"Joshua" trailer

I might be behind the curve on this, but I haven’t seen it actually posted in many places. Even IMDB doesn’t have an official trailer link yet. I’d heard of it, but only just saw the trailer today in front of “Civic Duty” (which is kinda “meh,” for the record.)

Y’remember that movie “The Good Son?” “Godsend?” That horrendous recent remake of “The Omen?” “Joshua” kinda looks like what those would look like… if they didn’t suck:

Gah. I can’t remember having been that freaked out by just a trailer.

REVIEW: Spider-Man 3

The bad news is, what you’ve heard is technically true: “Spider-Man 3” is, when all is said and done, just a bit overstuffed.

The good news – the very, very good news – is that it’s not overstuffed for the reason most were worried about, i.e. “too many villains.” If anything, this is the least “bad guy centered” “Spidey” entry yet. Whereas the prior films featured singular antagonists (Willem Dafoe’s Green Goblin, Alfred Molina’s Doctor Octopus) with character-arcs detailed enough to take up a full half of their respective films, the three heavies this time around are a bit more on the dramatically-streamlined side: Two of them have pretty basic ambitions and straightforward, uncomplicated agendas, while the third (James Franco’s Harry “Goblin Jr.” Osborn) already did his “turning into a bad guy” arc in the backdrop of the prior installments – he arrives here as a full-fledged nemesis ready to go from (literally) the first act on.

Instead, “Spider-Man 3” is bursting at the seams with story. Director/co-writer Sam Raimi has a lot of plot threads left to tie up from his previous two movies to begin with, and on top of that he’s piled surprising reversals, character-twists and unexpected new directions and revelations – and then some. There’s enough going on here in the living, breathing universe this cast and crew have built for themselves over the last eight years to fill three more movies – and, save for some irritatingly-noticable contrivances here and there, it seems almost churlish to take a summer blockbuster that could easily have coasted on residual narrative-fumes and perfunctory action scenes to task for wanting to have “too much” story, character-development and narrative gotchas.

In the big-picture sense, Raimi demonstrates once-again his unquestioned “getting” of the key Spider-Man themes; framing this third go-round as a rude-awakening “oh yeah?” rebuke of “Spider-Man 2’s” fairytale ending. Turns out, wouldn’t you know it, grand romantic gestures like Mary-Jane (Kirsten Dunst) dashing out of her wedding and turning up on Peter Parker’s (Tobey Maguire) doorstep aren’t quite ‘grand’ enough to stave of harsher realities forever. In the time between that ending and this beginning, things have started to go wrong. And, for a change, not “supervillain-assisted” wrong… just “that’s life” wrong. In fact, it would seem the two of them have managed to “swap” issues: As New York begins to overwhelmingly embrace Spider-Man as it’s resident champion, Peter is letting fame and acceptance go to his head a bit – he’s almost too distracted to notice the MJ’s Broadway “star” has already started to wane, and that she’s picking up the ‘sad sack’ right where he left it off. Also on the list of things Peter should be paying closer attention to: Harry still knows Spider-Man’s secret identity, he’s still convinced that Spidey murdered his father, and he’s still got an attic full of dad’s old anti-Spidey weaponry to play with.

The choice of new villainy also demonstrates a tremendously-appealing confidence on Raimi’s part – both in his own skill and in the strength of the original material he’s adapting. Other lesser genre entries like “Fantastic Four,” “Daredevil” or (from the looks of things) the upcoming “Transformers” movie tend to flee in mortal terror from the more “out-there” concepts of their ancestors. Raimi and his film, on the other hand, fearlessly drop into an already well-stocked narrative a pair of supporting supervillains who each constitute the franchise’s headlong-leap into the realm of full-blown pulp science fiction: Sandman, aka Flint Marko, (Thomas Hayden Church,) is a small-time escaped convict who, after an accident of science, has a body made of sentient, shape-shifting SAND; while Venom is, literally, a Monster From Outer Space.

Technically speaking, Sandman isn’t so much a “supervillain” as he is a hard-luck crook with his own agenda who’s aquisition of super-powers is more distraction and hindrance than benefit: He turns up on Spidey’s radar mainly because of a “maybe”: Marko, it turns out, was the accomplice of the robber who murdered Uncle Ben Parker – and may have been the one who pulled the trigger. On top of all this, Peter has an unethical rival at work in the personage of Eddie Brock (Topher Grace,) his ongoing Harry troubles, MJ’s emotional distance AND jealousy over his in-costume flirtation with freshly-rescued blonde bombshell Gwen Stacy (an almost-criminally gorgeous Bryce Dallas Howard); a whirl of stress and dissonance that makes him perfect prey for Venom – a liquid-goo alien “symbiote” that slithers out of a crashed meteor and morphs itself into a sleek new black Spidey-suit that cranks up Peter’s powers… but also leads him to indulge his dark side.

It’s with this “symbiote” subplot that Raimi and company tip their most devious hand – turning Spider-Man/Peter Parker into the prinicipal villain of his own movie. Most of the time, the “good guy goes bad” routine underwhelms in films like this, because the “evil” version of the hero turns out to be exponentially more-compelling and watchable than the “good” one (looking at YOU, Anakin Skywalker.) But, through guts and willpower, the same fate doesn’t befall “Spider-Man 3.” ‘Bad Peter’ is ‘dark,’ yes… and you can tell Maguire had fun (literally) letting his hair down and playing against-type. But Raimi’s camera and story-structure make the difference, lingering on the bewildered/disgusted reactions of women Peter shoots winks and leers at as he struts down the street utterly convinced of his own coolness, and building an almost unspeakably crass display in a “dance sequence” to a genuinely shocking “line-crossing” level. ‘Bad Peter’ is a sleazy, unlikable jerk; and even though most of the audience won’t be TOO worried about him not snapping back to normal by the end credits, it’s still brave of the film none the less to ask them to follow him down this particular road.

Unfortunately, all this good comes with a few notable “issues” that keep it just shy of the near-perfection that was “Spider-Man 2.” Most of the missteps are structure and pace-related, i.e. the two and a half hour run-time isn’t quite expansive enough to contain all the movie it needs to. As a result, some elements arise in questionable, artificial-seeming ways. This becomes especially apparent, though not disasterously-so, in the third act where the innevitable Bad Guy Team-Up seems to come almost-completely out of left-field, and the “things we really should’ve told someone BEFORE right now” revelations start to stack up. This is more than a bit forgivable, though, when one takes into account that it leads into an action sequence that could easily be the best “guys with super-powers” brawl since “Superman 2.”

Other problems have “followed” from the previous movies: Kirsten Dunst is STILL the weak link of the series, it’s three movies in and she still alternates between looking bored, stoned or eager to get on to something “better.” And Raimi still hasn’t lost his strange penchant for having Spidey lose all or most of his mask midway through nearly every action scene.

It does seem as though the writing is on the wall as to this being the “last” Spidey installment for this full group of castmates and filmmakers. If so, they leave behind quite a legacy: A true epic-in-three-parts superhero story, one of the only one’s not to stumble in the third entry. Whatever comes next has some big boots to fill.

FINAL RATING: 8/10

Miyamoto makes it! (UPDATED!)

“Time” has closed-down the online-voting portion of it’s “Time 100” list, and Shigeru Miyamoto makes it into the top-ten at the wire! http://tinyurl.com/23xeeb

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
The democratically-named 92nd Most Influential Person in The World, with his most famous

creations, his creation’s friends and a sampling of his greatest accomplishments.

Now, I’m reasonably certain that “Time” doesn’t correlate the “online vote” list and the “final list” exactly, but this is the first year Miyamoto was even nominated and placing in the top-10 in reader-votes is impressive as hell… so I’d say it’s likely that he’ll turn up on the “real” list, too. Either way, this is quite a showing a fan-support for a guy who’s been overdue for it for far too long. Kick-ass.

UPDATE!!! Shigeru Miyamoto has made the final list!

For this year’s list, “Time” divided the full-100 into five subcategories, with spots 82 through 100 reserved for “Builders & Titans.” Miyamoto is placed at #92, meaning that he not only places on the list but lands comfortably in the TOP TEN of his field!

Shigeru Miyamoto. Creator of Mario. Savior of video-games. One of the 100 Most Influential People on Earth. He’s earned it.

How To Not Suck: A Simple Primer

Michael Bay, Tim Story, Brett Ratner, et al., please pay close attention to the following:

Pictured below, to the left: Marvel Comics superhero “Iron Man” as he is generally remembered during his more popular eras of publication. To the immediate right: “Iron Man,” as he currently appears in the ‘main’ Marvel Universe, including the traditional (and, please note, still immediately-recognizable) armor re-worked to greater detail and “realism” by artist Adi Granov.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Picture below: “Iron Man,” as he will appear in the upcoming live-action feature film of the same name starring Academy Award Nominee Robert Downey Jr., Academy Award Nominee Terrence Howard and Academy Award Winner Gwyneth Paltrow.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

This concludes “How To Not Suck.” Please stay tuned for our next, slightly more-difficult lessons; including “How Not To Fall Down The Stairs,” “Remedial Breathing” and “Remembering Not To Cast Jessica Alba In Roles Requiring Speaking And/Or Recognizable Human Emotion.”

Keep Miyamoto in the Time 100!

The voting is still going down on the Time 100, but former mainstay Shigeru Miyamoto (first time nominee, ‘father of modern video games’) has dropped from the top-five. Now, at this point his showing was strong enough that there’s a good chance he makes the final list anyway… but what’s REALLY loathsome is that one of the current top-5 candidates “beating” him is distressingly-unfunny ‘trendy’ standup hack Dane Cook. This should not stand 🙂

So here’s what ya do: First, click this link:
http://tinyurl.com/2byqfl
And give “Shiggy” a 100% on the “rating” thingee in the upper left-hand corner. Click submit. Then refresh the page and do it again. Repeat as many times as you can, get your pals to do the same, and don’t slack: This guy deserves the hookup.

While you’re at it, here’s the page for the freakishly unfunny star of “Employee of the Month:”
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100walkup/article/0,28804,1611030_1610841_1609788,00.html
Cook has already been on this list once, and that’s one more time than he had any reason to be. Do the right thing. Give him a zero (or the approximate amount of laughs to be found in his routine, his crappy movie or “Tourgasm”) and then give him a zero a couple dozen more times.

REVIEW: The Condemned

It’s with some kind of sick irony that I realized, watching the astonishingly loathsome “you’ve-gotta-be-shitting-me” Big Meaningful Speech moment of “The Condemned,” that THIS deplorable crapfest might actually BENEFIT from the recent Virginia Tech tragedy by striking some of the more easily-led in the world as a “meaningful” peice. Y’see, what the trailers aren’t telling you is that – I kid you not – “The Condemned” fancies itself a political “message” work: What we have here, believe it or not, is a ham-fisted screed against media violence, the “irresponsible” entertainment industry and the pervasive eeeevil of the Internet. From the WWE.

The only thing worse than a bad movie is a bad message-movie… And the only thing worse than THAT is a bad message movie that aims to condescendingly contradict it’s own base of appeal. Even removed from that aspect of it’s existance… “The Condemned” is, far and away, the worst film to have yet emerged in 2007. A complete abomination on so many levels it’s hard to put into words. Best-described as “aggressively irredeemable,” it’s the kind of work where you run out of things to critique and start looking in vain for anything nice to say about it. Off the top of my head, the nice things you can say about the latest opus from WWE Films are: It wasn’t directed by Brett Ratner, it does not involve anyone directly affiliated with “American Idol” and it does not star Chris Tucker, Dane Cook, Cedric the Entertainer or Carlos Mencia in any capacity.

In the broad strokes, the film is a combo/ripoff of “The Running Man” and “Battle Royale,” framed primarily as a star-vehicle for onetime professional wrestling star “Stone-Cold” Steve Austin. He’s cast as Jack Conrad, one of nine death row inmates “purchased” from Third World prisons by inscrutable millionaire Ian Breckel (Robert Mammone) and dropped onto a camera-covered desert island with orders to fight to the death for the amusement of customers via a pay-per-view internet feed; with the promise of freedom and cash going to the Last Man Standing. Given that all the other convicts are even LESS noteworthy as “names” than Mr. Austin, (save for Vinnie Jones as the nominal bad guy) and given that Jack Conrad turns out to be a betrayed U.S. Special Forces vet who just wants to get back to his farm, his bottle-bland.. er.. blonde ladyfriend and her two moppets; AND given that the eeeevil Internet Baddies sneeringly select Jack hoping to (I shit you not) exploit worldwide anti-Americanism as an audience-getter (“They’re gonna looooove to hate this cowboy!!”) you can kinda-sorta guess how this turns out.

Ineptly directed in irritating “shaky-cam” by Scott Wiper (is that a name or a recyclable bathroom product?) this is an “action” film that contains not one memorable or interesting action scene – just jumbled flurries of grunting and pummeling to the tune of the foley department taking out a week’s worth of agression on raw meat and pleather sofas. Of the (innevitably) Baskin Robbins assortment of multicultural “players,” we do get ONE Japanese martial-artist; but it becomes readily apparent that he’s only there so that the old “Raiders of the Lost Ark” gag of a show-offy Eastern fighting-as-art master quickly smacked-down with Good Ol’ Fashioned American quick-kill can be ripped off for the umpteenth time. Yawn. That Austin has all the personality of the tree-trunks his physique chiefly resembles isn’t much of a surprise, (his initial claim to fame as a wrestler was “shunning” character gimmicks and style in favor of simply embodying a bullheaded, beer-drinkin’ bar-brawler,) but it’s genuinely shocking how little physical presence he has onscreen – he stomps around with all the grace of a pack-mule, and most of the time seems to be searching in vain for his mark. It’s enough to make you miss Brian Bosworth.

As if just being dull and incoherent wasn’t enough, the film has a truly off-putting nasty streak when it comes to the targets of it’s violence. Nearly EVERYONE in here is on-hand to get stabbed, smacked, shot or blown up… but there’s something inescapably “icky” about how much this supposed “bruiser-vs-bruiser” slugfest concentrates on violence against it’s female characters. There are two drawn-out, protracted and explicitly-violent rape scenes – one attempted, the other a sucessful gang-rape/murder. The Internet Baddies’ skeleton-crew of computer technicians is disproportionately staffed with women, all of whom are there to be gunned down in the finale by a vengeful ‘player’ who lectures them on the evils of their profession. When the film wants to let us know it’s time to start really hating Breckel, he gives his girlfriend a slap across the face. This is lightyears beyond the kitschy homoerotic-phallicentrism of “300”… this is real-deal misogyny, plain and simple. (Incidentally, Mr. Austin has a domestic abuse arrest on his rap sheet. Charming.)

And, yet, even for all those sins, “The Condemned” would be easily dismissable as another Z-grade actioner for the pile if it didn’t committ the one gravest sin in all of bad filmmaking: It’s got “something to say”… and it’s preachy.

Toward the end, when the shit has hit the fan and all the viewers and lackeys are starting to See The Error of They’re Ways, we’re treated to a gravely-serious lady reporter’s televised interview with head-baddie Breckel – who, by the way, is sure to pepper his every bad-guy speech with words like “blogger” and “chat-room” so we know EXACTLY whom the film is training it’s moralistic finger on. She takes him to task for what ‘entertainments’ like his are doing to the culture, especially the children, and the film poses Breckel as a sneering hypocrite hiding behind “it’s the parent’s responsibility.” Incredibly, after Breckel is shown mouthing these words, the Voice of God lady reporter tells him that that’s a “cop-out” and that the industry MUST take “responsibility” for what it’s putting out. She then – and I swear to you, I’m not exaggerating this – turns to face “the world,” he face filling the screen, and sagely intones how very, very ashamed of ourselves we should be for watching things like… well, like this movie… because (again, NOT kidding) when we do “…it is WE who are really The Condemned.”

I stand before you stupefied, beholding what I have beheld. I didn’t think I’d live to see another “message movie” as moralistic, inane and insulting as “The Island”… but here we have it. A heavy-handed pro-media-censorship “action” movie, brought to us by the makers of “See No Evil.” I shudder at the thought that the year is young, and that I may yet see a movie that’s actually worse than this.

FINAL RATING: 0/10

Fire burns. Water flows. History repeats.

Once upon a time, there was a blockbuster movie.

It hadn’t even come out yet, but everyone already knew it was going to be huge. It didn’t really have any huge stars in it’s lineup, and yet it didn’t seem to need them. Because it was a “franchise” adaptation, a big-budget Hollywood re-imagining of older material. The material in question was of somewhat “dubious” origin, at least as far as the old-guard critical press elite were concerned: An import from Japan, made legendary in the U.S. as a fixture of Saturday Morning kiddie TV and toys. It’s lead character wasn’t even human, and would be created entirely using CGI… a prospect which sent eyes-rolling and tongues-clucking throughout the aforementioned critical elite. But the fans knew better. Who needs some overpriced marquee-name “human,” or even a B-list tagalong? They knew who the REAL star was.

And yet, among the fans there was concern and discontent: They’d been down this road before, and they knew the danger of trusting the makers of megabudget summer popcorn films to understand the essential “soul” of the material they sought to re-configure into The Next Big Thing. Would the “specialness” of the franchise be gutted in order to appeal to a lowest-common-denominator “mass audience? Would the character(s) be changed beyond the point of recognition by studio-dictated designs with little to no respect for what had made them iconic in the first place? There was every reason to believe that such was almost… innevitable.

The key bone of symbolic contention between the fans and the filmmakers would become the design of the signature character(s), with rumors swirling in the fanbase of radical (and radically-underwhelming-looking) reworkings underway. Fanning the flames was the fact that the character(s) had yet to be fully-glimpsed, doled out in teasing images of limbs and details. For the longest time, the film’s signature peice of advertising key-art was simply a closeup of the main character’s EYE…

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

And then there was the filmmaker(s) themselves. Proven they were, yes, at the making of enjoyable genre-fluff. Films which many of the fans had greatly enjoyed, though perhaps in a somewhat ironically-detached “whee, it’s just a ride-movie!” fashion. Oh, the filmmaker(s) in question had been greatly suited to those. But to THIS? For all the pyrotechnic skill previously displayed, were they REALLY the best choice to be helming something which – however quirky – had always worked best when infused with a certain degree of sincere respect and intelligence? Or was it merely an indication that those in charge had no intention or ability for sincerity here… that they saw merely the chance to crank out a generic, dumbed-down genre-entry for the summer season, hoping that the in-name-only connection to this “culty” franchise would be worth a few extra million bucks of “fanboy” lucre?

I’m talking, of course, about the 1998 American remake of “Godzilla.”

BUT, as I trust most of you already gathered, I’m ALSO talking about “Transformers.”

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

In any case… At one point in the great Godzilla debacle, a bit of “leaked” visual information appeared on the web that seemed to confirm that the G-Fans’ worst character-design fears had been not only realized… but exceeded. It wasn’t so much that American Godzilla (or “GINO: Godzilla In Name Only”) was “different,” but rather the VOLUMES that the difference implied – when coupled with all the bad news and worse rumors that had come before – about the complete lack of understanding, appreciation or even CARE held by Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich in regard to the franchise they were taking the reins of. Faced with this, the filmmakers issued statements claiming that the designs were “fake,” or “decoys,” or several other curious-sounding explanations.

Trouble is, it turns out that wasn’t true. What people had seen was a real, and the bad feeling it gave them was justified: “GINO” was a financial dissapointment, a critical disaster and remains an industry-punchline and film-geek cautionary tale to this day. As you can see, the paralells between the “Godzilla” disaster and potential “Transformers” fan-bust are somewhat hard to ignore, so much so that it already has an intentionally familiar-sounding moniker in the circles where it counts: “TINO.”

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Recently, the part of the web that covers this stuff had ANOTHER “leaked peak” moment on their hands. A video clip that seemed to confirm (or at least strongly-indicate) that the already much-maligned re-design of “Transformers” lead-good guy Optimus Prime was set to give trans-fans even more to be down about. Faced with this, director Michael Bay offers his denial:
http://www.michaelbay.com/blog/newsblog.html (scroll down to the 2nd 4/22 entry.) Short version: It was a test-shot. Um… or it was a marketing thing. Or it was the Europeans.

Uh-huh. Now, I’m reasonably confident that given the “fuss” over this we won’t see it in the movie when it’s released. But I’m almost not really buying the explanation(s). So many bad ideas in this have already been seen, evidencing nothing more complicated than lack of good design-sense or franchise respect… why should THIS one require some bizzare explanation? Can “European marketing test-shots” also explain away Prime’s moronic “dude-Fast-and-The-Furious-is-da-illest-movie-E’VA!!!!” flame-decals? “Alien Jet?” Starscream looking like the bastard offspring of Donkey Kong and a fried chicken-breast?

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

For what it’s worth, I’m not the only one. Joblo.com is skeptical as well:

http://www.joblo.com/bay-denies-lips

And, for perspective, let’s keep in mind that Joblo was founded by dudes who didn’t like that there wasn’t a place where you could find film writers who actually liked Michael Bay’s “Armageddon.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1612687-1,00.html

P.S. To the folks who’s additude on this is “yeah, but maybe we’re still getting a kickass giant robot movie out of it even if it isn’t a particularly great Transformers movie, so it’s good for the genre, right?” I was with ya for awhile, but ask yourselves this: How many monster movies did we get as a consolation prize for “GINO?”

Miyamoto / Time100 UPDATE!

Cool, exceedingly cool.

As of this time last night and holding, doubtlessly thanks to web-based get-out-the-vote “campaigns” like the one I posted here (and were posted all over the geekscape, it’d seem) Shigeru Miyamoto has risen to the #2 most-influential spot on Time Magazine’s official “100 Most Influential People of The Year” list.

Good job, now keep it up! Here’s a fresh link:
http://tinyurl.com/2byqfl

He’s pulled ahead of JK Rowling, who for now sits comfortably at #3. In the #1 spot? Stephen Colbert. That’s right, the respective creators of Harry Potter, the Super Mario Bros. and Tek Jansen currently lead for the gold, silver and bronze of worldwide-influence… well ahead of ANY politician, figurehead or policymaker on Earth.

Welcome to Planet Nerd. Official mood: Awesomeness.

Let’s do something nice for someone

“TIME” magazine is having their annual vote for the “100 Most-Influnetial People” kerfluffle, something I usually don’t pay attention to as it tends to just be an entirely-unsurprising roster of celebrity do-gooders, of-the-moment noteworthy’s, ‘hip’ comedians/imported pop singers that the magazine is a year or two behind in “getting on board with” and whichever foreign politicians most of the U.S. just found out existed this year (currently leading the votes this year: Bhumibol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand. Yes, that Bhumibol Adulyadej.)

But nestled snug among the sea of Bonos and Gores is a guy who’s never been on the list before, despite being a huge worldwide influence and possibly the most significant player in his industry for decades: SHIGERU MIYAMOTO, the often-hailed Spielberg of video-games,” creator of the Super Mario Bros., Donkey Kong, Zelda, etc. The man who’s contributions to the culture (there would not have BEEN an NES or a home-console revival without the original SMB) saved gaming from losing it’s shirt amid the Crash of 83, and who’s commitment to resisting fads (you’ll never see an “XTREME MARIO!!!” abomination while he’s drawing breath) and contributions to the legacy-focused Wii may yet save gaming from losing it’s soul in the age of Sony and Microsoft’s corporate-synergized behemoths.

His (and his other Nintendo in-house stalwarts) autumn-of-a-career return to prominence in the wake of The Wii plays out like a kind of cosmic justice: As the sudden “mainstreaming” of gaming has a previously-clueless mass culture heralding “Madden” and “Halo” as if it had all just showed up overnight, threatening to render the format’s real original pioneers mere pop-cultural footnotes, he’s back to make sure everyone knows full well who Daddy still is. He’s one of those guys like Jim Henson, who’s tremendous influence and import aren’t fully appreciated because the form in which they’ve chosen to work isn’t precisely “mainstream” or fully respected in their own time. Except that this is the age of the internet, which if nothing else is THE premier tool for ‘hooking up’ guys like this with the credit they might otherwise be denied.

You know where this is going: Here’s the link to the TIME profile:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100walkup/article/0,28804,1611030_1610841_1609873,00.html

Wanna do something nice for a guy who there’s a pretty good chance has done some nice things for you and your’s? Take that little bar in the upper right-hand corner, drag it over into the realm of “100%” or thereabouts and click “submit.” Vote like the dead in New York: Early and often. As of this posting, he’s in the Top 5 – just behind Stephen Colbert, Korean pop singer Rain, Bono and the King of Thailand. #1 might be a bit much, but to keep him in the Top 5 for publication would be AMAZING and entirely appropriate especially if he remained neck-and-neck with Colbert. C’mon, this’ll be fun. Take a minute or two, vote a couple hundred times, and give a good guy a break.