I finally got around to watching W/ Bob & David. I won’t pretend to be objective about the show. I am still a big fan of Mr Show. There are generally two ways that fans respond to these kinds of things: with great disappointment or great enthusiasm. I tend to come down on the enthusiasm side of these things. The gang’s back together and that’s all that really matters.

As I’ve noted before, however, Mr Show evolved over time. The first two seasons are really good. But it didn’t reach greatness until the third and fourth seasons. I believe that W/ Bob & David is every bit as good as those later episodes of Mr Show — and maybe even better. But I say that with full knowledge that they are doing something a little different here.

What really stands out in W/ Bob & David is just how subtle some of the humor is. It can get past you the first time through. Take, for example, the opening of the first episode. There is a big porta-potty on stage. We learn that after Mr Show ended, Bob Odenkirk and David Cross got into this time machine and set it for the year 2015. And now they were emerging.

They soon find out that all they’ve been doing is sitting in a box for the previous 16 years. They’ve aged just like everyone else. It turned out that their “real time travel machine” sold to them by Dr Gilly Fartsworth was in fact at “real-time travel machine.” That’s pretty subtle. I love it of course: it’s those grammatical details that get you every time!

So Bob and David go back to 1998 to have it out with Gilly Fartsworth. Now they are another 16 years older. Fartsworth explains to them the machine can, in fact, do what they want. They just had to push a red button labeled, “DE-HYPENATOR.” It’s silly stuff, but it’s hard not to think that it was written for me personally.

The rest of that show revolves around a bunch of friends at a poker game. They all admit to their new year’s resolutions. They are all absurd. John Ennis is going to Hollywood to become a director of “big budget, crowd-pleasing, award-winning films.” Jay Johnston, despite being on parole, is going to become a Circuit Court judge — start “nice and low.” But Paul Tompkins, whose doctor has told him he has to stop eating meat, has resolved to give up red meat. All the others consider this “over the top.” The episode ends with all the others having accomplished their resolutions with Tompkins having failed to stay off meat. He’s in a hospital bed, bites into a pepperoni sausage, and dies.

Most of W/ Bob & David is not really played for big laughs. There are moments, of course. I was particularly amused by David Cross as Judge Sandy “Some Nonsense” Whistleton in a parody television court show. It perfectly captured the capricious nature of the judges on these shows. And then there was a parody of the Larry the Cable Guy Prilosec commercials that was so vicious that I lost it. There is not nearly enough mockery of red neck culture, if you ask me.

But what was perhaps most remarkable was the segment on “Better Roots,” a new film that “takes on the most disgraceful chapter in American history: the showing of Roots.” The director does not like the “s-word” (slavery) and refers to slaves as “helpers.” It has scenes where the “helpers” get angry because the owner keeps making them stop for lemonade breaks and expressions of his thankfulness. What’s remarkable about this is that the shows first aired in November of last year. They must have been produced quite a lot earlier than that, because the production values are of feature film quality. So this must have pre-dated the revelation that Texas was using a school textbook that referred to slaves as “immigrants.” These guys are still on top of the cultural trends in this country.

There are only four episodes of W/ Bob & David. If you just want comedy, it seems to me that the strongest episode is the third with “Know Your Rights With Gilvin Daughtry,” about a guy who makes videos helping people stand up for their rights against the police. Unfortunately, the police he runs into are very nice. And there is another that may amuse me only because I so hate skiing. It’s about the legendary skier Waif Nickelson who revolutionizes the sport just because he hates it so much and is trying to get it over as fast as possible. (I’m laughing as I type this!) There is also a segment where Cross plays a Ronnie Dobbs style scumbag with the super power where whenever he calls someone a “cunt” she (normally, but not exclusively) shows up behind him. He is used by the FBI to find lost children and terrorists.

The main thing about W/ Bob & David is that it shows everyone involved in the show is still operating at the cutting edge of comedy. The show is not going back to the days of Mr Show, it’s moving forward. I hope they do more.

In 1984, the low budget film Night of the Comet was released. It was kind of like Valley Girl meets Night of the Living Dead. But that might give you the wrong idea. For one thing, the female leads in this film are incredibly strong. And for another, there are surprisingly few zombies. Although they are the cool ones like we saw in Omega Man. They can talk and wear cool sunglasses.

The plot of Night of the Comet is pretty straightforward. There’s a comet that circles the sun every 65 million years. Get it? Well, if you don’t, the movie tells you: that was when the dinosaurs went extinct. (For the record: I’m pretty sure a comet with that long a period would be theoretically impossible, given it would have to reach into other solar systems.) But most people think this is a coincidence, and everyone comes out to party to see the comet. (For the record: I’m not going to critique any more of the science in this film.) And almost all of them die. Those that don’t get turned into zombies. And those who were shielded by lead or iron or something survive.

The main plot is about a group of scientists who screwed up and got exposed, and are now living off the blood of the survivors until they can create a cure. Or something. The details of the plot don’t much matter. Night of the Comet is really about sisters (Catherine Mary Stewart and Kelli Maroney) who have a very cool post-apocalypse. I saw the film at the time and I recall liking it, but not remembering much other than the ending when the cute boy drives up in a sports car, and the younger sister goes off with him, having a happy ending.

The film is silly but completely entertaining — exactly what it intends to be. It was written and directed by Thom Eberhardt. You probably know him for directing Captain Ron. I know him because he directed one of my favorite silly films, Without a Clue. His films have a tendency to be panned by critics — at least when they first come out. I think this is typical of critics who usually get caught up in what they think the film should be, rather than judging it on its own terms.

Of course, that wasn’t true of Night of the Comet. Eberhardt makes it so clear what he is doing that even film critics couldn’t miss it. And it’s a good thing. This is a film that deserved to be seen and deserves its cult status today. It is primarily a film about women. The three principal characters are the two sisters and Audrey White (Mary Woronov), the only one of the scientists who has a problem with killing people for their survival. In fact, if it weren’t for White’s actions, the sisters would have died and that would be that.

Night of the Comet is, in other words, the kind of film that conservatives would now claim was all PC. Indeed, according to Wikipedia, “Eberhardt wanted to explore the idea of strong female protagonists with his love of post-apocalyptic films set in empty cities.” At the same time, he doesn’t shy away from sexing the film up with a very revealing scene involving Maroney — and zombies! So maybe repressed conservatives would like it! Regardless, Night of the Comet is well worth checking out — even after all these years and even with all that early 80s music.

Night of the Comet Online

At least for now, there is a copy of the film online:

Is it okay to tell Erik Loomis to shut up? I mean, he’s a brilliant guy. I love his political analysis and his discussions of labor history. But does that mean that I have to sit by and just accept it when he writes, The Coen Brothers Films, Ranked. Look, I get it. I’ve done it myself — sort of — in Rotten Tomatoes for Orson Welles. But in general, I hate rankings just as I hate stars or anything else that tries to quantify the quality of art.

It reminds me of those lists of the most expensive paintings. But I don’t think anyone ever takes those rankings to mean that these are the best. All they show is what kind of people the super rich are. It shows an extremely limited set of tastes and a huge reliance on what conventional wisdom thinks of as “nice” art. It’s not that I dislike it. In fact, the top ten include paintings by Cézanne and Modigliani, who I am very fond of (although not so much the particular paintings). I suppose this ranking of Coen Brothers films tell us something about Erik Loomis too. And it isn’t good.

Erik Loomis is responding to an even more disastrous ranking by Bilge Ebiri, Every Coen Brothers Movie, Ranked From Worst to Best. That’s the problem with people who are supposed to know about film: they insist upon being difficult. For example, he ranks Raising Arizona as the best Coen Brothers film. It isn’t just that I have long felt that to be by far their most overrated film, it is the obvious “people who aren’t that into the Coens like it” double-bluff. Give it a rest!

At least Erik Loomis has the advantage of making a top pick that I know is what he really thinks: The Big Lebowski. Then he (and Ebiri) fall into mostly a lot of conventional wisdom (although Ebiri, to his credit, ranks the difficult masterpiece The Man Who Wasn’t There highly). They both hate The Ladykillers. And they are lukewarm on The Hudsucker Proxy. Now that’s really interesting, in that the two films are going for the same kind of comedy. Just the same, they both love Fargo and No Country for Old Men. Again: similar in type. So isn’t it more correct that these guys are just telling us what they want the Coen Brothers to do and nothing at all about what the Coen Brothers are actually trying to do?

Comparing Coen Brothers’ Diverse Style

How do you compare The Hudsucker Proxy to Blood Simple? Really! It’s like trying to compare Nu Couché au coussin Bleu with Andrew Wiles’ proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem. Different films are doing different things.

I always hate it when people say, “That film wasn’t funny!” Really?! It’s much more likely that the problem was the viewer and not the film. I thought that Dumb and Dumber was stupid and I shut it off after about five minutes. But loads of other people thought it was hilarious. The film is what it is, and apparently works brilliantly on its own terms. It’s not my kind of film — at least not when I tried to watch it. When InSession Film asked what “my” favorite Coen Brothers film was, I said it was hard to say. I think Barton Fink is a perfect film, but that O Brother, Where Art Thou? is the one I enjoy watching the most.

Neither of our rankers think much Barton or O Brother. And neither of them really have a reason for it. It really just comes down to what they like and then filling in the details as to why — or, in many cases, not. I could write several thousand words on why No Country for Old Men is not the masterpiece that people claim. Much of the plot makes little sense. It’s more or less The Terminator set in west Texas. But the fact is that the film is everything that it tries to be. That’s true of most Coen Brothers films. It’s a whole lot better to spend an article talking about why you like Raising Arizona or The Big Lebowski than it is to put together a list that probably changes from year to year anyway.

Afterword: Coen Brothers

For the record, I admire the Coen Brothers, but I’m not a fanatic. I haven’t seen all their films. Pretty much, True Grit broke me. After that, it seemed clear that the boys were really not that interested in making innovative films anymore. I’m probably wrong. But I’ve never made a fetish of the Coen Brothers. They are damned fine filmmakers. And every one of their films I’ve seen was at least a worthy effort.

I’ve been very much aware of the Vincent Price “Dr Phibes” films for some time. First came, The Abominable Dr Phibes in 1971 (co-starring Joseph Cotten). And then came, Dr Phibes Rises Again! in 1972. But it can take me forever to get around to seeing films. For one thing, if I’m awake, I tend to be working. So I usually have to assign time to watch a film — usually with the intent of writing about it. So it’s kind of like work and I usually take notes. And it was in this vein (and to escape the Iowa Caucus) that I watched the second Dr Phibes film Monday night.

Why did I wait so long? I love those early 1970s British Vincent Price vehicles. Theatre of Blood is one of my all time favorite films. (I wrote about it a couple of years ago, Two Great Vincent Price Murder Films.) Part of it is just the color. In black and white, a film like The Last Man on Earth can still be pretty frightening. (When I was a kid it terrified me — but then so did The Bride of Frankenstein.) But in color, it’s just so much fun. I am of the opinion that horror films are never supposed to be taken seriously. Just look at wonderful films like Dead Alive and Dead Snow.

In fact, let’s watch a little Dead Snow:

You get the idea. Well, Dr Phibes Rises Again! is very much in this tradition. The film doesn’t make a lot of sense. Remember the Ben Affleck Daredevil film where he has this whole elaborate lair? (Or Batman or just about any other superhero movie?) Well, it’s kind of the same thing here. Somehow, Dr Phibes and his assistant manage to get his huge pipe organ transferred from his hidden lair in London to his hidden lair in Egypt. How? Oh, it doesn’t matter.

What does matter is that Dr Phibes is going to kill a bunch of people in ingenious ways, and in between, there is a very good police procedural. But there is surprisingly little gore. This is after all, the early 1970s — from England! This isn’t some indy (great) nonsense from Norway or New Zealand. People had taste!

But while Theatre of Blood is implicitly campy and humorous, Dr Phibes Rises Again! is explicitly a comedy. And it does not go for naturalism. The art direction is distinctly flamboyant. The set designer was Brian Eatwell, who was art director on such gorgeous classics as Godspell, The Three Musketeers, The Man Who Fell to Earth, and Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Much of it looks like it is right out of the last act of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Perhaps the greatest thing about it is that all the acting is so great. So it really is a joy to watch it even while you are waiting for the next gruesome murder. Of course, it wouldn’t work if it didn’t have Vincent Price to work his magic. Apparently, co-star Robert Quarry (who is great in it) thought that Price overacted. Well, yeah. What kind of film did Quarry think they were making? Perhaps he should have asked some of these questions:

• Why does Dr Phibes want to kill all these people, given that it just makes what he’s trying to do harder?
• How did Dr Phibes plant the spike in that phone, since he hadn’t been in the room before?
• Why do both Dr Phibes and Darius Biederbeck (Quarry) need the papyrus scroll when they both clearly have it memorized?
• Why do all the murder victims do just exactly what Dr Phibes expects?
• Where the hell did they get that wind machine?!

I could go on and on and on. The point is that it doesn’t matter. It’s just a really fun movie that is acted great, looks beautiful, and even, is well written. It’s not like Attack of the Puppet People (See my review: Earth vs. Burt I. Gordon!) that just plods along with no direction. You get pulled through this movie. What a joy!

Note: you can get both Dr Phibes films in one set: The Abominable Dr Phibes / Dr Phibes Rises Again!