How Do You Define Macho?

One of the items I read on Instapundit this morning was this piece: Ten Macho Movies Every Man Should See.

Wow; what a list. First; its from Popular Mechanics.

Say What? Why is an article like this in Popular Mechanics? I mean, the same magazine that at one time brought us plans for a do-it-yourself mini-submarine is now doing macho man movie reviews?

I don't know who developed this list, but my guess he is about 23, and has no idea what macho is all about. He is probably also a metro-sexual, who pulled some old movie names off of IMBD just so the crap he wanted to watch would at least look like it had some balance.

The comments section is just loaded with better movies that the junk in the current list.

For the record, I have seen the first five movies on the list, and not (Thankfully) any of the last 5. Of the five I have seen, Wrath of the Khan is the only one I have seen more than twice.

Maybe I just don't understand his version of macho (I keep saying HE, but it doesn't say who wrote the article; it is equally possible it was written by a she, or a they I suppose), or is his version just blood and violence?

To me, macho isn't so much about violence as manliness. The ability to defend yourself is of course a component of macho, but not the basis for it. I checked Wikipedia for their definition, an didn't like any I liked. They seemed to be rather down on the concept.

I also checked the Urban Dictionary; Home run! Definition #9:

Macho: Description of someone manly, specifically someone who ignores or endures discomfort to maintain the appearance of manliness.

The height of macho is jogging home after your own vasectomy.

That I think sums it up. Except... I'm not sure that a definition of Macho should include the word vasectomy?

UPDATE- I was asked today what is my opinion of the epitome of the Macho in a movie?

That's easy; John Wayne in The Shootist, his last film. The King of Macho.

Best of The Decade List- a Year Early

I found this through Instapundit this morning.

I have not seen any of the movies this critic cites as the best of the decade.

Hell, I haven't even heard of most of them.

The best part is the comments. NOBODY thinks this guy knows what he's talking about. That made me feel a little better.

But, as always with lists like this, I tend to follow the money. I think it is easier to tell which movies are the greatest by seeing how well they did financially.

That's why I believe this list maybe a better indicator of the greatest films of the decade.

On a side note; the first film, Titanic is from 1997, so disregard it, but the next ten are from 1999 to 2009; that forms our decade.

On a second side note; the decade began in January 2001 and ends in December 2010 if you are following the strict calendar decade. But most folks will see a decade as from XX00 to XX09 or XX10 to XX19, so why not call that ten years a decade too? It makes more sense to me that 1980 is part of the '80s decade than it does to say that 1990 is part of the '80s decade.

On this list of ten I have seen 6, and heard of all ten. I haven't seen the Lord of the Rings trilogy; I have never been interested in the Batman movies and I haven't seen the latest Harry Potter yet (but I have high hopes for seeing it soon, right Santa?).

And these are the movies you will be watching in another ten years, and ten years after that. And they will develop new audiences in that 20 years, because they do what a movie should do (at least the ones I've seen); a good story, convincingly told.

I'm sorry, but in general life is depressing, especially now. If I want to schooled, shamed or scolded, I'll read the flippin' newspaper or watch the news. If I want to be entertained, I'll watch a movie. Why can't these idiots get that through their thick skulls?

What the Hell Do I Know?

I am seeing reports that the latest Harry Potter movie is on schedule to gross $140 million this weekend.

I wonder why that is? Maybe because the whole series has been well done? Maybe because these movies do what a movie is supposed to? Entertain you? No preachy garbage, no gratuitous sex or violence; they are just good stories, convincingly told.

What do you want from the entertainment industry? Me? I want to be ENTERTAINED!

I want to spend my money for a product that will allow me to lose myself in a pleasant place for awhile. A place where I know things will turn out well in the end. Where the bad guys get their comeuppance, and aren’t elected President.

Sorry, drifted a little off track there.

Seriously, have you ever looked at a list of the highest grossing movies of all time? Here’s one (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm) (just box office, no tape or DVD sales included) that I find interesting. I have maintained for years that since probably 1985 the Oscars have stopped being about the best movie and started being about the most politically correct picture. Not so much about the film people want to see, but the film Hollywood WANTS people to see.

You have to go back to 1997 to find a Best Picture winner on the list of moneymakers, and that was Titanic; the film that just couldn’t be ignored (even though I have managed to). Forrest Gump (1994) is on both lists and afterward they get few and far between. I couldn’t find what I wanted, a list of the highest grossing Oscar winners adjusted for inflation, but the top of that list would be Gone With the Wind. Which has a lot in common with Harry Potter; good story, convincingly told.

Of the top ten grossers I have seen 8, liked 4 well enough to see them multiple times. Of the top twenty I’ve seen 17; Top 40 I’ve seen 32. Of those 32 I have seen 13 in the theater, and the majority of those were Disney cartoons. And other than the Disney cartoons and the Star Wars series, I don’t believe I have more than 10 of the top 50 on tape or DVD. I wonder what that says about my taste in movies?

Back on topic, of the top 50 that I have seen, they all have one thing in common: -you guessed it- a good story, convincingly told, without preaching. Some of these movies I haven’t seen because I don’t like the genre (such as The Exorcist {although I have read the book}), or because I have heard things about the movie that turned me off (I never could stand the Godfather series), or because I perversely don’t like some things just because they are so flippin’ popular (Titanic and E.T. come to mind).

Apparently, based on where the money is spent a lot of movie goers agree with me. Take 2005 (my favorite year to hate the Oscars); none of the best picture nominees was in the top 20 grossers. Closest was Brokeback Mountain at 22nd. The winner (Crash, incase you forgot who won) was 49th. Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit was a higher grossing film than the Oscar winning best picture. What does that tell you about the Oscars?

Just for the record, Good Night and Good Luck didn’t break the top 100. The incredibly lousy Dukes of Hazzard movie did better at the box office than all of the Best Picture nominees, except Brokeback Mountain, and only lost to Brokeback Mountain by $3 million.

So here I am, some redneck from Kentucky who figured out what makes a movie put butts in the seats, which in my opinion is the vote that counts on how good a picture is, why can’t the ‘experts’ in Hollywood do the same?

I do believe that as the economy sinks lower you will see fewer and fewer films that don’t make money, and are done for ‘arts sake’, just because Hollywood won’t have the cash to make junk that don’t sell, only to ‘make a statement’. Whatever the Hell that means.

I was reading about the Oscars this morning (I haven't seen the show in about 15 years at all, and only bits and pieces before that. I quit watching the Oscars when they snubbed Smokey and the Bandit in '79), and apparently I ain't the only one who has decided the idea of an industry awarding itself for its own brilliance is ignorant.

Maybe because they are the ENTERTAINMENT Industry, their show should be, you know, entertaining, to the general populace. And yet it comes off as an overly long bore and preach fest.

Imagine if the Oil Industry did the same thing; with the same glitz and live TV coverage. The outrage from the left would be deafening.

“How dare they spend millions to promote themselves; The cost of her dress would feed a family of 4 for a year; Why can’t they just accept an award, and not stoop to insulting our President Obama…”

You get the picture. Hypocrisy, they name is liberal.