I must admit that one of my almost infallible rules for deciding what movie to see on a given evening is to check Michael Wilmington’s review in the Chicago Tribune — and then do the opposite. When he is inspired by a film, all I feel is cheesy melodrama. When he sees profundity on the screen, I see triteness and cliches cloaked in pseudo-sophistication.

But I never question Wilmington’s credentials as a film historian — or, for that matter, his reviews of more classic films.

So I was drawn to his celebration of John Wayne’s career in honor of the 100-year anniversary of Wayne’s birth.

Well, the bad Wilmington showed up. While his ratings of retrospective John Wayne DVD boxed sets are surely invaluable, his look back at Wayne’s life feels like a desperate attempt to justify Wayne’s many shortcomings.

Wilmington glosses over — and virtually excuses — Wayne’s “arch-conservative” politics (as a fervent supporter of the Blacklist, for example). More disturbingly, though, Wilmington doesn’t see any problems with the ideals of Wayne’s persona on screen:

Wayne’s on-screen character and persona, especially the aging paterfamilias and genial warrior he increasingly played from “Red River” on (his years of maximum popularity), reflects something crucial and important in the American character — and he probably had to reach middle age before he could start expressing it. He’s a father figure with an emotional kink, someone who’s faced the dark side, a character capable of rage and tenderness, rebellion and tradition. He can be kind or a killer, and often only a hairsbreadth separates the two.

We never wondered about the rectitude of Gary Cooper or Gregory Peck; they were born heroes. But the classic Wayne part, as in “The Searchers,” can embody both good and some bad qualities, though he’s always finally on the side of good (at least as the movie sees it).

In Wayne’s less interesting movies, he’s a conventional hero. In his great ones, he helps redefine the concept and image of heroism, to show how contradictory and volatile it can be.

I would argue that playing a tough guy who can’t always control his temper is hardly a “crucial and important” contribution the annals of American heroism. It’s the American heroic cliche, in fact, one that George W. Bush and others have unfortunately adopted without question.