Tadpole

Cover of "Tadpole"
Cover of Tadpole

Tadpole is wonderful! It’s about a young boy, Oscar, a genius of 15, cultured, studied, multilingual, who is irresistable to women – like Diane (Bebe Neuwirth). And he’s in love with his stepmother, Eve (Sigourney Weaver). He can also tell all about a woman by examining her hands. I liked the premise right off, and liked the film even more. Most of all, I liked the characters. Except for Oscar’s dad (John Ritter), who I can’t stand in anything. There have been quirky, funny treatments of this subject before. Rushmore comes to mind. But this one doesn’t mock the act of love. The passion here is genuine passion, which makes it all the more interesting. It suggests that depth of passion is a thing not of age but of mind. What I don’t like is the origin of the title; “Tadpoling” is a term (obviously meant to ridicule) the trend of older women having much younger male lovers – usually about 10 years younger. Frankly, this “trend” is merely the result of women having financial and social independence and access to the cultural millieu once dominated by men. In contrast, it has rarely been thought unusual for men to have lovers 10 years their younger.

Blade II

Blade II kinda kicked ass. There were some horror elements that reminded me of Mimic – I’m not big on that stuff – but as the usual vein of vampire flicks goes, Blade and Blade II aren’t that bad. And I do believe that Kris Kristopherson has actually found his niche. A vampire hunter! Blade II spends a little too much time on the drama and the medical details of vampirism – obviously fun stuff for the vampirella-goth crowd – but overall, the action is freaking great. Watching this is like playing Quake without having to think. :)

Dialgogue

So you want to blow something up?

No, not just any kind of something. Something in particular.

And why are you telling me this?

Because you also want to blow up something.

You’re nuts.

Probably. So what?

What do I want to blow up?

You’ll settle for anything. You don’t have anything particular in mind. Just something will do.

I see. And how did you come to this conclusion?

You haven’t focused your anger, your hostility, your sense of dreadful destiny. That’s because you don’t yet know the source of your oppression. You don’t yet know your oppressor.

Dreadful destiny?!? Oppression?!?

Laughter is good. You should go with that – with your ability to cover your emotions with laughter. You might very well need it for what we’re going to do.

I don’t believe this. And what is it we’re going to do, according to you?

We’re going to discover together at what precisely you are angry. And then we’re going to blow it up.

That’d be my boss. He oughta be blown up, but I’m no murderer.

What if your boss quit work today, what then?

They’d just hire someone else like him, possibly even worse.

Exactly. So then is your boss really the primary object of your anger, or is it something that can be killed without committing murder?

It’s the whole environment, the whole system at my job, and at every job like it.

Well, let’s let other people worry about other jobs like it. Talk to me about *your* job.

You’re talking about blowing up the dealership. This is crazy.

No, *you’re* talking about it, and I don’t think your crazy. Do you?

All right, let’s say hypothetically I blew up the dealership, then I’d lose my job, most likely everything I own, and I’d go to prison.

Perhaps. Suppose for just a moment that you only lost your job. How would that stack up against blowing up the dealership.

I can always get another job. I’m still not too old, and I can feel it coming anyway – the day they fire me to make room for younger blood.

All right, so it is possible that the only thing you’d lose is something that you’re going to lose anyway, only in this case you’ll be in control of it.

I guess that’s possible.