The Hurt Locker

Here's a balls-to-the-wall war thriller that reminded me just how intense movies can be. Made for a measly $15 million, and featuring a leading man without any "major" credits to his resume, The Hurt Locker absolutely blew me away right from its opening set piece.

The film is about a bomb disposal unit in Iraq during 2004. It focuses on Bravo Company, a three-man unit with 40 days left in its tour. The unit's commanding officer, Sergeant James, has become so enthralled with disarming bombs that the act has virtually become his drug of choice. So drawn to it, is James, that he even begins gambling with the lives of the men in his unit just so he can get his next "adrenaline fix."

That's all I'll say about the plot of the movie. Hopefully. It's a surprising and poignant drama featuring a truly dynamic lead character played by the excellent, Jeremy Renner. Sergeant James isn't given a duck soup backstory that informs his behaviour - he just is the way he is because he's good enough at his job to have survived this long. It's not that he doesn't care about his men - there are scenes where he displays excellent leadership and tenderness for them - the problem with Sergeant James is that he's an addict and addicts know not what they do. Not after a certain point, they don't.

Aside from Renner, Anthony Mackie is excellent as the second-in-command, and the one character who is initially opposed to James's behaviour. How their relationship develops a certain mutual insight is very well handled, relying on a dire sequence, where the two character must rely on one another for survival to generate their understanding of one another.

Speaking of said sequence, it's a hell of a sniper shootout that feels like it unfolds in real time. Credit goes to director Kathryn Bigelow, the real star of this movie, for generating several scenes of unrelenting tension. Bigelow has always been a talented visualist; Strange Days is one of the more visually striking films in history and Point Break is a good action flick, with at least one amazing foot chase.

Here, however, Bigelow has found the right balance between visual panache and involving character study. Despite all of the stunning bomb disarming sequences, none of them would be as suspenseful had Bigelow not cleverly developed her characters and their conflicts.

The Hurt Locker is easily the best film that I've seen this year. It blows would-be thrillers like The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3 and Public Enemies right out of the water. This is pure, brawny action filmmaking that hopefully will garner awards consideration for Bigelow and Renner.

Public Enemies

Public Enemies has all the makings of a Michael Mann classic; a mega watt star, intense subject matter, and a chance for him to exercise his innovative filming prowess, and yet, something's missing. Something that I just could not put my finger on initially....at least, not until I saw The Hurt Locker the next night, and remembered what a real, emotionally involving thriller looked/felt like.

Mann's made all the same mistakes here that he made with Miami Vice a few years back - he's told a cool, detached story that really fails to draw the audience in at all , moreover, the film doesn't even seem to try to generate emotional stake. Mann is so idiosyncratic, so obsessed with detail and his film's visual palette that I worry he loses tract of the stories real draw - the human element. Mann's best films, Heat, The Insider, Collateral, and Thief are all fueled by the characters's tangible conflicts, and allow the audience to invest something of consequence into the movie.

As in Miami Vice, Mann fails to do this. Instead, he opts for focus on the para ordinance and tactical maneuvers of the cops and criminals. He orchestrates beautiful set pieces, chooses wonderful music, and seems to have nailed his sense of pacing....but he forgot the two things that really matter; story and character.

I will say this; by sheer force of talent, Marion Contillard is award-worthy. She dominates the movie, and that includes Depp. Her natural beauty, coupled with her vulnerability and toughness make for a very strong female character. It's a shame that she's short-changed by the script.

Depp, on the other hand, is quietly reserved. A smoldering performance that never really amounts to anything memorable. He has a few nice scenes, but Contillard blows him off the screen.

Bale is Bale. I'm tired of his pensive, 'I'm so intense the veins are going to pop of out my face,' act. He should do a comedy. He should do three.

I would like to say that Stephen Lang, with three minutes of screen time, almost steals the entire film. His final scene, with Contillard, is the film's best and most powerful.

You may read this review and assume that I disliked the movie. That's not the case. Michael Mann is my favorite director, period. I expect a lot of his films and Public Enemies follows Miami Vice down the slight disappointment path. If you like beautiful, impressive filmmaking, see this.

There Will Be Blood's Milkshake

I didn't review this film for the blog. I didn't, actually, review a lot of films for this blog that I have seen recently. Lack of time and a general lack of interest in writing has prevented me from being more involved. Sorry. Anywho...

To be fair to "There Will Be Blood's" distant cousin, "No Country For Old Men," I will write something on the Coen's masterpiece a little later.

For now, I want to join the multitude of people writing about Paul Thomas Anderson's masterpiece, and toss in my ten-cent analysis of the movie.

The film is a brawny, souped-up, epic piece of work. It is not the deliberate Jesse James flick that we saw earlier and it is not a perfectly crafted genre bit like No Country. The film defies classification. Twenty years from now, at the rental store, you might find the film alone, resting on its own shelf in its own section, which is ironic, because that's probably just where Paul Thomas Anderson and his star, Daniel Day-Lewis would want it to be. The movie is cold and and angry; it has a streak of madness running through it - a misanthropic, angry, brooding feeling that contrasts so brilliantly and frustratingly with its open landscapes and epic scope that you feel a ball of frustration well-up inside as you watch it.

Movies like this shouldn't be so personal, so introspective, but this one is. It doesn't feature a protagonist and an antagonist. There are no sides for the audience to take and that is an interesting choice because Anderson and Day-Lewis risk alienating everyone. Which, I think, is their point because Danie Plainview is so mad with drive that nothing and nobody will ever truly matter to him, nor will they be close to him. That's Anderson and Day-Lewis being true to their creation and to the audience; so often we are cheated into following a misanthrope through a story, only to have him become lovable. That is not the arch here. Plainview begins as a bastard, descends into murder, and emerges at the end as an almost demonic force who has crushed everyone and everything. Powerful stuff because not once are we asked to feel sorry for him.

Everyone has an opinion about the ending. I think its a perfect ending. Daniel Plainview ends up right where he belongs - insane. He has lost his mind and relies solely on alcohol for any semblance of balance. When a movie charts a character's insanity so closely, how can it not end on a note of madness?

Also, by introducing Eli Sunday, the preacher, as Plainviews nemesis is a masterstroke. What is even more brilliant is that Sunday is Plainviews mirror image. Even more brilliant is that he is played by baby-face Paul Dano. Their battle of wills builds and builds and builds, and their similarities become more apparent. When Eli finally gets his opportunity to avenge his public embarrassment - the scene works as such a conflict of interest for the audience and for its characters. The audience appreciates the comeuppance that Daniel Plainview is getting, but we also think Eli Sunday is a sniveling worm, and yet, he is the one dealing Plainview his just desserts. At the some time, on some other plane entirely, we hope that this baptisim will open Plainview's eyes and perhaps, rid him of his sins. I think it is the film's best sequence and the one where the audience finally has a chance to feel something, one way or the other, and it is cathartic. The astute viewer will notice Plainview saying something, inaudible to the audience, to Eli, and the astute viewer will realize that Eli has signed his own death warrant.

And finally, there IS Daniel Day-Lewis. All I can say is that his performance is monumental and daring. That's all I can say.

So I haven't Posted in 2 Months: 2007 Top 10

It has been a long while since my last post, so I sincerely doubt that I have many readers left - which isn't saying too much, seeing how I had a pool of about 5 or 6 comprised mostly of family and roommates.

Much has happened, in my personal life, and in the world of cinema. First, let me be the first to pat me on the back, as this year has easily lived up to the billing I predicted months ago - this has been one of the greatest cinematic years of all time. We have seen, quite possibly, 5 classic, destined-to-be-great American films. It has been an incredible year for great, new, and old directors. I have witnessed some of the finest craftsmanship I have ever seen. So, before I continue gushing, let me propose my top-10 on 2007. This is really, very daunting.

1) There Will Be Blood: I am not sure how to describe it, but while watching this film, I felt that I was watching something very special. I wasn't sure if I even liked it, but the awesome power of the filmmaking and the absolutely monumental performance by Daniel Day Lewis completely overwhelmed me. Paul Thomas Anderson has created something epic, but personal; something blunt, but poetic. It defines classification and it just exists solely on the screen as a piece of craftsmanship. It exhausts and frustrates and yet, it never fails to fascinate. For people who dislike the ending, you must realize that you are watching a man's descent into madness and solitude - how can a film about that not end in a scene of complete craziness. After a few weeks of deliberation, I have concluded that I love this film. The score, too, must be mentioned because it is haunting.
2) The Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford: This film, like Anderson's masterpiece, is an epic too. It is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. I don't mean touching. I mean beautiful in a visual sense. Every scene appears to be so carefully crafted, and that iconic image of Pitt's Jesse James standing on the track as the train comes to pass is just fucking awesome. Pitt is good here, but Casey affleck deserves all the credit for delivering a sniveling, creepy, almost oddly sexualized performance as a glorified stalker of Jesse James. The film is deliberate, maybe because its pompous, but the musical score and the photography, and the gentle way that Andrew Domanik lets this tales of betrayal unfold seemed perfect to me. I loved this film too.
3) No Country for Old Men: Ebert is right. This film is perfect. There is a stretch of about an hour when Javier Bardem's nightmare villain is stalking Josh Brolin's rugged survivor that is just about as thrilling, and tense, and perfectly orchestrated a setpiece that has been committed to film. Speaking of Bardem, you have to mention him in the same breath as Hannibal lecter and Hans Gruber - this is a masterclass villain, an absolute horror show of a creation. I loved this film too. I loved the novel, and the ending here does not translate as well as it did in the book, and that's a shame, but it is a credit to Brolin's surprising and oddly amazing work here. He is very good. His sense of presence and his sense of normalcy being faced with death incarnate, is truly great. The fact that the ending just doesn't feel right is a testament to Brolin's work.
4) Once: The most touching film I have seen. And I don't throw the word "touching" around, okay.
5) Michael Clayton: A great, terrifically amped up corporate/legal thriller that isn't about the law, or the company. It is a 70's throwback, a rich, and tense and moody character piece that has an absolutely great star-turn by George Clooney. I love the scene of him gambling in the underground card game and the final shot - "Give me $50bucks worth." I loved it. This is the most entertaining film of the year and I was reminded so very much of 70's Robert Redford undergoing those super-subtle character changes. I wish Michael Mann would make movies like this now.
6) Juno: The best comedy of the year. What is so great, though, is how the film sidesteps convention ever-so slightly, and just missed being predictable. The development of Juno's parents, and especially, the adoptive parents of Bateman and Garner are what really hits home. Garner, in particular, underplays her role so well that it really sneaks up on you just how beautiful and maternal and sweet she is here. Bateman has a terrific scene where he is so confused about who he is and he asks Juno, "How do you see me," and you realize that he has zero sense of himself and is really, really hoping that Juno can point him in the right direction. I loved this film and it kind of pisses me off when a film I love finds a huge audience because it feels less like my discovery.
7) Eastern Promises: Viggo Mortensen. That's all you need to know. You want to see acting of the highest order, watch Mortensen. He is a study of presence here. He exudes cool. Watch him dominate the screen in every scene he is in. Even when the film is over, and discoveries and revelations are made about his character, you still know nothing about him. This, right here, is how a "dangerous man" should be played. Because even though his motivations are revealed, you still don't trust him. Its a great, great, poster-bound performance.
8) Before The Devil Knows You're Dead: A devastating, tragic film that really knotted up my stomach. For real. I puked for like 8 hours after this film. It was probably food poisoning. This movie is so sad and so angry that I doubt I could watch it again. My father loves movies about ordinary people who think they've planned the perfect crime, only to watch it fall apart and they scramble to fix the problems, only to create more and more and more fuck-ups. My father's favorite films are "A Simple Plan," and "Fargo," and both share quite a bit with this movie. My dad calls this a great, greek tragedy. I liken it more to a really fucked-up Eugene O'Neil play - just watch the scene between brothers, and the scene between Hoffman and Finney. Speaking of Philip Seymore Hoffman - he is phenomenal here. His volcanic blow-up, his latent homosexuality, and the way he bullies his brother - its his best performance so far, and that includes the boring Capote.
9) The Bourne Ultimatum: Action filmmaking of the highest order. It still is not better than Supremacy, which I consider one of the greatest, and most expertly crafted action films of all time, but it is exciting and Matt Damon has settled well into the speeding bullet role of Jason Bourne. Can i say, that despite all the great chases and action sequences, the best scene in this movie is its lone quite one: Damon and Stiles having coffee and Stiles implying that they had once been lovers. It is so rare to see that level of subtlety in a film like this. Paul Greegrass is a genius director.
10)3:10 to Yuma: I love this western. It is a true western, with mixed loyalties and complex heroes and villains. What I especially love, though, is the relationship between Protagonist and Antagonist and how the lines of those two archetypes are blurred here. You have Russell Crowe and Christian Bale really doing a great job of feeding the audience bits and pieces of their characters' motivations. Once their final scene of mutual insight is concluded, you're really kind of shocked at how much you're invested in the whole movie. Also, Mark Forster is a creepy villain here and when he gets his comeuppance, you can truly see heartbreak in his eyes.

Gone Baby Gone: Do I really go to the movies to feel like this?

Don't read too far into the title of this post - I thought this movie was very good. Not excellent. It gets a little sloppy in and directly after the 2nd act's conclusion. But, and with all things considered (Ben Affleck directing and the casting of his own brother) the film is very solid and features one of the more somber and satisfying conclusions I have ever seen. The movie ends on such a fantastic note that it overshadows all that came before and really reflects how strong the filmmaking is from top to bottom. This movie earns the right to ask a very difficult question at its end.

The movie is about the kidnapping of a child , and deals with the abuse of children as a means to defining them for the rest of their lives. Tough, right? This is very serious subject matter and Affleck does not shy away from it.

What makes the film successful, though, is the way that Boston truly becomes a character in the movie. Affleck knows the terrain well and drapes the movie in all things Boston. Is doesn't hurt that he gets a handful of very good performances. Ed Harris is solid, if typical, as an uber-intense cop with a hard-on for abusive or neglectful parents. Morgan Freeman makes what is essentially an extended cameo as the head of a department for the Boston PD. Michelle Mongahan in on hand as the sturdy female sidekick/lover, but she isn't given much to do.

The two strongest performances come from Casey Affleck as a tough guy with something to prove and Amy Ryan as the kidnapped girl's mother. Ryan, in particular, is great. You hate her, but she is absolutely fantastic and leaves a lasting impression. There's a nomination here for her.

Casey Affleck has come a long way this year, with his award-caliber role in The assassination of Jesse James. Here, he is different; confident, honest, and sporting something resembling a little man's complex. He is very good here and shows a lot of confidence with actors that should blow him off the screen, but don't.

The kicker, though, is this film's ending, and the division it can cause. It asks a truly difficult question and refuses to take a side. What is RIGHT and what is Morally right. The answer, you may find, could tell you something about yourself and it depends almost entirely on personal belief. The ending takes Gone Baby Gone from thriller to a serious probe of the human condition.

American Gangster: Uh, Blah?

I had a sneaking suspicion that this would happen. The trailers hadn't impressed me too much and there was something about Ridley Scott's considerable skill being attached to gritty, american gangster flick.

Let me say this right now: American Gangster has nothing on The Godfather, Goodfellas, Donnie Brasco, Casino, Training Day, Serpico, Prince of the City, King of the City, Hard Eight, or many of the other fantastic crime dramas out there. It especially doesn't even come close to HEAT, that monumental Michael Mann masterpiece that it tries so hard to emulate. In fact, HEAT is so far above American Gangster that it almost shocked me how much better that film is, even 12 years later.

American Gangster is sort of a lame duck with underwritten characters and a Denzel Washington who seems a little disinterested with his role. Its odd, because Washington's performance should be towering and imposing, but it comes off as muted and almost too dialed down. The movie wants him to be a menacing, charismatic Lord of Harlem, and it wants the audience to love him for it. At the the same time, they give us a really strong character in Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) who is all integrity and hard work, who is really the story's best character. You give us two characters, opposite sides of the law (like Heat) and we follow both as they circle one another - the difference being that HEAT's two leads were fascinating, well-matched, and extremely flawed. In American Gangster, you don't get that tension because the stories seem too independent of one another and neither character is so dynamic. It is bizarre. It is a misfire.

I really liked Crowe here, though his performance in 3:10 to Yuma was better. In fact, Crowe in 3:10 is what Denzel in AG should have been. His scene at the end with Washington is good, but not great, and not emotionally satisfying. The scene between Pacino and De Niro in Heat was so strong because both were so well-matched, and they respected each other despite being on opposite sides of the law. You never get that sense of mutual respect because, morally, Crowe is head and shoulders above Washington. There is no mutual insight here.

In Heat, in that famous, pivotal scene, you really get insight into these two characters, and you see how dangerously similar they are, how in another life, they may have been friends. But, the reality is that one will probably have to kill the other. In American Gangster, there is nothing approaching that level of depth.

Overall, AG is not a bad film, but it is nowehere the achievement it could have been. I revisited the original article that the film was based on, and the article was much more exciting and rewarding. I wonder if they had developed a framing device to wrap around the narrative, something playing off of the article, would the film have been stronger?

A few side notes: Cuba Gooding Jr. has about 5 minutes of screen time and is GREAT. It is a nice, small return to form for Gooding Jr. He has one scene - arguably the films best, in which he and Washington square off, and I'll be damned if Gooding doesn't go toe-to-toe for the 2 minutes. I miss Gooding Jr.

You know, movies like this sometimes depend on small, eccentric characters to make the lasting impressions. It is more often than not the sprawling crime epics are defined by their smaller, supporting moments and performances. American Gangster's supporting players are not that memorable. Aside from Gooding Jr. there is one other character who sticks out - Josh Brolin's Det. Trupo. The film goes to considerable lengths to establish him as the film's real antagonist and he is completely hissable. You really want him to be in the movie more because once he shows up, he finally commands some tension, and creates the type of excitement and division in the audience that these movies are supposed to do.

Th flick is entertaining, but in the canon of great crime thrillers, of which there are probably 20, American Gangster is found wanting.

Mad Dog and Glory: Bill Murray's Best and Great Tough Guy Talk

It took me a long while to get around to writing this - things have been very busy at work.

I revisited this movie about 2 weeks ago and I forgot just how quirky and funny it is. Seriously. This is one that nobody talks about...ever. You never get in a film-centric discussion where out of the blue somebody says, " oh my god, do you remember Mad Dog and Glory. Fucking great, man." Nobody says that. Not about this flick.

Well, consider the stars aligned and the clouds parted because this movie is just that - fucking great. Its not perfect. I think the score is lame, distractingly so, and the ending leaves something to be desired because the movie forgets its most fascinating relationship, choosing instead to focus on a different one.

What works, though, is a fantastic script with some really great dialogue. Richard Price, the screenwriter, has written some great Tough Guy flicks with nice street-wise dialogue. This is no different, except, for the characters. This flick is all about its characters and that is a remarkably refreshing thing. Price apparently fell in love with 4 characters here and writes the bejesus out of them; giving them some of the best tough-guy talk and interactions that I think I have ever heard/seen.

The problem, though, is that one pivotal character - the Glory of the title (Uma Thurman) doesn't really have a place in the story. She gets left behind amidst all the tough-guy posturing and bonding.

The story is as follows: Mad Dog (Robert De Niro) is a forensics specialist for the Chicago PD. He is a real puss - the nickname is joke, get it? He aspires to be a photographer, lives alone, and is afraid to confront his neighbor's (Kathy Bates) abusive boyfriend. He's a huge softie. His best friend is his partner, a real Irish pisser played by David Caruso.

Well, one night, while buying gum, he thwarts an attempted robbery and murder of notorious gangster, Frank Milo (Bill Murray). Feeling that he is in Mad Dog's debt, Frank befriends him and brings him to his club, where he performs lousy standup, but everyone laughs because they're scared of him.

These initial scenes of De Niro and Murray trying to become friends, despite being on opposite sides of the law, are fantastic. You can see that despite their differences, they want to be friends and they really listen to one another. Their rapport is fantastic and funny - its like the scene in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles when Steve Martin and John Candy wake up in bed together, all nuzzled up against one another. They're thankful for the good sleep, but disgusted they're cuddling so closely.

Next, to further ingratiate himself to De Niro, Murray provides him with some company - Glory, for an entire week. Well, you can guess what happens; Glory and Mad Dog fall in love and Mad Dog has to test the strength of his budding friendship with vicious mobster Murray.

The love story fails, in my opinion. Glory is not a convincing character and I didn't really care about her or whether she sticks around in the end. What I cared about was Murray and De Niro's relationship, and how De Niro's pussy character sort of awakens to the tough guys around him.

Murray has a henchman in the film, Harold, who is another of the 4 great characters. His timing with some of the film's best lines in impeccable.

Caruso has a few good scenes, but one in particular stands out and, I think, might be the best example of tough-guy talk that I have ever seen. In this scene, Caruso is at a bar and sees Mad Dog's neighbor with a serious black eye - her hulking, abusive, asshole boyfriend is sitting next to her. Now, Caruso is considerably smaller than this guy, but it doesn't matter. He takes out his pistol and hands it to Mad Dog. "Hold This," he says. Then, he strolls over to the boyfriend and proceeds to intimidate, ridicule, and embarrass this guy with some of the best posturing in the history of film. It is a great scene.

Lastly, though, I want to say that this is Bill Murray's greatest performance. I know that he has given quite a few good ones recently, but here he is PERFECT. He is funny, endearing, menacing, and pathetic all at once. This was a performance that should have been recognized by an Academy that loves playing against type. Murray walks away with this film - he is great here.

"Cross me and your life becomes a raging sea." - Frank Milo

In Defense of Steven Seagal

He cannot act, okay. I get it. Guess what, neither could John Wayne. Sorry, old-timers, but John Wayne, The Duke, could not act especially well. What he could do was exude presence, milk his physicality, his 6'4 build, and become the center of whatever universe he occupied. Steve McQueen was similar in that he wasn't much of actor, just an Entity of Cool, a Black and White poster in waiting. If you've seen Bullitt, if you've seen The Getaway, then you know that he was supercool. We have our variations of this too; I think Bruce Willis is more about presence, as well as Harrison Ford. Well, Ford had fantastic timing in just about everything he did, plus, he had this way of always seeming dogged and on the verge of getting beat. People like that. At least, they do now and they did when DIe Hard was released and Indiana Jones survived the Temple of Doom.

There was, however, a brief period where Invincible Karate Stars rose from the EAST , or were taught by educators from the East, to take over our multiplexes. You remember them:

Chuck Norris
Jean-Claude Van Damme
Steve Seagall
Wesley Snipes
Ralph Macchio

Alright, so Macchio doesn't count but the other four, well, they're iconic aren't they. Sure, they've been relegated to the Direct-to-Video markets, but there was a time when they were producing awesome, action/chop-your-face flicks. Of all of them, Snipes is probably the one with the most success, and the more durable career, though he has been making lots of garbage, he is easily the most accomplished actor of the group.

But, people seem to forget what Seagall was. Seagall couldn't act at all. I mean, he had zero ability, zero ability to act anything but badass. Yea, that's right, badass. I mean, think about it; did you ever doubt for one second that Seagall would kick serious ass? Of course not. But, did you ever see him come up against someone where you doubted for one, miniscule moment that he might not win? See, the other guys fought some hard battles. Remember Van Damme in Death Warrant? He was getting his lunch handed to him by The Sandman. What about Snipes? He came up against a pretty formidable villain in PASSENGER 57 (highly nderrated actio flick).

Seagall, you ask? I don't know that he ever broke a sweat with the heavies he was dispatching. There is one scene that completely sums up Seagall: Out for Justice (1991), Seagall shakes down a bar and finds, basically, a line of goons waiting for their shot at him. You've got all the usual suspects here - The HUGE Guy, the guy who eats the Cue Ball, the Guy with Tattoos, the Slick guy with a gun, and then the weapons experts. Sometimes the weapons expert has knives or guns, but this guy uses sticks. Actually, I think they were pool cues. And he wields these sticks like a fucking olympian. Here's the kicker, though - when it is his turn to enter the ring against Seagall, guess what his name turns out to be? Guess what the other, downed fighters call him? STICKS. I shit you not. They call him Sticks. So, Sticks comes out to fight Seagall and Seagall beats the hell out of him. Like, its not a problem at all for him to destroy this guy's face. It never was a problem for Seagall and that's why I believe he was a badass. Let's take a peak:

Above The Law: Tries to be a hard-edged Cop Flick, but Seagall works everyone with ease. He even gets tortured, but to no avail
Out For Justice: His most ridiculous movie. His name is Gino in it. Okay?
Marked For Death: Pretty badass flick with a pretty badass villain. If ever you might doubt Seagall, this is it.
Under Siege: Uh huh. One of the best action films of all time.

See, he ain't so bad. In fact, I suggest right here and now that Seagall's career will be resurrected at some point, and we will all root for his fat ass.