Reviews

This show may be far from perfect, but it has a few good merits that are clouded by both the viewers, and the way the show has been erroneously compared to "Lost" and "24". To start with, after the pilot, the story began to run it's path into a twisted pretzel of unexplained events and occurrences that are slowly turning out with explanations. Sure, the flashing back and forth may do more harm than good at first, but maybe, it could lead to something better. I was against that tactic, until I stopped griping myself, and just eased up. Once you do this, the show is quite fun.

What the show has me at now, is the human interest. The story lines that show the difference between Simon and Sophia (good detainees) as opposed to Thomas (bad detainee)are really interesting. You have the former acting more like humans for the sake of all people, detained or civilian, and the conflict lays in the fascistic way that character Thomas is hell bent on freeing his people at any cost. There are layers of drama therein, and if people stop whining about all the negative aspects they see in this show, they might actually like it. You still don't know who you can trust so early on, and that's a good thing. Its meant to keep the viewers wondering.

Now for the cast. I say as much that Blair Underwood has been given a pretty crappy character in the president. He seems to make a bunch of pompous decisions, and doesn't really know what he's doing. Zeljko Ivanek needs a little more to do. His character is strong, but under utilized at this point. (7 episodes in) Laura Innes and Ian Anthony Dale carry the show tremendously as two of the "detainees" who care about the human condition, and the ways of the world they are living in. They're probably the best characters on the show. Jason Ritter and Sarah Roemer have a nice storyline that has it's own merits of suspense, but no real human interest. If they were removed from the show, it would be no big deal. The main interest lays in the governmental aspects. I will say, however, that Heather McComb as Agent Collier steals the show whenever on screen. I hope she sticks around.

Anyway, my point is that is really has enjoyable qualities and a few merits, and if some of the people would just stop complaining and just watch the show with a more opened mind unbiased or clouded by judgment, they might enjoy it. I do.

....There is DEFNINITELY potential, no matter how mediocre the writing, or the rest of the cast may be. I can't believe that people are so against this stuff. It's meant to be a little off-the- wall, as the title suggests, and that's pretty awesome compared to the usual, run-of-the-mill sitcoms you see these days. "Two and a HAlf Men" and "The Office" seem to be the only sitcoms that survive these ridiculous times on TV anyway, so why not give it a chance.

For starters, there is a pretty simple, perhaps even familiar, but all the same enjoyable story of a young man who, under certain circumstances, must bunk with his crazy dad for a while. Not so complicated, yes? Then there is the conflict of his father (always remarkably entertaining Shatner) as an emotionally rejective man with eccentricities up the wahzoo! A man who will not allow this to come to pass easily. Still, all i takes is a little heart and soul to connect mishapped father and son, and that's what happens to heal the story in the pilot.

NOW, it's what might come next that I am EXCITEDabout (should the show last, and I hope it does).

The cast member, other than Shatner of course vary in different areas. The lead man opposite the Shatman, Jonathan Sadowski, has some talent to burn, but he's got a lot to learn about holding his own, especially against seasoned actors like Shatner. That does not mean he's bad, in fact, he carries a great deal of miscommunication and generations gaps quite well. That shows much promise. Will Sasso and Nicole Sullivan need serious work. they're synthetically injected for background comedy that will grow tiresome in a while unless some more importance use is made for them. Tim Bagly of "Will and Grace" fame is, as usual,. on the mark with comedic timing and character support. His involvement will definitely help. as well.

What can I say, it wasn't perfect, but I really liked it and hope it succeeds. With any luck it will. There is always room for improvement, and I think with the write TLC, it will. Shatner's "Ed Goodson" ain't no Denny Crane", but he's sure crazy enough to carry a fun show for a couple of years, so hats-off to that, and may this show succeed!!!

Being a constant viewer of the original MP from 1992-1996 (Daphne Zuniga left, so I zoned out), I can say as much that this one was a dud in comparison. That's not to say it didn't have merits, but it was a far cry from the original. In the case of attempted innovation, that's just fine, but the show needed to step it up a notch, as soon as the pilot was over. It is common practice to build slowly in a shows freshman season in order to pull the viewers in, and gain their loyalty and devotion. The problem, however, is that with a serial like "Melrose Place", one cannot afford to build so slowly. What made the original so popular was it's high octane energy, and fast paced story lines. YES, even the original started out slow and then sped up with time, but with a reboot like this could have been, they needed to hit the ground running, and they hit the ground jogging instead. We only got a glimpse of it's real potential starting at the 13th episode, or so. After that, we finally had some good stories, but by then it was too late. The show had been canceled before it was canceled. Another mistake, ultimately, was the designation of the viewers. On the CW, the demographic was indefinitely bound to be consisting of mostly teenagers, and that cuts any possible chance of real adult interest out of the picture. The original MP had a lot of sex, violence, and twisted capers, but there was also a lot of business sense and adult interest, such as mortgages, jobs security, and business ethics in general. It had adults behaving, outside the bedroom, like adults. (most of the time) Here, we have barely touched on anything of the like, and, in turn, have kiddies in Abercrombie and Fitch running around saying "pity poor me". There is no credibility to this because it's too far for the suspension of disbelief that most adults nowadays watch with. Furthermore, it's dull. These younger stars like Ashley Simpson and Katie Cassidy are not talented, and the boys of the show like Shawn Sipos and Michael Rady are not credible either. Jessica Lewis almost had the same maturity going for her that Jo Reynolds had in the original. (Fancy the storyline that Jo had with Riley). Alas, the only credible actor and character was Lauren played by Stephanie Jacobson. She displayed an urgent need for morale and justice despite her torn predicament as a med student/call girl.

Other than that, cast members and story lines were pretty boring. Heather Locklear's return was very welcomed indeed, and served it's purpose very well. The same went for fellow MP originals Thomas Calabro, Josie Bissett, Laura Leighton, and of course, my personal favorite, Daphne Zuniga.The problem with these fine relics, was the writing. It wasn't easy blending these seasoned characters/actors, with newer characters and talent. It all matched up great by seasons, or shows end, but never quite took off the way it could have and should have. My only real compliment to the show, at long last, is that Jo Reynolds got some real treatment the way she should have been treated the first time: Real happiness, despite being a workaholic of course. Sad to say this show almost became a good continuation. It would have too, if it were renewed at least one more season. Oh well, almost a good show there.

Is the stupidity of the times. This could have, and should have been something to end all the endless, mindlessness of the series, especially because Jamie Lee Curtis was involved, and even suggested it to an extent but lo and behold...we have to deal with that jerk-off Kevin Williamson of "scream" fame with this one. He produces this one, I think, and he made darn sure that it mocked his stupid "scream" sensations to the T! You know what? I bet Jamie Lee Curtis is utterly ashamed of this one. Its hardly surprising. Same old stupidness with dumb characters, dumb actors, and horrible dialogue that is supposed to represent the "in with the times" teenager fan fare and it's just stupid. We have the famous, iconic Laure Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) in a different life with a new ID, trying to raise a son that apparently has been dealing with this bad memory of hers for about as long as she has. UGH! We don't give a rats butt about some lame son who offers nothing headaches galore, and you know what else? the mother-son story plays out more like Linda Hamilton and Edward Furlong in T2! I'm not kidding I swear I could mistake Ms. Curtis for playing Sarah Connor in some scenes. Anyway, the former Ms Strode runs a school (surprise surprise), where lame teens with no brains attend. On Halloween, 1998, Mr. Myers comes a knockin' for dear Laurie...20 years later. There is an attempt at alcoholism to give Laurie some depth, but it's just too ridiculous to say. Curtis has always been a great actress but to see her acting alongside a bunch a bad, no talent actors and writers etc (Minus a cameo from her beyond fantastic mother) is not what a Halloween fan wants to see. I think it was all fixed. This movie is a "scream" movie guised as a "Halloween" film, and you know what? Everybody knows it. It is nothing new, nothing original, and certainly NOT a real "Halloween" movie. Hell, a woman with out clothes who gets killed by Michael Myers, after enjoying a night of hot sex is more apt to being alongside the original Halloween than this! This is "scream mockery" and a really bad one at that. It barrows scream score by that ludicrous Marco Beltrami, and has a lot of naughty words and weird teen lingo as uttered in a scream movie. If there was ever a film to end the series with a really bad note, it's surely this one right here!

Weird, freaky satanic film that this is, it is very impressive. I like William Shatner and Tom Skerritt. The plot is pretty creepy, it has a very strange,but appropriate opening title, with evil music, and stunning imagery. The plot revolves around a family who are to keep a secret black book from being found. Ernest Borgnine is a fowl devil worshiper who is after it, and thusly, he has gathered a whole entire colony to assist him in the pursuit to find it. I really gag at the fact that John Travolta was part of this, and being part of this, he first heard of that moronic Scientology. Oh well, the film keeps your attention until the end, when people turn into devil soup.

Now Wes Craven may not talk about this one too much, but you know what? I bet he's more proud of this film than most of his films. You know why? He went back to his original roots of storytelling as such how he made "Last House On The Left". The film is an exploitation film, but you would never guess it by the stylish way he fits it into the urban setting, and the wretched display of the villains. You know what? This film tops the last few films he's ever done. I think so, because he uses the old school style of scares, and yes, this film delivers some real moments. It has a very light sense of adventure and humor, but it's all for not without the scares. What would you do if you were a 13 year old boy, tapped in a big, strange house, which is a death trap for all burglars and juveniles? Not only that, but the owners who live their are not only your landlords, but also total psychotics! Well, with a few paths within the house, walkways in the walls, and trap doors in the oven and heater, you might have a chance at living. Brandon Adams, A.J. Langer, Wendie Robie, and Everett McGill are great, and work well together. I hope Universal releases a special edition DVD of this one soon. We need it.

You know what? I think the majority of people who never liked this film much, were most likely expecting it to be all the things it wasn't. Either they wanted it to be a John Hughes film, or some extravagant film of the like. Not all films will be like that, and not all films were like that back in 1986. This film has it's serious moments, but only at times when the necessary elements are needed. True, it's comic tactics are not as up to par with the potential it had, but when seen with a good sense of humor, this film is funny as it is. How can you resist Daphne Zuniga? She is a doll! She practically holds the film on her shoulders. Cynthia Gibb and Clayton Rhoner are good too, while Virginia Madsen is annoying. She might be an Oscar nominated actress now, but in this, she just stood around looking lost and drugged. Another charm to the film, besides Daphne Zuniga, is the setting, in the L.A. night scene. The locations are fun and appropriate, and at one point, we see a sign that says "Melrose Place". Pretty ironic huh? The musical soundtrack is also a must for me to mention. It features the most defining sounds of the mid 80's, and every fan of this magical decade should here it. This film is no masterpiece, but it is fun, and enjoyable. Just have fun with it, you'll see what I mean.

Now THIS is a real chiller that deserves the high recommendations it has acquired over the years. I am deeply surprised, and touched, that every generation seems to comprehend the film, and it's seriousness. Some people will not like it, most will wonder how, and why it was made. It is an ART film, an expression! Wes Craven said it himself. He was partially inspired by the violence of that time, what with Manson, Vietnam, and all other cases involving publicly viewed disturbance. He simply took the inspirations, and blended them with the makings of a good ol-fashioned revenge film, as those type of films were very popular in that day and age. You know what? Another thing he touches on, is the fact that a lot of the violence happened around people who were younger, and wanted to stand for peace: The "Love Generation", as character Estelle Collingwood says it. Still, the world was then, as is now, corrupt with violence, and violence only leads to more violence. This film cleverly shows us despair, humiliation, torture, and revenge, in an entire blood bath of ways. There is symbolism behind many of the moments. Parallelism between the two sides, good and bad. I look at this film as sheer poetry of the GUT-CHURNING persuasion, a very dark, but non-the-less real nightmare about the subject which parents fear, and the youth of America are oblivious to. Great film...GREAT film Mr Craven!

You know what??? This film is not so bad. I can see that some highly acclaimed movie critics as Leonard Maltin need to examine the films they reviewed again. He gave it a BOMB rating, and you know what? That hardly justifies how most people will, and do feel about this movie. When I watch this film, I see a story being told, sure there are some extreme gore effects and naughty stereotypes, but c'mon, it's a pretty entertaining film. It continues the Brundle life-line as the son of the genius Seth Brundle is born, and half- mutant. Obviously, even in the original remake classic, they knew the possibilities of another FLY beast within Veronica's pregnancy. Even so, this carries the tradition, in the same fashion as the original. Sure enough, it will never top the original, and why should it? It is, you know, a sequel. Even more so, Eric Stoltz and Daphne Zuniga are great, and they give us something to hope for, as well as grief and humanity, elements that are, I might add, in the first film too. The direction is descent, and the acting is, as I said, above average. The Christopher Young score is to die for, and the special effects are awesome! Maybe in the future, this film will be recognized as a good film...wait a minute...it already has! 20th Century Fox already released a great 2-Disc DVD, so sorry Leonard M.-your opinion doesn't count anymore, and you know what? I'm happy with that.

You know...this film even now, sits on the shelves of movie stores, as a pathetic excuse of cinematic history. It was not too bad, but certainly not too good, and you wanna know my opinion? I blame this one for all the problems that we have with this everlasting nightmare called the "Halloween" series. I blame it very much, but I can also attest to the fact that no one really watches this film, except die-hard fans. I was a die hard fan myself once, but not so much anymore. The concept of the latter day family linked to Michael Meyers is interesting, and certainly a subject to be delved into, if the script be good enough. Saddly, it just revived the first one, and...well, what do you think came next? You know what? This one is more interesting to watch, for me. The first one is so overrated, and praised by such Nimrods and Rob Zombie, that it's not even worth a mention, except that it started the series. Alas, I digress. I have no real compassion for this series anymore, but I will keep tabs on it for many years to come, because at one point or another, it was part of my life too.

You know what? This film is beautiful, I mean it really is a luscious telling of the famous man-turned-beast. Yes, it is a remake, and I usually don't like remakes, but you what? This film did it all, and did it all great. It has a terrific set-up of introductions to the three characters we really get to know, and the intimacy is very powerful, as we really feel like we're getting to know these people. The terror is also real, or as real as can be believed, which is very real indeed. Jeff Goldblum gives his ultimate performance as the brilliant Seth Brundle, a man who's genius goes awry, and soon, his life is turned upside down! Geena Davis certainly gives us a real character to embrace, as she falls in love with Goldblums' Brundle. As the story takes it's turns and leaps, the love that the two leads share is stretched through fear and power, and bravery. The film is so depressing by that point, that we feel the loss we know will come. It really holds us well, as it brings us to the very end. Cronenberg is a master at this, and I will forever love this film.

You know what? I almost like this film more than "Last House On The Left", because of the fact that it carries itself in such a manner. I am almost sure that it has been tossed in the gutter in the past few years. it shouldn't be. You know what? If I were Sharon Stone, I'd be proud of this film, because it is not as bad as people say, or as bad as she thinks. I bet a LOT of people prefer it to that Basic Instinct sequel. I liked BI2, but c'mon, This film is better than that, everybody knows it. This movie is just fine. It has some pretty good sequences, and a nice cast of three outstandingly beautiful women, and a low key, but creepy score by a then unknown James Horner. I actually prefer it to other supernatural horror films, and you know what? I'm not the only one, and thank goodness for that. I like this film, in all it's freaky glory, and the shrieks and scares! Were I to be "blessed", I'd say it were one bi+ch of a blessing. Thank god I am not around the lovely Maren Jensen at the end of this chiller.

I had never before in my life, seen something as stupid as this, until saw it. I remember thinking it could be good, because I hadn't read into the storyline, so I sat and waited for a good hour looking for Mr. Meyers, who never showed. That was my fault, because I, who had seen the first two, had not given much thought prior to seeing it. What is this anyway? It goes from some scheme drama, to icky gooey chiller, to hokey poky sci-fi! How in the name if god is this a Halloween film? It doesn't even give off a feel for the traditional All Hollows Eve. At least it was not a Meyers related sequel. I'll give it that. Had it been good, it could have been a good set up for the rest of the series, alas, the nightmare isn't over, but you can blame the rest of the sequels for that! If not titled a "Halloween" film, Halloween III would be a better film, and even strike up a few notches on the rating scale, but just the same, it's poor and cheap.

Nope, the nightmare wasn't over when this film came out, and it isn't over now. This film could have been just that, a film in which we begin, as the nightmare for Laurie Strode isn't over. It could have ended where we all wake up to find ourselves rid of any further Halloween sequels, but that was never going to be the case, was it? You know something? I like this particular film more than the first. I guess it's narrow hallway shots and good pacing made an everlasting impact on me, because I adore it. I think this film was, especially well defined, being a sequel. It was all the rest that followed, that remind me that the film industry is just as this film states, a nightmare that ain't over 'til it's over! I like Jamie Lee Curtis, I just love Donald Pleasance, and Ana Alicia. This film actually makes me feel like I'm watching a horror movie. I guess you could say it backs itself up. I am hoping that our nightmare will end soon, but not until the next few Halloween sequels are released. Just do me a favor Hollywood, make it have a good ending. This film, Halloween II did.

I like this film, but you know what? I think the thrill is a little old after seven sequels, and one wasn't even linked to the original storyline. I feel sorry for John Carpenter, because he will never live it down. I know he is proud of it and all, but c'mon, every other year, there is a new DVD, and every other year since 1998, a sequel is announced. Haven't we had enough of this? This film is pretty good, but it's nothing like a Ridley Scott film or anything. I am happy to have been a big fan, but eventually, this film gets pretty old. And you know what? I heard this film could possibly be remade. REMADE! That is what films like this do to the genre, they inspire and entertain for a few good decades, but soon enough, they pay for the good, for with the good, comes the bad, just like this film is...a little good, a little bad.

You know what? It is usually the best kind of movies that get the worst reputations, but some of those unfortunate situations come to the fine judgment in latter days. I come to say that, for the most of my knowledge, this film is an example of such justice. I know that people think it is campy and over the top, but it really is not so. Even better, when the new Superman films is released, the original Reeve films will be reintroduced in society, and this film will too. You know what else? It deserves to be so. Helen Slater, and Faye Dunaway deserve the best type of recognition for their work on this film. They did it the old fashion way. The worked hard, and labored the circumstances, and had fun while doing it. They are proud of it, at least Faye Dunaway is, and I think that maybe Helen Slater is too, but because people always bash it, she will not say so. I hope she is involved in the new DVD. I love this movie.

Now THIS is a horror movie, this is a Sci-Fi, this is a total action film with completely terrifying instances and unnerving happenings that plague one's thought for days, months, and even years before ever seeing it again. What else is there to say? I was so scared when viewing this film for the first time, and I screamed the whole way through it. The art design is so beautiful, and dark, but not dark as in black, it is dark toned, with all light colors such as yellow and green, casting a shadow over what we know as space. Something else that this film has, is the unpredictability of the unknown. I was shaky about it all with every moment, resulting in my screams. They weren't kidding when they said this was the scariest film ever, it is, but some people might have to see it to believe it.