The other day I flipped on sports radio to keep me company as I work. I usually listen to a Web broadcast of ESPN Radio, occasionally NPR, and once in a while, when the topic is golf or football, I listen to Jim Rome. I can only take him in small bits, because there's something about his voice that grates me. But I understand he's a good guy, and he's often pretty funny if you can get past his not-so-tough-guy-trying-like-hell-to-sound-like-a-tough-guy voice. Anyway, enough disclaimers. But more on tough-guy voices...

Rome's guest was Sylvester Stallone, there to pitch his new show called The Contender, which is, not surprisingly, about amateur boxers. Not being "in to" boxing, I figured I'd change it to NPR or whatever else sounded good. I got up to change the station, but just before I pressed another preset, I heard Stallone use the word amalgamate in perfect context. The word sounded strange coming from that voice, that Yo, Adrian voice. But there it was, perfectly executed off the cuff. I paused, backed away from the radio, and sat back down to work. In a few minutes, he managed to use awry, beholden, and pericardial without missing a beat. By the time he tossed out neophyte, I realized that for years I had been fooled by the Stallone Stereotype. You can tell from listening to this guy that's he's sharp. Not "sharp for Stallone", but just a sharp guy. And not just because of the words he used, I mean, big deal. It was his messages, his quickness. I was entertained and impressed. I'd like to have a beer with Sylvester Stallone. He's a neat guy.

Come get some...antidisestablishmentarianism!

So yea. Maybe my (former) impression of him is similar to yours. It was born of his typecasted persona and years of comedians poking fun at his vacuous jock voice, that unmistakable Rocky sound that suggests a lack of sophistication and awareness. You know what I mean...it's like, Jesse Ventura reading Kierkegaard probably wouldn't work. But Stallone apparently never gave a damn about the false impression that his Hollywood characters have left on us. I feel like I'm condescending by merely saying that I was surprised by his interview. Sorry, Sly. None of that intended. Beer? On me.

I'm a Star Wars kid. In the late 70s to early 80s, I had all the action figures, a tie fighter, a millennium falcon, and an X-wing. Star Wars was the coolest thing ever. But the first taste of disappointment came with the final episode, Return of the Jedi, which introduced a chatty species of teddy bears who, equipped like stone aged hunters, play as much role in the saving of the universe as the leading heroes. No kid worth knowing ever owned an Ewok action figure. They sucked, and even kids knew it.

So years later the "prequels" arrived and former Star Wars kids like me couldn't wait to see the saga continue. But Jar Jar Binks happened, and a collective sigh was heard 'round the world. Episodes I and II had their share of neat-O moments, but they were overshadowed by the dreadful dialogue and piss poor direction. It was so bad in spots that you could see actors like Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor wincing under their game faces. Yep, George Lucas disappointed us grown ups, us former kids sucked into his world. Teaser trailers for both prequels looked good, if not great. They made ye mouth water for more saga. And both movies stank in their own way. I made a mental note to not expect much for Episode III. Don't be fooled by another cleverly assembled trailer.

I just watched the latest trailer for Episode III, and Oh, *MAN*...This One Will Be Different.