Sad story in many ways. Tom Bosley is a fine actor who really inhabits his characters. He's very convincing as Eddie Coughlin, a wayward criminal who longs to make things right with his family. There's a poignant scene where he watches his estranged wife and son playing in the park with another man, and you know he feels supplanted in his role as father. In a follow up scene, he speaks to his young son; the boy doesn't know who he is and Eddie doesn't burden him with the knowledge. In Streets of San Francisco, the psychology of the characters propels the plot more than the stories and this excellent episode is no exception. Minor flaws: at the beginning, when Eddie flees the scene of a robbery, he is described as 5 foot 11. It's obvious to any viewers that he's shorter than that (5 foot 7). But that's not enough to spoil an otherwise thoughtful show. Highly recommended.
Reviews
21 Reviews
Even more relevant today
30 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
This subject matter is handled very well given the limited program length. It focuses on the vulgar humour of a potty mouthed comedian who is in cahoots with a bogus minister to their individual financial benefit. The object is to boost the comedian's ticket sales by the minister claiming in a public forum that the comedian's content is despicable. People on the minister's side send him donations while people who side with "The potty man" line up to buy show tickets.
Judge Harry figures out their game and confronts them with their duplicity in a believable way. BIG SPOILER alert: Dan at first is a fan of "The Potty Man" till at length he agrees the humour becomes too offensive. The comedian responds to Dan's change of heart by calling him a "homo"-Dan can barely hold in his laughter at the comedian's huge gaffe.
Two decades later, comedy is more crass than ever and as Harry observed, still appeals to the "dark side" of humanity. It's worth viewing, provocative and insightful even though it does take sides on the issues it raised.
Judge Harry figures out their game and confronts them with their duplicity in a believable way. BIG SPOILER alert: Dan at first is a fan of "The Potty Man" till at length he agrees the humour becomes too offensive. The comedian responds to Dan's change of heart by calling him a "homo"-Dan can barely hold in his laughter at the comedian's huge gaffe.
Two decades later, comedy is more crass than ever and as Harry observed, still appeals to the "dark side" of humanity. It's worth viewing, provocative and insightful even though it does take sides on the issues it raised.
Quite funny
21 March 2024
An often used premise is kept from being cliché by good performances. Harry tries to help when a group of mental patients cause a disturbance in the courtroom. They escape their institution, engage the services of a cabbie to enjoy a city wide joy ride and due to a lack of funds, end up in the night court for non payment. The four men and one woman are unhappy with tough conditions in their institution. Each finds someone in the courtroom they latch on to emotionally-Dan, Bull and in particular Harry, who reaches back in turn and manages to help/communicate with the woman who suffers selective mutism. The only aspect of this episode I didn't enjoy was the overly strident-and thankfully temporary-public defender attorney.
A hilarious ending, one of the series' best, when Ann, the mute girl, shows her gratitude to Harry in a manner he can truly appreciate-if he figures it out. Highly recommended!
A hilarious ending, one of the series' best, when Ann, the mute girl, shows her gratitude to Harry in a manner he can truly appreciate-if he figures it out. Highly recommended!
Entertaining
18 March 2024
A revenge story distinguished by excellent performances. Ed Nelson hits all the right notes as a grieving father determined to kill his young son's murderer. The villain is well played by Kaz Garas although I laughed when Stone remarked of a witness, "Let's see if she can identify his ugly puss." Kaz was effectively menacing but hard to imagine anyone thinking him ugly.
A few errors distracted in the beginning: when Kaz has fled the scene of the crime, dispatch describes him (to officers endeavouring to intercept him) as wearing a denim jacket when it is actually leather. The surprise reveal at the pre trial hearing was evidence I thought would have been necessary to present to prosecution in advance but I don't know law so this may be correct procedure.
Minor quibbles, as the story's fast pace is wholly engaging; it's very suspenseful during the final showdown between Kaz and Ed. Perhaps that's one of the more unique aspects of this episode-less focus on Detectives Stone and Keller than the guest characters. That's a refreshing change, especially with skillful actors. 9/10.
A few errors distracted in the beginning: when Kaz has fled the scene of the crime, dispatch describes him (to officers endeavouring to intercept him) as wearing a denim jacket when it is actually leather. The surprise reveal at the pre trial hearing was evidence I thought would have been necessary to present to prosecution in advance but I don't know law so this may be correct procedure.
Minor quibbles, as the story's fast pace is wholly engaging; it's very suspenseful during the final showdown between Kaz and Ed. Perhaps that's one of the more unique aspects of this episode-less focus on Detectives Stone and Keller than the guest characters. That's a refreshing change, especially with skillful actors. 9/10.
Dated
14 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
An exciting episode. Brenda Vacarro is awesome as the rookie cop. The plot is believable and well done.
Where it fails is in its dated psychology. It accurately reflects 1970s culture: Inspector Mike Stone's reservations about women as cops probably still exists today but there is less blame & shaming of women for "letting their rapists indoors." This was the cavalier attitude of the police psychologist in this episode. His sardonic attitude towards the grim subject of rape in general is intolerable today. In fact, very likely a female psychiatrist would be the consultant on force and she would not see anything humorous in the subject matter. Furthermore the male psychologist's claim that a dominating mother/weak father creates a rapist was an accepted theory back then but doesn't completely fly now. Further decades of research has indicated that rapists aren't all victims of a terrible home life. Many other factors come into play.
Changing attitudes and knowledge date the episode but when Detective Keller shoots the rapist wearing a look of justice served, I have to agree that revenge is sweet no matter the decade.
Where it fails is in its dated psychology. It accurately reflects 1970s culture: Inspector Mike Stone's reservations about women as cops probably still exists today but there is less blame & shaming of women for "letting their rapists indoors." This was the cavalier attitude of the police psychologist in this episode. His sardonic attitude towards the grim subject of rape in general is intolerable today. In fact, very likely a female psychiatrist would be the consultant on force and she would not see anything humorous in the subject matter. Furthermore the male psychologist's claim that a dominating mother/weak father creates a rapist was an accepted theory back then but doesn't completely fly now. Further decades of research has indicated that rapists aren't all victims of a terrible home life. Many other factors come into play.
Changing attitudes and knowledge date the episode but when Detective Keller shoots the rapist wearing a look of justice served, I have to agree that revenge is sweet no matter the decade.
A bit too madcap
7 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
This overwrought outing is too extreme to be very enjoyable. Night Court is best savoured when its humour lies within the realm of possibility. In this particular episode, it's devolved into pure silliness.
The premise of Bull regaining his virginity via a pricey youth restoring procedure is not only incredulous, it's downright stupid and diminishes the more serious thread, Christine finding faith in herself after losing respect for a former law professor.
It's possible to marry absurd elements with a more serious storyline but the writing has to be flawless for it to work. It's disappointing to have Christine's devastating experience lumped beside Bull's fool's quest. One has nothing to do with the other. It's like two different writers created a patchwork quilt and the seams REALLY show.
The entire night court team is middle aged. It doesn't work professing that Bull and Christine are the innocents they once were. Their characters have grown in other ways through the seasons so it's illogical they wouldn't have moved forward in this direction, too.
There's always room for the show to be madcap. It makes it fun. When too much suspension of disbelief is required and lazy writing leaves the viewer to fill in the blanks, it's a poor combination. I was disappointed in this episode.
The premise of Bull regaining his virginity via a pricey youth restoring procedure is not only incredulous, it's downright stupid and diminishes the more serious thread, Christine finding faith in herself after losing respect for a former law professor.
It's possible to marry absurd elements with a more serious storyline but the writing has to be flawless for it to work. It's disappointing to have Christine's devastating experience lumped beside Bull's fool's quest. One has nothing to do with the other. It's like two different writers created a patchwork quilt and the seams REALLY show.
The entire night court team is middle aged. It doesn't work professing that Bull and Christine are the innocents they once were. Their characters have grown in other ways through the seasons so it's illogical they wouldn't have moved forward in this direction, too.
There's always room for the show to be madcap. It makes it fun. When too much suspension of disbelief is required and lazy writing leaves the viewer to fill in the blanks, it's a poor combination. I was disappointed in this episode.
Hilarious
25 February 2024
Okay, yes, the story is a bit derivative in that it's been done in almost every situation comedy of decades past and present. But the sum of its parts is well done. Probably because it's season four, we now know the characters very well and have come to anticipate the moves they will make and the likely outcomes.
The expected hijinks are there and that broadly written humour doesn't disappoint. The Roz/Bull dance sequence was well played and Bull's solo near the end equally fun. What surprised me in the best possible way is that I didn't see the end coming. I expected Christine's friend to reject the advances of both Harry and Dan. They were both decidedly over the top. But Heather made a choice that added punch to the finish and Mel Torme's appearance in the final minutes was icing on the cake. It's probably my favourite season four episode for its lack of predictability.
The expected hijinks are there and that broadly written humour doesn't disappoint. The Roz/Bull dance sequence was well played and Bull's solo near the end equally fun. What surprised me in the best possible way is that I didn't see the end coming. I expected Christine's friend to reject the advances of both Harry and Dan. They were both decidedly over the top. But Heather made a choice that added punch to the finish and Mel Torme's appearance in the final minutes was icing on the cake. It's probably my favourite season four episode for its lack of predictability.
More contrived than humorous
19 February 2024
Night Court wouldn't be the same without John Laroquette as Dan Fielding; he's a fine actor, capable of a nuanced performance but equally effective in broad comedy. Fine actors aren't always enough to sustain a plot though; there has to be good balance between performers and story. For me this episode was a fail from that angle.
The clichés of Dan's established personality are exaggerated beyond the point of return. In earlier seasons, his lecherous behaviour was considerably dialled down. When it's no holds barred, the element of believability that makes the best humour great is lost.
It's ludicrous to think Dan could attempt sexual relations while hospitalized with a grave ulcer. This episode becomes fantasy because of its absurd twists. The final scene with Harry is a tender moment that redeems the story somewhat but not enough of a payoff for the contrivances that led to it.
Rating based on performances rather than storytelling which is poor.
The clichés of Dan's established personality are exaggerated beyond the point of return. In earlier seasons, his lecherous behaviour was considerably dialled down. When it's no holds barred, the element of believability that makes the best humour great is lost.
It's ludicrous to think Dan could attempt sexual relations while hospitalized with a grave ulcer. This episode becomes fantasy because of its absurd twists. The final scene with Harry is a tender moment that redeems the story somewhat but not enough of a payoff for the contrivances that led to it.
Rating based on performances rather than storytelling which is poor.
Enjoyable
29 May 2023
A courtroom drama distinguished by outstanding performances and interesting plot developments. A bit dated by modern standards but no less enjoyable for being clearly of its time and place.
Jack Lord is intense in his role as a prosecutor assigned to a case where he has a clear conflict of interest. He's prosecuting a woman for murder with whom he once had an affair that ended badly. He believes she must be guilty-or has he convinced himself of her guilt because he's never forgiven her? Characters beautifully portrayed by seasoned actors-Sheree North and Dana Wynter particularly shine. Pat O'Brien as a well seasoned attorney adds gravitas and guidance to young Jack Lord. While the story isn't entirely original, it holds audience attention by virtue of excellent great pacing with some plot surprises. 8/10 stars.
Jack Lord is intense in his role as a prosecutor assigned to a case where he has a clear conflict of interest. He's prosecuting a woman for murder with whom he once had an affair that ended badly. He believes she must be guilty-or has he convinced himself of her guilt because he's never forgiven her? Characters beautifully portrayed by seasoned actors-Sheree North and Dana Wynter particularly shine. Pat O'Brien as a well seasoned attorney adds gravitas and guidance to young Jack Lord. While the story isn't entirely original, it holds audience attention by virtue of excellent great pacing with some plot surprises. 8/10 stars.
Pieces of Her
(2022)
Only watched first episode
6 March 2022
I love Toni Collette but she wasn't enough to carry this story on her own. Her irritating daughter was whiny from her first scenes and an abundance of stupid scenes where she alone was featured. Sitting on toilet taking a leak. Vomiting into toilet. Taking a shower. Such cliché scenes presumably were designed to show her trauma but they indicated to me an inability to convey good acting. There is an element of mystery which is appealing but not enough atmosphere to deliver on its promise. Not for me, too derivative but if you don't ask much of your thrillers, you may enjoy.
Based on author's novel of the same name
5 March 2022
Peter James' 1992 novel brought to film but a little less gristly than the original. Some changes since an Ouija board is the conduit that beckons evil forward while it is a seance in this story. Otherwise follows the plot closely, maybe too closely. What works in book form doesn't always translate well to screen. Tighter editing would have made for a less convoluted story but there's still good acting and atmosphere galore. Recommended for a one time watch but not one you will go back to again and again.
Dynamic
30 January 2022
Young Martin Sheen shines in the role of advocate for a group of mentally challenged teenagers. Sheen selects a group home only to find resistance from homeowners who fear their presence will adversely affect the neighbourhood. The performance of the young actors are beautifully portrayed and one of the best moments is when Sheen invites the young men to help find the solution while gently offering his guidance. Be hard to find a modern show that treats the subject with the same humanity and tenderness. Some reviewers might remark on the low budget of the production but in this case, the message benefits without lavishness. Highly recommended.
The Trap
(1966)
Original title Deep in the Forest
5 June 2021
I was reading an old magazine article dated November 1965 about young Rita Tushingham. It mentioned her working on a film in Canada called Deep in the Forest. Being a huge Rita fan, I wondered why the title did not resonate with me.
Well, sorting through IMDb, I discovered it was apparently renamed The Trap.
Excellent movie, over 20 years since I saw it but it's unforgettable. Not always a big Oliver Reed fan but with source material this redolent, everyone shines.
I am submitting this "review" for historical reference as it's useful to know when a title changes names pre or post production.
Well, sorting through IMDb, I discovered it was apparently renamed The Trap.
Excellent movie, over 20 years since I saw it but it's unforgettable. Not always a big Oliver Reed fan but with source material this redolent, everyone shines.
I am submitting this "review" for historical reference as it's useful to know when a title changes names pre or post production.
Entertaining
12 May 2021
The music is sometimes a little overwrought but this is a decent story. William Shatner fans will enjoy his strong performance as Dr. Ely Harris, a cutting edge surgeon willing to step beyond traditional procedures because "sometimes the (medical) book doesn't work." John Cassavetes is devil's advocate, who reluctantly becomes a witness for the prosecution. Harris is charged with murder when he allows an herbalist to treat a patient who dies afterwards. A further complication is that Dr. Harris is married to Cassavetes old flame, lovely Pippa Scott. A thoughtful study of medical ethics and the costs that come with the decisions made.
Eagle eyed viewers will enjoy spotting Star Trek alumni George Takei in a bit role and always enjoyable Wilfred Hyde White has a larger supporting role.
Eagle eyed viewers will enjoy spotting Star Trek alumni George Takei in a bit role and always enjoyable Wilfred Hyde White has a larger supporting role.
Unexpectedly good
24 April 2021
Young William Shatner surprised me with the poignancy of his performance as the unfortunate Billy Budd. He was only in his early 20s. Easy to see why he was frequently cast in various roles during this time in his career. His versatility is undeniable and in this role, he underplays nicely as befits the Bully character. His accent is reasonably convincing and conveys his character's intensity and innocence. I had to get past his blonde wig which I didn't think suited him but superficial details aside, this was a well told story.
Of course Shatner was beautifully supported by Basil Rathbone and Patrick MacNee in mature, well nuanced performances. This compact and efficient portrayal of the Herman Melville classic is worth viewing. Thanks to GM theatre for filming these great stories. The print I saw was not great quality but I didn't once consider turning it off.
Of course Shatner was beautifully supported by Basil Rathbone and Patrick MacNee in mature, well nuanced performances. This compact and efficient portrayal of the Herman Melville classic is worth viewing. Thanks to GM theatre for filming these great stories. The print I saw was not great quality but I didn't once consider turning it off.
The Desperate Man
(1959)
Not always logical but fun
20 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Fast moving story entertains if you don't think about it too closely. Rival reporters representing different newspapers "meet cute" and quickly form an alliance to determine the cause of mysterious goings on at the local castle. Faster than you can say murder, they find a body and because the police give up too quickly (they're okay with unsolved murder after a few days apparently) the reporters stake out the castle and confront an intruder they suspect might be the killer. Faster than you can say Nancy Drew meets one of the Hardy Boys, the killer pulls out a gun and imprisons them. Clever as our reporters are, they didn't bring a weapon as our killer did. It gets a little silly as their attempts to escape are thwarted repeatedly, even though they've managed to wound the killer.
It's fun to see young Jill Ireland as a reporter and Dr. Who fans might get a kick out of viewing William Hartnell as a villain. In fairness to the slim budget, I'd rate this slightly above average. The acting is pretty good even if the story is weak. The copy I saw had some sound problems but the picture was fine.
It's fun to see young Jill Ireland as a reporter and Dr. Who fans might get a kick out of viewing William Hartnell as a villain. In fairness to the slim budget, I'd rate this slightly above average. The acting is pretty good even if the story is weak. The copy I saw had some sound problems but the picture was fine.
Screen Two
(1985–1998)
Should be cross referenced with episode names
4 February 2021
I am reviewing The Summer House starring Joan Plowright, Juliette Lewis and Jeanne Moreau. Wonderful ensemble film featuring fine actresses and a clever little story. Lewis plays a young woman not quite happy about her engagement and three aging girlfriends respond differently to the situation. Plowright and Moreau join forces to put things right. A delight from beginning to end with an utterly unpredictable ending.
Our Town
(1940)
Relentlessly sad
30 January 2021
I find few flaws with this film and the performances are first rate. The author, however, conveyed a measure of hope for humanity within the play whereas this film focuses rather squarely on life's hardships and overall has a bleak tone. In fact, though I started watching it many times over the years, it's only recently I was able to rewatch and finish. Perhaps my timing was wrong, 2020 was a tough year for all, but I recommend watching this not if you're already a little sad. Save it for a day when you're feeling comfortable about your life. Sound quality was good for its age but picture quality only so-so.
Enjoyable
29 May 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Ian McShane and Dudley Sutton are a great team as Lovejoy and Tinker, although they're sadly not together very much in this instalment of the series. Fans of earlier episodes may miss Lady Jane and Eric, (I do) but the thrust of the Lovejoy stories is always the search for a marvelous antiquity and dangerous villains who threaten to find it first. On that score, The Stones of Destiny is a good lark.
Lecherous Lovejoy makes a play for beautiful Charlotte whilst together they search for a stolen cross and its mate, apparently to be found in Wales. Not so charming Charlie thinks Lovejoy is working on a restoration project for him when he's actually weekending many miles away. Almost every episode involves putting one over on Charlie while scoring that rare antique and this is more of the same, but with well loved characters leading the action, it's all good fun.
Lecherous Lovejoy makes a play for beautiful Charlotte whilst together they search for a stolen cross and its mate, apparently to be found in Wales. Not so charming Charlie thinks Lovejoy is working on a restoration project for him when he's actually weekending many miles away. Almost every episode involves putting one over on Charlie while scoring that rare antique and this is more of the same, but with well loved characters leading the action, it's all good fun.
Endo What?
(2016)
Incisive & informative
2 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
An excellent overview of what it is like for women (and the occasional man) who deals with living with endometriosis. As with many medical disorders, inflammation is the ultimate and extremely painful result. Treatment places responsiblity on the sufferer as many medical doctors are not well informed on the subject. There are those who prescribe drugs, those who favour surgery and the individual may not respond well to either. Emphasis is placed on proper diagnosis and specialized surgery. Endometriosis is not to be tackled by any gynaecologist. It is a specialized area. The documentary outlines that even after successful surgery, the symptoms have been dealt with but the disease is not cured. The patient must avoid inflammatory foods and follow a healthy lifestyle to avoid recurrence. A sad video in many ways as it reveals how vulnerable we are to disease and how our environment makes us more susceptible to hormone disrupters that negatively impact our health. The video outlines how decreasing our "chemical burden" through diet and becoming aware of what we put into and onto our body. Even soaps and shampoos can be toxic. A website called Skin Deep will identify dangerous products. Lots of information in this video that will be of interest not only to Endo sufferers but to anyone interested in health and health care. Highly recommended viewing.
X Company
(2015–2017)
Excellent series
10 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
A well conceived, cleverly plotted and superbly well acted show. This is not a stereotypical vision of WWII with clearly defined good guys and bad guys. There is subtlety in each characterization and the brutality of war is examined, in excruciating detail: (spoiler alert) when the German officer and his wife, knowing that their Down Syndrome child is about to be "collected" and terminated, make the heart wrenching decision to take their child's life rather than have him murdered by the SS. The father's anguish makes this scene almost unbearable to watch and though he's a high ranking Nazi responsible for many deaths, it's hard not to pity him in this moment. There are many such moments when difficult choices must be made and neither option is right or wrong, just a decision which will have fallout no matter what. Fantastic, highly recommended depiction of WWII espionage, atrocities and characters so fully realized, you wince with them and weep for them. Nail-biting pace, excellent action, fine story telling.
Tell Your Friends