THE SMACKDOWN -- Rush vs. Grand Prix

For my money there is nothing more viscerally exciting than Formula 1 auto racing. As you may know, F1 is defined by and regulated by the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA). The “formula” refers to the set of specific rules to which all teams must conform. The “1” stands for the undeniable fact that this is the most prestigious, most dangerous, most exciting form of motor sports in the world – period.

Unfortunately, F1 is relatively unknown in the United States due to the fact that there have been very few American drivers, with Mario Andretti, Phil Hill and Dan Gurney being the major exceptions. In addition, all of the exotic, immensely expensive cars are made overseas. This makes the USA about the only industrialized country in the world that doesn't feverishly follow the fame and fortune of such teams as Ferrari, McLaren and Williams. Then again, what would one expect from a country with the unmitigated gall to call a major sporting event “The World Series” when the only teams eligible to play are located within its borders? Thus, it is a bit surprising that American Directors and American Studios have, on occasion, risked millions in bringing F1 racing to the screen.

Our Challenger is Ron Howard's Rush, a highly publicized, ambitious production based on the true story of the 1976 F1 season and the bitter rivalry between the handsome playboy newcomer James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and established driver Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl), a past champion whose methodical approach to driving is in stark contrast to his British counterpart.

Setting the gold standard for all previous auto racing films is our Champion, Grand Prix, directed by the visionary John Frankenheimer. Set ten years earlier, Grand Prix follows a fictional set of characters during the 1967 F1 season focusing primarily on Pete Aron (James Garner) as a hard-charging American driver desperately seeking a comeback.

In a documentary about the making of Grand Prix a voice-over announcer states, “Because of the cost and complexity, it is unlikely that a film like this will ever be made again.” That statement held true for over 45 years. Can Ron Howard's brand new, true story Rush score the victory? Or does James Garner's fictional battle for the F1 Championship still possess the winning formula?

The Challenger

“The closer you are to death, the more alive you feel.” This is the tagline for Rush, and there's no denying that dying in an F1 racing car in the 1970s was an all-too-common occurrence, with twelve drivers being killed that decade alone. Two-time Academy Award winning Director Ron Howard teams with two-time Academy Award winning Screenwriter Peter Morgan to present a spectacular big-screen re-creation of the 1976 F1 season, focusing on the sport's two leading drivers at the time and the sizzling trifecta representing the women in their lives -- Gemma (Natalie Dormer), a nurse who knows how to dispense medicine as well as formalities, Suzy Miller (Olivia Wilde), Hunt's drop-dead gorgeous first wife, and Marlene (Alexandra Maria Lara), Lauda's refined and faithful wife of 15 years, a soul mate who's loyalty and devotion to a difficult husband may only be equaled by Sharon Osbourne.

The events of this historic season reach a flash point, literally, with Lauda's horrific crash in the German Grand Prix at Nurburgring, leaving him with a severely burned face and lungs and extremely close to death. Confined to an intensive care room, Lauda watches Hunt as he continues to win and slowly challenge his once insurmountable lead for the season championship. Against all odds, Lauda makes an inspirational and astonishing return to racing which climaxes at the final rain-swept event in Japan.

Bolstered by the use of high-quality, compact digital cameras, Howard and Cinematographer Anthony Dod deliver heart-pounding action sequences that not only puts the audience in the stands, but in the race cars themselves. It's a hell of a ride, and the logistics of capturing all of this on the big screen was clearly a massive undertaking apparently requiring the combined skills of 6 Producers and 5 Co-Producers. Then again, Rush may have simply raised the bar for the further dilution of what once were meaningful screen credits. Credit issues aside, Rush is a powerful, engaging and highly entertaining movie.

 The Defending Champion

Oscar-winning Screenwriter (All That Jazz) Robert Alan Aurthur's fictional script focuses on the top four drivers during the 1967 F1 Season – both on and off the track. Behind the wheel we find Pete Aron (James Garner), an American who loses his ride, only to be hired for the final few races by a wealthy Japanese industrialist (Toshiro Mifune) who desperately wants his car to win its first F1 race. The reigning world champion is Jean-Pierre Sarti (Yves Montand), a Frenchman who is the leader of the legendary Scuderia Ferrari team. Providing additional competition is the Englishman Scott Stoddard (Brian Bedford) and young Nino Barlini, Sarti's teammate. Behind the bedroom door we find three beautiful, but dispassionate women – Louise Frederickson (Eva Marie Saint), a semi-frigid American journalist who gets involved with the married Sarti, Pat Stoddard (Jessica Walter), Scott's high maintenance, self-centered wife, and Lise (Francoise Hardy), Nino's latest nubile squeeze.

The tagline for Grand Prix was “Sweeps YOU into a drama of speed and spectacle!” Shot in 70 mm 6-track Super Panavision and released in Cinerama, Grand Prix is one film that truly utilized all of the state-of-the-art production techniques of the day. Sitting in front of a theater screen over 100 feet wide, the audience literally felt the exhilarating speed and the ear-shattering sounds of high revving, 400+ horse power engines. Next to being at an actual F1 race, Grand Prix comes as close as anything for the average person to “experience” the inherent danger present on every lap, every turn. (Of the 32 drivers who participated or were seen in the film, five died in racing accidents within the next two years and another five in the following ten years.)

The Scorecard

There are a number of ways to assess the merit of a motion picture project. In the case of these films two criteria are paramount for a winning formula: 1) Is the off-track storyline fully developed, engaging, well-acted and powerful enough to stand alone, sans any racing footage whatsoever? And 2) Do the racing scenes capture the inherent danger, the incredible speed, the earth-shattering sound, the complexity and the beauty of F1?

Rush has the advantage of being based on a true story. Niki Lauda, whose nickname was “The Rat” because of his ungainly appearance and bucked teeth, was, by all accounts, a cold, arrogant, calculating Austrian obsessed to be the best. He was clearly the exact opposite of the flamboyant Hunt, a highly charismatic, reckless playboy whose lifestyle included lots of booze, drugs and women (he is said to have had sexual relations with an NBA-worthy 5,000 young maidens before dying of a heart attack at the age of 45). These two bigger-than-life, divergent personalities, each desperately seeking to become the premier global name in F1 racing, are captured perfectly by the complex, insightful screenplay by Peter Morgan who has a history of pitting head-to-head real-life, powerful personalities, including the Howard-directed Frost/Nixon, as well as Blair/Brown in The Deal and Idi Amin/his doctor in The Last King Of Scotland.

Lauda and Hunt are compellingly portrayed by the remarkable Daniel Bruhl (in what some are already declaring to be an Oscar-worthy performance) and his counterpart Chris Hemsworth. Lauda's story is one of unparalleled dedication, perseverance and outright will power. In a strange twist of fate, it may have been his bitter rivalry with Hunt that actually drives him, both spiritually and physically, to drive again. Audiences come to love Hunt as the dazzling, dashing dandy he is, but it is Lauda's vulnerability and bravery that will resonate deeper and longer. In fact, there are many who believe what Lauda does in the last race of the season is “among the bravest decisions in motor racing history.” Clearly there are no villains here, only two remarkable, highly talented, highly motivated adversaries who are not as black-and-white as the checkered flag found at the finish line.

While the off-track scenes provide an insightful, captivating look at the behind-the-scenes lives of two historic racers, Rush will also be remembered for its exhilarating on-track footage. One must assume that Howard screened Grand Prix prior to undertaking this project; his challenge is to at least equal, if not exceed, the cinematic spectacle brilliantly brought to the screen by our Champion. He comes close.

Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle, supplied with three dozen Arri Alera Plus digital cameras, deserves much of the credit, especially for having so many actually mounted inside the race cars which provide a staggering visual immediacy. The extreme close-up of Hunt's eyes behind the wheel captures the incredible focus needed to pilot a 180 mph F1 car as well as any camera technique previously employed. And the overhead shots of the blazing inferno engulfing Lauda's blood-red Ferrari will not easily be forgotten.

All of these amazing images are enhanced by the cello-driven score by Hans Zimmer providing a surprising and unique counterpart to the speed of the cars and the sound of their screaming F1 engines. Additional kudos must go to Editors Daniel P. Hanley and Mike Hill who manage to condense a complex, multi-faceted story into a mere 123-minute running time. Opie and friends have done well.

Howard's counterpart, John Frankenheimer, is probably best known for directing, Birdman of Alcatraz and The Manchurian Candidate, but his ability to overcome the immense challenges of shooting Grand Prix may be his most significant cinematic accomplishment. Without doubt, Frankenheimer's biggest challenge was the screenplay penned by Robert Alan Arthur, which at times is little more than a soap opera. Nonetheless, the entire cast does an admirable job with the material, with the lone exception being “newcomer” Francoise Hardy who, at the time, was a popular singer in France. While she definitely provides pleasing eye candy, her lack of acting ability can best be summed up by simply pointing out that she never again appeared in a major film anywhere.

Clearly the best parts in Grand Prix didn't go to the actors, they went to the cars, and when the action moves from off-track melodrama to on-the-track mega-drama, our Champion's fortunes take a bigger turn than the famous Grand Hotel Hairpin Curve at Monaco thanks to Director Frankenheimer's outstanding directorial, editorial and technical achievements when the pedal hits the metal. As the tagline declares, Grand Prix “Sweeps YOU into a drama of speed and spectacle!” If there ever was truth in advertising, consider the fact that many young film goers would become mesmerized by sitting in the very first row through repeated screenings while stoned. Now that, my friend, was a hell of a rush in 1967.

Using every Super Panavision camera in existence, the ultra-wide screen images benefitted from Frankenheimer's occasional use of split screen (in part to overcome the inherent distortion problems presented by Cinerama in close-ups) as well as employing the additional use of multi-image sequences.

And keep in mind there's no CGI – (thank you very much) – everything you see is real. Just as impressive was the meticulous attention paid to capturing the ear-splitting sounds of the various race cars, garnering Grand Prix two well-deserved Academy Awards. (Each car was carefully miked and recorded so the screaming sounds made by the Ferrari engine would be 100% accurate and discernible from those made by the engine powering the McLaren – it is this attention to detail that racing aficionados cherish the most.) All other technical aspects of the film were top notch as well, with everything skillfully blended by Oscar-nominated film editors Henry Berman, Stu Linder and Frank Santillo and further enhanced by the moving score by Maurice Jarre, who had recently completed Laurence of Arabia. All things considered, the 176 minute running time maintains its pace remarkably well.

The Decision

Both John Frankenheimer and Ron Howard began their careers in television. Frankenheimer started out behind the camera; his experience with employing multi-camera production techniques, meeting rigid deadlines and needing to get things right on the first take amid the chaos of live TV made him an ideal choice for Grand Prix. Howard on the other hand, began his career in front of the camera. His transition to directing single-camera feature-length motion pictures is both remarkable and undeniable. Given these backgrounds, one might give Frankenheimer the edge when it comes to the challenges of capturing the turbulent and tempestuous world of F1 racing. Then again...

Decision time – which of these two highly talented filmmakers brings home the Smackdown trophy? Let's do a quick recap: Cinemascope vs. Conventional Projection. Academy Award Winning Sound Effects vs. Potential Academy Award Winning Sound Effects. 176 minutes vs. 123. Eva Marie Saint/Jessica Walter vs. Natalie Dormer/Olivia Wilde. Robert Alan Aurthur's Screenplay vs. Peter Morgan's Screenplay.

One film is Bigger, and even though it has nothing to do with Niki, it is Lauda! The other is Faster. Hotter. And Better!

Pop open the champagne Mr. Howard, taking the checkered flag is our Smackdown Winner – Rush.

LITTLE MONSTERS

Review by Robert A. Nowotny

Writer/Director David Schmoeller showcases his exceptional versatility in his latest feature film, a riveting drama inspired by the true story of the senseless, horrific murder of three-year old James Bulger in the United Kingdom. While this event occurred back in 1993, and only one child was killed, the recent events at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut make LITTLE MONSTERS one of the must-see movies of 2013.

Yes, the body count is just one innocent pre-kindergarden youngster vs. 20 elementary school students and six adults (not counting Adam Lanza and his mother), but one key facet of the story is that the perpetrators of this unconscionable act were children themselves, each only ten years of age.

Carl Withers and James Landers were not especially bad boys. We learn that Carl felt tormented by a dysfunctional mother, but nothing in his past nor James' would suggest that one day these boys would decide to randomly kidnap a child on a whim. And nothing in their past would forewarn that shortly thereafter the toddler would be bludgeoned to death, his corpse left lying on a railroad track outside of town.

The kidnapping and murder occupy only the first few minutes of this film. The emphasis, instead, is on the release of both killers once they have turned eighteen years of age. Given new names and identities, Carl and James are released back into society with the goal of both, totally independent of one another, to become productive, law-abiding citizens. But society deems that nothing is more heinous than the murder of an innocent child, and there are those who will devote themselves to track down both teens with an eye toward extracting unfulfilled “justice.”

What makes LITTLE MOSTERS such a relevant and compelling film is the remarkable insight Schmoeller provides regarding the two parolees, those who are devoted to tracking down their whereabouts, and the American public in general.

For Carl, the transition to freedom is a difficult endeavor. James copes better, but he also continues to harbor demons which may never be fully overcome. While each embody a radically different point of view concerning the past and their present circumstance, the most surprising development is that, once reunited, they are destined to battle each other more than their pursuers.

Schmoeller's script and direction are once again top notch, as is the casting of Charles Cantrell, as Carl, and Ryan Le Boeuf, as James – both are extremely convincing in difficult roles. In fact, all of the actors are excellent, as is the Cinematography of Craig Boydston, the Editing by Ben Zuk and the Art Direction by Maricela Caballero and Kelly Schenk.

Several years ago Worldfest-Houston, perhaps the only truly independent film festival remaining in the continental United States, declared, “See what films are made of when they aren't made of money.” With a reported budget of only $15,000, Schmoeller once again confirms the power of cinema to enlighten as well as entertain when, in skilled and determined hands, passion trumps pennies.

Unlike the bulk of American Cinema, LITTLE MONSTERS does far more than merely indulge; it asks questions. Important questions. Questions that weigh heavily on the mind of most Americans, especially now. Questions that are not limited to the killers, nor the indefensible act of murdering helpless children, but also questions regarding society in general and the legal system in particular.

But one question remains paramount: Will you make the effort to see LITTLE MONSTERS?

2016: OBAMA'S AMERICA

(This will be short and to the point -- two things you will not find in 2016: OBAMA'S AMERICA)


Indian Producer/Director Dinesh D'Souza has managed to create a brand new motion picture genre.  Let's call it "BOLLOCKSWOOD."  While one would not expect a documentary of this type to change the opinion of hard core Democrats or Republicans, I am sure that Mr. D'Souza intended to at least influence those who are Undecided and/or Independents.  Alas, for anyone sitting on the fence, he simply comes across as a post turtle and nothing more.  Let me add that the film fails to paint any kind of specific, lucid picture of what 2016 might actually be like if Barack Obama were to be elected.  Instead, I believe the only reference point within the title is the interminable running time -- once the end credits appeared I honestly believed 2016 had already arrived.

CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY

And Jesus says: "I cannot heal you my son...you have a pre-existing condition."

That's just one of many hilarious scenes in Michael Moore's latest offering -- CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY. Although most reviewers refer to Moore's films as documentaries, they are clearly more one man's one-sided point of view regarding serious issues in contemporary America. If you have ever spent a couple of hours (or more) listening to folks like Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck, Needtovent strongly recommends you give Michael Moore 120 minutes of your time as well. We are confident that you will walk away from the theater entertained, enlightened and, most likely, infuriated as Hell.

CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY is probably Moore's best film to date -- it is certainly his most personal since ROGER & ME. And although he continues to use a scattershot approach, the enormous size and complexity of the subject matter this time around actually lends itself to his style of filmmaking. Among the multitude of issues explored are:

"Dead Peasant Insurance" -- life insurance policies taken out by Fortune 500 companies on executives, and, in the case of Wal-Mart, lowly "associates" as well. Should the insured die, the beneficiary is the company, not the deceased's family. In these cases, the company actually profits when their employees die, the sooner the better, thus collecting up to $5 million in hard, cold cash as one of the cases explored up-close and personal revealed. While the origin of the name "Dead Peasant Insurance" remains unknown, it certainly serves as a metaphor for the prevailing attitude of callous corporate America.


Another topic explored is the risky, reckless, rapacious Wall Street gamble known as "derivatives." These "spin-off" investment instruments are so complex not one of the three financial experts, including the Department Chairman of Harvard's Finance School, can explain them. In fact, some are apparently so complicated that they are created by computers and not even the software authors fully understand them. The bottom line: if there is a default on a mortgage, the investor wins -- big. And if there isn't a default, the investor can still hedge his bet by also betting the derivative will fail. (How convenient.) It's a win-win for the investment firm -- and a toxic, egregious lose-lose for the average American family.

Other segments explore:

The horribly low pay for airline pilots -- we are shown a "Give a penny to a pilot" jar at the boarding gate of an airliner to underscore the severity of the problem (first-year pilots often earn less than the assistant manager at Burger King).

The widening gap between the richest and the rest of America -- the richest 1% of the population has as much accumulated wealth as 95% of the poorest. Citibank has even declared in private memos that America is now a plutonomy. It sure seems like we need more Howard Beales and fewer Walter Mittys among 95-99% of our population.

The foreclosure epidemic -- one family in particular is profiled as they are unceremoniously kicked off their farm that has been in the family for over four generations.

But perhaps the most revealing sequence is the fascinating, dynamic archival footage of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt appearing on camera advocating a Second Bill of Rights. According to our sources, this Movietone News footage, shot at the explicit invitation of an ailing FDR at the end of his last State of the Union address, has never been seen previously -- for some reason it wasn't included in the newsreels of the day. Of course, with Roosevelt's death this Second Bill of Rights was never enacted here, in the United States, although many of its provisions are now in the constitutions of Germany, Italy and Japan -- which were all authored with considerable American input and involvement after WWII ended.


Love him. Hate him. But don't ignore him. CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY is definitely worth seeing. Roger Ebert said it best, at the very least you'll come away realizing that with corporate greed and Wall Street shenanigans the order of the day, capitalism means never having to say you're sorry.

Please go see CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY. We predict you'll leave mad as Hell...and that's a good thing.

DEATH PROOF

"Has Tarantino ever made a singularly authentic, sincere, innovative frame of film in his life?"
(Brandon Fibbs)

Ouch.

DEATH PROOF is Quentin Tarantino's feature-length contribution to GRINDHOUSE, the twin-bill gore-fest which was intended to be a homage to the classic, albeit classless, drive-in B-movies of the 1950s and 1960s. Combined with several fake movie trailers and Robert Rodriguez's full-length PLANET TERROR, the total running time for this patronizing pastiche was a whopping 191 minutes. Overly long and ultimately disappointing, GRINDHOUSE was a box office failure.

What to do?

Well Tarantino and Rodriguez and the Weinstein's, Executive Producers Bozo Bob and Hapless Harvey, re-released both films as single offerings and the staff at Needtovent recently screened DEATH PROOF thanks to the fine folks at AMC which, in this case, could very well stand for Agonizingly Mindless Cinema.


DEATH PROOF stars Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike, a psychopath who uses his heavily reinforced muscle car as a killing machine to annihilate unsuspecting, beautiful young women who have a propensity to bare their belly button. The navels are nicely shaped, lint-free "innies" -- just what any red-blooded hormone-driven fella would find arousing, for lack of a better word. But Stuntmn Mike has a hard-on of a different nature for these nubiles; what/why is never divulged. And what Stuntman Mike forgets is that Hell hath no fury like a woman being creamed by a big bore Chevy. Sounds promising enough, but the biggest bore of all is the incessant bantering among the various broads which bogs down any momentum until the very end. By then, one hardly cares.


On the bright side, Russell's hypnotic/psychotic Stuntman Mike is a fun character to watch. And the legion of libertine, libidinous lounge lizards provide appealing eye candy at first, at least until their incessant droning makes you want Stuntman Mike, or anyone for that matter, to reach for some duct tape or, perhaps, a Louisville Slugger.


We have not screened the other full-length component of GRINDHOUSE, but it appears that Rodriguez also missed the mark. Quite frankly, we doubt we will even bother trying. Instead, we plan to grab a six-pack or two of Lone Star longnecks and pop into the old VHS machine a copy of FASTER, PUSSYCAT! KILL! KILL!

Old Coot: "Women! They let 'em vote, smoke and drive -- even put 'em in pants! And what happens? A Democrat for president!"

Sorry Quentin, when it comes to the grindhouse genre, no one does it better than Russ Meyer.

BITTER/SWEET

"Most Hollywood films are just a tapeworm, a 2,500 meters long tapeworm that sucks the life and the spirit out of me." (Ingmar Bergman)

More often than not, the staff at Needtovent.com agrees with Mr. Bergman. Accordingly, we actively seek out the best in low budget, independent cinema and these efforts have rewarded us with a number of truly excellent, highly entertaining films which we have had the pleasure of reviewing over the past few years. Our latest discovery is BITTER/SWEET, screened at the recent Worldfest-Houston International Film Festival where it won The Grand Jury Award for "Best Picture" and the Golden Remi Award for "Best Director." These awards are well deserved.

The music under the lush opening credits -- "That Funny Feeling" -- was the first hint that yes, indeed, there's a funny feeling that this film might be special. It is. BITTER/SWEET is an ambitious undertaking by recently-formed Angel & Bear Productions, a Bangkok-based Thai-Swiss production company headed by Urs Brunner in cooperation with two American firms, Capitol Motion Pictures and Eighth Wonder Entertainment. Prior to entering the film industry Mr. Brunner had already found success in Thailand by forming the Boncafe coffee company. In fact, it was his experience in the coffee business that prompted him to conceive the underlying story for BITTER/SWEET. The resulting screenplay by the extremely talented Jeff Hare (who also directed) takes the viewer to the picturesque coffee plantations of Southern Krabi where there's more in the air than just the aroma of first-rate robusta beans.


"Is there life before coffee?"
(Anonymous)

Let's be honest -- not every independently-produced film is good, but BITTER/SWEET is a truly Thaitanic effort with a generous production budget that provides the necessary resources to take full advantage of the exotic tropical locations. Of particular interest is the use of the RED ONE in one of the earliest feature film applications for this cutting edge, some say revolutionary, digital camera. And the superb, highly energetic music selections, under the supervision of Chris Moellere and Cindi Avnet, keep things moving at a steady pace. In fact, all of the production values are first-rate, significantly superior to the majority of independent offerings, and they collectively enhance what is an engaging love story brought to the screen by a cadre of wonderful actors which include Kip Pardue, Mamee Nakprasit, Kalorin Nemayothin, Tata Young, Spencer Garrett, Laura Sorenson and James Brolin.

Pardue (REMEMBER THE TITANS, BOBBY) plays Brian Chandler, an American-based coffee expert who is sent to Thailand by his boss Calvert Jenkins (Brolin -- THE WEST WING, LAST CHANCE HARVEY) to check out a reportedly superior grade of coffee which his company may want to acquire if these rumors are true. This assignment takes him away from Amanda (Sorenson), his attractive fiancee, and from the rigorous preparations of their impending wedding. (This second consequence may not be all that unfortunate as any groom can readily attest.) Upon his arrival in Bangkok he meets the gorgeous Ticha (Nakprasit), a stunningly beautiful, dedicated career woman who has given up on finding love. It is at the urging of her coffee farming parents that Ticha is pressed into taking Brian to her old village which is now suffering economically in the hopes that Brian will recommend purchasing the coffee grown there -- thus saving the day. Assisting in this task is Ticha's sassy sidekick Mook (Nemayothin) and Mook's "boyfriend," Werner (Garrett), an Austrian prankster/huckster who has a lust for life, libation and libido. Garrett's performance is especially engaging as he literally steals just about every scene he is in.


Initially, Brian and Ticha do not get along -- in political terms think Franken and Palin and you wouldn't be too far off. But their journey through the fabulous Thai countryside is also a journey of self-discovery as each come to realize that the pursuit of "perfection" isn't as clear cut as previously thought . Their journey is one that we thoroughly enjoyed -- and one we hope a smart, savvy distributor will make available to large audiences both domestically and worldwide. Surely Brolin's appearance will help market the film; his steady, stately performance as the coffee mogul with a hidden agenda is just the latest character he has nailed in a long, distinguished career. We cannot think of anyone better in this supporting, yet pivotal role. Pardue's sweet, subtle performance is a winning one also, but it is Mamee Nakprasit, clearly one of Thailand's most attractive, talented and award-winning actresses, who will likely gain the most attention. We have a funny feeling you will agree.

BRUNO

Is Bruno numero uno?

Yes and no.

Accoring to preliminary reports, Sacha Baron Cohen's BRUNO is Number 1 at the box office this opening weekend much to the consternation of the Christian Film & Television Commission. Yes, good old Ted Baehr and his fellow inquisitors have anointed BRUNO the most "abhorrent" film of the year, calling it "mindlessly pornographic, politically correct paganism" and "worse than any decent human being can imagine." Hey, that sounds like my kind of film!

But, while BRUNO pushes more envelopes than the U. S. Post Office, most end up in the dead letter file thanks to a screenplay that is so shoddily constructed you would think Kaufman & Broad had written it. After a surprisingly slow start in Austria, the various contrived scenes go downhill faster than Franz Klammer on the Hahenkamm at Kitzbuehl. Things pick up, slightly, when the title character reaches Los Angeles, but even at a relatively short 82 minutes, Sacha's sashaying grew tiresome and I found myself longing for The Village People or Bruce Vilanch or Paul Lynde, even Topo Gigio.


There are a few bright moments, such as the segment at an Arkansas wrestling arena where the local red-necks, looking like Beluga whales in cheesy t-shirts, become mortified at the homo heat taking place in the rink between Bruno and his sycophant assistant, Lutz (played by Gustaf Hammarsten). And the clips from his appearance on The Richard Bey Show in Dallas, where he introduces his adopted black baby as "O.J." (claiming it is a traditional African name), is priceless. How Cohen manages to escape both the Pig Sooie state and Big D alive is beyond me. How he managed to escape the dreaded NC-17 rating is also perplexing. BRUNO may be rated R -- but it is a hard R, a virtual diamond-cutter of an R to be precise.

Yet, for every little comedic gem, there are several sequences that misfire as often as a Vanguard rocket. For someone who is Cambridge educated, how in the world did Sacha Baron Cohen think his Ron Paul interview was going to be funny? Wouldn't Senator Larry Craig have been a better choice? Even the much ballyhooed closing song featuring Baron singing his own unique version of "We Are The World" with such luminaries as Bono, Slash, Snoop Dog, Chris Martin, Sting and Elton John disappoints.


Unfortunately, BRUNO isn't anywhere near as entertaining or as funny as BORAT, and while BRUNO rules the box office this weekend, we predict ticket sales will nosedive like a Stuka once the word gets out. Wanna bet?

THOR AT THE BUS STOP

A well-made, entertaining, low-budget, independently produced comedy is about as rare as a Republican politician being faithful to his wife. Yet, Needtovent has discovered several over the past few years -- the Rohalian world of folksy fun and fastidious fantasy comprising THE GUATEMALAN HANDSHAKE, the gangly Gerber goober mockumentary THE BABY FOOD DUDE, and 3 DAYS BLIND, the rollicking, frolicking ribald romp from Those Keith Brothers. Joining this tantalizing trifecta is the mojo mjolnir madness brought to the screen by another pair of brothers, Jerry and Mike Thompson, whose THOR AT THE BUSTOP features more eccentric, eclectic, endearing characters than an entire season of "The Gong Show."

THOR AT THE BUS STOP is an impressive, idiosyncratic feature film which follows Thor on the day he will save the world. Unfortunately, this act of heroics will inevitably cost him his life. What makes matters worse, no one seems to care. Such is the maddening milieu found on "the far side" of the tracks separating Las Vegas' fabulous strip from the white-trash environs located on the edge of town. Come to think of it, THOR AT THE BUS STOP could become both Chuck Barris' and Gary Larson's favorite movie.

Utilizing an unconventional approach to traditional narrative similar to that found in Richard Linklater's SLACKER (1991), THOR consists of a chain of linked, disparate characters who are all in search of something. Another example of this unique sub-genre would be THE PHANTOM OF THE LIBERTY (1974), directed by the master of surrealism, Luis Buneul. Clearly this scatterbrained structure, although quite rare, is not without precedent. Just goes to show that's there's really very little that's new under the sun -- but in this case the scorching Sin City sun shines brightly on a wonderful ensemble of unknown local talent who grace the screen with winning performances throughout.

Among the seedy and needy are White Trash Chuck, a role that is perfect for Vegas native Kyle Bush. Alas, 'lil Kyle is too busy winning and whining on the NASCAR circuit, so Mike Thompson wisely cast himself in this stunning portrayal of someone desperately in search of his "inner cool." Brother Jerry's low-key portrayal of the title role of Thor hits just the right balance of pathos and platonic patriarchy. Another stand-out performance is given by Carlos Emjay as One Way Walter, the super-cool carjacker who befriends his victim even though he intends to kill him. Actually, the list of superb actors can go on and on -- there were a total of 42 speaking parts and virtually everyone delivered the goods, whether it be pizza, a bus, a yellow flower or a little bit of wisdom.

"I'm gonna tell you the secret of life. You ready? There are only two ways you can act. Just two. You can be cool or not. That's it. Those are your only choices."


(May Luong, David Schmoeller, Mike Thompson, Jerry Thompson)

While a ton of credit must be given to Jerry and Mike Thompson (who not only directed and appear in key roles, they also wrote the original screenplay and edited the film as well), there's no denying that the skilled producing team of David Schmoeller and May Luong surely helped guide the way. Schmoeller's name should be familiar -- he's the incredibly talented director of such classic, cult films as PUPPETMASTER (the original), TOURIST TRAP, CRAWLSPACE and the unforgettable short, PLEASE KILL MR. KINSKI. He is now an Associate Professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas; the Thompsons and Ms. Luong are previous students of his. I recall the old Chinese proverb, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Looks like Schmoeller is among that rare breed who can do both -- and do them exceedingly well.

While all of the technical aspects of THOR AT THE BUS STOP are solid given the incredibly low budget, one must single out the Original Score by Jackson Wilcox, the Original Music Produced by Ronald Corso and the featured songs by Hungry Cloud and A Crowd of Small Adventures. A fantastic job by all -- and considerably above that found in many films costing literally a hundred times more. Oh yes, there's even an uncredited appearance by Raymond Joseph Teller, of Penn & Teller fame, just to top things off.

THOR AT THE BUS STOP has recently had successful screenings at CineVegas, the Singapore International Film Festival and the 2009 World Comedy Festival in Bangkok. There will surely be more festival awards and screenings to come. In the meantime, negotiations are on-going with both domestic and foreign film distributors. It is often said that "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." In the case of THOR AT THE BUS STOP we hope that's not the case -- this highly entertaining and enjoyable feature film deserves a wide-spread release.


More information, photos and a trailer can be found at: www.thoratthebusstop.com.

THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 (2009) -vs- THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE (1974)

Originally written for Bryce Zabel's Movie Smackdown! Website -- www.moviesmackdown.com


The Smackdown. What's more dicey than a Hollywood remake? Especially for a director who takes on the task of reshooting a film considered to be the precursor for many big budget Hollywood suspense thrillers that followed, films like Quentin Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs" or Jan de Bont's "Speed." Might as well go to the craps table at Monte Carlo. But auteurs (and those who think they are auteurs) often go where angels fear to tread. This time it is none other than that other Scott, Tony, who tackles Joseph Sargent's successful blend of suspense, drama, action, thrills (with even a bit of comedy thrown in for good measure) -- "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three." Both films share the same basic underlying premise from the novel by John Godey. And Godey's premise is a goody -- four gunmen hijack a New York City subway train and demand a huge ransom be paid within the hour. The money must not be late in arriving because for every minute thereafter, one of the hostages will be shot. No exceptions. What ensues is a deadly cat and mouse game of verbal sparring between the leader of the highly armored gang and the unlucky transit official who must do everything possible to delay the inevitable. It's said that Benito Mussolini kept the trains running on time. Does Tony Scott do the same for the New York Transit Authority? Or is the original the better ride? It's time to get out the subway tokens -- all aboard!


The Challenger. As Chester A. Riley might say, "What a Travoltin' development this is!" Blessed with mega-star power, Tony Scott's version features John Travolta as Ryder, an ex-commodities trader turned ex-con who masterminds a plot to steal even more money than that Bernie guy made-off with. Talk about a low life. On the other side of the tracks, the good side, is Denzel Washington, a Walter Mitty sort of fella who is a disgraced MTA official recently demoted to the position of a train dispatcher in the NASA-like central control room for the Big Apple's subway system. Just his luck that he's the guy who fields Ryder's call for the ransom money. The razor-sharp dialogue from screenwriter Brian Helgeland allow these two heavyweight actors to engage in a wickedly escalating two-person verbal dance as the clock enevitably ticks down. Travolta's language is more foul than the waters of Lake Titicaca, but it is believable, edgy, realistic, and quirky -- his randy remarks about taking a Lithuanian ass model to Iceland is classic.

Adding to the tense proceedings are John Turturro as the head hostage negotiator and John Gandolfini as the mayor. Unfortunately, neither are given all that much to do and the same definitely holds true for all others appearing on screen. Clearly this is a "star vehicle" and the entire focus of the film rests on the excellent performances of the two leads. Editor Chris Lebenzon keeps things moving at a vibrant, sometimes frenetic pace, and Tony Scott's ADD directing style includes more stunts than a Kappa Alpha keg party. Yes, there's action all right, plenty of it, as the streets of the Big Apple resemble "the big one" at Talladega during the cops' desperate race-against-the-clock attempt to deliver the dough to the hijackers. And they better not be late -- Travolta sports a spiffy Breitling chronograph that insures he knows the exact time down in the bowels of the MTA. Fast paced, with a dynamic performance by Travolta and a winning one by Washington, Scott's version delivers a captivating summertime diversion in air conditioned comfort.


The Defending Champion. The original version of THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE (yes, the numbers were spelled out back in 1974) had Walter Matthau as Lt. Garber, the somewhat disheveled protagonist who correleates to Denzel's character in the remake. Robert Shaw plays Mr. Blue, the leader of the rainbow warriors who hijack a subway car containing 17 innocent riders and one very unlucky motorman. He is assisted by Martin Balsam (Mr. Green), Hector Elizondo (Mr. Gray) and Earl Hindman (Mr.Brown). These names prove yet again that almost nothing is ever new in cinema. Right Quentin? Other notables are Lee Wallace as the mayor, Jerry Stiller as Lt. Rico Patrone and, appropriately enough, a guy with the honest-to-God name of Jim Pelham who plays one of the Subway Guards.

The terrific screenplay by Peter Stone is rife with current references to a variety of issues facing New Yorkers in the 1970s -- both social and economic. "We don't want another Attica do we?" "There's another strike taking place?" "The city is broke." Unlike Scott's version, virtually all of the supporting cast members have something to say -- whether it be pithy, perceptive, philosophical, poignant or simply polite -- "Gesundheit!" (Believe it or not, this expression holds a significant clue to the identity of one of the hijackers. It is just another example of the countless small details found in Stone's script.) Joseph Sargent's directing style is relaxed, uncluttered, evenly paced. Shot during flu season, NYC has never looked grittier thanks to the muted colors and grainy images lensed by cinematographer Owen Roizman. In fact, there's almost a documentary feel to the film which heightens the tension once the hostage demands are announced. And no review would be complete without mentioning the excellent music score by David Shire. If I had not read the credits, I might have easily assumed that Elmer Bernstein had taken the subway from the West Side.

The Scorecard. June is what I like to call "Alice Cooper time." Yes, school's out for the summer and Hollywood never fails to bring big budget, boffo bonbons to your local Bijou in June. "The Taking of Pelham 123" is among the first of these to hit the screens, and based on a proven pedigree, this suspense thriller is a worthy accompaniment to a tub of buttered popcorn and a Dr Pepper. Comparisons between the two films are inevitable. The Tony Scott edition is definitely "bigger" -- while the exact figures are unknown, there is little doubt that the buget for his film was considerably larger than that of the original, inflation notwithstanding. The ransom amount demanded is higher, too, from $1 million to $10 million. The number of hostages rose from seventeen to nineteen. And the "star power" of John Travolta and Denzel Washington is definitely much bigger -- in fact Travolta's over-the-top portrayal of the gang leader is so bright it is like looking through the lens of the Hubble telescope.

But the original is considered a classic by many, and with good reason. A fabulous script, rock-steady direction, solid performances by everyone on the screen and superb technical aspects, including cinematography, editing, music and production design, all combine to produce a film that is long remembered after the closing credits. Add in a superior screenplay that references civil rights, the Vietnam War, gender issues, fiscal reponsibility, political corruption and a host of other topics on the minds of New Yorkers (and Americans in general) in the 1970s, and the Joseph Sargent version deserves its lofty reputation -- especially since it holds up so well thirty-five years after it was originally released.

The Decision. Both films are blessed with cracker-jack scripts containing enough surprises to keep one thoroughly entertained. And both screenwriters deliver razor-sharp dialogue, although Brian Helgeland's is more of a Bic disposable than the finely honed, serrated blade of Peter Stone's. Not only is Stone's script more nuanced and developed in its portrayal of the supporting characters, it possesses a broader range of emotions and a delightfully cynical sense of humor. "Why the Hell don't you hijack an aeroplane like everyone else?"

But it is in the area of "writer's convenience" where the two scripts differ the most. Albert Einstein once said that "Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous." If true, then I have to believe that Helgeland might have been sitting on the right-hand side of the Creator when he penned the scene with Denzel Washington emerging from the subway tunnel grate just as Travolta is walking by. And while neither film excels in their portrayal of the poor innocent folks being held for ransom, the 2009 version is so deficient in this area I would label these bland, vanilla-esque characters "Hostage Twinkies." Even though the story takes place in an underground subway tunnel, I'm sure that Tony Scott, Brian Helgeland and associates wanted to take the crime caper genre to new heights of daring doo. D. B. Cooper they are not. On the other hand, Joseph Sargent's film is a classic, possessing superior suspense, a shocking suicide that is unforgettable, and there's a whole lot more taking place on the screen than two mega-stars and some hard-hitting car crashes. And so the winner is the 1974 edition of "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three." But don't just take my word for it -- Subway's own Jared S. Fogle agrees.

THE RADICALS

Needtovent recently discovered a fabulous website dedicated to Norbert Weisser -- an extremely talented actor whose impressive list of credits can be accessed at IMDB.com. Having worked with Norbert while producing THE RADICALS we were especially pleased to learn that the page devoted to our film continues to be by far the single most popular posting on this website...


Reprinted with permission from www.norbert-weisser.com --

Two very powerful stories are woven together in the 1990 feature film THE RADICALS. It is the biographical account of Michael Sattler who founded the Anabaptist movement around 1525. The other story, one that is just as apparent, is the story of the absolute love and devotion that Michael and Margaretha Sattler had for each other.

The movie begins by reminding viewers that by 1525 the Roman Catholic Church had united Europe for over 1000 years and their authority was under attack. Reformation had split Europe into two worlds -- Catholic and Protestant. Peasants were rebelling against heavy taxes, and Turkish invaders threatened to overrun Europe.


This film covers a very brief period in the lives of spiritual martyrs Michael Sattler, portrayed by Norbert Weisser, and Margaretha, the beautiful Leigh Lombardi. They broke away from their religious order, were married and then began a quest to return the church to the morality of its early years. Michael and Margaretha's love and the deep, heartfelt connection they share is readily apparent throughout this entire film. Margaretha ended up losing her life because she believed in Michael's message and stood strongly beside him. Because she loved Michael as deeply as any woman could ever love a man, she could not renounce her beliefs or her love for him even though doing so would spare her life. Their efforts resulted in a movement the medieval world wasn't prepared to accept and stood ready to terminate -- by any means necessary.

(Producer Robert A. Nowotny portrays a Torture Victim in a scene in THE RADICALS)

Executive Producer Michael Hostetler and Producer Robert A. Nowotny won the CINE Golden Eagle Award in the History category for this movie. Other film festival honors include the Chris Award from the Columbus International Film & Video Festival (1990), the Silver Award presented by Worldfest-Houston (1989), and the Wilbur Award given to "the best faith-based film of the year" by the Religious Public Relations Council of America (1990). Liza Vann served as the Associate Producer and Director of Photography Michael K. Bucher was responsible for the terrific cinematography.

The movie is distributed by Gateway Films/Vision Video and is available from Amazon and other retailers. Included with the DVD is a copy of The Schleitheim Articles as authored on February 24, 1527. (Just as a trivia note, they also have a biographical DVD on Gladys Aylward, the English missionary woman who traveled to China in the 1930's, as played by Ingrid Bergman in the wonderful 1958 movie THE INN OF THE SIXTH HAPPINESS.)


Brief Biography of Michael Sattler

Michael Sattler was a monk who left the Roman Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation to become one of the early leaders of the Anabaptist movement.

Born in approximately 1490 in Staufen, Germany, Sattler became a Benedictine monk in the cloister of St. Peter and most likely became prior by the time he left in 1525. That year he traveled to Zurich, which was then embroiled in controversy over infant baptism. He became associated with the Anabaptists and was probably rebaptised in the summer of 1526. He was involved in missionary activity around Horb and Rottenburg, and eventually traveled to Strasbourg. In February of 1527, he chaired a meeting of the Swiss Brethren at Schleitheim, and was particularly influential in developing the Schleitheim Confession, a declaration of Anabaptist belief.


(THE RADICALS is also available on VHS)

All of the costumes for the battle scene and the entire movie, over 700 people in all, were all sewn by volunteers -- primarily by women in Switzerland, for no pay. They wanted to be a part of the film because it had substance. Additionally, over twenty horses were provided for the movie for free by volunteers.

Filming was done in 15th century towns and villages in Switzerland, Germany, and in France, especially in and around Strasbourg.

Michael Hostettler grew up in a missionary family setting in Brazil and was quite interested in bringing forth this important story based on the book "Pilgrim Aflame," by Myron Augsberger. Screenwriters Joel Kauffmann and Darryl Wimberley ensured that the human story was featured just as prominently as the Anabaptist story, and paid particular attention to the love and devotion Michael and Margaretha Sattler had for each other, as well as telling the story of how they lived and ultimately died for their beliefs.

In the special featurette on the DVD, Robert Nowotny has a great story about their many attempts to get the weapons used in the battle scene, swords, lances and the like, from France into Switzerland because they didn't have the proper weapons permits in place. They finally managed to get them across a remote border crossing, and were able to proceed with the filming of the battle sequence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Needtovent would like to thank the super-talented graphic designer Jane Bohon for her continued support of both Norbert Weisser and THE RADICALS at www.norbert-weisser.com. Not bad for a low budget, independent feature film that is now over 19 years old. How time flies...)

THE BABY FOOD DUDE

Step aside Mr. Jared S. Fogle. You too, Mr. Morgan Spurlock.

Yes, there's no denying that Subway Jared's weight-loss regimen has propelled him to considerable fame and a very decent income stream. And Spurlock's successful film, SUPER SIZE ME, certainly gained both notoriety and, quite possibly, brought about a major policy change by the burgermeisters at the Golden Arches. But, as any self-respecting foodie knows, a good pu-pu platter has more than two enticing appetizers to choose from, and Needtovent welcomes the addition of a newcomer to the sub-genre known as "food for thought" films -- he's a gastronomical guru, a gangly Gerber goober named Brice Tea, aka THE BABY FOOD DUDE.

On the surface THE BABY FOOD DUDE appears to be just a silly, lightweight comedy that is so stupid in places it makes the screenplay for DUMB AND DUMBER read like the Magna Carter. But, surprisingly, there's some real "meat" (for lack of a better word) to this low-budget, light-hearted indie production that on the surface appears to be nothing more than lightweight fare for the faculty impaired. Mr. Tea, however, is anything but a lightweight, at least at the beginning of what becomes a grand experiment. You see, Mr. Tea is determined to lose weight and so he tries a bizarre method that, honestly, only someone with a slightly demented mind could conceive -- that being a baby food-only diet for 40 days and 40 nights. Biblical? No. Umbilical? Maybe. And it certainly seems like an immensely immature, impulsive, implausible, impractical, imprudent, even imbecilic way to loose weight. But it is not immoral, as this film has nothing to do whatsoever with Russ Meyer's THE IMMORAL MR. TEAS -- a must-see film with enough eye candy to even satiate Mr. Peepers.

But, as Jerry L. Nelson would say, I digress...

Weighing in at a portly 245 pounds before the grand experiment, Mr. Tea tallied an impressive weight loss of 29.4 pounds in those forty days. Perhaps just as important is the fact that this man's cholesterol dropped from 174 to 137. Not bad, not bad at all...


Accompanying Mr. Tea on his journey from Texas to Los Angeles, to San Francisco, to Las Vegas to New Orleans and back is his real brother, Herb Tea, who plays a quasi-retard whose addled outlook on life provides, on several occasions, surprising insight. In addition, a fellow musician named Boogie tags along until he's unceremoniously left behind to fend for himself. With his abandonment, Brice and Herb find several willing drummers along the way who join in the outrageous ditties played by their band, the "Cool Arrows." (When saying the band's name out loud Spanish-speaking citizens will surely get a laugh...) As for the staff at Needtovent, the Cool Arrows remind us of our favorite Texas ensemble -- the World's Most Politically Incorrect Band -- Feo Y Loco. Dr. Demento and all Feoheads everywhere will appreciate these moronic musicians and their music which, despite the absurd lyrics, is quite catchy and appropriate for the siblings' shenanigans.


As much a road movie as a dietary experiment, Brice's journey has him breaking an unofficial world's record eating baby weenies (shades of Takeru Kobayashi) as well as setting another remarkable record, being the first man ever to eat baby food while standing simultaneously in two countries at once. Bet you've never seen that before. And while "the wheels of the bus go round and round," transporting us across vast stretches of the U.S. of A., we meet a fantastic array of miscellaneous misfits, including a black midget, a gold man, a redheaded fantasy girl and a terrific Ozzy Osbourne impersonator (Randy Hanson) whose randy portrayal of Sharon's wayward hubby reminds us all to "remember the Alamo," although the Daughters of the Texas Republic may not approve...


For a very low-budget effort, special mention must go to the excellent outdoor cinematography. The various scenes of Brice spooning out a baby food bottle in front of the Grand Canyon and the Golden Gate Bridge, in particular, are stunning. Believe it or not, but the same holds true for some of the forground shots of Brice atop the porcelain throne attached to the back of the brothers' bus. (Apparently the one down side of an all baby food diet is a devilish case of diarrhea. I do believe Mr. Tea could have posed for Auguste Rodin were he still alive). Other kudos must go to Troy Gunther's droll narration and to Rose Lee Tea who poignantly portrays a mother's trying, but loving acceptance of her children who have yet to grow up. This is a very special performance, indeed.


THE BABY FOOD DUDE will be screened at the historic Brauntex Theater in Downtown New Braunfels, Texas during the Texandance International Film Festival on Friday, June 5th at 11:30 p.m. We can't think of a better way to spend seven bucks. After all, wouldn't you like to meet meet Mr. Tea -- the non compos mentis filmmaker extraordinaire?

More information regarding this film can be found at www.thebabyfooddude.com.