I Really Wish I Was Fucking Matt Damon

I'm a lot like Peter Gammons. I always have been.

Like Gammons, I have old balls. Like Gammons, I have a face made for writing. Like Gammons, I like to live in the present. And like Gammons, I'm the best at what I do.

Gammons is the guru of baseball writing. And I am the guru of film blogging.

The greatest strength of Gammons has always been his ability to change with the times. Bob Ryan (who I love) is the undisputed God of Basketball writing, but he has never been able to change with the times. With the exception of his calling Paul Pierce the Greatest Offensive Player In Celtic History (blasphemous for every Celtics fan aged 30 or over, but also 100% correct), Bob Ryan has always been stuck in the past. He likes the old offensive games better, the passing, the team play and blah, blah, blah. Gammons on the other hand, has always touted the CURRENT game. To a fault almost. He has stuck by Barry Bonds and defends A-Rod incessantly, but steroids aside (and that's a big thing to put aside), they deserve all of his accolades. Nowadays, he touts the greatness of Albert Pujols (who was the topic of discussion during the best radio bitch slap ever) and the Cy Young candidacy of Zack Greinke. He doesn't say they aren't as good as Stan Musial or Bret Saberhagen, but he instead says they are just plain good. Period. And I love that.

My point? We all get caught in the past and love old stuff to a fault. I've done it with Atari games. I once bought a Playstation video game that had like 100 Atari games on it (I paid twenty dollars for this game... Atari games used to avergae about $30 a game, so if I could go back in time and purchase this game, I would have saved myself $2980) and I played it for about 35 minutes before I realized it sucked. Why did it suck? Because the games were old and shitty and there are way better new and unshitty games that have surpassed those Atari games. Pujols probably IS better than Stan Musial and Zack Greinke probably IS better than Bret Saberhagen, we just refuse to admit it because, well... We like old stuff. Or we're stubborn. Or we're stupid. Or, we're all three.

And so sticking with this theme, do you know what I've realized? Matt Damon is absolutely one of the best actors. And I mean ever.

He is. Argue with me all you want. Tell me I'm on drugs. Go on and on about Nicholson, De Niro, Brando, Pacino, Hoffman, Washington, Day-Lewis (sick!), Hackman, Duvall or any old guy like Gregory Peck or Spencer Tracey and I will STILL argue that Damon is one of the best. He is and that's fact.

I know the arguments. Way fewer awards, not a diverse enough resume, not in enough classics. But whatever. Remember when Pedro said last year that he was officially the greatest pitcher of all time because he dominated in the Steroid Era? I feel like Matt Damon is dominating the Steroid Era of Hollywood (massive personalities, huge budgets for films, amazing film schools, the foreign film factor, media hype, constant accolades for anything seen remotely as new) and so like Pedro, he HAS to be called the greatest. Let's get this one ridiculous argument out of the way now.

1951 is considered one of the greatest film years of all time. In that year, A Streetcar Named Desire, An American In Paris, and The African Queen were all released. They are all on AFI's 100 Best Films list. Brando had his legendary turn as Stanley Kowalski. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

You want to know how many movies came out in 1951? Fourteen.

14.

1-4.

Yes, fourteen.

Fourteen films came out THAT ENTIRE YEAR!!! FIVE OF WHICH WERE NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE!!!

That means A Streetcar Named Desire was probably called "One of the most amazing films of the year." So were four other films. Out of the fourteen made.

In fact, the 1951 movie math tells us that 36% of all films that year were one of the most amazing films of the year.

And the role of Stanley Kowalski- played by Marlon Brando- was nominated for an Academy Award as well. This was one of his eight total nominations. And just by showing up to play boozing, raping Stanley, Brando had a 5 in 14 chance of being nominated for an Academy Award. You're a batting champion if you go 5 for 14. So let's say he sleep walks through the role. He's probably STILL going to beat out Michael Rennie (who?), the guy who played the main character in The Day The Earth Stood still because, well, because he played a drunk guy who raped a woman and no one knows who the hell Michael rennie is. But that must have been the exception, right? I think you know where this is going so I'll stop perserverating and just give you these nuggets...

1973 (Or, The Year Al Pacino Got Nominated For One Of His Academy Awards For The Godfather): Number of Films Released: 25. Chances He bags A Nomination. 1 in 5.

1980 (Or, The Year Robert De Niro Got Nominated For One Of His Academy Awards For Raging Bull): Number of Films Released: 133. Chances He Bags A Nomination: 1 in 27.

2009 (Or The Year Matt Damon COULD POTENTIALLY Get Nominated For An Academy Award Based On His Awesomeness In The Informant!- Hey, He Put On Weight Just Like De Niro!): Number Of Films Slated For Release: 1037. Chances He Bags A Nomination: 1 in 1037 (Or, 350 Times Less Likely Of A Chance Than Marlon Brando Had In 1951).

So, can we get rid of that argument?!? Awards are nice, but in this era, who gets an award is much more difficult to decide because there are so many more roles (and the competition for those roles is probably far more fierce because actors now are probably better than they ever were). That is why I have no problem making the Academy Awards Best Picture category being expanded to ten. Really, if we are comparing it to 1973 and want to make it fair, we should expand it the category to have 41 films because that would be the equivalent of five in 1973. So stop your complaining about that too.

But back to Matt Damon. I go by what my eyes tell me as a once cool Patriots coach used to say and my eyes (along with the box office) tell me that Matt Damon is the man.

You've heard my rants before and you know actors can get pigeonholed (gangsters, heroes, cops) and somehow, Damon has managed to NOT get pigeonholed. This is likely due to his superior intelligence and ability to determine what is a good script, but it also has to do with his ACTING.

Matt Damon is probably best known by the average filmgoer as Jason Bourne (to us Boston tool bags and wishy-washy 35 year olds, he'll always be Will Hunting) and people love him for that. But he's also played a gay killer in a Speedo (I didn't see John McClain or James Bond do that), a lawyer, a soldier, a card shark, a conjoined twin, a dirty cop, a grieving father who takes advantage of his childs death (Syriana, probably his single best scene ever is in that), and now a fat guy who thinks he's James Bond. Along the way, he has also shown up in countless cameos (seeing him at the end of Finding Forrester even when I know he is coming is still money), TV shows, and cartoons. He's done voices, written the best screenplay of the past twelve years, created the funniest youtube video ever and then cemented his lore by being absolutely awesome on [SPOILER ALERT IF YOU DVR TELEVISION SHOWS!!!] Entourage this past week (was there anything better then him crying and apologizing?!? Who is this guy?!?).

He's done this all without being a tabloid whore and despite being the best actor in Hollywood, he has also remained shockingly low key and never taken himself seriously. Now, I know this stuff shouldn't matter, but in the Steroid Era of Hollywood, it most certainly does matter. Every week, some new actor is labeled "The Next Big Thing," be it Colin Farrell or Christian Bale. Then, through a combination of overexposure and suckiness, they are no longer the big thing.

And all the while, crawling along under the radar has been Matt Damon. While Bale gets lauded for being "moody" and "intense" and while Day-Lewis is seen as a genuis, Damon just keeps doing his thing. In fact, he's almost TOO consistent. Like a never mentioned superstar baseball player who grinds out 3000 hits (Craig Biggio or Robin Yount), Damon just keeps grinding out hit after hit.

At the same time, he's not just some workmanlike actor (or "that guy" as some of you may call... That Guy.). He KILLS everything he is in. I already discussed Syriana, but can you picture ANYONE OTHER than Matt Damon playing Mike McDermott as he did in Rounders?!? Who else would you have dropped in to play Rusty in the Ocean's movies? Hell, who else WOULD HAVE TAKEN those roles as a backseat to Pitt and Clooney. We all liked SOMEBODY ELSE better in The Departed, but once again, he dominated as a douche.

But really, he is awesome because he just doesn't make clunkers. One might say that All The Pretty Horses was a bomb, but that suffered from being a terribly made movie. He read the script based on a hugely popular book and took it. To this day, he still talks about the fact that it was a bad movie, but if that is his worst? I'll take it no doubt because whomever you offer up to argue against Damon has made worse.

Matt Damon is now a solid 17 years into his career as an actor and we really haven't seen a run like this in a long time and maybe forever. He continues to make tremendous movies, but more importantly, he takes diverse roles and always acts the shit out of him. There are certainly actors who will also be seen as better at their "craft" like Penn, Day-Lewis, and Seymour Hoffman. But those guys are at an unfair advantage because they are automatically viewed as Gods, even if they were to take a role in the remake of Jaws 3 in Super 3-D. You've heard my argument on that so I won't belabor it, but instead, I'll ask you this.

Can you see any of those three beating up a CIA assassin with a magazine?!?

I think I know your answer.

Matt Damon. The best actor going.