaster.

Instead, “Loose” became a surprise hit and one of Eastwood’s most popular films. Credit Gordon, blistering the screen as Eastwood’s scrappy Ma, or Clyde, the scene-stealing orangutan. Either way, Eastwood looked right at home letting his cast snare the laughs.

Eastwood stars as Philo Beddoe, an amateur boxer floating through life in sun-bleached California. He earns extra cash by walloping anyone foolish enough to take him on in a fight, and he practices his skills by polishing off honkytonk bar dwellers.

Philo’s meandering stops when he spots crooner Lynn Halsey-Taylor (former Eastwood squeeze Sondra Locke) at his favorite night spot, The Palomino. The two hook up quickly, but it’s clear Lynn is the kind of gal country singers write about on tear-strained cocktail napkins.

“Every Which Way But Loose” is like one of those country western song sprung to life, with the addition of an oversized ape for comic relief. You can almost see the animal trainer off-screen guiding Clyde (real name: Manis) through his paces, but he’s such a screen natural it doesn’t matter. The film is as cartoonish as Clyde, a collection of broad gags that would make a fine kiddie film if not for all the drinkin’, flirtin’ and fighting.

Philo is a wizard at fisticuffs, and his bare-knuckled bouts perk up the sleepy narrative. So does the appearance of the Black Widow gang, a hapless Heck’s Angels menagerie who keep running into Philo’s fists. The bikers even get their own bluesy theme song, a sad-sack dirge that tells you they won’t lay a glove on our hero.

“Loose” may be all bluster, but it treats the blue-collar California denizens with respect, and the film’s bittersweet coda should have earned the film more respect than it received during its initial run. Director James Fargo also stages the silliness with care, using clever camera vantage points to hammer home the high jinks. “Loose” doesn’t glamorize the West Coast. Instead, we see a side of the Golden State that’s gritty and unvarnished, something another filmmaker might have easily overlooked.

Supporting players like Geoffrey Lewis (father of Juliette) and Beverly D’Angelo (“Vacation”) add to the light touch, but none can match the ferocity of Gordon spitting out a line. The “Harold and Maude” star is simply doing her old dame shtick, but it’s never been put to better use.

“Every Which Way But Loose” inspired a sequel as well as a fresh way to look at Eastwood the Movie Star.

If you have not read “Primetime Propaganda” by Ben Shapiro or Andrew Breitbart’s “Righteous Indignation,” I suggest adding both of them to your fall reading list. Both books do a great job of explaining how we got to this point in, supposedly, the most tolerant and accepting nation in the history of the planet, where the one thing that will not be tolerated in Hollywood is admitting you are a conservative. As someone hoping to one day make a living as a working actor, I know I have a difficult road in front of me due to my political views.

So why is it newsworthy when someone in Hollywood admits they are, indeed, a conservative? Everyone knows that Kelsey Grammer is a conservative, yet he still works regularly. His former co-star, Patricia Heaton, also has another hit series despite her apparent drawback. It is news because, at least until now, they have been the exception. It is news because the Hollywood power brokers have set up a system that, until now, has kept conservatives too afraid to admit their true political views for fear of being ostracized from any future work in “the business.”

There’s also the fact that conservatives do not feel the need to spout their political views at every opportunity the way liberals in Hollywood do. I’ve never understood why someone who relies on reaching the largest audience possible to view their work would alienate half of their potential fan base. Granted, not every Hollywood liberal has called Tea Partiers racists, but enough of them have to affect their box office numbers. According to Box Office Mojo, the 2011 box office take is down 4.2 percent compared to the same point last year. That is hundreds of millions of dollars. Sure, the down economy is having some effect on movie going, but it is not the only reason people aren’t going. I, for one, have stopped going because I don’t want to give my hard earned money to someone who thinks so little of me.

That is why the time for Hollywood conservatives to come out of the closet is now. I know I’m not the only one looking for people to throw my support behind. Every time I see a link on a website to a list of “Conservative Actors” I follow it, hoping I’ll see a new name added to the list of Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone. Recent additions have included Robert Downey, Jr. and Adam Sandler.

Sandler is one I have yet to see confirmed as a conservative. He is always listed as having supported former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the past. Based on Sander’s recent family values based movies, I can certainly see it, though. The fact that he has not come out and openly stated his conservative views also leads me to believe it is true.

Am I wrong for hoping it’s true?

There is also a rumor that Angelina Jolie was going to come out in support of John McCain for the 2008 election, but her people convinced her not to in order to save her career. Would it really have been that detrimental to her? She has already established herself as a star in Hollywood. Does she not realize she would likely have gained fans by doing so?

It’s time for Hollywood conservatives to understand there is a possibility they are not the minority anymore. A recent Rasmussen Reports survey found 34.3 percent of respondents identified themselves as Republican, with 33.1 percent identifying as Democrat. This is a reversal of results from the same survey the past two years which found Democrats ahead in 2010 (36.3 percent to 33.4 percent) and 2009 (37.8 percent to 31.9 percent). Those numbers look like a trend to me. Since Hollywood is looked at as a major trendsetter, why are they so far behind on this one?

I understand the hesitancy to come forward, based on how Hollywood conservatives have been treated in the past. Those who are on the fence about coming out need look no further than Alcon Entertainment and Sherwood Pictures. In a down box office year, Alcon’s “Dolphin Tale” has made more than $30 million in profit on a film with an estimated $37 million budget. Sherwood’s “Courageous” has grossed almost $30 million off of a $2 million budget.

There is an under-served movie-going audience that is hungry to support those who share their values. Though he was not the first to say it, I’m reminded of this quote from President Ronald Reagan in 1981: “If not us, who? If not now, when?”

“I was dead set against it. I was horrified by the idea,” says Mangold, who would later go on to direct Oscar-winning films like ‘Walk the Line’ and ‘Girl, Interrupted.’ “He played a superhero so often. I didn’t want to make a movie about Judge Dredd.”

—–

Mangold graciously went to dinner with Stallone all the same and laid out his vision for the role.

“You have to let your body go. I mean let it go … gain at least 40 pounds” the director told the erstwhile Rocky Balboa.

‘He agreed immediately,” Mangold recalls. “He took the leap, and he delivered.”

Stallone’s sensitive performance in the tale of a New Jersey town teeming with dirty cops reminded us he’s more than just a slab of muscle for hire. The film, out this week in a Director’s Cut Blu-ray edition, also proved Mangold could handle a veteran cast led by Harvey Keitel, Robert De Niro and Ray Liotta.

“I have a memory of being a young man with this ridiculously heady cast all around me… it’s like pretty big boots to be strapping on in your second movie,” he says. “It demystified working with really important actors.”

The film also taught him that his complete vision won’t always make it to the big screen.

The Blu-ray edition tacks on a few minor scenes cut for its theatrical release, including a moment where Stallone’s extra weight comes spilling out for all to see. The new version also trims away a few seconds he didn’t want in the film in the first place. The studio wanted to “wrap things up in a happy bow,” he says.

“It wasn’t the feel-good experience of the summer, so the cut got a little compromised,” he says.

“The movie was under so much pressure to be America’s next ‘Pulp Fiction.’ But it’s such a dark and sad tale, less jazzy and more of a kind of morality tale. It ends in a dark place,” he continues. “The star value got so high, and they wanted the grosses to be so high.”

Working with A-listers does come with a downside.

“When ‘Cop Land’ came out, a lot of daggers were out for Sly,” he recalls. “He had made a bunch of shittier moves, he’s the first to admit, that weren’t aimed for the highest result each time out.”

The ‘Cop Land’ Blu-ray includes a commentary track with Mangold, Stallone, co-star Robert Patrick and producer Cathy Konrad, as well as deleted scenes and a “making of” featurette. Mangold’s directorial career took off after the film’s release, veering from smart romantic comedies (‘Kate & Leopold’) to a celebrated look at the life of music icon Johnny Cash (‘Walk the  Line’). His next project finds him dabbling in Hollywood’s hottest genre – the  superhero epic.

‘The Wolverine’ casts Hugh Jackman once more as the hirsute hero with the adamantium claws. Mangold promises comic book fans the new film won’t resemble any they’ve seen before.

“In many ways what attracted me to this… it’s like the tentpole superhero movie is almost a cliché,” he says. “Hugh and I were most after making an original film.”

The superhero sequel will be based on the iconic Frank Miller series set in Japan.

“It takes place in an entirely different culture and fighting in entirely new ways,” says Mangold, who adds that he’ll be getting under the skin of the main character in ways past films couldn’t quite do.

“What’s it like to be immortal, to lose all the people you love and know you’ll keep on going? To have that kind of violence within you and turn it into good?” he asks before quickly assuring fans the film will still have some “kick-ass action.”

Mangold’s directorial career hasn’t always gone smoothly. Before his romantic comedy ‘Kate & Leopold’ reached the public, reporters were abuzz about the personal peccadilloes of the film’s leading lady, Meg Ryan. Last year, critics greeted Mangold’s action vehicle ‘Knight and Day’ with cynicism thanks, in part, to Tom Cruise’s fading star power.

The writer/director is learning to take it all in stride and trust what he puts up on the screen.

“It’s all about surviving the test of time in the end, not all about the opening weekend,” he says.

Occasionally, however, Hollywood gives us something else: something so far out of the norm for the Left coast, so utterly pro-American and purely patriotic, that we have to pause and take note. We saw this with comedian Vince Vaughn, who launched Chicago’s 52^nd annual Air and Water Show by parachuting out of an airplane over the city with one of the Army’s elite parachute teams.  We saw this with Sylvester Stallone, who refused to apologize for his pro-American film “The Expendables,” and who told his antagonizers that “America apologizes too much,” just for good measure.

And to give credit where credit is due, we’ve also seen this kind of grit from Robert Duvall, Larry the Cable Guy, and Nick DiPaolo, among others.

Now we’re seeing it with comedian Rob Riggle (from the movie “The Hangover”). What few know is that Riggle is not only an accomplished actor but also a Marine Corps Reservist who holds the rank of Lt. Colonel. And he recently told Marines Magazine that one of his proudest accomplishments is of “serving his country” as a Marine.

Wow – who saw that coming?

I know such sentiment was common back in the Hollywood of Ronald Reagan and John Wayne, but this is 2011. Now it seems the idea of serving one’s country largely equates to a bunch of utopian chatter about being nice to our enemies so the rest of the world will like us. Not so with Riggle. Instead, he said two other things he’s extremely proud of in his life include taking part in “liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban rule” and “helping evacuate and secure the embassy in Liberia.”

On top of all this, Riggle volunteered to work in the “Bucket Brigades” at Ground Zero after the 9/11 attacks on NYC. (If you’re familiar with the “Bucket Brigades,” you know it’s hard to think of a more selfless act than that. If you’re not familiar with the “Bucket Brigades,” here’s a video of some anonymous volunteers at work.)

Riggle said one of the reasons he joined the Marines was to learn about “honor, courage, and commitment,” and it looks to me like he’s mastered all three.

Thank you Rob Riggle for not only making us laugh, but for also reminding us that America is great and freedom isn’t free.

There are too few of you in Hollywood.

The interview took place because the L.A. Times took a critical stance against “The Expendables,” reporting that Stallone created it to promote “apple-pie patriotism” among movie-goers. When O’Reilly asked Stallone if exploiting such patriotism was the intention behind the film, Stallone laughed and said no. He said it was a movie where “good guys…take out the trash.” After pausing he then said: “It’s pretty simple, [if] you’re bad you’ve got to go.” Other than this, Stallone said the move emphasizes a redemption of sorts, inasmuch as “The Expendables” ultimately risk their own lives (on screen) to do something good for somebody, and by so doing, get “their morality back.”

As O’Reilly reiterated other criticisms that have been aimed at “The Expendables,” Stallone said he didn’t mind people focusing on the fact that the characters in the movie “are patriots” and “are proud to be Americans.”  Stallone did say he had read some criticisms where people tried to say the movie communicated a veiled disapproval of our military and CIA actions abroad, and that it put the “focal point on our intrusion into other countries around the world” and how “we tend to over-extend our boundaries.” But Stallone shot all that blather down by saying “I don’t believe that at all.” (i.e., he doesn’t believe our armed forces and intelligence ops are running around the world making things worse rather than better.)

The highlight of the interview was the fact that throughout his time with O’Reilly, Stallone never once apologized or used the language of appeasement in response to the L.A. Times and other critics. Instead, he actually said he wasn’t going to apologize for seeming pro-American “because America apologizes too much.”

On my media player, I replayed Stallone saying “America apologizes too much” about fifteen times. I then found myself standing in my office with my fists in the air chanting “Rocky, Rocky, Rocky…”

Thank you Sylvester Stallone for being a real American.

It also brings to mind an excellent documentary I saw a few years back called Bigger, Stronger, Faster* (2008 — the asterisk leads to a footnote: “*The Side Effects of Being American”). You can check out the spectacularly funny, rousing, and nostalgic first ten minutes (and then the whole movie, if so inclined) at YouTube:

Stallone, Schwarzenegger, the Hulkster — all are members of a category of celebrity I described in a previous BH article as “silly video-game tough guys.” The walls of countless Reagan-era boys, myself among them, were papered over with posters and photos of these oversized he-men. Throughout our teen years we read their exercise books and magazine interviews, followed their advice, and strove to live up to their examples.

Examples that, as it turned out, were far too good to be true.

The director/narrator of Bigger, Stronger, Faster*, Chris Bell, kindly but thoroughly strips his beloved childhood icons of their mythic qualities, reducing them to a series of ordinary men who used tricks, illusion, and lots and lots of steroids to become larger than life to millions of youngsters. “It is kind of sad in a way,” Bell said in a Sundance interview at the time his movie was released, “how all of our heroes in America are now falling.”

Add to that his documentary’s many vignettes of confused, aging fans still following their muscle-bound pied pipers after so long. Their stories are heartbreaking, because many of us harbored similar fantasies of stardom and badassery once upon a time, and on some deep level there remains a whole lot of our own hopes and dreams wrapped up in those forlorn guys still waiting for their pro wrestling or action star trains to roll in. It’s a chilling realization that prompts me to mutter, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”

Largely left out of the analysis, though, is the more sensible side of the coin. The vast majority of boys who marinated themselves in the action films of the 1980s dreamed of being mighty and indomitable like Sly and Arnold, yes, but unlike the outliers of Bigger, Stronger, Faster*, they left those fantasies behind as they grew older and mortality set in. Nevertheless — and this is the important part — they retain to this day some healthy inner fire of masculinity from those pictures that’s served them well in their adult lives.

How many men serving with distinction and bravery in our armed forces can trace the genesis of their decision to enlist to Rambo or Commando? How many fathers who’ve fought off intruders in their homes can credit their successful defense of their families to martial arts and weapons training undertaken when they were teens in thrall to “silly” cinematic heroes? How many guys who’ve rescued people trapped in floods or fires or raging rivers did so by calling on notions of courage hammered into their heads over two decades ago, and using muscles once built by youthful sessions of pumping iron in rooms decorated by large posters featuring stern action heroes gazing down on their efforts like dark demi-gods?

Yes, movies like The Expendables can be silly. But then, on that narrow basis of criticism, so are classic action extravaganzas like The Iliad, rife as they are with ultra-bloody scenes featuring warriors cutting down ten or twenty enemies at a clip. So are Westerns with their ritualized duels and codes of honor and amazing pistoleering, all of it at odds with much of real history. Whenever you veer too far towards the realm of the impossible, it’s going to strike many as silly.

But it’s thoughtless misandry to dismiss these myths as unimportant or, even worse, as a form of violent pornography that young boys need protection from. The inherently brutal nature of males isn’t a design flaw but a feature, and cultures need fierce heroes to guide boys toward ideals of masculine and martial perfection. Wiser minds adhere to the dictum expressed so memorably in John Ford’s The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” We mere mortals emulate these legends imperfectly, but our country and families are the better for our having tucked away some of those savage lessons to be called upon when needed.

The Expendables, like the 1980s action movies that came before it, looks set to once again “print the legend” in all of its wild implausibility and silly, bloodthirsty grandeur. I’m old enough now to know it’s a legend, but I’ll be eager to see the movie anyway, as ready as always to engage in that age-old ritual of using the fantasy world of the impossible to fortify and strengthen and reassure the real world of the possible.

And if you think that’s crazy talk, or reading way too much into a blissfully mindless popcorn movie, then I feel sorry for you, I really do. How pathetic to see otherwise decent and intelligent people lost in a candy-colored fantasy world more ridiculous than the most preposterous action film, too unreflective to realize that their smug stance of non-violence is a luxury made possible only by the sacrifices of strong men of heroic spirit who stand ready to do life’s bloody work for them.

In the opening of his piece, Horowitz portrays himself as someone with a libertarian streak and because I tend to take people at their word, that’s what makes his column all the more troubling. Leftists carrying Hollywood’s water I can take. But those who should be sympathetic to our side choosing the blue pill — choosing not to see reality – choosing instead to rhetorically assault those of us who do… Well, let’s just say it’s awfully hard to defend yourself in an ideological war if your own troops haven’t figured out how hard they’re working for the other side.   

The lack of logic and depth of denial Horowitz must employ to see Hollywood as he so desperately wants to see it – as a place where the “Hollywood vs. America” charge is a “trope” –  is revealing. We’ll start with Horowitz’s own words and bio:

Carl F. Horowitz is director of the Organized Labor Accountability Project of the National Legal and Policy Center, a Townhall.com Gold Partner organization dedicated to promoting ethics in American public life.

Here’s a quote from his article:

My own Hollywood ambitions, sadly, go no further than seeing a new movie once or twice a week. 

In other words, it’s safe to say that the sum total of Horowitz’s experience with Hollywood is, well, going to the movies. And yet he thinks he knows more than a … Hollywood screenwriter?

Conservative novelist Andrew Klavan likewise groused last year in the Washington Post, “Hollywood moviemakers…have been telling lies – loudly, constantly and almost always in support of a left-wing point of view…(For conservatives) the door is shut, the fix is in, and the blacklist – or least a graylist – is alive and well.”

Put a sock in it, mates.

“Put a sock in it”? Really? What next, Mr. Horowitz? Will you be telling rocket scientists where to put a sock because you know better how NASA works after watching a few space shuttle launches?

Maybe Horowitz simply didn’t bother to Google Klavan and missed the whole screenwriting thing. Research doesn’t appear to be a big part of his modus operandi:

A latter-day Comintern, they inform us, roams the studios with terrifying power, making sure all scripts toe a far-left party line while forcing conservatives to hide their views in the closet to stay employed.  (Apparently, Bruce Willis and Sylvester Stallone never got that memo.) 

Are we talking about the same Bruce Willis who famously declared himself, “not a Republican” in 2006 – and the same Sylvester Stallone who donates more money to Democrats than to Republicans?

Either Willis and Stallone are not Republicans or they are and for some reason feel it’s a good idea to hedge their political bets. Either way…  Hmmm?

The rest of Horowitz’s piece is what I would call a bonanza of cherry picking designed to back his way into a predetermined political point. But even his cherry picks don’t do much to validate his point:

If mainline film studios have been mocking anything all this time, it’s been their own world.  Starting with the late Robert Altman’s darkly amusing takedown of his industry, The Player (1992), we’ve seen a raft of witty Tinseltown self-parodies.  Think of The Muse (Albert Brooks), Bowfinger (Steve Martin), State and Main (David Mamet), Tropic Thunder (Ben Stiller) and What Just Happened (Barry Levinson). 

What logic. I guess five self-mocking titles over nearly two decades somehow trumps the full court press of 15 or so (and counting) anti-war movies we’ve seen in just two years “mocking” our country and, most unforgivably, those who defend it. 

Give Horowitz credit, though. If anything, his ability to write a piece declaring the argument of “Hollywood vs. America” a “trope” without mentioning or attempting to explain away Hollywood’s two year cinematic assault on a America still at war displays a willingness to suspend disbelief like few others.

After all, he doesn’t even see what’s happening in some of the films he lists to support his own argument. “Enemy of the State,” “Minority Report,” and “Eagle Eye” are not libertarian manifestos. Unless I missed it, the heroes in those films aren’t on the run from the EPA or Department of Education. They’re on the run from the left’s favorite whipping boy: those who keep America safe.

Wake up and smell the allegory.

Hey, I loved “Iron Man” as much as Horowitz did, but that doesn’t mean I missed the third act where the arch-villain’s revealed to be *yawn* just another rich, white, corporate baddie invested in America’s evil Military Industrial Complex.

I could go on, but everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, and if Horowitz is one of the fortunate still blind to Hollywood’s ideological war on all things traditional and American – I envy him. I love movies and the thought of returning to the days where one could relax and settle in for the latest from Tinseltown without having to worry about some leftist cheap shot or outright anti-American polemic would be bliss.

Damn that red pill.

Yes, political bias is the main reason conservative films don’t get distribution; there are a ton of crappy liberal films that get distribution.  But that doesn’t change the fact that some of the most highly publicized conservative modern entrees into the field of film have been total artistic and popular bombs.

Filmmaker Michael Pack

When a conservative film gets made that is actually high quality, it’s a surprise.  So when I saw new documentary, The Last 600 Meters, I was shocked.  It’s gripping, engrossing, enthralling.  It’s a movie every American should see.

The Last 600 Meters tells the story of the two deadliest battles of the Iraq war — the Battles of Fallujah and Najaf — from the perspective of the soldiers who fought in them.  We see through their eyes – the footage and stills were taken during the actual battle.  We meet the strong, resilient, sensitive and brave men and women of the armed services who do the fighting and the killing and the dying that we won’t do.

The images are stunning.

We watch a firefight in a magnificently archaic and overbuilt cemetery outside Najaf.  We learn about a terrorist-created deathtrap known as the “Hell House” in Fallujah, where our troops demonstrated their heroism and creative thinking while taking heavy casualties.  We observe as our troops invade the house of Shia Islamic leader Muqtada al Sadr – and find, in his bedroom, framed photographs of American tough-guy action stars Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, and Clint Eastwood.  We follow our troops as they go house to house finding huge weapons caches and terrorists.  And yes, there is an actual scene with American soldiers walking through the smoking ruins of Fallujah while singing the Mickey Mouse Club song, a la Full Metal Jacket.

What’s just as stunning is the take from ground level on the geopolitical decisions being made by politicians at the highest level

We’re one day from taking Fallujah in April 2004 when Al Jazeera begins hijacking CBS’s satellite feed from a Fallujah hospital, then adding their own spin – and the resulting media furor causes the Bush Administration to end the action.  The result: terrorists from across the globe come to Fallujah to establish a base, and we have to re-enter a few months later to wipe them out.

In Najaf, our troops fight their way through city streets and converge around the central Imam Ali Mosque, where al Sadr and his terrorist followers are holed up.  They meticulously avoid firing their weapons around the mosque.  They train Iraqi special operations units to make the final entry into the mosque.  And then, just as they’re about to finish off al Sadr and his men once and for all, al Sadr, in a deal brokered by the Iraqi government, turns over the keys to the mosque to Ayatollah Sistani, the highest ranking Shia figure in Iraq.  And our troops pull out of Najaf, handing the city back over to the insurgents.

If this film has any political content, it’s a pro-troops content.  Yes, our troops are pro-war – one of the officers makes an impassioned speech about the value of fighting terrorism and spreading liberty in Iraq.  But the film is just as critical of the top-down decision making that led the coalition forces to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory over and over again.

What comes across throughout The Last 600 Meters is the incredible value of the men and women of our armed services.  They know that their job isn’t to make the political decisions – it’s to implement them.  They’re there to take those policies “the last 600 meters.”  And they get the job done, no matter what the obstacles.

I spoke with Michael Pack, producer of the film.  It will be shown on PBS in a few months, but he is looking for a distributor to get it shown as a mainstream feature.  If ever a conservative film deserved that sort of support, this is the one.  It is a tremendous demonstration of the fact that conservative films can be more than just conservative – they can be truly great.

[An interview with filmmaker Michael Pack and producer Stephen K. Bannon can be seen here: Part 2 -- Part 3.]