Saw "Reign of Fire" today. We here at Hooray for Anything give the movie four "fuck yeahs." All I can say about it is, fuck yeah.

Anyways, last weekend, Road to Perdition opened up. It stars Paul Newman and Tom Hanks and was done by the same guy who did American Beauty. It's mainly gotten great reviews and my mother called to say that she thought it was a great movie, a "classic" even, and that I should see it. Do I want to see it? Nah.

Don't really know who wants to see it. The word on the street is, well, there is no word on the street. Nobody I know is talking about it. A lot of people have been talking about seeing Bourne Identity and some people are into Eight Legged Freaks or XXX, but not Road to Perdition. Me, I wanted to see some dragon butt-kicking. If my mom knew that I had no interest in seeing Road to Perdition, but was dying to see Reign of Fire she'd be flabbergasted, upset. She'd accuse me of being one of those uncultured, cretinuous mooks who ruined movies by mindleslly plunking down $9 bucks to see stupid FX movies and/or sequels as opposed to serious, great movies.

Am I?

I just have no interest in seeing Road to Perdition. No interest whatsoever. I know it's gonna be a pretty good movie and I'm sure it's really thoughtful, well-done and well acted. There's too many talented, well-intentioned people involved in the movie to not have it be that good. Which is why I don't want to see it. It just reeks of it's own nobility and self-importance, one of those movies that just screams that it's A Very Serious Movie. It's the kind of movie that once the movie starts filming, half the people who work on it are already renting formal wear for the Oscars in anticipation of their nomination. In other words, total Oscar Bait.

Those types of movies just bore me. There's nothing to them other than it being A Very Serious Movie. You know it has to be because it's got Tom Hanks in it in a dramatic role, and he only does Very Serious Movies. Which is why I don't like Tom Hanks that much. Oh, he's a great actor, and from what I hear a great guy and all, I just don't get all super-excited for any movie he's in (and does anyone get really excited for a movie starring one of the big Hollywood stars? Do people really say, "wow, I can't wait to see the next Tom Cruise movie because Tom is awesome!"?). He's your prototypical Hollywood film star- well intentioned, talented and completely vanilla. No edge, no quick, no hint of anything other than being earnest and serious and being a very serious actor.

I do love great movies, though. Really, truly do. I have seen most of the classics and can talk film auteur with anyone. I've seen most of the great Westerns, the best of Hitchcock, even a bunch of silent classics. Hell, I've studied Citizen Kane fer crissakes. Once, when I was younger and more into stuff like that, I got one of those "100 Greatest Movie" lists that come out every once in awhile and checked off all the movies that I've seen. It was more than 50% for sure, closer to around 75%. Then, for like a couple of months, I went out and purposely rented movies that were on the list but I hadn't seen. All of that I did because I considered myself cultured and wanted to get more cultured. And because I love movies. Good movies.

Maybe it's because they're old and don't remember the marketing of them, but all of the old classics- the Hitchcock flicks and Capra flicks and whatnot- never really come off as reeking in self-importance. Even when they are serious, they never came off as self-important, more like just a flick that came together really well. Even when there was a dint self-importance, like On the Waterfront or To Kill a Mockingbird, they never seemed overly self-important. I think it's the whole studio system thing, that at it's heart, they were still movies that were part of some big, huge movie factory. It's not like they were ever put together just for a trailer to go "from the director of Sunset Boulevard and the Producer of To Have and Have Not, Stewart. Kelly……"

Somewhere along the lines, probably after the '70's when film got taken more seriously, serious movies became more serious. Or maybe but more self-important. But while the great '70's flicks were self-important and way arty, they were also a little too edgy. Taxi-Driver, for instance, is a great fucking movie and there's no question Scorcese, DeNiro, et al, thought they were making serious art, but there's also a feeling that they were doing something that they thought was art, not what other people thought was art. Even The Godfather, the Daddy-Mack of movies had too many weird quirks and took too many chances to be considered kind of Oscar-baity. It's over three hours long, all of the characters are mobsters and the main character (Pacino) goes from nice and innocent to evil and cold-hearted by the end of it. Which I'm guessing would never happen in a movie like The Road to Perdition. I'm sure, because of what it is, there'll be some sort of redemption at the end, some sort of happy ending or neat conclusion.

Whatever.

So am I a mook when it comes to movie viewing? I loved Mullholland Drive. . Yeah, self-important, arty, and a bit on the masturbatory side, but definitely not geared towards members of the academy. Not to mention Naomi Watts (mmmm….Naomi Watts). Last weekend, I rented The Royal Tannenbaums. It was quirky, funky, unique, original and managed to be both very funny and very sad all at the same time. I'd rather watch The Royal Tannenbaums over and over again than The Road to Perdition. Because unlike the Hanks' flick, The Royal Tannenbaums wants nothing more than to be a cool-ass flick. And that's what makes a movie good.

Did I mention I loved Reign of Fire?