More winks than scares

THIR13EN GHOSTS (2001)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Original Review from May 6th, 2002

Let's be honest: "Thirteen Ghosts" is a bad movie but it is so cheerfully over-the-top and so intent on at least trying to scare the bejesus out of you that it succeeds. It succeeds on the marginal level of pseudo-horror entertainment.

Based on the original 1960 William Castle production, the movie begins with a math teacher, Arthur (Tony Shalhoub), who learns he is inheriting an elaborate glass house from his late Uncle Cyrus (F. Murray Abraham). It is completely made of glass, right down to the corridors, hallways, walls, etc.
Arthur now has a second chance in his life after losing his wife in an accident. Needless to say, there is more than meets the eye in this house where enclosed spirits start going raving mad and attack with no provocation. There are twelve lost spirits in this house, all kept encased by the late Cyrus who was some sort of ghost hunter, and who has turned this house into a diabolical machine where the dead rule the house.

"Thirteen Ghosts" is the latest in the ironic horror comedies where winks outdo real scares. If your cup of scary tea is to see ghosts in gory makeup every few minutes, then this is the movie for you. They show up out of nowhere and sometimes they run with great velocity, always aiming to make the audience jump. My cup of tea is the imaginative hauntings of "The Others" where mood and atmosphere tweak our nerves more so than endless ghostly manifestations but what do I know. It is not a terrifying film experience but it does have some spooky scenes.

The performances hit the right notes, particularly Matthew Lillard (a real scream in "Scream") as Rafkin, a former employee of Cyrus whose job is to save Arthur and his family from the deadly ghosts. I also liked F. Murray Abraham's few choice scenes where he literally chews up the scenery. Shannon Elizabeth as Arthur's daughter is hardly given anything of value to do, but she is one hell of a good screamer. I also like the housekeeper who is given her share of one-liners.

Nicely shot and well-choreographed scenes, not to mention well-executed scares and superb make-up jobs, make most of "Thirteen Ghosts" fun to watch. It is a Saturday night rental for sure, just do not mistake it for real horror.

Filmed Snapshots

HARRY AND SON (1984)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

An aged construction worker, Harry, (Paul Newman) loses his job and decides to operate a wrecking ball and destroy an abandoned building for fun. His eager and boisterous son, Howard (Robby Benson), furiously types away at his typewriter hoping to surface as an author while unable to hold a job except as an auto detailer (and barechested to boot); oh, yes, he likes to surf. The house they live in is the middle of a business park parking lot. The next-door neighbor (Joanne Woodward) is a pet shop owner who dispenses wisdom that never amounts to anything. There is a pregnant young woman (Ellen Barkin) who happens to be the pet shop owner's daughter and used to date Harry's son. Then there is the inclusion of some rather odd and numbingly indifferent characters like a businesswoman (Judith Ivey) who has orgasms when you flash a camera at her; a repo car business owner who drives away during a practice session with Howard; Harry's brother (Wilford Brimley) who owns a military surplus store and keeps some liquor nearby (everybody drinks in this movie while working); an older, unemployed man (Ossie Davis) who nearly has his car repossessed and chooses to be friends with Howard intermittently, etc. I don't mind when a screenplay chooses to connect a bunch of characters but the puzzle pieces don't hold together - you need super glue to keep some measure of connection apparent.

"Harry and Son" is a most displeasing affair to witness, a movie cobbled together out of scrap parts without an ounce of coherence. Paul Newman is such a strong, charismatic actor who can emit vulnerability when playing blue collar workers (he is the iconic actor to play such roles) yet here, his mannerisms and body language are forced and never once believable (and he directed himself!) Same with Mr. Aggressively Sincere Robby Benson as Howard - when he yells at his dad, it comes out of nowhere because the buildup is nonexistent. When there is a truce, it is beautifully handled yet again, no real buildup.

The film sits there on the screen with no real life force dispensing imagined life lessons that exist in the screenwriters' minds - it is all on the surface with no momentum. Only Joanne Woodward gives us some semblance of reality with a delicate touch of sympathy, in addition to Ellen Barkin as the sweet pregnant woman. "Harry and Son" though is not a movie - it is a bunch of filmed snapshots.

Dirty Old Man on a Lust Trip or Benevolent Leader?

THE SOURCE FAMILY (2012)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

A stillborn baby comes back to life! A cult family work at a health food restaurant! Actor Bud Cort joined the cult (though he only attended a couple of classes at the restaurant)! A self-proclaimed guru hand glides from atop a cliff and doesn't survive! Is this some sort of modern-day parable about a latter day Jesus? No, this is actually a powerful, rhapsodically intoxicating documentary called "The Source Family." It is so richly alive and such a uniquely transportative movie experience that you really feel you are in a different time and place. It is that transcendence that speaks to the utopian family known as the Source, their ability to speak to those who wanted to join. I've seen a few documentaries about cults but this is the first time I truly felt what it is like to be in one.

Jim Baker aka Father Yod is the Source Family cult leader, a successful businessman (former WW2 soldier and expert martial-artist) who started a few health food restaurants in L.A. near the Sunset Strip in the early 70's, the main attraction being a restaurant called The Source. This restaurant attracted the likes of John Lennon and Goldie Hawn to name a couple, and was even featured in some movies like Woody Allen's "Annie Hall." After some time, a bunch of hippies and 17-year-old girls joined the cult, with the pretense of working at the restaurant, as in washing dishes, waiting on customers, etc. Before long, Father Yod sold his restaurants and they all lived in a giant house, sporting white robes, staring at the skies, loving each other in harmony, smoking small doses of pot and practicing intense meditation. Eventually, the family moved to Hawaii, facing a tougher time of finding work to support each other. Meanwhile, Father Yod uses his powers of persuasion to have sex with multiple underage girls, impregnating a couple and marrying them along the way. Even then, there was a devotion to a man who was slowly becoming a god with penetrating eyes who just wanted peace, a heavenly peace that was still fraught with unfortunate exclusion (Gays were not allowed, for example, and women existed to serve him without any real independence).

Directors Maria Demopoulos and Jodi Wille provide an astounding assembly of sound recordings (Sod's voice itself sounds like a God that is beyond our vocal range), 8mm film footage that covers just about every step of the cult's journey, and several amazing photos. It is an enveloping mosaic that traces everything about the Source Family in all their glory and eventual end (Yod died in a hand gliding accident). Various cult members offer their insights into Yod and his teachings, and how some of his rules got out of hand (he did not believe in seeking professional medical help when someone was injured or worse). Only one member on camera saw through what they perceived as a facade for, as one put it, "a dirty old man on a lust trip." If there is an aspect to Yod we can't figure out, it would be if he was on some sort of lust trip (sex with all underage girls) or if he started to believe he had summoned some sort of cosmic power from the heavens. That enigma brings something forceful to the screen, a rhapsodic need to fuel some measure of passion in the lives of its members that went beyond themselves - to transcend time and space. If he was a con man who just wanted sex, pot and rock and roll (they did have a rock band), this film makes the case that he was in fact a spiritual leader and father to many, warts and all.

Inspired by the book "The Source: The Story of Father Yod, Ya Ho Wa 13, and The Source Family" written by Isis Aquarian and Electricity Aquarian and edited by Jodi Wille (one of the co-directors), "The Source Family" may make some uncomfortable with its own benevolent attitude to a benevolent leader and its cult, though it never paints him as a perfect man/prophet (the guy did kill in his earlier years and robbed banks, left his wife, etc). The film is a hallucinatory, thoroughly engaging trip back to an era post-Manson where a family believed in spreading goodwill and living off the land. We can understand how anyone might've joined this cult and took heed on phrases like “No hurt or harm intended” and “Just be kind.” "The Source Family" is a powderkeg of a documentary that makes you believe that someone could make such ideas real, and then it makes you wonder if Father Yod really believed it himself or if it was an elaborate con.

Die Hard on the Rocks

SKYSCRAPER (2018)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

After watching "Skyscraper," my thoughts were obvious to anyone who loves movies: this was a direct rip-off of the original "Die Hard." I am not going to perform those checks, you know, oh a massive skyscraper, check. Nope, not going there. Anyone in my age range might think further back to "The Towering Inferno" though that was an Irwin Allen disaster flick with an all-star cast and the fire was not purposely set, plus no there were no terrorists. "Skyscraper" has a musclebound hulk of a hero who is protecting his family from a fiery building and some terrorists. There are minute differences between this "homage" and the Bruce Willis action pic yet there are enough thrills to keep everyone entertained if not necessarily nourished.

Dwayne Johnson is the former FBI agent, Will Sawyer, who has one of his legs fitted with a prosthetic (a standoff a decade earlier left him with an amputated leg). Now he's a top notch security consultant who provides his expertise on the security of a new high-rise, partly residential, 240-story skyscraper in Hong Kong known as the Pearl (it even has turbine power on the side of its building, and a massive garden area!) Before long, Will's family is inside one of the residential units (though I was not clear if they already lived there) and all hell breaks loose when various villains armed to the teeth invade the skyscraper and hack into its computer base to shut down all sprinklers and start a fire that gets worse in the upper floors. You see, the billionaire who built the Pearl, Zhao Long Zhi (Chin Han), has a precious flash drive that contains banking data on some criminal masterminds. I hate to question the logic of all this but why are villains going to purposely incinerate all the upper floors when the billionaire businessman Zhi has a penthouse in one of the upper floors and has the flash drive they so desire? Why go through all the pyromaniac nonsense in the first place? And since the billionaire entrusts Will with a tablet that apparently can turn the skyscraper's security system back on, why is the security system not turned on sooner?

Of course, we don't go to movies like "Skyscraper" for screenplay logic, we go for the action and there is enough here to please softcore action fans (I say softcore because it is rated PG-13). Will jumps across from a crane to an open window in a stunt that looks like one Schwarzenegger might have attempted in one his 80's action films. Will and his family have quite a few cliffhangers to endure (an elevator scene will have you grabbing the arms of your seat) and a stirring digital mirrors climax (an homage to "The Lady From Shanghai"?) though nothing here comes close to the dizzying action and claustrophobic highlights of "Die Hard" or even "The Towering Inferno."

Sure, the villains are a mixed bag of anonymity and the building, impressive in its design, is a definite CGI construct. Dwayne Johnson makes for a relatively engaging reluctant hero and Neve Campbell is relatively inexpressive as his wife who has combat experience and speaks many languages. "Skyscraper" may not tower over most of its ilk but its inferno trappings will provide a few buckets of urgent fun. 

Child abuse as banal as CBS Schoolbreak Special

FIRSTBORN (1984)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Originally viewed in 1984

It was bound to happen in today's age that some folks who were teens and saw "Firstborn" in theaters wax nostalgic memories about it. Because it is an 80's movie? Because it stars Corey Haim, Robert Downey, Jr. and Sarah Jessica Parker? Undoubtedly because having watched it for the first time recently since 1984, "Firstborn" is nothing more than a humdrum and alternately serious and silly family drama. Except for the first half of the film, nothing else in it rings true to me. Misguided in the last twenty minutes doesn't begin to describe the futility of the whole damned film.

Christopher Collet ("The Manhattan Project") and Corey Haim play Jake and Brian, the elder and younger sons of the matriarch of the family, Wendy (Teri Garr). They all live in a suburban home where the only friction consists of Brian spitting in his brother's Minute Maid juice. Wendy controls these two kids with calmness, though Brian always gets into fistfights at school. Jake is the lacrosse player with the girlfriend (Sarah Jessica Parker) and their relationship's biggest risk is having Parker attempting to run out of a clothing store fitting room with only a shirt and panties! Everything and everyone seem complaisant until Wendy gets a new boyfriend, a cocaine dealer named Sam (Peter Weller) who brags about a security systems company and opening a restaurant. Both are business ventures that he has no real interest in - he just wants to sell cocaine, sniff it and lay around the house watching TV. Jake sees right through Sam's false future plans and we get many scenes of Sam shoving and pushing Jake around and eventually abusing both kids with more physical force.

Some critics complained that "Firstborn" does an about face with a chase ending that seems borne out of a mediocre thriller, not a carefully cultivated domestic drama. They are not wrong yet "Firstborn" goes off the rails sooner with the introduction of the deadbeat loser Sam. As played by the usually wonderful actor Peter Weller, the guy is something of a weak-willed man who never seems threatening enough, at least to me. Never mind that Jake could easily knock this guy out with a solid punch, even Wendy could push this lightweight stringbean with not much force. I never believed for a second that the seemingly strong-willed, lonely Wendy would ever give this guy the time of day, thus all tension evaporates before it has a chance to develop.

"Firstborn" would've fared better with Peter Weller playing Sam as far more intimidating, not unlike say James Harper who plays Jake's stern teacher (easily the best performance in the film). Speaking of Harper, the war of words between Jake and the teacher who accuses Jake of plagiarizing his term paper has far more tension and rings true. It is exactly what is missing in the rest of "Firstborn."  

Interview with Jami Bernard: Current book doctor, ex-film critic

INTERVIEW WITH JAMI BERNARD: 

CURRENT BOOK DOCTOR, EX-FILM CRITIC

By Jerry Saravia

Aside from the old guard of film critics from the days of Siskel and Ebert and Leonard Maltin, you'd be hard-pressed to find true film criticism nowadays, only movie reviewing. That is to say film criticism from people who studied film and journalism and actually have printed film reviews that are not just metered to a specifically cumulative rating system on rottentomatoes.com based on a blog or an online magazine review (all apologies to those who still sweat out film reviews in an online mag or a popular blog, just making a point). Sure, some film critics do continue to have their reviews in actual newspapers (Rex Reed, Michael Phillips and David Edelstein, for example) but today, a blog and/or a youtube account and an attitude are all the prerequisites you need to have some sort of audience (The irony of how this interview is presented is not lost on me). That is why it is refreshing to hear from Jami Bernard, former film critic for the New York Post and the New York Daily News and writer of four film books. Jami has also written two memoirs, a couple of writing manuals, even a Lois Lane comic! In addition, she is the book doctor of her own company that caters to struggling authors, Barncat Publishing, where she coaches writers in assessing and polishing their books and steering them in the right direction. Who is Jami Bernard for those who did not read her reviews back in the day? EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it!  

1.) Let's start with a rather ironic question: Your last name is Bernard and you went to Barnard College? I suppose it was destiny?

In my world, back when I was in high school, parents (or at least my parents) didn’t get too involved in helping their kids with their college choices. Not like today, when it’s an Olympic sport among parents. I bought one book on colleges off the shelf at a bookstore, where the colleges were described alphabetically, and when I got to Barnard in the B’s, I realized I didn’t need to read further. It was ideal for smart liberal-arts majors, and classes and dorms were shared with Columbia on the same campus, more or less. I read about this one prize they awarded at graduation to one outstanding senior (the Frank Gilbert Bryson award), and I decided right then I would win it … and I did, four years later.

2.) I know I read many of your film reviews in the New York Post throughout the 1990's (I think you were the only one who was quoted as saying that 1990's "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" was a real horror movie) . Tell us about which newspapers you wrote for aside from New York Post, and did you start writing around 1986?

I started at the New York Post while I was still in college full-time in my senior year, and became a film critic there in 1986 after having tried virtually every other job there outside of sports (reporter, rewrite, editor, page layout, travel, features, even editorial and op-ed…you name it). I had almost always worked nights, so I’d go to the movies during the day before my shift started, and I was always seeing the new movies on the days they opened. In 1993 I jumped to The New York Daily News, and was a lead critic there until 2006 when print journalism was imploding and they no longer had the budget for highly-paid columnists (not only at the Daily News, but everywhere).

3.) Unless you provided the info above, I know David Edelstein wrote film reviews for the New York Post (and I do recall there were issues with his various 2 star ratings on almost every movie), did you replace him?

For a while I wrote reviews alongside David, but I outlasted him and had the job to myself. I think I took a more fun approach to movies; I gave plenty of low star ratings but also conveyed my pleasure of movies through the tone and spirit of my reviews.

4.) Name some of your favorite films and genres, and what inspired you more importantly to write film criticism?

On TV shows they always used to ask about my “favorite” movie, and I don’t have one favorite, just a rotating bunch of much-loved ones. I know I answered that question differently in every interview. On the Joan Rivers show I think I named "Bye Bye Birdie," which really is a personal favorite of mine but would not normally make my Top 10 list if I’m being asked about “serious” movies, like "Raging Bull" and "The Graduate." My favorite genre hands-down is film noir — those creepy, cynical movies in which weak men are brought down by femmes fatales, victims of their own flaws. Hah! What does that say about me? But I love the noir atmosphere and the themes of trust and betrayal and the nihilism of it all. (Again, what does that say about me? I find this kind of movie fun!) I also love the old screwball comedies, in which the women are wilier than they appear and in which true (but sometimes sick) love wins out. Uh-oh, I’m seeing a pattern here! I love movies with GREAT dialogue and subtext, and although I’m as easily manipulated as anyone, I’m not crazy about “happy” endings.

5.) What prompted you to stop reviewing films because I see that now you are the founder of Barncat Publishing where you coach writers?

For at least two years, I knew that my time as a film critic would be coming to an end. The rise of the Internet meant the democratization of public opinion, so that the reign of the “expert” film critic was over. Now, everyone could voice an opinion, even if it was not an informed opinion. Print journalism was dying. I prepared for a full year in the event of losing my job: I sold my apartment in Chelsea to free up my cash, etc. I knew I would not be able to prepare in any meaningful way for what it would feel like to lose my identity as a film critic — I never believed there would be another film-critic job, at least not a good one, so I did not intend to seek one — and the change-over in identity was tough. One thing I never liked about my mother (her coldness) actually came in handy: From the day I walked out of the Daily News, I never looked back. Never went to another industry screening. Never tried to line up another film-critic job, or even a “day job.” I knew I wouldn’t be happy with just any old job, so I spent over a year trying to figure out my future and decided on continuing to write my own books while helping other writers write theirs. I have a very good story sense from watching thousands of movies! I help them with story, structure, tone, dialogue — and that place where most writers fall down, the pitch. So many of my clients have gotten published, when they were just about to give up before they came to me. In terms of viewing, I turned to watching the excellent TV series that are now made, although when I occasionally stumble upon a good movie of today I am just as spellbound as I used to be, and it hurts just a little to be reminded.

6.) In a largely man's world, was it tough to be taken seriously as a female film critic? I know Pauline Kael was around, Carrie Rickey, Dixie Whatley, Janet Maslin among others but I just wonder about your perception or how others perceived you.

There were not (and still are not) many female film critics, and it was fucking difficult. (Am I allowed to curse? If not, delete!) I remember not being able to make the slightest headway in explaining "Thelma & Louise" to men; that’s when I really understood how men are less able to put themselves in the shoes of female protagonists. The men were all saying, “There’s no one to relate to in this movie!” Huh?! How about Thelma? Or Louise? (Or even Harvey Keitel?) The industry stagnated in many ways because there was not enough female input into the creation or consideration of pop culture. That is definitely changing, but only now, and movies still lag behind many TV series where strong, complicated female characters are allowed to breathe.

7.)  You wrote several books, including one on Quentin Tarantino and chick flicks. I love Tarantino for the most part and I am curious why you decided to write about him?

I had met Quentin several times, from the start of his career onward. He was very open and approachable back then (probably not so much now?) and less guarded or surrounded by toadies. He was excited about movies like a kid at Christmas, and his movies showed it. I had dinner with him at the Toronto Film Festival after my book came out, and mostly what he wanted to know was how I knew he had a foot fetish. I said, “But it’s right there all over the screen!” Now, of course, everyone knows, but back then you just had to watch his movies carefully. For example, there is a close-up in Pulp Fiction of Uma Thurman’s dirty soles. Since everything on a movie set is carefully controlled in ultra-OCD style, what did that mean, that this director wanted not only a close-up of the sole of his leading lady’s foot, but that it actually be dirty? After writing that book, though, I decided I didn’t want to write any more biographies. I had 10 books published, mostly film, and I have just completed my first novel, which is where I really want to stay — in fiction.

8.) I also see you are credited as writer for two Superman comics! How did that come about?

The Lois Lane origin comic I wrote, based on my own younger days at the New York Post as a cub reporter, remains one of the things I am most proud of. All the pages are framed and hang over my desk! I also rewrote a couple of Superman comics when the scripts were too lackluster. How I got to this…it’s too long and convoluted a story for now!

9.) You are the first film critic I've interviewed so let me ask: do you think there is a preponderance of comic-book movies?

Comic-book movies have exploded, sure, although "Black Panther" gives me hope that they don’t have to be generic, boring, or totally male-centered all the time.


Footnote: Any writers having troubles with polishing and finishing their books? Contact Jami below. You'll be glad you did.

Jami Bernard

jami@barncatpublishing.com

Barncat Publishing

Your Voice. Your Life.

212-807-6668

www.barncatpublishing.com

The Last President of the U.S.?

FAHRENHEIT 11/9 (2018)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

At first glance, "Fahrenheit 11/9" contains all the familiar Michael Moore documentary tropes: Moore's sardonic voice-over; mixture of fact and fiction (Trump's FBI arrest through magical CGI); a rundown of historical comparative logic with today's political atmosphere; Flint, Michigan (his hometown) in continuing crisis, etc. When you watch a Michael Moore documentary today, it is less documentary and more of a higher-budgeted cinematic editorial that aims to condense a lot of recent events into some meaningful thesis on where we are in the world. What is far more apparent is Moore's anger this time around, his anger at the current political climate and at Trump's ascendance as President of the United States. "Fahrenheit 11/9" is an angry film that is also flawed in its wild theories (the trailer proposes that Trump will be our last President) - it is a companion piece to Moore's controversial 2004 "Fahrenheit 9/11" but it is also less successful at forming reasonable conclusions.

In typical Moore's Theory of the Absurd that starts the film (after we see the liberals' crying disappointment of Hillary Clinton's loss of the presidency to you know who), we are asked to believe singer Gwen Stefani is to blame for Trump's Presidential win. What? Yep, since Trump discovered that Gwen was taking home a bigger paycheck for NBC's "The Voice" than he was for the same network's "The Apprentice," Trump decided to run for President, presumably to build his brand! Huh? I don't buy it. Then we segue to primaries where potential presidential candidate Bernie Sanders might have had a chance if the Democratic voters at the DNC were not so clearly on Hillary's side (I am not going to stoke those fires).

Most displeasing and accentuated with far greater anguish is the Flint Water Crisis in Flint, Michigan, where the water showed extraordinarily high levels of lead in its supply. Starting in April 2014, Flint had hazardous chemicals in the water that many unsuspecting residents were drinking from. In order to cut down on costs, the city of Flint switched to a local river where the water was cloudy-looking and smelled like raw sewage. General Motors ran into problems using the water since it rusted machine parts (eventually, the city switched to a healthier water route but only for GM). Then there is an alleged falsifying of reports by a former Health Department official. To make matters worse, former President Obama attended Flint and pretended to drink a glass of water in front of a crowd of Flint residents! (Note: As of early 2017, President Trump claims he bestowed Flint the $100 million grant to resolve the crisis and fix the pipes when in fact it took less than two years for the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016 to be implemented, a measure passed by Congress and signed into law by former President Obama. According to this film, Obama simply took a drink of water and split without aiding Flint.)

"Fahrenheit 11/9" is often riveting and exasperating, covering a lot of ground into President Trump's excesses and lack of ideology. In addition to brief clips of the late 90's "The Roseanne Show" where Moore and Trump were guests or the various photos of Moore with Jared Kushner and others, there is also much ado about the Parkland school shooting and how these ambitious, surviving teens of that unfortunate massacre may in fact cause a real dent for the better in our future (though it looks like Progressive congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the shining beacon we may have to consider). Some of this is emotionally powerful (a sneak peek into Charlottesville also speaks volumes) and Moore knows how push the right buttons. Unfortunately, he sometimes sidelines his punchiest episodes for outright fabrications based on bad taste such as hinting at an incestuous nature between Trump and his lovely daughter, Ivanka (not to say that some of the Donald's past televised comments weren't inappropriate but even Bill Maher has stopped joking about it). My least favorite segment (and boy, speaking of beating a dead horse) is the left-wing conspiracy theory about how Trump is our future Hitler, featuring footage of Hitler speaking Trump's words and vice-versa. I do not buy that for a second - Moore is more reasonable in asserting that Trump is a showman, a television personality with a huckster's charm who has slowly turned into a raging bull parody of himself. That I can believe. This may be, for all intents and purposes, nothing more than a put-on, an act of Trump deceiving the public into thinking he cares about them. That I can also believe. But our President is no dictator who has gone to war or has kept certain minorities in internment camps (leaving aside the current illegal immigration debacle) - whether or not he actually becomes a dictator (despite his respect for other dictator leaders) remains to be seen but we are thankfully not there yet.

"Fahrenheit 11/9" is perversely fascinating and incredibly entertaining, in the best tradition of Michael Moore's semi-documentary political juggernauts. It is also his most uneven film yet never less than incendiary. Moore has always been a huckster as well and maybe it takes a huckster to recognize another.