Much of the humor of the original Night Court came from the zaniness of the cases and defendants at trial. Most episodes of new Night Court before this one focused less on the cases and more on the personal stories of the characters. Sure, they did a good job of capturing the general look and tone of Night Court, with spot-on reproductions of the sets, three-camera-style lighting and camera work, and great callbacks -- but not until this episode when they really stepped it up with wacky court cases and characters did it finally feel 100% like the old show. I hope it's a direction they continue.
Reviews
18 Reviews
An unmotivated retread.
12 November 2022
This is one of the few (only?) David E. Kelley-penned episodes of the fourth season, and it's one of his favorite tropes - the Brock Family Dinner bottle episode where the characters finally air and hash out all their problems with each other, moving from room to room to do so.
The problem is, it's just crazy. The storyline of Jill going absolutely nuts comes out of nowhere. The issues the characters have with each other are the same ones they've had since season 1, and most of them were resolved in past seasons - why are they bubbling up again now?
I guess they were setting up the final arcs to the series, leading up to the finale, but they were weird ones.
The problem is, it's just crazy. The storyline of Jill going absolutely nuts comes out of nowhere. The issues the characters have with each other are the same ones they've had since season 1, and most of them were resolved in past seasons - why are they bubbling up again now?
I guess they were setting up the final arcs to the series, leading up to the finale, but they were weird ones.
The Rookie: Feds
(2022–2023)
Did you know the main character was a high school guidance counselor?
24 October 2022
Of course you do - she tells you in every scene.
I've never seen such a weak, unrealistic gimmick played up so much and so unironically.
Seriously, the main character's superpower - and they treat it as a superpower - is that she was a high school guidance counselor. Somehow this gives her the insight to crack tough cases that seasoned, experienced, highly-trained, long-time agents can't.
That's the premise of the show. Former high school guidance counselor shakes up the FBI because of her experience as a former guidance counselor.
Did I mention she's a former high school guidance counselor? Well, she was.
Have I said too much about it? I haven't said as much about it as she does in a typical episode.
If you want to hear how the main character was a high school guidance counselor again and again and again and again, this is the show for you. If not, you might want to find something else to watch.
I've never seen such a weak, unrealistic gimmick played up so much and so unironically.
Seriously, the main character's superpower - and they treat it as a superpower - is that she was a high school guidance counselor. Somehow this gives her the insight to crack tough cases that seasoned, experienced, highly-trained, long-time agents can't.
That's the premise of the show. Former high school guidance counselor shakes up the FBI because of her experience as a former guidance counselor.
Did I mention she's a former high school guidance counselor? Well, she was.
Have I said too much about it? I haven't said as much about it as she does in a typical episode.
If you want to hear how the main character was a high school guidance counselor again and again and again and again, this is the show for you. If not, you might want to find something else to watch.
Strange Episode
23 August 2022
We learn a bit more about Littleton's background, but the execution of the episode is haphazard.
There's a tiny B-plot which in the end seems to tie into the overall theme of brothers covering for each other, but there must have been more in the script than made it to the screen. It had zero depth and an unearned climax.
The music is very strange, very '90s canned soft porn music - which made some of the scenes between Littleton and his brother rather awkward.
Overall, an episode which showcases the general decline of the show after David E. Kelley left. Watching through it in order, the show is getting harder to watch after earlier brilliance.
There's a tiny B-plot which in the end seems to tie into the overall theme of brothers covering for each other, but there must have been more in the script than made it to the screen. It had zero depth and an unearned climax.
The music is very strange, very '90s canned soft porn music - which made some of the scenes between Littleton and his brother rather awkward.
Overall, an episode which showcases the general decline of the show after David E. Kelley left. Watching through it in order, the show is getting harder to watch after earlier brilliance.
High Score
(2020– )
Too short, and too long.
29 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Too short, because of the glaring omission of many very important players in the video game industry, such as Zork, Commodore, Coleco, Intellivision, Epyx, Activision, and so many more crucial to the development of video games.
Too long because it spent far too much time on the subjects it did include. A documentary about video game history does not need to go in depth about the lives of people who won video game tournaments. We do not learn anything important about the development or history of video games from what the best Street Fighter player in the world was like when he was 10 years old.
There are many factual errors, including some which would have been rectified had they covered systems like the Commodore 64, which had smooth side-scrolling (and scrolling in any direction) long before the problem was supposedly solved on PC systems. Games for the C-64 also had very effective 3D in the early-to-mid '80s, long before 16-bit consoles and long before Star Fox or any of the games the series attempts to paint as the pioneers of the technology. (Heck, you could program rudimentary 3D in BASIC.) As for the Star Fox discussion about the 3D world giving players too many choices, I give you the successful sandbox approaches in 3D flight simulation games like Microprose's Gunship or F-15 Strike Eagle, and the entire open galaxy of Elite.
The chronology of the series extends into the 2000s, but completely unmentioned are revolutionary consoles such as the Nintendo 64 and original PlayStation. Possibly the most important FPS game of the '90s was GoldenEye, but it doesn't get a whisper of mention, when it should have been front and center when discussing the topic. And that's not just me disappointed they didn't mention something, it's me knowing how important it was and how no discussion of FPS games is complete without it.
There are other things I think they should have mentioned, like the Odyssey2 or real-time strategy games like Command & Conquer. Obviously, you can't include everything in limited space, and leaving some things out is legitimate editorial priority. But you can't read this series as anything but deliberate decisions by the producers to omit bedrock important topics in order to make space for the inclusion of far less important subjects. If those are the topics you want to explore, that's all well and good, but don't then try to sell it as something it's not. Sell it for what it is and let it find its audience.
Too long because it spent far too much time on the subjects it did include. A documentary about video game history does not need to go in depth about the lives of people who won video game tournaments. We do not learn anything important about the development or history of video games from what the best Street Fighter player in the world was like when he was 10 years old.
There are many factual errors, including some which would have been rectified had they covered systems like the Commodore 64, which had smooth side-scrolling (and scrolling in any direction) long before the problem was supposedly solved on PC systems. Games for the C-64 also had very effective 3D in the early-to-mid '80s, long before 16-bit consoles and long before Star Fox or any of the games the series attempts to paint as the pioneers of the technology. (Heck, you could program rudimentary 3D in BASIC.) As for the Star Fox discussion about the 3D world giving players too many choices, I give you the successful sandbox approaches in 3D flight simulation games like Microprose's Gunship or F-15 Strike Eagle, and the entire open galaxy of Elite.
The chronology of the series extends into the 2000s, but completely unmentioned are revolutionary consoles such as the Nintendo 64 and original PlayStation. Possibly the most important FPS game of the '90s was GoldenEye, but it doesn't get a whisper of mention, when it should have been front and center when discussing the topic. And that's not just me disappointed they didn't mention something, it's me knowing how important it was and how no discussion of FPS games is complete without it.
There are other things I think they should have mentioned, like the Odyssey2 or real-time strategy games like Command & Conquer. Obviously, you can't include everything in limited space, and leaving some things out is legitimate editorial priority. But you can't read this series as anything but deliberate decisions by the producers to omit bedrock important topics in order to make space for the inclusion of far less important subjects. If those are the topics you want to explore, that's all well and good, but don't then try to sell it as something it's not. Sell it for what it is and let it find its audience.
Abby's
(2019)
Constantly breaking the 4th wall
1 April 2019
I understand the show is experimental with an outdoor set, but frequently pulling back to show the lights, scaffolding, and audience stands destroys the internal reality of the show. It looks and feels like a live play in a park, so there's no belief it's a real setting. I can't care what happens because it's obviously staged. Interesting idea. Terrible, unfunny writing.
Take Me Home Tonight
(2011)
Had the bones of something good, but just wasn't carried off.
24 August 2011
If you look at this film from the point of view that they tried to make a classic John Hughes-style comedy (which all signs point to), then the script wasn't so bad. It was about on par with many of those films and had it been made BY HUGHES actually IN the '80s, it could have been another classic.
However, it wasn't carried off very well at all. The first half of the movie was a continual reminder of the movie's setting. They might as well have had someone holding up a hand-written sign on colored posterboard saying "Hey! We're in the '80s!" - it would have had the same level of subtlety as the forced references, clunky dialog, and cliché' touchstones. I was in high school in the '80s, and we didn't sit around reminding each other that it was the '80s. We just lived it.
The entire cast looked much older than the 22 or 23 they were supposed to be. While 22 year-olds might be able to carry off high schoolers, 30+ year-olds don't look 22.
The acting was fairly wooden, and the truly funny moments were few and short.
I kept hoping for more, but it never really delivered.
(Note to anyone trying the same later -- revise the song list. The '80s had more than the ten songs always stuffed into these things.)
However, it wasn't carried off very well at all. The first half of the movie was a continual reminder of the movie's setting. They might as well have had someone holding up a hand-written sign on colored posterboard saying "Hey! We're in the '80s!" - it would have had the same level of subtlety as the forced references, clunky dialog, and cliché' touchstones. I was in high school in the '80s, and we didn't sit around reminding each other that it was the '80s. We just lived it.
The entire cast looked much older than the 22 or 23 they were supposed to be. While 22 year-olds might be able to carry off high schoolers, 30+ year-olds don't look 22.
The acting was fairly wooden, and the truly funny moments were few and short.
I kept hoping for more, but it never really delivered.
(Note to anyone trying the same later -- revise the song list. The '80s had more than the ten songs always stuffed into these things.)
Touching, but some glaring mistakes.
22 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I can only echo what most of the others thought was good about this episode.
Great acting. A well-conceived story. A touching heart.
Interesting premise. Brilliant visuals. Intricate design on the clockwork androids. A great twist at the end.
But at least one glaring plot hole . . .
The Doctor should be able to visit Reinette any time he wishes in the TARDIS. The excuse given for this is that they were "already involved," but this has never been a limitation on TARDIS capability before (and indeed, the Doctor has run into/observed himself on several occasions). It's enough to cost the episode a star, because it takes away the power of the ending. Why is it such a tragedy that he just missed her death when he can visit any time and as often as he likes? The gimmick with the horse was more than a little corny as well, and takes away from the general heart of the episode. Yes, yes; he rode in on a white horse to save her . . . and that's the point. Cheesy. Another star lost.
Great acting. A well-conceived story. A touching heart.
Interesting premise. Brilliant visuals. Intricate design on the clockwork androids. A great twist at the end.
But at least one glaring plot hole . . .
The Doctor should be able to visit Reinette any time he wishes in the TARDIS. The excuse given for this is that they were "already involved," but this has never been a limitation on TARDIS capability before (and indeed, the Doctor has run into/observed himself on several occasions). It's enough to cost the episode a star, because it takes away the power of the ending. Why is it such a tragedy that he just missed her death when he can visit any time and as often as he likes? The gimmick with the horse was more than a little corny as well, and takes away from the general heart of the episode. Yes, yes; he rode in on a white horse to save her . . . and that's the point. Cheesy. Another star lost.
Fresh Horses
(1988)
Pretty In Pink Redux
24 December 2005
More or less.
I first saw this movie while attending Cincinnati Law. I was a defense attorney in the UC Student Court, defending a student on a parking ticket appeal, and by coincidence I watched this movie the night before the trial . . . and Andrew McCarthy parked in the exact spot where my client had gotten the ticket.
Anyway, the movie is OK if you want a somewhat depressing John Hughes film. Fall in Ohio gets bitter quickly, and I can't help but think it affected the tone of the film. It's nice to see many of the familiar sights of Cincinnati and UC, but other than that, it's mostly forgettable even if you don't get the feeling you've already seen it before.
I first saw this movie while attending Cincinnati Law. I was a defense attorney in the UC Student Court, defending a student on a parking ticket appeal, and by coincidence I watched this movie the night before the trial . . . and Andrew McCarthy parked in the exact spot where my client had gotten the ticket.
Anyway, the movie is OK if you want a somewhat depressing John Hughes film. Fall in Ohio gets bitter quickly, and I can't help but think it affected the tone of the film. It's nice to see many of the familiar sights of Cincinnati and UC, but other than that, it's mostly forgettable even if you don't get the feeling you've already seen it before.
King Kong
(2005)
Too Long; Unoriginal; Too Many Unbelievable Little Things
15 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
On the whole, it was decent, but by no means spectacular.
The beginning could have been trimmed considerably.
The action sequences are lifted directly from the "Jurassic Park" films and from Jackson's own "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. And, at least two of them are too long.
The effects were in unconvincing in too many places, be it with leaky green-screen keys or CGI effects which looked like miniature photography done with Legos and Star Wars figures.
*SPOILERS* Several annoying little unbelievable bits added up to a bungled whole: * When Kong pulled Ann off the bridge, the ropes snapped. That much force would have broken her arms.
* Kong carrying Ann so roughly during the fight sequences should produced some scrapes or bruises, or at the very least, a smudge. (To say nothing of cracked ribs, etc.) * Jimmy picks up a Tommy gun for the first time, yet surgically removes the giant bugs from a flailing Jack. The Tommy gun isn't exactly a precision instrument to begin with . . .
* The Army would not indiscriminately fire a Howizter into apartment buildings, nor would they allow sprays of machine gun fire on city streets, for the same reasons.
* It's December, and cold enough to freeze a stream or pond solid enough to support a 25-foot gorilla, yet Ann, in a sheer evening dress, never so much as shivers, nor do we even see her breath.
* There's only the slightest hint of a breeze on the top of a 1200-foot spire (not to mention that it would be 20-30 degrees colder up there).
And so on and so on. Would any one of these things be a big deal? No. Do they add up? Yes. It's a sense of general sloppiness which makes you wonder if Jackson didn't just throw the believability book out the window. If you're going to have a fantastic premise, the rest of the world better be real.
I expected much better.
The beginning could have been trimmed considerably.
The action sequences are lifted directly from the "Jurassic Park" films and from Jackson's own "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. And, at least two of them are too long.
The effects were in unconvincing in too many places, be it with leaky green-screen keys or CGI effects which looked like miniature photography done with Legos and Star Wars figures.
*SPOILERS* Several annoying little unbelievable bits added up to a bungled whole: * When Kong pulled Ann off the bridge, the ropes snapped. That much force would have broken her arms.
* Kong carrying Ann so roughly during the fight sequences should produced some scrapes or bruises, or at the very least, a smudge. (To say nothing of cracked ribs, etc.) * Jimmy picks up a Tommy gun for the first time, yet surgically removes the giant bugs from a flailing Jack. The Tommy gun isn't exactly a precision instrument to begin with . . .
* The Army would not indiscriminately fire a Howizter into apartment buildings, nor would they allow sprays of machine gun fire on city streets, for the same reasons.
* It's December, and cold enough to freeze a stream or pond solid enough to support a 25-foot gorilla, yet Ann, in a sheer evening dress, never so much as shivers, nor do we even see her breath.
* There's only the slightest hint of a breeze on the top of a 1200-foot spire (not to mention that it would be 20-30 degrees colder up there).
And so on and so on. Would any one of these things be a big deal? No. Do they add up? Yes. It's a sense of general sloppiness which makes you wonder if Jackson didn't just throw the believability book out the window. If you're going to have a fantastic premise, the rest of the world better be real.
I expected much better.
Dead Like Me
(2003–2004)
Could be fun, if only . . .
16 January 2004
I've watched a few episodes of the show. I think it's funny and philosophical, and I always enjoy Mandy Patinkin deadpan. Good potential.
But there doesn't need to be even 10% of the profanity. There's so much, it's as though it's intentionally over-the-top. Turns me off big-time.
But there doesn't need to be even 10% of the profanity. There's so much, it's as though it's intentionally over-the-top. Turns me off big-time.
Star Trek: Nemesis
(2002)
Picard, master of destruction.
14 December 2002
Please note (sorry, won't me list them any other way):
"City on the Edge of Forever" -- "The Changeling" -- "Assignment: Earth" -- Star Trek: The Motion Picture -- Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
These are the episodes/movies in which James T. Kirk directly saved Earth, and and each case he did so without firing a shot.
Contrast:
"Conspiracy" -- "The Best of Both Worlds" -- "Time's Arrow" -- Star Trek: First Contact -- Star Trek: Nemesis
These are the episodes/movies in which Jean-Luc Picard directly saved Earth, and in each case, he blew someone up.
Now, who's the "let God sort 'em out" guy?
"City on the Edge of Forever" -- "The Changeling" -- "Assignment: Earth" -- Star Trek: The Motion Picture -- Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
These are the episodes/movies in which James T. Kirk directly saved Earth, and and each case he did so without firing a shot.
Contrast:
"Conspiracy" -- "The Best of Both Worlds" -- "Time's Arrow" -- Star Trek: First Contact -- Star Trek: Nemesis
These are the episodes/movies in which Jean-Luc Picard directly saved Earth, and in each case, he blew someone up.
Now, who's the "let God sort 'em out" guy?
Rollerball
(1975)
Dated Look But Top-Notch Filmmaking
3 August 2001
"Rollerball" is one of those classics of sci-fi that I somehow managed to miss for all of my 30 years. Whilst browsing the local store, I found the DVD for ten dollars and figured I had nothing to lose -- to rent it, if I could even find it on DVD, wouldn't cost THAT much less.
I had some vague notion of the storyline, but I tried not to read the case or liner notes and take in the movie on a first impression. Released in the summer of 1975, there are definite and readily apparent influences of earlier films, not the least of which being Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange." The colors, the film stock, the editing style are all reminiscent of that earlier, similarly-themed master work, yet I don't believe it detracted from this film at all.
Supposedly set in the year 2018 (though this is never established in the movie, that I could tell), corporations have replaced governments and managed to eliminate war, poverty, disease and bad hair days. People don't have too much of a say in what goes on around them, but they're all very physically comfortable. Of course, the violent nature of the human beast must be satisfied, and it is -- in the gladitorial ring of the world's most popular sport, Rollerball. The game consists of two teams (from cities all over the world) skating and motorbiking around a 1/8-mile track, trying to get a steel ball into a goal. As the course of the season progresses, more and more limitations as to what constitutes fair play are removed, and by the final, the melee is total.
James Caan plays the Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky and Joe Montana of Rollerball, Jonathan E.. He's the biggest star in the world, but he's also a thinking man, and when the corporation which owns his team wants him to retire, he refuses, wanting to know first why they'd want him to retire when he's playing at his best.
The rest I leave to the viewer to find out. I can only say it is a very well-crafted script with plenty to say about violence, the spirit of the individual man, and the bloodlusts that a happy and idle populace can muster. Very well-filmed with touches of brilliance in editing and framing.
A detraction which really couldn't be helped involves the portrayal of the future. Director Norman Jewison couldn't know what the world of forty years in his future would be like, so he took the wise route of not making it all that different from 1975, but with subtle changes (such as the interesting but impractical "multivision" concept in which all TV sets have a large screen and three smaller screens above it, each showing different but related pictures). The result, though infinitely preferable to lots of neon and superfluous antennae, is that the place looks like 1975 with slightly cooler gadgets. I can't tell you what 2018 will look like, but it won't look like that.
Interestingly, the "corporate inevitability" concept of the future, which I believe Jewison meant earnestly, plays out much more as a satire of the opposite, a communist world. Much of what the coroprate culture says, as personified by John Houseman's Mr. Bartholomew, sounds much like the rhetoric of communism -- people are fed and comfortable and happy, but the individual is beholden to the group at all costs. Indeed, some of the words of description of the culture seem lifted straight from Marx and Engels.
The DVD leaves something to be desired, though. The picture is a lot dirtier than I'd like, especially in still-shot scenes. The color is muted, though this may be part style, and some shots seem positively muddy.
The remastered 5.1 soundtrack is a disappointment. The rear speakers get very little play. One particular effect of note, I must concede, is one moment when you can hear the ball roll all the way around the arena, and it's as though you're standing in the center.
In all, it's an excellent movie, which I can't recommend enough, but if the disc had been any pricier than it was, I would have felt as though I was somewhat taken.
Perhaps after the release of the upcoming remake, there will be a better special edition.
I had some vague notion of the storyline, but I tried not to read the case or liner notes and take in the movie on a first impression. Released in the summer of 1975, there are definite and readily apparent influences of earlier films, not the least of which being Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange." The colors, the film stock, the editing style are all reminiscent of that earlier, similarly-themed master work, yet I don't believe it detracted from this film at all.
Supposedly set in the year 2018 (though this is never established in the movie, that I could tell), corporations have replaced governments and managed to eliminate war, poverty, disease and bad hair days. People don't have too much of a say in what goes on around them, but they're all very physically comfortable. Of course, the violent nature of the human beast must be satisfied, and it is -- in the gladitorial ring of the world's most popular sport, Rollerball. The game consists of two teams (from cities all over the world) skating and motorbiking around a 1/8-mile track, trying to get a steel ball into a goal. As the course of the season progresses, more and more limitations as to what constitutes fair play are removed, and by the final, the melee is total.
James Caan plays the Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky and Joe Montana of Rollerball, Jonathan E.. He's the biggest star in the world, but he's also a thinking man, and when the corporation which owns his team wants him to retire, he refuses, wanting to know first why they'd want him to retire when he's playing at his best.
The rest I leave to the viewer to find out. I can only say it is a very well-crafted script with plenty to say about violence, the spirit of the individual man, and the bloodlusts that a happy and idle populace can muster. Very well-filmed with touches of brilliance in editing and framing.
A detraction which really couldn't be helped involves the portrayal of the future. Director Norman Jewison couldn't know what the world of forty years in his future would be like, so he took the wise route of not making it all that different from 1975, but with subtle changes (such as the interesting but impractical "multivision" concept in which all TV sets have a large screen and three smaller screens above it, each showing different but related pictures). The result, though infinitely preferable to lots of neon and superfluous antennae, is that the place looks like 1975 with slightly cooler gadgets. I can't tell you what 2018 will look like, but it won't look like that.
Interestingly, the "corporate inevitability" concept of the future, which I believe Jewison meant earnestly, plays out much more as a satire of the opposite, a communist world. Much of what the coroprate culture says, as personified by John Houseman's Mr. Bartholomew, sounds much like the rhetoric of communism -- people are fed and comfortable and happy, but the individual is beholden to the group at all costs. Indeed, some of the words of description of the culture seem lifted straight from Marx and Engels.
The DVD leaves something to be desired, though. The picture is a lot dirtier than I'd like, especially in still-shot scenes. The color is muted, though this may be part style, and some shots seem positively muddy.
The remastered 5.1 soundtrack is a disappointment. The rear speakers get very little play. One particular effect of note, I must concede, is one moment when you can hear the ball roll all the way around the arena, and it's as though you're standing in the center.
In all, it's an excellent movie, which I can't recommend enough, but if the disc had been any pricier than it was, I would have felt as though I was somewhat taken.
Perhaps after the release of the upcoming remake, there will be a better special edition.
The Right of the People
(1986 TV Movie)
Morbid Fantasy of the Gun-Grabbing Lunatic Fringe
29 June 2001
I recall watching this MOW when it was on originally, which may have been the only showing of it to a national audience. Even at my young age (IMDb calls this movie 1986; I seem to recall it was earlier), in my early teens, I distinctly recall thinking that people just don't act the way they were depicted in this movie.
The basic crux is this -- a grieving father never wants anyone else to lose a child to a gunman, so he pushes to have carry laws in his town liberalized so that all citizens may carry a gun. The idea is that armed citizens can fend off a criminal's attack.
Of course, what ends up happening is that every little verbal spat ends up in a shooting, and the town is in chaos. The POINT, as if no one can figure it out, is that guns turn otherwise rational people into mentally depraved, frothy murderous lunatics.
It was a silly display. Just because you CAN kill someone doesn't mean you'd try, no matter how flippant he's being about your fender-bender. Most people know the difference between a heated argument and lethal violence; even if they'd be inclined to throw a punch, they're not going to take it to the level of death.
Much to the producers' chagrin, of course, subsequent to the movie, many states liberalized their carry laws, and instead of this morass of carnage, crime in each of those states experienced an immediate, dramatic, and permanent drop in crime. The fender-bender shootings never materialized (with one notable exception of which I'm aware -- between two women. Draw your own conclusions). In fact, several municipalities throughout the country have gone the extra step of REQUIRING gun ownership, and they are among the most crime-free anywhere.
This movie was made as propaganda for an extremist political agenda, and nothing more. Thankfully, no one remembers it -- because that's all it's worth.
The basic crux is this -- a grieving father never wants anyone else to lose a child to a gunman, so he pushes to have carry laws in his town liberalized so that all citizens may carry a gun. The idea is that armed citizens can fend off a criminal's attack.
Of course, what ends up happening is that every little verbal spat ends up in a shooting, and the town is in chaos. The POINT, as if no one can figure it out, is that guns turn otherwise rational people into mentally depraved, frothy murderous lunatics.
It was a silly display. Just because you CAN kill someone doesn't mean you'd try, no matter how flippant he's being about your fender-bender. Most people know the difference between a heated argument and lethal violence; even if they'd be inclined to throw a punch, they're not going to take it to the level of death.
Much to the producers' chagrin, of course, subsequent to the movie, many states liberalized their carry laws, and instead of this morass of carnage, crime in each of those states experienced an immediate, dramatic, and permanent drop in crime. The fender-bender shootings never materialized (with one notable exception of which I'm aware -- between two women. Draw your own conclusions). In fact, several municipalities throughout the country have gone the extra step of REQUIRING gun ownership, and they are among the most crime-free anywhere.
This movie was made as propaganda for an extremist political agenda, and nothing more. Thankfully, no one remembers it -- because that's all it's worth.
Phreow!
15 September 1999
I read all of the books in my youth, but it took only a few listenings of the radio plays to accept the radio storyline as the "real" story. Each version tells it slightly differently, of course, and in every respect, I believe the radio play to be the best.
However, I enjoyed the video, early '80s BBC visual effects notwithstanding. I have a few points, though.
First, did anyone else notice that the first few lines of the TV series were dubbed straight from the radio recording? I don't mean the same lines were spoken -- I mean the sounds themselves are from the radio tapes. Almost all of of Simon Jones's lines are this way, until the appearance of Ford.
Where did they get that dippy Trillian? Susan Sheridan had about the sexiest voice I've ever heard, and if she looks half as good as her voice, she would have been tons better than the ditzy, unconvincing blonde they used. Perhaps that's way Adams chose to describe Trillian as olive skinned and dark haired in the books.
And on the voices, Geoffrey McGivern played the best Ford I could imagine. I'll admit that this TV Ford looked the part -- I just wish he could have had the same voice.
I wouldn't mind seeing an updated movie, more closely following the radio play.
BTW, the HHG theme is "Journey of the Sorcerer" by The Eagles. You can find it on their "One of These Nights" album.
However, I enjoyed the video, early '80s BBC visual effects notwithstanding. I have a few points, though.
First, did anyone else notice that the first few lines of the TV series were dubbed straight from the radio recording? I don't mean the same lines were spoken -- I mean the sounds themselves are from the radio tapes. Almost all of of Simon Jones's lines are this way, until the appearance of Ford.
Where did they get that dippy Trillian? Susan Sheridan had about the sexiest voice I've ever heard, and if she looks half as good as her voice, she would have been tons better than the ditzy, unconvincing blonde they used. Perhaps that's way Adams chose to describe Trillian as olive skinned and dark haired in the books.
And on the voices, Geoffrey McGivern played the best Ford I could imagine. I'll admit that this TV Ford looked the part -- I just wish he could have had the same voice.
I wouldn't mind seeing an updated movie, more closely following the radio play.
BTW, the HHG theme is "Journey of the Sorcerer" by The Eagles. You can find it on their "One of These Nights" album.
White Man's Burden
(1995)
A waste of time.
12 September 1999
This movie would have been cutting edge twenty years ago, but when it was made, it was already trite. If you just happened to catch this movie on TV, without knowing anything about it, you'd be hard-pressed to guess it was set on any parallel world. The only clues in the movie are very easy to miss. Without them, it's an entirely plausible (if boring) movie set in today's world. There ARE rich black people. There ARE poor white people. And some of the poor white people work for rich black people.
I didn't worry about the fact that the black people in the movie seemed to come from a black Europe. Everyone in the movie seemed pretty typically American, and that was the point. But the world depicted seemed be based on what American society was like in 1970, not 1995.
I didn't worry about the fact that the black people in the movie seemed to come from a black Europe. Everyone in the movie seemed pretty typically American, and that was the point. But the world depicted seemed be based on what American society was like in 1970, not 1995.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
(1993–1999)
The best of the 24th century
12 September 1999
I'll admit my bias; I loved the original series and was bitterly disappointed by TNG -- something I never really got over after those first two awful seasons. I was worried about DS9 at first, because TNG had spent about three seasons (immediately prior to DS9's premiere) telling stories which very rarely took the characters off the ship. I worried that DS9, being set on a space station, would be even worse. Boy, was I wrong.
Deep Space Nine was, for the entirety of its run, one of the best-written shows on television. Clearly it was written by people who loved it, and truly cared about making it a quality show. Many of the unrealistic restraints inexplicably imposed by Roddenberry on TNG (such as the prohibition of any conflict among a Starfleet crew)were gone, and the relationships flourished. Particularly, I have in mind the Bashir/O'Brien friendship, which in my mind came the closest to rivaling the Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship. The other relationships were compelling as well -- Odo/Quark/Kira, Sisko/Dax/Worf, and the other more minor relationships.
The addition of Worf turned out to be fantastic for both the show and the characters. In fact, in DS9, the Klingons in general stopped being caricatures and developed into complex, believable people.
And who couldn't love the return of the Mirror Universe? Most endearingly, the production staff wisely did away with TNG's refusal to acknowledge its predecessors. After all, there were twenty years of Trek before TNG premiered, and many of us who tuned in hoping for a continuation of that legacy found themselves bitterly disappointed and even insulted. But DS9 paid many homages to the original series, foremost of which was the absolutely delightful "Trials and Tribble-ations." I had an ear-to-ear grin throughout it.
I could go on for hours, but many have already made the points I would make. I will sorely miss DS9.
Deep Space Nine was, for the entirety of its run, one of the best-written shows on television. Clearly it was written by people who loved it, and truly cared about making it a quality show. Many of the unrealistic restraints inexplicably imposed by Roddenberry on TNG (such as the prohibition of any conflict among a Starfleet crew)were gone, and the relationships flourished. Particularly, I have in mind the Bashir/O'Brien friendship, which in my mind came the closest to rivaling the Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship. The other relationships were compelling as well -- Odo/Quark/Kira, Sisko/Dax/Worf, and the other more minor relationships.
The addition of Worf turned out to be fantastic for both the show and the characters. In fact, in DS9, the Klingons in general stopped being caricatures and developed into complex, believable people.
And who couldn't love the return of the Mirror Universe? Most endearingly, the production staff wisely did away with TNG's refusal to acknowledge its predecessors. After all, there were twenty years of Trek before TNG premiered, and many of us who tuned in hoping for a continuation of that legacy found themselves bitterly disappointed and even insulted. But DS9 paid many homages to the original series, foremost of which was the absolutely delightful "Trials and Tribble-ations." I had an ear-to-ear grin throughout it.
I could go on for hours, but many have already made the points I would make. I will sorely miss DS9.
Star Trek: The Next Generation
(1987–1994)
I don't miss it.
11 September 1999
I was never very impressed. In fact, I outright hated it when it premiered. I went in with such high hopes . . .
There wasn't a single aspect of TNG that was new. Even the character list is recycled from Star Trek: Phase II (later Star Trek: The Motion Picture). Holodecks, saucer separation, clip-on communicators, families aboard . . . all appeared in earlier incarnations of Trek.
The characters were tiresome or just plain awful (read: Wesley, Yar, Pulaski). There were no meaningful points of conflict between the main characters, which made the dynamics of their relationships boring.
The ship was hideous in appearance (easily the worst Starfleet design we've seen), which pains me to say, considering its designer, Andrew Probert, has put out some fine design work. The interior might as well have been a Holiday Inn.
The first uniforms were awful. They improved tremendously, however, as did the dust-buster phasers.
Yes, the show did get better as it went on (as did the original series when Roddenberry gave up front-line control). But it never captured my sci-fi heart. I'm pleased that many who sang its praises then now agree with me that the first two seasons were excruciating.
It was the vehicle which brought us DS9, though, and for that, I am grateful. But by itself, I just don't miss it.
There wasn't a single aspect of TNG that was new. Even the character list is recycled from Star Trek: Phase II (later Star Trek: The Motion Picture). Holodecks, saucer separation, clip-on communicators, families aboard . . . all appeared in earlier incarnations of Trek.
The characters were tiresome or just plain awful (read: Wesley, Yar, Pulaski). There were no meaningful points of conflict between the main characters, which made the dynamics of their relationships boring.
The ship was hideous in appearance (easily the worst Starfleet design we've seen), which pains me to say, considering its designer, Andrew Probert, has put out some fine design work. The interior might as well have been a Holiday Inn.
The first uniforms were awful. They improved tremendously, however, as did the dust-buster phasers.
Yes, the show did get better as it went on (as did the original series when Roddenberry gave up front-line control). But it never captured my sci-fi heart. I'm pleased that many who sang its praises then now agree with me that the first two seasons were excruciating.
It was the vehicle which brought us DS9, though, and for that, I am grateful. But by itself, I just don't miss it.
Tell Your Friends