Reviews

Many others are writing on how this series focuses heavily on Earth science rather than exploring alien exoplanets and ecosystems. Those are all valid criticisms and I share them.

My focus is on how the scientific exploration is extraordinarily limited and clear biases emerge, particularly in the fourth and final episode.

When they talk about the vast numbers of planets that exist, what they don't explore are the many variables and balances that must be maintained just to make life possible. Not only does our planet have air and liquid water, we also have the benefits of a large moon to regulate tides, a perfect distance from our sun and a large "asteroid sweeper" (Jupiter) to limit our chances of getting pulverized. These "Goldilocks" variables (not too much, not too little) actually make the odds of finding life much more astronomical. That's not covered, and the viewers believe that there must be millions of planets with life and not (more likely) very few.

They don't go into much biodiversity either. All lifeforms breathe air, have eyes, are carbon-based, etc. Nothing covers the possibility of metabolizing liquid or other fluid gases, senses relying on input other than visible light or life built on other "building blocks" like silicon. Lots of possibilities wasted.

The final episode focusing on a "hyper-advanced' species is laughable. They fall on the old hive-mind theory (which no species would willingly agree to) and woefully ineffective solar power as the most "advanced" form of harnessing energy. As if an advanced society would never resort to contained fission or fusion as a far more efficient and economical source of energy. This is supposed to be a scientific exploration, not a commercial for solar farms which only supply less than 3% of our world's energy and consume far more resources in order to work.

Visuals are nice, but the science could have been much better. Next time, get more budget to realize more worlds and get a more diverse panel of scientific experts to provide a wider variety of possibilities.

Saw this one some time ago.

First of all, I was never a big fan of Ralph Bakshi and his films. Stories that try so hard to be "edgy" and "adult" that they just come out boring and lots and lots of rotoscope.

This movie is no different. Granted, it's very colorful. However the rotoscope characters all move and talk like they're stroke victims. Lots of slack jaw expressions and eye lines that go in weird directions. Since all roles were acted out by people, it makes you wonder why the film wasn't just completely Live Action.

Then there is the story. The premise sounds fine enough: Four generations of men have this love for and need to create music. The problem is that each man is a self absorbed jerk who doesn't care how he ruins his life or the lives of others as long as THE MUSIC is top priority. Three out of four of these men were born out of wedlock and the last two in the bloodline were homeless drug addicts. But as long as they got to make THE MUSIC, who cares, right? It's not even a full exploration of music as the time line only covers 1920 through 1980 and only three genres of music; namely Big Band, Jazz and Rock. The closing scene is the silliest of all as you have this kid who struts like Mick Jagger, but sings like Bob Seger. Visually does not fit. Probably animated the sequence before they knew what music they could get the rights to.

This movie would probably be best loved by those who like to do drugs and not think. If you like good stories which are uplifting and inspiring, you would do fine to pass on this one.

I first saw this film when I was 10 years old. My Dad took me to see it as I thought it looked fun and since it was PG and had a kid in it who was approximately the same age, it was assumed to be a children's movie.

Not quite.

I know the Pg-13 rating had not been devised yet when this film was released, but if it had been, I think this film certainly should have earned it.

To me and my 10 year old mind, it just had a lot of disturbing images. It was mild at first as the child was obviously being neglected by his parents and they watched a TV show where contestants in a game show had to undergo somewhat harsh and disturbing tasks just to win some household appliances. I'm sure it's supposed to be a clever satire on consumerism, but a 10 year old doesn't know that.

After that, it was downhill. Little people eating rats, a man losing his arm in an arm wrestling match, exploding people and exploding dogs were just a few of the items that bothered me at that time. I learned much later that Terry Gilliam is known for having a Black sense of humor, but I didn't know it at the time. Not to spoil the ending, but it was also disturbing and un-satisfying to see what Kevin was left with by the end of the picture.

I'm not saying the film should be banned or edited or whatever. It's an OK film for adults and mature teens. Just not for young children as the PG rating is a little mis-leading. I still find Terry Gilliam's sense of humor to be a little off-putting, but if you enjoy that, it's fine. Just be careful and think it over before you let young kids 12 and under watch it.

I had first seen this movie in theaters in 1976 when I was five years old. My dad took me to see it when it had been re-released. We got there half way in the middle of the film, but this was back when they would let you stay for the next showing, so technically I saw it one and a half times that day. I liked it so much then, and it stayed with me for a long time. I later owned and read the original book and "Peter Pan's Flight" became one of my favorite rides at Walt Disney World. I knew the story so well, but when I saw it on the shelves in the most recent Blu-ray release, I realized that I hadn't watched the film in its entirety since I was five. So, I bought it.

I was amazed at how much I had forgotten. So many small scenes and nuances like the Lost Boys' home under the tree and the Pirates' life aboard ship. It is still, however, a great film and definitely one of the best animated films to come out of Disney studios.

I know there's a lot of controversy over the Indians as being politically incorrect. However, we need to keep in mind the period in which this film was made, the fact that it wasn't made with malicious intent, and that Never Land is supposed to be a land created by children inhabited by characters from a child's viewpoint. Children don't know what's "Politically Correct" and we should put that behind us as well to enjoy this great film. It then stops being a "relic of the past" and becomes a timeless film. Hopefully we can all have the same attitude as Mr. Darling does by the end of the film. What attitude is that? Watch and find out.

...and it most certainly does work.

Rightfully hailed as Mel Brooks' greatest work, this film is a master class in both comedic story-telling and cinematography.

There isn't much that hasn't been said about this film already. Every aspect of this film, from the acting to the set design works so well. The comedic timing is spot-on. The insistence on filming in Black & White was a master stroke as well.

I think in order to really appreciate this film, you have to go back and watch the original Frankenstein films from the 1930's. Particularly the first three films starring Boris Karloff as the creature. Once you compare the scenes in those films to Young Frankenstein, you see that this film is not merely a farce, but a Valentine to the old classic films. I saw Young Frankenstein first, long before i got to see and appreciate the original films. I was very surprised how much of YF was a take on the previous films. I didn't know about the "brain dropping" scene or the artificial arm of the Police Inspector. After comparing the two films, it becomes evident that the best satire comes from somebody who truly admires the source material.

I've read some poor reviews on this site regarding this film, and can only conclude they come from younger viewers who have never seen or compared the source material. It is a shame that most classics like this are lost on younger generations, but, thankfully, these generations have little say in what is truly a classic.

Highly recommended. To get the best experience, I recommend Blu-Ray.

Enjoy!

We've all known that Mel Brooks is a Comedy Genius. His crazy movies such as Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein and Spaceballs have earned him his own sub-genre in the world of comedy films.

However, before those films, there was this one; his second outing as a Director.

I actually never heard of this film until a few years ago. I purchased "The Mel Brooks Collection" which was a collection of nine of his films on Blu-Ray. The Twelve Chairs was the first film in the collection. I was pleasantly surprised when I watched it.

The humor is much more subtle than his other films. It's also different in that it's based on an earlier novel instead of coming directly from Mr. Brooks. However, what he did with this film is a testament to his artistic sense.

The interaction between characters is very well choreographed. The comedic timing is excellent, especially with Dom Deluise. You're laughing almost immediately after he first appears in the story. A great deal of his story is separate from the other two characters as he makes his own search for the chairs. However, it's still a fine performance and much of what you expect from him for those familiar with his work.

The interaction between Ron Moody and Frank Langella is fantastic. Moody does an excellent portrayal of the inept former aristocrat turned clerk and Langella is also excellent as the dashing and intelligent rogue. The two make a great odd couple, yet work very well together.

Of course, there are the standard Mel Brooks trademarks such as the director's cameo and doubling as song-writer for the film's soundtrack. As usual he performs both roles very well.

Finally what really makes this film a work of art is the cinematography. Mel Brooks certainly knows how to frame a picture and with Russia serving as the backdrop, we are really treated to some great imagery. The travel montage at 1 hour, 17 minutes in is definitely the best as Moody and Langella's characters make a long 3000 mile trek across the Soviet Union and back to Moscow.

Highly recommend seeing this film. It's probably best to just do what I did and purchase The Mel Brooks Collection and see for yourself. You won't be disappointed.

I've read so many posts and comments on this film labeling it "Propaganda" and just have to shake my head. From what I can see, "propaganda" is just a quick label for something that you don't want to hear or even think about.

The whole point of this movie has gone way over the heads of so many of the critics and bashers. The point of the film is that in this country, the United States of America, we should be Free to voice our opinions and views even if it goes against the status quo. However, in today's Academia, you can say what you like, as long as it's accepted by those who dictate what's acceptable. Science has become an "Old Boy's Network" meaning that most things are dictated by the same tired old theories and there's not much more room for new thought. Science has their Saints and Dogmas too.

The filmmakers chose Intelligent Design. The real theory of Intelligent Design is basically what it says it is: that there may be a possibility that what we know of as "The Universe" may have been designed by an Intelligence rather than just a random coming together of molecules. ID is NOT strictly Creationism. Those who label it so are people who don't want to engage in thoughtful debate. Creationism is a very narrow take on Intelligent Design. Creationism deals almost strictly with the Judeo-Christian Bible; namely the Book of Genesis. Creationists take Genesis literally and will hear no other side. Creationists and ID supporters are similar in that they accept a Higher Power behind the development of Earth, but ID supporters can also accept a wider spectrum of possibilities. The Earth could have been created by what Christians know of as "God", or it could have been orchestrated by another being or set of beings.

Another wild claim is that this film tries to debunk Evolution. At no point in this film does anybody suggest that Evolution is False. Evolution is factual and has a staggering amount of evidence to support the development of species into other species. What ID supporters are against, is the idea that it all begun spontaneously. The possibility for base elements and minerals to spontaneously form the right sequence pairs to create a strand of DNA is beyond staggering. Yet so many scientists are willing to drop all curiosity and exploration and just sit back on "it just happened". However, anybody even suggests that maybe there was a mind behind the spark, they jump up to run out the "Creationist Wackos". When challenged on what sparked the development of life, nearly all the scientists interviewed ended up stumbling and fumbling for answers.

People were very disturbed by the connection between Social Darwinism and the atrocities committed in Nazi Germany. Ben Stein specifically says that Darwinism does not lead to Naziism, but one can see parallels. If one takes "Survival of the Fittest" to extremes, one can see Eugenics and the Holocaust as possible outcomes. Christians have had to deal with this "Slippery Slope" Fallacy of Logic too. Christians have been blamed from everything from the Crusades, to the Inquisitions, to American Slavery to the KKK. Yet, when the extremes of Secularism are displayed, the Secularists label it as "propaganda". They don't want to think of the ideas of Social Darwinism carried out to the extreme. It's true that Darwin himself was against such extremes, but you can't deny that those extremes exist.

This film is meant for people with truly Open Minds. Those who are willing to see both sides of an argument, make their own judgments, and respectfully disagree with those who have made different judgments. It's not for those who blindly reject all those of Faith, but it's not for those who let Faith completely override their judgment and reasoning.

It's too bad they don't have shows like this anymore. I know there's a Ripley's show on today, but that seems to focus more on the strange human stunts like contortion-ism and pulling cinder blocks with your ear lobes. The original Ripley's talked more about History and traditions of other cultures. To me it seemed much more educational.

When this show first came on (I was about 10 years old), it kind of scared me because they showed scenes from "The Elephant Man" and "The Howling", which were brand new movies back then. I was a little squeamish with the effects from those movies, but now I love them and own those movies today. Wish I could own episodes of Ripley's, because after I got over my squeamishness, I really grew to love that show.

Jack Palance made the show. He put a real flare on his presentations that only he could pull off. I liked how he would end a sequence with "Believe it........... Or Not!". He would always put that breathless type of enthusiasm behind his narratives, so that you felt he really loved the subject matter. The female co-hosts did great jobs too. I liked his daughter Holly the best.

I can still see and hear the opening credits in my mind. This was just a quality show that you don't see too much of these days. Forget "reality TV" today, we should go back to these showcase shows like Ripley's, That's Incredible and Real People.

I wish they would bring this version of Ripley's to DVD. Not just a "Best of", but the entire series. Like I said, it was more educational and family oriented and I think we need to bring that back.

Believe it...... Or Not!

I remember when this show came on and I thought it was the greatest thing. Yes, some of it seemed very hokey, but it was a lot of fun.

After growing up a bit and seeing it again on Sci-Fi, I can see in some ways why it didn't continue. I think the biggest flaw was that the story writers didn't take advantage of the Man into Animal aspect. They stuck the main character basically with routine Cops and Robbers plots. Most (if not all) of the story lines could be transplanted to any other Police / Crime show and be solved by an ordinary person with no animal powers. Sure, there were some instances where Dr. Chase would find himself in a predicament where only changing into an animal would save him (like falling out of a plane and changing into a hawk), but for the most part the cases were pretty mediocre.

Another problem was leaving Dr. Chase's past too enigmatic. I'm sure it was meant to add to the mystery, but most people just had no idea where this character came from or why he could do what he could do. There was the cryptic opening sequence where the young Jonathan Chase is standing by his dying father's bedside, but no other explanation is ever given about him. Knowing almost nothing about the character, you couldn't really develop too much sympathy for him. They also never delved into any complications that may come with being able to turn into any animal. Did he have their instincts as well? Did he have any limitations? Could he transform into Fish, Amphibians or Insects, or just air breathing animals? He did transform into a reptile once (python), but the rest were warm blooded air breathers like mammals and birds.

I watched on Sci-Fi Channel when they had interviews with Stan Winston, the creator of the Transformation sequences. I could see with the TV show budget, they could only do two or three sequences (Panther and Hawk were the main ones, but the Python was one exception and used only once), but those sequences were great. All done with prosthetic make-up and mechanical effects and all done in real time. Pretty impressive for the day. If the series had been produced today, it would have been much easier to do a multitude of sequences and most likely done with CGI Morphing. Once, the Dr. Chase / Manimal character made a guest appearance on "Night Man", but we were robbed because the transformation sequences were reduced to an instantaneous transformation with a flash of light. What's up with that??

Like I said, this series is greatly missed and I hope that someday the entire series comes out on DVD. I will certainly be first in line to buy it.

It's hard to describe how good this movie was without falling to the same cliché terms that so many others have used to describe it ("blown away" seems to be the number one description used so far). It was a truly great film and I will probably see it again in the theaters before purchasing it on DVD (the DVD release date can't come soon enough).

Artistically, it's a triumph. The visuals are amazing, the acting is solid and the story is utterly riveting. If I can go the entire length the first time without checking my watch to see how long I've been there, then you know it's a good film.

One thing for certain, this film definitely has Frank Miller's Thumbprint on it. Although I only have Sin City as a reference, the two films really have a lot in common. Both films have done a great service to Mr. Miller by translating Graphic Novel Frames to Film Shots in a flawless manner. They also both carry Frank Miller's vision of Heroes. The Heroes in both of these films are not goody-goody. They can be violent and at times a little sadistic, but they never waver from their mission and have a very cut-&-dry goal and means to achieve their goal. The Villains are also true Frank Miller creations: Vile, often physically twisted beings with a "Might makes Right" philosophy. You will have to see both films to understand my point.

Oddly though, I left the first screenings of both Sin City and 300 with very different emotions. For Sin City, I found the violence to be somewhat unsettling. I walked out thinking "There are some really twisted people out there". I didn't have that feeling when leaving 300, even though the level of violence and brutality is about the same. Perhaps it was the time period setting for both movies. Sin City is set more or less in the modern era, so such violence seems excessive for our so-called civilized era. With 300, you realize it's set in 480 BC, so you kind of expect it to be Brutal. You expect Swords, Spears and Shields and you know it won't be pretty. Of course there is the possibility that Sin City just desensitized me enough that I was able to stomach 300 more easily.

To wrap up, 300 is definitely a movie to see for pretty much anybody old enough to be admitted to an R Rated movie. I think just about any adult can find something to like about this film. More than highly recommended.

This is definitely one of the best MST3K episodes done. From the first zinger done by Mike and the 'bots (It's a Giant Spider Invasion of Savings at Menards!), to the last (Go....Packers!!), it's a great time having fun at the expense of lovable Cheeseheads of Wisconsin. Alone, "Giant Spider Invasion" would have been truly unbearable, but with the MST3K Treatment, it's become a comedy classic watched by me and my friends many times over.

As soon as this came up as an MST3K Volume 10 DVD, I instantly bought it. If you ever want to introduce your friends to MST3K, this is the episode you must show them. It has everything necessary to turn you and your friends into instant "Misties" who will want more and more of MST3K.

Go Packers!

Although this show was obviously inspired by the Scooby-Doo Genre of Teenage-Sleuths-solving-mysteries, it did stand alone in it's own way. One difference is that the Bad Guys weren't people in masks pretending to be ghosts/monsters to scare off those "meddling kids". These Bad Guys were bona fide monsters or super villians. I remember that when Fangs was in his Human form, he and Pugsy brought a Ralph Cramden/Ed Norton relationship to the show (with Pugsy as Ralph and Fangs as Norton). But that would end soon as Fangs saw the Moon. Then Pugsy would always get his comeuppance for treating Fangs so poorly. He never seemed to learn though. It's not good to mess with a kid who turns into a Werewolf.

Frank Welker brought his usual vocal talents to the show. Although he had been over-using his "Dynomutt" voice by this time.

The show's greatest downfall was the introduction of Baby Fangs/Fangpuss. Why Cartoon Producers felt it necessary to introduce a baby version of the main character, I'll never know. It was a failing formula for many shows (ok Scooby-Doo carried on a long time with the annoying Scrappy, but every fan will agree Scrappy was the most hated). In this case, when Fangpuss was introduced, the magic was gone as Fangface now did all of his antics with Fangpuss permanently attached as if by an invisible Umbilical cord. Plus, the Fangs character was almost completely erased as he and Baby Fangs would change into their alter egos early into the episode, and not change back until the very end. Most of the comedy with the first season came with the fact that you never knew when Fangs/Fangface would see the moon/sun and change at the most inconvenient moments.

It's a fondly remembered show. Too bad it never acheived the popularity of Scooby-Doo. I would be very interested to see how a Live Action Feature Film could portray the fun-loving Werewolf, Fangface.

....even if it did borrow a lot of concepts from the popular Star Wars movies. Thundarr with his Sun Sword (lightsaber), wise cracking Princess Ariel (Princess Leia) and a large hairy, growling companion, Ookla the Mok (Chewbacca).

All these aside, it was still a great series. I liked how the items that are so common in our world, become totally new things in the Devastated Future World. It was also kind of interesting to see the new landscapes and realize that they were actually standing in ruined Los Angeles, Washington D.C., etc.

It was somewhat hampered by the cheap animation common to Cartoon Series of the day. I would love to see the series re-made with today's animation techniques. I'm sure it would be even more astonishing.

..the critics I mean, not the fans. To read the comments made by the critics of this film just made me want to shake my head and sigh. What do you people want?

First of all, Attack of the Clones satisfied my need for more Star Wars. The episodes are fitting together nicely and I can't wait for Episode III to come out so we can finally watch the entire saga in its glory.

And now for the critiques. People are saying that "Special Effects do not a film make." Excuse me, but we're watching a Science Fiction film here. You need the effects to tell the story. Just like you need effects for films like Jurassic Park and Spider-man. "If you take the Special Effects out, then the actors are just so wooden." Well, of course the story would fall apart without the effects. Just like true Science Fiction falls apart without the Science, Effects movies fall apart without the effects. Lucas is one of the few people to actually use Special Effects as Plot Elements rather than just scenery. And the effects are truly amazing. You could not make a movie like this five years ago. Stop trying to pick out what's fake and move on.

"Oh and the acting is just so terrible!" Excuse me, but I don't see you on the Big Screen now do I? Obi-Wan is growing nicely into "Old Ben" that we've seen in Episode IV. Anakin's inner turmoil is truly visible to all but those closest to him. As for the Romance, please remember that Anakin and Amidala start out as a Senator and her Body Guard. They're supposed to try to keep their emotions bottled. We're so used to "Love Scenes" which are nothing more than two people ripping clothes off and engaging in frenzied Love Making. This is a Galaxy Far Far Away, mind you. Not everybody has the same rules for Romance. If you need "Romance" go watch that Tongue-Depressor-Stick of a movie called "Titanic". Leave the seats open for those who want Star Wars.

I laughed when I heard that one of the problems of this movie was that it borrowed elements from The Empire Strikes Back. Well of course it did!! They're from the same Saga! You've got to understand George's motivation for these films. Everything is in a Circle. It's all like one big poem for him. When a character says "I have a Bad Feeling About This", it's like the rhyme of a poem. History repeats itself and what goes around comes around. Anakin meets the same trials and temptations as Luke will in the future. Some of them exactly the same. The idea is that Anakin fails and falls to the Dark Side. Luke is tempted, but succeeds in the end.

As for my critique. The movie is excellent. Everything fits together so well. I could have done without the C-3PO slapstick, but that was about the only thing I didn't like. The climactic Light-Saber duels are amazing and Yoda's performance will be remembered for Generations to come.

So folks, just walk in there and leave your misgivings at the door. It's not a perfect film, but then again, no such thing exists. It's pure fun as it was meant to be. Be Happy that you're a part of it.

This series came out shortly after Superman was reconceptualized in the Comic Books. Very different from the Superman we have seen on the various Superfriends series or the animated Superman from the sixties. They made Luthor into a Multi-Billionaire, got rid of the Multi-hued versions of Kryptonite, let the Kents live to see their foster-son's greatness, erased the "Superboy" part of the history and made Kal-El truly the last survivor of Krypton.

I really enjoyed it and am sad to see that nobody remembers it and no networks air it. It had everything that an Action-Superhero series should have. I also enjoyed the "Superman Family Album" they showed at the end of every episode. It was a 10 minute segment focusing on the childhood and development of young Clark Kent. It focused on Key Points in his life or just normal aspects that every child faces while growing up (every child with super powers that is). We saw how the Kents adopted him, how the babysitter dealt with him, Birthday parties, High School, that awkward First Date, finally cumulating with Clark's move to Metropolis and his first "Coming Out" as Superman.

A great series and truly "Super" in its own right.

When this movie first came out, it was promoted as "The Next Star Wars" or "The Star Wars for the 90's". There are some similarities. It is Science Fiction, but the characters also are fighting a more mystical "Evil". There is also a feeling of Unchangeable Destiny as nothing can stop the main characters from meeting each other and their goals.

Aside from that, the comparisons can stop. Star Wars is great in its own right, but so is the Fifth Element. If they were musical styles, Star Wars is classical, and Fifth Element is Hip-hop/Dance Mix.

The Fifth Element is just stunning. A visual treat that really has no true comparison or match. Forget about comparing to other Science Fiction movies. Forget about comparing to other Luc Besson movies. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.

After watching the DVD at a friend's house and listening to the Director Commentary, I learned that the Director had to cut some of the story due to budget constraints. It's a shame because it seems like he cut out about 90% of the story. Even at the end of the film, the audience knows almost nothing. Especially about "The Creeper". No Legend or Mythology was even attempted for this character. So many questions like "Why the old church?" "How does a Demon (or whatever he is) acquire an old truck with Vanity Plates?" "How long has he been doing what he does?" "How is it that the townspeople are completely oblivious to his presence while he's snatching up people left and right?" All we know is that he comes out every 23 years for 23 days and eats people parts. And this from a crazy psychic lady that nobody wants to listen to, including the audience.

The ending is pointless, merciless, and leaves much to be desired. The kids did nothing to deserve this. The audience did nothing to deserve this, come to think of it. Basically, the movie ends at what is usually a beginning or a mid-point for every other horror movie. To some that may scream "Sequel!!" but to others it says "Just forget about it. You won't get what you want here."

For this mish-mash hodge-podge of numerous horror themes, I'm glad I didn't put forth any money towards this (my friend paid for the DVD rental).