The Jack Bull (1999)

Story: Myrl Redding (John Cusack) leaves two of his prize stallions in the care of Henry Ballard (L.Q. Jones) as collateral until he can pay the toll Ballard demands for crossing his land. When Myrl returns, he discovers that Ballard's men have beaten the horses as well as the man Myrl left to care for them. When the law refuses to uphold Myrl's claim that Ballard restore the horses to their former condition and pay his friend a penance, Redding takes the law into his own hands.

You know, there are lots of times when I forget why I put a movie on my Zip List. This one's pretty obvious - John Cusack. My love of John should really start to know some bounds.

Of course, it could have been the horses. I forget where, exactly, I read it, but one of a girl's first loves is horses, and I like horses well enough, so maybe I thought, "John and I have so much in common! We both like horses!" Or maybe I thought I'd like to see him on a horse. It's unclear.

Because really, truly, if I had watched the trailer sooner than yesterday directly before I watched this made-for-cable-TV nightmare, I might have called it quits a lot sooner.

Continuing the thread that Bloomers kicked off last week, Cusack is also a guy that just doesn't work when it comes to the past. Unlike Bloomers, he certainly comes across as masculine, but that's not the problem. Everything about him -- his voice, his way of speaking, his mannerisms, his very face -- screams 20th (and 21st) century. There is just no way a man like him could have possible be born in another time. There are these times in the movie (and I'm not going to go into them) were he drops his voice to a whisper pitch to get his point across, and I seriously found myself thinking, "People back then didn't whisper." I mean, of course someone at some point after the Civil War but before the turn of the century whispered, but, if Dr.Quinn taught me anything, people on the frontier sure liked to raise their voices.

I still like Cusack. I will continue to buy, swoon over, and quote his movies. I accept that he, like the lovely Michelle Pfeiffer, is an actor of limited range. Basically, John mostly plays the same guy over and over ( Lloyd Dobbler) and occasionally ventures outside that mold and does well ( Being John Malkovich or The Grifters). That works for me.

The problem, for me, is that now I have to invent a new range category. You've got your Brad Pitts and Tom Cruises - people who can realistically take on a variety of roles, but you can't distinguish from character to character. You've got your James Gandolfinis - guys who can't play a lot of different characters but can do a lot with the roles they've got. Then you've got the Platonic Ideal of range - someone who can take on a lot of different roles and can do a lot with those roles. Think Johnny Depp. Think Philip Seymour Hoffman. See? Do you see how Cusack is destroying my beautiful three-tiered theory?

So, John, here's what I think - you're just not cut out for this kind of thing. The only thing I did during more than call Emily to complain about how bad this movie was was giggle and ask myself why I continued to watch this crap. There's a lot of things wrong with it - it's too earnest, poorly paced, laden down with improbable dialogue and improbable characters. Most guys would have just shot Ballard for their trouble and gotten on with in. But, oh no, not Myrl. He wants his horses restored (which he could have done himself if he shot Ballard in the first place). And what does he get for his trouble? Giant, asteroid-sized spoiler ahead. Hanged. And then his son (Drake Bell, who looks convincingly like John Cusack, much as he did when he was young Rob Gordon) is walking away with the healthy horses, tears streaming down his face, while Bob Dylan sings.

My games of "Hey, It's that guy!" were not enough to make this venture worthwhile, John. So, listen to me: Just because someone in your family writes the script, it doesn't mean you are required to do it. And, if you do want to be involved, cast someone else. D-