Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Nicely done, nostalgic romp (for the most part).
24 June 2005
This was basically an attempt to do the same thing with "Batman" that was done with "Gilligan's Island" in "Surviving Gilligan's Island." For those of you who missed it (and shame!) "Surviving Gilligan's Island" (full title: "Surviving Gilligan's Island: The Incredibly True Story of the Longest Three Hour Tour in History") was a special from a few years back, where Bob Denver ("Gilligan"), Dawn Wells ("Mary Ann") and Russell Johnson ("The Professor") related the story of the show's creation, cancellation, rediscovery & rebirth. Along the way, stories were dramatized with actors portraying the original cast and crew. It was very well done. It was funny, well cast and came across as a genuine document of the show.

"Return to the Batcave: The Misadventures of Adam and Burt" is in a similar style. The re-telling of the history of the show, the re-enactments, the general feel are all the same. What's missing is the straightforward approach that "Surviving" took.

In "Return", Adam West and Burt Ward both receive invitations to a car show to which they were not meant to be invited. After being allowed to stay, Adam and Burt witness the theft of the centerpiece of the show: the legendary Batmobile! Adam and Burt decide to chase after it themselves, leading them through clues that cause them to think about the history of the show. This eventually leads to the revelation of who stole the Batmobile and why.

Choosing to use this conceit (actually having a plot) is the biggest letdown of this show. Unlike "Surviving", "Return" forces the viewer to follow a less interesting storyline (the theft of the Batmobile) instead of focusing all its attention on what the audience would most be interested in (the history of the show.) It is the historical sections that work the best. The casting (as in "Surviving") is excellent. Jack Brewer ("Adam West") and Jason Marsden ("Burt Ward") capture the feel of the actors without looking *too* much like them. Brett Rickaby ("Frank Gorshin") bears a stronger resemblance to his subject, but captures none of the late Gorshin's charm, only his characterizations. Other actors' portrayals are short and functional, with none standing out as especially good or bad. Many of the stories have been told before, but they mostly play out amusingly, with only the occasional clunky presentation. Another wonderful bit from the historical sections was the use of audition footage of Lyle Waggoner's tryout for the part of Batman. The only place where the flashbacks fail is when they insert obviously made up plot points to advance the main story. This downgrades the accuracy of the flashbacks needlessly.

The "main plot" (if that is what we must call it) is, of course, ludicrous. This is not really a fault in and of itself, but it's just not carried off well enough to cover up the shortfall. Strong performances and good writing can make up for a silly plot (especially in these kinds of things) but we really get neither, here. The performances by West and Ward seem somewhat flat (even for them); the dialog too carefully written for it to feel natural. Again, I think the comparison to "Surviving Gilligan's Island" can be seen in that the dialog is mostly just there to set up a flashback. In "Surviving", that's all it intends to be. In "Return" it tries to do double duty and, unfortunately, often fails. Gorshin and Newmar do well (although I agree with others that Gorshin had not aged well and that Newmar had - and what's Waggoner taking to look that good?) but aren't given enough to do. Again, I think they all would have been better served by a more straightforward presentation than the one chosen here.

Another odd point about "Return". This special is about the "Batman" TV series and its history, yet all the clips shown are from the theatrical movie. Even the Waggoner footage is technically movie footage. If you know you're "Bat-history", then you know that the movie was originally planned to be made first, only to be delayed in favor of the TV show when CBS needed to fill time fast. So when Waggoner and West were testing for the role, it was for the movie, not the TV show. Why "Return" only uses movie footage is unclear. It most probably has to do with rights issues, but it is a distinct distraction to those in the know: seeing Julie Newmar in the present, but only footage of Lee Meriwether as Catwoman in the past.

Overall, I liked the show, mainly for the flashbacks. I would have preferred the style used in "Surviving Gilligan's Island", but I can understand why they'd want a more story-oriented piece given the subject matter. Besides, I like these people. It's nice to see them out and about, still having fun with one of the great pieces of entertainment history. I just wish they had done it a little better and when more of the original cast was still alive to be there.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hellborn (1993 Video)
7/10
Hodge-podge of Ed-related material.
4 July 2002
"Hellborn" was a film that Ed and Conrad Brooks were working on over the course of more than a decade. The film never got made, but the footage shot was used in both "Night of the Ghouls" and (more significantly) in "The Sinister Urge."

Shown here for the first time is all of the remaining footage that was shot for "Hellborn" along with the complete home movie footage Ed shot for Conrad and his brothers around 1948.

Conrad's "Mysteries in Shadow" is far less interesting, but helps flesh out an otherwise thin lineup on the tape.

Interview segments with Conrad are sometimes interesting, but he mostly tells the same stories he's told elsewhere. More useful is an interview with actor Peter Coe at the end of the tape, where they speak of Ed's last days. (Ed died in Coe's house in 1978.)

Worth hunting down for the Ed collector.
13 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Glen and Glenda (1994 Video)
10/10
A unique remake of a cult favorite.
4 July 2002
When I first acquired this movie, I assumed it would be an adult parody of Ed Wood's "Glen or Glenda", just as "Plan 69 from Outer Space" is a parody of "Plan 9 From Outer Space."

I couldn't have been more wrong. This is a bonafide re-make, utilizing a good deal of Ed's original script and plot. Although it takes obvious side routes to justify sex scenes, "Glen and Glenda" remains surprisingly faithful to the source material.

The major change is the portrayal of Glenda as a woman, not Glen in drag. This indicates that the Glen of "Glen and Glenda", unlike his counterpart, actually fantasizes about being a woman. This divergence causes the films to move apart as the story unfolds, ultimately leading to very different actions by the leads. The whole thing wraps up well, though, neatly attaching the original's happy ending and closing with more of Ed's original dialogue.

This film stands as the only time one of Ed's films was remade and as such has an odd place in Ed history. If you are a fan of "Glen or Glenda", seek this out if only for the novelty factor.
13 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Offbeat sex farce from Ed Wood's late period.
4 July 2002
"One Million AC/DC" is one in the line of sexploitation films that Ed Wood wrote late in his career. I use the word "wrote" generously, as there is little more than ten minutes of dialogue in the whole film.

The "plot" revolves around a group of cave people who eat and have sex a lot. They are being kept in their cave by a dinosaur that lives just outside, keeping them from going out. Ultimately they hatch a plan that involves inventing the bow & arrow in order to kill it. There is also a sub-plot involving a cave girl held captive by a gorilla. (Shades of "Bride and the Beast.")

The sex is soft-core, but all throughout this movie. Some of it (especially the deflowering of a virgin with a sacred stick) can be quite disturbing, rather than titillating, as it is meant to be. The cast (at least the ones we see having sex) are all attractive and the various justifications for sex scenes can be quite amusing.

Overall, only get this film if you are a big fan of Ed's and want everything he worked on. Otherwise, there's little of his writing style to be found here.
17 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Arthurian Legend for Feminists and Anti-Christians.
10 July 2001
'The Mists of Avalon' tells the story of King Arthur. Well, not really. It actually tells the story of a 'mother goddess' whose powers are being slowly drained by the rise of Christianity. Her disciple, Morgan le Fay, strives to keep her pagan religion alive.

What does this have to do with King Arthur, you may ask? What, indeed. 'The Mists of Avalon' belongs in that special category of movie/mini series (along with 'Ever After') that could be called "Feminist Revisionism".

The whole point of this work is to recast the Arthurian Legend so that the women are more important. "What's wrong with that?" you say. Nothing, actually. It is a long held tradition to rewrite stories to the perspective of one's audience. But unlike in 'Ever After', 'Mists' not only redirects the story, it throws its whole purpose out the window.

The function of Arthurian Legend has always been to set an example for mankind. To show an ideal that people could strive to achieve. This ideal included a major factor missing from 'Mists': God. By setting the story as they have, Marion Zimmer Bradley (the author of the novel on which this is based) and the filmmakers have placed Christianity as a sort of 'bad guy' in the story. Morgan le Fay, one of the great Arthurian villains, is a misunderstood priestess, only hated because we are blinded by Christianity. This debases the work and skews it too far away from its source material.

The only thankful thing is that the filmmakers wisely chose to remove the homoerotic Arthur/Lancelot nonsense so prevalent in the book. (A need to show every close male relationship as having homosexual overtones is a staple of feminist literature.)

Basically, if you know nothing about the Arthurian legend or know something but don't like it, you may enjoy this work. True fans of the tales of King Arthur will find this tedious and insipid. Religious Christians will probably be insulted.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
See it. Be it. Love it.
29 April 1999
This one is a doozy. Obviously created to boost interest in the upcoming Empire Strikes Back, this "Special" is one of a kind. Just picture it: Bea Arthur, Art Carney, and Harvey Korman in STAR WARS! The Jefferson Starship! Chewbacca's WIFE! (Played by the same man who played Solomon Grundy in Legends of the Super Heroes!) This is so god-awful that you can't help but love every last horrible minute. From the opening wherein Han Solo and Chewbacca (on a mock-up of the Millenium Falcon) are chased by stock footage of TIE fighters to the closing song sung by Princess Leia, this has it all.

P.S. George Lucas has been quoted as saying he would hunt down and destroy every copy of this thing if he could. And he doesn't complain about Crimson Empire II? I just don't get it.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed