Paul August 30th, 2012
While most people know that the “W” in George W. Bush is for “Walker,” it is not as well known that the “W” in W. Mitt Romney is for “Willard.” By some weird coincidence, there are two movies available which are called “Walker,” and another two which are called “Willard.” I’ve seen all of them.
The first “Walker” (1987) is an absorbing drama in which Ed Harris plays the 19th-century American mercenary leader who became the President of Nicaragua, and the second “Walker” is a television series (1993-2001) in which Chuck Norris is a martial artist who battles crime all over Texas.
The first “Willard” (1971) gives us Bruce Davison as the eponymous loner, an awkward misfit who befriends two rats whom he names Ben and Socrates. When Socrates is killed by Willard’s employer, a man who stole the business years ago from Willard’s father, Willard goes on a rampage by summoning an army of rats to do his bidding. The movie was so successful, it was remade in 2003 with Crispin Glover as the creepy Willard.
So, what it comes down to is this. Which Dubya would you rather have a beer with, Walker or Willard?
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are conspicuously absent at the Republican Convention in Tampa; in their place, we are being shown the awkward Willard Mitt Romney in the bromance of his life with the Socratic Paul Ryan loyally by his side. But, for how much longer? When the going gets tough, do Republicans go shopping? Or, like rats, will they turn on one another? Wait, didn’t we already see this movie during the Republican primaries? Will it be remade and released in time for the November elections?
- OUT ON A LIM