The show created quite a bit of ire among some parents because kids would draw on their TVs using ordinary crayons and without using the "magic screen" (sometimes doing real damage to the TV). I remember always wanting a "magic screen" so I could participate, but then, just weeks after I got one, the show was cancelled.
Reviews
11 Reviews
Trivia: Boston Legal reference
3 April 2007
Excerpts from this show were featured in the April 3, 2007 episode of "Boston Legal" on ABC. In the Boston Legal episode Denny Crane (Shatner) was portrayed as his Kenneth Preston character 50 years later, when the son of the murdered woman sought revenge on the man that Crane/Preston had successfully defended fifty years earlier.
The son (who blamed Crane for his father's subsequent breakdown) takes Crane, the original defendant, and several of the Boston Legal regulars hostage, using bombs and a "dead man" switch, and then stages a retrial of the original trial, based on the original transcript (presumably taken from the "Studio One" dialog).
The son (who blamed Crane for his father's subsequent breakdown) takes Crane, the original defendant, and several of the Boston Legal regulars hostage, using bombs and a "dead man" switch, and then stages a retrial of the original trial, based on the original transcript (presumably taken from the "Studio One" dialog).
The 40-Year-Old Virgin
(2005)
The reviews have misrepresented this movie a bit
3 September 2005
It does not simply have "some" crude humor, most of the movie is gross and tasteless. It's only saving grace was Steve Carell himself, and Kathrine Keener, both of whom managed to maintain their dignity (more or less) in an otherwise juvenile movie seemingly targeted at 13-year-old boys. (Well, I'll modify that somewhat -- Kat Dennings turned in an honest and touching performance as Keener's daughter, without appealing to any of the usual stereotypes of teenage girls.)
It's sad in a way. While it's understandable that a movie with this theme would include some crudity, it's obvious that far too much is simply gratuitous. From the good parts it's clear that writer/director Judd Apatow could have constructed a better movie -- he just chose not to.
It's sad in a way. While it's understandable that a movie with this theme would include some crudity, it's obvious that far too much is simply gratuitous. From the good parts it's clear that writer/director Judd Apatow could have constructed a better movie -- he just chose not to.
The Gallant Men
(1962–1963)
Why it was canceled
9 January 2005
Unlike some of the other reviewers, I (at 13) felt that "The Gallant Men" was a better show than "Combat!" (at least at that time), probably because it was a little more cerebral.
In my 8th grade English class (during the 1962-1963 season) I had the good fortune to have Roger Davis (Gibson) speak to us. (His kid brother was in our class.) He explained at the time that "The Gallant Men" was produced by Warner, while "Combat!" was produced by a production company owned by ABC, so likely "The Gallant Men" was fated to be cut at the end of the season. His prediction was accurate.
(He also explained how the producers kept salary demands in line -- any actor causing trouble could be written out as quickly as a gun can fire.)
In my 8th grade English class (during the 1962-1963 season) I had the good fortune to have Roger Davis (Gibson) speak to us. (His kid brother was in our class.) He explained at the time that "The Gallant Men" was produced by Warner, while "Combat!" was produced by a production company owned by ABC, so likely "The Gallant Men" was fated to be cut at the end of the season. His prediction was accurate.
(He also explained how the producers kept salary demands in line -- any actor causing trouble could be written out as quickly as a gun can fire.)
Love on a Rooftop
(1966–1967)
Should have done better
26 November 2004
This was a pretty good "screwball romantic comedy" that only ran one season.
In the pilot episode the couple (Carne and Duel) meet and get married, the following episodes dealing with their efforts to live in a San Francisco on a shoestring budget. Of course, the parents of Carne's character live not too far away and are fairly wealthy (he's some sort of building contractor, if I recall) and always want to "lend a hand", in spite of the couple's insistence that they must make it on their own.
The show was generally pleasant and engaging, though Duel seemed a bit miscast and often had a "deer in the headlights" appearance. Carne was much better suited to her role and added considerable sparkle to the show.
Some additional spice was added to the show by Rich Little, who, I believe, played an aspiring comic.
The show suffered mostly from poor writing during first dozen or so episodes, not really getting it's "legs" until late in the season, when it was probably too late to renew. No doubt it was, by today's standards, a bit trite and juvenile, but was pretty good compared to some of the competition of the era.
In the pilot episode the couple (Carne and Duel) meet and get married, the following episodes dealing with their efforts to live in a San Francisco on a shoestring budget. Of course, the parents of Carne's character live not too far away and are fairly wealthy (he's some sort of building contractor, if I recall) and always want to "lend a hand", in spite of the couple's insistence that they must make it on their own.
The show was generally pleasant and engaging, though Duel seemed a bit miscast and often had a "deer in the headlights" appearance. Carne was much better suited to her role and added considerable sparkle to the show.
Some additional spice was added to the show by Rich Little, who, I believe, played an aspiring comic.
The show suffered mostly from poor writing during first dozen or so episodes, not really getting it's "legs" until late in the season, when it was probably too late to renew. No doubt it was, by today's standards, a bit trite and juvenile, but was pretty good compared to some of the competition of the era.
A Mighty Wind
(2003)
Unsatisfying, but that's good
22 May 2003
I'm 5-10 years too young to have really been "into" the folk scene in the late 50s and early 60s, so I probably missed a lot of subtle send-ups in the movie, but overall it was a remarkably honest (though sentimental) treatment of folk music. For the most part they played it straight, with the humor coming more from pathos than slapstick.
My greatest praise for this movie, and my strongest criticism, is that, like a good folk song, it leaves you somehow unsatisfied.
My greatest praise for this movie, and my strongest criticism, is that, like a good folk song, it leaves you somehow unsatisfied.
The Fantasticks
(2000)
Disappointing
12 September 2002
Given the resources and talent involved, one would have hoped for much more, but the movie lacks the sparkle of even a mediocre stage production.
Joel Grey as Bellamy phoned in his performance. Even making allowances for the fact that he was 63 when he made the movie, his performance was remarkably lifeless and his singing was unremarkable, even strained at times. Brad Sullivan as Hucklebee was even worse, flat performing and flat singing. Joseph McIntyre as The Boy turned in a passable performance, though he didn't really do the role justice. Jean Louisa Kelley as The Girl was perhaps the brightest spot in the lineup, delivering an adequate if not inspired performance.
Jonathon Morris was sadly miscast as El Gallo. He had the agility and strength needed for such a physical role, but lacked the proper menacing look needed. His acting was, if not totally flat, at least rather plastic. And the one song he needed to really carry -- "Try to Remember" -- he didn't have the voice for.
The staging was the most inspired part of the movie. Simply filming the minimalistic stage production wouldn't have worked, but the movie's set -- two homes and a carnival set in the prairie -- was sufficiently minimalistic to honor the play's concept while still bending to the requirements of the big screen. This facilitated devices that helped to flesh out some of the more ambiguous scenes in the play.
The script was unfortunately a Bowdlerized version. The song substituted for "The Rape Ballet" was incredibly uninspired and inconsistent. It was almost as if the writer wanted the substitute to be bad, in retaliation for pulling the original piece. In addition to "The Rape Ballet" substitution, several other songs were changed from the original, generally not for the better, and the delightful "Plant a Radish" was omitted entirely.
Perhaps the saddest change of all from the stage play was that the role of The Narrator was essentially omitted, and with it some of the most enchanting poetry in the script.
Joel Grey as Bellamy phoned in his performance. Even making allowances for the fact that he was 63 when he made the movie, his performance was remarkably lifeless and his singing was unremarkable, even strained at times. Brad Sullivan as Hucklebee was even worse, flat performing and flat singing. Joseph McIntyre as The Boy turned in a passable performance, though he didn't really do the role justice. Jean Louisa Kelley as The Girl was perhaps the brightest spot in the lineup, delivering an adequate if not inspired performance.
Jonathon Morris was sadly miscast as El Gallo. He had the agility and strength needed for such a physical role, but lacked the proper menacing look needed. His acting was, if not totally flat, at least rather plastic. And the one song he needed to really carry -- "Try to Remember" -- he didn't have the voice for.
The staging was the most inspired part of the movie. Simply filming the minimalistic stage production wouldn't have worked, but the movie's set -- two homes and a carnival set in the prairie -- was sufficiently minimalistic to honor the play's concept while still bending to the requirements of the big screen. This facilitated devices that helped to flesh out some of the more ambiguous scenes in the play.
The script was unfortunately a Bowdlerized version. The song substituted for "The Rape Ballet" was incredibly uninspired and inconsistent. It was almost as if the writer wanted the substitute to be bad, in retaliation for pulling the original piece. In addition to "The Rape Ballet" substitution, several other songs were changed from the original, generally not for the better, and the delightful "Plant a Radish" was omitted entirely.
Perhaps the saddest change of all from the stage play was that the role of The Narrator was essentially omitted, and with it some of the most enchanting poetry in the script.
The Patriot
(2000)
Entertaining but dumb
20 May 2001
I'll grant that, as a war movie, this film is entertaining, but I found it to be sadly lacking in any sort of soul. It portrays brave Americans, dumb English, prissy French, loyal but freedom-seeking negros all in their full plastic glory. Historical accuracy went out the window. Even the flag Gibson carried into battle was clearly nylon and machine made. Some rather gruesome special effects, but at least it wasn't too gory overall, as much of the mayhem took place off-camera.
Really, if you want a good patriotic film you should see The Postman -- a much better film with a much more compelling lesson if you listen for it.
Really, if you want a good patriotic film you should see The Postman -- a much better film with a much more compelling lesson if you listen for it.
The Postman
(1997)
See this instead of "The Patriot"
20 May 2001
Having just seen The Patriot, I feel obliged to come back and say how good this movie is in comparison. Yes, it is over-long (though you don't mind so much due to the excellent cinematography), but it actually has a plot, and the character development (and I mean "development") is much more compelling if you pay attention.
If you want self-serving pap see The Patriot. If you want something that questions deeply the true nature of patriotism, see The Postman.
If you want self-serving pap see The Patriot. If you want something that questions deeply the true nature of patriotism, see The Postman.
Finding Forrester
(2000)
Finding meaning in Finding Forrester
13 May 2001
The mechanics of the movie have been well-reviewed by others. Yes, it could definitely have been a better movie, but then again what movie can't you say that about? In terms of plot and character development what it needed most was another 30 minutes, but at two and a quarter hours already most studios would never allow that. (Note that the movie did not seem nearly that long to me.) Perhaps the plot and story could have been tighter, but it's really a remarkable job for first-time screenwriter Mike Rich.
The acting, while not always remarkable, was quite good. Connery brilliantly underplayed Forrester, yielding a less dramatic but much more realistic portrayal of the writer. Rob Brown's portrayal of Jamal was equally reserved yet forceful. The directing held the two characters in balance well. The other characters were well-acted though not generally well-developed (hence much criticism of this movie).
Others have compared Finding Forrester to Goodwill Hunting (also directed by Gus Van Sant) and to Scent of a Woman, suggesting that it is just a ripoff of the plot in those two. If so (which I doubt), those are two pretty good movies to plagiarize. The basic concept of Forrester's story (first novel wins Pulitzer -- what do you do for an encore?) has also been done before, but I've never seen it done so well (and without resorting to The Bottle as an excuse for a wasted life).
What's been missed in the reviews I checked was a discussion of who found whom. When you boil it down, Jamal found Jamal and Forrester found Forrester (just in time), though they found themselves by reaching out to each other and forming a bond of friendship across a gulf of age, suspicion, and race. The way they do this, without the usual twists of self-destruction and miraculous salvation, is both touching and refreshingly real. And finding oneself, in its essence, is what EVERY good drama is about, so, yes, there is a similarity to Goodwill and Scent and every other good movie ever made.
Included in the movie is a very brief first course in writing. Though the movie doesn't dwell on it, the way it presents the process of writing (and of the criticism of writing) is refreshingly realistic.
Speculation about the "real" identity of Forrester is interesting. Salinger has been mentioned, but the similarities are only superficial. Harper Lee (To Kill a Mockingbird) is a much better fit (first novel wins Pulitzer, nothing else ever written, lived as a recluse), but I almost favor the enigmatic Gardner McKay (though Forrester is certainly different in many ways from McKay). However, it's just as likely that Rich had no particular person in mind when he crafted Forrester (since, after all, the First Novel Syndrome is a well known plot theme).
All in all, while not The Great American Movie, it's a very good movie and well worth watching.
The acting, while not always remarkable, was quite good. Connery brilliantly underplayed Forrester, yielding a less dramatic but much more realistic portrayal of the writer. Rob Brown's portrayal of Jamal was equally reserved yet forceful. The directing held the two characters in balance well. The other characters were well-acted though not generally well-developed (hence much criticism of this movie).
Others have compared Finding Forrester to Goodwill Hunting (also directed by Gus Van Sant) and to Scent of a Woman, suggesting that it is just a ripoff of the plot in those two. If so (which I doubt), those are two pretty good movies to plagiarize. The basic concept of Forrester's story (first novel wins Pulitzer -- what do you do for an encore?) has also been done before, but I've never seen it done so well (and without resorting to The Bottle as an excuse for a wasted life).
What's been missed in the reviews I checked was a discussion of who found whom. When you boil it down, Jamal found Jamal and Forrester found Forrester (just in time), though they found themselves by reaching out to each other and forming a bond of friendship across a gulf of age, suspicion, and race. The way they do this, without the usual twists of self-destruction and miraculous salvation, is both touching and refreshingly real. And finding oneself, in its essence, is what EVERY good drama is about, so, yes, there is a similarity to Goodwill and Scent and every other good movie ever made.
Included in the movie is a very brief first course in writing. Though the movie doesn't dwell on it, the way it presents the process of writing (and of the criticism of writing) is refreshingly realistic.
Speculation about the "real" identity of Forrester is interesting. Salinger has been mentioned, but the similarities are only superficial. Harper Lee (To Kill a Mockingbird) is a much better fit (first novel wins Pulitzer, nothing else ever written, lived as a recluse), but I almost favor the enigmatic Gardner McKay (though Forrester is certainly different in many ways from McKay). However, it's just as likely that Rich had no particular person in mind when he crafted Forrester (since, after all, the First Novel Syndrome is a well known plot theme).
All in all, while not The Great American Movie, it's a very good movie and well worth watching.
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
(2000)
The Coen Brothers' best
18 February 2001
I think this is the Coen Brothers' best movie to date. Like the others it's somewhat rambling and episodic, leaving the viewer intentionally a bit confused as to what's going on, but that style serves them well.
The cinematography is exceptional, using the camera to great effect without having it become intrusive.
I never really liked George Clooney in ER -- his performances always seemed a bit wooden and self-serving there -- but in his role as Ulysses Everett McGill he's exceptional, projecting precisely the personality of a likeable guy who is part schemer and part deer caught in the headlights. Turturro and Nelson, as his two not-too-bright sidekicks, are perfect in their roles as well.
The music is exceptional. It's hard to believe that today's audiences would go for 30s country music, but it works and it's GOOD.
The cinematography is exceptional, using the camera to great effect without having it become intrusive.
I never really liked George Clooney in ER -- his performances always seemed a bit wooden and self-serving there -- but in his role as Ulysses Everett McGill he's exceptional, projecting precisely the personality of a likeable guy who is part schemer and part deer caught in the headlights. Turturro and Nelson, as his two not-too-bright sidekicks, are perfect in their roles as well.
The music is exceptional. It's hard to believe that today's audiences would go for 30s country music, but it works and it's GOOD.
Tell Your Friends