Reviews

For full disclosure, I am a libertarian and fiercely anti-socialist. But I've not really regarded the Tea Party as specifically libertarian either.

Now, presuming the Koch brothers were and always have been the prime mover behind the Tea Party (which I doubt), why can't they possibly have principled motives behind groups they support? And yet when George Soros throws millions behind his causes, it's pure as the driven snow? The difference? The writers/producers don't happen to agree with the Kochs. So they ignore the case they support and skewer the one they disagree with. It's simply too much take.

I can enjoy Family Guy in many instances. But then they reach too far, and rely too much on their own North Eastern parochiality like this episode. I understand it's not their job to "fair and balanced", and it is their platform, but they should also have some idea when they go beyond artistic creativity and become a shrill, straw man making hot-air machine. Not even MASH or All in the Family got so smug as to put out pure propaganda such as this, and that's saying something.

So, I'm not out to fight the Tea Party's battles, but they must on to something if both the statist parties' rank and file - and the media that support them - hate them so much (the second most powerful Republican in my State is personal friend and he detests the Tea Party). Personally I thought of the Tea Party as a ten years late and $11,000,000,000,000 short when they evolved out the middle class' resentment of Obamacare yet had nary a problem when the Republicans rammed through Medicare Part D, but I digress. At least it's some sign of the inevitable radicalization of the middle class when socialism marginalizes them, and any real change throughout history starts with the middle class - the rich/privileged are really just a small group after all, and the poor are too scattered and aimless. Poke the tiger that is the middle class, and see what you get.

Anyway, this episode simply is not funny, it is political propaganda by hacks who think liberty and freedom are a Government Program.

The Shelter Skelter episode is so painfully slanted it is basically propaganda. Anyone who might have a fear of government/state or has an iota of preference that people have gun rights is marginalized into a survivalist nut case who deserves to be entombed in a sealed, irradiated hell. And the most evil person in the whole production, the wife, is set up as some sort of heroine of the piece. SHE knows full well her husband is likely alive and well, yet apparently made no attempt to retrieve him. That little slanted smile of hers at the end is chillingly evil, but I'm sure the production staff thought it charming. The main message is "can't all you individualist nutcases see that if you just turn yourself over to the benevolent state, everything will be just ever so wonderful?" And people like this wife, who is tacitly portrayed as being correctly on board, has no problem whatsoever leaving another human being in a living hell. Nice, twisted, malformed massage from pure evil that just doesn't grasp that it is. No, don't save the guy and divorce him for shooting guns and being thoughtless and getting a blop of beer on you, no, leave him in a living hell because he deserves it. And YOU are the saint in this twisted logical world. No wonder some people would prefer to have a gun against such "benevolence" portrayed in this episode.

Classic Twilight Zone did not stoop to have justice meted out by man. I guess those horrible Reagan 80's still held enough room for the media left to change those rules.

First, we can all identify a formula movie. Kids' movies, Lifetime Network movies, Man Cave DVD shelf movies. This is one of the latter. It's not long on intellect or plot development. But what it does, it does well. One subtle difference beyond the bad guys not being able to shoot straight and the bad guys being just "waste'em and don't worry about bullets" bad, is Neeson's character isn't necessarily good to a tee. He's not horrible, but there are times when he pushes into moral ambivalence territory.

It had a nice pace and got to its points and got them out of the way, without trying to stretch it into a movie trying to be more important than it is. The acting is fair to good, but it is so fast paced that there isn't a whole lot of time to care. Other than Neeson, no other character has more than twenty lines of dialog.

Don't know if it's a movie that needs to be on that Man Cave shelf, but is worth more than one viewing. I'm on the edge whether I'll get a copy or not. But I will watch it again. I'll have to wait and see if it is niggling me to watch again and again and deserves a spot next to Die Hard.

Spoilers - There are a few groaners which is why I'm on the edge like Neeson is a super bad ass for 3/4ths of the movie and somehow lets himself get conked on the head and taken himself. Also, when he is at the baddies' mercy, a couple of loose bolts help out nicely - we're a safety inspection away from having a short and unsatisfying conclusion. But one certainly can nitpick Die Hard as well. A decent way to spend an hour and a half.

Most of the Hardy movies has a bit of the conservatives call "bleeding heart" element to them. It isn't ever too preachy, and it isn't here either, but it does tend to stretch a bit of the credulity when the people on the "wrong side of the tracks" are a gorgeous opera singer, a handsome, intelligent Harry Bailey of It's a Wonderful Life in another role, and an erudite, handsome father needing a second chance. Not exactly Dead End Kids material. It was toward the end of the depression where everyone down on their luck it wasn't their fault. But there are limits of suspension of disbelief.

The rest of the installment is standard fare - the girl trouble, the car trouble, the light drama (of the later installments anyway), a bit of choppiness in the unfolding of the story lines - a pleasant way to spend an hour and a half.

When the episode was made and aired Eisenhower was President. Kennedy was President-Elect.

As for the episode, it was a passable episode, if not a bit earnest. "The Professor" shows not much range here, and the whole thing seems a little rushed (a lot of episodes of the TZ seem to not fit the time slot, some seeming like they're crammed in and rushed, some with little or nothing to it spread out over the half hour, and some, of course fit). I guess you just expect a little more tension than to be taken back to some rooms and drugged. But overall a decent episode. Indeed the "what if" motif of time travel is a nugget in itself and sets the table of with basic interest.

7 out of 10, considering there were a lot of TZ episodes not quite as good, and some a great deal better.

Now I'm no trekkie/trekker, and perhaps there is some known reason why this wouldn't be the case, but - In this highly controlled, peaceful future, wouldn't one think that a phaser would have a record of when it was fired? If Riker had fired it at anything/anyone, all one would do is retrieve it and check to see when it was fired, down to the exact stardate. It would correspond pretty much the time the base exploded and Riker was transporting. He'd have a lot to answer for.

Now granted this has to be read into it, but everything else a person does is basically chronicled, people are trackable at any time via the ship's computer, and reachable via their communicators. Yet the simple notion of putting a track on a lethal tool doesn't have one.

Just doesn't fit at all....

I like this episode quite a bit, Ruth Gordon is good if not a little hammy as she always was. As has been stated, the music is very good, and it has a moodiness that doesn't exist in all episodes.

But one major plot hole exists, so wide you can drive a fleet of trucks through it. It is established that the light doesn't work in the vault. Don't you think that the very intelligent Columbo or the rest of the police would have thought to check if the light bulb worked? You'd think in pretty short order they would have unscrewed the bulb and so found the note. Granted this is TV whodunit fiction, and various holes will always be found, but this seems much too glaring.

It really doesn't make Columbo out to be the hidden genius when the light doesn't work but the "death bed" testimony goes on unfound, apparently for days.

Spoilers ahead!!!! Overall the episode is affecting as most apocalyptic themes are.

The issue I have is this. It bolsters bureaucratic statism while it tries to portray its cousin, martial statism, as bad. I guess that's about what one could expect from a 1960's teleplay, Liberal Statism, but it is the fact that it still is accepted at face value today. I have found no criticism of this episode and its lesson.

It is Major French and his hooligans who are manifestly bad. Their brand of roughshod militarism and short sightedness is held up for ridicule. That is all well and good. But what about Goldsmith? He is portrayed well, and has all the moral high ground by the end of the episode.

Why? Goldsmith represents the brainwashing of bureaucratic statism, Nanny Statism, Big Government Statism, whatever you want to call it. By the end of the episode it is clear that he knew how to open the door, and it may be implied that he knew it was a computer all along. Why the ruse? Why not let the survivors know right off that it was a computer, one that could clearly show what was radioactive or not? I can't help but think that the townsfolk, being rational, would have gladly followed the analytics of the machine, especially when it had been proved right.

It stands that Goldsmith had desires of his own. To be THE MAN. The mouthpiece of the Oracle, and gain position and prestige thereby. He is the bureaucrat, the one who carves out a niche for himself out of nothing. He had no reason not to let the rest know exactly what was up, but then he has no position of glory. The carrier of the Old Man's messages. That's the brand of Statism we have in the US (with a dash of Jackboot now and again). Keep the people in fear and ignorant and take the credit when things go good, whether they had anything to do with it or not. Mr. Goldsmith basically intercepted the credit that belonged to the machine. He also must have had a very low opinion of everyone else and a high opinion of himself, typical traits of the bureaucrat.

And when he revealed to be a liar (or a "half-truther"), the people throw off his smoke and mirrors, much to their detriment. And at the end, Goldsmith, the failed bureaucrat, who lied and distorted to the people so that they didn't know what to believe in, is left pondering where everyone else went wrong.

This, and others like it, is the moral message of the 60's, carried through television into the psyche of America. The seeds sown then are still bearing fruit today. "Have faith in the bureaucrats. Have Faith in general. Don't worry your little heads about the details, that's what we're hear for. WE know the Truth, just listen to us and all will be well."

Bilge water.

Spoilers ahead....

This movie scared the biscuits out of me as a 5 year old in 1973, Ted Besell with the makeup on at the end haunted me for months. Very tense and scary for a made for TV movie in the 70's.

But now as a hoary old adult, the college broad comes off as a bit stupid and altogether pushy, knowingly doing things that she would be better off not doing. Perhaps a little sharp blade to the kidney would have done her good.

The problem that really prevents this from getting a higher rating is that the boogey man of the movie kills so swiftly and silently, which sets up the thrill. But when Peggy is about to get hers, is it quick and deadly? No! She.....drum roll please.....DUCKS! And runs away. The Phantom was so deadly and stealthy for so long, makes a long introduction of its presence then proceeds to MISS! Sort of lets the air out of the whole production.

But for all that, it was a nice trip down memory lane. Decent suspense on a small budget.

I like to think of myself as rather intelligent person who likes his movies with "a point" to be subtle and not be clobbered over the head. Well, if this movie had "a point" it was too subtle or just not developed enough to warrant the time I spent on it.

The acting was marginal, the script unbelievable (I just didn't see the characters doing or saying what they did or said, and the direction stilted. Ultimately I saw very little character development.

For instance, the local sheriff started to think that Tom my not be who he said he was, but the wifey said he was, so, no, let's not do a simple background check and see if he's got a history, or is wanted for something (which is his job after all, small town or no). No, just do what is necessary so the plot can lumber on.

In the end, I didn't really care about any of the characters. I did have some interest in knowing how it turned out, so it gets a couple more stars. When you get a little bush, that gets a star. Any movie in English automatically gets half a star (get spotted because I can understand it). So, just a 3.5 overall.....

Both movies seem to have had decent theatrical runs and seemed to be destined for the scrap heap of old movies. Then both caught a sustained second wind on TV and have grown in respect and 'importance' since.

Anyway, I saw Groundhog Day on the opening weekend, and saw it several times more at the theater (3 times I think) and appreciated its subtle messages from the start, and perhaps insularly, thought I seemed to be the only one who got that it was deeper than the basic romantic comedy let on. I guess I was wrong. I've seen the movie several times since, and have been surprised by subsequent reevaluation by the likes of Roger Ebert and essays in such periodicals as the National Review about its meaning. It would seem that spiritualists from many cultures have seen this movie and approve of aspects of its deeper message. No small feat for what must have appeared to be a popcorn movie from the outset.

The movie's main message seems to be very fatalistic in that whatever is destined to happen will happen regardless of what we try to do about it, but it is veiled from us, so we may as well enjoy and appreciate life as much as we can. But a little deeper, it seems to say that only some things are predestined, others we can change for the better, and if we accept certain inevitabilities we cannot control, learn to be happy in the moment, other variable aspects will change as well, enhancing the time we have. Simply being a courteous person instead of a twit paid huge dividends.

Perhaps the message of self sacrifice is too much at times (I don't hold with concepts of coerced sacrifice and don't cotton to much to the idea that one is trapped in their own hell unless they put everyone else first). But there are examples during Phil's conversion that is simply courteousness on Phil's part. He certainly learned the lesson of cultural conventions that make life a lot easier. I try and ignore the more egregious examples of sacrifice that were required before Phil was allowed to 'escape'. But an acceptable flaw for all that, but knocks one * off the pile.

The movie itself has been sliced and diced here enough, but just a few things that I noticed that perhaps only a few have. One is the scene where Larry is at the bar trying to put the moves on Nancy Taylor, it is at the precise moment when Phil had been trying to gather information about Rita, complete with the bartender's shaking of his head at such obviousness. Seems to say that even some small aspects of life are destined to be, but simply will happen to other people as people change aspects of themselves - Phil is no longer setting up Rita, but guys will always putting moves on somewhere. What message there is there I don't know, but yet speaks to the fabric of destiny woven around us.

The second is that it would seem that at the precise moment Rita felt she loved Phil is when the snow comes curling down (and Phil looks up - to heaven?). It is that covering of snow which Phil sees the next day that clinches it for Phil that the day is, indeed, Feb 3rd. I appreciate how subtle the change is, and comports with the message of the movie. Other productions likely would have cued a swelling of strings to beat the viewer over the head that THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MOMENT. Important moments in real life don't come with soundtracks.

The movie only suffers a couple of blemishes that prevent it from getting a full ten stars. One is the slightly heavy hand in the self-sacrifice category, it can come off a bit like Rod Serling's Twilight Zone, simply put, see things my way or you'll end up in my "hell". And the other is Andie MacDowell who annoys me in whatever I have seen her, and this is no different. I'm not going to overlook her poor abilities in attempt to bolster a top notch production even more. She is a poor actress and is a net negative to the material.

...for the most techno-jargon of any episode. The last 15 minutes is one long stream of pulses and containment fields etc. It is mildly entertaining, though an ode to its underlying collectivist premises, but man, they sure bust out the babble toward the end. When they are all around the conference table discussing how to address the MacGuffin of the episode it is almost nonsensical. If someone didn't have some level of buy in to the show, and this was the first episode they saw, I doubt they would have come back for more.

I almost sensed a parody was taking place, and perhaps it was. Of course many episodes have jargon in them, but this one took the cake. You knew they are hatching some sort plot, but it didn't make much sense. The only part about putting a homing device on Riker made much sense at all.

This is passable 80's Eddie Murphy winding its way into the 90's. The premise is o.k. mostly works. Of course there has to be the inevitable "I didn't care at first but now I do" moments. You can't have a movie about our superiors in DC without the requisite message that Good must thwart Evil. In this case it is a little waif bald from her radiation treatment as a result of cancer from dastardly power lines. Yeah, that issue still resonates.

The first half of the movie is prime Eddie and punctures the fatuousness of Pols in general. Then it takes a left turn and pretty much spews out basic Hollywood rhetoric - Big Business Bad, Big Government Good. It almost spoils the movie entirely. But it pulls up a little and ends humorously enough.

Murphy has put out worse, so by comparison, this deserves a 6 out of 10.

First, if I see one more comment about how Lucas ruined the franchise with corny plots, bad direction, and bad acting I'm going to take a hostage.

How many Oscars has Hammill won? How many other movies has he even done? Ford, of course, is a blockbuster draw, but even he's not the best actor in the world. Guiness is Guiness. Fischer is o.k. but has had her share of bad acting and bad lines. Suffice it to say people really need to take an objective look at the first three. Ewoks and the really bad puppets in ROTJ? Please.

So are they bad? No. And neither are the last three, and this was the best. None are Oscar winners in the main categories and they all have their share of bad lines and curious plot advancement.

This one was the best of the last crop, still crammed with too much cgi, but somehow came off a little better. The plot was better too as it was all payoff and little set-up as the set-up was already there and the first two did all the prelim. You see everything you want to see, Obi-Wan and Vader fighting, the births, the hiding of the babies (and the wide plot hole of 'hiding' the babes with family (they'd never think to look for them there!) and with a high profile citizen who likely should have been killed from the get go during consolidation of power. BUT GUESS WHAT, THAT LITTLE PLOT HOLE EXISTED IN THE ORIGINALS TOO. How many people are belly-aching about that? I bet there are plenty who rip the new trilogy a new rectal pore for it but gloss over its presence in the first three.

At the end of the day, the movie kept my attention, irritated me the least (even less than particular moments in ANH and ROTJ). All the movies suffer form the same limitations that derive from the same source. Ewoks and Jar-Jar and lame acting and plot holes and sketchy exposition and plot holes and distracting special effects (yes even the first were criticized at the time for being empty of plot and all flash - even to a point that the original Star Wars are blamed for the overall decline in cinema) and lack of logical character motivation and did I mention plot holes? Take all of them for what they are worth - a poor man's Dune at best and a grade A space western rehash at worst. It just seems that too many people have built up the franchise in the intervening years so that only the soiling of undergarments in ecstasy at every frame would have sufficed. All shortcomings of the originals are glossed over and every misstep in the new are hammered ad nauseam. They are all grade B entertainment in my book. Always have been. None have been in my top ten (the A grade), or even top 25, ever. Good to pass the time every five years or so, give or take. Good action flicks that got hyped up on cultural steroids so that they are given a weight they never deserved. There are least a couple of dozen flicks in much higher rotation than Star Wars has ever been.

Personally I think it gives people a sense of superiority to rip the new movies. It's hip. But I think some might recover a bit if they'd dare to look at the first trilogy with a little objectivity. But then some might lose the desire to attend conventions dressed as Chewbacca.

This is one of my favorite movies mostly because I relate to the Lemmon character (had a very similar experience and the cad's name was Geoff too!). To my tastes everything about the movie was well above average; script, acting, and directing. The only major flaw in my overall enjoyment is the over-extended pathos in the last third of the movie (the post suicide attempt apartment scenes). When Kubilek weakly sags into the living room chair, one more ode to despair, I very nearly give up caring about the character (those elven good looks keep me involved). But that is about it (the only other flaw may be the indictment of corporate culture, but I view it broader terms of the unfortunate side effect of any group culture, so it washes off).

Otherwise the movie has tremendous charm, likable characters (the one flaw above aside), laughs and drama (without being uneven and choppy like many dramadies can be), good pace (it doesn't seem like a two plus hour movie). Lemmon is great, albeit in that Lemmonesque roll he's known for, and MacLaine is very good too (she is also in one my other favorites, Being There). Fred MacMurray (against type) is wonderful (Absent Minded Professor it ain't). Anyone who likes older movies won't be disappointed with The Apartment.