…Stalking Santa.

What’s that strange taste in my mouth? By God, I think it’s the taste of a clean palate!

After two days of less than stellar Christmas flicks (and, boy, is that an understatement), I’ve stumbled upon a new film which – dare I say it? – has the potential to become a cult classic…and, for once, it’s not because it’s so awful that its sheer badness has earned it kitsch value, a la “Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.”

“Stalking Santa” is a mockumentary about Dr. Lloyd Darrow (Simon Taylor), a man who’s on an obsessive quest to confirm or deny the existence of Santa Claus, even if it involves risking a Christmas morning devoid of presents. In a twist which will amuse fans of the classic ’70s series, “In Search Of,” the narration is done by the inestimable William Shatner, who provides details about Darrow’s investigations, as well as other self-proclaimed “Santologists,” with absolutely no hint that it’s all completely fictional. Shatner’s deadly-serious delivery turns the most ridiculous claims into hilarity, such as his discussion of a wax cylinder that captured a voice during a seance which, when played backwards, reveals the words, “Ho, ho, ho, merry Christmas,” or the shot of an ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic which bears a striking resemblance to Kris Kringle himself. (Politically correct or not, I laughed out loud when they showed artwork of a chubby Asian fellow sitting in a lotus position and gave it the identifier of “Buddah Craus.”)

Lloyd reportedly has many supporters in his quest, but the truth is, it’s really just him and his college intern, Clarence (Daryn Tufts), who, uh, probably isn’t getting actual college credit for his work. Lloyd’s the president and CEO of an organization known as Tangible Evidence, Real Discoveries…and don’t think he doesn’t get shit for that acronym. He’s a family man, and his kids are a little uncertain about his quest, which you’d expect, since it might mean they don’t get any presents. In particular, his son is sick of his schoolmates’ tauntings, but his lovely and pregnant wife Kylie (Sierra Squires) is behind him, even though there’s no humor in her laugh when she comments that “Santology” isn’t exactly something you get paid for. (The line is followed by a shot of her working in a fast food restaurant as the family breadwinner.)

Yes, it’s easy to dismiss the entire concept of the film with a wave of the hand and a quick uttering of “there IS no Santa Claus, the end,” but only a Scrooge would do that. (Right, David?) But, seriously, this is a really funny concept that’s taken to hilarious heights and looks professional enough that, at least in appearance, it could fit onto TLC or The Discovery Channel without a second thought, especially the faux archival footage which suggests a government conspiracy to keep the existence of Santa under wraps so as not to disturb the world economy. Yeah, it descends too far into total ridiculousness on occasion (the idea that the Sphinx originally had antlers like a reindeer fell completely flat), but what keeps it working is the fact that virtually everyone believes Lloyd’s a complete nutjob…because, of course, everyone knows there’s no Santa Claus…right?

Right?

RIGHT?!?!?

(P.S. Santa, I totally know you’re real, so I’m sure you’ve chalked this up to creative license and have in no way removed that copy of the 5-disc “Blade Runner” set from your sleigh.)

As a DVD, “Fired!” may be one of the funniest viewing experiences of the year. As an actual movie, however, it isn’t nearly as successful…but, wait, I’m getting ahead of myself a bit.

The story behind “Fired!” began when actress Annabelle Gurwitch was…you guessed it…fired. Fired by Woody Allen, to be precise, when he was in the process of prepping the cast for a play he was putting together and declared that Gurwitch looked “retarded” when she followed a particular stage direction. Having already told tons of her friends and family members that she was going to working with Allen, Gurwitch was decidedly wounded by this act, but instead of wallowing in her depression, she ended up in conversation with various folks who sympathetically shared their own stories of being fired. She soon realized that, as a performer, there was something that could be done with this material, and, voila, the “Fired!” stage show was born, where various performers would get up on stage and read the tales of various people’s experiences.

This documentary sprang forth from that show, but, unfortunately, it’s lost something in the translation. This is mostly because the flick trumpets appearances from Tim Allen, David Cross, Andy Dick, Jeff Garlin, Bob Odenkirk, Jeffrey Ross, Harry Shearer, Sarah Silverman, Ben Stein, Fred Willard, Illeana Douglas, and Anne Meara, then ends up feeling like it’s far more about Gurwitch herself. And, of course, it is about Gurwitch. Unfortunately, most of the other contributors just have funnier stories, which means we spent as much time waiting for them to come back as we do appreciating Gurwitch’s own humorous experiences as she struggles to find her way back from the abyss. Also, directors Chris Bradley and Kyle La Brache make the decision to chop up several of the stories being told at a performance of the stage show and come back to them periodically throughout the film for more of each story, which proves reeeeeeeally annoying.

So if I’ve got these complaints, why am I calling “Fired!” one of the funniest DVDs of 2007?

Well, like I said, the stories from the various contributors are pretty damned funny. Jeff Garlin talks about losing a stand-up gig because he couldn’t compete with the magician who opened for him, Fred Willard sits in a hot tub (with Harry Shearer loitering just outside the waterline) and recalls how he was dropped from a sitcom because he was honest and admitted that he wasn’t the guy who played Herb Tarlek on “WKRP in Cincinnati,” and Illeana Douglas concedes that she was once fired from a job as a coat check girl despite her years of experience in placing coats on hangers and then taking them off again. Andy Dick revisits the world of fast food and finds that he still can’t hack the pace, while Bob Odenkirk provides Gurwitch with a great it’s-not-you-it’s-us speech to show how you can be let down easy in situations like that.

Better still, however, are the outtakes from the film. David Cross talks about getting fired from a hardware store, numerous telemarketing jobs, and the Paul Simon Presidential campaign, but the best bit comes when he discusses how he was let go from a mail-room job in a law firm by a guy who was the perfect combination of Mr. Smithers and Mr. Burns. (”He said, ‘Just get out,’ and I said, ‘But I haven’t had a chance to take a dump in your desk yet!’ And, then, that was it; I knew I had no chance of coming back. ‘Oh, c’mon, guy, lighten up! That was a joke! Seriously, can I just work through the summer?’”) Paul Feig, co-creator of “Freaks and Geeks,” tells an awesome story about his experiences as a teenage Ronald McDonald, comedienne Hillary Carlip tells a dy-no-mite story about getting dumped from her gig as Jimmie “J.J.” Walker’s juggling instructor, Dana Gould talks about being let go from the Fred Savage sitcom, “Working,” Harry Shearer explains how he got fired from several radio stations, once for playing a Mel Torme record on an all-rock station (calling the experience “the sincerest form of ‘don’t do that again’”), and…oh, hell, pretty much every single story in the outtake section is hilarious.

Great concept, less than perfect execution, but given that your sides will hurt by the time you’re finished with the DVD, I guess the best description of “Fired!” is to call it an eventual success.

Y’know, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an entire episode of “The George Lopez Show,” but after having watched this documentary, I think I’m gonna have to check it out; I don’t have any idea whether it’ll actually be funny or not, but just listening to the guy’s comments in “Brown is the New Green: George Lopez and the American Dream” makes me predisposed to liking him. (Mind you, I was already pretty much in that camp after I heard that he’d gotten into a physical altercation with Carlos Mencia over Mencia purportedly stealing some of his material, but, still, this really sealed the deal for me.)

“Brown is the New Green” focuses on Latinos as they’re perceived on the small screen, and while it probably won’t come as any surprise that they haven’t always had the best representatives on the American airwaves – for awhile, their big three were Jose Jiminez, Speedy Gonzales, and The Frito Bandito – it’s heartening to realize that they’re finally getting their due. Now, if you’re one of those folks who gets pissed off every time they reach a voicemail menu that says, “For English, press 1,” I’m sure you’re already seething mad at the mere thought of what this documentary discusses; in fact, some of you may have stopped reading altogether while you work out a diatribe for the comments section about how giving Latinos airtime to trumpet their culture is akin to setting Old Glory afire and watching her burn.

Well, hang onto your hat, muchacho, because you may be surprised to find that a lot of Latinos aren’t so remarkably different from John Smith, Average American.

For instance, when George Lopez was casting his TV show, many actors came in to audition and, when doing so, they’d put on a heavy Spanish accent. “George would say, ‘Brother, cool down, you don’t need to do that,’” said producer Bruce Helford, “and they’d say, ‘Oh, cool, thank you,’ and then they’d do it in perfect English, with no accent at all!” Lopez himself reveals that, while building the sets for his series, the network complained that the kitchen didn’t look like a Mexican kitchen. “They said, ‘There’s nothing here that indicates that a Mexican family lives here. There’s not a tortilla maker.’ I said, ‘My tortilla maker was my grandmother!’”

For the most part, the so-called “Latino audience” is something which, more often than not, the entertainment industry views as an advertising demographic rather than a group of individuals who are looking for their own brand of entertainment. There’s an ongoing battle between trying to portray real Latino life versus what producers think middle America can handle; one guy mentions how, from his experience, the average Latino family doesn’t always have a father present, but TV can’t hang with the idea of a fatherless family scenario, while Lopez speaks about how absolutely no-one in his family was supportive of his attempts to build an American TV career. The most interesting interview, at least for me, wasn’t with Lopez but, rather, with Bill Dana, the comedian who portrayed Jose Jimenez. He was hugely popular for many years, but he wasn’t actually Latino, and as the tide of public opinion turned, the popularity waned dramatically…like, to the point where, when he announced that he was retiring the character, he was stunned at the resulting cheers.

“Brown is the New Green” is another fine PBS production, providing an interesting, educational, and – ultimately – depressing look at how little love the Latino community gets on television. Sure, it’s nice that “Ugly Betty” is a success, but you can’t really call that a step forward when, in virtually the same breath, ABC canceled “The George Lopez Show” in favor of “Cavemen.” Still, when the doc ends with the revelation that Lopez earned $5 million from the show’s final season, $15 million from the series’ syndication deal, and $9 million from his stand-up shows that year, at least you can’t say that his chapter of the story hasn’t had a happy ending.

Upfront admission: I’ve never seen the first “Married in America” film. Good thing, then, that director Michael Apted has taken it into account that some of those who might happen upon this sequel to his 2002 documentary might need to play a bit of catch-up.

In 2001, Apted – the British director who made a name for himself as a documentarian with the series of “Up” films – ventured forth to America, selected ten couples who were on the cusp of marriage and filmed the days leading up to their nuptials as well as the ceremonies themselves, asking them questions about their relationships, their feelings about marriage, and what they anticipate the future will hold for them. In 2006, he returned to the couples to see how things had been going since the last time he’d come ’round…and, no surprise here, things are decidedly different in most cases.

When selecting couples, Apted pointedly tried to highlight as many different social, economic, and cultural angles as possible, so as to cover the gamut of marital stories, and he certainly succeeded on that front; there’s a lesbian couple, a multiracial couple (the husband is African-American, the wife is white), a multicultural couple (the wife is Filipino, the husband is Jewish), a pair who’d each already been married several times before, a couple of yuppies, a couple from Alabama where the husband’s a Marine and the wife’s a Southern belle, a duo from NYC who were married immediately prior to 9/11, and so forth and so on. As a result, each story is different from the one which precedes it…and, yet, ultimately, it’s all about marriage, so you can’t help but find similarities as well. It’s a bit sad to see that Betty and Reggie are still living with Betty’s mom, with the house they’d planned to renovate for themselves still sitting a shambles, but they seem happy, so, hey, more power to them. Less happy with each other, however, are Carol & Chuck and Nadine & Frank; the latter are trying to keep it together for the sake of family, but the former only barely keep any ties with each other these days.

There’s no question that, whether you’ve seen the first film or not, “Married in America 2″ is often an interesting viewing experience. Personally, however, I found myself occasionally indifferent to the goings-on…and, ultimately, I think it’s for the same reason that I got so bored with “Tell Me You Love Me” even though it was full of realistic-looking sex: I’m married. I am one of these people; I don’t need to watch their stories on television when I’m already living their lives. Yes, it’s interesting to see where they are five years after their marriage, but I watch TV and movies for escapism, and seeing how five years of marriage has brought a couple a house, a child, and a fair amount of bills is, to say the least, not much of an escape at all.

Given that Oliver Stone’s “JFK” is one of my all-time favorite movies, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I’d enjoy a good conspiracy-theory documentary, but “911 Mysteries – Part 1: Demolitions” is more intriguing than the average…possibly because its subject is one that affected just about everyone who lived through it. I’m not trying to pretend that li’l ol’ me, sitting in Norfolk, VA, was in any way as traumatized by the experiences on September 11, 2001, as the people in New York City – that’d be ludicrous – but, man, I’ll never forget how I felt as I stood in the break room at Harris Publishing and watched the towers fall live on television. I’m not even going to begin to try to put into the words the sensation that went through me as I witnessed something so unexpected and of such tremendous magnitude unfolding before my eyes, but it was something I hope never to experience again. As it is, I’m already dreaded the day when my daughter, who’s 2 years old as of this writing, asks me about that day, because I have absolutely no fucking idea what I’m going to say.

With the first part of the “911 Mysteries” series (the additional two parts remain unproduced at present, as the filmmakers await the necessary funding to move forward), we’re presented with some very interesting premises; they may or may not be true, but for the open-minded viewer, they result in enough eyebrow raising to make you consider the possibility of their accuracy.

The main question posited during the film’s 90 minutes is this: how do you get a 10-second, 110-story pancake collapse of a major structure? The answer is…no-one has an answer. Or if they do, they’re not talking. But plenty of civilian construction folk have had the question posed to them, and most seem to mystified as to how it happened.

The film features footage of a gentleman who lost his life in the collapse of the Towers, filmed several months prior to 9/11, indicating that the buildings were structurally designed to withstand a hit from a 747 – the largest aircraft at the time the building were erected – without incident. So why did they collapse so rapidly after such a strike? And why weren’t the core structures of the buildings still intact even as the floors fell around them? Is it possible that there were additional goings-on within the Towers which resulted in their destruction…?

The best I’m going to say is “maybe,” but, like I said, this movie will definitely get you thinking. There are interviews with plenty of construction professionals who find the building’s state of collapse to be inexplicable based on the facts as presented by the mainstream media; the discussions about who stood to gain from the loss of files, facts, and figures which were housed within the Towers might feel a bit too paranoid, but when you hear witnesses describing the mysterious construction on the 34th floor a month or two before the attacks, which was significant enough that the below floors could feel the shaking from the work being done (yet when one guy sneaked up to see what they were working on, he found the floor to be completely empty), you do start wondering, “What was going on up there?” Is it possible that terrorists planned far enough in advance to weaken the structure of the building by way of a bomb within the heart of the building itself?

It’s thought-provoking stuff. If you’re a steadfast conservative Republican, you’re probably already wagging your finger and declaring it to be anti-American and unpatriotic, but if you’re like me and always wonder if the news you’re getting is really the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you owe it to yourself to at least give “911 Mysteries – Part 1: Demolitions” a look…whether you believe it or not.

Oh, and in closing, I really just have to ask this aloud: whose idea was it to use a blurb from Rosie O’Donnell as the front-cover quote? “Watch and decide for yourself,” she says. For one, it’s not a very good quote, and for another, what, is she really the best spokesperson they could get? I mean, I’m not familiar with David Ray Griffin, the author quoted on the back cover, but at least his statement – “Excellent. The best of the 9/11 movies.” – is an actual compliment. Rosie’s comment is just…nothing.

It might’ve been fifty years since nine African-American teenagers broke the color barrier and, with the assistance of the National Guard, integrated the public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, but racism still runs rampant in these United States…and I’m just as guilty as anyone. I’d like to tell you I’m not – in fact, I’d prefer to tell you I’m not – but here’s why I’d be lying if I claimed otherwise: while watching “Little Rock Central: 50 Years Later,” the HBO special which revisits Little Rock Central High School to see how much has changed (and how much has stayed the same) since 1957, there was a moment when several teenage African-American girls are dancing around the room to a song on the radio…and when I realized that the song was “Stacy’s Mom,” by Fountains of Wayne, my first thought was, “Wow, really?”

I’d love to tell you it was simply the exclamation of a power-pop fan being pleased to hear a song by one of his favorite artists in such context, but, no, that was secondary at best. The harsh truth of the matter is that I reacted that way because it just seemed incongruous to see African-American teenagers dancing to Fountains of Wayne…and, really, it shouldn’t be that way.

But it is. And while watching “Little Rock Central: 50 Years Later,” you’re constantly reminded how little has changed in the half-century since the groundbreaking occurrence at that high school.

You see how the whites and the black have, in all this time, done almost no integrating; sure, they’re sharing the same classrooms, but there’s still a major disconnect between the them. A picture is painted of how there are almost no African-Americans in the accelerated classes, and how the socio-economic climate in Little Rock is such that the two races tend rarely to interact outside of the schools, which leads to a lack of interaction within the schools as well. And the teachers, for all their attempts to get the students to do their best, are finding that quite a few of them simply don’t care, don’t want to listen, and don’t have much in the way of a positive parental influence to inspire them at home. One of the African-American students suggests that the education level for blacks was higher before desegregation because, back then, they had something to prove; now, they don’t, and as a result, they’re not trying as hard. You want to argue with him, but, frighteningly, you can see what he’s talking about, especially when you hear one of the seniors admit that his father hasn’t looked at his report card since 9th grade.

Filmmakers Brent and Craig Renaud, themselves Little Rock natives, do an admirable job at showing as many different sides of the situation as possible. We see the teachers trying their best to teach these students, and we do see them succeeding; we also see that, although they’re in the minority, there are indeed African-American students at Little Rock Central who are intellectual and thriving. But in the end, when we see Minnijean Brown, one of the original “Little Rock 9,” speaking before one of the classes at the school and pointing out that, 50 years later, the whites are still on one side of the class and the blacks are on the other, we realize how far we’ve yet to go.

Alas, there’s no trailer for this doc, so I instead present you with a segment from the documentary, “Eyes on the Prize,” which provides you with an idea as to what happened 50 years ago…and will remind you – as it reminded me – that 50 years seems like a lifetime ago.

“Sun Dogs” is the story of the Jamaican dog sled team.

No, not the Jamaican bobsled team. The Jamaican dog sled team. I can understand how you’d think I’d just written down the wrong phrase, given how much more famous the former team is; in fact, it’s that very success which inspired Danny Melville to try to kickstart the idea of giving Jamaica a second unlikely sport to call their own.

Given that it comes from Palm Productions, it’s no wonder that “Sun Dogs” is a well-made documentary which extends far beyond the scope that one might reasonably expect from its simplistic cover art. Yes, it’s the true story of the Jamaican Dogsled Team, just as advertised, but this is as much of a tale of the country of Jamaica, how the beauty of its landscape belies the poverty of its people, and why something as simple and strange as a tropical island becoming famous for being good as a sport that’s generally done on snowy terrain can raise the spirits of so many people.

It’s a whirlwind trip ’round the world, this doc, spending time not only in Jamaica but also in Minnesota and Edinburgh, Scotland (you can’t exactly do proper sled training in a hot and sunny climate, now, can you?), but it’s also an emotional voyage as well, particularly when Newton – one of the human representatives of the team – is abruptly but understandably removed from working with the dogs. And speaking of the dogs, their story proves as interesting as the humans, coming as they do from the Jamaican SPCA. Most of them adapt well to the sport, but it takes a fair amount of training; still, it’s never a hardship to watch them, because, c’mon, doggies are cute!

Ahem.

Anyway, this is a great documentary that provides a real look at the creation of the team rather than an airbrushed Hollywood recreation, but it’s still a heartwarming story…one with a bouncy reggae soundtrack which propels it at all times. If there’s any complaint, it’s that the film’s description would lead you to believe that Jimmy Buffett, who offers financial support to the team, is a major player in the story; although it refers to “the crew, spearheaded by pop superstar Jimmy Buffett,” the man from Margaritaville is in it for maybe five minutes, tops.

Of course, if you’re not a Parrothead, this revelation may only serve to make you want to see “Sun Dogs” more than you already did before.

I’ve never been a real hardcore video game addict…well, not for any extended period of time, anyway. I had my fair share of obsessions once in awhile – first the arcade, then my trusty Intellivision, followed by brief stints with Nintendo and Xbox – but none of those lasted more than a few months before they were set aside. Kids today, though, they’re downright obsessed with the gaming, so when I first heard about the Starz documentary, “Hollywood Goes Gaming,” I thought, “Oh, man, this is totally not gonna hold my interest.”

I couldn’t have been more wrong. It was way better than I ever expected, offering a nicely done retrospective of the history of video games becoming movies and vice versa. For instance, Stephen Linsberg, writer / director of “Tron,” bemoans the fact that his film didn’t even receive an Academy Award for Best Special Effects, then admits that, at the time, the industry felt that he’d “cheated” by using computers for his effects. It’s amusing that the doc launches from its discussion of “Tron” and how Mattel licensed the film for a video game, then fast-forwards to the present and observes how it’s a given that a film will have a video-game tie-in nowadays, using “Surf’s Up” as an example. Why’s that amusing? Both films start Jeff Bridges!

Would you believe there was once a licensing battle for a “Kramer vs. Kramer” video game? True. Everybody wanted a piece of the video game action, but the most enjoyable discussion here comes via archival interview footage with Spielberg about the legendarily bad “E.T.” video game for Atari, then cuts to current interview with a fellow who used to work for Atari, who says that Spielberg saw the test version of the game and said, “Gee, couldn’t you do something more like ‘Pac-Man’?” “And I thought, well, gee, couldn’t you do something more like ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still’”? All snark aside, the game was such a colossal failure that Atari ended up with so many leftover copies that they buried a ton of them in a Mexican landfill. (I always thought that was an apocryphal story, but if so, Atari’s amused enough by it to claim it’s true.)

There’s also a nice bit about “Dragon’s Lair,” including an interview with creator Don Bluth (alas, the follow-up game, “Space Ace,” gets no love), along with an almost apologetic sequence about the “Super Mario Brothers.” From there, it’s onto the triple threat of the “Double Dragon,” “Street Fighter,” and “Mortal Kombat” flicks.

Inevitably, there’s conversation with Uwe Boll and Paul WS Anderson, with the latter proving the most entertaining. (I had no idea that, in answer to his critics, he offered to meet them in a boxing ring and fight them!) Clive Barker chimes in on his experiences in the industry, including his work on his own game, “Jericho,” and, of course, Shia LaBeouf gets interviewed because he’s the Michael Caine of his era, showing up in just about everything, though he looks like he was caught in the middle of a press tour, however, rather than having sat down for his interview like everyone else.

Kudos to Starz for these documentaries of theirs. They’re really doing a nice job of providing historical context rather than just having a bunch of talking heads blather on; in this case, we’re treated to interviews with the founders of Atari and Electronic Arts, the guys who were on the front lines of all these goings-on. Makes for a lot more interesting perspective than, say, a movie critic talking about how bad “Double Dragon” was.

Wait, John Lennon was political? Wow, how did I miss out on this…?

It isn’t as though we haven’t gotten enough documentaries which have tackled the life and times of John Lennon over the years – I’m thinking first and foremost of “Imagine: John Lennon,” but it’s not like he hasn’t popped up elsewhere – but, to be fair, this is the first time there’s been an attempt to focus specifically on his life and times as a political activist.

There’s a quote on the back of the DVD box from Yoko Ono where she says, “Of all the documentaries that have been made about John, this is the one he would have loved.” Well, she’d probably know better than anyone…and, yeah, she’s probably right. He would have loved the idea that his attempts to bring peace to the world were, if not 100% successful, at least still being spoken of this far into the future. When viewed through the eyes of a world that’s survived such traumatic events as the L.A. riots and 9/11, however, you find yourself staring blankly at the screen on occasion, wondering exactly how naive Lennon really was to think that he could change the world with his methods.

Sure, they’re quaint and well-intentioned. Having a bed-in for peace makes a statement that he’s anti-war without risking confrontation with the authorities. Suggesting that there would be no issue with race if everyone was inside a bag and you couldn’t see their skin…well, that’s a little more off the wall, sure, but there’s a valid point somewhere within the eccentricity. Ultimately, though, the greatest achievement of John Lennon was to show that a pop star could have a social conscience, and if having that conscience required losing fans, then so be it.

As to “The U.S. vs. John Lennon,” what makes it so fascinating is the placement of Lennon’s actions within their proper historical context. What may be viewed as naive now was still quite sufficient to draw the attention of the Nixon White House and result in Lennon being put under FBI surveillance. You can kind of see why, too; he was, after all, hanging out with noted radicals such as John Sinclair, Bobby Seale, and the like. Really, though, it was less because of the company he was keeping and more because he was, despite his preference to keep himself as far away from that niche as possible, a Beatle…and when you’re a Beatle, the kids listen to you. Sure, they might not agree with everything you have to say, but you’ve still got their ear, and that’s why Nixon felt Lennon was so dangerous and, indeed, a legitimate threat to his Presidential campaign. In the end, Nixon still won another term, but the effects of Lennon’s political leanings made enough of an impact on society that the film manages to score talking-head commentary from Walter Cronkite, Mario Cuomo, Gore Vidal, and many others.

Yoko and John might prefer “The U.S. vs. John Lennon” to the other Lennon docs, but, on the whole, it’s not one you’d want to start your new Beatle fans with. It is, however, key to understanding why a man would have the music world at his feet yet essentially throw it away to follow his politics, instead; more importantly, it shows how far ahead of his time John Lennon really was.

Given that today’s Veteran’s Day, it seemed only appropriate to select a documentary which involved the members of our fighting forces. Of course, it also helped that, mere days before, I’d serendipitously received such a selection: “The Ritchie Boys,” directed by Christian Bauer.

Ever since Tom Brokaw put together his tales of “The Greatest Generation,” documentaries interviewing those who fought their way through World War II and lived to tell their stories have been very much on my radar, so I was immediately predisposed to be interested in “The Ritchie Boys” based on its WWII-era cover photo alone. As I read the description on the back of the DVD box, however, I became legitimately fascinated by this story of German Jewish individuals who’d been run out of their homeland, come to the States, and been welcomed into the U.S. Army to assist in the war effort and fight against those who forced them to flee Germany in the first place.

This would’ve been an interesting story even if it had been told strictly via voiceover narration, but several members of the Ritchie Boys – so named because of their training in Camp Ritchie, Maryland – are still alive, well, and more than ready to talk about their experiences. Most had only been in the States for a very short time before finding themselves members of the US Army, but almost all were enthusiastic at the prospect of kicking as much Nazi ass as possible.

It’s not entirely surprising, I don’t suppose, that the majority of these gentlemen are jovial and in good spirits when speaking of their pasts, probably because there were some good times; certainly, it’s evident that there was tremendous camaraderie amongst them. We see this in particular with the duo of Guy Stern and Fred Howard, who left the war as friends and are the only two who are paired together during the course of the film; we see them as they reunite and ride together to tour their old barracks, and the easy back-and-forth between them will illicit a smile in most. For instance, on the drive to the barracks, Guy muses that you can see that the Blue Ridge Mountains will be appearing on the horizon soon, which inspires Fred to burst into laughter and reply, “You are so full of shit!” They trade memories back and forth throughout the film, including how they discovered that German soldiers were deathly afraid of being captured by the Russians, so they managed to get their hands on a Russian soldier’s uniform and would interrogate prisons as if they were Russians. (They even found a portrait of Josef Stalin, to which they added a facsimile of his signature, adding, “With love.”) Be sure, however, to stay tuned for the closing credits, over which they discuss a tale they invented about how they’d captured Adolf Hitler’s latrine officer.

Though we’re treated to several amusing stories from the various surviving Ritchie Boys, the sad reality of war is never far away. We hear how one of the members of the regiment was shot dead by a sentry after answering the password correctly but doing so in his German accent; also, in a moment of governmental stupidity, it’s revealed that the U.S. Army’s dog tags listed the soldiers’ religious persuasion, which proves a bit dodgy if you’re a former German turned American soldier who’s of the Jewish persuasion.

“The Ritchie Boys” is a side of the war that’s never really been explored before. Even if you’ve seen “The War” and think, okay, Ken Burns has said all that needs to be said, you’d still be wise to check out this flick before making a final decision on the matter.