Change Your Image
rcaliendo-424-345328
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Twilight Zone: The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street (1960)
'Why did the lights go on in Your house ???'
You can always count on this episode being part of the TZ holiday marathons ... and with good reason. It's not only a fan favorite, it's also one of the best as it poignantly illustrates our human condition wrapped in well crafted entertainment.
On a garden variety summer day in 1950's suburbia, (white middle class suburbia, that is), a strange noise is heard overhead, followed up be a complete failure of all electronic and mechanical devices.
Then, slowly, as the anomaly cannot be rationally explained, the neighbors turn to seemingly irrational explanations and begin to suspect each other as being the source of the phenomena.
The Twilight Zone: Perchance to Dream (1959)
I wouldn't advise it.
A scary one, this one was truly eerie and frightening. An exhausted man with a weak heart struggles with a fear of falling asleep and experiencing the culmination in a series of terrifying episodic dreams that will literally scare him to death.
Richard Conte, (aka, Barzini from The Godfather roughly a decade later) is excellent in a tightly wound intense performance. John Larch is good as the professionally detached, but concerned Doctor. But Suzanne Lloyd steals the show as Myra, whose barely contained sexuality provides the excitement that propels the episode forward.
Despite the limitations of black and white 1950's TV production, they do a good job in illustrating the dreamy, almost hallucinogenic atmosphere of the amusement park.
And of course, the hallmark of many of the great TZ episodes, the plot twist is there.
The Towering Inferno (1974)
Stay out of tall buildings
As the disaster movie genre went in the 1970's, this one was a cut above most. Still, this film was pretty typical of the prototype ... stiff, cheesy and ultra serious in tone, cardboard good guy/bad guy character representations, and the spectacle being the most important star in an all star ensemble cast. The special effects were state of the art in a time before computer enhancement. The 70's fashions and interior decorating are a hoot. It's also really long ... Gone With the Wind - kinda long. McQueen and Newman are very good, despite the freeze dried dialogue. There are a number of back stories among the secondary cast, which are mostly dull distractions, like Fred Astaire as the aged con man trying cheat his lovely but lonely socialite date.
As a kid wanting to be an architect, Paul Newman's character was naturally fascinating and compelling, as he plays the hot shot building designer who gets the coolest projects, flys around in helicopters, takes exotic vacations and has a penthouse office/apartment. I suppose he'd qualify as what we now call a 'Starchitect'. For whatever this critique is worth, it's a pretty overblown and unrealistic depiction of an architect, but, it is just a movie.
I'm surprised if this one gets much airplay in the aftermath of 9/11, since, obviously no one needs any reminders about high rise building disasters.
Vietnam: A Television History (1983)
What was it really all about ?
This was the most comprehensive and detailed early documentary on Vietnam and is still one of the best. Being released in 1983, it has the enormous advantage of fresh perspectives from all participants, just a short 8 years after the fall of Saigon and 10 years after the signing of the tenuous, short-lived peace agreement, and the return of the POW's. Given that the conflict is almost a half century behind us now, it's beginning to take on the characterization and status of actual history, as opposed to recent events, which is why the timing of this series is so valuable.
Also, no doc that endeavors to tell 'the whole story' about such a controversial and polarizing series of events will escape criticism about bias or a failure to properly drill down on, or even mention specific events or aspects of the conflict. Regardless, these criticisms often boil down to personal opinions, beliefs and experiences, so the creators are forced into the impossible position of simply doing their best to keep their lens as wide as possible and address the results in as unbiased a manner as possible. While I do not profess to be an expert on the subject of Vietnam, it seems to me that the producers managed to present the events in as fair and balanced a manner as possible. This must have been especially difficult, given the fact that, in 1983, harsh memories and stark opinions about the war were still very fresh. Apparently, while the series was reviewed mostly favorably by the media, there was some significant right wing criticism and claims of manipulation or distortion of facts, none of which should be surprising.
While we're naturally preoccupied with our nation's involvement in the conflict, It's both fascinating and important that the series initially dealt extensively with the history of Vietnam up to 1954, just prior to our inheriting of the war from the French. The evolution of two separate eras of French colonization, capitulation and withdrawal in Vietnam, is reviewed in depth, from the late 1800's through early 1954, when they suffered their final decisive defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu.
The rise and history of Ho Chi Minh, the most seminal figure in all of Vietnam's 20th century history is given much needed coverage. The figure most reviled by the west in this conflict, the writers do an excellent job of shining light on Ho's history, including his time in America, his move to Paris in 1917 to become a Communist, his founding of the Viet Minh in 1941 to combat both French and Japanese occupation, his alliance with the US against the Japanese during World War II, while it was still in both their interests, his declaration of independence after WWII, coupled with his refusal to accept French recolonization, and his dogged pursuit of a unified Vietnam under a Communist government right up until his death in 1969. In short, it's too bad the guy was a Communist, because it would have been good to have him on our side.
One of the most shameful aspects of the war involved the fact that USA involvement and actions were, at at least in part, promulgated, not simply by foreign policy needs and beliefs, but also the political realities and concerns of, at least two elections in 1964 and 68. The Democrats, in control of the White House since 1960, lived in constant fear of being perceived as soft on Communism as they faced strong opposition and criticism from the likes of Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon. Many believed that, had he lived to be re-elected in 64, JFK, with the political concerns of his last election behind him, would have extricated the US from Vietnam, because both he and his Attorney General/brother foresaw the futility of the conflict, having visited Vietnam themselves back in the 50's. Only those close to JFK can attest to what his real intentions were, but, when faced with all the practical realities and concerns after the 64 election, who can really say if he would have followed through on an actual withdrawal? While JFK was clearly bold and seemingly unafraid of opposition, pulling out at that time would have certainly have been an especially gutsy move for any President, regardless of his political status. The reasons for this are numerous.
Vietnam had not yet morphed into the horror it would become, and was still, in the fall of 63 seen domestically as little more than a nagging, but important foreign policy headache. We had not yet suffered the shame and humiliation of our multiple failures to gain final decisive victory against an elusive and underestimated enemy whose military capability was erroneously considered vastly inferior to our own. US pride, our can-do attitude, (as well as overconfidence and arrogance), carrying over from WWII prevailed, as the concept of being unable to decisively defeat virtually any enemy combatant was anathema and inconceivable to our collective consciousness. The "domino theory", which advanced the idea that, after one small Southeast Asian nation falls to Communism, they will all fall like dominoes, was the prevailing belief of our government, dating back, at least to President Eisenhower. And there was political enormous pressure, from the right in particular, to contain Communist hegemony at all costs. In short, we, as a nation, had not learned our lesson yet.
So, given that we had yet to experience the real and lasting trauma that the war would eventually inflict, the idea that, in 1963 that we could or should pull out of a conflict at an early stage because "we did not think we could win" would have been inconceivable as a nation and would have angered, not only the political right, but a substantial number of moderates throughout the nation, raised, incorrectly as it turned out, to believe in American political and military infallibility.
20/20 hindsight tells us obviously that, in the end, it didn't really matter much that we lost Vietnam to Communism, that the domino theory was wrong or at least irrelevant, and that we should have gotten out before things got out of control. But, back in 63, things were not that clear, and our beliefs and understandings of ours and our enemies' capabilities, and their intentions were often distorted, exaggerated, or outright wrong. Can you imagine the firestorm of criticism being leveled against a Democratic President, or really any President at that point in time if, after not even receiving any significant defeats as yet, we simply abandoned the conflict? The calls of "defeatism", "cutting and running", "losing Vietnam", being "soft on Communism", "losing our first war", etc. Would have been deafening, and probably from both sides. It is also hard to judge what such an action would have meant to our international prestige. Would all nations, not just the Soviet Union have seen us in a weaker and less respectful light? The conflict was after all, at least publicly supposed to be about the support of our South Vietnamese ally. How would the abandonment of that ally, especially at such an early stage have looked on the world stage? And what ramifications would that have caused for us?
It's entirely possible that JFK, as occurred with Johnson would have found himself in an impossible position and been forced to keep propping up that ally with more troops (or military advisors in JFK's case) and money so we could not be accused of such an abandonment while the Viet Cong continued ramping up their own efforts. So, when viewed strictly in the context of the time, the reasons that Vietnam, not only became, but persisted as a quagmire become discernable and even somewhat understandable.
If JFK really did intend to curtail our involvement after the election, and his foresight into our future with Vietnam was the basis of that intention, then his prescience was indeed remarkable, and I for one would love a peek at that alternate reality, had he lived. But, in his last interview with Walter Cronkite shortly before his death, Kennedy actually expressed ambivalence by claiming at various times that, on the one hand, Vietnam was "their war" and their responsibility, but then shortly thereafter remark that he "did not agree with those who say we should withdraw". So, who is to say that his intentions for Vietnam were in fact clear or that he had made up his mind? Perhaps that ambivalence would have been revealed after the election after all and - despite the fact that he had no more of his own elections to worry about - when faced with all the afore-mentioned concerns, with the countries' international reputation, the future of an ally and the political future of his party at stake, who is to say that he would not have bent to those pressures and ramped up the war as LBJ did? (The only key difference between the two of them in that situation involved the fact that LBJ did have one more of his own elections to worry about).
That interview can serve as a prescient metaphor for all that conflicted beliefs would come over the next 12 years.
One of the strangest paradoxes of the war was the ill fated involvement of the French. After escaping their own occupation by Germany in WWII, the French hypocritically decided to reassert their own colonial aspirations and recolonize Vietnam. From 1946 until 1954, the fought their own futile war against the.
The Brady Bunch (1969)
Brady, Brady, Brady !
When you think of the 70's, specifically TV in the 70's TBB has to come to mind pretty quickly. Yes, it was dumb and saccharine, but producer, Sherwood Schwartz obviously had a talent for nailing shows of that nature, since this one, along with Gilligan's Island are, to this day, among the most cherished of so-called "classic" TV sitcoms.
Almost nothing about it could be termed or seen as realistic and the show has to be interpreted simply as a way overly idealized version of the traditional American family. Perhaps one of the great ironies of the show, revealed only decades after it wrapped production was that the idealized American father was in fact gay.
Although it was supposed to be a comedy, in reality, it was more silly than funny. The actual funniest thing about the show, at least in retrospect is how seemingly, and ridiculously out of step the show appeared to be with the times. The may have worn bell bottoms, had perms and uttered the occasional "groovy" now and then, but apart from superficial acknowledgements of the era, this was basically Ozzie and Harriet in color. It's no wonder that the 1995 BB movie really nailed it by sarcastically playing up the truly funniest aspect of the show - how unbelievably "square" they were in comparison to any era, except for, maybe the 50's.
I suppose not too many other comedies in the 70's concerned themselves with Vietnam, Kent State, civil unrest, drugs or Watergate, because ... well, they were comedies ! But, while there were ground-breaking comedies like All in the Family and Mary Tyler Moore being made, Schwartz and co. Stuck to their guns and insisted on making a wholesome, milquetoast and probably unrealistic show with actual family values. Kudos to them, because, despite the odds being against them, they still created something that half a century later, still resonates with American culture.
Star Trek: Balance of Terror (1966)
'Sit-down mister'
This is about as good as it gets. One of the best, most fully-realized entries of TOS, it has to rank within the top five best episodes. It contains everything that both serious and casual fans of the show love, except for humor; this one is deadly serious in all respects as it deals with the prospect of the resumption of hostilities between two century old enemies. It does seem to be intended to resemble the classic WWII submarine movie genre. It is tense, dramatic, well written, well directed and extremely well acted.
Many of the best-liked original series episodes dealt with the one on one conflicts between Kirk and the antagonist, such as Khan, the Gorn, Garth, etc. Mark Leonard, as the Romulan Commander may have surpassed them all in this one as he delivers a powerful, yet sensitive and subtle performance as the war-weary alien soldier, who betrays his feelings by indicating that he does not share his Government's appetite for endless conquest. While this character could have been written as the stock, one-dimensional blood thirsty alien type, the writers, instead develop him as a cerebral, philosophical and even depressed character. The Commander is every bit Kirk's equal as a tactical strategist and leader. His last lines after being defeated ... 'you and I are of a kind', 'I could have called you friend', 'in a different reality' ... , beautifully delivered, show a quality extremely rare in TOS, genuine pathos.
Shatner, often criticized (justifiably) for hamming it up later in the series is excellent here with a tight and intense, but controlled performance as he shows perfectly what it must be like for any ship Commander forced into a front line, tip-of-the-spear position, where his decisions alone could mean the difference between war and peace.
But those behind the invention of the cloaking device evidently overestimated it's capabilities, especially when matching up against a battle-experienced starship crew.
Let's get the negatives out of the way, because there are a few. First, we all know that TOS was pulled off on the cheap as far as sets and effects were concerned. So, I suppose it's no surprise that the bridge of the Romulan ship looks like it was shot in somebody's basement. Were they kidding with the falling sawdust or what? Next, the plot twist behind Stile's sudden attitude reversal, morphing from from bigoted and arrogant to grateful and humbled, after Spock saves his life is cheesy, obvious and way too Hollywood. It would have played much better in terms of plot integrity if, after simply showing his competence, integrity and, above all loyalty over the course of the crisis, Spock slowly alters Mr. Stile's inherent prejudices and wins his respect. Lastly, the cloaking device is supposed to be this amazing and fearsome tool for the enemy, as well as the apparent impetus behind the Romulans decision to engage in this aggression. But, despite how daunting this device is supposed to be, every time the Enterprise fires "blind", and despite it necessitating "the wildest stroke of luck", they always seem to hit and badly damage the enemy ship. So, this device was, either not all it was cracked up to be, or they did not portray it well in the script. Maybe they did not have enough run time, but it would have helped if they were able to show the Enterprise being fooled into firing at phantoms in at least a couple of shots.
Airport 1975 (1974)
'The stewardess is flying the plane ???'
An unintentionally funny camp classic that inspired the deliberately funny movie, Airplane half a decade later, and pretty much every spoof of the stiff, ultra serious disaster movie genre that proliferated in the 70's.
Karen Black is really the only character allowed to exhibit any range as the stewardess, (remember when female flight attendants were called that?), who discovers that the entire flight crew has been killed or disabled by an in flight crash with a small plane and is thrust into the impossible position of trying to figure out what to do next.
All the other characters are stock cardboard holly wood prototypes, from Charlton Heston, as the mucho macho pilot who has to be tethered into the plane through the crash hole. A young Eric Estrada plays the randy, Latin playboy navigator. The passengers are the mostly stereotypical range of chatty, panicky and drunk types. Helen Reddy is, again, unintentionally hysterical as the singing nun. George Kennedy, reprising his Joe Petroni role from the first Airport movie is at least somewhat varied and amusing in his otherwise hard boiled, seen it all role as airline industry veteran.
As far as the implausibility of the physics involved in the crash or the pilot transfer, your guess is as good as mine. I'll give the producers the benefit of the doubt on that one.
Star Trek: Miri (1966)
No blah, blah blah !!!
After reading some of the reviews, I see what I may have failed to previously consider in terms of the quality of the script and the acting in this episode. But, to be honest, I just never liked this one and always found it drab, slow and dull and the kid actors, extremely annoying. Never center a script around kids because they can't act; this one is no exception. I have to admit, though that as sci-fi drama, this is in fact a very good episode. I just never cared for it and found it hard to watch.
Kim Darby is very good in the lead role as the adolescent on the verge of womanhood - and death as it turns out, because of the disease. Michael J. Pollard's typical weirdness fits perfectly in this developmentally-warped environment. I'd say that the premise and the script are both very strong and the acting is as good as any we've seen in TOS.
The interplay between Spock and McCoy and also between Kirk and Yeoman Rand is entertaining. Its really a shame that G. L. Whitney was written out of the series, supposedly because of a sexual assault allegation against a network executive. Had she been able to stay, I'm sure she would have gone on to solidify her position as one of the main cast figures of TOS, like Sulu, Urhura, Checkov or Chapel.
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
Don't call me tiny.
One long credibility-straining attempt to correct the disastrous plot point of killing off Spock in ST II. Dallas did a more plausible job in bringing Bobby Ewing back to life !
Star Trek (1966)
Was Season 3 worth it ?
Most of us fans know that season 3 was only green-lighted by the network when fans at the time, after it was cancelled beyond season 2, petitioned the network so hard that they relented for one more year. We all know that S3 was by far the weakest of the three in the original run.
Personally, the only episodes from S3 that I actually care for and feel are a solid, worthwhile part of TOS are: #2, The Enterprise Incident, #6, Spectre of the Gun, #7, Day of the Dove, #9, The Tholian Web, #13, Elaan of Troyius, #14, Whom Gods Destroy and #23, All Our Yesterdays. That's only 7 of 24 total episodes or 29 percent.
To my mind, a large portion of the reputation / criticism that TOS carries to this day for camp silliness and bad/overacting, particularly from Shatner emanates from the many stinkers that came out of S3. Apparently, many of the creators that made S1 and S2 so good were no longer part of the creative and production team in S3. This aspect shows through quite blatantly in the lack of quality for most of the last season's episodes, as compared to the first two years.
It also calls into question the possibility that TOS "might" have attained - if not necessarily a better - then possibly a more serious reputation, ala Twilight Zone or Outer Limits had they not produced the large number of just plain bad S3 episodes.
I'm a little ambivalent about it actually. The humor, even, to some extent, the stupid, cringe-worthy variety of it was and still is a tangible part of the shows' wide-spread appeal. So the question then becomes, would TOS have been a "better" show had the network followed through on the original decision to dump it after season 2 ?
Had it done so, the show, most likely would have had that more serious reputation, but I'm not sure, whether in the case of TOS, if that would have been a good thing. Would some if it's popularity have been sacrificed without S3 ? Well, for me, it's pretty much the same debate as when I consider whether "The White Album" would have been better a single instead of a double album.
The Hunt for Red October (1990)
You have the Con
I've read reviews claiming inaccuracies relating to Naval and technical concerns. While they may be right, it seems to me, as an admittedly inexperienced viewer, that these are minor technicalities. And as far as Sean C's accent is concerned, let's remember that Clark Gable refused to alter his voice for Gone With the Wind ... how did that one turn out ?
I loved the book and felt that this movie achieves it's difficult goal of remapping one excellent form of art onto another. How many great books have been butchered by their movie counterparts ? Think Bonfire of the Vanities for one. Alec Baldwin, at that stage and age seemed to be the perfect Ryan. Intelligent, but inexperienced. Vulnerable, but adaptive. And, above all, frightened yet brave in the face of the seemingly insurmountable. Perhaps equally importantly, his looks don't compromise the believability of the performance.
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
Letting Kirk direct was a real BillShat move !!!
It's not just bad, it's incompetent. And coming off the success and wide spread appeal of ST IV (the one with the whales), it's really hard to believe that the team could produce such dreck. It is the "Spock's Brain" of Trek movies .. a train wreck in every respect that nearly killed the franchise for good.
To be fair, a lot went wrong ... even besides the scary bad decision to allow BS to direct. Looking back on that fateful decision, apparently, after a pay squabble, as an extra inducement to get him to sign on for ST IV, Shatner was promised he could direct the next film. Well, Nimoy went 1 for 2 with his two shots at directing the film franchise ... ST III, (so and dull), and IV, (the most popular of the series). They must have figured BS couldn't do any worse. Wrong !!!
Except for Paramount budget cuts and labor strikes, the fault for this mess does seem lay squarely at the feet of BS. It was his concept to go searching for God and encountering a "false prophet" instead ... a story that required a lot of reworking to make it plausible and was apparently inspired by all the Televangelist scandals of the time. He dictated the film treatment, hired the screenwriter and the production designer. And after Sean Connery was unavailable, it was his decision to cast Laurence Luckinbill ... (yes, Laurence Luckinbill ! )... in the key bad guy roll of Sybok.
Look, I'm sure old Double LL is a nice guy and all, but was BS kidding with this decision ? I mean apart from some forgettable TV and movie appearances, the best thing this guy is known for is being married to Lucille Ball's daughter. This was a Sofia-Coppola-in-Godfather 3-instead-of-Wynona-Ryder-level crucially bad casting decision. That aside, not even Bond could have saved this one. I suspect that this also may speak to possible insecurity on the part of BS, and a desire to not have to share the screen with someone so much gravitas.
Right from the start, when BS finally gets his hands on the controls, how does he start off the movie ? ... with a typically ego-stroking macho rock climbing scene, while Spock wimps up right next to him in gravity boots and Bones is on the ground wringing his hands like a worried nanny. That Kirk ... what a man ! This was just the sort of focus on me, I'm-the-center-of-the-universe-junk from BS that showed up in some of the worst episodes of TOS and earned him the lasting resentment of his cast mates. Of course, other than Spock, (the bad guy's half-brother), Kirk is the only one immune to Sybok's mind meld. More proof of Kirk's superiority to ... well, everybody, of course ... duhhh !
Then we're supposed to be enthralled by a middle-aged-and-then-some Uhura doing a naked fan dance to entrap some aliens. Yeah, maybe if this was still the late 60's. Apologies to Ms. Nichols, but this is just another example of this team having any reasonable awareness of what the cast actually looked like by this time. By1989, not even the makeup, hairpieces and girdles were gonna work. Cut to another of BS's all about me scenes riding horses with Spock while he implores his fish-out of water, (and out of breath) Science Officer to "be one with the horse". Gee, is there anything that Kirk can't do ? Yeah, direct !
There's a lot of ham-handed effort at humor as well during the silly campfire scene and after they're taken prisoner by bad guy Sybok . Despite it being slightly amusing to hear things you'd never heard before in ST, like Kirk, Spock and Bones singing (badly) or making a sly reference to flatulence, the humor falls flat (like everything else) and just contributes to the films' downward spiral.
Is it any wonder that the climax is, in fact an anti climatic ... dull and unfulfilling ? In one final ego-orgasm, Kirk proves that he's the only one that can beat "god".
Reminds me of the scene from the otherwise-forgettable movie, Airheads, when, after hijacking a radio station, the leader of the band of metal head idiots, testing the music credibility of one of their captives asks him ... "If Lemmy arm wrestled God, who'd win, Lemmy or God ... his answer: uhh, uhh, God ... no Lemmy ?! ... Wrong answer ! It's a trick question, Lemmy IS God !".
If he knew he who was, somehow, I'm thinking BS would really identify with Lemmy.
Star Trek: The Return of the Archons (1967)
Landru help me, help me, help me, ...
Considering the drabness of the setting, on the surface, this episode does not look like one I would normally care for. But, on the contrary, this is actually one of my favorites of TOS.
To me, at least, this episode represented some of the best qualities of TOS, the studying of subjects with heavy philosophical implications, but doing so as well-crafted entertainment. The thinly-veiled reference to and argument against socialist/communist societies is fully on display, whereby all must live to serve "the body" ("the party") with total conformity (loyalty) and complete lack of individuality. Kirk pointing out that "the body is dying" because it does not innovate and grow (qualities only possible through the allowance and recognition of at least some individual initiative) is astonishingly prescient by ST in retrospect. Who could possibly know at that time (1967) that the most powerful totalitarian regime in history would collapse under the weight of its own similar failings just a short 24 years later ?
Simultaneously, the argument against, and warning about, what would come to be known as artificial intelligence (AI) serves as a parallel philosophical point; this would be revisited on several occasions in ST and was a favorite plot point of writers of the era in general whom, apparently grew up on sci-fi stories centered around technology run amok.
Only two things bothered me from a critical standpoint. First, the purpose of The Red Hour is never explained, which makes me wonder if it was even necessary as a plot point. Of course, it seems fairly obvious that it serves as a temporary emotional release for the population from their trance-like placidity. It may even serve as the sole means to allow them to procreate. Again though, without delving into its purpose, what is the reason for even having it in the story ?
Second, the climax is a let-down. We're supposed to buy into the idea of this incredibly capable and complex machine, that can control minds, neutralize starships, and weapons and kill, if needed has a nervous breakdown and self-immolates after a quick grade school debate with Kirk and Spock? That part is ridiculous and speaks to, either a lack of imagination by the writers, or, more likely another example of the machine-will-replace-man paranoia that was highly prevalent in shows like this at the time.
Again though, this fear did and still does merit a certain amount of credibility and exhibit prescience as proven over the previous decades by close-call nuclear exchanges caused by computer errors and the Y2K (remember that ?) scare at the turn of the century.
Route 66: Build Your Houses with Their Backs to the Sea (1963)
It's a bunch on BillShat ! Just kidding ...
Whenever I see an iconic actor working outside the role that made him iconic, I always end up focusing almost exclusively on the actor and their differences from the more familiar surroundings, instead of focusing on the current show itself. This episode, with the appearance of William Shatner, just a few years prior to his seminal role in Star Trek, is no exception. In this case, that's actually an unwanted distraction because this is a very well done and impassioned episode of R66. While Shatner is actually very good in the role, the one considerable flaw I see is that, in manner, speech, and dress, he hardly looks as though he could be the son of a grizzled lobster fisherman. He frankly looks more the part of a Palm or Newport Beach trust fund ne'er-do-well. Superficialities aside, this is a tough, sad story, well written, directed and acted. Back to Shatner for a moment, it's very interesting to see him in his many pre-Trek roles. Growing up, I saw him almost exclusively in the context of Kirk, indulging all too often in his scene-stealing, ham acting kitsch that made him as infamous as famous. His prior roles though, such as this one show him to ... (surprise !) ... be a very good actor. Although, to be fair, he did have a significant number of restrained, well crafted performances on Trek, which are often overlooked. As long as he tones down his oddball staccato speech patterns and strange jerky movements, like in these roles, he's actually a pleasure to watch, instead of just being funny to watch.
The Twilight Zone: The Hitch-Hiker (1960)
I believe you're going ... my way ...
I love this one, and it's definitely one of the ones where I'll stop whatever I'm doing and watch it, despite seeing it many, many times. Inger Stevens was terrific in a classic TZ episode where she is essentially the whole show. She was apparently very talented and had such a sad ending just ten years after this episode aired.
The Twilight Zone: Will the Real Martian Please Stand Up? (1961)
Wet ... what's wet ???
My top personal benchmark for Zone episodes is whether or not - in spite of seeing it - who knows how many times over the decades - I will stop whatever I'm doing and watch it. I'll admit that that may be more indicative of episode favoritism than greatness, but so be it. IMHO, though this episode has that greatness as well.
It has that elusive quality of, besides being really good, mysterious and suspenseful sci fi, it's also a lot of fun. The episode does a great job of building the tension and suspense as we all wonder who, if any of the bus passengers or diner customers is an alien. It's also a very smart plot point to deflect the attention and suspicion onto the weird, funny old man.
Then, just when they satisfy us by revealing the actual alien, doing so in a fairly expected, almost anticlimactic manner, they throw in the completely unexpected twist, which suddenly propels the episode to another level. It deserves to be included in all the TZ marathons and is definitely one of the best.
The Twilight Zone: Young Man's Fancy (1962)
We hardly knew ya
I was too young to experience TZ during its initial run and did not really begin watching them until seeing them in reruns in the 70's. And many of us, through the years are exposed to and have seen the various TZ episodes only through a variety of holiday marathons. Those marathons also have an expected list of wide spread favorite episodes, anticipated by fans that apparently must be and usually are always there like "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street", "A Stop at Willoughby", "Eye of the Beholder", etc.
The lesser-known or less-cherished episodes are then more or less fed into and out of the rotation of each succeeding marathon, time permitting. We're certainly used to this with all season 4 one-hour episodes in particular, which end up getting very little play on the average because of time constraints. For example, before buying a book detailing all the Zone episodes decades ago, I did not even know there was a season with one hour episodes ! But all the shows within 30 minute format for the other four seasons should have been viewable from time to time over the years.
For me though, this one, "Young Man's Fancy" has slipped through the cracks. This is one I have so little familiarity with, recollection of and apparently viewed for the first time just a few years ago. While its not highly rated for the most part and I was not really crazy about it myself, finding an unseen original episode, out of the 156 produced is like finding a piece of gold in a familiar, but beloved pile of lead.
Star Trek: Spock's Brain (1968)
Plot and Plot, what is Plot ???
Most fans of TOS concur that this was the nadir of the franchise to-date, although there, sadly would be many more clunkers to come. It may be fitting that the worst show starts off the worst (and last) season. This one is so bad, it's really not worth reviewing unless you just want to vent. If you're a fan of the shows' more than semi-occasional tendency to drift into camp silliness, especially in season 3, then this one might be for you ... then again, maybe it's too out there even for you. All you really need to know is that an alien race needs a brain to survive and one of them beams aboard the Enterprise to steal Spocks'; I guess he had the best one. "Jim, his brain is gone" is at least a dialogue departure from "He's dead, Jim". The scenes of McCoy directing the brainless body of Spock with some kind of robot reanimator and then watching a semi-reconnected Spock provide operating instructions to the Doctor - while his brain is being operated on, no less - are scenes of amazing camp absurdity. It's hard to believe that people in charge had the temerity to write, direct and release this episode for airing. I mean, I know it was the 60's, but were they all so stoned that they couldn't discern how ridiculously awful this one was ? And here we thought Shatner was to blame for all the bad over the top moments in the TOS. This one qualifies as an ensemble failure !
The Twilight Zone: Person or Persons Unknown (1962)
Don't you know me ?
A solid one with excellent acting by Richard Long; I'm finding it hard to believe that he was only in two Zone episodes as he seems like one of those ubiquitous TZ actors, like J. Klugman or B. Meredith, who appeared more often.
This one checks most, if not all the boxes for Zone entertainment. The only reason I won't rate it higher is because the theme is a little too familiar and almost typical of the show.
The Twilight Zone: In Praise of Pip (1963)
There isnt even supposed to be a war going on there ...
I can't watch it. It's so well done and affecting that it brings me to tears every time as I am reminded of my own failings as a parent. Just reading the reviews and composing my own right now bring me right back to the heavy emotional state that this beautiful, but heart wrenching episode elicits. To me there are two equally compelling storylines here, the explicit one and the one only to be revealed over time and indicating Mr. Serling's prescience.
First, Klugman is a tour de force as the aging bookie, weighed down by a lifetime of bad decisions, who gets and takes his last shot at redemption. No one could play this kind of character as well as him as he - along with Burgess Meredith - crystalizes his legacy here, effectively as one of the TZ's actors in residency. He is so powerful, yet vulnerable, an absolute master of his craft working some Sterling's best, most poignant writing.
The second story line speaks to, what might be seen as Mr. Serlings' foresightedness. The release date was 27 September 1963. JFK had a little less than two months to live. The American public knew, and cared very little at that point in time about our nation's latest proxy war with communist forces and ideology ... the "conflict" in Vietnam. Kennedy, by his own admission was ambivalent about his intentions for the conflict with many, to this day, claiming that, had he lived, he would have withdrawn after the 64 election. We were still in the phase of sending "advisors" there, not actual combat troops. By years end, we would have over 16,000 advisors there with a little less than 200 total deaths since the beginning of our involvement. The first actual combat troops would arrive in March of 1965 under LBJ. At peak, by 1968, we would have over 550,000 troops deployed and by wars end, in 1975, over 58,000 American deaths. Estimates of "enemy" deaths range from 1 to 3 million people.
What is initially remarkable here is that it was one televisions earliest mentions of Vietnam, if not the very first. References to Vietnam anywhere, other than on the news were so rare and actually jarring to see and hear, even later on in the war and especially on entertainment TV. I know that on Route 66, one of the lead characters was called out as a Vietnam vet and, perversely, on the Munsters, when Herman was being given a baseball tryout, Manager, Leo Durocher, so awed by Herman's strength power, exclaimed that he didn't "know whether to sign him with the Dodgers or send him to Vietnam". To this day, given the polarizing tendencies of Vietnam, those sorts of references can actually be disturbing or at least disquieting.
Klugman's exasperated line: "There isn't even supposed to be a war going on there" might not have carried a lot of weight during the first broadcast in 1963, but given what Vietnam would become in less than two years and the fact that the overwhelming number of episode views would come later in syndicated reruns, that line would come to have both agonizing and ironic gravitas.
The Twilight Zone: The Bard (1963)
What's my Tertiary Motivation ?
Honestly, the only thing I think of when considering this episode is the very strange and very funny take that Burt Reynolds does on Marlon Brando. It's an amusing send up of the typical coddled, self-obsessed and psychiatrically-tortured method actor as personified by Brando in those days. It's also a reminder of how much they really did look alike when they were younger. Assuming he saw it, this would have driven Brando crazy because, by his own admission, he hated Burt Reynolds and, by the time he became famous in his own right, he considered Reynolds to be the embodiment of everything wrong with the acting profession.
Apart from that, I never really cared for the episode. This is one script that did not benefit from an ability to stretch out in the one hour format and there seem to be a lot that could have been cut out to make it more concise. Weston is pretty funny as the untalented hack writer whose only interest is in making it big ... ya dig ?
Will & Grace: The Hole Truth (2005)
"Help, help im in a hole !"
I love how the writing and acting was handled in this one by Jack and Baby Glen. Many times, the shows' sardonic take of pop culture themes fell short (like the roller disco scenes in Xanadu for Leo) or missed the mark a bit, but not this time. This was, in 2005 - and still is at the time of this writing, 2020 - the age of reality TV, where anyone regardless of talent or accomplishment can become famous - or perhaps more sadly, believe that they're actually famous. The idea of a grown man - desperately clinging to his 15 minutes of fame from an event that happened when he was a kid - still milking a living off it and better yet, actually believing that he is still relevant has real pathos as well as humor.
While we're laughing, we actually feel pity for this person who, like Jack labors under the delusion that they have achieved real public notoriety and somehow deserve star treatment. The scenes where the two of them, in the middle of their star trip, complain about their "dressing room" and whip each other into a frenzy of false self-importance are priceless as Will serves as the counter weight to their unwarranted narcissism.
In my view, they really did a great job of poking fun at the "famous for nothing" phenomenon.
Star Trek (1966)
Was Season 3 worth it ?
Most of us fans know that season 3 was only green-lighted by the network when fans at the time, after it was cancelled beyond season 2, petitioned the network so hard that they relented for one more year. We all know that S3 was by far the weakest of the three in the original run.
Personally, the only episodes from S3 that I actually care for and feel are a solid, worthwhile part of TOS are: #2, The Enterprise Incident, #6, Spectre of the Gun, #7, Day of the Dove, #9, The Tholian Web, #13, Elaan of Troyius, #14, Whom Gods Destroy and #23, All Our Yesterdays. That's only 7 of 24 total episodes or 29 percent.
To my mind, a large portion of the reputation / criticism that TOS carries to this day for camp silliness and bad/overacting, particularly from Shatner emanates from the many stinkers that came out of S3. Apparently, many of the creators that made S1 and S2 so good were no longer part of the creative and production team in S3. This aspect shows through quite blatantly in the lack of quality for most of the last season's episodes, as compared to the first two years.
It also calls into question the possibility that TOS "might" have attained - if not necessarily a better - then possibly a more serious reputation, ala Twilight Zone or Outer Limits had they not produced the large number of just plain bad S3 episodes.
I'm a little ambivalent about it actually. The humor, even, to some extent, the stupid, cringe-worthy variety of it was and still is a tangible part of the shows' wide-spread appeal. So the question then becomes, would TOS have been a "better" show had the network followed through on the original decision to dump it after season 2 ?
Had it done so, the show, most likely would have had that more serious reputation, but I'm not sure, whether in the case of TOS, if that would have been a good thing. Would some if it's popularity have been sacrificed without S3 ? Well, for me, it's pretty much the same debate as when I consider whether "The White Album" would have been better a single instead of a double album.
The Twilight Zone: Stopover in a Quiet Town (1964)
Stopover for a 25 minute PSA on not drinking and driving ?
Well, for whatever its worth, I liked it. A book I have on the Zone rated this one very poorly. It seems like many of the 5th season episodes suffer from bad reviews, at least partly out of suspicion that the show was out of gas with fresh ideas. True enough, this one is probably too reminiscent of "Where is Everybody" from season 1.
Still, I feel this one is completely emblematic of the show's core entertainment values ... suspense, fish out of water characters, distorted realities, a surprising twist, etc. One of the common critiques about this one is the "unlikability" of the characters. They certainly have a short emotional band width here ranging from whiny to grouchy to hysterical. Then again, who wouldn't ? Hung over and with no footing in reality ... can you blame them ?
To me, though, their unlikability is part of the show ... they appear to be your typical no-kids-yet, self-interested, self-obsessed, urban (yuppie equivalent of the time) couple. Not liking them means we are more likely to be entertained by, than be saddened by their likely fate in some alien child's toy chest.
It's a good story. OK, it's not one of the best, but, because it checks most of the boxes for Zone entertainment criteria, I find it very entertaining and will stop what I'm doing to watch it, despite having seen it so many times.
The Munsters: Far Out Munsters (1965)
The Beatniks vs. the Hippies
They caught it on film. They didn't know what they had, but they caught it ... that amazing inflection point in time where the 50's were in the process of morphing into the 60's. It was just a period of months in 1964/65 between writing and filming this episode when the culture and the country changed wildly. JFK was gone for about a year, the Beatles had come and turned everything popular upside down and Vietnam and Civil Rights were about to shake the country to its foundation.
But for a little black and white TV show that was simply riding the early/mid 60's TV sitcom wave of the supernatural ... monsters, witches, genies, martians, talking cars and horses and flying nuns ... a bunch of middle aged writers, likely without any understanding or interest in either cultural genre, managed to crystalize on film a very innocent, fleeting time in Americana.
Just about every show at that time had to do something acknowledging the Beatles phenomenon; even Gilligan's Island did so. Of course the writers at the time, as exemplified in the generational disparity had no idea what to make of the Beatles, who - to them - looked like freaks in mop head wigs and made noise not music.
So, the Standells were brought in to serve as America's poor man's Beatles, complete with the sharp, hip outfits and a cover version of I Wanna Hold Your Hand. But with the show having no real concept of what was or would become cool, they reached back a decade or so to Kerouac and Co. and pulled the Beats forward a few years.
In fairness to the show's creators, it was the exact in between period where the 50's were dying off and the 60's were taking off. The very month the show aired, March of 65, the first combat troops were sent into Vietnam and later that year Ken Kesey would be staging his first "acid tests" in California with the house band, the Warlocks ... soon to be renamed, the Grateful Dead.
If this show were filmed just a year later, it probably would have been filmed in color and, assuming somebody was keeping up with the times, the house probably would have been filed with tie-dyed shirts and other hippie, not beatnik symbols.