Auntie_Inflammatory Reviews

The Kentucky Fried Movie (1977)

A cult classic!

[9/10 · 23 April 2021]

I was too young to see the R-rated "KFM" in a theater when it first came out. I was still too young when I saw it a few years later (as what must've undoubtedly been the second half of a double feature) but I thought that it was absolutely HILARIOUS.

By the time I was in high school, "KFM" had achieved cult status. My friends and I would regularly quote catch-phrases such as...

"What was that?! This is not a sha-wade. We need total concen-twation...Now, once a-gain."

"We're building a fighting force of extra-ordinary magnitude."

(with French accent) "I don't know, it's unknown, I don't know..."

Watching "KFM" decades later, it's STILL funny! There are parodies of; news shows, talk shows, morning shows, courtroom shows, adventure shows, self-help recordings, action movies, porno films, industrial films, educational films, exploitation films, disaster films, PSAs, and commercials.

Of course, the highlight of the whole movie is the long Bruce Lee film parody, "A Fistful of Yen." I hadn't seen "Enter the Dragon" back when I first watched "KFM" but it didn't matter, I still found "AFOY" hysterical. That segment, on its its own, rates a 10. "That's Armageddon," the disaster-film promo spoof, is also priceless.

People under a certain age won't get some of the references to things like Wesson or Nyquil P. M. commercials of the time. I appreciate the courtroom sketch more as an adult since some things, like the reference to the game show "What's My Line?," went over my head when I was a kid.

Note: This is NOT a film you'll want to watch with your relatives. The amount of nudity and sexual situations (in 3 of the skits) could make for an uncomfortable family-viewing night.

Millennial snowflakes and dour, PC scolds should be herded into theaters en masse, strapped into the seats, have their eyes held open with those "Clockwork Orange" eye-thingies, and be forced to watch a double feature of "KFM" and "Blazing Saddles." They'd gasp, they'd laugh, their dull humorlessness would melt away and the whole world would be a much happier place!

Satanis: The Devil's Mass (1970)

CoSplay

[5/10 · 23 April 2021]

This documentary looks at the "Church of Satan" (aka "The Black House"), founded by Anton LaVey in San Francisco in the 1960s. There are interviews with LaVey, his wife, Diane, his teenage daughter, Karla, people in the neighborhood, members of his "church", a couple of Christian priests, and two Mormons as well as clips from several ceremonies/rituals at the CoS. Be prepared for lots of casual, non-Hollywood nudity.

LaVey explains that satanism is "a selfish religion," that believes in indulging in greed and lust. No wonder so many people in the entertainment industry and politics are drawn to it! He says that the carnal is more important than the soul and that everyone should be free to indulge in fetishes, if it doesn't hurt anyone. "If you're gonna be a sinner, be the best sinner on the block," he quips. It sometimes seems like LaVey is trying not to burst out in giggles as he spouts this stuff. He looks and sounds a bit like Howie Mandel and it would be hilarious if Mandel were to play him in a comedy version of the goings-on at the Black House. He stresses that they don't do any actual human or animal sacrifices, just, "human sacrifices by proxy," putting hexes and curses on people they don't like.

Diane says that the LaVeys are a normal family (because they eat regular meals and try to get enough sleep) who are involved with, "some topics that are abnormal." When asked about the CoS members, Karla responds, "They're nuts!" The attitudes of their neighbors range from tolerant to slightly amused to annoyed.

If the idea was to make the priests and Mormons look intolerant or uncool, it fails miserably because they all come across as quite reasonable. One priest states that the CoS is "...just a means of personal aggrandizement and enhancement..." One of the Mormons says that, although he thinks satanism is morally wrong, he believes in freedom of speech and thinks that, "Each person should have the ability to express their views." He also states his concern about the way the female members of the CoS are treated, adding that he wouldn't want someone using his sister that way.

No one seems to find LaVey or the CoS a real threat. The most irate of the neighbors is more annoyed at having to clean up shingles that fall from LaVey's roof than at anything going on in the house. Some of the interviews would've benefitted from the use of a tripod as the hand-held camera work can be shaky.

The word "satanist" conjures up a menacing image but LaVey's flock come across like a bunch of kids LARPing. It's as if they got bored with their usual cocktail parties so first, they tried LSD, then they tried key parties, then they thought, "Hmm...what can we do now? Ooh, I know, Let's try satanism!"

A couple of the women say that they came to the CoS through an interest in witchcraft. One admits that she wasn't really interested in satanism but met LaVey at a class where she was learning to make love potions and cast spells to attract men. Another woman is interviewed while she sits, stark naked, on the altar. There's an episode of "Seinfeld" where Jerry explains that there's "good naked and bad naked." Well, the nudity here is bad naked. Imagine, a 53 year-old (as in 50+ years ago, not today) woman sitting spread-eagle on a mantel with a skull placed strategically in front of her vajayjay, as she casually chats, for an uncomfortably long time, about her life and involvement in the church. When asked about how being on the altar, during a ceremony, makes her feel, she gushes about adrenaline, "satanic ecstasy," and the "completely exhilarating" charge it gives her.

And then there's those ceremonies...

The goofy costumes, grainy, washed-out film stock, reddish lighting, camera angles, and organ music give them the air of a cheesy '60s horror flick. The goateed LaVey wears a black robe, hood, devil horns and a medallion. He looks about as scary as the Underwood ham devil.

It seems that there has to be a naked woman on the altar of the CoS at all times. Other women are nude or strip during the rituals. It's kinda funny that this group, that espouses equality, makes the women disrobe completely but not the men. LaVey's wife never undresses either.

In one ceremony, a guy in a mask has his pants and shorts pulled down and is whipped (looks like it hurts) while LaVey recites a rhyming incantation. Then, congregants open a coffin to reveal a naked woman inside. The whippee climbs in, on top of her, she embraces him, and the lid is closed over them. I can see the guys at Hammer Films crying, "Why didn't WE think of that?!"

Another ritual, where everyone sways to slow drum music as nude women handle live snakes and rub them on their privates, seems to go on forever. During the last ceremony, a guy recites the Our Father and other prayers backwards. Not very original. Can't they write their own stuff? Then, a guy in a mask and robe goes over the knees of the naked woman on the altar and she bares his bottom and fondles it as LaVey calls congregants forward to ask him for help.

"What is your desire?," he asks a milquetoast-looking guy. The man replies, "I would like Satan to arouse insatiable desire in the heart of that lovely, young bank teller who just moved into my neighborhood. He said his name was Roger." So LaVey recites a spell designed to enflame Roger's passions. Then a young, nerdy, bespectacled type says, "I desire that the powers of darkness should bestow upon a certain section of my anatomy attributes that will enable it to perform it's duties better to my satisfaction and it's own..." The kid seems to be trying not to laugh as LaVey holds a sword to his head and recites an incantation including phrases like, "...the scourge of flesh, the rod of bone, the shaft of sin..." Everyone affects a stentorious tone, like they're in a school play.

With the requests out of the way, LaVey turns his attention to the bare bum on the altar. He waves his hand over it, waves a sword over it, has his wife kiss it, recites an incantation, blesses it, rings a bell, passes the bell over it, then blows out a candle to conclude the service. A young guy watching this all go down looks absolutely terrified.

The documentary doesn't really have a POV (although the last line spoken hints that maybe it's not all to be taken too seriously). It meanders. It was obviously shot on a low budget and the camera work could've been a lot better. It's interesting in an, "Oh, so that's what satanists do in their masses," kinda way. The "church" comes across as an alternative to a swingers or BDSM club (I would guess that the trappings of a church made it feel like a safer environment). The "religion" seems like a way for it's followers to indulge in kinky behavior without feeling guilty.

Imagine being the child or grandchild of one of the CoS members shown here and watching this. Naked altar lady would be over 100 today!

Stanley Tucci: Searching for Italy: Milan (2021) Season 1, Episode 4

Stick to cooking!

[2/10 · 2 April 2021]

I was enjoying seeing the differences in cuisines between the regions of Italy on this show until Mr. Tucci felt the need to inject his libtarded politics into episode 4. Yes, the ARROGANT, millionaire, Hollywood, 1-percenter actually attempts to lecture to/shame an Italian fisherman over the North's opposition to uncontrolled mass migration!

Mr. Tucci needs to understand that the fisherman lives in the real world, not in a secure, gated mansion. There have been many horrific attacks, rapes, and murders of Italian citizens and tourists by migrants in recent years. How dare some out-of-touch, wealthy, elite, American actor try to make the Italian guy feel guilty for wanting to be safe?! How dare he try to make a fisherman (as in someone whose income literally depends on the weather!) feel guilty for not wanting the Italian government to put migrants up in hotels and pay them a stipend while 5 million Italian citizens live in abject poverty?!

Tucci's attempt to equate the legal, controlled immigration of Italians to America (where there were strict quotas and they had to show proof of their identity, their health, and their ability to support themselves and/or of a relative who would sponsor them) with the mass migration of unskilled, 3rd-world immigrants to Italy is absolutely ludicrous! What NERVE of him to be standing in the fisherman's modest, little kitchen, preaching at him like that. He should be ashamed of himself. If he's so concerned, he can always offer to let a few of the migrants picked up by the Italian coast guard stay in his mansion, with his wife and children, or maybe even spend some of his millions to build them houses. Oh, I forgot, no lefty actor would actually do such a thing, they just like to lecture to us plebes about what WE should do!

Tucci just needs to shut up and cook!

Life of a Mistress (2018– )

The Perils of Polina

[9/10 · 14 March 2021]

This is the first Russian TV show that I've ever watched. Based on the poorly translated English title (it should really be "Life of a Lady" since it means "Mistress" as in counterpart to Master of the house, not side-piece) and the even more misleading synopsis I read on the streaming channel, I was expecting something racy, along the lines of "Moll Flanders." Well, it's nothing like that. The young heroine, Polina, is actually a paragon of virtue. That's not to say that the show is boring, though. I really enjoyed it. The acting is good, the story is engaging, the period detail is great (at least, I think so, not knowing much about Russian history), and the cinematography is absolutely gorgeous.

Polina grows up in luxury as the adopted daughter of the wealthy Duke Golovin. Only a couple of people, besides them, know that Polina was actually born a serf. When Golovin has a heart-attack, he tasks a notary with drawing up a freedom certificate for Polina (that will make her a free person and enable her to get a passport) and notarizing his will, which leaves Polina everything, but...stuff happens...

When Golovin dies, his estate is purchased by an enemy, Count Andrey Kretchetskiy, and all of the serfs, Polina included, go along with it. The grieving girl now has to learn to cope with; going from being an upper-class debutante to basically being a slave, losing almost all of her possessions, becoming a servant in the home that she was raised in, losing her fiancé, fending off unwanted advances from her new master, and more.

The cruel Kretchetskiy has a dashing younger brother but a nobleman can't fall in love with a serf. Or can he? Will Polina ever regain her freedom? Will she and her true love overcome all of the obstacles keeping them apart? Why does Kretchetskiy have such a grudge against Polina's late father? Whatever happened to Polina's absent mother? Will the person who complicated Polina's life do the right thing? You'll find out in just 18 episodes. There are sub-plots involving the notary, Boris (am I crazy or does he look a bit like a young Hume Cronyn?), and two of Polina's childhood friends. All of the threads come together in the last 3 episodes in interesting and sometimes surprising ways. I was riveted to the screen for the duration and not just because I had to read the sub-titles.

The performances of the actors are uniformly good. Tatyana Babenkova's expressive eyes show the depth of Polina's sorrow. Artem Krylov is just right as Dmitriy, her male counterpart in youthful beauty and virtue. Vladislav Abashin is perfectly slimy as the Count you love to hate. Ivan Shibanov makes Father Michail the priest you'd want in your local parish.

The show is visually stunning. The director and cinematographer really make the most of the scenic, outdoor locations. The lush greens of the fields and forest, the fog on the lake, etc. There was one low-angle shot, with the camera tracking through the estate's grounds at dusk, where the branches almost seemed to be popping out of my TV. There are many beautifully lit indoor scenes too, especially those in the church.

The only criticism I could possibly make of the look of the series is that the serfs always appear extremely neat and clean. When Polina is left with only one dress to wear (through several episodes), it never looks wrinkled or soiled, even after she works in the kitchen, dances in a field, sits on the grass, etc. It only finally gets dirty when she's forced to spend a day laboring in a charcoal pit, as it would be ridiculous otherwise.

One thing I find interesting is that there are undercurrents of morality and religious faith in this series that I don't think would be there if the same story were produced in the U.S. or UK. Most of the characters who do bad things feel guilt or shame about their actions. This is kind of refreshing at a time when shows about terrible people, delighting in doing terrible things ("Billions," "Scandal," etc.), are popular. One character refuses to do something that would solve all his problems because it would be at another person's expense. A couple of others eventually seek redemption for harm they've caused. Christianity is shown in a positive light. The village priest is a nice, normal, helpful guy with an interest in scientific things, not the regressive weirdo or hypocrite he would probably be in a British show.

If "LoaM" had been made by the BBC, 25% of the Russians would be played by POC, as totally absurd as that would be in the 1830s (or now, for that matter). Since Russia doesn't do PC nonsense, here we see Russian people who look like 19th century Russian people. The characters also speak and act the way they should, bucking the really annoying recent trend of period shows filled with characters who seem to have stepped right out of the present day, complete with 21st century attitudes, morals, etc. Female characters here have a quiet strength, they aren't ridiculously butch and constantly besting the men at everything. Male characters aren't all brutish, old-world stereotypes. Yes, some are awful but others are kind, caring, and protective. There's no gay romance with the obligatory "some day things will be different" comments either.

It's also interesting to see the time period and the serf experience depicted. Most TV shows or films we see in the U.S. that deal with Russia (aside from the classics) take place during the Cold War era. Before watching this, I had thought that serfs were indentured servants but I learned that they were no different than slaves.

There's really not much to criticize in this series. Towards the latter half, there are a few too many musical montages of times gone by (maybe I'd appreciate them more if I understood the Russian songs). Tatyana seems to go from learning to write a couple of letters of the alphabet to being able to compose a whole letter awfully quickly. There's a flashback, showing Andrey and Dmitriy as kids, where they seem to be way too close in age as Andrey must be at least 10 years older than his brother. The English subtitles in the version that I watched had a lot of typos/misspellings and when characters would occasionally speak in French or German, you'd hear a translated voice-over in Russian, talking over them, which was a bit weird. The English title of the show should be changed as "Life of a Mistress" makes it sound like a trashy bodice-ripper when it is, at heart, a very moral show.

Give it a try. The Brits aren't the only ones who can make good period pieces.

Celebrity Watch Party (2020)

Why?

[1/10 · 17 May 2020]

Who thought this would be a good idea?!

"Hey, let's film a bunch of (mostly C-list) celebrities (reality show "stars," rappers, marginal actors, a TV chef, a football player, a sportscaster, an ex-model, etc.) sitting at home, watching and reacting to TV shows and films with a spouse or relative. Viewers will love it because they'll see that celebrities are real people, just like them!"

No, just . . . no.

In episode 2 they watch; a prime-time drama, a "Good Morning America" story on murder hornets, a baking show, an E.T. story on Elon Musk's new baby, a Gordon Ramsay show, "The Joy of Painting," a docu-series about guys who get bitten by spiders and snakes, and the film "Dirty Dancing."

Are any of these things enhanced by watching a celeb react with, "Oh my God!" or "Look at that!" or "Oh no!"?

Nope.

Of course, since you're watching people who are used to being on camera and crave attention, there's some over-acting going on here. Having witnessed the way that Raven Symone reacts to a baking show, it would be in her best interest to never win a lottery because her head would probably explode.

I'd never seen Jojo on anything before and I don't need to see her on anything ever again. The football player's wife seems stoned in one set-up, as she stares straight ahead, glassy-eyed, and acts ditzy. Ozzy Osbourne struggles, valiantly, to stay upright and awake. Tyra Banks and her mom watch TV in bed together. Why? My mom and I lived together as adults a couple of times. We never got into bed together to watch TV. Weird.

In between viewing sessions, we're treated to domestic scenes like Justin Long and his brother discussing whether they should fix or throw away an old pillow and Sharon Osbourne yelling at Kelly because one of the dogs took a dump in the house. Fascinating! Long gets in a plug for Hallmark movies on his sock.

Occasionally, they throw in a shot of the outside of the cast's palatial homes, so us regular folks can feel REALLY good while watching from our tiny, cramped apartments. On Mother's Day, we see Jojo giving her mom a fancy, expensive-looking cake (don't I feel like a jerk, for just baking my mother cookies?) and Kelly giving Sharon a huge, super-expensive-looking gift basket of "English treats." Yep, they're "just like us!" (Not).

If Fox really wanted to give this a chance, they should've hired comedians (especially people with improv experience) to do the commenting. "Talk Soup"/"The Soup" was funny because it was scripted. Also, using "party" in the title implies that the proceedings will be festive. People sitting on the couch or lying in bed is not party-like.

Are the celebs on this show exempt from the social-distancing rules that the rest of us are currently being forced to comply with? The two guys sitting on the couch with Raven are described as her friends. Can I invite my friends over to watch TV? If Gruesome Newsome sees this, he'll probably send storm-troopers to her house to arrest her!

And, of course, someone (or a whole crew) had to go to the homes of all these people to set up for the shoots as I doubt they all had $4,000 cameras (more than one since they sometimes cut to close-ups), tripods, key lights, fill lights, and the lavalier mics they're all wearing, just lying around! "Do a show from my house? Oh, sure, I've got a complete studio in the closet!" LOL! And who's moving the camera when it occasionally pans? One of the kids? Grandma? Yeah, right.

If you want to see commentary on old films that's actually funny, there are hundreds of old episodes of "Mystery Science Theater 3000," "RiffTrax," and Elvira's "Movie Macabre" floating around. Now THOSE would make for a fun watch party!

The Plot Against America (2020)

The Plot to Make This American Fall Asleep.

[5/10 · 31 March 2020]

I've now watched the first 3 episodes of this show. The period detail is great, the cinematography is good, the acting is fine but... It just doesn't do anything for me.

The characters are blah, the look of everything is drab, and the alternate universe isn't as interesting as it might have been. It's also kinda slow and occasionally dull.

I just don't find the characters compelling at all. Mom is always worried. Dad is always angry. Alvin is the typical screw-up brother character. One minute he's on a ship, headed off to Europe for a mission, and then it's suddenly "Alvy Got His Gun" and he's horribly crippled, although we didn't see the (possibly exciting) mission that caused his injuries. Lemme guess, he's gonna end up bitter and disillusioned, right? Evelyn falling instantly for the old rabbi, after breaking up with her younger, better-looking boyfriend isn't that believable. I mean, I know it was harder to be an "older" single woman back then, but really. And what's up with Rabbi Bengelsdorf's weird accent? He made me think of Foghorn Leghorn.

I guess the director and DP are going for a certain look here but almost every scene, whether day or night, interior or exterior, is sooo dark! Relatives who were alive in the 1940s have assured me that they did actually have light bulbs back then! The sun would shine, on occasion, too. What a waste to have Props and Wardrobe work so hard on authenticity only to shroud everything in darkness.

I haven't read the book on which the show was based so I can't comment on how faithful of an adaptation it is.

I'll probably keep watching, just to see what happens, but it's not a show I'll look forward to every week.

A Place for Lovers (1968)

Che delusione...

[4/10 · 4 March 2020]

A romantic drama, set in beautiful Northern Italy, directed by Vittorio De Sica, starring Marcello Mastroianni and Faye Dunaway... Seems like a recipe for success, right?

Alas, no. It just doesn't work at all.

You can't feel much for the two main characters because you don't really get to know them. Valerio (Mastroianni) is an engineer who lives with a girlfriend in Milan. Julia (Dunaway) is a divorced, American designer. They can afford to stay at gigantic villas and luxury alpine retreats. That's all the viewer gets. Valerio seems nice, if you ignore the fact that he's cheating on his girlfriend with Julia. Julia comes across as cold. She does a couple of things that seem kind (saving a mongrel from a dog-catcher, giving a maid a bunch of her fancy, expensive clothes) but then she also steals a guy's suitcase. Oh yeah, she comes close to pushing Valerio off a cliff at one point too. Oopsie!

Julia has one of those mysterious movie diseases, where the person is just a few weeks away from dropping dead but looks perfectly fine and exhibits no signs of illness or fatigue whatever. It's almost an hour in before Julia reveals her secret (but of course, if you watch the film now, it's given away in every description).

They fall madly in love in a week but what is their attraction based on, other than the physical? When they first get together Julia says, "Let's not say too much," but we could've learned more about them through their conversations, if they ever had any real conversations.

When Valerio answers the phone call from Maggie but then doesn't tell Julia about it, does he do it because he's selfish and wants to keep Julia with him or because he's trying to do what he thinks Julia wants? You just don't know him well enough to judge.

A couple of scenes that remind you that you're watching a 1960s Italian film occur on Julia and Valerio's first night together, when they attend a dinner party that seems like something right out of a Fellini movie. The well-off, gaudily attired and styled guests watch a slide show of ancient, erotic statuary and architecture, accompanied by a lecture. Afterwards, everyone draws cards for an adult version of "Seven Minutes in Heaven." Julia contemplates taking part in the game. Valerio (as yet unaware that she is engaging in her last hurrah) is turned off by the spectacle and angry that she would consider it.

The scene in front of the light of the projector, where Julia starts moaning about how she doesn't want Valerio's sympathy and he screams about how he loves her and then they sink to the table, kissing, was meant to elicit an emotional response and it did... It made me want to reach through the TV and slap them both! Get a grip, you frickin' drama queens!

Nitpicky thing that bugged me: There's a couple of slightly fuzzy close-ups of Julia towards the end of the film (when she's on the phone).

It's disappointing when you watch a film that turns out to not be very good. It's even more annoying when the movie has many of the elements that make up a good film; a potentially interesting premise, attractive leads, who are also good actors, a director who is capable of greatness, scenic locations, and it still turns out to be a dud. It's odd that it took 5 screenwriters to write this script. What's odder still is that it was adapted from a play so they weren't even writing a screenplay from scratch!

I guess that old saying about "too many cooks" is true.

New Amsterdam: Sabbath (2020) Season 2, Episode 14

The diagnosis is sickening, in more ways than one.

[1/10 · 26 February 2020]

This show was always silly but it's getting progressively (pun intended) worse.

In this episode, a 13 year-old Hispanic boy is admitted to the hospital with a stomach tumor. Iggy, the therapist (not an oncologist, not a surgeon) on duty, makes a diagnosis as to what caused the tumor... Was it a hereditary predisposition to cancer? Was it radiation from the kid's cell phone? Was it his diet? Was it due to power lines or pollutants in the area where he lives? No, the amazingly brilliant therapist has decided that the tumor was caused by.... Racism! Seriously, I kid you not...

Iggy makes this amazing deduction based on the kid being annoyed that he wasn't allowed to check out books that had been reserved for gifted students from the school library and on answers that the kid gives to a questionnaire with statements, like; "What you think doesn't count very much," and, "The rich get richer while the poor get poorer."

He actually TELLS the child that his illness was caused by racism! He encourages the boy to embrace victimhood. The guy should lose his license immediately and NEVER be allowed to work with children again!

As if that wasn't enough libtardedness for one episode, Max is also bummed that budget cuts are forcing him to cut pre-natal care for illegal alien (as in people who committed a CRIME by coming here illegally and continue to commit a crime as long as they stay) mothers. Oh, no, American tax-payers will no longer be able to pay for criminals to get free health care!

Of course the all-wise, all-knowing Max saves the day by proposing that N.A., instead, generate revenue by out-sourcing their doctors to other hospitals (I'm not a hospital administrator but does this actually sound feasible?!). Hooray, illegals will continue to pop out healthy anchor babies while Americans die on the streets!

It's as if the writers are having a contest to see how many "woke" issues they can cram into a single episode. Why focus on writing good, compelling, ORIGINAL stories when you can just push an agenda? It's so lazy and hacky to be sitting there in the writer's room and decide to go with the tired, old cliché, guaranteed to manipulate the emotions of the liberals in the audience, instead of making the effort to come up with something new and interesting.

The kid with the tumor isn't the only one sick to their stomach after making it through this episode.

Angel, Angel, Down We Go (1969)

Cult of the Hams

[4/10 · 20 February 2020]

The years 1967 to 1969 were a veritable gold mine of kooky, product-of-their-time films like; "I Love You, Alice B. Toklas," "The President's Analyst," "Candy," The Magic Christian," and "Valley of the Dolls." Some were very funny, some had things to say about society, others were really campy and outrageous. This film is nowhere near as memorable as those films are. It's not funny or campy or clever enough to even warrant a second viewing, let alone cult status.

The main character, Tara Nicole (Holly Near), isn't all that sympathetic. We're supposed to feel sorry for her because she's the pudgy and plain daughter of beautiful mother, Astrid (Jennifer Jones), and wealthy war-hero father, Willie (Charles Aidman), but she just seems like such a dope. Her parents might've been distant but they're billionaires. She gets to wear half a jewelry store to her debutante party and indulges in hobbies like flying. She's pathetic enough to stick around after her love-interest seduces her mom, hoping for another chance with him. Then there's the scene where Tara suddenly remembers that she may have been molested as a child and she smiles a creepy, ecstatic smile. Eeew.

What was Jennifer Jones thinking?! I'm guessing that she needed the money. There's no question as to whether she's still the same fine actress who starred in "Song of Bernadette" and "Portrait of Jennie," since she actually manages to keep a straight face while reciting the following dialogue...

"In my heart of hearts, I'm a sexual clam."

(To her masseuse) "Stop it, Hopkins, you're hurting me. You bloody sadistic dyke!"

(When asked if she likes Bogie) "Yes but he is the sort that makes you take all sorts of tranquilizers before breakfast, isn't he? And wash them down with bloodys."

(To her simpering daughter) "You ARE a fat girl, idiot! I don't know why anyone would even touch you!"

"...I'm not of your generation. I only get drunk. Occasionally. I only take pills. Sometimes pills work with liquor. Teamwork."

"I made 30 stag films and I never faked an orgasm."

"I was champion leg-wrestler at Santa Monica High."

The one time I laughed out loud while watching this was when Tara asks Astrid (who is 50), "Could you still have children, Mother?," and Astrid replies, haughtily, "You really are retarded! I could bring forth nations!" What in the hell was the person who came up with that smoking?!

Jones was the widow of "Gone With the Wind" producer David O. Selznick and there are several references to "GWTW" here. Tara got her name because Astrid was a fan. Bogie does a passable impression of Gerald O'Hara trying to instill the love of the land in Scarlett, etc. Would Selznick really have wanted his masterpiece alluded to in a wacko '60s film? If these references were added after Jones was booked to play Astrid, it seems so tacky and disrespectful.

When we first see the improbably-named Bogart Peter Stuyvesant (Jordan Christopher) he's the ersatz Jim Morrison hired to perform at Tara's coming out (in the original sense of the term) party.

Bogie's entourage is a band he's working with; Santoro (Roddy McDowall), Joe (Lou Rawls), and pregnant, blonde Anna Livia (Davey Davison). McDowall and Rawls are pretty much wasted here and not just because they look stoned much of the time. McDowall gave some really good and/or funny and/or touching performances in other kooky '60s films like; "Lord Love a Duck," "The Cool Ones," and "It!" but he doesn't have much to do here. His most dramatic scene includes the startling admission that he can get turned on just by staring at a carrot! Rawls never sings, except for a bit of backup miming during "Revelation." He actually looks sort of uncomfortable in a couple of shots, in a way that implies, "Oh, man, what was I thinking?!" All of the men hang on and pet all the women but no one gets to have sex except for alpha-male Bogie who beds them all.

Bogie's motivation in attaching himself to and destroying the Steele family is unclear. Normally, the hippie or anti-establishment characters in these types of films are all peace & love and anti-capitalism. When outsiders worm their way into a household, it's usually to profit in some way. Bogie has outbursts of casual cruelty. When he first meets Tara, he says that he isn't interested in her money because he just sold a record company for two million dollars.

He tells her, "American imperialism is your dream," slaps her savagely, and continues, "You have a right to that dream! You're not a bloody drop-out, enjoy yourself! And screw anyone who hates killing!" When Astrid asks him why he isn't in the army he replies, "Why should I go out and kill mere strangers...(chuckle)...when there are much more luscious pickings right here in my own backyard? In my own bedroom."

Mean, capitalist, threatening hippies. Is this supposed to be funny? Ironic? Is it supposed to be a parody of hippie films? I'm just not sure what the screen-writer was going for.

You wouldn't generally expect much from the soundtrack of a movie like this but all of the songs were written and composed by hit-makers Barry Mann & Cynthia Weil and Jordan Christopher was really a singer. The (original) title song is pretty good. "The Fat Song" is quite funny. Tara's "groovy" interpretive dance to it (clad in a gown with a diaphanous skirt) is the high camp moment of the entire film. "Revelation" could've been a song that got axed from the "Jesus Christ Superstar" soundtrack.

There are some real '60s touches here, namely, the collages used in the opening and closing of the film and interspersed, here and there, with music and sound effects. Then there's the drug-induced freakouts, where Tara's on the ceiling.

A couple of scenes would've been fairly startling to movie audiences at the time. Early on, there's a flashback of Willie showering with a younger man and then that same man sauntering around while the furniture barely hides his frontal nudity. Near the end, there's a rather unpleasant scene where a frenzied, sweat-drenched Bogie beats Willie with a chain.

Astrid's fate here is pretty predictable. Willie's not so much. It all just seems pointless. Tara's narration is pretentious and silly. Why does she sometimes seem to be affecting a British accent?

This film either needed to go campier or darker. It just doesn't work as is.

"Angel, Angel, Down We Go" was a much better title.

Professor T. (2015–2018)

T rates a C.

[6/10 · 13 February 2020]

This isn't a bad show, it's just very... Familiar.

There have been sooo many shows over the last 10 years about police detectives aided by outside advisors; detectives working with professors, detectives & psychics, detectives & priests, detectives & doctors, detectives & authors, detectives & socialites, detectives & magicians... It kinda makes you wonder how cops ever managed to solve crimes on their own, before all these concerned citizens got involved!

Another tired concept is the extremely high-IQ guy who is also obsessive-compulsive and/or autistic and/or quirky and/or abrasive and/or rude. I've been to gatherings for a high IQ society. Most super-intelligent people don't walk around behaving like arrogant jerks. I have a relative with an autistic spectrum disorder. She knows that she must act professionally at work and can't be rude to her co-workers.

Having watched all of season 1, there are several things that I find really implausible about this show...

I think it unlikely that Annelies and Daan would be working as partners. Their ages aren't mentioned but Ella Leyers, who plays Annelies, was 27 when the show premiered. Maybe things are different in Belgium but in the U.S. a person goes to the police academy for 6 months then typically works as a uniformed police officer for at least 3 years before becoming a detective. Annelies and Daan went to college so they wouldn't have entered the academy until they were at least 22. In reality, they would each probably be paired up with an older, more senior detective.

As prickly and germ-phobic as the professor is, I find it hard to believe that he was in a relationship with Christina for over 3 years. Him sleeping with a prostitute twice a month seems even less likely. A guy who uses a tissue to touch EVERYTHING, wears rubber gloves in class, sprays disinfectant every time someone steps into his office, and keeps the furniture in his house covered in sheets is going to have sex with a hooker?! A hooker who may have been with a dozen guys since the last time she saw him?! Doubtful.

The police station the detectives work at is the least busy police station I've ever seen. It's so quiet and peaceful that you could curl up on a desk and take a nap.

In the first 2 episodes the killers confess, even though there's no DNA evidence linking them to the crimes. In episode 3 another guy confesses to something that he didn't have to. What is this, Perry Mason?! "Alright, alright... I did it, I did it!"

Annelies is an annoying character who often comes across as immature or just a jerk. She looks like she's going to fall asleep during interrogations, yells at Daan at work, and tells a commissioner who she doesn't like that, "coffee (in the break-room) is for colleagues." When she's trying to jar her alzheimers-afflicted father's memory, she reminds him of the day her mother was buried. Yeesh! Couldn't she just remind him of a birthday or holiday or something happy? Daan seems wimpy for putting up with her bossiness.

Ms. Sneyers, the secretary of T's department, brings some humor but she does something odd that bugs me. Generally, women who commute to work wear sneakers while travelling and then change into their nice shoes or heels when they get to their workplace. Ms. Sneyers always arrives at the school in her heels and then changes into sneakers. Why does she need to wear sneakers to sit at her desk all day?

The professor's mother resembles a drag queen.

His musical fantasies come out of nowhere and just seem to be added as quirkiness for the sake of quirkiness. He does have some good taste in music though.

The cases they solve are alright. Nothing special. The acting is fine all-around.

It's not a great show, it's not a terrible show... It's okay.

News from Home (1976)

More like, SNOOZE from home!

[3/10 · 11 September 2019]

I'm not surprised to learn that the writer/director of "News From Home," Chantal Akerman, dropped out of film school after only 3 months. If she had stayed a while longer, she would have learned many things that could have made this into a better, more interesting film such as; camera movements (tilting, panning, zooming), the need to vary your shot composition (medium shots, close-ups, cut-aways), pulling focus, pacing, editing, etc... I haven't seen this many lengthy, wide, stationary shots in a film since the last time I watched an old silent movie from the 1920s!

"NFH" begins with a wide shot of a side street in lower Manhattan. A car goes by. Three people appear in the distance and start walking toward the camera. You think that maybe they're significant in some way and something's going to happen but then they turn and walk off in another direction and the shot changes to another wide shot of a pedestrian-less street that lasts nearly a minute. This is indicative of the whole film. It's mostly made up of wide shots, that are held far too long, where nothing very interesting happens. Finally, around 11 minutes in, the camera-woman actually does a pan and it's underwhelming.

After a while the "action" moves underground, with the stationary camera placed on a subway car. This is even more boring than the street scenes as the camera is trained on 1 1/3 of the car's doors for a whole 3 1/2 minutes, while the train travels from above 59th St. to below Canal St.

Then there's more street scenes with people walking by or standing around, more subway car, more streets, some long stretches without narration... At one point the (stationary) camera is parked on a subway platform in the Times Square station for OVER NINE (9!) MINUTES! Yes, it's just plonked there, on a tripod, unmoving, for what seems like an eternity while trains pass by and people get on/off. Unless you're from someplace so incredibly rural that you've never even seen a train before, this is not interesting! Then it's more streets, more subway... 50+ minutes in, camera-lady remembers that it's actually okay to move the camera occasionally.

Then the film-makers get in a car, point the (still stationary) camera out the window, and drive up what looks like 10th Ave. for ELEVEN (11!) MINUTES! There are no cuts when the car stops for traffic lights, it's all real time. Now, I could understand Akerman wanting to avoid trendy, touristy, obvious places like Times Square or 5th Avenue, but spending ages cruising a dull, industrial-looking street is incredibly boring!

Then there's more subway, more streets, and ultimately, the Staten Island Ferry. The (STILL stationary) camera is plopped down on the stern of the ferry for almost ELEVEN (11!) MINUTES as it travels from Manhattan to S.I., no movement, no cut-aways, no editing.

I guess the one bright spot for anyone who watches this film in a theater is that there are 3 scenes where you can run to the bathroom, go to the concession stand, check your phone, and then return to your seat and the shot on-screen won't have changed!

I understand that this was the '70s and MTV hadn't happened yet but this is all too long, slow, and dull. If "NFH" had been cut down to a quarter or a fifth of it's length it might have made a good short. Once you've seen a 5-10 second shot of an uninteresting street or subway platform, that's enough, you don't need to see another 20-50 seconds!

And what about the "news from home" that narrates this mess? From the sound of the dreary letters, Chantal needs to return to her family in Belgium, pronto! Like, before they all drop dead... Mom is always tired, has problems with her teeth, and sounds depressed. Dad is tired, sleeps poorly, is sick, and has an abcess. Sister, Sylviane, has the flu. Someone named Lydie is sick and her husband wants to leave her for another woman, Nadia has a "female problem," and Freddy has a blood clot. Mom and Dad also have financial troubles. No wonder their daughter wants to stay in grimy, '70s NYC, Belgium sounds like a drag!

If you're a native New Yorker, there's some mild interest in seeing formerly grubby areas that have now become trendy and old subway cars, covered in graffiti, with those metal handles that were so fun to hang on when you were a kid. Someone please tell me where those bright red (?!) busses that were shown parked along 10th Avenue were used. It's also slightly amusing to occasionally see someone walk by who resembles J.J. Walker (in his Dyn-O-Mite! days), Sly Stallone, or a lost member of the Village People but these things are not enough to warrant sitting through this entire film.

Call me crazy (or politically incorrect, if you're a whiner) but I can't help feeling that this film wouldn't be as highly regarded as it is if it had been directed by say, a straight, White, American man instead of a European lesbian. Unless you're extremely interested in NYC in the '70s or you lived on 10th Avenue back then, you'll probably want to skip it.

Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (2019)

A Tarantino film I didn't hate!

[8/10 · 7 August 2019]

I'm not a fan of Quentin Tarantino (sorry but I don't think that copying the styles and/or set decoration of '60s and '70s films or cramming a script full of nods to them makes someone a "genius") but I gotta hand it to him on this one... A 2 hour and 41 minute film where the first 2 hours and 30-something minutes are basically the set-up for a joke! Must be nice to have the clout to be able to pull that off!

I imagine that Tarantino came up with the kooky "what if" ending first and then went back to the beginning and wrote the script, figuring out how to get the two main characters there. I'm not sure that it needed to take them six months.

Fortunately, the background story of Rick Dalton (DiCaprio) and Cliff Booth (Pitt) is fairly interesting. Both actors inhabit the roles flawlessly. DiCaprio is particularly good. He emotes with the best of 'em. There's also nice cinematography, great period detail, and lots of classic music here. Yes, it's self-indulgent with the gazillion things that are alluding to other things and the way it's sometimes practically screaming, "LOOK, it's 1969!!" Almost every shot with a visible television screen is playing the open of a popular '60s show. "Look, it's 'Mannix' so it's 1969!" A flashback with Booth and his wife seems to be inspired by Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood but it would be more obvious (and make more sense) if the actress playing his wife resembled Wood.

Teens and millennials probably won't get a lot of the references/homages or know who some of the real people depicted in the film are. Certain references might not resonate with seniors either. My niece and nephew would have no idea who Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski were. My mother remembered the Tate-LaBianca murders but didn't recognize Bruce Lee or realize that he was dressed as Kato from "The Green Hornet." I, myself, did not pick up on the references to other Tarantino movies because I've only seen a few others and didn't care for them. A viewer would have to know of the Manson "Family" murders in order to really appreciate (or maybe just "get") the ending of the film.

The violence near the end is over-the-top but I guess that's a Tarantino thing.

What-ifs are, well, iffy. Speculating about what people, who are no longer around to defend themselves, might do is touchy. Thankfully, Tarantino doesn't disrespect Sharon Tate and her friends or make them look bad.

A note to all of the people describing this movie as depicting "the golden age of Hollywood..." 1969 was NOT, I repeat, not the golden age of Hollywood! Please watch some TCM, feel ashamed, and do some sort of penance immediately.

I can't believe that I actually paid to see a Quentin Tarantino film in a theater and then didn't want my money or the 161 minutes of my life back!

Contempt (1963)

Contempt for the studio and the audience.

[4/10 · 29 June 2019]

I love foreign films. Some of my favorite films are French. I have no problem with sub-titles. I like lots of '60s films and art-house films. I'm a Brigitte Bardot fan from way back. I've studied film/video production and I work in the entertainment industry. With all that said...

I do not like this film nor do I understand why anyone would consider it a "masterpiece" or rate it a 10!

The characters are mostly unlikable and uninteresting.

Paul Javal (Michel Piccoli) is an indecisive dolt. He's also a hypocrite, a card-carrying Communist who doesn't mind sacrificing his principles if it gets him $10,000 to pay off his lovely apartment. Oh, and he slaps his wife too. Not nice.

Camille Javal (Brigitte Bardot) is flighty and annoying. Her endless pouting gets old really quick. I love Bri-Bri but, as a straight woman, umpteen shots of her butt don't do anything for me.

The producer, Jeremy Prokosch (Jack Palance), is a shallow stereotype.

It's interesting to see Fritz Lang, playing himself, but he doesn't really add much to the proceedings. He's just there as a counterpoint to Prokosch. Any old, European director would've sufficed.

The 34-minute scene (comprising one third of the entire film!) of Bardot and Piccoli arguing in their apartment is interminable. I don't mind talky films...as long as the talk is interesting or entertaining! This isn't. "I love you. No, I detest you. Just kidding, I still love you. No, I really do hate you," every 3 minutes is just tiresome. The viewer doesn't know enough about either character to be able to form an opinion on who's being reasonable or unreasonable so they both come across as jerks.

It was hard for me to concentrate on the dialogue during the time when Piccoli was walking around half-dressed or in the bathtub because I kept fantasizing about him being dunked into a vat of Nair! Ick.

For all of the writing about how this is "a film about film-making", there's precious little actual film-making or real talk about film-making going on. It's mostly just vacillation on will the doofus write the script or won't he?

There is some nice cinematography and scenery (how can you go wrong with Capri?) here. That one piece of overly-dramatic music repeated, again and again, over the mundane dialogue quickly becomes irritating.

When two main characters in a film die and you couldn't care less, well, that says something about the film.

If "Contempt" had been directed by some unknown, instead of Godard, would it be as highly regarded as it is?

No way!

I think it's all a joke on Godard's part. He got offered lots of money from a big studio so he decided to thumb his nose at them by making a commercially unappealing film.

It's an expression of HIS contempt.

Killing Eve: You're Mine (2019) Season 2, Episode 8

Killing even a shred of credibility...

[3/10 · 2 June 2019]

Well, season 1 was fairly ridiculous with characters (mostly Eve) doing dumb things no sane human being would ever do, in order to move the plot along in certain directions (aka bad and lazy writing)...

Season 2 went completely off the rails and into the realm of fantasy.

Eve is still the same bumbling, hysterical dope she's always been. In real life this woman would never be allowed out into the field. She'd be sitting behind a desk all day and handing her reports to competent, rational agents who would do the field work.

Villanelle has become even more of a petulant child. A 26 year-old woman screaming, "BoooOORRIINNG!," in a museum isn't funny or clever or edgy or whatever stupid thing the writer imagined that it was.

Why is Villanelle, an adult stabbing victim/Jane Doe, sharing a hospital room with a 13 or 14 year-old accident/burn victim? Wouldn't the kid be in a children's ward? Oh, wait, I know why...

(Conference room at BBC America)

Writer 1: Gee, wouldn't it be cool if Villanelle were forced to escape from the hospital wearing a really kooky outfit?

Writer 2: Yeah but how could we pull that off? I mean, where would she get something like that in a hospital? We already have her breaking into a room to get drugs, wouldn't it just make more sense to have her break into a closet or doctor's lounge, steal some scrubs, and walk out of the hospital dressed as a doctor?

Writer 1: Well, yeah, but that's not funny! Ooh, I know, we could put her in a room with a kid who wears really garish, kiddie pajamas! She'll steal a pair and have to walk around in these ridiculous, gaudy, childish pajamas until she can steal other clothes. It'll be hi-lar-i-ous!

Writer 2: But she'd never be placed in a room with a child in real life.

Writer 1: Dude, have you read some of the reviews on IMDb? The die-hard fans of this show will swallow anything, no matter how improbable or outrageous! Let's make it even crazier, let's have her KILL the kid too!

Writer 2: WHAT?! No, that's too much, even for Villanelle! We can't have her murdering a child!

Writer 1: But we'll make the kid have disfiguring injuries that he's really depressed about. See, then people who are uncomfortable with a child getting killed can interpret it as her doing him a kindness by sparing him having to go through life like that.

Writer 2: I don't know...

Writer 1: Come on, when will we get another chance to write the most ridiculous crap imaginable and actually see it air?

Writer 2: Yeah, what the hell, let's go nuts!

Villanelle must have been caught on several security cameras around the hospital, her fingerprints and DNA are all over the hospital, and many people in the hospital have seen and interacted with her. A Jane Doe with a stab wound who is dropped off anonymously would be reported to the police. A photo would've been taken of her while she was unconscious and compared to reports of missing persons. Her fingerprints and DNA would be on record from several murder cases throughout Europe. Yet, despite all this, she remains a mystery to law enforcement?!

If she had a number to call a handler to come get her, why did she wait until she was at Julian's house? Why didn't she just call from the hospital?

Villanelle STILL never wears gloves when she's out murdering because (as we learned in season 1) cops in Europe apparently don't bother with silly things like finger prints and DNA tests.

She murders a guy in the window of an Amsterdam brothel, in full view of a gaping crowd, and no one realizes that it's a real murder because...? Because there are fake, violent, bloody murders enacted in brothel windows all the time? Doubt it.

The "romance" between Eve and Villanelle is still contrived and unbelievable. Fortunately, the writers seem to have dropped the "every other person is bisexual" (when only 2 percent of the population actually are) narrative. Maybe someone at BBCA got the memo that John/Jane Q. Public are sick and tired of social engineering disguised as entertainment.

Konstantin is still acting like the tolerant but slightly exasperated father of a bratty child.

Carolyn continues to pop up, looking vaguely menacing, and issuing curt instructions and orders in her monotone voice.

Everyone at MI6 seems to have conveniently forgotten that Villanelle MURDERED their co-worker/pal Bill in a horrific way! Yeah, she cold-bloodedly stabbed our dear friend to death and left his baby girl fatherless but...that was last year! Now we're totally cool with working with her and letting her escape justice. WTF?!

They need Villanelle to interrogate "The Ghost", and it's a really big deal, but she's not shown doing it because...? Oh, because the writers aren't talented enough to write the scene.

The whole arc with (supposedly) big, bad Aaron Peel was boring. The guy was such a low-key psycho that you wanted to check his pulse. He's a cunning criminal and big tech mastermind but he just walks off and leaves his computer unattended and not even password-protected so that Billie/Villanelle can easily access it and see his murder videos? Not bloody likely!

And the finale...

Eve just leaves Hugo lying in a pool of blood?! She doesn't even give him another thought until she starts walking back towards the hotel, after the whole scene at Peel's, and she stops twice to chat more with Villanelle before resuming her casual WALK. Why didn't she RUN?! If a co-worker/friend/cute guy you just slept with had been shot wouldn't you RUN to his aid the second you left Peel's?! Wouldn't you pick up or borrow a phone and call an ambulance?! Yes, YOU would. And so would I. But not ridiculously-written Eve! No, she just moseys on back in her own sweet time. Oh well, guess I might as well go check and see if ol' Hugo's still alive, ho hum...

Raymond showing up with an ax might be great for dramatic effect but it's still stupid. Nobody notices a big, menacing foreigner walking into a hotel with a huge freaking ax? Why is there never anyone around at any of these hotels except for MI6 agents, bad guys, and Villanelle? No concierges at the front desks? No maids in the hallways? No room service people? No other guests ANYWHERE? I've been to hotels in Italy, they actually have employees. Even if you don't see the staff and guests at a hotel, you can usually hear them. All of the hotels on this show are so quiet you can hear a pin drop yet absolutely no one hears loud, violent struggles with people grunting and screaming, gunshots, or an ax attack?!

Villanelle could have easily shot Raymond from a distance but doesn't because...? Because then they wouldn't have been able to have that dramatic fight and Villanelle wouldn't have been able to get Eve to kill Raymond! I don't buy Villanelle nearly allowing herself to be killed in order to prompt Eve to attack him.

Eve doesn't wipe her prints off the ax?! Oh, right, European cops don't bother with the whole fingerprint/DNA thing. Silly me, I forgot.

Eve seriously thinks that her telling Kenny about Carolyn's actions is going to bother him? Like he doesn't know what kind of person his mother is?!

I appreciated the shots of Hadrian's Villa. That was nice, really. Kudos to the cinematographer (although he could've managed the glare of the sun a little better). Too bad those 2 annoying women wouldn't shut up during what could've been a great travelogue.

I'm betting that episode 1 of season 3 starts off with Eve getting up and staggering away because she got the idea of playing dead from Hugo. You see, Villanelle walked away from a debilitating injury at the end of last season so Eve has to do it too, 'cause they're twinnies!

Cringe.

I don't know how the next season could possibly get any worse. Maybe they could just make it a complete parody of the genre? Maybe a musical, where Villanelle breaks into song during each murder? Maybe a cartoon? The possibilities are endless!

The Village: I Have Got You (2019) Season 1, Episode 10

Written by bots.

[2/10 · 22 May 2019]

This show started out ridiculous and only continues to get worse with each episode. It's just sooo unrealistic (not to mention sappy and predictable)!

Heavily pregnant teen Katie meets a cute artist who lets her crash at his place for weeks. The guy's only 19 but somehow lives in an apartment that the average New Yorker twice his age couldn't afford. He falls in love with Katie and declares his love for her at the hospital, right after she gives birth to her child. And that seems totally realistic and makes sense because...? Because... Because every 19 year-old kid is just dying to be a father and spend the next 18 years raising another guy's child?

I don't think so!

This is sending out such a TERRIBLE message to teenage girls...

"Get knocked up? No problem. You'll meet a handsome, wealthy prince and live happily ever after and everything will be just wonderful!"

Shame on the writers. Do any of them have daughters or nieces?

And this mirrors a similarly implausible situation with Katie's mother, Sarah. Sarah is out spray-painting graffiti on a building (as a way of sending a message to brat, Katie) and meets the cute, well-off owner of the building who not only doesn't mind her defacing his property but helps her deface it and then asks her out. They're on their first date when Sarah gets the message that Katie is in labor and they rush to the hospital. The knowledge that Sarah has a teenage daughter and that the daughter is having a baby doesn't deter him at all because...? Because... Because every good-looking, well-to-do, 30-something year-old guy is just dying to be a grandpa? And to get seriously involved with a single mom and grandma? Yeah, that happens every day in NY...

NOT!

And Katie naming the baby Cooper? We all knew that was going to happen the second she asked Nick what his friend's name was. Do the writers just type a few key words into some script-generating software and then go out for drinks and come back a couple of hours later? I'm seriously starting to think that I should try my hand at screen-writing but I'm torn as to whether I should actually try and write something good or just write the sappiest, pappiest, most PC thing possible and then laugh all the way to the bank, after the network bidding war!

Once again, Enzo is shown to be the only cool character on the show. Just make an Enzo spin-off show and lose the rest of the cast, already.

G.K. Chesterton: The Apostle of Common Sense: Abandon Hopelessness All Ye Who Enter Here (2008) Season 4, Episode 8

Thought-provoking.

[8/10 · 7 May 2019]

I just happened to be scrolling through the on-screen cable guide and saw that there was a show about G.K. Chesterton, author of the original Father Brown stories, airing on EWTN and decided to record it. I'm so glad I did. It was a refreshing change from the usual TV dramas and sit-coms.

TAOCS relates Chesterton's works (and, in this episode, those of Dickens) to present day happenings. It has some interesting things to say about happiness, hope, and the importance of maintaining traditions.

The guide stated that this episode was about, "The effect Charles Dickens had on him," but it shows that Chesterton had a pretty big effect on Dickens (well, his legacy) too. I never knew, until I watched this show, that the works of Charles Dickens had been in danger of fading away from public memory until Chesterton wrote a critical study of Dickens, in 1906, that caused a renewed interest in his work. Without Chesterton there wouldn't be dozens of versions of "A Christmas Carol" to watch every holiday season.

It's obviously a low-budget production (note the garish set design) but the subject matter is compelling enough to overcome that.

I look forward to watching more episodes.

The Calico Dragon (1935)

Calico cuteness.

[8/10 · 4 May 2019]

In short, it's a cute cartoon. :)

There's nothing earth-shattering here, just some winsome characters and nice artwork.

Three toy pals; a Peter Pan-looking doll, a horse, and a plaid Scottie set off on a quest to find a dragon. They travel through a patchwork landscape comprised of the bedspread of their little-girl owner and things you'd find lying around the bedroom. The animation is imaginative and rather charming. A bra becomes a couple of birds' nests, a jacket is a tree, a girdle is a bridge, spools of thread make up a tree trunk, and a union suit is a house with the flap in back functioning as a drawbridge.

The music and singing is typical of cartoons of the period. The little girl at the beginning has the usual Betty Boop/Olive Oyl voice.

Not extraordinary but sweet.

Charlie's Angels: To Kill an Angel (1976) Season 1, Episode 7

Julie, Kelly, whatever...

[24 April 2019]

I distinctly remember watching this episode as a child and recognizing the plot as being recycled from "The Mod Squad." Thanks, Angels, for teaching me at an early age that there's very little originality on TV.

I like that the surfer girl who helps Skip is wearing a "Starsky and Hutch" t-shirt. Lesson #2: Long before there were crossover episodes between shows on the same network, there was cross-promotion.

If I should ever get shot in the head, I hope I look as fabulous as Jaclyn Smith while I'm lying in my hospital bed!

Killing Eve (2018–2022)

BI Spy

[5/10 · 19 April 2019]

This series is wildly overrated. It's got style in terms of production values, locations, and music but the characters and progressive agenda ruin it.

Characters (particularly Eve) make bad or odd decisions for no discernible reason other than that's what's needed for them to do in order to move the story along in a certain direction. I have a very difficult time liking or caring about characters that aren't very bright so that kills any affinity or sympathy that I might have for Eve. You'd think that she must be a fairly intelligent woman if she works for MI5 but she just does incredibly dumb things and freaks out every time things get dangerous. She is not MI5 material, at least not beyond a desk job.

Let's look at some of the silliness from season 1, shall we?

Episode 1)

Villanelle flipping the ice cream onto the little girl is puerile. Oh, yeah, you're a real bad-ass because you stained a kid's shirt. A contract killer would not draw negative attention to themself in public like this.

Eve cutting herself is just stupid.

Why do so many shows seem to feel the need to portray married life as dull and passionless? "Do you wanna have sex?," Eve asks her husband in a disinterested monotone. Then they end up not having sex, and each curling up on their opposite sides of the bed, and just going to sleep, in their long pajamas. Single Villanelle wakes up in bed with a young, attractive, naked couple because, in BBC World, all young, pretty, fun people swing both ways! Married=boring, single=bisexual party-time! Ugh.

The hair-accesory-as-weapon is not so new or original. Anna Mae Wong took out a guy with hair sticks in "Shanghai Express" back in 1932.

Episode 2)

Villanelle doesn't wear gloves while she's out murdering? Isn't that pretty much Burglar/Killer 101, that you don't leave fingerprints lying around?

It takes Eve an awfully long time to remember that she saw a nurse in the hospital bathroom.

Episode 3)

The description that Eve gives of Villanelle, days or weeks after glimpsing her for a few seconds, is too ridiculously detailed.

It's not enough for Eve to possibly be bi-curious and Villanelle to screw anything that moves but Eve's dumpy, 60-something year-old, male co-worker also has to recount his "experimentation" phase when he lived in Amsterdam. "I just fall in love with whoever I fall in love with," Bill tells her. Eve asks, "How many men?" He replies, "Hundreds." But now he's married to a rich, younger, Asian woman and has a baby. Because... Being bisexual is totally normal and absolutely everybody does it? Yeah, right.

The way Villanelle toys with Eve is so unrealistic. Going to the train station and standing a few yards away from Eve, who could easily recognize her? Doubtful.

Episode 4)

When Villanelle & co. go to kill Frank, they talk about it in the woods but then they don't distribute the guns until they're standing OUTSIDE the van, right across from Frank's house, where anyone could see them. Isn't there a little, old lady in every village who sits by the window all day, spying on her neighbors? Come on, mystery fans, am I right?!

When Frank pulls off, onto the dirt road, why on Earth does he stay in his car for so long? Who would do that? Why does he stay so near the car, watching the would-be assassins, instead of running? The man is supposed to be a career MI5 agent! He had a head-start on them and had a huge advantage in knowing the area. By the time they were done shooting up the empty car, arguing, and shooting at and running over each other, he could've easily been a mile away!

Oh, I see, Frank HAD to stick around, like a total nit-wit, in order to overhear Villanelle's real name and enable the plot to move forward!

Eve tells Elena to get out of the driver's seat and into the back of the car. Wouldn't it have been better for Elena to remain where she was, with her foot on the gas, ready to take off the moment that Frank and Eve jumped into the car, instead of Eve having to get in and fumble around with the ignition?!

Oh, I see, Eve HAD to be sitting in the driver's seat, in order to allow her to make an incredibly STUPID decision!

If I were Elena, I'd want to kill Eve for jeopardizing my life and that of my co-worker but Elena remains her buddy for the rest of the season. Yeah, that's realistic.

Episode 5)

Eve just sits there in the car staring, like an idiot. Her hesitation and decision to get out of the car and talk to Villanelle makes NO SENSE! Who would do this?! It's absurd.

The cat & mouse thing doesn't ring true. Would someone like Villanelle, who escaped a horrible life and incarceration in Russia, really risk a very high-paying job (that she seems to enjoy) and a posh life-style (designer clothes, vanity full of expensive perfumes, fridge full of champagne, great apartment in Paris, travel all over Europe) just to mess around with Eve's head? I don't think so!

Episode 6)

Would Kenny really spy on his own mother for Eve?

Episode 7)

Why would Kenny show his mother's letters to Eve? Is he entered in some kind of Worst Son Ever contest? Why doesn't Eve shoot Villanelle in the restaurant, after Konstantin is shot?

Episode 8)

Eve holds a gun on Villanelle but chickens out on shooting her. Why doesn't she just shoot her in the leg so that she can't get away? Then she puts the gun down?! And she lies down on the bed?! No normal human being would do this. She couldn't shoot Villanelle from a distance but then she suddenly gets the courage to stab her? No words I could type could adequately convey how RIDICULOUS this all is!

I can only imagine how much sillier season 2 will get.

I used to watch a lot of British TV shows and about 10 years ago I started noticing this odd phenomenon in them... A character who had hitherto seemed straight (only romantically involved with or interested in characters of the opposite sex) would suddenly, out of nowhere, turn out to be bisexual. Then, just in the last couple of years, American shows started doing it too... On "Shades of Blue," tough, married-with-kids cop Ray Liotta suddenly starts kissing on another guy, completely out of left-field. On "How to Get Away With Murder," Viola Davis (who'd been married to a man) suddenly starts sucking face with Famke Jenssen. This show, so far, has 5 characters in it who are bi or bi-curious (not counting the couple Villanelle beds). Here's the thing, though: Only around TWO PERCENT of the entire population are actually bisexual! Two percent. 2!

Why are all these TV writers and producers working so hard to try and convince us that something that is clearly NOT the norm is normal? And I'm not even talking in a moral sense but in a biological one. If a biologist were studying an animal population and noticed a certain behavior in only about 2 percent of that population, they would never try to convince their peers or the public that said behavior was perfectly normal and commonplace for that species. So why are we constantly being asked to believe it of humans? To what aim?

It's not shocking anymore, it's just tiresome and ANNOYING.

I haven't read the books on which the series is based but, from what I've gleaned, the lesbian sub-text between the two main characters does not exist there. Book-Eve is just a determined investigator trying to catch a killer. It seems that BBC-America had to change that in order to suit their weird agenda.

Stop with the social engineering and just tell good stories!

The Kennel Murder Case (1933)

"Dogged" pursuit.

[8/10 · 18 April 2019]

This is a very clever and engaging mystery. A wealthy man is murdered, the body is found in a room where the door is locked from the inside, and there are no fewer than 7 suspects; his brother, business associate, secretary, ex-girlfriend, cook, niece, and niece's boyfriend. Each of them resented the victim for different reasons. His death is almost ruled a suicide but Philo Vance knows better. The case only grows more complicated as additional clues are discovered.

William Powell isn't Nick Charles here so don't expect him to act like it. Although there are some flashes of wit, he's playing it straight and serious as the dogged (hey, that's a pun!) detective. He solves the case without drinking a single martini. Myrna Loy is nowhere to be seen but Asta does have a cameo at the dog show.

The direction, by Michael Curtiz, elevates this above the level of a B-movie. There isn't one moment wasted in this taut, little who-dunnit. It zips right along, as scenes transition with whip pans, wipes, and quick dissolves. There's a lot more camera movement than I generally recall seeing in early 1930s films. Scenes that might be filmed in a pedestrian manner, in less capable hands, are enhanced by thoughtfully composed shots. A POV shot through a keyhole zooms into the room. A shot of some men talking is made more interesting by being framed through a car window. A shot of the outside of a window of one character's house tilts up and then pans to the action in the window of another character's apt., etc.

Since Powell is so serious here, the comic-relief comes in the form of portly Detective Heath and irritable Dr. Doremus, the M.E. The doctor, who keeps getting dragged away from meals or out of bed to consult on the case, gets most of the good lines. When a second murder victim is discovered he quips, "Well, there are too many people in the world anyway." His, "I'm a doctor, not a magician," and, "I'm a doctor, not a detective," call to mind Star Trek's Dr. McCoy.

Vance actually does a couple of things in the last scene that would be considered unethical today but, hey, they work to suss out the killer so...Go, Philo!

Now I need to find a door with a barrel bolt and a keyhole...

The Village (I) (2019)

The village of fairy-tales.

[2/10 · 16 April 2019]

Oh, my, there's so much ridiculousness going on in this hot mess of a show, where do I begin?

Can someone please tell me how the single-mom/nurse (who got off to a late start in nursing, due to being pregnant at 17 and not having the support of her family), the young law student/intern (who does not seem to be from a wealthy family), the young, single cop, and the illegal, single-mom/teacher are able to afford these lovely, large apartments in what looks like a very nice part of Brooklyn?

The neighborhood hasn't been mentioned yet but it must be close to the Brooklyn Promenade since the disabled vet can walk his disabled dog there, jog, and then walk back. Rent in that area can easily run $2,900+ a month for a studio apt., $3,300+ for a 1BR, and $4,500 for a 2B, 2B. Sarah's apartment has a dining room, French doors, and a fireplace. Yeah, right, she can afford that. And, speaking of decor, why do teenagers on TV shows always have bedrooms with double beds? How many teenagers do you know in real life who have a double bed? Is that why so many TV teens get pregnant, because they have those inviting, roomy, double beds?

I've spent the majority of my life living in apartment buildings in various parts of NY and I can tell you that tenants do not socialize to the extent of the characters on this show or get this invested in each other's lives. If you want to see a more realistic depiction of NY apartment living, watch the episode of "Seinfeld" where Kramer puts photos with names of all the tenants in the lobby and Jerry is furious because it results in him having to (gasp!) greet people every day. This is some liberal writer's fantasy version of NY. The multi-culti paradise that they're constantly pushing on us.

Ron walks off and leaves his bar in the care of Nick, who he's only just met. He doesn't even give him the keys, just walks away for an unspecified amount of time. Right.

When ICE agents come to arrest Ava, the illegal alien, Ben tells them that he'll take care of her kid and they just leave the child with him. Right. I'm pretty sure there's some kind of procedure and paperwork involved here. And how is the single cop watching the kid and working full-time?

Yes, it's yet another show that tries to gin up sympathy for illegal aliens. You see, poor Ava's ex-husband did all the paperwork and handled everything when they came to the U.S. She didn't speak the language and had no idea that her papers were forged. She's innocent because of her ignorance. And you can add the writer who came up with that storyline to the list of liberals who pretend to advocate for minorities but who practice the bigotry of low expectations. Ava's an amazing, brave woman who's been through so much...but she didn't know she was illegal because she was just too stupid. Right. And her neighbors should feel compelled to give her free legal aid, take out loans to help her, and take care of her child (even though he has grandparents nearby). Right.

Bad parenting is presented as normal. When Sarah finds out that Katie is pregnant, she asks if Katie knows who the father is. Katie responds sarcastically and Sarah says, "I'm not slut-shaming you." Then, she makes a comment about Katie being her best-friend. Um, maybe if you'd been your daughter's MOTHER, instead of a friend, you wouldn't be facing Grandma-hood by age 35! A healthy dose of slut-shaming, a few months ago, might've sufficed.

Another time, Sarah says, "I was standing up for you Katie, that's what a mother does." Katie replies, "Well, you know what a friend does? Gives you a heads up." Again, maybe if your mom had been less of a friend and more of a MOTHER you wouldn't be pregnant now, you little twit!

Sarah invites a guy to a party by saying that, for reasons she can't explain, "I need to look happy and fulfilled for my daughter...I need to look like I'm not catastrophically single tonight," and the doofus accepts! Right. Seriously, who would go on a date with someone knowing that they were only asked in order to make the person's child happy?

Patricia swoops around in flowy garments, using her status as the super's wife to bully the other tenants into doing her bidding. When Gabe tells her that he can't give Ava legal aid because he isn't a lawyer yet, she says, "She is our neighbor, Gabe. We help." He caves. Oh, okay, I'm working my ass off to become a lawyer and trying to deal with taking care of my elderly Grandpa but I'll totally risk my career and future earning-potential to help an illegal immigrant, because an earnest woman in a shawl shamed me into it. Right. Patricia tells Sarah, "I thought we could all pitch in, helping Ben take care of Sammy," and Sarah responds, "Yeah, of course." Oh, okay, I'm a single mom, working in an emotionally draining job, and dealing with a pregnant teenager and the recent return of her disabled father (who she doesn't yet know is her father) but I'll totally help take care of some illegal alien's kid. Right.

Sarah reminisces that it took her 7 years to get through night school, with Patricia watching Katie for free. Right. Patricia worked 8 hours a day, in a demanding job as a social worker, and had a home life with her husband (who runs a bar and is the building's super), while watching her tenant's child every night for SEVEN YEARS! For FREE!!

GTFOOH!!!

Ohhh...wait, I get it! It takes a BUILDING named, "The Village" to raise a child. GAG!

The only interesting character is the old, Italian-American guy, Enzo. If they did a spin-off about him and his buddies ducking out of the nursing home to have adventures, like running off to Vegas, I'd watch it. It'd be so much better and more interesting than this schmaltzy nonsense.

More (1969)

More like 112 minutes wasted (pun intended).

[4/10 · 12 April 2019]

Well, this film certainly falls into the "product of its time" category. It would most likely have fallen into obscurity long ago if Pink Floyd hadn't composed the soundtrack. The opening titles would make you think that you're about to see a '70s sci-fi flick but it only gets less interesting from there.

For close to two hours, some marginal hippies get high, spend A LOT of time lying around, have sex, argue, steal, and occasionally try to sound profound. That's about it.

The main problem is that the two principal characters are uninteresting, unlikable and don't seem to be very intelligent. Estelle is selfish, amoral, and flighty. Stefan is a hapless twit who just goes along with anyone or anything. He's possessive, jealous, and short-tempered.

Stefan falls for Estelle in an instant, despite being warned off of her by a friend. He remains attracted and devoted to her even after learning that she'd been addicted to heroin in the past, in spite of her indifferent behavior towards him, after finding out that she still sometimes sleeps with an old drug dealer (and possible ex-Nazi) "benefactor," after she starts using heroin again, after she steals from the drug-dealer (which indebts them both to him), and after being told that she has ruined the lives of at least two other guys by getting them hooked on hard drugs... I mean, Dude, it's the '60s and you're living in a bohemian enclave. There are probably plenty of attractive girls who would sleep with you and not treat you like dirt, make you an indentured servant to a drug lord or compel you to stick a needle in your arm. Dump the Angel of Death, already!

Estelle makes stupid decisions too. She leaves their sanctuary and goes into town alone, even though she's pissed off the powerful drug dealer by stealing money and heroin. "Don't worry," she chirps to Stefan, "I won't be recognized," before being promptly grabbed by two of Wolf's henchmen as soon as she enters the marketplace.

We don't really know anything about their lives before they met, other than he's a recent college graduate and she's from NY, so it's difficult to understand what's so bad about their lives that they feel the need to get high constantly.

Estelle takes a toke on a hookah and tells Stefan, "This makes everything beautiful. And alive. Horse (aka heroin) just makes you feel very comfortable." Mind you, they're lolling (in the original sense of the word) outside their peaceful, isolated house in Ibiza, in the sunshine, on a cliff, overlooking the sea. Why on Earth do they need to smoke or shoot something in order to see beauty or feel alive or comfortable? She continues, "People who take horse want to escape from life." Again, what does she need to escape from? I could maybe understand if she were back in NY, working at some soul-killing, low-paying job or burdened with family problems but she's in a freaking lover's paradise! They both seem to be able to afford to spend months living abroad without having to work (until she ruins that by stealing) and they're in an idyllic setting so what is there for either of them to be stressed or uncomfortable about? I just couldn't relate and I didn't care about either one of them.

Anyone who watches this for the nudity and sex scenes will likely be sorely disappointed by the sight of flat-chested, flat-butted Estelle. Stefan clambering up the rocks naked, save for swim goggles and flippers, is good for a laugh, though.

There are several scenes where characters speak German or French and there are no subtitles. It's annoying.

The death scene is anti-climactic. The final scene is surprisingly abrupt. Why does no one try to get in touch with Stefan's relatives in Germany? Quite a few people had to know who he was and Charlie and Wolf knew what town he was from. I guess the ending needed to be pathetic.

Just say no ("More").

Whiskey Cavalier: When in Rome (2019) Season 1, Episode 3

Vergognoso...

[1/10 · 24 March 2019]

The first couple of episodes of this show were inoffensive but contained much of the usual silliness and clichés you'd expect from a prime-time, network show; The emasculated White, male agent (his emotions get in the way of the job), the overly-butch, female agent (gets shot, loses a ton of blood, has bullet removed with a knife and no anaesthetic, can still jump up and save the day!), the antagonistic banter between them, the pressed-into-service, funny hacker, political correctness (a woman with both a husband and a lesbian lover, White characters repeatedly referring to a Black woman with mostly blonde hair as "the blonde"), etc. The one really good thing that it had going for it was the location shooting.

With episode 3 they started pushing the inevitable, Liberal agenda. Since demonizing Americans who oppose illegal immigration has been done to death, it seems that writers have now decided to start in on Europeans.

The team of agents is tasked with extricating an American engineer from a gathering of an Italian Neo-Fascist group that he's building a bomb for. The leader of the fascist group is named Luca Crudele. Crudele is Italian for "cruel." Gosh, the person who came up with that was clever (not!).

Prince tells the team, "Due to the Italian immigrant crisis, Right-wing hate groups have been popping up all over the place." Chase says, "And I'm guessing they convince their followers that immigrants are the cause of all problems plaguing Italy?", to which Prince responds, "Exactly." How ridiculous! No one in Italy, no matter how Conservative, thinks that immigrants are responsible for ALL problems in Italy! Oh, and the "crisis" is that the majority of immigrants are actually ECONOMIC migrants, leeching off the government and causing the crime-rate to sky-rocket.

Italy is a poor, Socialist country. Citizens earn low (compared to the U.S.) salaries and up to 43% of those salaries go to taxes. Over 5 million citizens live in absolute poverty. Thousands of poor, Italian families are on waitlists for public housing while immigrants get put up in hotels and paid a stipend. So, yes, the majority of Italians now see unchecked immigration as a bad thing but, no, that doesn't make them fascists or racists.

Instead of simply pushing a biased agenda, perhaps television writers should actually try doing some research on the subject they're writing about. If they did, they might know about all the problems migrants have been causing in Italy. Just last week, a Senegalese man set a bus full of Italian school children on fire (fortunately, they were saved by police). Do we ever see TRUE stories like that mirrored in TV shows? Nope. It's just, "poor refugees" and "meanie Right-wingers who don't care about refugees" again and again and again.

It's this refusal to acknowledge reality and insistence on pushing a (false) narrative that makes consumers distrust the media.

Stop it. Just stop.

Gone with the Wind (1939)

A must-see on the big screen!

[10/10 · 27 January 2019]

Like everyone else, I'd seen GWTW on TV several times over the years. I never counted it among my favorite films. However, when the opportunity came up to go to a screening at a theater last weekend I thought, "That's a film that should be seen on the big screen!"

WOW, was I right!

The cinematography, the technicolor, the production design, the performances, the music, the imagery, the scope, the sizzling dialogue between Rhett and Scarlett...

Most of the time going to a movie is just going to a movie but this was an EXPERIENCE!

It was the first time that I'd ever seen GWTW 100% from start to finish, uninterrupted and with no distractions. Roger Ebert once said, "A good movie is never too long," and I concur. Not once in 248 minutes was I tempted to look at my watch. I was riveted to the screen. The entire theater was sold-out and the audience applauded a couple of times (including at the end) so a few hundred people seemed to agree with me.

I have to say that the character of Scarlet is a lot more complex than she's usually given credit for being. Yes, she's vain, selfish, manipulative, and opportunistic but she's also strong (both physically and mentally), resourceful, determined, and courageous. She nurses wounded soldiers, gets an ailing Melanie and newborn baby through miles of a war-zone to safety, takes over running the family's plantation, kills an enemy soldier who tries to rob and possibly rape and/or kill her, provides for her whole family and starts and runs a successful lumber business. Not bad for a girl in her teens and 20s in the 1860s! You'd think that she'd be a feminist icon.

I have just one thing to say to the idiots who think that a film that accurately depicts the way life was in the 1860s is somehow "racist" and that is...SHUT UP! Go watch some dumb, SJW message-laden, super-hero movie and leave commenting on classic films to the adults! I was going to rate it a 9 but I'm giving it a 10 to offset the 1 ratings from numbskulls who get offended by history.

If you really love movies then you need to see this one the way it was meant to be seen; uncut, uninterrupted, in stereo, and on the BIG screen!

Carol for Another Christmas (1964 TV Movie)

A Christmas curio.

[4/10 · 24 January 2017]

Daniel Grudge (Sterling Hayden) is visited on Christmas Eve by his nephew, Fred (Ben Gazzara). Fred's angry because Grudge nixed a plan for the university he works at to have a "cultural exchange" with a university in Poland. They argue isolationism vs. interventionism and both arguments are ridiculously extreme, veering off into monologues. You're not supposed to like Grudge but Fred isn't likable either. He comes across as a jerk while talking about Grudge's (war) dead son.

Grudge dismisses Fred and, moments later, is magically transported onto a ghostly freighter carrying war-dead from all wars and nations. Here, he meets The-Ghost-of-Christmas-Past (Steve Lawrence), an every-man soldier who speaks Brooklynese. Grudge shows little surprise and no fear at either the sudden change of scenery or meeting a ghost on a ship full of coffins. Past-ghost argues against isolationism and his rebuttals to Grudge turn into speeches. Lawrence gives a very good performance but his argument is too naïve and simplistic. "So long as you talk you don't fight." Oh...I guess if we'd just talked to Hitler all that nastiness in the '40s could've been avoided.

After trying to make Grudge feel guilty for not wanting the U.S. to get involved in foreign wars, Past-ghost contradicts himself by trying to make him feel guilty for having served in WW2! He has Grudge relive a time, 20 years earlier, when he (Grudge) was in the Navy and visited some Japanese children disfigured by the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. One of the bandaged, faceless girls sings a delicate, haunting song because it's more poignant when a suffering person can sing nicely. There's a disturbing, "Look what big, bad America did", vibe to this segment. Grudge's WAVE driver (Eva Marie Saint) acts more civilian than corps-woman. She guilt-trips Grudge about the bombing (as if he's personally responsible) even though, he points out, it likely saved 500,000 American and 2,000,000 Japanese lives.

Grudge is then directed to a sound-stage where he meets The-Ghost-of-Christmas-Present (Pat Hingle). Present-ghost represents the human race and gorges himself on a feast, while starving refugees watch from behind barbed wire, in an attempt to make Grudge feel guilty for not caring enough about the poor.

Present-ghost gives Grudge a couple of long lectures/speeches on humanity, quoting statistics about poverty, disease and hunger. While he sermonizes, the refugees sing beautiful, sad songs in their native languages because all poor and/or oppressed and/or suffering people sing like angels. Cue shots of shabby, displaced persons, sitting forlornly in the snow, complete with sad-eyed children.

Grudge finally gets sick of being preached at and runs away (I would've fled 5 minutes sooner!), finding himself in a post-apocalyptic future and meeting The-Ghost-of-Christmas-Future (Robert Shaw). Whaddaya know, Future-ghost likes to make lengthy, dramatic speeches too!

The arrival of a band of WW3 survivors and their charismatic leader, The Imperial Me (Peter Sellers), seems a reprieve from the speechifying, but no! IM makes a speech! His wackiness livens things up somewhat but it's too little, too late. When IM proposes eliminating the other survivors "down yonder" and "cross river", you half expect "One Tin Soldier" to start playing in the background.

Grudge's servants, Charles (Percy Rodrigues) and Ruby (Barbara Teer), are among the survivors. They're the only people with any humanity left and Charles - you guessed it! - makes a speech to persuade their group to talk to the other groups. He's rewarded by getting charged with "the treason of involvement", being harassed by the crowd, and finally getting blown away by Mike Teevee's little brother. I guess if he'd been killed by an adult it wouldn't have been as much of a "comment on society". At least director Joe Mankiewicz (or Serling) refrained from going full lib-tard, and making it a race thing, by including several Black survivors in the crowd that laughs at Charles and encourages him to jump.

With pesky Charles out of the way, IM returns to HIS preaching. This gets too silly. After restating his directive to kill the other bands of survivors, he says that his group should then pick off each other, until only one person remains. Even among crazies, the enthusiasm for this plan seems doubtful.

After IM and co. disperse, Future-ghost gives Grudge another (albeit mercifully short) lecture which includes gems like, "When the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima the fate of men could've been predicted by a cut-rate gypsy!" He's saying that the U.S. is directly responsible for WW3!

When Grudge awakens Christmas morning - surprise - his grudgey heart has grown three sizes that day! Fred arrives and Grudge tells him that he's decided to jump on board with the whole "involvement" thing. And now he even likes Christmas carols. God bless us, every one!

The ghosts in "A Christmas Carol" taught Scrooge the error of his ways by SHOWING him scenes from his past, present, and possible future. They didn't try to TALK HIM TO DEATH with interminable, preachy speeches!

It's as if someone took all the monologues from a monologue slam on interventionism, poverty, and war, strung them together, and wrote a few minutes of dialogue and stage directions linking them together to form a screen-play. The performances are good (particularly Lawrence, Hingle, Shaw, Sellers, and Rodrigues) but, for the love of God, STFU already!

In "A Christmas Carol" Scrooge's actions only affect the lives of himself and those closest to him but in "CFAC" Grudge's actions affect the whole world? His okaying the exchange program with Poland and giving money to charity is going to prevent WW3? Whaaat?!

This was part of a series of specials designed to promote the U.N. The "blame America" sentiments aren't surprising, considering how Anti-American the U.N. later turned out to be.

It's worth viewing once, just for some of the performances and the sheer oddity of it all. You won't want to make it a tradition.