Change Your Image
tday
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Under the Yum Yum Tree (1963)
Wow, is this movie outdated!
I saw this movie in the theater in 1963, when it came out.
I was 9 years old and I had no idea what the main premise of the story was. My mother told me unmarried people aren't supposed to live together and I took that for exactly what it was. Meaningless!
I liked it at the time I saw it. I was 9; people bouncing off the walls, falling off buildings, talking fast running around frenetically, I mean, I lived for this stuff. Right up my alley, just like alive action cartoon.
I thought the actors were great and the sets were FABULOUS! I loved all the apartments and looking back the only thing that draws me in is all the retro representations, which were not retro at the time. The Corningware coffee pot was a great memory. I think sometimes in old movies that's my favorite part. Old appliances, clothes, hair, furniture and other items were amazing. I loved the dual violin machine! So much for what was good.
Boy, this did NOT travel well in 60 years. It's highly sexist, misogynistic and chauvinistic all at the same time. Super cringeworthy. The script was not great, and it seemed like they had to put 2 hours of material into a 90 minute movie, i.e., very, very rushed.
Jack Lemmon's character would be arrested and in prison in today's world. He was highly disgusting, no redeeming qualities. Just a lecherous, uncontrollable animal. It wasn't the least bit funny either. I felt anxious during the whole movie because of Lemmon's character. But I did see a bit of what would be some of his future characters. As far as Lemmon goes, probably his worst movie. Everyone else was very good for what it was. And it wasn't really Lemmon's fault he was miscast. He did try. They did their best with this awful script. Maybe the Broadway play was better. I sure hope so.
The Adventurers (1970)
Taught me a lesson at a young age
Many others have reviewed this movie so I will cut to the chase. The whole basis of this story, besides the side stories and violence, etc., is to show the hypocrisy of government. The autocratical government depicted at the beginning of the movie---with a big parade as the "leader" sits on a throne waving to his people while he is clearly oppressing them---is distasteful to the revolutionaries, and they fight to overthrow him. But at the end, the revolutionary leader is shown doing the exact same thing the autocratic leader did, sitting on a throne with a king-like existence as the parade for him goes on beneath him, implying he is oppressing them, exactly like his predecessor. People say it happened in Columbia, but it reminded me of Cuba, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and Communism. Perhaps the Cuban people felt oppressed by the US (and the Mafia) using them for profit, but they were no better---and in fact, worse off---in Communism.
My Three Sons: The Return of Terrible Tom (1971)
Worst episode ever of this 12 Season Series
The 11th season had many poignant episodes that were a great depiction of the times and some that were incredibly warm-hearted. It's sad to see this horrible episode, they should've just tossed it in the garbage and shown a rerun. Demarest was not a great actor, not even a good one. He brought a great deal of grouchiness and negativity to the show, sometimes it was funny, but rarely. I basically never got over them canning Bill Frawley, I think them firing him contributed to his death. His purpose in life was gone. He was perfect in the caretaker role and his warmth and phenomenal talent added much joy to the show. Frawley's grumpiness was different, more subdued and clearly loving. Demarest came off as selfish, self-centered and inexcusably disagreeable, as he very much was in real life and definitely here in this episode.It just underlined "Charlie's" obliviousness to his never-ending intrusion to their lives. Basically the entire episode is about Charlie's old friend coming to town and goes after his girl so he leaves home and greatly intrudes upon his nephews, one living with his wife in a tiny dorm room the other with a wife and 3 children. "Charlie" may be a good cook and babysitter, but not much else.
The King of Queens: The Rock (1998)
Cute but silly. Writers needed an education into the jewelry business
It doesn't take a week to size a ring. Maybe a day. If your jeweler can't resize a ring on premises, he's not a jeweler. Changing reality to match your story line is on the list of thing you never do in a TV show unless it's about science fiction.
The Great Gatsby (2013)
A completely uninformed, non-historical, ridiculous, laughable farce and a disgrace.
After reading it my first year in college and being completely mesmerized, I wasn't completely thrilled with the 1974 version (critics agreed). Mia Farrow's performance was a bit over the top, but the movie, as a whole, captured the magic, sadness and despair of the book. (Karen Black & Sam Waterston were the standout performances.)
But this? I could barely watch it all in one sitting, it was that bad. Poorly acted. Poorly representative of the book, and rap and modern music? It is just pure, disrespectful garbage. DiCaprio's performance was a joke and totally unbelievable. He obviously never read the book, or he was completely unable to glean any of the emotion or meaning of his character from it. I actually laughed hysterically at how poor his performance was at times.
The only saving grace of this movie (or the reason for the single star) was Carey Mulligan's performance. While I don't think she portrayed Daisy correctly in any way (not fragile enough), she is always a joy to watch.
And to IMDB, if you are worried about "spoilers" with regard to The Great Gatsby? I realize it's on every title, but if you don't know the story by now, that's a very sad testament to this great piece of literature. It certainly was greatly disrespected by this director and TPTB who made this travesty. Fitzgerald is spinning in his grave.
Frozen (2013)
Okay, but not great. Mostly a flat, uneventful 102 minutes
I found this movie to be flat. I sat there at the end, asking myself, "this the supposed 'greatest movie Disney's ever made?' Because I don't get it." I wholeheartedly do not agree it's anywhere near the top of the pile. Maybe above Cars? It made tons of money, but being successful and being critically-acclaimed are two completely different things.
Almost all Disney movies, starting with Snow White, have been able to appeal to both children and adults alike. This movie looks like it would, too, but it's not. It's for kids, girls, to be specific. It's not even a good representation of Anderson's, "Snow Queen." It comes close to disrespecting it.
The opening is the best part of the movie, when Elsa and Anna are playing. It's mostly downhill from there. The villains are one-dimensional, they aren't even scary villains, except for Hans, for like, a second.
The animation is not great. That was the biggest disappointment of it all for me. The "heroines" were, well, strange looking. I got the feeling they created characters that would be easy to make into dolls, and as we know, that's where the REAL money is. They could've done INCREDIBLE animation with turning things into ice. I was not impressed.
I also wasn't impressed with the music, the only song I felt was Disney-worthy was, "Do You Want to Build a Snowman." I'm not a fan of "Let It Go," only the chorus is really worth it, the rest of the song is, well, boring. The other songs were 100% unnecessary and muddied the story line. Way, way too much music.
I don't know why they chose Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel to do the speaking voices. Bell's "always sarcastic" way of speaking was inappropriate for Anna, but her singing voice was sweet, (although I heard Veronica Mars or Gossip Girl as Anna when she spoke). She does too many important voice-overs to be believable as a different character without changing her voice.
And—Menzel is not a voice actor! She just ISN'T. Flat, flat, flat. And she mumbles, always, on stage and now, here. Had a hard time understanding her. (ENUNCIATE, IDINA. You're not only a singer!) I would've preferred really good voice actors to those two (like the children they used for young Anna and Elsa). I also have a problem with using a different singer for "Let It Go" for the credits! What?!? I have to say, I think Demi Lovato should have been Elsa from the get go, no clue why they didn't use her, and you could've used Ariel Winter as Anna, two Disney veterans. Just bad, bad casting for these important female leads in this movie. They could've made it contemporary, but they chose to use 40-somethings to play teenagers. Yes, they kind of sound like little girls, but here, I think, they were wrong for the parts.
There were some light and funny moments in the movie and all of them were from Sven, Kristoff and Olaf. Sven and Kristoff were good characters, Sven had most of the laughs in the movie, he was also very endearing, and for me, the highlight of the movie. Olaf was okay, he was cute and sweet, very much for the toddlers.
The script was mediocre, the dialogue, atrocious. Too many colloquialisms, slang, quips/insults. I was shocked. They could've fleshed the story out a bit more, it glossed over many things. They did NOTHING for Elsa's character, again, a one-dimensional character in the lead position, whereas Sven had more depth.
In closing, I gave it a 6 because it's worth seeing, if merely as a dividing line between great movies like Finding Dory, Inside Out and Toy Story 3, and Frozen. Maybe Disney and their "princesses" are just passé. Maybe, Disney, without Pixar, is, as well.
Friends: The One with the Yeti (1998)
Emily has serious issues
I never understood this storyline. Emily calls a place where RACHEL LIVES to speak to Ross and is angry when she finds out Rachel is there. So she's not supposed to BE at her own home? I always felt the character of Emily was extremely unlikeable. The bottom line is, if your betrothed says someone else's name at your wedding, you walk away. She was weak, no self-confidence, petty, and demanding. I cheered when he dumped her, and BTW, in essence, he dumped her, not the other way around. It was his decision, because she wanted to "always know where he was," and he wouldn't stand for it.
BTW, HOW can there be a SPOILER for this EPISODE? The DESCRIPTION of this episode is "Emily tells Ross she wants a divorce after he decides to keep seeing Rachel." That already IS a spoiler!!
Purple Violets (2007)
Pretentious Drivel
I know Ed Burns. He writes movies about Irish American families in New York and they have heart and a lot of soul. And truth, honesty. Purple Violets isn't one of those movies.
I loved Selma Blair and Patrick Wilson. They shined ... Debra Messing gave an embarrassing performance. Her take on her character was a caricature of it and she apparently approached it like a sitcom, as opposed to an independent film. Luckily, she's done other vehicles since.
The story was lacking in purpose and commitment. Wishy-washy, should I write, shouldn't I? The characters ... well honestly, other than Patti and Brian, I didn't really care about them. And I didn't really care that much about Patti and Brian, either. It was not the Ed Burns I've come to love, with his handsome, crooked grin, and vulnerable, yet street-smart sensibilities.
They call Ed Burns the "Irish Woody Allen." Sometimes I think when Ed Burns tries too hard to BE Woody Allen, he falls way short. Ed writes great stories about very close friends and family and the intricacies of their relationships and situations, but things we all go through. He pulls out the microscope, so to speak. You KNOW these people. And while being very funny and sarcastic, he's sensitive and honest.
What he tried here was far too broad. Out of the "family" context, his characters were too normal and not nearly as neurotic as they could/should be. When you write about people who are not with each other on a daily basis, you have to give them a reason to be together. He should just be himself, write what he knows best: deeply flawed, working-class, Irish American New York families and the people who touch their lives. That's when he shines, that's when he grabs your heart.
$ellebrity (2012)
IMDb please review the ratings on this movie carefully
I, and others, are in agreement, considering this movie has been in limited release, that all the "1" scores are given by paparazzi trying to sink this movie, as one person stated. IMDb needs to step in and review this, and the fact that many of these reviews are coming from outside the US. This is a really good and interesting movie, and there is no reason, whatsoever, there should be so many "1" and "2" ratings.
It seems pretty apparent that the bullying tactics of paparazzi discussed in the movie are being used here. It's also apparent that they are scared, and they SHOULD be, because it's only a matter of time before legislation is passed, making what they do illegal, at least, in this country. When they said, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," they included everyone, not just non-celebrities. If we do not stop them now, they may feel they can shoot anyone they want in the near future. This needs to stop .... before someone else dies ... and I'm hoping California will be the first state to make it illegal, or at the very least, set strict laws and guidelines preventing most of what they do. If California needs $money$, then it'll be a good way to gather revenue.
Nashville: Move It on Over (2012)
Sorry to say, not great
After 4 INCREDIBLE episodes, Nashville's 5th, "Move It On Over," didn't move the storyline much. Yawn. Even the music did not move me. At all.
It wasn't horrible, but it felt ... hmm, how does one say this ... soap-opera-y.
I've come to expect more out of this series than a soap opera. It's been much more intense, so this was a bit of a surprise, and not in a good way. Many of ABC's nighttime dramas fall under this "soap opera" heading ... and far, far too often. This episode felt like one of those ... perhaps "Desperate Housewives," except without the humor and sarcasm. It bordered on silly and was definitely "ordinary" in comparison to the others.
Deacon's antics are getting too predictable (the pill bottle had me cracking up), and I'm not seeing any passion whatsoever from Rayna. Hardly typical of a country diva, old or young, past or present. She needs to step it up a couple of notches. What's going on with Teddy? We don't really know and what's worse, we don't care. Why is it, in the 5th episode, we are just learning now that Teddy came from money? The only highlight was the VERY VERY brief interchange between the 3 young up and comings, Gunnar, Scarlet and Avery. THAT is where the fight scene should've taken place. It's almost as if someone pushed a pause button on this show.
Bottom line, the first episode (Pilot) had my heart beating fast in anticipation. So much went on, the dialogue was biting, witty and succinct, with a fast-moving storyline. The second, third episodes, less so, but nothing discouraging. The 4th wasn't as spectacular as the first 3, but enough to keep me watching. This one was a bit of a sleeper.
I'll still watch next week, but I sincerely hope the momentum wasn't all squeezed out of this series in the first few shots. After the level of music we experienced in the first 4 episodes, they better start hitting those Nashville streets--hard--looking for more outstanding tunes like Undermine, Telescope and If I Didn't Know Better.
I have, officially, been spoiled.
Dexter's Laboratory (1996)
Surprisingly, Quite Good
When I first tuned in to watch Dexter's Laboratory many years ago, I was expecting the typical, low-rate cartoon that was rampant during the 1990s. Quite the contrary; the show was far more reminiscent of the early days of Hanna Barbera, and at the level of Ren & Stimpy, a top-rated cartoon series at that time. Needless to say, I was very pleasantly surprised.
The show's format is the old Hanna Barbera "3 cartoons per half hour" format; two episodes of the show's main characters sandwiched around a shorter episode of a different character, which changes from show to show. This was also the Rocky & Bullwinkle and Bugs Bunny Show format. I suppose it was a natural one back in the 1950s, as cartoons were frequently 6-8 minutes long and easily fit into a 30 minute time slot (leaving plenty of time for commercials).
The first episode I saw was "Jurassic Pooch" and I laughed out loud at several points. It's quite clever in a old-fashioned cartoon way, but it's also contemporary, so there is something there for kids of all ages. Simply put, it's downright funny, well-written and can appeal to everyone ... a simple theme with a lot of creative and well-timed slapstick humor.
The story centers around never-ending sibling rivalry between an older sister whose goal in life is to annoy her kid brother, Dexter ... a super genius who has an amazing laboratory in the basement of their parents' home filled with the most fantastical things he created and built. His older sister, DeeDee, is just a normal kid, and while he masterminds incredible inventions and conducts intricate experiments (sometimes to do away with DeeDee, or at least, foil her plans or stop her from annoying him), he winds up, more often than not, being outwitted by his average-brained sister.
The Russian accent was a little off-putting in the beginning, mostly because you don't understand why he has one, but you get used to it. I rationalized it might be a throwback to Boris Badinoff, but I found out later on that Genndy Tartakovsky, who is the creator, was born in Russia, and it is based on his experiences as a child with his older brother. When you know this, it's surely understandable. He must have been a huge fan of mid-20th century cartoons because he has many obvious and purposeful visual references to them in almost every show.
Note: Don't miss "Topped Off," about the two siblings' first experience with drinking coffee ... it's the "laugh so hard you cry" kind of funny.
(I know the Seth McFarland character, Stewie, from Family Guy, is based on Dexter ... he's a genius child with equipment like a time machine, and is the only one in his family who has a British accent.)
I would've given it a 9, but the show waned in the later years ... so goes the life expectancy of the average TV series of any kind, but the first 2 seasons are highly recommended.
Sex and the City 2 (2010)
Wasn't that bad ....
After loving the first one, I got this movie and I was very leery as everyone said it sucked. While it had several very bad moments (Liza Minelli and karaoke singing among them) and several bad jokes, I was actually pleasantly surprised at the fact that it was a very sweet story. While more along the lines of the "caliber" of the TV show than the first, and it was WAY too long, it delivered a nice story. I thought a good half hour could've been cut easily. What was remarkable was how the 4 of them aged in just 2 or 3 years. I particularly like the scene with the Arab women, which is something that really exists. I thought the movie tried to address real issues, especially with motherhood, but we are starkly reminded that these are 4 rich women and while all people have problems, if it weren't for the fact that we "care" about them, the movie would've been a portrayal of the ridiculously decadent.
Summer of Sam (1999)
Summer of Idiots
If you want a movie to clue you in on exactly how the most stupid and illiterate New Yorkers saw the world in 1977, then this movie is for you.
When you look at all the names listed, you cannot believe this movie is going to suck, but it does. What a waste of acting talent. It's incredibly depressing, violent, sexist and bigoted, and while it fully captures the feeling of the time period, it shows the "worst of the worst" bizarre misfits and losers of the era.
Regardless of the very weak script, the actors manage to pull out their skills to raise the level of this movie (slightly). Leguizamo, Sorvino, Brody, LuPone, Neuwirth and Esposito all bring their usual high level of talent and it's certainly not their fault the script is so poorly written and thought out.
Lee is always a fine director, even here, but it's my opinion that he should stay behind the camera at all times. He is laughable, at best, as "John Jeffries," a very obvious impersonation of John Johnson, an African American local NY reporter for ABC news in the 60s and 70s. He tries to add some levity, but anyone who knows of John Johnson, knows he was 100% serious 100% of the time. Lee even goes so far as to insinuate that the masses thought of him as an "oreo cookie," which I'm sure was absolutely not the case for anyone except, maybe, hoodlums and punks. Tacky, very tacky, and insulting to a pioneer in journalism.
I personally don't know anyone who thought they could possibly know the killer was amongst them, which was a ridiculous point of the story, and unfortunately, a good deal of the script, as well. It was also another thing that made this movie so disappointing. If that wasn't bad enough, they also suggested that people thought Reggie Jackson was the killer because of the number on his jersey. Oy vey, what a bunch of idiots. I rate this movie "O" for offensive to everyone, including your intelligence.
Michael Imperioli, one of the "writers," also makes a "pre-Sopranos" appearance as a gay club owner. I can only assume he took a few acting lessons before signing with HBO because his performance here (along with his writing) was absolutely horrid.
Anthony LaPaglia's Australsian accent was as obvious as the strings on the flying saucers in "Plan 9 from Outer Space." Not exactly the "previously connected" New York Italian Detective he was supposed to portray. He's since improved on that, but it doesn't appear he makes any grand efforts to do so, even today. (In other words, if you can't commit to the profession, go host a talk show.)
Bottom line, if you want a GOOD movie about the era, see "Saturday Night Fever," which premiered just after all this went down (in real life). 1977 turns out to be an incredibly memorable year, albeit for showing the worst side of human nature (as this movie points out to a fault). Despite that fact, there were a lot of good things happening then. Maybe had the writers stuck to the point of the movie and elaborated on how it affected people's lives (rather than focusing on the side dramas and using the "Summer of Sam" as a side bar), this actually could've been good. But they didn't .... and it wasn't.
Melrose Place: A Long Way to Tip-A-Rory (1998)
See Season 7 Episode 1 - Divorce Dominican Style
This is an error on IMDb's part. See description for Season 7 Episode 1.
Original Air Date: 27 July 1998 Amanda accompanies Rory to the Dominican Republic to marry him, unaware of his plan to murder her to get his hands on her money for his shady business deals. Back in Los Angeles, Kyle continues wooing Taylor, believing that she can clear Amanda of the blame still plaguing her for the apparent suicide of Christine. Meanwhile, Peter tells the hospital psychiatrist, Dr. Louis Visconti, that he still has feelings for Amanda despite being with Lexi. Cooper and Megan return to Los Angeles after Cooper's failed job offer in Philadelphia to find Michael moving back into the practice after a little negotiation with Peter, prompting Megan to quit and gets another job as a waitress at the Upstairs Jazz Club. But later, Michael's loose lips give Megan leverage against him. Billy continues to steam over Samantha's affair with Jeff, who is continuing his pursuit of her, with a little of Jennifer's help, while she continues her pursuit of Billy, until Samantha finds out.
Melrose Place: Buona Sera, Mr. Campbell: Part 2 (1998)
Buona Sera, Mr. Campbell: Part 2
Original Air Date: 7 September 1998 After dropping off the ransom money, Peter positions himself to be Amanda's hero after she makes a break from the cabin where she was held at, with one of the hit men in pursuit, while a helpless Kyle sits and waits for news on Amanda. After going into labor at the beach house, Taylor finally gives birth to a baby boy and makes Jane and a reluctant Michael agree to raise the child themselves. But Taylor soon has a change of heart and leaves town with her infant son back to Boston. Meanwhile, Cooper takes desperate measures to end his bogus marriage to Lexi by taking out on the boat she recently purchased with the apparent intent to throw her overboard, and Megan happens to be on board too after figuring out Cooper's plan. Also, Samantha moves out of the Melrose complex to Tampa, Florida to try to reconcile with Jeff after he starts his new radio DJ sports job. Back in Los Angeles, Jennifer tries to reconcile with a hostile Billy before he leaves for Italy for his new job and she asks to take her with him.
Blame It on Rio (1984)
You can't Blame it on Rio
All in all, don't expect much and you won't be disappointed.
And if you want to see a movie that will take you back to 1983, this will do that for sure. The only reason I gave this movie 2 points more than it deserves is for 2 reasons:
#1. Michael Caine
#2. the people, the sights, the culture and the music of Brazil
The movie is almost completely carried by Caine as he commits the seemingly impossible task of transforming it into a viable and semi-believable story. Even Joe Bologna and Valerie Harper fall short.
Michael Caine is pure class, as always. Besides being a gifted classical and comic actor, Caine brings a blend of introspection, mischievousness and sensitivity to every movie he does ... the focus of his charm as far back as his role in Alfie...and the reason why he won the Academy Award for Hannah and her Sisters 2 years later. In this farce, he is tenderly beguiling...funny and vulnerable... melancholy and sentimental....and besides the jewel that is Rio de Janeiro, the ONLY reason to not seek out a better form of entertainment.
Well...maybe a glimpse at the 2 lovely young actresses, Michelle Johnson and Demi Moore would be a reason. But look is all you can do at Michelle (though her look seems sorely dated)....there couldn't be a more painful movie experience than watching her "try" to act (most of her dialogue seems overdubbed, too). Demi's acting and looks hold up 100 times better and you could easily transplant her, as is, into any movie today (she doesn't really look much different to be honest). Ms. Moore is surely underused, especially considering she was the bigger star of the 2.
Save the fact that it is a silly farce, at the end, I actually kind of like the maturity with which all these people handle this scandalous situation...that it doesn't end friendships nor marriages and that an affair, even with the underage daughter of your best friend, could be forgiven and everyone can move on. The injured parties do show anger and disappointment at what transpired, but all works out for the best....a bit unrealistic for sure, but surprisingly refreshing. Hope always is.
Elmer's Candid Camera (1940)
Arthur Q. Bryan's debut as Elmer Fudd!
This cartoon is the first appearance of Arthur Q. Bryan, who, for 20 years, was the voice of Elmer Fudd.
Arthur Q. Bryan was seldom credited, but he was the real McCoy (or Fudd!!)
Bryan, an accomplished radio actor, actually looked very much like the original Elmer and his body shape was closer to the taller, heavier version, which was the first one.
Mel Blanc was, indeed, Bugs' first "hunter" voice in "Hare-um Scare-um" (1939) and has voiced Elmer on occasion, but Elmer Fudd was traditionally done by someone else other than Blanc. Hal Smith took over the job for the majority of Elmer's roles after Bryan's passing. (He also did the same for Walt Disney's Goofy character after the original actor passed away).
Most people just assume Elmer Fudd's voice, along with almost all the other voices, was done by Blanc. Amaze your friends with this interesting trivia tidbit! :)
A Wild Hare (1940)
A GREAT Cartoon...but NOT the first Bugs Bunny Cartoon!
This is a great cartoon, but "Porky's Hare Hunt" (1938) is the first BB cartoon...followed by "Hare-um Scare-um" (1939), "Elmer's Candid Camera" (1940) and then "A Wild Hare (1940)."
This cartoon IS, indeed, the first time he was called "Bugs Bunny." It was also the first time he was less of a "hippity-hoppity" rabbit than he was in his 3 earlier movies and closer to the rabbit he is today which, of course, can only be credited to....Tex Avery.
This is Tex Avery's debut as Bugs' director, which literally catapulted this rabbit into his immense stardom! Yes, you can thank Tex Avery for making him the lovable icon/legend he is today!
I own this on silent reel-to-reel (with subtitles!). (8mm pre-recorded film in the 1960s was often silent! We've come a long way!)
Oliver Beene (2003)
Fox's Biggest Bomb
After the 3,000 annoying plugs for this show for days before its premiere, I tolerated this show between the Simpsons and Malcolm. It's period accuracy seems to be left up to the writers' momentary whims. Too bad, the actors seem to be trying very hard, but the scripts are incredibly weak. While "Happy Days," "The Wonder Years" and "That 70s Show" weren't always completely period accurate, they tried very hard and their mistakes were honest ones. Last night was the straw that broke the camel's back ... they played Abba's "Dancing Queen" during dance practice, a full 20 years too early. I have given up and flushed "Oliver Beene" down my sitcom toilet. Bye-bye.
My Big Fat Greek Life (2003)
My Big Fat Disappointment
Tonight I watched the pilot ... and I am completely disappointed. I was hoping for something wonderful, but despite the enormity of talent, the little screen didn't replicate the warmth and uniqueness of the big screen. More than likely, the American public, satisfied with mediocrity, will accept it.
Unlike the promise, it did not pick up where the movie left off. The names of the 2 main characters have changed, the situation changed, i.e., Dad gave them a house AFTER the honeymoon (at the wedding in the movie), Toula (now Nia) has returned to the restaurant (a key point in the story was her escape from this unfulfilling job), and the character of Ian is not only gone, but so is the irreplaceable John Corbett, who was contractually unable to recreate his role. A look alike would have been a better choice, but, more importantly, John's tender and caring approach to the character is completely absent in Steven Eckholdt's depiction (now, Michael). Most importantly, the most charming focus of the movie is gone ... the fact that this man was so in love with this woman that he accepted anything her family threw his way. Gone, for comic effect. While there is a wealth of talent on board (most notably, Michael Constantine and Andrea Martin) who try very, very hard to keep it afloat, the script and storyline has been greatly attenuated. Such a pity.