I think the moral of "A Little Peace and Quiet" is about using gifts responsibility. The harried housewife in this tale unearthed a gift ... one that could stop time. With the story about the deteriorating relations between the Soviets and Americans serving as the backdrop, our heroine had perhaps been given a new responsibility with the discovery of this watch. Instead — because of her constantly being driven crazy by her family and others — she decided to misuse the stopwatch ... all for obtaining a few fleeting moments of peace and quiet, to enjoy that quiet breakfast, read a novel, do gardening, steal from the supermarket, and so forth. The turning point comes when (unknown to the viewers, the world being on the brink of nuclear war) she throws out the peace activists trying to advertise for the emergency community meeting to mobilize a last-ditch effort to stop war from breaking out. Imagine if the woman cared about the Soviet-American relations, the real possibility of war ... and went to the meeting to talk about her stopwatch and force the two leaders to meet. She could have beaten them (figuratively speaking) into submission. Instead, she views these people as annoying, stops time, and throws them out. Only at the end, with air raid sirens wailing, the radio announcer panicking as he tries to alert listeners to the approaching nuclear missiles and her family crying does she maybe realize her misused gift. Now, with her having frozen time just milliseconds before a fireball envelops her town, it's too late. A well done story about power and responsibility.
Reviews
18 Reviews
Anatomy of an Accident
(1961)
Good film, but unintended blame?
26 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Not a bad safety short, but I'm thinking there may have been some unfair blame placed on the father who swerved to avoid one collision but it ended up resulting in an even worse accident. See below for more.
The father, John, is a lineman for a telephone company. He takes his family of four (wife Helen, son, Tommy, and daughter, Kathy) up to see the in-laws. Prior to the trip, he does a thorough inspection of the car, having his son help demonstrate. Later, the family passes the scene of a multi-car pileup, caused in part when an elderly woman (driving an olive green car) didn't stop at a stop sign and the driver who had the right-of-way had to stop suddenly; several cars were following too close behind and thus, the accident. All along the road, John explains the principles of safe driving.
Later, the family comes up on the same old woman and her friend in the green car are driving very slowly (well below the posted speed limit) along a busy road; there are few passing lanes on the winding road. The woman finally decides to pull onto a side road but changes her mind at the last moment (the side road was "too dusty"); John tries to swerve around the old woman's car as she is attempting to pull back onto the road, but winds up colliding head-on with a semitruck driver. John is killed instantly; Tommy is knocked unconscious, while Helen and Kathy are bruised but OK. Of course, the old woman driver is nowhere to be found (she had earlier refused to stop at the accident in the city).
Herein lies my complaint a post-moterm John blaming himself for the accident. However, I saw John as simply practicing defensive driving ... swerving to avoid one potential accident (with the inconsiderate woman, who probably should have pulled over when a line of cars formed behind her) but it didn't work out. He tells his son who lays dying in the final scene that his actions were too much of a gamble. Maybe, but in the age of two-lane roads, he had little choice to swerve to avoid one accident. Simply put, John was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Still, a very good safety film that should be re-made for modern audiences. Even this 1961 original would be a great teaching tool.
The father, John, is a lineman for a telephone company. He takes his family of four (wife Helen, son, Tommy, and daughter, Kathy) up to see the in-laws. Prior to the trip, he does a thorough inspection of the car, having his son help demonstrate. Later, the family passes the scene of a multi-car pileup, caused in part when an elderly woman (driving an olive green car) didn't stop at a stop sign and the driver who had the right-of-way had to stop suddenly; several cars were following too close behind and thus, the accident. All along the road, John explains the principles of safe driving.
Later, the family comes up on the same old woman and her friend in the green car are driving very slowly (well below the posted speed limit) along a busy road; there are few passing lanes on the winding road. The woman finally decides to pull onto a side road but changes her mind at the last moment (the side road was "too dusty"); John tries to swerve around the old woman's car as she is attempting to pull back onto the road, but winds up colliding head-on with a semitruck driver. John is killed instantly; Tommy is knocked unconscious, while Helen and Kathy are bruised but OK. Of course, the old woman driver is nowhere to be found (she had earlier refused to stop at the accident in the city).
Herein lies my complaint a post-moterm John blaming himself for the accident. However, I saw John as simply practicing defensive driving ... swerving to avoid one potential accident (with the inconsiderate woman, who probably should have pulled over when a line of cars formed behind her) but it didn't work out. He tells his son who lays dying in the final scene that his actions were too much of a gamble. Maybe, but in the age of two-lane roads, he had little choice to swerve to avoid one accident. Simply put, John was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Still, a very good safety film that should be re-made for modern audiences. Even this 1961 original would be a great teaching tool.
Last Date
(1950)
The "shock" message is appropriate
20 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Sure, the driver's education films used scare tactics to encourage young drivers to make wise driving decisions. That's how people learn sometimes ... scaring them straight. Remember, these are actors who are demonstrating the consequences of what not to do on the road. The film effectively contrasts Larry's safe driving habits (he took the "teenicide" message seriously) with Nick's reckless driving. The consequences of Nick's driving are predictable: He is involved in a head-on collision on a narrow curve and collides head-on with an oncoming car, killing several people in addition to himself. Jeanne's post-crash face is never seen on-camera, but viewers can imagine that it is horribly disfigured (from cuts apparently inflicted in the crash, hence Jeanne's cry, "My face!"). Tis the point: There are many victims of reckless driving besides the guilty motorist; plus, there may be serious social consequences (such as Jeanne now being ostracized for her disfigured face). Although nearly 60 years have passed since this film was made, the moral is still very much relevant today.
Honey
(2003)
Good moral but cliched (POSSIBLE SPOILERS)
28 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Alright, so we've seen this plot before girl has job, boy meets girl, girl has chance at a better job (thanks to boy's offer), girl takes job (and leaves those who really mean the world to her behind), boy reveals himself as a jerk, girl must decide on old way of life or new ... yup, we've seen it before.
The thing is, without giving too much more of the plot away, we need movies such as this, where the good guys win, that drugs can get you into a big mess of trouble, that material goods (money) are ends to a means (a better life), and through some creative thinking your dreams can come true.
Aside from the been there-done that plot, the acting surely is far from that you'd see in the truly great movies. Still, it works. The characters are believable and you find yourself wanting to cheer for the good guys, that the shady video producer "gets his" and that the most vulnerable will eventually catch on to the good way of life.
Still, this is only memorable for a little while, and that's why, on my scale of 0-5 stars, it gets a 2 1/2. It's alright, but cliched and forgettable.
The thing is, without giving too much more of the plot away, we need movies such as this, where the good guys win, that drugs can get you into a big mess of trouble, that material goods (money) are ends to a means (a better life), and through some creative thinking your dreams can come true.
Aside from the been there-done that plot, the acting surely is far from that you'd see in the truly great movies. Still, it works. The characters are believable and you find yourself wanting to cheer for the good guys, that the shady video producer "gets his" and that the most vulnerable will eventually catch on to the good way of life.
Still, this is only memorable for a little while, and that's why, on my scale of 0-5 stars, it gets a 2 1/2. It's alright, but cliched and forgettable.
The Bradys
(1990)
They tried
3 August 2003
Bless their hearts, they tried. They tried to put a situation comedy family, who is at the cornerstone of American pop culture, in a family drama. But it simply didn't work. It's just like trying to make a Cadillac out of a Volkswagen ... it ain't gonna happen! Assigning major problems to each of the family (e.g., Marcia's alcoholism, Bobby getting paralyzed), along with using a laugh track just didn't work. In hindsight, if the producers had gotten a decent writing staff and flexible directors, "The Bradys" might have worked. Unfortunately, it simply destroyed the Brady franchise. Fortunately, we still have the reruns of the original 1969-1974 ABC series, which will be around for a long time. So will, unfortunately, this show, which is bound to turn up in reruns at some point.
The Rage: Carrie 2
(1999)
SPOILERS -- Disappointing sequel
19 November 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This review contains SPOILERS!!!
After viewing the satisfactory TV remake of "Carrie," I decided to check out "Rage: Carrie 2," the sequel to the original 1976 movie.
Frankly, I was disappointed in what I saw.
Don't get me wrong; I think the concept was good. After all, the plot of "Rage" tackles a serious issue that has scandalized many high schools and communities, as seen on such news programs as "Dateline NBC" -- Teen-agers (usually horny male high school athletes) having sex with as many girls as possible, with the boys scoring points for their performances and the perceived "quality" of said girl.
Mix that in with a girl who uses her telekinesis for hellacious revenge, and we've got ourselves a film.
The acting wasn't even half bad. Emily Bergl brought something of a Sara Gilbert-esque (the Goth-like Darlene Conner) to her character of Rachael Lang. Amy Irving did a decent job reprising her role of Sue Snell, while Zachery Ty Bryan (Brad Taylor of "Home Improvement"-fame) was reliable as always.
My problem lies with the execution of "Rage." It was average at best. It had this plasticy feel that didn't make me really care after the movie ended. Rachael's foster parents just seemed tacked on after everything else was written (the scene where Rachael sneaks in and her foster father confronts her was poorly written).
And the revenge factor was less than satisfying. Sure, we know the oversexed jocks (who are at the center of the controversey) and the girls who lured Rachael to the party get it in the end. But one point that left a sore spot for me was killing off Sue Snell. To have the audience believe that Sue was finally paid back more than 20 years after her "crimes" against Carrie White is insulting, to say the least.
I mean, Sue was trying to HELP Rachael understand her grief (after her friend commits suicide) and who she is. But even if Rachael were uncooperative, as she often was, let the woman live. At least then Amy Irving can reprise Sue Snell in a better remake than this.
That's not all. First of all, the "wink-and-a-nod" attitudes from the judge (who happens to be friends with the attorney father of Zachery Ty Bryan's character) and the Bates football coach. Those characterizations are affronts to decent members of both the coaching and judicial professions. The jocks' attempt at payback on Rachael could have been much better written if they had been criminally charged AND dismissed from the football team.
Also, if one were to read the Stephen King novel, there's the matter of Ralph White, Carrie's father. We're to believe that he is also Rachel Lang's father, but this cannot be, since he died in February 1963 (before Carrie was even born). Sure, Ralph could have run off with another woman and his death was a story that went around to explain his absence, but I didn't see that even explained.
"Rage: Carrie 2" could have been a worthy sequel to the original, but too many flaws spoil this show. I give this a 5 out of 10.
After viewing the satisfactory TV remake of "Carrie," I decided to check out "Rage: Carrie 2," the sequel to the original 1976 movie.
Frankly, I was disappointed in what I saw.
Don't get me wrong; I think the concept was good. After all, the plot of "Rage" tackles a serious issue that has scandalized many high schools and communities, as seen on such news programs as "Dateline NBC" -- Teen-agers (usually horny male high school athletes) having sex with as many girls as possible, with the boys scoring points for their performances and the perceived "quality" of said girl.
Mix that in with a girl who uses her telekinesis for hellacious revenge, and we've got ourselves a film.
The acting wasn't even half bad. Emily Bergl brought something of a Sara Gilbert-esque (the Goth-like Darlene Conner) to her character of Rachael Lang. Amy Irving did a decent job reprising her role of Sue Snell, while Zachery Ty Bryan (Brad Taylor of "Home Improvement"-fame) was reliable as always.
My problem lies with the execution of "Rage." It was average at best. It had this plasticy feel that didn't make me really care after the movie ended. Rachael's foster parents just seemed tacked on after everything else was written (the scene where Rachael sneaks in and her foster father confronts her was poorly written).
And the revenge factor was less than satisfying. Sure, we know the oversexed jocks (who are at the center of the controversey) and the girls who lured Rachael to the party get it in the end. But one point that left a sore spot for me was killing off Sue Snell. To have the audience believe that Sue was finally paid back more than 20 years after her "crimes" against Carrie White is insulting, to say the least.
I mean, Sue was trying to HELP Rachael understand her grief (after her friend commits suicide) and who she is. But even if Rachael were uncooperative, as she often was, let the woman live. At least then Amy Irving can reprise Sue Snell in a better remake than this.
That's not all. First of all, the "wink-and-a-nod" attitudes from the judge (who happens to be friends with the attorney father of Zachery Ty Bryan's character) and the Bates football coach. Those characterizations are affronts to decent members of both the coaching and judicial professions. The jocks' attempt at payback on Rachael could have been much better written if they had been criminally charged AND dismissed from the football team.
Also, if one were to read the Stephen King novel, there's the matter of Ralph White, Carrie's father. We're to believe that he is also Rachel Lang's father, but this cannot be, since he died in February 1963 (before Carrie was even born). Sure, Ralph could have run off with another woman and his death was a story that went around to explain his absence, but I didn't see that even explained.
"Rage: Carrie 2" could have been a worthy sequel to the original, but too many flaws spoil this show. I give this a 5 out of 10.
Carrie
(2002 TV Movie)
POSSIBLE SPOILERS -- Good, but take more ideas from the book please -- POSSIBLE SPOILERS
12 November 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This review contains POSSIBLE SPOILERS!!!
As any good movie based on a novel should do, the TV remake of "Carrie" inspired me to get ahold of Stephen King's original 1974 novel about this misfit teen-aged girl who has telekinetic powers.
The main elements from the novel re-appear here in the new movie: Girl from a small town in Maine (Chamberlin, to be exact) emotionally abused by her devoutly religious mother (who practiced a very base, hateful form of Christianity, if it can be called that); ridiculed at school by most of her classmates (e.g., the period incident in the shower); the nice boy asks her to the junior-senior prom, not knowing that he is a pawn in a game that will lead her into a humiliating experience; her telekinetic powers are revealed and leads to a night of terror for everyone involved and not involved with the prom incident.
I really enjoyed the special effects in the final 45 minutes or so. The police interviews were alright, but here's where we get into possibly more ideas for how "Carrie" could really have been an outstanding movie, and here's where we mention King's original novel. Softening Miss Desjarden's character when interacting with Carrie (sympathetic and helping break her out of her shell) was also a good touch; she's someone who roots for Carrie. And yes, it was fairly well acted, too.
Yup, it'd be the springboard for a number of ideas, which might include:
Witness depositions from the police investigation (as per the book) Material taken from the magazine and newspaper articles. One of the articles, said to be written four months after Prom Night focusing on the after-effects, was very sad.
New ideas might have included:
CNN/Fox News Network-style live update on the Prom Night disaster to start the film, and interspersed news reports after the disaster unfolds. The inclusion of characters from the "Law and Order" family of TV shows. I'm sure Jerry Orbach would do a fine job in his Lennie Briscoe character, as would Sam Waterston in his role as Assistant D.A. Jack McCoy. Focus on the innocent (and not-so-innocent) teen-agers and others who died in the Prom Night disaster at the school and elsewhere in Chamberlin. The ideas would make one emotional, so I won't go into them here, but they could be endless.
I might have even deviated a little from the book, just to make it a little more interesting. Example: Tommy Ross (Carrie's date for that fateful night) dies from a head injury when the pigs' blood buckets hit him. I might have had him regain consciousness outside the school (the people carrying him out would have also escaped), and then demand answers from Billy and Chris at Mr. Nolan's apartment. After Tommy and Billy get into a big fight, Chris sneaks away only to end up killed when she tries to confront Carrie. Mr. Nolan's would end up arrested by the "Law and Order" cops and having to pay big time.
The final idea: After months of despair in Chamberlin, show it on the rebound. You showed us the base, hateful form of Christianity in the character of Margaret White; now present the good side with people wanting to rebuild their burned out town.
But those are just my ideas. Again, a good movie, but you always can improve upon it. 7.5/10 stars.
As any good movie based on a novel should do, the TV remake of "Carrie" inspired me to get ahold of Stephen King's original 1974 novel about this misfit teen-aged girl who has telekinetic powers.
The main elements from the novel re-appear here in the new movie: Girl from a small town in Maine (Chamberlin, to be exact) emotionally abused by her devoutly religious mother (who practiced a very base, hateful form of Christianity, if it can be called that); ridiculed at school by most of her classmates (e.g., the period incident in the shower); the nice boy asks her to the junior-senior prom, not knowing that he is a pawn in a game that will lead her into a humiliating experience; her telekinetic powers are revealed and leads to a night of terror for everyone involved and not involved with the prom incident.
I really enjoyed the special effects in the final 45 minutes or so. The police interviews were alright, but here's where we get into possibly more ideas for how "Carrie" could really have been an outstanding movie, and here's where we mention King's original novel. Softening Miss Desjarden's character when interacting with Carrie (sympathetic and helping break her out of her shell) was also a good touch; she's someone who roots for Carrie. And yes, it was fairly well acted, too.
Yup, it'd be the springboard for a number of ideas, which might include:
Witness depositions from the police investigation (as per the book) Material taken from the magazine and newspaper articles. One of the articles, said to be written four months after Prom Night focusing on the after-effects, was very sad.
New ideas might have included:
CNN/Fox News Network-style live update on the Prom Night disaster to start the film, and interspersed news reports after the disaster unfolds. The inclusion of characters from the "Law and Order" family of TV shows. I'm sure Jerry Orbach would do a fine job in his Lennie Briscoe character, as would Sam Waterston in his role as Assistant D.A. Jack McCoy. Focus on the innocent (and not-so-innocent) teen-agers and others who died in the Prom Night disaster at the school and elsewhere in Chamberlin. The ideas would make one emotional, so I won't go into them here, but they could be endless.
I might have even deviated a little from the book, just to make it a little more interesting. Example: Tommy Ross (Carrie's date for that fateful night) dies from a head injury when the pigs' blood buckets hit him. I might have had him regain consciousness outside the school (the people carrying him out would have also escaped), and then demand answers from Billy and Chris at Mr. Nolan's apartment. After Tommy and Billy get into a big fight, Chris sneaks away only to end up killed when she tries to confront Carrie. Mr. Nolan's would end up arrested by the "Law and Order" cops and having to pay big time.
The final idea: After months of despair in Chamberlin, show it on the rebound. You showed us the base, hateful form of Christianity in the character of Margaret White; now present the good side with people wanting to rebuild their burned out town.
But those are just my ideas. Again, a good movie, but you always can improve upon it. 7.5/10 stars.
Whammy! The All New Press Your Luck
(2002–2013)
Great remake of a classic
20 April 2002
Alright, some people apparently believe "Whammy!" should be a carbon-copy remake of the original "Press Your Luck." I disagree. For instance, what would have happened had "The Price is Right" -- when it returned to TV in 1972 after a seven-year absence -- returned in an identical format as the original?
"Whammy!" adds some exciting twists and turns to the original game. In round one, you can keep spinning as long as you avoid hitting the Whammy, with the understanding there's increased odds in hitting the ol' red hedgehog! And yes, that 3-D computer-animated Whammy cartoons are quite funny. The questions are what you'd expect -- pop culture, basic general knowledge and surveys, but no worse than the original PYL. And the final round is just like the original (though there's fewer "plus one spin" spaces because of more chances to earn spins in the question round). The only disappointment is seeing your favorite contestant get four Whammys (and thus be eliminated from the game). Sure, the merchandise prizes are somewhat chintzy, but there's the traditional fare of trips and cruises, furniture and appliances that's decent enough.
I saw "Whammy" once or twice, and I think its rather promising. Plus, I've seen Todd Newton host before, and he did a great job on "Hollywood Showdown." He is a promising new host, and should help give "Whammy!" its own charm.
"Whammy!" adds some exciting twists and turns to the original game. In round one, you can keep spinning as long as you avoid hitting the Whammy, with the understanding there's increased odds in hitting the ol' red hedgehog! And yes, that 3-D computer-animated Whammy cartoons are quite funny. The questions are what you'd expect -- pop culture, basic general knowledge and surveys, but no worse than the original PYL. And the final round is just like the original (though there's fewer "plus one spin" spaces because of more chances to earn spins in the question round). The only disappointment is seeing your favorite contestant get four Whammys (and thus be eliminated from the game). Sure, the merchandise prizes are somewhat chintzy, but there's the traditional fare of trips and cruises, furniture and appliances that's decent enough.
I saw "Whammy" once or twice, and I think its rather promising. Plus, I've seen Todd Newton host before, and he did a great job on "Hollywood Showdown." He is a promising new host, and should help give "Whammy!" its own charm.
12 Angry Men
(1957)
Terrific film and highly recommended (WARNING: Possible spoiler contained within)
23 January 2002
Warning: Spoilers
It's funny how time changes your perception of things, such as "12 Angry Men." When I saw this magnificent movie oh so long ago, I thought this film was made by some bleeding-heart liberal who wrote about empathy for an obviously-guilty Latino murderer getting in the way of deciding the verdict.
But in watching it again and again, I saw that such was not the case. Rather, it was Juror No. 8 (Henry Fonda as Mr. Davis) who -- after deciding a thorough review of the evidence, even for argument's sake, was appropriate -- reveals holes in the prosecution's case. Today, I'm amazed still at how Mr. Davis manages to debate his cause against impossible odds. Slowly, but surely, he manages to sway the other jurors his way as he exposes what was thought to be an open-and-shut case.
In addition to the carefully crafted character study of the 12 jurors (which range from caring, intelligent, empathetic and responsible to egotistical, impatient, arrogant and merciless), there are other things about "12 Angry Men" that, though they don't seem to surface, it makes this marvelous film unique. For example, one may make the case that some prosecutors -- in a rush just to punish defendants coming from a minority, disadvantaged background -- sloppily and haphazardly assemble their case, while some defense attorneys take a lackadaisical attitude toward their client's case. One wonders how this case could have played out had Mr. Davis been the Latino's defense attorney, exposing seemingly inconsequential details -- such as the mechanics of knife-fighting and the poor eyesight of one of the witnesses.
This is simply one film you always look forward to seeing time and time again, whether in a classroom setting, a team-building seminar for work or just during a night of relaxation. Everyone plays their parts so brilliantly one has to wonder if they could ever play another type of character in other films. Simply put, the cast became the very characters they play, the very essence of this film.
Please, run -- don't walk -- to the video store to rent "12 Angry Men." It's near the top of my all-time favorite films' list, and I give this a perfect 10 out of 10.
But in watching it again and again, I saw that such was not the case. Rather, it was Juror No. 8 (Henry Fonda as Mr. Davis) who -- after deciding a thorough review of the evidence, even for argument's sake, was appropriate -- reveals holes in the prosecution's case. Today, I'm amazed still at how Mr. Davis manages to debate his cause against impossible odds. Slowly, but surely, he manages to sway the other jurors his way as he exposes what was thought to be an open-and-shut case.
In addition to the carefully crafted character study of the 12 jurors (which range from caring, intelligent, empathetic and responsible to egotistical, impatient, arrogant and merciless), there are other things about "12 Angry Men" that, though they don't seem to surface, it makes this marvelous film unique. For example, one may make the case that some prosecutors -- in a rush just to punish defendants coming from a minority, disadvantaged background -- sloppily and haphazardly assemble their case, while some defense attorneys take a lackadaisical attitude toward their client's case. One wonders how this case could have played out had Mr. Davis been the Latino's defense attorney, exposing seemingly inconsequential details -- such as the mechanics of knife-fighting and the poor eyesight of one of the witnesses.
This is simply one film you always look forward to seeing time and time again, whether in a classroom setting, a team-building seminar for work or just during a night of relaxation. Everyone plays their parts so brilliantly one has to wonder if they could ever play another type of character in other films. Simply put, the cast became the very characters they play, the very essence of this film.
Please, run -- don't walk -- to the video store to rent "12 Angry Men." It's near the top of my all-time favorite films' list, and I give this a perfect 10 out of 10.
Match Game/Hollywood Squares Hour
(1983–1984)
"Must See TV" for me
15 November 2001
I don't understand all the criticism about "The Match Game/Hollywood Squares Hour." The critics believed this show was an uneven marriage of two game shows that had been popular, that Bowzer wasn't good hosting his "Hollywood Squares" segment, etc.
I beg to differ. Sure, I was in sixth grade the year this program aired, and it's been 18 years since I've seen an episode, but I liked "The Match Game/Hollywood Squares Hour." It was a "must see" program for me, every afternoon after school.
I had enjoyed both "Match Game" and "Hollywood Squares" as a younger child, and thought the two segments together made for the perfect marriage. I don't remember too much about how good the celebrities actually were playing the game, but the gameplay to me seemed to go off without a hitch.
What I enjoyed most was the "Super Match" segment, played at the end, for a possible $30,000 jackpot. All the contestant needed to do was choose the celebrity they believed had the elusive "30" multiplier (the others had either 10s or 20s, making for lower jackpots). That made for a lot more excitement than simply choosing a celebrity to play for a flat 10 times whatever they had won in the "Audience Match" half of the game, though it compares very favorably with the "Star Wheel" used on latter-day "Match Game" (where 20 times the stakes were possible).
The critics often cite the concept as to what led to the demise of "The Match Game/Hollywood Squares Hour" after just nine months. Others seem to think that viewers were still tuning into "General Hospital" in droves.
Say what you will about why this show didn't last, but I sure hope to be able to see it again sometime. I sure hope Game Show Network will acquire the rights to show this unique program, which died before its time.
I beg to differ. Sure, I was in sixth grade the year this program aired, and it's been 18 years since I've seen an episode, but I liked "The Match Game/Hollywood Squares Hour." It was a "must see" program for me, every afternoon after school.
I had enjoyed both "Match Game" and "Hollywood Squares" as a younger child, and thought the two segments together made for the perfect marriage. I don't remember too much about how good the celebrities actually were playing the game, but the gameplay to me seemed to go off without a hitch.
What I enjoyed most was the "Super Match" segment, played at the end, for a possible $30,000 jackpot. All the contestant needed to do was choose the celebrity they believed had the elusive "30" multiplier (the others had either 10s or 20s, making for lower jackpots). That made for a lot more excitement than simply choosing a celebrity to play for a flat 10 times whatever they had won in the "Audience Match" half of the game, though it compares very favorably with the "Star Wheel" used on latter-day "Match Game" (where 20 times the stakes were possible).
The critics often cite the concept as to what led to the demise of "The Match Game/Hollywood Squares Hour" after just nine months. Others seem to think that viewers were still tuning into "General Hospital" in droves.
Say what you will about why this show didn't last, but I sure hope to be able to see it again sometime. I sure hope Game Show Network will acquire the rights to show this unique program, which died before its time.
Time Machine
(1985– )
Bad show
9 September 2001
It's funny how time changes your perceptions of some TV shows. Take, for instance, the 1985 NBC game show "Time Machine."
While the show was in its (deservedly) short run, this game was sort of up my alley; at the time, I enjoyed the show because it was just one opportunity for me to satisfy my appetite for learning about recent history and popular culture.
Today, I see the show as a piece of crap. Basically, the show's basic flaw is in its concept; it's simply stretched too far. I mean, how many questions can you ask about Watergate and the Vietnam War, certain memorable sports teams and TV shows and Elvis Presley without boring viewers? And some of the questions themselves (though admittedly interesting) were simply inane just by how they were asked (e.g., "Were Twinkies introduced before or after 1955?").
I don't object to the format per se; some of the elements of "Time Machine" would undoubtedly work as an occasional feature on a TV show or even morning drive radio show's quiz segment. But an entire 65-show series? That's stretching the rubber band way beyond its elasticity.
Then, there's host John Davidson. Great performer, but I never really cared for him as a game show host. He did OK (but just OK) as host of the 1980s version of "Hollywood Squares," but seeing one episode of the series, I don't think he really cared if his contestants won or lost (he'd just slap on a plastic smile afterward and go to a commercial).
"Time Machine" tried to cash in on the then-growing popularity of trivia games (both home and on television). Only one of them would succeed -- the far superior "Jeopardy!" which of course wasn't a new game (having debuted in 1964 and was in its first year of syndication when "Time Machine" aired).
I have heard some elementary schools were planning to recommend this series to children (their families better have had VCRs) so they could learn about history. Any school which recommends a "history-based" game show (such as "Time Machine"), whose questions tended to lean more toward pop culture rather than recent history, is deficient. I'd have recommended reading history books -- which avoid the inessential pop culture -- instead; if this show were to air today in an identical format, the far superior "History IQ" would serve as the history-quiz show of choice.
While the show was in its (deservedly) short run, this game was sort of up my alley; at the time, I enjoyed the show because it was just one opportunity for me to satisfy my appetite for learning about recent history and popular culture.
Today, I see the show as a piece of crap. Basically, the show's basic flaw is in its concept; it's simply stretched too far. I mean, how many questions can you ask about Watergate and the Vietnam War, certain memorable sports teams and TV shows and Elvis Presley without boring viewers? And some of the questions themselves (though admittedly interesting) were simply inane just by how they were asked (e.g., "Were Twinkies introduced before or after 1955?").
I don't object to the format per se; some of the elements of "Time Machine" would undoubtedly work as an occasional feature on a TV show or even morning drive radio show's quiz segment. But an entire 65-show series? That's stretching the rubber band way beyond its elasticity.
Then, there's host John Davidson. Great performer, but I never really cared for him as a game show host. He did OK (but just OK) as host of the 1980s version of "Hollywood Squares," but seeing one episode of the series, I don't think he really cared if his contestants won or lost (he'd just slap on a plastic smile afterward and go to a commercial).
"Time Machine" tried to cash in on the then-growing popularity of trivia games (both home and on television). Only one of them would succeed -- the far superior "Jeopardy!" which of course wasn't a new game (having debuted in 1964 and was in its first year of syndication when "Time Machine" aired).
I have heard some elementary schools were planning to recommend this series to children (their families better have had VCRs) so they could learn about history. Any school which recommends a "history-based" game show (such as "Time Machine"), whose questions tended to lean more toward pop culture rather than recent history, is deficient. I'd have recommended reading history books -- which avoid the inessential pop culture -- instead; if this show were to air today in an identical format, the far superior "History IQ" would serve as the history-quiz show of choice.
Family Matters
(1989–1998)
One of my favorite shows
30 August 2001
I'm a guy who enjoys high school sports on Friday nights. When I went to the games, I sometimes would set the VCR to tape "Family Matters" and other shows.
Unlike what some people apparently believe, I thought "Family Matters" began to really become appealing when Urkel joined the show. Sure, those approximately one dozen shows without Urkel were good ones, but to me, it just seemed as though something was missing to make this show really click.
Then, the inevitable happens. Chicago police sergeant Carl, wanting to find a date for dateless daughter Laura for the school dance, asks ultra-nerd Steve to be her date. Jaleel White's performance was so great that he was asked to return to future shows. And thus, a modest hit becomes a sensation!
What is it that they say about not messing with the ingredients of success once you've found them? Hmmm ... it seemed to me that the producers of "Family Matters" found that success. What would have happened to, say, "Happy Days," if Fonzie was kept as a supporting player instead of having most shows revolve around him?
I will agree that later-season shows tended to revolve more around Urkel and his usual hapless sidekick, Carl. I've even heard remarks this show was likened to the old minstrel "blackface" acts in the pre-vaudeville days.
I don't believe the family unity seen in the early shows ever went away; plus, the discussion of serious topics (such as cancer, drunk driving, gangs and drugs in school) made for some very thought-provoking shows.
If Urkel had any faults, it was that he tried too hard. The reason he came over all the time (sometimes at inopportune moments) was because his parents didn't love him. His well-meaning but clumsy ways and constantly-backfiring contraptions made for some very funny moments, but it was always important for Carl (no matter how frustrated he became) to forgive Urkel and fill that void that the nerd apparently didn't get at home.
"Family Matters" was a family show, which demonstrated values such as helping out, accepting others regardless of their faults (real or perceived), forgiveness, friendship and unity. This was one of the great series in television history, and I'm proud to say I was a fan through the end.
Unlike what some people apparently believe, I thought "Family Matters" began to really become appealing when Urkel joined the show. Sure, those approximately one dozen shows without Urkel were good ones, but to me, it just seemed as though something was missing to make this show really click.
Then, the inevitable happens. Chicago police sergeant Carl, wanting to find a date for dateless daughter Laura for the school dance, asks ultra-nerd Steve to be her date. Jaleel White's performance was so great that he was asked to return to future shows. And thus, a modest hit becomes a sensation!
What is it that they say about not messing with the ingredients of success once you've found them? Hmmm ... it seemed to me that the producers of "Family Matters" found that success. What would have happened to, say, "Happy Days," if Fonzie was kept as a supporting player instead of having most shows revolve around him?
I will agree that later-season shows tended to revolve more around Urkel and his usual hapless sidekick, Carl. I've even heard remarks this show was likened to the old minstrel "blackface" acts in the pre-vaudeville days.
I don't believe the family unity seen in the early shows ever went away; plus, the discussion of serious topics (such as cancer, drunk driving, gangs and drugs in school) made for some very thought-provoking shows.
If Urkel had any faults, it was that he tried too hard. The reason he came over all the time (sometimes at inopportune moments) was because his parents didn't love him. His well-meaning but clumsy ways and constantly-backfiring contraptions made for some very funny moments, but it was always important for Carl (no matter how frustrated he became) to forgive Urkel and fill that void that the nerd apparently didn't get at home.
"Family Matters" was a family show, which demonstrated values such as helping out, accepting others regardless of their faults (real or perceived), forgiveness, friendship and unity. This was one of the great series in television history, and I'm proud to say I was a fan through the end.
Dennis the Menace
(1986–1988)
Good cartoon but Mr. Wilson's attitudes are disturbing
27 August 2001
I remember this cartoon from the 1980s, when I was just entering high school. I sat down and watched it every day before starting my homework.
However, there's something about this show that I think needs to be pointed out here. That has to do with Mr. Wilson and his relationship with Dennis.
Yeah, yeah, I know it's just a cartoon series, and that one of the major components of the "Dennis the Menace" storyline is the relationship between Dennis and his neighbor, Mr. Wilson.
However, I've found Mr. Wilson's whole attitude toward Dennis very unnerving, as I'm sure many people would agree. Simply put, Mr. Wilson yells at Dennis because he's trying to be a kid.
Dennis is just that, a simple, red-blooded American boy. He's inquisitive and (of course) mischievous, and his well-meaning attempts backfire on others -- usually, with Mr. Wilson on the worst end. But what young boy hasn't been that?
Mr. Wilson's response? He yells at him and tells Dennis to go away. Mr. Wilson constantly tells his wife, Martha, about how he looks forward to peace and quiet and must always add that he's glad Dennis won't be around (usually, just seconds before Dennis shows up).
I agree that Mr. Wilson's boorish demeanor is much less severe here than in the 1993 theatrical release (which contains a segment where Mr. Wilson basically tells Dennis to go to hell). There are even animated shorts in this series where Mr. Wilson sticks up for Dennis.
Maybe I'm missing the whole point of this show, but it seems to me that Dennis worships Mr. Wilson and wants to be a friend to him. All Mr. Wilson does is throw that offer back in his face and tells Dennis to go away.
If Mr. Wilson were any sort of man, he would sit down with Dennis, tell him I would love to be your friend but you have to allow me some time for some peace and quiet, and then informally spell out a few guidelines to follow. I'm sure Dennis would agree to Mr. Wilson's wishes if he did it right.
As for the cartoon itself, it really hasn't held up with me. It's more in the execution than in the general idea, which remains good. Sure, the stories are family-friendly (except for what I described above), that they're geared toward a younger audience and everything works out well in the end. But older viewers (i.e., parents, grandparents and college students who don't play drinking games with whatever TV show) might think the stories are too simple and think the animation is somewhat below par.
Still, the 1980s version of "Dennis the Menace" is enjoyable for many viewers, and that in itself merits a recommendation.
However, there's something about this show that I think needs to be pointed out here. That has to do with Mr. Wilson and his relationship with Dennis.
Yeah, yeah, I know it's just a cartoon series, and that one of the major components of the "Dennis the Menace" storyline is the relationship between Dennis and his neighbor, Mr. Wilson.
However, I've found Mr. Wilson's whole attitude toward Dennis very unnerving, as I'm sure many people would agree. Simply put, Mr. Wilson yells at Dennis because he's trying to be a kid.
Dennis is just that, a simple, red-blooded American boy. He's inquisitive and (of course) mischievous, and his well-meaning attempts backfire on others -- usually, with Mr. Wilson on the worst end. But what young boy hasn't been that?
Mr. Wilson's response? He yells at him and tells Dennis to go away. Mr. Wilson constantly tells his wife, Martha, about how he looks forward to peace and quiet and must always add that he's glad Dennis won't be around (usually, just seconds before Dennis shows up).
I agree that Mr. Wilson's boorish demeanor is much less severe here than in the 1993 theatrical release (which contains a segment where Mr. Wilson basically tells Dennis to go to hell). There are even animated shorts in this series where Mr. Wilson sticks up for Dennis.
Maybe I'm missing the whole point of this show, but it seems to me that Dennis worships Mr. Wilson and wants to be a friend to him. All Mr. Wilson does is throw that offer back in his face and tells Dennis to go away.
If Mr. Wilson were any sort of man, he would sit down with Dennis, tell him I would love to be your friend but you have to allow me some time for some peace and quiet, and then informally spell out a few guidelines to follow. I'm sure Dennis would agree to Mr. Wilson's wishes if he did it right.
As for the cartoon itself, it really hasn't held up with me. It's more in the execution than in the general idea, which remains good. Sure, the stories are family-friendly (except for what I described above), that they're geared toward a younger audience and everything works out well in the end. But older viewers (i.e., parents, grandparents and college students who don't play drinking games with whatever TV show) might think the stories are too simple and think the animation is somewhat below par.
Still, the 1980s version of "Dennis the Menace" is enjoyable for many viewers, and that in itself merits a recommendation.
Dennis the Menace
(1993)
Mr. Wilson's comments, not violence, are disturbing (MAY CONTAIN A SPOILER)
26 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
ATTN: THIS COMMENT MAY CONTAIN A SPOILER! (I don't know if it actually is a spoiler, but I thought I'd warn the editors).
Some people have criticized the "Dennis the Menace" theatrical release for its slapstick-style violence. To me, the "violence" in this movie (usually the result of innocent-little Dennis' well-meaning but ill-timed or misexecuted attempts to do the right thing) aren't what make this movie somewhat disturbing.
The phrase, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me," is a lie. Repeatedly throughout this film -- as well as the 1959 live-action sitcom and the 1980s and 1990s animated series -- Mr. Wilson yells at Dennis whenever one of the little tyke's attempts to help out or make things right goes horribly wrong (usually with Mr. Wilson on the receiving end).
At one point in the film, the movie's villain, Switchblade Sam, has broken into the Wilsons' home to steal George's valuable coin collection. That same night, Mr. Wilson has invited his gardening fraternity members over so he can boast about his valuable plant (which is about to bloom after 40 years). Dennis comes over to tell Mr. Wilson of the ongoing burglary, but his warning distracts Mr. Wilson and his friends just as the flower is in its full bloom. Of course, Mr. Wilson misses the once-in-a-lifetime event.
The vicious, almost vindictive but definitely hateful tongue-lashing an angry Mr. Wilson delivers to Dennis afterward were very disturbing. He tells Dennis that he's a pest (and other hurtful comments) before telling him to get lost.
For goodness sakes, Dennis was trying to tell Mr. Wilson that something was wrong. What if someone was suffering a sudden illness and needed immediate attention, or somebody's life may possibly be in immediate danger?
Dennis tries to be a friend to Mr. Wilson and all he gets is that offer thrown right back in his face in hateful rejection. I agree Dennis' visits may be ill-timed and that he doesn't understand that some of the pranks could result in serious injury, but Mr. Wilson's over-reaction is often very unnerving.
If Michael Landon were here to adopt the basic plot of Dennis the Menace to one of his shows, I'm sure it would be culminate in one of Landon's characters from either "Little House on the Prairie" or "Highway to Heaven" setting Mr. Wilson straight.
Walter Matthau retained his fine form for this film, as was Christopher Lloyd. I also thought Mason Gamble showed promise as an actor through his wide-eyed innocent performance as Dennis. But Mr. Wilson's attitudes toward Dennis are disturbing and hateful, and that's what hurts this otherwise average film.
Some people have criticized the "Dennis the Menace" theatrical release for its slapstick-style violence. To me, the "violence" in this movie (usually the result of innocent-little Dennis' well-meaning but ill-timed or misexecuted attempts to do the right thing) aren't what make this movie somewhat disturbing.
The phrase, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me," is a lie. Repeatedly throughout this film -- as well as the 1959 live-action sitcom and the 1980s and 1990s animated series -- Mr. Wilson yells at Dennis whenever one of the little tyke's attempts to help out or make things right goes horribly wrong (usually with Mr. Wilson on the receiving end).
At one point in the film, the movie's villain, Switchblade Sam, has broken into the Wilsons' home to steal George's valuable coin collection. That same night, Mr. Wilson has invited his gardening fraternity members over so he can boast about his valuable plant (which is about to bloom after 40 years). Dennis comes over to tell Mr. Wilson of the ongoing burglary, but his warning distracts Mr. Wilson and his friends just as the flower is in its full bloom. Of course, Mr. Wilson misses the once-in-a-lifetime event.
The vicious, almost vindictive but definitely hateful tongue-lashing an angry Mr. Wilson delivers to Dennis afterward were very disturbing. He tells Dennis that he's a pest (and other hurtful comments) before telling him to get lost.
For goodness sakes, Dennis was trying to tell Mr. Wilson that something was wrong. What if someone was suffering a sudden illness and needed immediate attention, or somebody's life may possibly be in immediate danger?
Dennis tries to be a friend to Mr. Wilson and all he gets is that offer thrown right back in his face in hateful rejection. I agree Dennis' visits may be ill-timed and that he doesn't understand that some of the pranks could result in serious injury, but Mr. Wilson's over-reaction is often very unnerving.
If Michael Landon were here to adopt the basic plot of Dennis the Menace to one of his shows, I'm sure it would be culminate in one of Landon's characters from either "Little House on the Prairie" or "Highway to Heaven" setting Mr. Wilson straight.
Walter Matthau retained his fine form for this film, as was Christopher Lloyd. I also thought Mason Gamble showed promise as an actor through his wide-eyed innocent performance as Dennis. But Mr. Wilson's attitudes toward Dennis are disturbing and hateful, and that's what hurts this otherwise average film.
One of the best shows ever
21 August 2001
It's funny how time dates certain TV shows. "Little House on the Prairie" is certainly not one of them. This program ranks as one of the best ever.
"Little House" was one of those series which taught moral, religious lessons without preaching; stories that could happen in real life, usually leading up to the show's moral. However, some episodes were "just-for-fun" and didn't really have a lesson tied to them. It's great to see the balance between drama (the meat of the show) and comedy (an occasional but always welcome break from the drama).
The show's topics showed that today's problems certainly aren't new -- infidelity, drugs/alcohol abuse, corruption (usually fueled by money) and racism, to name a few. Unlike many family shows where the parents were always right and the children were the ones with faults, "Little House" presented adult regulars with real failings, somewhat akin to "All in the Family" and its presentation of adult regulars with shortcomings (in particular, Archie Bunker).
It was always heartwarming to see how the townspeople banded together to support the Ingalls. The pilot movie definitely set the tone for the nine-year series which followed.
"Little House" was one of those series which taught moral, religious lessons without preaching; stories that could happen in real life, usually leading up to the show's moral. However, some episodes were "just-for-fun" and didn't really have a lesson tied to them. It's great to see the balance between drama (the meat of the show) and comedy (an occasional but always welcome break from the drama).
The show's topics showed that today's problems certainly aren't new -- infidelity, drugs/alcohol abuse, corruption (usually fueled by money) and racism, to name a few. Unlike many family shows where the parents were always right and the children were the ones with faults, "Little House" presented adult regulars with real failings, somewhat akin to "All in the Family" and its presentation of adult regulars with shortcomings (in particular, Archie Bunker).
It was always heartwarming to see how the townspeople banded together to support the Ingalls. The pilot movie definitely set the tone for the nine-year series which followed.
WWF Superstars
(1986–2001)
The original
28 April 2001
For all newer wrestling fans or older fans who don't recall, "WWF Superstars of Wrestling" is a perfect example of how wrestling used to be presented on television. Long before wrestling's explosion in popularity on Monday night cable TV, most wrestling fans used to be satisfied with these one-hour syndicated wrestling programs. Typical programs featured big-name wrestlers against jobbers (those wrestlers who always lost); interviews that were taped (usually) weeks in advance; promotions of upcoming wrestling events; promos, or skits, of wrestlers soon to either make their debut or introduce a new gimmick; updates of current events, feuds, etc. in a given wrestling organization; maybe but not always a confrontation between two currently feuding wrestlers; and perhaps a main event pitting two big-name wrestlers against each other. Most people were satisfied with these 60-minute programs for years. Of course, professional wrestling has improved greatly much better since the Monday night explosion, and the makeup of syndicated and cable wrestling programs has greatly changed. But for those who perhaps caught the professional wrestling bug in recent times, this is how it was. The now-defunct American Wrestling Association (AWA) and World Championship Wrestling (WCW) organizations -- plus other regional promotions that have long-since folded in the wake of Vince McMahon's expansion of his WWF -- had syndicated wrestling programs similar to "WWF Superstars of Wrestling."
Freddy Got Fingered
(2001)
Glad I stayed away!
28 April 2001
I can't see why anyone would want to watch, let alone enjoy, "Freddy Got Fingered." From the reviews that I've read in newspapers and other comments I've heard about this "movie" (a term I use very loosely), I can't see how this was allowed in the movie theaters. The World Wrestling Federation never would consider stooping as low as to use "gags" about incest, rough handling of newborn babies, etc. The only people I could conceivably see watching this moronic tale is perhaps juvenile delinquents and gang-bangers. A sane person, such as myself, will be staying far, far away from this movie. BTW -- how did "Freddy Got Fingered" ever become the third-highest grossing movie during its opening weekend?
WWE Raw
(1993– )
Thumbs up to Vince McMahon, WWF
28 April 2001
Count me in as one who would give "WWF Raw is War" a big thumbs up. I have been a big WWF fan since the local television station began airing "WWF Superstars of Wrestling" in 1984. To me, watching the superstars in action is what makes this show a winner. Yes, the drama that plays out each week is fine, and certainly makes for a more interesting program than those old-style syndicated programs of years ago (where big-name wrestlers beat up jobbers to showcase themselves). I can understand, though, where some of what airs can be quite disturbing (e.g., Steve Austin and Triple H beating a female wrestler senseless after they beat up her boyfriend and his brother). I don't think, however, the "disturbing" scenes happen that often. And someone once commented about how performing wrestling moves by jumping off the turnbuckles and/or throwing your opponent out of the ring has contributed to the sport's decline. I disagree -- wrestlers have done this for many years, long before wrestling premiered on cable television. I like "WWF Raw is War." Those people who don't want to watch the WWF can change the channel, for crying out loud! Keep up the good work, Vince McMahon!
Tell Your Friends