Last night, I watched Finding Amanda (or at least all that I could tolerate of it) and became curious about Matthew Broderick's career. I usually approach the Matthew-Broderick-subject with a safe "not that there's anything wrong with that" and a look in the other direction, but I suddenly was interested in just why, two decades after Ferris Bueller, he's still getting leading roles.

After indulging in my curiosity some, I can't really come up with a logical reason for why he's still a name actor. He hasn't had a true box office hit (where the total gross outpaced the production budget by a safe margin) since the late 80's. Moreover, aside from two exception-not-the-rule movies / performances in Election and You Can Count On Me, post-Glory, his normal M.O. is "bad movie, bland performance."

So he's not a money-maker . . . isn't a critical favorite . . . doesn't pick good projects . . . and yet he still has four movies that have come out or will come out this year. And I'm like, why?

Possible reasons:

1. People get nostalgic when they see him, think of Ferris and Sloane and Cameron, and keep letting him get away with shit a normal actor never would (I guess I'm Jennifer Grey in this equation).

2. The Broadway community holds that much weight. *enter limp wrist joke* *fax out apology to GLAAD*

3. Usually show-biz marriages benefit whatever new young blonde an A-list leading man has on his arm. Here, however, is the power of Sarah Jessica Parker just so potent that she has kept her husband relevant even when it didn't really make sense? (But I guess if SATC can trick millions of well-intentioned women into eating such tremendous bullshit and licking up the plate, then anything is possible).

4. There is no God.

Anyway, do any of these ideas fit or are there other possible explanations for why Matthew Broderick still has a movie career?

BTW, did you know he killed two people back in '87 in a car accident? His penalty apparently was a $175 fine. Hmm . . . maybe number four was right.