The Adventures of a History Nerd: Candidates ’72

Posted on July 4, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

1972! Now, that’s a presidential election that I’m sorry I wasn’t around to witness!

1972, of course, was the year that the Democrats nominated George McGovern and President Richard Nixon went on to win 49 states. McGovern was considered to be one of the most left-wing presidential candidates of all time. He started out as a dark horse but ultimately won the Democratic nomination after the more moderate Edmund Muskie’s campaign turned to be not as strong as people assumed and after Governor George Wallace’s campaign was ended by gunfire in Maryland. (Wallace survived being shot but spent the rest of his life in wheelchair.) McGovern’s campaign knew how to win a primary but had no idea how to win a general election. He ended up getting around 37% of the popular vote. He carried Massachusetts but he lost his home state of South Dakota.

Today, it’s usually assumed that Nixon’s victory was a foregone conclusion but that’s not true. The Republicans had a weak midterm in 1970. The Vietnam War was unpopular. Nixon, himself, had managed to upset both the conservative and the liberal wings of the Republican Party with some of his policies. Much as in 2020, a record number of candidates threw their hat into the ring to take on the incumbent President. 1972 is a great “What if” election. What if the Democrats had nominated Edmund Muskie or Hubert Humphrey? What if the Watergate burglars hadn’t been arrested? What if George McGovern hadn’t picked Thomas Eagleton for Vice President or later asked him to step down as his running mate? Would history be different today?

That’s why I’m glad that I have a copy of Candidates ’72.

Candidates ’72 was published, in 1971, by Congressional Quarterly. It featured profiles of the many men and women who ended up running for President in 1972. It not only detailed their backgrounds and their political stances but it also analyzed their chances of winning their party’s nomination. For a history nerd like me, this book is wonderful because it was written without the benefit of hindsight. It’s a chance to see what people were actually saying about the election of 1972 while it was going on. Often times, it’s quite different from the biased analysis that was written about the election after it had already happened.

The other reason why I like Candidates ’72 is because so many memorable people ran for the Presidency in that year. George McGovern, New York Mayor John Lindsay, U.S. Rep. Shirley Chisholm, Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, Los Angles Mayor “Mad Sam” Yorty, George Wallace, Dr. Benjamin Spock, they are just some of the candidates profiled here. Reading the profiles really does reveal that America was at a crossroads in the early 70s. Much like today, a lot of people assumed that radicalism was ascendant while failing to consider just how serious the backlash would eventually become. Some of the other Democrats running actually made George McGovern look like a moderate. Meanwhile, on the Republican side, Nixon was challenged by an anti-war congressman named Pete McCloskey. McCloskey eventually lost his house seat in the 80s but briefly reemerged in 2006 as an environmentalist and anti-war activist. He was also a Holocaust denier so let’s be happy that he never got anywhere near the White House.

(It’s probably a sign of just how chaotic the 1972 election was that a few candidates — John Ashbrook, Terry Sanford — did not get profiled in Candidates ’72, presumably because they jumped into the fray after the book went to the presses.)

Here are the candidates and potential candidates who are profiled in Candidates ’72.

Republicans:

Vice President Spiro Agnew of Maryland (elected Vice President in the General Election)
Treasury Secretary John Connally of Texas (declined to run)
Lobbyist John Gardner (declined to run)
U.S. Rep. Pete McCloskey of California (suspended campaign during the primaries)
President Richard M. Nixon of California (won the general election)

Democrats:

U.S. Rep. William Anderson of Tennessee (dropped out before the primaries)
Sen. Birch Bayh of Indiana (dropped out before the primaries)
U.S. Rep. Shirley Chisholm of New York (defeated at the Democratic Convention)
Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark of New York (declined to run)
Sen. Fred Harris of Oklahoma (dropped out before the primaries)
U.S. Sen. Vance Hartke of Indiana (withdrew during the primaries)
Sen. Howard Hughes of Iowa (dropped out before the primaries)
Sen. Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota (defeated at the Democratic Convention)
Sen. Henry Jackson of Washington (defeated at the Democratic Convention)
U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts (declined to run)
New York Mayor John V. Lindsay (withdrew during the primaries)
Lt. Gov. Lester Maddox of Georgia (withdrew during the primaries)
Fmr. Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota (withdrew during the primaries)
Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota (defeated in the General Election)
U.S. Rep. Wilbur Mills of Arkansas (withdrew during the primaries)
U.S. Rep. Patsy T. Mink of Hawaii (withdrew during the primaries)
U.S. Sen. Walter Mondale of Minnesota (declined to run)
Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine (suspended campaign during the primaries)
Sen. William Proxmire of Wisconsin (dropped out before the primaries)
R. Sargent Shriver of Maryland (nominated for vice president, lost the general election)
Gov. George Wallace of Alabama (suspended campaign after being shot in Maryland)
Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty (withdrew during the primaries)

Independents:

Ralph Nader (declined to run)
Dr. Benjamin Spock (lost the general election)

Ran, but not profiled:

U.S. Rep. John Ashbrook (R-OH)
U.S. Sen. Thomas Eagleton (D-MO, nominated for Vice President but stepped down from the ticket and was replaced by Sargent Shriver)
State Rep. Sissy Farenthold (D-TX, ran for the Vice Presidency at the Democratic Convention)
U.S. Rep. Walter Fauntroy (D-DC)
U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska (D-Alaska, run for the Vice Presidency at the Democratic Convention)
U.S. Rep. Wayne Hays (D-OH)
Former Governor Endicott Peabody (D-Massachusetts, ran in the nonbinding Vice Presidential primary)
Former Governor Terry Sanford (D-NC)
U.S. Rep. John G. Schmitz (R-CA, ran as the candidate of the American Party)
Cleveland Mayor Carl Stokes (D-OH)

I ordered my copy of Candidates ’72 shortly after I ordered Candidates ’76. Sadly, my copy of Candidates ’72 is not in the best condition and I doubt I’ll ever find another copy. As a proud history nerd, though, I’m still happy to have it.

Icarus File No. 30: Here (dir by Robert Zemeckis)

Posted on July 4, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I really wanted to like Here.

Released in 2024, Here is the type of movie that I usually would like. It’s ambitious. It’s experimental. It’s about history and how certain patterns will always repeat themselves no matter what. It features Tom Hanks and Paul Bettany, two of my favorite actors. Also, unlike a lot of people, I haven’t turned on Robert Zemeckis. For the most part, I usually enjoy his movies, including the more recent ones. (Of course, when I say more recent, I’m thinking of The Walk, which came out eleven years ago. But still….)

Here has an intriguing concept. Over the course of 104 minutes, Here covers several thousand years of history. The stationary camera focuses on a single plot of land, which goes from being an area dominated by dinosaurs to being the road outside of Colonial Governor William Franklin’s house during the American Revolution to eventually becoming the living room of a house that is occupied by several different families. The story plays out in a nonlinear fashion with the marriage of Richard and Margaret Young (played by Tom Hanks and Robin Wright) ultimately dominating the narrative. We watch as people fall in love, sometimes fall out of love, and eventually die. With the exception of one key moment, the camera never moves. Instead, we watch as life plays out in front of the camera and it’s often left to our imagination as to what’s happening on the other side of the lens. When Margaret, at one point, complains about how she can’t stand to keep looking at the same couch day-after-day, we know exactly how she feels.

As I said, I really wanted to like this movie but, unfortunately, it just fell flat. We meet a lot of characters but no one really feels human. Instead, all of the dialogue and the action has the shallow snappiness of an old sitcom. It’s easy to imagine this film being aired with a laugh track and an audience going, “Awwww!” after every emotional moment. As a result, watching Here feels less like witnessing history unfold and more like flipping around the nostalgia channels and trying to pick which old sitcom you want to watch. Do you want to watch the show about Ben Franklin not liking his son or the show that features Paul Bettany as a veteran dealing with PSTD? Do you want a show about a pilot who dies during the Spanish Flu epidemic or about a masked-up husband during the COVID lockdowns? One of the film’s final scenes features a character who is suffering from Alzheimer’s visiting the house and suddenly announcing that they remember everything about living there. It’s a moment that is meant to be heartfelt but, instead, it feels insulting to anyone who has ever taken care of a loved one with dementia. Alzheimer’s is never cutesy, regardless of what the movies may tell us. In the end, very little of the film’s vision of humanity feels authentic.

The other big problem is that the film occasionally uses digital de-aging to try to convince us that Tom Hanks and Robin Wright are both teenagers and it just doesn’t work. Hanks is playing Paul Bettany’s son but, whenever the two actors appear at the same time, it’s obvious that Hanks is considerably older than his screen father. Unlike The Irishman, which had a strong story and enough good performances to convince the viewer to suspend their disbelief and accept the imperfect de-aging technology, the de-aging in Here just emphasizes how inauthentic the film’s story feels.

As I said earlier, this film had potential but, unfortunately, most of that potential goes unrealized.

And that really is a shame.

Previous Icarus Files:

Film Review: The Patriot (dir by Roland Emmerich)

Posted on July 4, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

First released in the year 2000, The Patriot stars Mel Gibson (back before the arrests and scandals) as Benjamin Martin.

Benjamin Martin is a planter living in colonial-era South Carolina. When he was younger, he fought in the French/Indian War and was infamous for his ferocity as a combatant. However, in the year 1776, he is devoted to working the land and peacefully caring for his children. When, as a member of the South Carolina General Assembly, he is called upon to cast a vote for or against independence, he abstains. He’s no fan of the British but he’s also seen the harsh reality of war and doesn’t want his sons to have any part of it. However, the Assembly still votes for Independence and Martin’s oldest son, Gabriel (Heath Ledger), is among the first to enlist in the army.

Four years later, the British come to the Martin farm and demand that Benjamin had over a wounded Gabriel to them. When Benjamin resists, the arrogant Col. Tavington (Jason Isaacs) kills one of Benjamin’s other sons. After Tavington has Gabriel arrested, Benjamin and two of his remaining sons track down the British convoy transporting him. While his two youngest sons look on in horror, Benjamin savagely shoots and hacks to death all of the British soldiers and rescues Gabriel.

The Patriot may be a film about the American Revolution but it’s also definitely a Mel Gibson film. That means that Benjamin is man driven as much be revenge as by a desire to win his country’s independence. The British killed his son and burned down his house. Benjamin responds by grabbing his musket and packing his axe and soon, it’s more common than not to see Benjamin covered in blood. Benjamin attacks like a feral beast who is determined to dominate anyone and anything that would invade his territory. Two of his sons go from being honored to be asked to come along to being terrified at the sight of their father murdering soldier after soldier. It’s probably the most emotionally honest moment you’ll ever find in a Roland Emmerich film. Of course, whether Emmerich meant for it to be so is open to debate.

And indeed, it should be noted that The Patriot is very much a Roland Emmerich film. The running time is an epic 165 minutes. The battle scenes are long and loud and carefully choreographed. Gibson was still rugged and handsome when he played Benjamin Martin. (Both before his downfall and after, Gibson has always been best cast as people who just want to be left alone and who finally snap once it becomes obvious that’s not going to happen.) Heath Ledger almost appears beatific in his scenes. The film looks great without ever quite looking authentic. It’s like a fever dream that is less about how the American Revolution was actually fought and more about how we imagine it was fought.

And you know what?

The film works for me. This is one of Emmerich’s best films, which admittedly is not a high bar to clear. Yes, it’s a bit simplistic. Yes, it’s not historically accurate. Yes, all of the British are portrayed as being one-dimensional villains. Who cares? Whether he realizes it or not, Roland Emmerich has always been a B-movie maker at heart and The Patriot is effective in much the same way that many crude but shameless B-movies are. The mix of Mel Gibson’s madness, Heath Ledger’s beatific earnestness, and Jason Isaac’s arrogance transforms The Patriot into a triumph of the pulp imagination. Much like America itself, The Patriot is big and loud and it makes absolutely no apologies.

Guilty Pleasure #121: The Angry Red Planet (dir by Ib Melchior)

Posted on July 4, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

1960’s The Angry Red Planet opens with the return of the first manned space flight to Mars. When the rocketship reaches Earth, NASA is stunned to discover that only two members of the crew — Iris “Irish” Ryan (Naura Hayden) and Colonel Thomas O’Bannion (Gerald Mohr) — are still alive and that O’Bannion seems to have been infected by an intergalactic fungus of some some sort. Iris tells the story about what happened during their fateful trip to Mars.

I always enjoy the cheap science fiction films of the 50s and 60s, especially the ones that were made before America even conquered the Moon or really even went into space. Not having anything to really guide their vision of space travel, these films almost always trotted out the old war movie stereotypes and dressed them in a shiny space suit. In The Angry Red Planet, there’s gravity in space and Prof. Theodore Gettell (Les Termayne) smokes a pipe on the ship. Warrant Officer Sam Jacobs (Jack Kruschen, who, the same year this film came out, gave an Oscar-nominated performance in The Apartment) reads comic books and wonders if there will be any life on Mars. Meanwhile, O’Bannion flirts outrageously with Iris and everyone drinks coffee.

The film starts out as a standard low budget sic-fi flick, complete with sexist humor and scientific gobbledeegook, but things pick up once the crew actually reaches Mars. Of course, the Mars that they find has plant life and looks absolutely nothing like the Mars that we all know and love. That’s a part of the film’s charm. Whenever the crew leaves their rocket and explores the Martian landscape, the film suddenly becomes red-tinted. The tinting works far better than it really has any right to. That said, I did look away from the screen a few times. My eyesight is already bad enough without burning it up by watching a tinted movie.

The highlight of the film is…. well, sometimes it’s better just to let the visuals do the talking.

As soon as this fellow showed up, I knew that I was watching some sort of classic.

The Angry Red Planet is a thoroughly silly and implausible movie but, like most guilty pleasures, it’s also a lot of fun. It’s one of the least accurate science fiction films ever made and I love it.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

It’s Almost Independence Day In California

Posted on July 3, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For most of the country, it already is 4th of July and America is already celebrating it’s 250th birthday. However, on the West Coat, there’s still another hour to go.

In order to welcome the Pacific Time Zone to Independence Day, here’s David Hasselhoff!

Tear down that wall!

The Eric Roberts Collection: Stand Your Ground (dir by Fansu Njie)

Posted on July 3, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In 2025’s Stand Your Ground, Eric Roberts plays the role of Earl.

When we first meet Earl, he’s an alcoholic who lives in an RV that is parked near the childhood home of former Special Forces operative Jack Johnson (Daniel Stisen). Jack was born in Norway but grew up in the United States. That’s enough to make him and his pregnant wife the target of the local xenophobe, Bastion (Peter Stormare). When Bastion’s sons attack Jack’s house, they kill his wife. Jack kills one of the sons but, because the killing occurred outside of the house, the state’s stand your ground law does not apply to Jack and Jack is sent to prison for six years.

When Jack gets out of prison, he wants revenge. But first, he gets caught up with Earl. Earl, who tried to warn Jack on the night of the attack, is still living in the RV but, otherwise, he’s turned his life around. He’s sober and he’s a member of law enforcement!

The film follows a familiar path. Jack goes out for revenge. There’s a lot of gun battles, one of which is impressively staged. For the most part, though, it’s pretty forgettable and, with a 100 minute run time, almost painfully slow. Daniel Stisen is a Norwegian bodybuilder who can’t act and Peter Stormare is a Swedish character actor who can act but who apparently didn’t feel like doing so for this movie. (Listen, I don’t blame him. He showed up and he lent his Fargo/Armageddon cred to the film. As far as I’m concerned, he earned that paycheck.) The whole movie is pretty dumb.

But, here’s the good thing! Eric Roberts actually gets to do stuff in this movie. He’s in multiple scenes. He talks to the other characters. He actually stands up a few times. (You can always tell when Roberts is actually invested in one of his cameos because he’ll stand up and deliver his lines instead of just sitting behind a desk.) Roberts doesn’t have a big role in this film but he still does a little bit more than usual.

Stand Your Ground may not be good but still …. all hail Earl! And all hail Eric Roberts for continuing to hold the record for the most screen credits for an American actor. 700 roles and counting!

Previous Eric Roberts Films That We Have Reviewed:

Film Review: The Crucible (dir by Nicholas Hytner)

Posted on July 3, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In 1692 and 1693, over 200 people were accused witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts. Thirty people were found guilty. 19 were executed, fourteen women and five men. One man died while being tortured in an effort to get a confession out of him. At least five more people died in their jail cells, awaiting their trial.

There’s a lot of debate about how the witch trials actually began but it’s generally agreed that the initial accusations were made by four girls in the village of Salem. The oldest was 17 while the youngest was just nine. (One of the girls, 12 year-old Abigail Williams, was related to the village’s pastor, Samuel Parris. Traditionally, she has been portrayed as being the ringleader of the accusers.) The girls claimed that the women of the village had caused them physical pain through witchcraft. Soon, other girls in nearby villages were making similar accusations. Some of the accused confessed to being witches to avoid execution. Others claimed to be innocent but also said they knew who the real witches were. And, of course, many refused to confess and were executed as a result.

Today, it’s easy to see that the Salem Witch Trials were an early “moral panic.” What is often forgotten is that, even at the time the trials were taking place, there were many prominent thinkers who condemned them as being a case of mass hysteria. In the years immediately following the trials, the majority of its victims were posthumously exonerated. The Reverend Samuel Parris wrote an official apology letter for his role in the trials. One of the legacies of the Salem Witch Trials was that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution made clear that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Arthur Miller’s 1953 play, The Crucible, was set during the Salem Witch Trials and, for many people, it’s the defining work about the trials, despite the fact that Miller acknowledged to taking dramatic liberties with some of the characters and events. Miller, who had recently been questioned by the House Unamerican Activities Committee, meant for the play to be both a commentary on McCarthyism and a rebuke towards people like his former friend, Elia Kazan, who “named names” to protect themselves. Of course, one could argue that the main difference between the Salem Witch Trials and the Red Scare is that communists were real while the Salem witches were not. But, no matter. It’s one of Miller’s better plays. If Elia Kazan could justify his testimony by imagining himself as a punch-drunk boxer standing up to a corrupt union, I suppose Arthur Miller could pretend to be a man accused of witchcraft. The play was initially not as acclaimed as some of Miller’s other works but, over the years, it has come to be widely acknowledged as one of the classic works of American theater.

In the 90s, Miller wrote the screenplay for a film adaptation of the The Crucible. First released in 1996, this adaptation starred Daniel-Day Lewis as the wrongly accused John Proctor, Joan Allen as Proctor’s wife, Elizabeth, and Winona Ryder as Abigail Williams. For the purposes of Miller’s dramatization, Abigail was reimagined as being a teenage girl who had a brief affair with John Proctor and who was still obsessed with him. When the Reverend Parris (Bruce Davison) catches Abigail and some of her friends trying to cast a “love spell” on John, the girls try to avoid punishment by accusing Parris’s slave, Tituba (Charlayne Woodard), of being a witch. Tituba gives a false confession to avoid being hanged. The girls are soon accusing numerous other women, including Elizabeth Proctor, of witchcraft.

As a film, The Crucible is a fine adaptation of Miller’s play and it’s always a little bit surprising to me that the movie itself isn’t better-known. Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder, Joan Allen, and Bruce Davison all give excellent performances, as does Rob Campbell as a reverend who comes to doubt the accusations of witchcraft. The great Paul Scofield also does a good job as Danforth, the stern judge who attempts to be fair but ultimately is not willing to admit that the law itself is in error. The film recreates Salem is such detail that you feel as if you’re walking its streets. The film also recreates the horrible conditions that a colonial prisoner would have to deal with while imprisoned. Watching Daniel Day-Lewis go from being handsome and rugged to being an emaciated man with rotten teeth really drives home the story’s portrayal of casual, state-sanctioned cruelty. By the end of the movie, Day-Lewis is a testament to what authoritarians will do to someone who insists on thinking for himself.

The film is at its strongest when showing how a moral panic begins. The unstable Abigail is looking for revenge against John Proctor. The other girls, immature and trying to be avoid being punished, make their accusations without giving much thought to the consequences. Soon, the adults of Salem — all of whom have no excuse for not knowing better — are making accusations because it’s better to be an accuser than to be one of accused. The film presents a disturbing portrait of how quickly a community can turn on itself.

The film ends on a note of devastating sadness. Though the witch trials were eventually seen for being the farce that they were, it was too late for the twenty-five people who died as a result of the hysteria. (Today, with a clear mind, it’s easy to see that the Salem Witch Trials had more in common with Stalin’s show trials and China’s Cultural Revolution than anything else.) The Crucible is a powerful film adaptation that deserves to be better-known.

Insomnia File #78: Nails (dir by John Flynn)

Posted on July 3, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

What’s an Insomnia File? You know how some times you just can’t get any sleep and, at about three in the morning, you’ll find yourself watching whatever you can find on cable or streaming? This feature is all about those insomnia-inspired discoveries!

If you’re having trouble getting to sleep, you can always go over to YouTube and watch 1992’s Nails.

Dennis Hopper stars Harry “Nails” Nile, a cop who …. wait for it …. doesn’t go by the book! He’s just a few days away from retirement but before Nails turns in his badge and his gun, he has to track down the drug dealers responsible for the death of his partner (Earl Billings). His superior officer doesn’t like him. His wife (Anne Archer) doesn’t trust him. Both the cartel and a local political fixer want him taken down. But Nails isn’t going to give up. He’s going to solve the case and stop the bad guys and get revenge. And he’s going to do it …. wait for it …. HIS WAY!

As you can probably already guess, Nails features just about every cop cliche imaginable. Nails’s partner talks about how much he’s enjoying life right before he gets gunned down. Nails’s boss yells about how much Nails’s out-of-control antics are costing the city. There are car chases. There are foot chases. There are shoot-outs and one-liners. There’s even a moving van chase that features the sight of Dennis Hopper frantically running down the street. And, of course, Danny Trejo shows up in a small role. It’s predictable and mindless and kind of entertaining if that’s what you’re in the mood for.

The thing that sets this film apart — really, the only thing — is that Dennis Hopper gives such an over-the-top performance as Nails. He’s the type of cops who randomly yells at strangers, occasionally giggles, and has a habit of repeating back any threat that he happens to hear. When I watched the film, I originally thought a better title than Nails would be Method Cop because Hopper truly does seem to be going out of his way to bring the full weight of the Method onto the type of role that could have just as easily been played by Chuck Norris. However, as the film progressed, I realized that Hopper was basically giving the same performance that he gave in Blue Velvet, except he was now playing the good guy. What if Frank Booth was the hero? Nails answers the question.

Of course, once the film ended, I was reminded that Hopper’s villain in Speed was a former cop. Is it possible that Speed was actually a sequel to Nails?

As far as I’m concerned, it definitely was!

The world misses you, Dennis!

Previous Insomnia Files:

Story of Mankind
Stag
Love Is A Gun
Nina Takes A Lover
Black Ice
Frogs For Snakes
Fair Game
From The Hip
Born Killers
Eye For An Eye
Summer Catch
Beyond the Law
Spring Broke
Promise
George Wallace
Kill The Messenger
The Suburbans
Only The Strong
Great Expectations
Casual Sex?
Truth
Insomina
Death Do Us Part
A Star is Born
The Winning Season
Rabbit Run
Remember My Name
The Arrangement
Day of the Animals
Still of The Night
Arsenal
Smooth Talk
The Comedian
The Minus Man
Donnie Brasco
Punchline
Evita
Six: The Mark Unleashed
Disclosure
The Spanish Prisoner
Elektra
Revenge
Legend
Cat Run
The Pyramid
Enter the Ninja
Downhill
Malice
Mystery Date
Zola
Ira & Abby
The Next Karate Kid
A Nightmare on Drug Street
Jud
FTA
Exterminators of the Year 3000
Boris Karloff: The Man Behind The Monster
The Haunting of Helen Walker
True Spirit
Project Kill
Replica
Rollergator
Hillbillys In A Haunted House
Once Upon A Midnight Scary
Girl Lost
Ghosts Can’t Do It
Heist
Mind, Body & Soul
Candy
Shortcut to Happiness
Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders
Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders II
Don’t Kill It
Listen To Me
300 Miles For Stephanie
Hackers
Rolling Vengeance

Song of the Day: My Country, ‘Tis Of Thee, interpreted by Hans Zimmer

Posted on July 2, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

This version of My Country, ‘Tis of Thee was composed by Hans Zimmer for 2000’s The Patriot.

I don’t care what anyone else says. The fact that we took the British national anthem and turned into a pro-American song is really badass.

Guilty Pleasure #120: The Internship (dir by Shawn Levy)

Posted on July 1, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In 2o13’s The Internship, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn play Nick and Billy, two longtime salesman who, having lost their jobs, apply for an internship at Google. Despite there not being any logical reason for either one of them to be given a spot, Nick and Billy are accepted. Suddenly, these two middle-aged guys who know next to nothing about programming or the Internet find themselves at the Google campus. Teaming up with a group of much younger outcasts (albeit very smart outcasts), Nick and Billy compete for a job at Google.

(Personally, the only job I would want at Google would be designing the Google Doodle.)

At first, no one is happy about having to work with Nick and Billy. Nick and Billy are adults, the type who still use landline phones and wonder why the kids are so obsessed with looking at a little screen. They’re loud. They make crude jokes and they don’t understand stuff like safe spaces. They fall for obvious pranks, like being sent to a college campus to track down “Professor Charles Xavier.” This leads to them both getting knocked out by a bald man in a wheelchair. “Professor Xavier’s a total dick!” Billy gasps.

Eventually, though, Nick and Billy start to win everyone over. Their old school competitiveness comes in handy during a game of Quidditch. They know how to talk to women at bars. They know how to appeal to someone running an old-fashioned business. But will that be enough to win them a job at Google?

Back when the Onion was funny, one of their best headlines was ‘The Internship’ Poised To Be Biggest Comedy Of 2005! The joke, of course, was that the film was coming out in 2013. The headline worked because it was true. The film felt very much out-of-place in the world of 2013. The majority of the film’s humor came from Nick and Billy not really knowing what Google was but, by 2013, even the most cranky of boomer grandparents were using Google to search for their Facebook password. Nick and Billy were not boomers. They may have been older than the other interns but still, it’s hard to believe that two guys in their mid-40s would be that clueless about everything from the Internet to the identity of Charles Xavier. I mean, the X-Men movies were kind of a big deal.

The other thig that dated the film was its portrayal of Google as essentially just being a fun playground full of nerdy prodigies who just needed someone to teach them how to party. By 2013, everyone knew that Google was a powerful and somewhat intimidating company. Indeed, at its weakest, the film basically feels like a 2-hour commercial for Google. Never mind that, by 2013, Google was so big and omnipresent that it really didn’t need to advertise.

So, with all that in mind, why do I find myself watching this movie whenever I happen to come across it? First off, as uneven as the movie is, it is funny. The Quidditch scene did make me laugh. John Goodman’s and Will Ferrell’s unhinged cameos made me laugh, almost despite myself. The scene where Nick and Billy annoy the group by misinterpreting what is meant by “coding” made me laugh, if just because of how bizarrely enthusiastic Nick and Billy were when they convinced themselves that their internship director was a Jeff Goldblum fan. (It makes no sense but just go with it.) Most importantly, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn made me laugh. There was absolutely no way to make it plausible that Nick and Billy would be that clueless about technology but Wilson and Vaughn really threw themselves into their roles and, as a result, I’m always willing to forgive some of the film’s missteps. The mix of Vaughn’s overage frat boy goofiness and Wilson’s mellow spaciness always makes me laugh more than it probably should. They’re a good comedic team and they’re both just so damn earnest in this movie that it works a lot better than it really should. In the end, you do find yourself rooting for them. They’re two hard-workers who like to play hard and who have the courage to reinvent themselves. What’s more American than that?

(Even more importantly, when you come across the film on cable, you’re free to pretend that it actually came out in 2005, back when the plot would have actually made more sense.)

If any film lives up to the term guilty pleasure, it’s The Internship.

Previous Guilty Pleasures