GTDMAC Reviews

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey (2014)

Spoiler: This show was NOT intended for adults!

[10/10 · 12 March 2014]

Based on the three times I've watched this show and the comments I've read from the other reviewers I'm convinced that it is not intended for adults. Adults who are in the scientific field know a lot of the concepts covered in this show already. I had forgotten a lot of it but I watched most of the original Cosmos as a teenager and had taken college classes in astronomy and so relearning some of it was pretty cool. That said, to get kids into science you have to start with great graphics, a decent soundtrack and an engaging story and you had all that here. Yes, Morgan Freeman and others have already covered a lot of this material in their shows but we still have a worldwide backlash against science. I argue we need to get more and more children involved in questioning their universe and their place in it by using science and this show does just that in a very nice and meaningful way. What more could you want? Yes, I expect we will find we know a lot of things covered in the upcoming shows but I guarantee we will learn one new thing in every single episode and to me, that's worth a lot more than watching a reality show or a depressing crime drama or even a comedy show that makes me laugh maybe once during its 30 minute run. And Seth McFarlane wasn't funny on purpose for once! Neil brought it all home at the end with his personal anecdote about Carl Sagan and brought tears to our eyes. He made it personal and it worked. I look forward to the rest of the season.

Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H. (2013–2015)

It's Supposed to Sell Toys

[5/10 · 2 September 2013]

I've been a Hulk fan since 1971 or so. I've seen comics, movies and TV shows starring one of my all-time favourite characters in a number of different takes - Smart Hulk, dumb Hulk, 1/2 Hulk, etc. Here we see a semi-smart Hulk without much Banner. Really, it seems to be an updated recreation of the 1990's Hulk cartoon right down to the choppy visuals and childish dialogue.

Let's be clear - Lou Ferrigno was the best, and only live Hulk. (The rest are digitized) The cartoon, Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, was the best cartoon version of the Hulk and as well as the rest of the Avengers. The Hulk movies and the Avengers were fine for their time except the Hulk actually talks a lot and he says very little in those movies so the characterizations are slightly off. True, I did like Mark Ruffalo's Hulk better than his Banner but, again, too little dialogue. To rank them I would say that Eric Bana's Banner was good but too buff. Mark Ruffalo was better since he's shorter but he's a better Hulk. Finally, Ed Norton's was the best ever since he looks just like Banner should look and act. Better even than Bill Bixby's.

Everything else done since has one purpose and that is to sell children's merchandise. Which brings us to this cartoon. With the new "Avenger's Assemble" Marvel/Disney has yet again rebooted the Avengers/Hulk franchises. They took interesting characterizations and clear story lines and tossed them out the window for fun in the sun cheese. It's like they are making a sandwich by just picking things out of the fridge that should go together like beef and tomatoes and mayo but didn't cook the beef or slice the tomatoes or spread the mayo like they did in Avengers EMH. It's SuperHero Squad but with slightly more mature visuals. I also dislike the "reality show" popups during the show. Give us a cartoon not a reality show take off, please. What's interesting is that the Avengers: EMH really was more faithful to the Hulk comics than this Hulk show will ever be. Sure, they have great voice actors doing the show. Fred Tatasciore is a great Hulk voice and the rest of the cast are an all-star lineup to be sure. I'm just sorry the dialogue and story lines are so weak. It's like they don't even respect the children enough to give them something meatier than the choppy animation and stop sequences that constantly annoy the viewer because they think children can't appreciate continuity in a storyline. I'm almost sorry Disney bought Marvel after seeing this debacle. I almost wonder if someone slipped something into Kevin Feige's food and then made him watch episode after episode of this and Avenger's Assembly until he finally broke and OKed it ...

Here's my million dollar idea for Disney to bank on - Bring back Earth's Mightiest Heroes and truly honor the late director Boyd Kirkland's memory! Then sell the DVDs one season at a time instead of breaking them up into partial seasons no one wants to buy. I'm just sayin' ...

City Lights (1931)

Outrage!

[10/10 · 11 September 2012]

How can I be outraged by IMDb's listing of City Lights? Is it one of my top 5 films? Yes. Is it a film by which all comedies should be judged? Yes. Does it take the viewer places they didn't think they'd go and make them reassess their idea of film making? Yes. What I am outraged by is that only 1/10th of the IMDb viewers who reviewed "Memento" bothered to review City Lights. (No, I haven't reviewed "Memento.") This film barely beat out an animated movie from 2001 in the IMDb Top 250 but only made it # 42 out of 250. Is it better than many films above it? Yes. Should more people comment on perhaps the greatest love story in the history of film? Yes. That's why I'm outraged. But at least it beat out "Citizen Kane!" Kids!

The Adventures of Tintin (2011)

Spielberg has done it again!

[10/10 · 2 July 2012]

It took both Spielberg and Peter Jackson to put this film together and it shows. Two supreme storytellers who's combined efforts are better than the sum of the parts. How often does that happen? I've read tons of reviews of John Carter that talk about how good it is and how it got bad press from the start. John Carter didn't make 370+ million dollars worldwide! (I wish it did but it didn't.) Tintin did. Why? It gave the fans EXACTLY what they wanted. A magnificent adventure! And who better to give it than the two greatest adventure creators of the 21st Century! John Carter would have been MUCH better done as an animated adventure but they wanted to go live and look what happened. These days you need real buildup not just a "who's on the list to be John Carter this year?" kind of attitude. JC didn't have the buildup like Tintin or certainly not like the Avengers and so there was no momentum to carry into seeing the movie. With Tintin everyone was stunned BOTH directors were collaborating and it shows. It's a work of art in every sense of the word. From the magnificent vistas to the hair-raising action sequences this is the state of the art in adventure movies today. Of course, Andy Serkis, Cary Elwes, Nick Frost, Simon Pegg, Daniel Craig and Toby Jones wouldn't have it otherwise! and let's give credit to Jamie Bell for the most believable Tintin voice yet! Great job all! The only bad part of all this is that there are certainly Tintin characters the fans would have wanted in the movie but aren't present. Chief among them is Professor Calculus. My hope is this is the first of many Tintin adventures and the dowsing doctor will be appearing in the next film coming soon.

The Adventures of Tintin (1991–1992)

I did NOT see this when I was a child

[11 July 2011]

Let me start by saying I was an adult when I first saw this series and I was thrilled they had FINALLY put out what looked to be a decent Tintin cartoon. Unfortunately, the Tintin characterization here is WAY too bland for today's cartoons and the animation really doesn't capture the vibrant color and brilliance of Herge's "ligne clair" illustrations. In the books Tintin has his quiet moments, yes, but when there's action he's on top of it all the way. The books' dialogue is vibrant and witty and so we flipped the pages eagerly awaiting the next turn of events. In the cartoon they try but they really don't succeed very well in holding our interest in every episode. I found myself growing bored the cartoons and finally just grabbed one of the books instead. So yes, if I had been twenty years younger I might have appreciated this effort more but the fact is we were spoiled by the books and this wasn't as good as they were.

The Richard Pryor Show: Episode #1.4 (1977) Season 1, Episode 4

What if there had been 10 episodes?

[10/10 · 26 June 2011]

The summary on episode 1.4 actually should say Japanese Hibachi Chef instead of "chinese chef." I wonder sometimes how much different this show would have been had they actually done the full contracted 10 episodes. Richard had a very talented cast and the sky was the limit for them. The 4 shows had great music, skits, pathos, satire, and near constant social commentary. I guess even if he had tried he would never had done ten shows simply because his fights with NBC over content would have proved too cumbersome for him to handle. But it could have been even better than it already is. It takes everything one step further than even Flip and other comedy shows were allowed to and was clearly influenced by NBC's other classic comedy show, SNL. The things he didn't touch (yet!) like sci-fi, car races, etc. were probably just around the corner. Instead TV was too small to contain him and so he went Hollywood and the rest is history.

For those interested, his best work is quite possibly the audio CD recording of "Is It Something I Said" (1975). I was 11 when I bought it and my parents took it away from me after we all laughed our butts off the first time I played it!

The Colbert Report (2005–2014)

The Best "News" Report OUT THERE!

[30 August 2010]

The Colbert Report started as a "Daily Show" spin off and is now an Emmy award winning cash cow for Comedy Central. Unlike the comedy team format of the Daily Show the Colbert Report is basically a combination of conservative radio/TV punditry and the National Lampoon embodied in the personage of Sir Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA. The wit is sharp, the dialogue is crisp and the talent is evident. Not every gag works but the overall message is the same: Beware of bears!

Colbert is fearless in his pursuit of truthiness in our society. One way he does this is to invite the most interesting guests rather than the most popular or most entertaining. Guests can range from Paul McCartney to George Will to Neil Degrasse Tyson. The interviews can be pretty interesting but his style varies depending on whether the guest is a McCartney or a George Will. Chief Editor Joe Quesada of Marvel Comics will come on to announce the death of Captain America to the world and present Stephen Colbert with Captain America's shield. Viggo Mortensen dons his LOTR Aragorn costume and presents Dr. Stephen with Anduril, Flame of the West. The guests really enjoy playing with the gags and when Stephen gets Queen Nor of Jordan to knight him with Anduril it really doesn't get much better than this on video today.

So yes, this show is usually far more entertaining than the standard cable fare and you actually might learn something while watching it.

The 39 Steps (1935)

The Original Fugitive/The Ultimate Hitchcock

[10/10 · 26 August 2007]

To many, including myself, Hitchcock did some of his best work before he went "Hollywood." That said, this has to be his best British based effort of many. What more do you want? Spies, murder, intrigue, wit, action, thrills, chills, love, betrayal, and humor - this one has it all!

What starts out as a simple visit to England turns deadly for Canadian Richard Hannay. Robert Donat plays in arguably his best role (Yes, including Mr. Chips) as the brilliant and resourceful Hannay who's on the run practically the entire time. He is joined by beautiful Madeleine Carroll, sultry Lucie Mannheim and Godfrey Tearle among other talents who make this production shine. The dialog is as crisp as any film ever made. The production is as good as anything Hollywood had yet to produce which is why they drooled over luring Hitchcock across the Atlantic where big budgets and bigger name stars were waiting. That said, I really don't think anyone including Cary Grant, James Mason, or even Bruce Dern could have done any better than this cast and crew. It starts with a bang, grabs you and drags you from London to Scotland with deadly purpose and a sly wink. At the end you are shaking your head in disbelief that 97 minutes actually passed so quickly. Why this is not in Top 250 is one of the IMDb's biggest mysteries. Yes, it is THAT good. So see the original "Fugitive" and learn why this remains so highly regarded.

Superman Returns (2006)

Why did we need Superman again?

[3/10 · 15 March 2007]

This has to be one of the worst comic-book superhero adaptations since Batman and Robin. At least Batman and Robin had more villains. This movie, unlike, Batman Begins and X-Men III, (Another poor adaptation but certainly better than this.) was geared towards children. There is very little real violence other than a gatling gun and Superman taking a highly improbable beating by Lex Luthor. Let's be honest, most of the time Superman isn't up against a non-powered Supervillain and there are usually a few more subplots to consider when dealing with your average Superman comic or recent cartoon. That said, others have been ignoring plot points in their reviews just stating that there are some. It's apparent that real people such as Sci-Fi/Comics fans should have been polled to see what plot holes are there. Unfortunately, it didn't really happen. So that said, I'd like to focus on a few of the more egregious ones ...

If you know Luthor's history you would know he's always got an arsenal on standby somewhere with him at all times in case "Big Blue" shows up. That said, he's also smart enough to have amassed more of a fortune than he has here. Again, perhaps some real experts should have been consulted about the plot in this movie. I have a hard time seeing Kevin as Luthor in this movie. I guess I'm used to Clancy Brown's smooth talking cartoon Luthor going toe to toe with Superman while in a Kryptonite powered battle suit. That's the real Lex Luthor. Then we have Kevin Spacey's smarmy pratt spearing Supes with a Kryptonite crystal from behind. Where are the kryptonite bullets? The kryptonite energy beams? OK, Kevin had a Kryptonite city to work with. It was cool. But what about for himself? Just a few crystals? Not even a big kryptonite stalagmite? Enough said.

Yes, Lois and Clark was a big hit in the 90's. It was geared for a TV audience and was basically a crime show in tights. I enjoyed it immensely, but it is what it is. The reality is more like Larry Niven's classic essay, "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex." I won't elaborate further but it sums up neatly the impossibility of a real relationship between the two short of the events of Superman II happening. The 90's comics featured the Superman Red/Blue storyline which had Clark able to turn human or into a Kryptonian energy being. That's the only point in the comics where such a relationship could have ever really worked. Here it's a bit far-fetched given the issues involved. But if it worked for the "Da Vinci Code" ...

Yes, Superman is a very violent character in a mega-violent universe. That said there is one tenet that Superman lives by. A tenet that he holds inviolate. Superman doesn't kill. This also applies to the extended Superman family. They don't kill. In this movie they ignore that tenet. We don't actually see the death but it's clear someone died and Superman is partially responsible. It's a minor plot point in any other genre but in the Superman mythos it's a huge faux pas. Superman doesn't kill, period. Here, it's for effect and no other reason.

How do we fix all this? 1. Several real villains show up. Brainiac and/or Mr. Mxyzptlk would be top choices followed by several others including General Zod, Kancer, Prankster, Toyman, Mongul, Darkseid, Bizarro, Solomon Grundy, or maybe even Amazo. Let's not forget Doomsday, the Cyborg or even Metallo in full heavy metal gear. Throw a few of these at Supes and see how bad he is then.

2. And if there's more than one villain you must remember that Superman isn't the only hero out there. Superman Vs. Batman? Nonsense. You need the Justice League. Make the next Superman the introduction to the Justice League. Have a real crisis with more than one super-villain. This is the DC Universe. They have more plot lines and villains than anyone. The cartoons of the past 15 years have really made everyone aware of how creative and interesting the DC Universe can be. It's time for more than just individual efforts. Maybe the Justice Society invites Superman to join. There are many ways to incorporate the idea. Just let it be something more interesting than catching another jet plane and gently setting it down.

3. Lois isn't Superman's only rival for attention in his off-hours. There could be a Maxima or Lana Lang in town to try and see what Kal-El is up to these days. On the family front there could even be a Supergirl who yearns for his approval and who desperately needs insight and training. Heck, even Krypto would make for an interesting subplot.

4. Jimmy is little more than a brief but irritating footnote. He could be a topnotch reporter after 5 years on the beat. He could have a portfolio he's trying to sell to a photo gallery. Why keep him still practically a teenager 5 years later and totally uninvolved with Clark's private life? He's Clark's best friend, too. Turtle Boy anyone?

The Mating Season (1951)

Thelma And Gene

[8/10 · 1 February 2007]

Witty, amusing, and even funny at times, this muddled mash of a movie has the luck of showing off Thelma Ritter's considerable acting talents alongside Gene Tierney's incomparable grace and beauty. Ellen McNulty is written as a very believable and charming character and clearly Thelma makes it hers. Her sense of timing and tone are perfect and it's easy to believe she was cheated out of an Oscar.

Gene Tierney continues to amaze in another delightful performance as the beautiful society girl turned housewife, Maggie Carleton, who can't be rid of her mother to save her life! Of course, Ellen will do everything to make sure the couple gets off the ground but even she can't stop the convoluted plot which has Gene going from one emotional extreme to another in what I felt was a bit much to ask from her. Her usual demeanor is one of cool and when she had to portray anger and rage in the movie it seemed she was also expressing frustration with a script that was more dramatic than you would expect from a light-hearted farce like this. That said, this is a very nice performance from her and worthy of a second look.

When they cast John Lund for this part they must have been thinking that Val McNulty was a ruthless businessman who mysteriously wins Maggie away from equally ruthless "Junior." If so, he gives a great performance as a stressed out frustrated newlywed. Too bad his performance isn't more sympathetic but I blame that more on the script and the plot innuendos than on his talent. He clearly tries very hard to make a very confusing movie role work even when the plot twists get a little too silly. That said, it did appear he was miscast for this role. He's not completely believable as someone debutante Maggie would fall for. He's better as a heavy and it's obvious he's a little too much so for this lighthearted role. Seeing him makes me think of what it would have been like if Dana Andrews, Tierney's love interest in "Laura", tried to do comedy. I can't imagine any different results.

Overall, this is a romantic comedy that tries too hard. Thelma and Gene hold it together but when they aren't on screen even Larry Keating can't keep the audience's interest for long. However, watch if for when they are on screen because then the magic happens and you see two of maybe the 4 best actresses at the time in their full glory.

Jesus Christ Superstar (1973)

"Could we start again, please?"

[16 August 2006]

One wonders if the "Add-On" song really is saying what this movie is all about - A rerun of the stage production with added "Woodstock" elements like the bus arriving with everyone getting out and loading in for the movie. The outfits are straight out of Woodstock as well. Hardly surprising considering that Woodstock was released to theatres around the same time along with "Tommy", the Other rock opera.

I already had worn out playing the platinum-selling rock opera album and single when the movie came out. The movie initially turned me off due to the absence of Ian Gillan and Murray Head, the original Jesus and Judas. It was saved by keeping Yvonne Elliman and adding Carl Anderson. Also, I really enjoyed the added song, "Could We Start Again, Please?" which I consider the best number in the movie. Other than that, I still find myself comparing the album favourably to the movie due to the former's excellent vocal talent and musical production. The movie isn't far off but asking Ted Neeley to sing as well as Deep Purple's Ian Gillan isn't fair. You can hardly blame the other reviewers for pointing this out as well.

So if you want to hear excellent vocals and sound production get the original ALW/TR JCS rock opera and listen to it over and over. If you want to see what the 60's and 70's idea of Christianity should be, see "Godspell." But if you want to see what a determined group of people did to make a movie out of the JCS rock opera and shoot it onsite in Israel instead of on a soundstage, see this movie!

Quark (1977–1978)

The one that got away

[2 June 2005]

Buck Henry's 1978 Series "Quark" was one of those shows that will always be remembered by its' few fans as the one that got away. Most people don't really remember it since they were watching something else on Friday nights but those of who do know that Buck Henry should have had another "Get Smart" on his hands and didn't. The satire was VERY dry and a lot of the gags missed with those few viewers who weren't sci-fi fans. I don't blame NBS for cancelling the show I just wish there was a Sci-Fi channel back then because they would have immediately snatched it up. Richard Benjamin at least got a lot of exposure and this helped his career despite it being cancelled so soon.

My Three Sons (1960–1972)

Confusing to say the least

[26 April 2005]

I remember watching this show waiting and waiting for that occasional flash of brilliance. On some episodes you were rewarded and on some you weren't. The characters were all likable sorts if a little too laid back to be entirely believable. I admit being a little confused as a child by all the changes in the show over time. It was hard to follow who was where during reruns as you saw episodes out of sequence and the cast was constantly changing. I know many people missed Mike when he left the show (I was one) and it always seemed to be trying too hard after that point even if the color was a distinct improvement for the viewers. They'd give you these teasers about Mike for years afterwards but never did we see him again. I felt Ernie was a sympathetic character initially but he became an irritant to me in later episodes. The only saving grace was "Uncle Charley" who was more than an able replacement for William Frawley. The new William (Demarest) put his talents to great use throughout the rest of the series despite the sleep or at least boredom inducing antics of the rest of the cast. It became a show when he was on screen and something less when he wasn't. And finally, there was good old Steve. You had to like him. It was the Nutty Professor right there every week showing you what a good dad is supposed to be and think and feel. Brainwashing? Sure it was. Good civics lessons? Sure it was. No wonder I fell asleep ...

Babes on Broadway (1941)

How Times Have Changed

[9 April 2004]

Unlike the other reviewers I only saw the last dance number. But what a shock! Imagine turning on a Mickey/Judy musical and everyone is in blackface! You barely recognize Mickey and Judy has to open her mouth and sing before you realize who is singing! And the shock, after all these years, of seeing performers in blackface. I admit I was stunned. While my jaw was hanging open I got a chance to see why Mickey Rooney was the best of the child stars. I've heard tell he could do it all in those days and here he proves it. I've seen some excellent banjo players in my time and Mickey's performance of the Florida state song ("The Swanee River") ranks up there among the best ever. What a talent! Sure Shirley Temple was prolly a better dancer at an earlier age but I believe Mickey surpassed her as they got older. And he was a better singer to boot! Still, in today's PC world, that musical number could never be made without the FCC or some other group censoring it. Makes you wonder just how free we really are if we are that happy to censor anything that is controversial in the slightest...

Hulk (2003)

Hulk Smashes!

[10/10 · 23 June 2003]

Where to begin? Just saw the redeye at the megaplex last night and I have to say after reading all the reviews that all of them are right to one degree or another.

The Hulk is a very ambitious film and the atmosphere created to host that ambition is flawed. Still, it manages to be more of a believable story given you understand that Eric Bana really is SCARED to death to be playing the role of Bruce Banner, a man who is perpetually scared to death. So I disagree that he did a bad job. In fact, he did it right since Bruce IS a cold fish who doesn't let anyone get close if he can help it because of his terror. Also people should remember that Bruce takes a long time AFTER he starts turning into the Hulk to unwind and become a real person. Before that he is an introverted genius who is so self absorbed that a cure is all he cares about. Before he realizes that the Hulk actually can do some good in the world, that is. Then he loosens up and begins to actually think he might manage to make a difference. This is shown in the last scene in the movie and with a tip of the hat to Bill Bixby as well.

The special effects are great if you are a microbiologist or geneticist. To the layman and the kids a lot of the more vivid scenes are merely swirls of color unless you can tell mitochondria from whole cells at a glance and are familiar with species of desert lichen. The figure of the Hulk himself is as perfect a comic book CGI adaptation as there has ever been. Ok, so there are some minor texture and coordination issues. Still it gives us a view of the Hulk we wish we'd seen on television years ago. What is being shown here that doesn't quite get through is that the Hulk is ultimately a product of the environment and thus, yet another part of nature. Ang Lee attempts to give us a broader picture, a wider angle on the drama that is life and still retain his signature look and feel to the film. I feel it succeeded but only if you know what to look for. Otherwise, I could see kids being put to sleep by it before being shocked awake by screeching metal and loud explosions. Which is kind of like reading a Hulk comic book...

Yes, I agree with those who say this movie has flaws and yes, I agree that this film captures the essence of The Hulk beautifully as no other visual media has ever before. One has to remember that, when one sees his powerful legs propel him from a building top that, by rights, should have been crushed or, at least damaged, if he did anything more than tiptoe lightly, there is a real need for a willing suspension of dibelief here. This reminds us that this is inspired by a comic book and yet, because of the purpose and the focus, manages to transcend the genre. You aren't seeing the "older but wiser" Hulk of today's comics. You are seeing the beginning of his development. I honestly think this movie will inspire sequels but that they won't have the same inner purpose this does. Ang Lee and The Hulk show us the beauty of being green and free and maybe that's the way we secretly all want to be ...

Heavy Metal (1981)

Growing Up

[11 March 2003]

I'd imagine a lot of people commenting on this site are within a certain demographic and age group as am I. I notice quite a few comments from people who were in their teens when they saw this movie and identified with it and now who cannot fathom it. To them I say, it's not for you now. It was for you then. This is one of those movies that is aimed at people from the ages of 16 to 20 who are just starting to see what the world is about and what a difference they can make if they try. It's about having dreams and pursuing them and it's about making sure that you don't get carried away in the process. It gives you an idea of what awaits you in the wide world and yet it tells you that if you hold true to what you are and make things happen you will get what you want out of life in the end. Now, the animation isn't as good as even the old Batman/Tarzan Saturday morning cartoons of the 70's, but it has style for days. The soundtrack has become a top selling CD although released years afterwards. The voice characterizations are as good as any animated film ever made. And last but not least, it has John Candy, who, in my book, just has to show up to make a movie. Whether you stay to watch the rest of that particular movie is entirely up to you ... 9 out of 10.

Life of Brian (1979)

Surely all this can't be about this Film?

[11 March 2003]

The Life Of Brian is the most brilliant religious satire ever depicted in Film. Whether you like its irreverence or not, you have to give them credit for making this, the Crowning Jewel of the Python Films. It's controversial, hilarious and it gets better with every viewing. I constantly am renewed with every viewing of this great satire spiritually and consider it mandatory viewing for everyone who has ever claimed to be a Christian. You can't see it and come away unaffected. Yes, it's painful to watch all the way through the first time, but so are depictions of the life of Christ so it is true to its subject even in the end. Eric Idle's final song really ties it all together and makes you whistle along despite yourself. I find it hilarious to think of all the time and energy that has been wasted on such a biting and critical commentary by so many otherwise respected and honored individuals and institutions. This is why this movie had to be made in the first place, that people might truly understand what has been known by biblical scholars for centuries yet could never be spoken of. Only the Pythons could have done it and they have did it as well as possible. 10 out of 10.

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

Excruciatingly Painful

[11 March 2003]

To say that this film is a masterpiece is dependent on the amount of emotional trauma one is willing to deal with in one sitting. Yes, it semi-accurately depicts the effects of divorce on the modern family. Yes, it makes us all think about the characters in the movie and how they cope. Yes, it's not necessarily a worst case scenario but it's not much better. The pacing is frenetic at times and dull in others. The story left me empty and cold. Other than the famous scene with Jobeth Williams I can't really say I was entertained at all. 5 out of 10.

Cruise Into Terror (1978 TV Movie)

Star Studded Cast Rescues Ship - Film At 11

[11 March 2003]

Seeing so many future and past TV and movie stars in this movie is a guilty pleasure at it's worst and an enjoyable nostalgic romp at it's best. With such TV icons as John Forsythe, Stella Stevens, Lee Meriwether, Hugh O'Brian adding to an all star cast that includes Ray Milland one would think the story would get lost in all that talent. Ok, it sort of does but let's face it, this is basically a 1/2 season's worth of "Love Boat" guests in a TV movie and not serious film by any stretch of the imagination. Regardless of how seriously one does take this movie it's still fun to see what was supposed to be serious horror turn into another episode of "Satan's Love Boat"! Enjoy!

Fantastic Voyage (1968–1969)

It was Fantastic!

[11 March 2003]

When "Fantastic Voyage" came out on the big screen in 1966 starring Raquel Welch, it was one of the best pure Sci Fi releases to date and really took the genre by storm. When the cartoons came out two years later they also were popular. For those of us who remember those Saturdays flipping channels between the three networks looking for the right cartoon for that morning's worth of TV, Fantastic Voyage was a always worth at least a look even if you'd seen it before. It had quality voices like Jane Webb, who was more famous for her Betty/Veronica/Sabrina characters on the "Archies" related shows, and Ted Knight, best known for his hilarious work on The Mary Tyler Moore Show.

It also had decent animation and the effect of the ship shrinking out of sight never failed to enthrall as it was supposed to do. There was always a hint of science and that part appealed to the children of the atomic age in addition to the familiar voices. The idea of traveling around in a flying ship was a common theme then on TV with Lost In Space, Star Trek, and Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea all having some sort of flying vehicles you could zip around in and go wherever you wanted to. But the ship on Fantastic Voyage was just that much cooler having been patterned after those shows' ships but with a sleeker design. This made the show stand out over others at the time and gave them a faithful following for years after it was cancelled. Definitely worth a look if any reruns remain.

Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)

The BEST Halloween Movie EVER!

[11 March 2003]

This is the best Halloween Movie ever. It has no ghosts. It has no vampires. It has no Evil Overlord. What it does have is one of the best scripts and best editing of any film I've ever seen. Cary Grant and Co. turn a small, quiet household into a den of horrors in the most hilarious fashion that you never see it coming. And no blood is spilled, no semi naked women have their clothing torn, no monsters lurk below, above or anywhere outside, and no director makes a cameo! Yes, this may turn some people off immediately but not seeing these things is what this film is all about. There's even a Boris Karloff reference or two to spoof the grandmaster's ubiquitous appearances in films of the genre. (I understand he was in the stage play.) It's what you don't see that gets you. It's stated over and over again so you understand exactly what is going on in the chaos but you never see it. Horror fans know that it's the fear the unknown generates that gets you. Knowing and seeing it is one thing, knowing but never seeing it is far more tantalizing and far more difficult to pull off. Here, it's done with ease. 10 out of 10.

The Gold Rush (1925)

Is It Better Than City Lights, though?

[10/10 · 11 March 2003]

The eternal question for many Chaplin fans is is The Gold Rush better than City Lights? There are some who would argue for Modern Times or maybe even The Great Dictator. There are even a few who like Monsieur Verdoux. But to say this film is better than City Lights is definitely inviting controversy. As a statement on social mores and values City Lights is far more indicting. As an important piece of film City Lights shows us many things that had never been done before and perhaps may never be done again on the big screen. But as a sheer enjoyable romp in The Little Tramp's world City Lights falls short. It is buried in social commentary whereas the Gold Rush has some social issues to deal with but nothing much new from previous works until the end where it neatly summarizes what "Charlot" has been all about all along. It is that ending which makes the Gold Rush the best of Chaplin's works and the one I will watch just for the sheer joy of seeing the artist in his prime. 10 out of 10.