whitecaps Reviews

Charlie's Angels: Angels at Sea (1977) Season 1, Episode 21

Should have been done differently

[4/10 · 28 June 2018]

I usually don't like it when film reviewers complain about the choices the director or writer makes and says 'they should have done this instead.' My attitude to that usually is 'I'd prefer it if you review the film actually made and not the one you wish was made.'

However, other people have already reviewed this episode as it is. There are two problems here with the episode as written:

1.They came up with a potentially great story of a serial killer (this term wasn't used in the episode) and then dispensed with it about half way through to turn it into a bomb disposal episode.

They could have made a great episode about how they figured out how the killer was able to do all the things that he did (which have been mentioned like his closing the doors) or they could have had a killing gang which would have made this much more possible. I even thought up the idea that everybody on the ship were the killers in that it was all a plot to lure The Angels on board because everybody was placed in jail by Charles Townsend and they were looking to get even with him. (I have no idea how that could have played out.)

2.The way Gorshin, who played The Riddler on Batman, gets caught is, as previously mentioned, that he falls for the ruse that Kelly was killed. I realize his clairvoyance might not work all the time, but it must have worked enough for him to have committed the murders, and this sure was an inconvenient time for it to fail on him.

Or, did he not really have clairvoyance...Don't want to take this episode too seriously.

Charlie's Angels: The Blue Angels (1977) Season 1, Episode 22

Major holes were required to support the plot

[4/10 · 28 June 2018]

There are major logic holes in this episode:

1.When Sabrina gets chased down by the car they all realize that somebody on the inside of the police must have known she would be there. But, when asked who would have known, she said "The Lieutenant (she said his name) or anybody else in the department." That's absurd, she was working under The Lieutenant (who was the guilty person) so there was no reason anybody else in the department would have known. Of course, had she said "Only the Lieutenant" the rest of the episode would have been shot.

2.For no practical reason at all, for the first time Sabrina Duncan goes under cover using her real name. The reason she had to use her real name is this way The bad lieutenant finds out that her cover story is a cover story.

In that regard, the episode might have been more fun had she gone under the name Kate Jackson and the Lieutenant found out she was a TV actress and he wasn't really a Lieutenant!!!!!!

Charlie's Angels: The Vegas Connection (1977) Season 1, Episode 17

Interesting twist in this episode.

[7/10 · 27 June 2018]

Extremely complicated stories are a common trope in detective stories (Philip Marlowe, Sam Spade, Miss Marple.) The twist here is that the episode seems to introduce some potential complications: at the beginning of the episode Bosley complains that the Angels are assuming that the theoretical blackmailer had to be a male and then later in the episode the 'luckless dancer' is introduced who, to me anyway, seemed to be too much of a hard luck story. Could she actually turn out to be the blackmailer? Was Bosley's line foreshadowing?

Nope, the story is straight down the line in that everything the Angels thought was the case turned out to be the case.

So, the twist in this episode is that there is no twist.

The Deer Hunter (1978)

One of the interesting parts of this film

[5/10 · 29 May 2018]

Given Robert deNiro being in this movie and his later work with Joe Pesci in Goodfellas, It seemed kind of interesting how similar the John Cazale character Stan is to the Pesci character in Goodfellas. (And probably a lot of other Pesci characters.)

The Deer Hunter (1978)

Mixed review

[5/10 · 29 May 2018]

I suspect many of the people who have a high regard for this movie are of the generation who were old enough to appreciate it when it came out, not only in the effect the Vietnam War had on the people who fought in it and the U.S as a whole, but also in the nature of 1970s art.

I had a mixed reaction to the movie. Some people have commented that the first hour dragged on too long, I'm a patient person, but I thought pretty much every scene in the entire movie dragged on too long.

In that sense, the best comparison I think with the 1970s isn't even other films but rock music: the songs that had long guitar solos. Like those guitar solos, all of the scenes in this film were ultimately indulgent, but some of them were interesting, some of them were entertaining and some of them were boring.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

I'm in the minority here

[3/10 · 19 February 2018]

There are some good things in this movie, a clever montage scene using what appear to be old stock photographs (for most younger movie audiences the scene probably goes on too long, but that wasn't a problem for me) and some clever and/or funny dialogue, but there is a minority camp that doesn't like this movie and I'm in that camp, and we're all in it for the same reason: this is an incredibly smug movie.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

I think it cops out.

[6/10 · 17 February 2018]

The ending at the film gives a partial explanation for the behavior of George and Martha and their 'games' but I don't think it's sufficient. Maybe I'm the one who missed it, but George doesn't just play brutal games with and tell lies to Martha but also when he's alone with Nick, and based on the ending, there really doesn't seem to be any reason for him would do so.

So, ultimately I don't think the movie was about a failed and bitter marriage between two people, but a failed and bitter marriage between two insane people, and I don't see any broad or universal message in that.