Reviews

106 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Real McCoys Reunion (2000 TV Special)
When TV had values, oh yeah...
20 January 2003
This show was made in the 1950s back when tv had values as

one contributor put it. The 1950s were a marvelous time back

when women and minorities knew their places and usually acted

like it. Everything was black and white, just like most of the

television. Now, just in case no one can figure it out, I am being

facetious. I am not saying that the 21st century is any better, but I

am saying that it is no worse.

Regarding what happed to Lydia Reed and Michael Winkelman, I

don't know, but I suspect that they have had all they wanted of

Hollywood a long time ago and want no more of it today - but that

is just a guess.

The Real McCoys were a cut above average. It was mildly diverting

and had good people acting in it...

On another note, I am saddened by the recent passings of Mr.

Martinez and Mr. Crenna...
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
interesting idea that is to vague at times...
26 December 2002
The main problem I had with this was that I could understand only

about one third of what Sciorra wa saying, that is probably

because, as my wife is fond of pointing out, most of the world is

not as deaf as I am. That said, I suspect what upsets most

religionists who have complained about this movie is the idea that

one has some kind of choice about where one goes in the afterlife,

seemingly. What I find interesting and what I like most about this movie is the

exteriors that were shot in Glacier National Park. I have had the

privilege of seeing the park in person. It may not look like heaven,

but it will do until something more beautiful comes along...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
as good as but NOT better than the Scott version
25 December 2002
Many say that this is the best of all versions of Dickens' classic. I

like the 1984 version with George C. Scott as Scrooge just as

much, if not more. I agree that Sim's Scrooge is as good as they

get, but Scott just LOOKED mean and miserly. The rest of both

ensembles were about equal, except for the kid who played Tiny

Tim in the Scott version, he was a good as they get.

The Sim version AND the Scott version both deserve a ten in my

book...
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Junction Boys (2002 TV Movie)
Could have been better, but not bad...
14 December 2002
My main complaint is the use of made up names, in the manner of North Dallas Forty. I can not imagine the real "Junction Boys" having any trouble with their real names having been used. I also have a minor complaint about the players hugging each other. They did not do that, not in 1954. They just didn't. Otherwise, it is an outstanding diversion. As near as I can tell, not a whole lot of

other liberties have been taken with the truth. It is worth watching...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Splash (1983)
Better than average, considerably
1 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This is a good one, even if you don't like Hanks or Hannah (I can

not imagine anyone NOT liking drop dead gorgeous Hannah, but

that's another story.).

***SPOILER***



Like a lot of other "comedies," it has a dark side or two; the

government wanting to treat the mermaid as some sort of zoo

specimen, and other things. Oh, yes, I believe that, should such a

scenario happen, the government would behave similarly.

Some cynics would find Hanks' character's decision at the end

questionable. I don't know.

Anyhow, if you don't like this movie, you probably need an

optorectomy...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
You Bet Your Life (1950–1961)
One of a kind...
1 November 2002
I watched this when I was a teenager in the 50s. I caught a few episodes on cable around ten years ago. It wears well. Groucho was a master at the double entendre. Mae West had nothing on him. One example: there was a married couple who had 19 children. Groucho asked the man why they had so many kids. The man said it was because he liked his wife. Groucho replied, "I like my cigar too, but I take it out once in a while." This was more than 40 years ago, it is still timely. Watch it, if you can. You won't regret it.
12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
no plot, no sex, no violence, no nothing...
28 July 2002
The fact that over 50% of the respondents gave this foul pile of

steaming bovine feces six or higher proves that the drug problem

(in the USA as well as other places) is worse than commonly

believed.

The thirteen people on the IMDb staff who gave it an average of 7.2

may need to be randomly tested...

Oh, there is nothing wrong with the movie; the only trouble is, there

is nothing right with it, either. There is NOTHING there. And spare

me the comments about "using your imagination."

This thing is a waste of time and money...
10 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ally McBeal (1997–2002)
Thank God, it is over...
21 July 2002
Thank God this paean to anorexia is over. I understand that the

concept of physical attractiveness is often subjective, but the

McBeal character was/is a walking beanpole. What we had in her

case was an example of an apparent eating disorder - especially

when you consider that the camera ADDS ten pounds.

It seems as if half the nation's females are overweight and far too

many of the others are walking skeletons. Let's see some

balance. Shows like McBeal do nothing to stop the young women

of this country from starving themselves...

Thank God it's done and gone...
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This one is named right...
16 June 2002
If ever a movie was named right, this one is. All cast members pull

their weight. You find yourself believing it could happen - - and

praying it won't.

It is worth the time and money...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
this review for men only...
9 June 2002
NOTE: if you are of the female gender, the following does not apply

to you. Read at your own risk.

I saw this movie only because "the Sum of All Fears" was virtually

sold out, and I didn't want to go 40 miles back home for nothing on

my Sunday off.

It didn't suck. If your wife/significant other insists on seeing it, go.

Don't kick and scream, just go. It will probably surprise you

(pleasantly).

The only member of the cast who does yield to the temptation to

overact is Judd, and only slightly.

Yes, it is a chick flick but there are many that are worse...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Television version somewhat different...
6 April 2002
Though either version is good, the television version is somewhat

different.

Besides the usual euphemisms for the "f" word, for example, there

is also a different story regarding the abortion episode which

suggests some attempt at appeasing the "pro life" crowd in the

television version.

And, of course, the topless scene with Cates is cut.

However, whichever version you watch, it is a good slice of life.

Especially poignant was the part with Judge Reinhold's character

where he asks the school counselor when the fun was going to

start. That was exactly what I had wondered when I was in high

school 42 years ago...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's what you should expect (no more, no less)
13 March 2002
My initial response is that, though everyone else does their jobs,

Levy and Hanagan steal the show as the protagonist's dad and

girl friend (not unlike the way they did in the original).

There was a fair amount of complaining about the lack of depth (or

something similar) about this movie. Hey, people it ain't

Shakespeare. Lighten up. It is a puerile, sophomoric comedy that

does not pretend to be anything else - most of the time. Enjoy if for

what it is. As for why there are so many bared breasts, well, that

was what the producers could get away with and still not have an

NC17 rating. What's the mystery?

It is worth watching once, but not twice - no, it is NOT a copy of the

first one. It is like it, but not the exact same thing...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
61* (2001 TV Movie)
Better than I thought it would be...
25 February 2002
Though the casting was questionable in some cases (those

playing Berra and Dimaggio, for example), it was overall good,

especially the guy playing Maris, and having Tom Candiotti playing

Hoyt Wilhelm was inspired.

You do have to be a baseball fan to really enjoy this film, I believe.

I was 19 when Maris broke the record (and yes, purists, he DID

break the record) and I remember all the people who were rooting

for him not to do it. Most of their resistance was out of veneration

for Ruth, who from all reliable accounts made Mantle look like a

choirboy, but who was personable and quotable, so most people

liked him - and did not like Maris. Maris was essentially a modest

man who only wanted to be good at what he did, and he was. What

a lot of people do not know (and may not care) is that Maris was a

good enough high school football player to get offered a

scholarship to Oklahoma - the New York Yankees of college

football. He still holds the national high school record for most

kickoff returns for touchdowns in a single game (4) in 1951. This

record has stood even longer than his single season home run

record. I seem to recall that Maris' epitaph reads ,"Against all odds.

That pretty well sums it up.

Good job, Mr. Crystal...
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Red Dawn (1984)
10/10
It is what you might expect...
19 February 2002
If you, as I did, grew up during the so-called "Red scare" era, this

movie is fairly standard for the 1950s except that it was made near

the middle of the 1980s.

On one level, it is first rate scare propaganda and quite

chauvinistic (or was when the Soviet Union was still a viable

entitiy). On another level it puts one in mind of LORD OF THE

FLIES.

On any level, it is an honest action/war movie that is not without a

touch of ironic humor (only once or twice - it is usually an

unrelenting downer). It also has some good talent (Ben Johnson, Patrick Swayze, etc.).

One thing: my wife has pointed out that the male guerillas always

look clean and squared away while the two female guerillas

usually look quite scroungy. I didn't notice it at first, but, she was

right. When I watch it now, I am (a) grateful that the scenario never came

to pass and (b) I enjoy the scene and commentary at the very end

even more than I did the first time...
3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Bob Cummings Show (1955–1959)
archaic, but entertaining...
17 January 2002
Watch this if you get a chance. It was made 40+ years ago when double entendres were the order of the day and you weren't hit over the head by crude expressions of sexuality disguised as humor. One commenter said that the women were "fat" - maybe compared to some of the anorexic women on television NOW, they were. But when women on television looked like women, they weren't "fat." I consider it to have been ahead of its time...
15 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Maverick (1957–1962)
GREAT, simply GREAT
25 December 2001
I just finished watching the last part of a February 1959 episode that had Clint Eastwood as a guest and it was great like most of the shows were. This show reminds me of how good television can be (but rarely is).On a personal level, it reminds me that this show was one of the few good things about the so-called good old days.

In the 50s (when I was young), there were mainly two types of shows: quiz show and westerns. Maverick brutally satirized two of the most popular, Gunsmoke and Bonanza, in different episodes. Watching either of these alone is enough to demonstrate just how good Maverick really was.

Catch it on TVland when you get the chance. It's worth it...
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stands the test of time...
3 September 2001
This honest little "short" (twenty minutes) does more in 1/3 of an hour than most of the current and former movies do in the usual two hour range. It is especially good when you consider that it was made during the draconian shortages of World War II. I believe that the villain was later in a television series called "the Lineup."
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Not up with Chasing Amy, but better than Mallrats...
20 August 2001
This one is not quite up to the standard of Chasing Amy, but is better than Mallrats. Particularly enjoyable are the parts involving Affleck and Damon; also the Star Wars' spoof material. In fact, the whole thing was good; it just wasn't great...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
men, women, dinosaurs, snakes, etc.
28 July 2001
Good looking men and women (with few clothes on), uncomplicated dialog, neat reptiles, what else could one want?

Excellent diversion if you want no annoying thoughts clogging your mind.

I still want to know what "a kee ta" means.

As someone else has pointed out, the absence of any known language does the flick more good than harm...
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Roll one, boss? Not now, boy...
15 July 2001
If there is one prison movie stereotype that was missed in this one, I don't know which one it was. Brutal guards, sadistic warden, psychotic inmates, chain gangs, you name it, it has it.Still, it is entertaining from beginning to end and worth the money. Reynolds gives a fairly convincing performance (as does nearly everyone else.)

If you're bored, give this one a try...
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Chasing Amy (1997)
Not for the homophobic, but they should watch, anyway...
7 July 2001
Warning: Spoilers
First, let me say that I claim no expertise on the issue(s) of sexual orientation.

However, for those who say that the female protagonist in this flick is a lesbian, I would presume to say that bisexual is a better description of the character's orientation.

SPOILER ALERT:

I did like the way it turned out. That part was quite plausible, especially given the jealous nature of the Affleck character.

This movie should be required viewing for everyone who believes that homosexuals are made and not born...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
SOME SAY IT'S MALE BASHING, BUT...
7 July 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I know of at least on educated, erudite man who perceived this movie to be "man bashing."

I don't get it. If it is man bashing, is it supposed to be okay to rape women and do various and sundry other misogynistic actions?

Well, anyway, my favorite parts (Possible spoilers here)were:

when Davis's character's husband is on the phone and is overly solicitous of her - she immediately hangs up and says, "He knows." (or words to that effect).

When they tell the highway patrol man that he'd better be nice to his wife, or she might turn out to be like Thelma and Louise.

This is a good one worth watching and, no, it is not a feminist movie...
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Deliverance (1972)
I did NOT like it; I'm not sure what the point was supposed to be...
7 July 2001
A woman commented that she did not know any guys who did not like this movie. I didn't. Besides being disturbing on many levels, I am not entirely sure what the point of it was, other than reinforcing negative stereotypes of the South in general and mountain men in particular. IF that was it, it succeeded admirably.

I have only watched it once. That was quite enough. I would rather watch "Fail Safe" or "Testament" or "The Day After" again (and I am not crazy about watching any of the three preceding again)...

Again, I am not a fan of this flick...
5 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Westerner (1960– )
Nothing less than brilliant...
28 June 2001
This show was nothing less than brilliant. I saw it when it was first out, when I was in my last year of high school. I knew it was too good to be true then, and, sure enough, I was right.

It is to westerns on television what Fawlty Towers was to comedy. Yes, it was that good...
21 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dear Phoebe (1954–1955)
Why wasn't it around longer?
28 June 2001
I used to watch this after school when I was about 14 or 15; enjoyed it quite a bit.

Lawford and Henderson (both gone now) were quite good as a romantic (sort of) duet. Charles Lane was a great pick as editor.

Henderson played a female sportswriter (in 1954?) and Lawford played a "Dear Abby" type before there was a Dear Abby (in the papers, anyway).

(Caveat: my time line may be a little off, but I believe that the TV show preceded the advice column by about a year.)

Presumably, the ratings weren't good. Otherwise, I can't figure out why it did not last longer.

One memorable spot went something like this: Lawford had budgeted 45 cents a day for lunch (it was 1954). He ordered something called a "hashburger" and a drink for 35 cents and, somehow or other, wound up with 7 and a half cents for tips to the waitress and cook. The cook came out of the kitchen and wanted to see who had left him a 3 and 3/4 cent tip...
15 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed