Reviews

I had a lot of problems with this episode. I knew instantly that Mia was lying about the first rape. Yet all the SVU people automatically sided with her because that's what you do: the woman is always right and the man is always the criminal. As Eli points out, "All it takes is one girl to say you looked at her funny and that's it. It's all over."

Then Carisi tells her, you can make this right. Any reasonable adult would have then scheduled a formal meeting between Mia and Eli in a neutral place with parents and university representatives present. But he doesn't do that. Instead, he leaves Mia to her own devices, which have her calling Eli up and inviting him to her dorm room to talk. Geezum Crow.

I simply don't believe at that point that Eli would have done anything wrong. He's a bright, intelligent guy. Sure, he's been hurt in an unfair and reprehensible fashion, but I doubt that his anger would have gotten the best of him. Notice how he had accepted his fate and kept on telling his parents to do the same.

The episode ends all touchy-feely way with the women all happy and the future doctor's life in ruins. Now that's reprehensible.

N. B.: That was going to be the end of my review. As I thought about it, I remember one thing Eli said on the witness stand: She set me up. I'm thinking about his anger and Mia's lie that got him kicked out of the university. It does now feel that his anger could have indeed gotten the best of him. I'm not justifying it, of course; I'm just thinking that a book-smart college kid might not use his best judgement when in that situation. He probably reasoned, My life is over anyway, so what the hell? This is what she accused me of anyway.

That still doesn't let Mia off the hook. Due to her first lie, she ruined Eli's academic career. A person falsely claiming rape can face civil or even criminal charges. And filing a false police report can put you in jail. Her only punishment? She leaves the university on her own "for a while." Geezum Crow squared. Not only did she ruin Eli's life, she lied to university officials. And this didn't get her kicked out? Geezum Crow cubed.

Bottom line: Mia should have been charged for lying about the initial rape and punished. The case should have ended there. Eli would have gone on to become a doctor. Instead, she takes some time off and he ends up rotting in prison. Nice going, SVU.

I've been watching SVU episodes from all the seasons in the last few months--basically whichever ones the cable channels (USA, ION, WE, BBC) throw up on the screen. I've noticed that the quality of the writing has gone downhill in the past couple of years. This episode was no exception.

At this point, beloved characters such as Stabler, Rollins, Munch, Stone and Barba are gone. In this episode I really only knew Benson that well; Fin and Carisi are still in the credits but did not appear. Benson seemed out of her depth in trying to deal with this cast of relative unknowns; as one reviewer said, she treated them like school children.

I've seen Bruno (who looks a little like Sean Penn to me), Velasco and Muncy before; it was the first time, however, that I had encountered Churlish. I couldn't believe this character's name. Do people know what the adjective "churlish" means? It means "rude in a mean-spirited and surly way." Every time somebody said her name it set my ear off. Why would anyone name a character that unless you want them to be disliked?

As far as the story goes, I found it ho-hum and fairly predictable. Like other reviewers, I was annoyed that the detectives failed to notice that the drug could have come from not just the drink but the salt or the lime, too.

But oh well. It was a way to spend an hour. I know much better SVU eps are out there. I only hope that in the new ones they find a way to make these characters more likable. Perhaps Fin could give them a good talking-to, Army-Ranger style!

I came to know this movie in a roundabout manner. On July 19, 1979, I watched an ABC-TV special entitled "Infinite Horizons: Space Beyond Apollo." It was hosted by science fiction writer Ray Bradbury and featured speculations about the future of humankind in space and how we might go about populating the universe. In a New York Times article about the show, reviewer John J. O'Connor wrote: "The music track... is somewhat thick with heavenly choruses suggesting some sort of spiritual dimensions." Possessing a musician's ear, I was very taken by the music (space travel and music are two of my joys) and I knew I needed to find out where this music came from. Of course, back then, no Internet existed and the library wouldn't have had that information. So I did the only thing you could do in that situation: I wrote a letter to ABC-TV.

Thankfully, back then gigantic, faceless companies tended to answer mail, and it wasn't long before a woman from the network wrote back. She told me that the music came from a movie called "Aquirre, the Wrath of God." I had never heard of it, but funnily enough, I saw it the following year during my junior year of college. When I saw in a newsletter that it was being shown on campus, I was excited to hear that ethereal music again, and I wasn't disappointed. Then, when soundtracks became available on CDs, I was able to purchase "Aquirre." It came on a disc that also features Popol Vuh's score for "In the Gardens of Pharao."

The whole reason why I'm writing this review today is because last night I was watching an episode of Law & Oder: SVU entitled "Know It All," and during one of the last scenes, Mike Post's score evoked Popol Vuh's "Aquirre." My ear immediately latched onto it and I thought, "Where have I heard this before?"

At first, I though it might have been from Weather Report's album "Mysterious Traveler," which contains a lot of similarly dreamy music, and I had been listening to it recently. But I soon came to doubt that. Then, as I was getting ready for bed, it hit me. Aquirre! And I was right. There ya go.

This was another fantastic episode of SVU. Early on, I noticed the janitor and immediately picked up on the fact that it was Carisi (Peter Scanavino). I'd seen him recently in a 2005 Law and Order: Criminal Intent episode called "Diamond Dogs," so it was fun to see him again in a non-Carisi role. When I saw Mike Tyson's name in the opening credits, that rang a bell telling me that I'd seen this episode before, a long time ago. It was really touching to hear about his character's poignant story. The penultimate scene where he, Andre and OIivia are celebrating the outcome of his case and his huge smile is wonderful, especially since before that moment the only feelings he exhibits are resignation and hopelessness.

I had also seen Ed Asner is another Law and Order show recently; I think he played an equally creepy guy in that one.

The only celebrity I wasn't able to spot was Jan Brady (Eve Plumb). I guess becoming an adult really changed her looks.

As I watched the beginning of this episode and caught the first glimpses of Steve Getz, I thought to myself, "I've seen that guy before." As things progressed, I kept thinking, "Who is that?" My first thought was Ferris Bueller, but I knew that wasn't him. It wasn't until the credits began to roll after the introduction that it hit me--Vincent Kartheiser... Pete Campbell! From "Mad Men!" I happily yelled out, "Pete!"

Anyway, I enjoyed the episode very much. The well-told story unfolded in the normal creepy fashion. I didn't care much for Kat bungling things up. The hardest thing to hear was the crooked judge ("Let 'em go Joe") who made an inane connection between getting an abortion and child rape. It was at least satisfying to know that we had another criminal in our midst.

I remember watching Columbo in the 1970s along with McCloud and the other Mystery Movie detectives. To find the show available again on COZI TV makes my Saturday night viewing fun, as I wonder if I might remember the episode I'm about to watch.

"Undercover" rang no bells, and it's a good thing, because it was very difficult to get through the entire show. After about 20 minutes, I was looking at the clock, wondering how I was going to make it. Normally Lt. Columbo doesn't show up until about 30 minutes have gone by; here, he shows up after 10 minutes, investigating a double homicide in which I had zero interest in. The normal Columbo formula gives you some sense of the characters involved before the evil deed is committed; here, instead, it's just two toughs we don't care about.

Going against formula isn't necessarily a bad thing, but where it goes is important. I lost interest quickly simply because I couldn't follow the plot. Okay, I quickly figured out it was jigsaw puzzle and the show was going to be about finding all the missing pieces. But getting there was so boring, filled with inane characters I didn't care about. The climax was unfulfilling at best.

Funny thing is, after they find the treasure, Columbo basically dismisses everything, smiles and says he wants to go walk his dog. That's the way I felt--I just wanted to forget the episode and get on with it.

The episode tries to insert humor here and there but fails miserably. The only two fun moments for me were when two actors I recognized show up. The first was Ed Begley, Jr.--I had just seen Christopher Guest's "Best in Show" in which Begley has a small but memorable role; it was fun to recognize him. Same goes for Edward Hibbert, who I know from "Frasier."

I am keeping a checklist of all the Columbos I've seen, and it's nice to check this one off. I only hope that COZI TV doesn't run this one or "Murder in Malibu" again anytime soon. I know some people liked it, but it just made my Saturday night viewing less than memorable.

A friend recently lent me the complete DVD collection of the show, and I just finished watching it. I knew Dave's comedy from sketches the same friend had recommended to me on YouTube, and they were very funny.

But watching the complete set of shows, I was let down. Many of the sketches began with a humorous premise, but then just plain fizzled out; quite often they simply devolved into either toilet or crude sexual humors (or both). In one sketch, Dave offered a rebuttal to critics of that low-brow humor by having an all-girl choir sing a song he wrote called "Diarrhea." That's an example of thinking you're being clever by not being clever, but you still try to pass it off as clever.

The sketch I found the funniest was "Popcopy," about the way customers often are treated in a copy shop. It was smart, over the top and well acted. The other sketch I liked was when Dave says he has quit smoking weed, and shows the "TV commercial" which made him do so. The unexpected twist at the end made it quite funny.

The black KKK guy was somewhat funny; the best laugh for me was while watching the scene at the run-down filling station, off to the side you see a sign reading "Clean Rest Rooms". The Racial Draft was also very smart and well written... and funny.

I'm sure there are a few other sketches I liked but have forgotten about. The large majority of the other material, however, didn't do it for me.

I really enjoy racial humor because it serves two purposes: it shows how silly prejudice is and also how much we are all alike, regardless of skin color. Dave's show does a great job when this is the focus; when it's not, the show succeeds much less often.

I think Dave did the right thing by quitting the show. He said the reason was because he found it interfering with his stand-up act. I have never seen Dave do stand-up in person, but have seen it on the Internet and he is so funny.. Thanks, Dave--by ending the show, I think you did a good job at keepin' it real!

THE SOUNDTRACK IS TOO LOUD. I know you're not supposed to use all caps when writing, because it makes it seem like you're shouting. But that's what it felt like in Apollo 11--like the soundtrack was shouted out by Lamb of God. I talked to the theatre manager and he said lots of people had complained about the sound as well. He also said he worked for the distribution company and they made the sound overly wrought on purpose, to create an immersive experience.

Well, they overdid it. I saw a few people leaving the theatre complaining about the sound. One was an elderly gentleman who said it was too much for his ears. A real shame, because it was an otherwise truly spectacular movie.

I'm just wondering: DOES ANYONE MAKE HAPPY MOVIES ANYMORE?

This movie has high production values, glorious sets, great acting and dialogue, etc., etc.... but it's a total downer. The film is full of deceit and tension between a husband and wife with a very angry, sad, yet not unexpected ending. Still, did they have to end it that way? There could have been at least bit of redemption and hope with a different ending. But no. I guess it's fitting for this completely depressing movie. And speaking of depressing, the dreary music only adds to the ultimate lifelessness we see on the screen.

Hopscotch is a light-hearted, fun film that treats us to witty dialogue, gorgeous European locations, a sumptuous Mozart score and a battle of wits between ex-CIA man Matthau and his former boss Beatty.

It's hard to believe that Hopscotch received poor reviews when it came out. If you approach it with the right frame of mind--that is, looking for a clever, enjoyable film--then you'll have a ball. Maybe the reviewers wanted sex and violence? Sorry, none of that here. Maybe they wanted a movie that needed to make a deep point? Outside of satirizing the government and its feeble-minded minions, there is none. No, you'll have to settle for an elegant, sophisticated show filled with memorable characters that help you root for the good guys (or good guy). Can't imagine who would object to that.

I remember seeing this when it first aired and was sorely disappointed. After several years and seven wonderful specials, PIACB fell far short of the mark the previous shows had established.

The charm of Peanuts is seeing the real world through children's eyes. But in this special, some of the humor and plot points depend on things coming in spray cans; for example, PTA meetings. Huh? Not only is that not funny, it's supernatural, something that does not belong in Charlie Brown's world.

Also, this was the first time we hear actual adult voices, as opposed to the muted trombone sound effect. It's almost as if the 4th wall was being blown to bits. Suddenly we are no longer in the world of kids; the adults have invaded.

The other major thing wrong was the use of rock music in the soundtrack. Up to now, Vince Guaraldi's outstanding jazz scores gave Charlie Brown a dynamic, signature sound that everyone could quickly identify. To replace that with rock borders on sacrilege.

Maybe they wanted to try something new. Well, to me it didn't work. Why mess with success?

In most movies, one or more characters experience an arc where they learn something by the end of the show. The audience goes along for the ride and feels satisfaction at having learned along with them.

But although Eat Pray Love's main premise is for Julia Roberts' character to learn something, it's obvious, by the end of the movie, that she hasn't learned a thing. She spends a year on a path of self exploration, but in the end, sees no problem in returning to her old life. And it's not until a last-minute intervention by a brown man (the brown people in this movie are all portrayed as wise sooth sayers) that something clicks and she seems to recant her former ways. But in reality, it's just an excuse for a Hollywood ending: a man who shows up quite late in the movie (a perfect example of deus ex machina abuse) gets the girl, loses the girl, and then gets her back. Indeed, the entire movie is just an excuse to set up this trite conclusion.

Whatever learning that was supposed to take place in the preceding two hours all gets washed away, and instead of a worthwhile experience, we and Julia Roberts sail off into the sunset, all the worse for wear.

I felt this film was a mess. It starts out promising, with Bradley Cooper's slightly off-kilter gaze proving quite unsettling. You know he's been through a lot, and he knows it, too. We wonder what his next move will be--as does he. In the meantime, he's doing meaningful work with his shrink, who takes his job seriously.

But then he meets The Girl, and the movie slowly morphs into a madcap romantic farce. Goofy parents get involved, the shrink becomes a drinking buddy, and all sense of seriousness vanishes. The scene in Cooper's living room stretches on endlessly as subplot after subplot play out, and drama and comedy are mixed so you don't know how you're supposed to feel about any of it. Is this Rain Man or Abbott and Costello?

The old saw in movies used to be, Boy Gets Girl, Boy Loses Girl, Boy Gets Girl Back. Nowadays, it's Boy Gets Girl But Is Too Stupid to Realize It Until She Knocks Some Sense Into His Head. Of course, this rarely happens in real life. Silver Linings has The Girl for a while and then loses her, but neither the writers nor the director were able to get her back.

I want to preface this review by saying that if you're an older couple experiencing intimacy problems, you might find this movie interesting and even helpful.

But if you don't belong to that demographic, you may not find this movie interesting at all. Helpful? Not. Creepy and uncomfortable? Hell yes!

I can't remember ever being so turned off by a movie before. It plays like a sex-ed flick for grown-ups. But, as a movie, it's supposed to be entertainment and not something from a clinician's notebook. But that's exactly the way it plays.

With Steve Carell as the couple's shrink, one might expect some light-hearted moments and bits of comic relief. But no-- Carell plays the part completely straight, and completely boring. The scenes in his office are tedious and sometimes don't make sense. One moment we find Tommy Lee Jones to be standoffish and irascible--the next, he's conversational and agreeable, and we don't know why or how he changed. But suffice to say, if you've ever been to a shrink, these scenes will have a certain familiarity to them--but since they don't involve us personally, they're completely uninteresting.

The show does contain sex scenes, as it were--really just the two lovers trying to experiment and get back the old fire (with their clothes on). To say that watching them is uncomfortable is an understatement. You just wonder how this film ever got past the preview audiences. The only comic relief is when Jones puts on a silly smile when he's trying to figure out if something feels good or not. We kind of force ourselves to laugh, if only to break the tension in the silent theater. In reality, it's more out of a desperate attempt to find something to enjoy.

I am so surprised by everything about this movie--the tedium, the three A-list actors, and the positive press it got. It reminds me of Marley and Me--where absolutely nothing happens. Well, I guess I just don't get it.

I do remember seeing this as a little kid sometime in the 1960s. And a good thing, too, as I was in the middle of the dinosaur kick that most little kids go through. I really only remember two things. A great dinosaur fight, after which I asked my dad how they made the dinosaurs bleed so realistically, to which he replied that there were men inside the models with buckets of red paint. I also remember the end, where the boys wake up in the Museum of Natural History, and we're supposed to wonder with them whether it was all a dream.

I'm happy to know about this film again, and to know others remember it, too. And I just read an article in a fanzine called Prehistoric Times that rates the dino fight as one of the top 10 dino fights ever filmed!

I was unsure whether I wanted to see this movie or not. Like many Stooges fans, I was worried that the filmmakers were treading on hallowed ground. When I saw a preview that seemed to make Curly look like a little sissy, my fears only deepened.

But through a string of coincidences one day, I found myself sitting in the theater with about 30 other people. The flick had been out for a while and the audiences had begun to dwindle.

I was pleasantly surprised! I really enjoyed this movie. It had plenty of original material, as well as many gags that I (and I'm sure other inveterate stooges fans) could recognize from the old movies.

I was very happy with Moe and Curly's portrayals; Larry, less so, unfortunately. The actor really didn't get Larry's voice and mannerisms down that well. Curly was excellent, and Moe was uncanny! The movie was so enjoyable that I didn't even mind the Farrelly's descent into toilet humor a few times during the show. It's a shame that the final crises had to be solved this way, but this is the 21st century and the audience enjoyed it, so what the heck.

Speaking of the audience, that's what made it truly fun. People were laughing hysterically, and even though it was a small crowd, you couldn't help but join in.

The only real miscue I found in the movie was the under-use of the sound effects. In the old movies, they were so important to getting the laughs. The original crew knew this and would crank up the volume so they actually became part of the show. But in this movie, the sound effects are on the quiet and dainty side. Not good for a slapstick movie!

This is one of those movies that starts out well but seems to disappoint in the end.

It's beautifully shot and edited, and we see many fine performances. I found Emma Roberts particularly appealing, as she has a dour, come-hither look in her dark eyes about 95% of the time. What Ingrid Bergman could achieve by looking down, Roberts does by looking almost right at us.

Freddie Highmore looks and feels authentic. His character has a lot of choices to make, many of which go against all common sense. But although he drives us crazy, he's intriguing and we want to know what's to happen to him.

Mid-movie, the characters are hit with several crises, and it gets interesting as we wonder how they'll resolve them. When resolution strikes, though, it's so conventional that it's disappointing. The expected is unexpected.

Yup, it has indie-feel and Sundance all over it. But I was hoping for a big surprise at the end from these flawed but good people; instead, they seemed to abandon what they had stood for. And what may have qualified as a surprise involving Roberts was simply unbelievable and too convenient to accept. Though I was happy for them, a simple, happy ending didn't feel right with these non-simple characters.

But then, maybe, that was the point.

This is truly one of my favorite stooge shorts. The premise is one of my favorites: the boys take on tools and other inanimate objects. You know when this happens that nothing will ever go right! The short is one stooge delight after another. The only problem with it is the ending. It's one of the dumbest endings in stooge history and has nothing to do with the rest of the film. It's a shame that such a great short is marred in this way, and that you can't leave it on a note of hilarity. You'd think they could have come up with something much better.

But, all things considered, it's an excellent stooge short and the laughs don't stop.

This movie has two things going for it: style and eyebrows.

The visual style is quite handsome and well done. Intriguing sets, odd colors, and a sense of large, sinister space inside the hotel. This was the first movie to utilize the Steadicam camera, and it's put to good use.

The musical style is also effective. Bizarre 20th-century classical works (similar to the ones in Kubrick's 2001) enhance the spooky and creepy nature of the action.

And of course, we have Jack Nicholson's eyebrows. I don't believe they've been put to the test before or since. They're very effective in letting us know what's on his mind.

But if you take all this away, you're left with a very confusing story. Okay, so the hotel is haunted. Somehow along the way we find that one of the characters may be from the past, and then that seems to be confirmed at the end. But so what? What does that have to do with the story? Why is that important? What does that have to do with the hotel? Why do the scenes from the past matter and how do they fit in with the story in the present?

I saw the movie when it first came out, and just watched it tonight, 30 years later. I wanted to give it a second chance. But I felt exactly the same way both times. I found it boring, not scary, somewhat predictable, and ultimately unsatisfying. Style is grand, but it cannot make up for a story that doesn't make any sense.

After hearing a bunch of hype over the much-ballyhooed J. J. Abrams, I went to this movie with high hopes. I love making films myself, and thought watching a movie about how you made a film before iMovie would be fun.

But it turns out that Super 8 really has little to do with kids making films; rather, it has to do with some secret Air Force plot involving a mysterious being.

After a spectacular first act, the film devolves into a lot of malarkey involving strange sounds in the dark, angry townspeople, and military folk with suitcases full of little white cubes. The strange being is revealed, but this only creates more confusion because its origins are barely explained, and after they are, it's difficult to care about them because this plot point has nothing to do with anything else in the movie. We then see some equally confounding scenes involving a big hole in the ground and a water tower with a story arc that defies understanding. And then, before you know it, POOF!--the being is gone. But again, this was anticlimactic; since we knew so little about the whats and whys of the action, there was no reason to care about it.

Early in the film, one of the boy filmmakers tells his friend about how important caring about your characters is to your story. Well, after a while, I didn't care about these characters, mainly because the story was not there. Why things happened the way they did was never explained, and both the characters and story took a back seat to a never-ending cacophony of senseless explosions and fire in which absolutely no one ever seems to be in danger. That does not make for a good movie.

This movie would like to be a moving commentary about love knowing no bounds, but it just ends up being another tired "boy meets girl, boy loses girl..." formula. This is combined with the "jerk meets woman who makes him care about people" (a la any Hugh Grant movie) storyline. Add a gross, immature male sidekick--ostensibly for comic relief--straight from a Judd Apatow movie and you have two hours of tedium.

The woman in this case has Parkinson's disease, but despite the initial impression that this is going to make and shape the story, it actually plays a small role. Anne Hathaway's hands shake in a few scenes, and then she stumbles a bit, but in the rest of the movie she's as fine as ever. We have one scene where we meet other Parkinson's sufferers, but that's as close we get to addressing her affliction. The next minute, she's back in bed with Jake, acting as unafflicted as ever.

The movie is full of sex jokes that often fall flat and dialogue that is supposed to be funny and isn't--mainly because the punchlines are often unintelligible. A quasi-orgy scene near the end makes no sense to the story and seems to serve only as an excuse for a few more sex jokes.

The ending is completely removed from reality, as Anne Hathaway's character goes against the instincts she has trusted throughout. In real life, what her boyfriend does would be considered stalking. But this is Hollywood, and we must have a romantic speech from the man about how he desperately needs her (And yes--we even have an angel chorus as the music swells! At least the filmmakers didn't have the people on the bus break into applause--I'll give them that.). But true love doesn't come from need, it comes from want. And it seems to imply that no matter how strongly an independent woman rejects a man's advances, all he needs to do is to keep harassing her, and eventually she'll come around--because she's not capable of knowing what she really wants, and she needs him to point it out to her.

I really didn't want the movie to end the way it did. It would have been much more interesting for both the audience--and the characters--to have kept on trying to figure things out. The ending speech says nothing more than he's already told her; alas, this time, she finally capitulates. I asked myself, Why? Good movies usually have the main characters showing some sort of growth and learning. But here, both characters regress: Anne's character doesn't stick to her guns, and Jake's character ends up codependent, needing her to fill up his empty life. Seeing them several years down the road and how Jake reacts to Anne's increasing feebleness would have added substantially to how we felt about both of them. As it was, they were merely two attractive people in lust with each other.

A second plot line is about drug companies and the way they work to make money rather than care for people. In fact, the first part of the movie has some very entertaining scenes between Jake and his supervisor as we learn how callously corrupt the industry is. Just the fact that Jake knows this already, and is willing to speak out about it, is compelling and attractive. But this goes nowhere. Late in the movie, as Jake is trying to help Anne with her disease and investigates cures, he suddenly stops his efforts for no plausible reason.

It's generally poor form to critique a movie for what it isn't as opposed to what it is. But the filmmakers have churned out a melodrama that wants to be a comedy that wants to be a melodrama, so it's hard to know what it is. Revealing the health care industry's inner workings, coupled with the Parkinson's story in light of the romance could have made for both an entertaining and thoughtful movie. What I thought was to be a love story with a sad twist, turned into a storyline as old as the hills. Using Parkinson's as a plot point but then not doing anything with it was quite clumsy. The disease thus becomes a MacGuffin in that it didn't have much to do with the story. You could have had the same storyline minus the malady, and it would have been basically the same movie.

Overall, I left feeling empty-handed and wondering what I'd just seen.

... for something to happen. Really, nothing of importance happens in this film until 90 minutes have gone by. The next 20 minutes are moving but predictable, and then the movie is over.

No drama, no tension, no laughs. It's simply the story of a family and their dog going through typical things that families with dogs go through: torn pillows, jumping up, bathroom accidents. I kept thinking, anyone who has ever had a dog could have written this screenplay. I saw nothing creative at all. The family does go through changes like babies and new jobs, but there is no drama attached to these things. They just happen, and life continues. Funny how this movie makes momentous events such as these seem mundane.

And why is it called Marley & Me? I know the "Me" is Owen Wilson's character, but it seemed to me that Jennifer Aniston was just as much a part of Marley's life as he was. My guess is that the book dealt more with the male character than the movie did.

It's a warm enough movie, but if you're looking for an interesting story or plot, there is none. It's a bland, plain-vanilla flick. About an hour in, something awful happens, but not to Marley or his family. And the event serves no purpose other than to move the family to another home, which they could have done anyway. And sadly, the person to whom this tragedy happens is not seen again; it's as if their only purpose in the movie was to get hurt and then thrown away.

I think the idea was that through it all, the one constant thread was Marley. But while that's a good notion, it didn't make the movie interesting.

It seems an oxymoron that a movie in which nothing happens could be predictable. I was trying to compare it to something I already know, and I came up with the Brady Bunch. But no--the Brady Bunch was more interesting.

This short is important in stooge history for many reasons, not the least of which is that it's the first to establish the basic character personae that would follow them through their entire careers.

It begins with the stooges as beggars, trying to find food or work on the street. This is the first time where we see them as common men, trying to make sense of the real world--a recurring theme in most of their movies. Chased by cops, they end up in an art school and soon create chaos with a clay-throwing fight, a precursor to the pie-throwing spectacles which became their trademark throughout their careers. We see the boys mixing with high society and dragging it down to their level, another common theme.

This short also shows the beginning of how their characters evolved in relation to each other. We clearly see Moe and Curly (or Curley) as adversaries, with Larry as the man in the middle, for the first time. We also see Moe adding his familiar--and painful--slapstick reaction each time Larry or Curly makes a wisecrack. We hear Curly saying "I'm a victim of coicumstance!" and Moe's trademark windmill bonk on the top of the head for the first time. And it's the first time we hear Larry say "Sorry, Moe, it was an accident!", a line that was repeated throughout his entire career. It also lets us know that Moe is the team's leader--and the one to be afraid of.

About the only thing that tips us off that this is still an early short is that Curly is not yet using his manic, high-pitched voice. And some of the direction is slow, as when the boys are smearing clay in each other's faces.

Overall, it's a fun short and a good introduction to the 3 Stooges' brand of humor.

Here we have a classic stooge short: costumes, beautiful women, football, and... the boys ruining everything. Only problem, it's not funny! The humor in this short is comparable to its predecessor, Men in Black: we have a lot of both visual and verbal nonsense, but very little in slapstick or surprise. Remember that when this was made, moving pictures that told stories had only been around for about 20 years. So audiences of the day probably found this short enjoyable. But if you're looking for something clever, you won't find it here. The humor relies mostly on absurd moments.

Two items of note: one of the cast members is a 23-year-old Lucille Ball. Also, in this short Curly's famous "Woo-Woo-Woo" cry is nearly perfected. He still speaks in his normal voice, though, complete with Brooklyn accent.

True stooge aficionados will enjoy the film for its historical place; but if you want out-and-out stooge humor, leave this one in the bin.