Hidden Gem - The Comebacks (the best ZAZ-type spoof in years)

I can't speak to the 84 minute theatrical cut, but the 107 min unrated cut of The Comebacks is the real deal... a real satire that mocks the conventions of its genre rather than just making its actors play dress-up from this famous movie or this unrelated pop-culture item. The film is basically a spoof of the underdog sports dramas that have popped up in succession in the last several years. And, low-and-behold, it's an actual spoof. There is a real linear plot with actual characters who are allowed to have character-based jokes There are next to no pop-culture references, the film references are actually used to set up punchlines, the script is 'original', and the movie is just plain funny. This is not Airplane! or Top Secret, but it sure as heck isn't Date Movie either. On a specific note, Carl Weathers is every bit as funny here as he was in Arrested Development back in the day. It's well-worth seeking out for a cheap rental.

Scott Mendelson

What Obama should have said about Farrakhan...

More reasonable choices for Obama's response to the whole Farrakhan non-issue:

1) No sir, I do no reject his endorsement. I welcome anyone who wishes to support me and my campaign. I have based my campaign on bringing different-minded people together and I will continue to do so. I cannot and will not choose which opposing viewpoints are acceptable for those who wish to vote for me.

2) In the same way that voters may vote for me despite not agreeing with me on every issue, it is not my duty to vet each and every supporter in order to make sure they agree with my views on every matter of would-be substance. If I reject money or support based on one issue, then it is then my duty to make sure that I don't accidentally accept money or support from someone who has a less-than-insightful position on another issue.

3) If someone who has abhorrent ideas and/or takes part in abhorrent activities, I will still take their money and say thank you. First of all, I can't vet every cent I get. Second of all, I'd rather a group I disagree with spend their money on my campaign then spend that money doing some activity that I don't agree with. That's 'x-dollars' less that they have to spend on whatever activity I didn't support in the first place.

Who's religious endorsement is scarier for the Jews, again?

Let's make this one quick...

Barack Obama has been raked over the coals for the last few weeks because apparently he has received the unwanted endorsement of Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan is, of course, the former Nation of Islam leader who has been quoted many a time saying various anti-Semitic things ('Hitler was a great man' 'Judaism was a gutter religion', etc) in and out of proper context. For this, Obama was forced to renounce, denounce, announce, and pronounce his disavowal of Farrakhan's naughty beliefs in regards to Jews.

John McCain actively sought and publicly rejoiced in the endorsement and support of reverend John Hagee, arguably the most powerful mega-church evangelist in the country. This is a man who did and still does believe that Catholicism is 'the great whore' and 'a false cult system'. As for Jews, he has no issue with the Jews, as long as they are willing to help Israel unite so that the Rapture can occur, at which time all the Jews will either convert to Christianity or be killed. For this, McCain sowed up the primary count in Texas, winning the state last night and clinching the Republican nomination.

One unwanted endorsement of a long-forgotten icon with anti-Semitic leanings caused an immediate media field day. While another sought-after endorsement of one of the most powerful religious leaders in the country, one who happens to be an anti-Catholic bigot and sincerely hopes that all the Jews will either die or be converted, caused barely a peep outside of the liberal blog sphere within the first week.

Might this be a preview of the media treatment to come? After all, the only politician that the media seems to swoon over more than Obama is John McCain. If they have already chosen sides, then Obama, if he is the nominee, may end up with no better press treatment than John Kerry or Al Gore.

Real-Life Imitates Fiction...

Whether by coincidence or by design, the entire 2008 presidential election has felt like a remake of the last season and a half of The West Wing. Playing Jimmy Smits (the minority populist underdog, who shoots straight and doesn't want to be a conventional candidate), we have Barack Obama. As Gary Cole, the slightly more establishment candidate who is the front-runner for much of the primary season, we have Hillary Clinton. As Alan Alda, the elder GOP congressman who seems like a liberals' wet dream of what a Republican would be like, we have John McCain (of course, McCain is for all intents and purposes, conservative Republican, but that's not the narrative at this point).

Like The West Wing, the GOP nominee scored the convention earlier than the Dems. In fact, in the thrilling season finale of season six, the Democratic primary goes all the way up to a brokered convention, where Smits and Cole fend off the surprise entry of Ed O'Neil, a popular dark horse candidate (Al Gore?). Smits wins the nomination, but only because he impresses the current president (Martin Sheen) enough to have Sheen broker a back room endorsement deal with the teachers union.

Here's the scary part... in the original storyline, Alda was supposed to defeat Smits in a general election. This was changed only after actor John Spencer died of a heart attack in December of 2005. The producers felt that the double whammy of the death of Spencer's fictional character (Smits' vice-presidential nominee) as well as the defeat of the populist liberal candidate would be too much for the show's liberal viewership (truth be told, after the stolen 2000 election, the fictional world of the West Wing became, by default, such a liberal fantasy that is was occasional painful to watch). Should Obama secure the nomination, let's hope that the narrative differs from both scenarios.

Horray for Brokered Conventions?

Well, as most of you know by now, another would-be Super Tuesday (Super Tuesday II or mini-Super Tuesday, as pundits called it) has come and gone, with nothing much changed. On the Democratic side anyway, it still seems to be a tie-game. Yes, Clinton 'won' both Ohio and Texas, but due to the proportional representation of delegates, her winning margins aren't significant enough to radically alter the delegate count (for example, Obama more or less thumped Clinton in Vermont, winning 60% to 38%, yet he only wins 8 delegates to her 5). Basically, punditry aside, most of the states have had statistical dead-heats in relation to delegate counts.

Unlike most of my fellow political watchers, I'm excited by the idea of a brokered convention. First of all, it's going to make terrific television. I'm sure the networks are salivating over what will likely be record viewership for any party convention in recent history.

Second of all, as one of many Democrats who were annoyed at how John Kerry was instantly annoyted the nominee as the result of winning on Iowa caucus, I've taken much pleasure in how the campaigns have dragged on a bit, to a point where literally every state will count and every vote matters. Granted, I'm as saddened as the next lefty that Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Dennis Kucinich barely made it past the starting gate, but the level of high drama and real competition is refreshing. This is democracy in action, folks. It's complicated and it's messy. If having a brokered convention is the cost of every state having their say, then so be it.

What we, as Democrats, must do, is keep the media narrative focused on the idea that we have two exceptional candidates who have passionate followings. We are voting for the one we like, not against the one we don't.

We also must remember that this race is far from over. Clinton and Obama both have solid chances to win this thing. Just like how the media created the narrative that Bush had won in 2000 and that Gore was just being a spoil-sport in demanding that all the Florida votes be counted, the media has created the narrative that Clinton can't win and should drop out now for the good of the party. They are more or less tied at this point, yet no one calls for Obama to drop out at this point, nor should they. This one is going into extra innings, so pass the peanuts and hot dogs.

The Onion Movie lives!!

In the category of never say die, we have a trailer for the long-lost Onion movie. Originally made in early 2005, it has sat on a shelf at 20th Century Fox for almost exactly three years. The reason? It's quite terrible. I actually saw this one at a test screening, way back in March 2005. As a longtime (11 years or so) fan of The Onion newspaper, I was as curious as anybody as to how they would translate the dry, journalistic humor into a feature film. The answer? Poorly.

Of course, I only can speak to the cut I saw, but all of the bits in this trailer are familiar to me. It tries to be a new-fangled Kentucky Fried Movie but lacks the discipline and sharp humor that separates the best Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker spoofs from, well, anyone else's spoofs. It's boring, it's condescending, and it's genuinely bad enough to make you feel ashamed to admit you're a fan of the paper. But, here's the weird thing. The cut I saw was only about 50 minutes, not counting credits. So, unless they are releasing this as a short-feature, there is sure to be new material. As much as I loathed my first viewing, I am curious to see what three years has wrought. That's the bad part about test-screenings... even if the film is terrible, you're still a little curious as to how the final cut turns out.

Nothing to fear but an Obama defeat in November?

Much has been discussed in recent days on whether or not Hillary Clinton is playing on fear, specifically with the infamous '3am' online commercial. Frankly, I think it's a perfectly valid line of attack. The ad is soft, with light music and 'reassuring' images. It's not like the ad suggests that there are scary wolves just out of range, waiting to eat your children if John Kerry is elected. In theory, there will be circumstances, both dire and not-so-dire when the president will have to make important decisions at 3am (apparently, Bush responded yesterday by claiming, to the surprise of about 19-24% of the populace, that he just lets said calls go to voice mail).

The Obama camp quickly responded with a similar ad (basically claiming, not without merit, that the 'red phone' moment came in 2002, and those who voted for Bush's authorization of force against Iraq blew it). Also making the rounds is video of a rousing speech that Bill Clinton gave in 2004, basically stating that if one candidate appeals to your hopes and the other appeals to your fears, vote for the one that appeals to hope. He was right then and his sentiments are right now.
The problem is that neither candidate is really playing on fear. If the 3am ad was intended to frighten, it would have been darker, the voices would have been ominous, and Hillary Clinton herself would not have appeared in the ad (she certain wouldn't have appeared, looking calm, collected, and not the least bit worried about whatever that 3am call was (maybe it was the inside scoop about New Line).

Hillary Clinton's campaign has always been about experience and Barrack Obama's campaign has always been about judgment (ie - being smart versus being wise). To presume that any remotely substantial campaign ad is automatically an act of fear-mongering is naive and hurtful to the process. Granted, Obama's rhetoric has been closer to the classic FDR speeches. But, perhaps Clinton is the one who is truly afraid. Not that she will lose but that Obama will lose the general election.

Much has been made about how cutthroat Clinton has been since South Carolina. She of the alleged dirty tricks, baiting statements, and leave no man alive strategies. Most of the punditry has been focused on the simplistic notion that she is simply power mad, determined to achieve the presidency by any means necessary as some form of manifest destiny. That may be true. She may very well think she's entitled, as if this is her reward for dealing with 12 years of the most misogynistic, savage, wrongheaded attacks one can imagine from the opposition party.

But, what if it's more complicated than that? What if she is being as aggressive as she is because she is afraid for the party? I believe that both candidates are well-placed to take the White House in 2008. But she may not. If she honestly believes that Obama will lose to McCain, then it is her duty to pull every string, to try every trick, and call in every favor to make sure that she is the party's nominee. Because, in her mind, the only we thing have to fear, is a John McCain presidency. On that , we agree.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Halloween (2007)

Halloween (2007)
2007
110 minutes
Rated R

By Scott Mendelson

Rob Zombie's Halloween is among the most misguided, confused, and unfocused films I have ever seen. On its face, it is a remake of the classic 1978 John Carpenter slasher picture that kick started the modern day horror stalker/slasher picture that has provided steady product for the last 29 years since. But Zombie tries to have it both ways. He adds his own contrived spin to the Michael Myers mythology, while at the same time trying to appease the fans of the original by cramming in all of the original material as well, plus bits and pieces from Halloween 2 and Halloween: The Television Edit. As a Halloween picture, it is inferior to every other Halloween sequel. Regardless of its worth as a remake, it is a stunningly terrible, borderline offensive motion picture.

The plot: At the age of ten, young Michael Myers (Daeg Faerch) is already damaged goods. Living in a stereotypically redneck home, with the stereotypically redneck home life. After his sister ditches 'trick-r-treating' with Mike in order to have sex with her boyfriend, young Michael goes on a killing spree. Myers is immediately committed, where he is treated by a young Dr. Samuel Loomis (Malcolm McDowell, not coming anywhere close to the pathos that Donald Pleasence brought to even the sorriest sequel). Eventually, the film skips forward fifteen years, where Michael manages to escape from an asylum and return to the town of his original murder spree.

It's obvious that Zombie only cares about the overlong first act, where he parades around white-trash clichés in a ridiculous attempt to gain audience sympathy for Myers' murder spree (and convince us that growing up in a conventional abusive redneck household will turn you into a silent supernatural stalker of the night, as opposed to an Ed Gein or Ed Kempler-type serial murderer). The second act truncates the entire narrative of the original Halloween into 30-minutes of screen time. None of those in peril are developed and there is no suspense to speak of. The entire middle act is just one brutal, savage, and arbitrary execution after another. There is no set-up and no character development to allow us to care about any of the ill-fated targets.

With the original Halloween, John Carpenter was accused of ending the sexual revolution by equating premarital teenage sex with death (something he has jokingly apologized for). In Rob Zombie's version, there is often nothing onscreen for us to view except sex and death. For the entire second act, we see nothing but teenagers swearing at each other, having sex with each other, then being brutally knifed to death. But the violence is so cruel, and the victims such cardboard, that one gets the idea that Zombie is truly rooting for Myers, as to fulfill some nihilistic view of humanity that would probably be cool to an eleven year old boy. Most disturbing is the way that Zombie seems to lavish detail on the pain and suffering of the most morally upstanding characters, while giving quick deaths to the amoral characters on the chopping block.

Acting-wise, the cast does what they can. Malcolm McDowell gets to utter a few 'He's super-ultra evil!' speeches that Pleasence made so memorable, but he barely has enough screen time to craft a performance. The soul of the original, in fact the original series, was Pleasence's Captain Ahab-like Loomis. His sad, tragic descent from respected doctor to borderline insane monster-hunter gave the sequels a gravitas that they otherwise would have lacked. Even Halloween 6, filmed as Pleasance was dying, had a sorrowful power as Loomis had given up the ghost only to find he had nothing left to fill his remaining days (a parable of the once distinguished actor becoming trapped in the disrespected horror genre?). In this version, Loomis is reduced to that guy who you think will show up to save the day at the last minute. The rest of the cast members are onscreen for only a scene or two before their bloody demise, so none of them register in the slightest.

Halloween is 45-minutes of contrived back story, followed by 30-minutes of one completely context-less murder after another, followed by the obligatory climactic chase scene which generates zero suspense because the audience is given no reason to root for either party. It is perilously close to a snuff film, with absolutely nothing to say and no real reason to exist. Zombie's previous films were flawed, but they were interesting, warts and all. House Of 1000 Corpses was a throwback to the 1970s horror freak show genre, while The Devil's Rejects directly deconstructed many of the nasty staples that we claim to love about horror films. Halloween is none of these things. It's not scary. It's not fun. It's not smart. It's simply really violent. Savage violence for the sake of savage violence is worse than offensive, it's boring.

Grade: D+

Review: Live Free Or Die Hard (2007)

Live Free Or Die Hard
2007
126 minutes
Rated PG-13

By Scott Mendelson

For the last two months, the story around Live Free Or Die Hard (aka Die Hard IV) has been Fox's decision to rework the film for the sake of getting a PG-13 rating. Of course, the original three Die Hard films were hard-R, with graphic violence, pervasive profanity, and a general rough-and-tumble quality that were (along with the Lethal Weapon films) the standard bearers of adult action entertainment for about a decade. Having now seen the film, I now ask Fox what exactly it was thinking, but not for the reason you think.

The film is still brutally violent, with an on screen body count that nearly exceeds the combined totals of parts 1 and 3 (part 2, with its two passenger airplane crashes, is still the
record holder). There are point-blank executions galore, and many vicious fight scenes, gruesome explosions, and fatal car wrecks. Point being, fans of the series should know that this is still a rough, profane, and violent adult action film. On the other hand, it's a sorry state for the MPAA when this is considered more appropriate for children than the previous entries just because there is less blood and no one says the 'f' word (the way they work in McClane's catchphrase within these confines is surprisingly effective).

However, for those who are old enough to attend middle school or drive a car, this is a surprisingly effective large-scale adventure picture. The plot involves Timothy Olyphant as a rogue ex-government agent attempting to shut down the country by hacking into our electrical systems. Ironically, the story progression in the first act often resembles Willis's terrific 16 Blocks from last year, albeit with emotional heft traded in for elaborate shootouts and fights. The action scenes are set-up in a way to mirror the claustrophobia and vulnerability of the original film. With the exception of a third act True Lies rip-off, the action bits are relatively creative and the filmmakers were smart to fill the villain roster with notable sidekicks and thugs. Maggie Q does king-fu and District B-13's Cyril Raffaelli does his 'parkour' wall-bouncing thing, alas all too briefly.

As for our star, a bald Bruce Willis slides back into his signature role with a minimum of fuss. The main qualms come with the heavy-handed treatment of the generation gap between McClane and the villain, as well as Willis's accidental sidekick (Justin Long plays a computer geek who's apparently too young to have heard of the classic song 'Fortunate Son'). Also, the screenplay goes a little overboard in re-establishing McClane as a bitter pill who only reluctantly saves the day (the opening scene is also a little creepy as McClane is shown basically stalking his college-aged daughter). Justin Long comes off better than expected, thanks to a subplot that deals with his guilt for having inadvertently helped cause the chaos that unfolds. For most of the film, he is not hip or cool, but scared and slightly ashamed.

Speaking of that college-aged daughter, the third act stumbles by allowing Lucy McClane to be abducted by the villains, which is unfortunate, as the character has been kidnapped in at least two Die Hard video games. Since the conflict between McClane and the evil Gabriel is established and Long spends much of the film in mortal peril, there is no reason to pull out this most tired of clichés.

Regardless of past whiffs (the Underworld films), director Len Wiseman proves capable of pulling together a solid, crowd-pleasing action vehicle that showcases authentic top-notch stunt work and quality fight choreography. As a bonus, the supporting cast is filled with reliable character actors. Cliff Curtis is solid as the head government agent dealing with the mess, although Zeljko Ivanek is so wasted that I was sure he was going to be revealed as a traitor in the third act.

I still question Fox's decision to dub out the f-words in order to get that PG-13 (the bad dubbing is pretty funny at times), since they've now created a film that is still inappropriate for younger
children but whose rating may scare off or offend hard-action junkies. And, if Fox wants the family audience, why are they opening this against Pixar's Ratatouille?

Studio politics aside, Live Free Or Die Hard is a fun, well-crafted adult action film. So far, with this and Rocky Balboa, we're 2 for 2 in 80s nostalgia revamps. This gives me hope for Rambo IV (which will be a hard-R), to say nothing of the much anticipated (and somewhat feared) fourth Indiana Jones film. It's not a patch on the original, or the underrated Die Hard 2: Die Harder, but it is about as good as Die Hard With A Vengeance. It doesn't "Die Hardest", but it doesn't "Die Hardly" either.

Grade: B

Review: Ratatouille (2007)

Ratatouille
2007
110 minutes
Rated G

By Scott Mendelson

One of the tragic consequences of our hurried age is our acceptance of less. We are too busy to pay attention to current events, so we demand our news be delivered in easily digestible sound bites that often obscure the real issues. We are too busy to truly enjoy dining, so we settle for fast food and chain restaurants that use the same frozen ingredients that can be found in a grocery store. Never mind smelling the roses, we are often too busy or stressed to even acknowledge those roses.

Pixar and Disney's Ratatouille is a celebration of that which is better than expected, finer than demanded, and a cut above to that which we settle for. Of course, all of those adjectives can be used to describe the movie itself, as it validates excellence by being embarrassingly superior to other 'acceptable' cartoons. It is, along with the stunningly overachieving Meet The Robinsons, a call to arms from Disney to all of its rivals in the realm of the cartoon feature. It shames the makers of the pedestrian Shrek The Third and does unmentionable horrors to Happily N'Ever After. Disney has rebounded from three years of mediocrity (Cars, Chicken Little, The Wild) and it is a joyous revival. Disney is back in prime form and lovers of quality can rejoice.

Some plot, in brief... Set in modern day Paris, France, this charming cartoon concerns the hopes and dreams of a single rat named Remy (Patton Oswald). He lives with his rat family, yet scorns the low-quality dining options that are available (i.e.- garbage). For Remy, food is not just fuel, but art to be savored and appreciated. He yearns to cook like the late, fabled chef Gusteau (Brad Garrett), who once ran the finest restaurant in Paris but died brokenhearted when his restaurant was ruined by a review from a scolding, influential critic (Peter O'Toole, doing his best Vincent Price impression). By happenstance, Remy quickly finds his way inside the kitchen of the legendary eatery and his arrival is simultaneous with that of Linguini (Lou Romano), a nervous would-be dishwasher who also yearns for better things.

That's all you get, for the wonderfully literate screenplay is full of genuine surprises. That the film is peerlessly drawn and richly animated is a given; yet the work should not go unnoticed. Like Meet The Robinsons, the cast is filled with real voice over talent with only a token amount of celebrities (all of whom deliver real performances of warmth and passion). The score by Michael Giacchino (The Incredibles, Lost) is lively and completely different from his previous stellar work. The technical credits are all peerless and they only serve to supplement a wonderfully clever story.

The film is perhaps the first mainstream American cartoon that is truly intended for adults. Yes, kids will enjoy it, but this celebration of talent over luck and high class dining versus frozen microwaved meals is aimed at intelligent adults' pleasure center. The manic mayhem is kept to a minimum and the comedy is subtle and sharp. At its base, it is a character drama about those who refuse to settle for their place in society, not because they can't fit in, but because they want to contribute more. It is also, in a fashion, about the joys of discovering that glorious 'superior'. There is a monologue towards the end that is stunningly beautiful, an ode to the joys of finding new treasures and new wonders to behold. Nothing beats finding something that, to paraphrase Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous, you love so much that it hurts.

The film is also a declarative yelp against the acceptance of mediocrity. Why shouldn't we demand better food, better movies and better politicians? Pixar, as a company, has always been a stand-in for Hollywood's best-case scenario (talent + resources + heart + commitment to character and story = success!). Director Brad Bird asks: why shouldn't every movie be as good as this? And if they are not, why should we give them a pass? Ratatouille demands better by being much better than we are accustomed to. Ratatouille IS a movie that is so good that it hurts.

Grade: A

Note - If you can arrange it, make sure you have dining reservations after the movie, preferably somewhere you've never tried before. And for another food-related masterpiece, track down Big Night, a 1996 comedy starring Tony Shaloub and Stanley Tucci as brothers attempting to operate a small restaurant.