starts out kind of angry, ends up kind of tired and depressed: welcome to HOH in 2013

one of the things that drives me crazy is that i have some half-assed rant to get out regarding something topically, but by the time i get around to finishing it off, some time has passed (what else is new) and it seems almost pointless to get into the stuff at that point. but with the ongoing quest to get everything caught up by the time 2014 hits… well, fuck it, let’s live in the recent past a little. some of the points may even still be valid. which brings us to Anthony Weiner and Bob Filner.

Anthony Weiner
i am truly unsure as to what this expression is supposed to be conveying. no fucking clue at all

brief aside: i know that’s a particularly unflattering picture, but damn, who is voting for THAT to hold office?

anyway, so i think we all know the brief background here: Weiner was bounced from office for a sexting scandal, decided that the world NEEDED his services and tried to get back into the game by running for mayor of New York, and then saw that campaign derailed (and that’s putting it nicely) by ANOTHER sexting scandal that came out of nowhere. we’re just going to skip over the morality/issues of the whole sexting mess, because there was/is really just three points i wanted to touch on here.

01. maybe i just accidentally watched Primary Colors too recently or something, but isn’t the whole thing we learned during the 1990s that if you’re a politician who MIGHT have a colorful personal history that could torpedo your political ambitions, then you should have someone basically investigate you to see if you can even make this whole thing work? because with the speed and force this scandal came out, you’d HAVE to think someone on the team could have deduced and pointed out that it might kill the whole mess before it got started.

02. problem #01 with society this points out: voters who will overlook nonsense in order to allow a politician into office because they like them. now, i am not trying to pick on Democrats or New Yorkers or any other demographic that missed having Weiner in politics, really. EVERY possible group out there has some politician that they’re giving a bullshit pass to. but you know, if you DIDN’T like Weiner, you’d find the sexting unsavory. you’d find the deceitfulness (if you don’t want to call it lying) in and of itself to be a reason to say “you know, this guy shouldn’t hold elected office.” i don’t know, maybe i find that i personally spend a fair amount of time demanding the people that represent my party affiliation, my issues, my side, or whatever else NOT be as reprehensible as possible (set to choruses of people responding “why do you have to attack the guys on our side”), so i somehow expect people in opposition to me to do the same so we can create, i don’t know, a better government or society or some shit like that. i am not actually sure why i think this.

03. problem #02 with society this points out: assholes who think their presence on the politic scene is SO VALUABLE that this kind of stuff doesn’t matter. and for that matter, i guess there’s a problem #03 that goes hand-in-hand with that: assholes who don’t understand that this calls their judgment into question regardless of the legality/morality of their conduct. look, Weiner might have some issues once which his stands are important to many voters. great… but you can’t work for them OUTSIDE of elected office? you can’t back and assist a non-tainted politician who agrees with you on these issues? because of course he could, but instead, reflects that we need not someone working on these issues, but rather, someone who needs HIM. frankly, an asshole with this state of mine replacing Michael Bloomberg is entirely appropriate, because his “two terms are only for mayors who AREN’T me” policy puts him in this same category, with the caveat that Bloomberg at least keeps his personal life under control.

Bob Filner
Filner is apparently groping this woman in this picture; judging by that expression, that seems accurate

and Bob Filner is no better, as he proceeded to sexually harass about 18 women or so (irony that this is being done by a Democrat, who has presumably argued that he and his party are the side that cares about women, is noted), bailed on his therapy earlier than he probably should have, and then passed the blame to the city not ever making him take harassment training for the purposes of making sure taxpayers would have to eat the cost of any civil suits resulting from his behavior before FINALLY resigning. now again, could someone not have worked for the same things Filner did? could an orderly and respectful resignation ALSO helped mitigate possible civil suits while showing he wasn’t a complete asshole who, let’s be frank, probably DID do what he was accused of? well, yeah… but then HE wouldn’t have been in office. and how would we get by without Filner?

you know, i do find all this annoying, infuriating, disgusting, and so on. part of what originally fueled this update was that you’ve got two politicians who rose quite high and who are supposedly progressive gents (because, to be honest, don’t we expect this kind of behavior to be coming out of some conservative senator’s office or something?) acting this way in 2013, and how the FUCK does that happen? but maybe it’s the delay in getting this done… but fuck it, i suppose we get the government we deserve. i cannot believe that this is the first time these guys have acted this way. actually, i don’t know that we get the government we deserve, because i ultimately think we don’t deserve guys like Weiner and Filner making policy or laws or anything else. but i don’t see how it’s going to get better in the future. that’s what hurts.

somehow, this update got VERY genital-themed. accordingly, i regret making it a “new gun” update

alright, in order to compensate for that ridiculous Swayze mess that took up so much time last time, i think we all know what we have to do here: quickly make fun of some things we saw in the news at some point and keep it moving. i mean, i don’t want to be too excited about it, i don’t want to be dismissive… hey, it is what it is. and i am pretty sure we’ve done THIS kind of introduction before. so… here we go!

Christie Dawn Harris
here in Oklahoma, we keep it 100% classy

Christie Dawn Harris, woman arrested with loaded gun in vagina, sentenced to 25 years

so i understand that i am appealing to the lowest common denominator by running with a story like THAT, but there are two things from the title alone that make me LOVE this story:

#01. the way it’s worded, doesn’t it make it seem like the specific reason she got 25 years was that she put a gun in her vagina? as if the state of Oklahoma was saying, “yeah, the meth and illegal gun possession are bad things, but wait, you put the gun IN YOUR VAGINA?! well, miss, you’re never getting out of prison again. THUS SAYETH OKLAHOMA.”

#02. the fact that this phrase –“woman arrested with loaded gun in vagina”– will be how Christie Dawn Harris will be known for the rest of her life, barring, of course, her becoming president or winning the Nobel Peace Prize or something on that level. people that don’t know her and would NEVER know her will know she’s “that woman who was arrested with a loaded gun in her vagina.” people who DO know her for many reasons will probably still think of her as “that woman who was arrested with a loaded gun in her vagina.” and this is funny to me. it sort of reminds me of this long-ago Denis Leary bit that i am 99% sure he didn’t steal from Bill Hicks about people remembered for something absurd (specifically in his case, being killed by a poodle falling from an apartment building onto someone’s head).

“An American woman found to be hiding a loaded gun in her vagina and a bag of crystal meth in her buttocks when she was arrested, has been sentenced to 25 years in prison.”

also, i may have forgotten to mention that this article is from the UK version of the Huffinton Post for some reason. as in, i don’t know why i got it from the Huffington Post and i don’t know why it came from the UK version. see, this is what happens when you don’t get these updates out the door IMMEDIATELY.

“Police detained Christie Dawn Harris, 28, after a sweep of her car yielded crystal meth, drug paraphernalia, a pistol and some ammo. After being taken to the local jail a police sniffer dog indicated she needed to be searched further. After initially refusing – pleading she was on her period – Harris was eventually cavity searched revealing the previously undetected items, the gun’s handle reportedly protruding from between her thighs. The weapon inside her vagina was a .22-caliber revolver loaded with three live rounds and one spent shell.”

okay, questions:

#01. what was the point of not giving up the gun? she’s already busted for gun possession if ANOTHER gun was found in the car. i can’t imagine that a tiny pistol is the handiest weapon to have in prison (although i guess you COULD sell it or use it, so it’s not worthless). i guess it just seems to me that what’s most likely is you get caught with it at some point and eat more charges, and this time, ones that are ever HARDER to dodge.

#02. one spent shell? you mean you’ve got the foresight to keep a handgun in your snatch for emergencies, but NOT to make sure its skimpy 4-shot capacity is fully ready for action? or was it tucked up there AFTER use? because if the latter is true… well, now i REALLY don’t want to get into a fight with this Christie Dawn Harris character.

also, always with the women and using their time of the month as a proverbial get-out-of-jail-free card, am i right?

“Harris pleaded guilty last month to possession of drugs with intent to supply, possession of a gun and bringing contraband into jail. She was also ordered to pay $1,300 in fines, reports The Smoking Gun.”

i’ve never understood the point of fines in situations like this. i mean, okay, i understand the POINT of the fines. but is some meth-smoking woman with a handgun jammed into her twat likely to be the kind of woman who can pay a $1300 fine, especially in light of her recent plea to drug, gun and smuggling charges? i mean, you’re never going to see that money, so the fines just seem MEAN, if you ask me.

“When the news of her original arrest was broadcast WGN-TV anchor Robin Baumgarten wept with laughter (see video below) as she delivered the news, exclaiming “What?!” Her co-anchor Larry Postash added: “The old caboose pistol; everybody has one.””

good work, Robin and Larry, because that is the EXACT proper way to respond to a story like this one. seriously. who the fuck keeps a straight face when talking about a woman with a heater tucked away (well, MOSTLY tucked away) in her most private of areas? exactly.

Snake in toilet illustration
note: the below article LITERALLY captioned this picture with “Snake in toilet illustration”; i find this unspeakably lame

man’s penis bitten by snake while relieving himself in toilet

well, i mean, if this week’s theme is “awkward things happening that involve people’s genitals…”

anyway, so to start, i think this story has throw guys for a loop, because it seems like either you have to go with something lame like “snake bites man’s ‘snake’ on the toilet” (really? man’s “snake?”) or else something that seems redundant like the above “Haifa man’s penis bitten by snake while relieving himself in toilet.” was i supposed to assume he might have been doing something ELSE in the toilet?

“A man was rushed to a hospital after a snake bit his penis while he was relieving himself in a toilet, according to hospital officials in Israel.”

which i suppose DOES raise the question of, hey, how exactly was he relieving himself that he didn’t see the snake AND the snake was close enough to bite his penis? because it certainly sounds like there’s some jokes to be made about men sitting down to urinate…

“The man, 35, of northern Israel was bitten on Friday after the snake suddenly appeared from inside the toilet. The man suffered minor injuries.”

again, a little redundant: isn’t it obvious that the snake “suddenly appeared?” i mean… would this man have started urinating into a toilet and onto a snake if it was just chilling there in blatant view? i will give this guy a little credit and assume otherwise.

“Magen David Adom rescue workers responded to the scene and took the man to Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, where he received medical treatment. An examination revealed that the snake was not poisonous. The man told emergency workers that this all happened after he went to the bathroom to relieve himself and suddenly felt a strong burning sensation in his penis.”

not going to make an STD joke, not going to make an STD joke, not going to make an STD joke…

“One of the paramedics said the man told him that he has seen the snake and the snake was very small. According to the paramedic, despite the location of the injury, the man managed to stay calm and even had a laugh with workers at his own expense.”

so i guess i understand WHY you’d tell him, “relax, man, it was a small snake,” but when the snake’s just taken a bite out of your genitals, i don’t imagine you feel much better knowing it was a SMALL snake. like, if a catfish swims up into your penis and attaches itself with with barbs, you don’t feel better because the doctor goes, “well, i’m going to have to open your penis to remove the fish, but relax, it’s a SMALL catfish with SMALL barbs,” right?

“”This is the first time I’ve seen a snake bite like this,” the paramedic said. “Luckily, all tests seem fine and the man is feeling well,” the paramedic added.”

also, i know paramedics, like cops, have usually seen a lot in their time, but let’s be honest: shouldn’t any time a paramedic sees a man who’s been bitten in the dick by a snake be the first time? don’t the odds pretty much dictate no paramedic will see this injury twice? and also, if that’s NOT true, then remind me to move the fuck away from wherever the paramedics live where they see this kind of thing all the time. goddamn.

also, and let’s all be adults and not draw a connection between genitals and this…

AR-180 meets M76 in

feel free to fire up “My Little ArmaLite” to celebrate the AR-180. or… wait, i don’t have a sassy Finnish song to celebrate the Valmet.

so what’s been happening in the great state of MD is that due to the intense wait times (i think we recall an 11-week wait for a stripped lower), FFLs have started releasing early (as in, before MD returns their “not disapproved” background check) based on criteria determined by the dealer. so it just so happens that i was able to meet two different FFLs demands in the same damn week. and if it makes anyone feel better, that was 100+ days for the AR-180 and maybe 20-30 less for the Valmet. go Maryland! not really sure what’s going on with the Valmet’s stock having that bonus pad, but this is what happens when you’re trying to meet a lot of goals by a deadline.

“lyrics will use the phrase “…and I’m Swayze,” meaning that the speaker has become “like a ghost”…”

now, around these parts our unabashed fandom of Patrick Swayze is pretty well-known; while i am not going to argue that he qualifies as the acting superior of, say, Robert De Niro (my default choice for America’s Greatest Actor), i will go to bat as a general rule for his filmography. to be specific, i believe the exact phrase i used regarding this in the conversation that has spawned this update concept was, “i can say i will always stop what i am doing to watch something from Swayze’s filmography, with absolutely no regrets. well, except for that one movie that was nothing but regrets.” granted, i immediately undermined this bold statement by cracking wise about some specific films, but it DID make me wonder exactly how accurate my hyperbole was.

so basically, what i figured i’d do is run through Swayze’s films and see a) if i have actually seen all this stuff, which is unlikely when you consider some of the material, but more likely when you consider i say things like, “well, i have seen that episode of M*A*S*H Swayze guest-starred in about 13 times,” and b) maybe, you know, crack wise about some of them. i am, however, going to eliminate television shows, television movies, voice work and cameos from this list. now let us adventure through the past of Swayze!

and yes, this is the second time in four years i’ve made a list of Swayze things. what the hell? only i think last time i ranked a performance I HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN, so you tell me what the hell was going on there. anyway, let’s move on.

HERE BEGINS JANKLOW’S ADVENTURE THROUGH PATRICK SWAYZE’S FILMOGRAPHY

Patrick Swayze in... Red Dawn
yeah, i’m reusing this image because, quite frankly, have you ever seen a better one of Swayze? i rest my case

Skatetown, U.S.A. (1979); Swayze’s role: Ace Johnson
has janklow seen this? not at all. it seems to have a lot to do with competitive roller-skating (i guess this was popular in the 1970s, because the only films i can really recall having a significant amount of roller-skating going on were ATL and Rollerball), so i am not exactly chomping at the bit to do so. i guess that makes me 0 of 1 for his filmography so far.
janklow’s opinion: well, i haven’t seen it. but the internet DOES tell me that Swayze “roller skated competitively as a teenager,” which is pretty excellent in that ridiculous way that it turns out that Kris Kristofferson has done EVERYTHING in life.
regrets? none! can’t regret seeing a terrible movie i never saw! 1 for 1!

Uncommon Valor (1983); Swayze’s role: Kevin Scott
has janklow seen this? so as i have seen a lot of Vietnam War films, i really, really thought i had seen it. but upon reading the synopsis, it really seems like i haven’t and maybe am just fantasizing some fictional movie where Swayze cuts a swath of vengeance through a plot that’s cobbled together from Missing In Action II and Rambo II. this is a movie that i would watch if it was real, obviously. anyway, 0 of 2.
janklow’s opinion: it cannot be any worse than Missing In Action II, which i have seen at LEAST twice. so it has to be worth viewing at least once. consider this one added to my queue.
regrets? well, Ebert gave this movie a thumbs down, so it probably sucks. still, you can’t regret seeing a movie you’ve never seen. 2 for 2!

The Outsiders (1983); Swayze’s role: Darrel “Darry” Curtis
has janklow seen this? i recall watching this film back in my grade school days because we’d read the book (ugh) and it was one of those “let’s view the film adaptation and Have Opinions about the differences between the two” kind of events. so we’re finally on the board at 1 of 3 Swayze films actually viewed.
janklow’s opinion: so, to be totally fair, i hate the book the Outsiders and i hate that someone’s named Ponyboy in it, and all in all, i didn’t like this movie, although it has a white-hot cast for this time period and i don’t think my hatred of the film has anything to do with Swayze (although i cannot say the same for that “Ralph Macchio” character). and i think it’s cool he worked with C. Thomas Howell in a film before… well, we’ll come back to that.
regrets? not really: i don’t like the source material, but people seem to legitimately like this movie, and i can’t say it was terrible, more that it wasn’t for me. so no regrets! 3 for 3!

Red Dawn (1984); Swayze’s role: Jed Eckert
has janklow seen this? OF FUCKING COURSE. seriously, i used to religiously watch this movie all the time when i was a kid, which is weird because a) i always remember it coming on around Easter time despite the fact that b) back in the 1980s, this was THE most violent film (in terms of that whole “acts of violence per minute” concept) out there. this might explain a lot about my upbringing. 2 of 4!
janklow’s opinion: i love Red Dawn to death. once again, we’ve got a white-hot cast for this time period, plus America’s hero Powers Boothe (i mean, he DOES have a great name) and the plot alone (alternate 1980s where the USSR invades the US and gets fought by a band of teenage guerrillas known as the Wolverines) is priceless. PRICELESS. yeah, it’s not a perfect film, but it’s about as fun as a 1980s movie gets.
regrets? i am going to say no because i ADORE this movie… but i do sort of regret the fact that some money-hungry executives allowed someone to make a shitty, soulless remake of this film. still, that doesn’t count against the original film. 4 for 4!

Patrick Swayze in... Steel Dawn
i think my brother-in-law actually watched this movie on purpose recently. may god have mercy on his soul

Grandview, U.S.A. (1984); Swayze’s role: Ernie “Slam” Webster
has janklow seen this? nope, and based on the long-winded plot summary on Wikipedia, i do not think that i am missing very much in this regard. 2 of 5.
janklow’s opinion: is it weird to anyone else that Swayze has TWO films whose titles end in “U.S.A” only five years into his career? because i find that weird. anyway, this film sounds completely nuts (to quote the aforementioned Wikipedia article, there is a scene that can be described as “Later that night, Candy and Donny are having sex in Slam’s house when, suddenly, Slam appears on a bulldozer and knocks the walls down. The cops arrest Slam.”), but not in a good way.
regrets? well, it’s the movie for which Swayze wrote the song “She’s Like the Wind,” but since they didn’t lose it, i have no regrets in that regard. and if it was all Swayze smashing shit with bulldozers? it would be Regret Central… but it’s not. 5 for 5!

Youngblood (1986); Swayze’s role: Derek Sutton
has janklow seen this? apparently not. i was sort of hoping that it was some kind of crazy 1980s vampire movie (as there can NEVER be enough of those), but it’s just some hockey drama that’s more of a Rob Lowe vehicle than anything. or at least that’s the impression i get. 2 of 6. boy, it really seems like i am slacking on my Swayze viewing.
janklow’s opinion: well, i have known dudes who love hockey movies and none of them have suggested i watch this; apparently Swayze did not sweeten that pot for them. and it appears to end up with an incredible improbable hockey fight AND Swayze gets seriously injured by someone Rob Lowe beats up at the end of the movie, so i think it’s safe to say that if i HAD seen this movie, i would probably have vomited into a bag during it.
regrets? in keeping with our policy of dodging trash, no regrets. 6 for 6!

Dirty Dancing (1987); Swayze’s role: Johnny Castle (for which he was nominated for a Golden Globe)
has janklow seen this? i have, of course, seen Dirty Dancing, if for no other reason than i was a kid in the 1980s and my mother and sister essentially forced me to watch it by default. also, did you know Swayze is excellent? because he is the best thing going in this film. 3 of 7.
janklow’s opinion: well, it definitely seems like a movie pitched to the ladies; it’s a coming-of-age story about a female teenage, for crying out loud. but between Swayze and Jerry Orbach declaring that “nobody puts Baby in a corner” (a popular phrase i think i still don’t understand) and the movie’s overall ridiculousness, it’s just kind of fun. that’s right, i support everyone watching Dirty Dancing. although i want to say for the record that i don’t see what’s so great about the actual dancing in this movie.
regrets? the closest thing i have to a regret is not realize for YEARS that “She’s Like the Wind” was written and performed by Swayze. shame on me! anyway, it’s not like that goddamn Seven Brides For Seven Brothers movie. no regrets! 7 for 7!

Steel Dawn (1987); Swayze’s role: Nomad
has janklow seen this? unfortunately, i have. this is, to ruin the suspense, “that one movie that was nothing but regrets.” 4 of 8.
janklow’s opinion: honestly, as ridiculous as this makes me sound, i think this is a good idea for a film: a nomadic swordsman wanders through a post-apocalyptic world (let’s assume it’s America), sort of looking for some guy that killed his mentor, with no one really clarifying the apocalypse or what happened after it, and everyone with edged weapons because no one has guns. then he ends up defending a town against a local dude that wants its water. however, despite the presence of Brion James, this film is an absolute mess: no good action, no good dialogue, awkward chemistry between Swayze AND HIS REAL-LIFE WIFE, lame villains. honestly, i think people consider this to be a rip-off of the Road Warrior and thus doomed to suck, but i think it could have been saved! of course, i also think that about the Godfather, Part III.
regrets? nothing but regrets. 7 for 8. but this was the permissible exception!

Patrick Swayze in... Road House
still the gold standard for bouncer movies, guys; i don’t think we’re ever going to top it

Tiger Warsaw (1988); Swayze’s role: Chuck “Tiger” Warsaw (shocking)
has janklow seen this? no, i have not, despite the fact that it’s nestled in between his great 1980s phase. 4 of 9.
janklow’s opinion: well, this film has an incredibly vacant Wikipedia entry –literally, the contents are “Chuck “Tiger” Warsaw (Swayze) brought sorrow to his family fifteen years earlier when he shot his father Michael (Lee Richardson) and made him a semi-invalid. After fifteen years of self-destruction, Tiger returns home to the steel production community of Sharon to seek forgiveness”– so it’s hard to say if i’m missing something or not, but let’s just assume that this was an entirely forgettable venture.
regrets? it seems unlikely that i should have any. 8 for 9!

Next Of Kin (1989); Swayze’s role: Truman Gates
has janklow seen this? you know, it sort of feels like i have, because this weird plot of “Swayze as a Kentucky-born Chicago cop who gets into an inadvertent blood feud with the Mafia and probably wins, and Liam Neeson is there, and Adam Baldwin is there” sounds familiar. but i am going to be honest: i probably have not seen it, or i would assuredly have strong opinions about it, and i don’t. 4 of 10.
janklow’s opinion: well, Swayze got nominated for a Razzie in 1989; as he also had Road House released in 1989, and since that can’t be what he got nominated for a Razzie for, he must have been deemed to have done poor work in Next Of Kin by the precursors to today’s internet nerds. still, this film features Ben Stiller being tortured to death, and between that and the above synopsis, it’s very hard for me to believe this film is THAT bad.
regrets? well, as we’ve said, you can’t regret seeing a movie you haven’t seen. but i am THIS CLOSE to feeling bad about not seeing it. still, 9 of 10!

Road House (1989); Swayze’s role: James Dalton
has janklow seen this? well, not to be redundant, but OF FUCKING COURSE. in fact, i am pretty sure that a long time ago, i did a house of hate update that covered this. 5 of 11.
janklow’s opinion: if i am being honest, Road House is pretty much the definition of a movie that’s entirely fun to watch and where, clearly, the cast (Swayze, Sam Elliott, Ben Gazzara) is just having a great time with the ridiculousness of it all, but which we cannot (with a straight face, anyway) call a GOOD movie. that said, as a half-assed film snob, i would absolutely watch Road House before a lot of GOOD movies. but i am known to be crazy like that. and i do love me some Road House. my colleague J.Millz pointed out that all door staff in America know and love this film, but i think it’s great for everyone, what with the crazy fights and ridiculous one-liners and all.
regrets? NOT A ONE. it’s goddamn ROAD HOUSE, after all. pain don’t hurt! 10 of 11!

Ghost (1990); Swayze’s role: Sam Wheat (for which he was nominated for a Golden Globe for a second time, presumably because Ghost makes ladies as wet as October)
has janklow seen this? well, like i said about Dirty Dancing, i have “if for no other reason than i was a kid in the 1980s and my mother and sister essentially forced me to watch it by default.” 6 of 12. hey, we’re getting back to a respectable percentage of Swayze films seen!
janklow’s opinion: so … you know Ghost is not really a movie meant for my demographic (which would be “cool dudes”) and that’s probably going to seal the deal right there, but to be frank, i still think it sucks as a movie. fine, fine, he loves Demi Moore, wow. but while the supernatural aspects are okay in sort of a nuts-and-bolts way, the thriller stuff just seems lame to me. it’s like a more romantic version of Darkman up in here.
regrets? on the one hand, no, because this is the movie that gave us the title of this update. but to be honest, this is a balance between “it’s very well-known and i can say i have seen it and rate it honestly” and “i don’t fucking like Ghost.” let’s give me a break and say “no real regrets, no matter how convenient that is.” 11 of 12.

Patrick Swayze in... Point Break
i hear they’re going to remake this movie without any surfing in it, to which i can only say, what the hell, man

Point Break (1991); Swayze’s role: Bodhi (for which he was nominated for some damn MTV Movie Award for “more desirable male,” as if he needs an award to prove THAT)
has janklow seen this? yes. and i have actually watched it while sitting on my deck cleaning assault weapons, if you wanted me to hit some crazy “redneck ridiculousness” points regarding Point Break. 7 of 13! a majority!
janklow’s opinion: remember what i said about Road House? “pretty much the definition of a movie that’s entirely fun to watch … but which we cannot (with a straight face, anyway) call a GOOD movie?” that definitely applies here as well. i will weirdly argue that it’s not as good as Road House: Swayze as a leading man is superior to Reeves as a leading man, and i do not even say this to mock Keanu; and Road House, thanks to its setting, is somehow a more realistic scenario for a film. but all that being said, Point Break is still pretty cool. and there’s few Keanu moments as funny as the “rage-shooting into the air.”
regrets? nope, Point Break is terrible, terrible fun. 12 of 13.

City Of Joy (1992); Swayze’s role: Max Lowe
has janklow seen this? yeah… no. sorry about that. 7 of 14. so much for that majority.
janklow’s opinion: well, it sounds fucking TERRIBLE: basically, Swayze is a “disillusioned Texas doctor” who moves to Calcutta and, through a series of events (aren’t they all), becomes very emotionally invested in this slum neighborhood called the City of Joy. that being said, it was directed by Roland Joffé, who has a legitimate filmography (i really do dig the Mission), so it’s probably more serious and boring than anything else. i guess what i am saying is that my opinion is not likely to get any better based on an actual viewing of this film.
regrets? nope, as i have not seen it. 13 of 14.

Father Hood (1993); Swayze’s role: Jack Charles
has janklow seen this? actually, i have, and this might be the last one before we enter a dry spell of Swayze films that i have not seen for reasons of all sorts. anyway, it was the early 1990s and so we’ll blame my mother/sister for making me watch this. 8 of 15.
janklow’s opinion: you can probably guess the drill: Swayze’s a career criminal who, when burdened by the appearance of his kids, first seeks to ditch them and commit crimes (some kind of heist or robbery or whatever), but ultimately goes straight (and probably stops all the crime) because of Love For His Kids. you know, the love that didn’t exist for the years and years they were growing up while he was out committing crimes? then again, i recall Halle Berry being the love interest of sorts in this film, and we’re talking prime early 1990s Halle Berry, so maybe that explains his decision to go straight.
regrets? alright, i waffled last time, so i’ll make up for it here: yes, regrets exist. it’s not a FUN movie. it’s not a GOOD movie. it’s just a stupid fucking family comedy that i cannot remember a single positive thing about beyond Swayze’s glowing smile. full-on fucking regrets, and there goes my contention. 13 of 15.

Tall Tale: The Unbelievable Adventures Of Pecos Bill (1995); Swayze’s role: Pecos Bill
has janklow seen this? a crazy Disney movie involving folk heroes sort of being real? i think i would remember it if i had. actually, in fairness, i think i DO remember some ads/trailers for this movie that featured Swayze, but i cannot in good conscience say i actually remember seeing the movie itself. 8 of 16.
janklow’s opinion: seriously, it sounds entirely berserk: a daydreaming child (fittingly enough, played by Nick Stahl, who specializes in being in crazy movies) goes on to, “through a series of incredible adventures, [meet up] with the legends that his father has spoken about – cowboy Pecos Bill (Patrick Swayze), lumberjack Paul Bunyan (Oliver Platt), and ex-slave and strongman John Henry (Roger Aaron Brown),” and then have them help him fight a land developer. but not so berserk that it would actually motivate me to watch it of my own accord.
regrets? haven’t seen it, so no regrets to be had. 14 of 16.

Patrick Swayze in... Black Dog
are these two guys bad enough dudes to rescue the president? it sure looks like it

Three Wishes (1995); Swayze’s role: Jack McCloud
has janklow seen this? god no. one prays that will never change. 8 of 17.
janklow’s opinion: it sounds TERRIBLE. TERRIBLE. reaching new lows terrible. Swayze is a magical drifter who bonds with a single mother’s child over motherfucking baseball and, i presume, from there works his way into the family dynamic. yes, that is correct, he is literally a drifter and, i think, is introduced to the family when the mother hits him with her car. this sounds like a textbook script for a TERRIBLE romantic comedy to be played on the Hallmark channel and make me convinced there’s no purpose to humanity’s continued existence.
regrets? again, i haven’t seen it, so there are no possible regrets. 15 of 17.

To Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything! Julie Newmar (1995); Swayze’s role: Vida Boheme (for which he received his third Golden Globe nomination; no luck on winning any of them, though)
has janklow seen this? no, and to be honest, it’s probably not anywhere near as bad as i imagine. still, i am not about to risk it. 8 of 18.
janklow’s opinion: i think we all know what the scheme here was: cast three macho actors (well, Swayze and Snipes clearly qualify; Leguizamo is not quite the same level, but is clearly a macho guy playing against type) as drag queens and collect dollars and awards from the results. i don’t think they QUITE got the results they wanted (i guess it was at least profitable), but i suppose they garnered some level of satisfaction from freaking out the squares. well… good for them.
regrets? no; i think this is the kind of movie i would end up being annoyed with even if it was awesome through and through. 16 of 18.

Letters From A Killer (1998); Swayze’s role: Race Darnell
has janklow seen this? no; like i said, we’re entering a phase where i admittedly have not seen a lot of his work. 8 of 19.
janklow’s opinion: the plot (“a man who is falsely convicted of the murder of his wife … during his time in jail, he finds comfort from four women with whom he corresponds … he is finally freed from prison only to be framed for yet two more murders which he did not commit”) sounds pretty ho-hum, so we’re probably talking about something that is either forgettable in every way, or is elevated by Swayze’s performance (as there isn’t much else of a cast involved here). and as much as i enjoy Swayze’s work, he’s not THAT phenomenal of an actor, so i suppose we should be realistic and take a dim view of this film. that being said, “Race Darnell” is a pretty excellent name for a character, so i did miss out on THAT.
regrets? “haven’t seen it, so no regrets to be had.” 17 of 19.

Black Dog (1998); Swayze’s role: Jack Crews
has janklow seen this? unfortunately, no. 8 of 20.
janklow’s opinion: seriously, the plot is Swayze as a truck driver with a checkered past hauling a load of illegal guns which are trying to be captured by criminals who feel cheated (and are led by fucking MEAT LOAF) and the FBI/ATF/whoever, who back in 1998 were less about allowing illegal guns to be smuggled all over the place. ZING! oh, and Randy Travis is his sidekick and there’s a pit bull named Tiny riding in the truck with them. it all sounds gloriously insane, much in the vein of Point Break’s 100% realism, and thus i actually feel like this is one of the few Swayze movies that i have not seen that i really, really should. first Next Of Kin, then Black Dog.
regrets? strictly speaking, i do not have regrets under the terms we have laid out for such regrets. 18 of 20.

Patrick Swayze in... Donnie Darko
this role always leaves me torn between “such a good performance” and “HOW COULD THEY DO THAT TO SWAYZE”

Forever Lulu (2000); Swayze’s role: Ben Clifton
has janklow seen this? as a general rule, a movie named Forever Lulu is never going to be one that i will watch. 8 of 21.
janklow’s opinion: an ignoble start to the 2000s, this movie is apparently so lame that it doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page. i am sure you can work this joke out in any manner you see fit to, but whatever the worst, most terribly lame movie you can think of is, i bet you that it has a Wikipedia page. unless, of course, the turbo-lame work of film you were thinking of was Forever Lulu, in which case, you’ve won at the internet! look, my go-to film for “the worst fucking film i have ever, ever seen” is Glitter, and Glitter has a goddamn Wikipedia page. this might indicate something is wrong with the world, or that Forever Lulu is really, really bad.
regrets? “haven’t seen it, so no regrets to be had.” 19 of 21.

Donnie Darko (2001); Swayze’s role: Jim Cunningham
has janklow seen this? of course, as it was once very popular with nerds on the internet, and internet nerds are my kind of people. 9 of 22.
janklow’s opinion: i really, really enjoyed this film when it came out, although it’s probably not aged that well (it’s been a little while since i have seen it), it’s more fashionable to bash it than love it, Richard Kelly didn’t seem to capitalize on his success her, and the director’s cut idea seemed ill-advised. but that all being said, it still Swayze’s got a plum supporting role as a motivational speaker inadvertently busted for possessing child pornography, and he really does nail it. so even if you DO find the film more bad than good, you’ve still got his work to look forward to. plus, it’s got a phenomenal soundtrack no matter HOW you slice it.
regrets? no, i still stand by Donnie Darko at this point in time. maybe i should watch it again? 20 of 22.

Green Dragon (2001); Swayze’s role: Gunnery Sergeant Jim Lance
has janklow seen this? sadly, no. 9 of 23.
janklow’s opinion: well, it’s not exactly a Vietnam War film as much as it is an “immediate aftermath of the Vietnam War” film, so my failing to have viewed this film is less extreme. and Swayze/Forest Whitaker is a solid tandem to headline a film, to be fair. but considering that the internet claims “initially, Bui did not want Patrick Swayze for the role of Jim Lance due to fears that his big name would overshadow the story and message of the small film,” my reaction is, “i bet this is one of those films that the writer/director thinks is REALLY good and REALLY important and will just leave me thinking “eh.” this might, of course, be unfair.
regrets? still having no regrets over films i have failed to watch. 21 of 23!

Waking Up in Reno (2002); Swayze’s role: Roy Kirkendall
has janklow seen this? an advertisement calls it a “swinging feel-good comedy?” yeah, absolutely not. 9 of 24.
janklow’s opinion: first off, i don’t understand what “comedy drama” means: dramas can have jokes, you know, and comedies moments of seriousness. so frankly, the fact that someone’s trying to claim something’s a “comedy drama” turns me off completely. also, the plot? well… it “focuses on two redneck couples taking a road trip from Little Rock to Reno to see a monster truck rally.” so that’s strikes two through about one thousand. also, is it just mean, or does the name “Roy Kirkendall” sound like one of those “oh, man, this is such a funny COMEDY NAME” name? also, the cover is fucking APPALLING to look at.
regrets? …still having no regrets over films i have failed to watch. 22 of 24!

Patrick Swayze in... Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights
at least, i am assuming this is Swayze in that movie, because i didn’t actually watch it

One Last Dance (2003); Swayze’s role: Travis MacPhearson
has janklow seen this? it’s a dance movie and i don’t want any part of that. 9 of 25.
janklow’s opinion: to be fair, this is really a project for Swayze’s wife, which he DID probably owe her after that whole Steel Dawn fiasco we talked about above. it’s basically a movie she directed and wrote that revolves around her and Swayze showing off their dance movies. now, to be honest, that’s probably a much better plan than saying, “hey, honey, what do you say we start in a weird sword adventure through a post-apocalyptic wasteland?” since, if nothing else, we know they actually CAN dance. but in the end, i will always give weird sword adventures through post-apocalyptic wastelands 100 more chances than even the best dance movies. that’s just how i roll.
regrets? yes, well, you know my position. 23 of 25.

11:14 (2003); Swayze’s role: Frank
has janklow seen this? i am really getting disappointed in myself for how few of these i have seen. 9 of 26.
janklow’s opinion: okay, so, Wikipedia tells us that this movie “involves a series of interconnected events that converge up to the same time at 11:14 p.m. The connections between the events are not apparent at first, but are gradually revealed by a series of progressively receding flashbacks” … which means it’s 99% likely to be one of those films where the idea is SO novel and SO cool that we spend most of our time and energy on that, and that tends to not leave a lot left over for the performances. then again, it DOES involve someone’s penis getting cut off by a window somehow. that has to count for something.
regrets? yet ANOTHER Swayze film that i have not seen. 24 of 26!

Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights (2004); Swayze’s role: Dance class instructor
has janklow seen this? no, no, no, and we’re down to 33% of these. 9 of 27.
janklow’s opinion: so i guess this is a weird scenario where someone said, “hey, let’s remake Dirty Dancing, and set it during the Cuban Revolution for some reason!” okay, granted, the Cubans are known to love to dance, or so they tell me, so i guess there’s that factor involved… but still. anyway, Swayze shows up in here in an homage to the original as a throwaway dance instructor role or something. so that’s cute, but is it really a reason to watch this movie? well, i suppose that depends on how obsessive your Swayze fandom is.
regrets? well, i haven’t seen this one either. 25 of 27.

Keeping Mum (2005); Swayze’s role: Lance
has janklow seen this? (hangs head in shame). 9 of 28.
janklow’s opinion: oh, a comedy with Rowan Atkinson in it? yeah, i’m out. i mean, okay, i know the guy has/had his fans and so i suppose, if any of those fans are still living and employed, that’s who’s being targeted here, but that’s not a demographic i’m part of. i mean, come on, it’s not a Swayze movie, it’s a Rowan Atkinson movie that happens to employ Swayze. i appreciate the effort, but it’s not going to get me to watch some random lame comedy, you know?
regrets? running out of ways to put this… 26 of 28.

Patrick Swayze in... Powder Blue
so i think we can all see what i mean about “trying too hard”

Jump! (2007); Swayze’s role: Richard Pressburger
has janklow seen this? (continues hanging head in shame). 9 of 29.
janklow’s opinion: so this is around the time Swayze’s sick, and i have to think that, since we’re sort of entering the tail end of his career regardless and the TV movies have been especially thick as of late (hence the more sparse nature of these later films), he wanted to do something a little more serious here, which this vaguely seems to be. that said… i don’t really think it can have been that good. more like a sincere attempt to be serious, is all, you know? anyway, i didn’t want it and i don’t plan to and here we are.
regrets? well… 27 of 29.

Powder Blue (2009); Swayze’s role: Velvet Larry
has janklow seen this? well, let’s close with failure: 9 of 30. what a catastrophe this scoring turned out to be!
janklow’s opinion: if you look at the list of people in this film (Swayze, Jessica Biel, Kris Kristofferson, Ray Liotta, Forest Whitaker) and then you look at the roles they’re playing (sleazy owner of a strip club, dancer and single mother, head of a corporate crime organization, former crime employee, suicidal ex-priest), it seems pretty clear to me that maybe we’re all just trying a BIT too hard here. let’s just go ahead and say “well…” and walk away from this whole mess right now, what do you say?
regrets? same deal. 28 of 30.

so in conclusion, i was wrong: i didn’t have just one regret, i had two. but since i was ESSENTIALLY right? fuck it, i’m calling my bold-ass statement accurate. there we go! and now this hot mess is finally concluded after about a month in the making. wow.