Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Batman and Robin (1949)
Under-rated. Far more enjoyable than the 1943 original, in spite of its many flaws.
I think 'Batman and Robin' (1949) gets a really bad rap. In my opinion, it's really fun, fast-paced, nostalgic entertainment. There are obviously really silly bits in it, but there are very few truly cringeworthy moments in it. Most of the poor special effects and moments of deus ex machina (Batman's blowtorch magically appearing on his utility belt) just add to the fun, in my opinion.
I think Robert Lowery looked, sounded and was GREAT as Batman. Obviously at first, his costume looks a bit hokey, but you really get used to it. The cape looks amazing and it's perfectly dark and black throughout (compared to the 1943 cape which looked depressingly white on occasion). Even the 'devil-horns' (which a lot of people complain about) grew on me and reminded me of Batman's original 1939 suit. Lowery also had a physical presence as Batman that neither Lewis Wilson or even Adam West had. He LOOKED tough and athletic (although he could have been wearing a girdle, :P).
John Duncan is decent and inoffensive as Robin. He's not given a LOT to do, but what he does, he does it pretty well. People complain that he's too old and I suppose he is, but he easily passes for a 19-22 year old and is just as plausible as an older Boy Wonder as Chris O'Donnell (who I loved) was, 46 years later. Also, even though it lacks the yellow cape of the comics, I LOVE Robin's costume. It's much darker and looks great next to Batman. I like to think that the cape is a very dark green, as opposed to black.
Probably the best thing about this serial, when comparing it to the original is the plot and the villain. The 'Remote Control Machine' and 'The Wizard' are far more interesting (albeit slightly clichéd) villains than the irritatingly racist-propaganda-villain from the original. The actor playing the Wizard is again, a tough, imposing villain with an amazingly fascinating voice. He really seems like a genuine threat to Batman.
My biggest problem with this serial is that Batman and Robin lose nearly every single fight in it, so that there can be a cliffhanger. In spite of Lowery's toughness, Batman really isn't and every criminal he gets his hands on, he "hands over to the police for questioning", instead of pounding the answers out of them, himself. Not to mention, in several chapters, Batman and Robin follow the villains to the entrance of their secret hideout, only to lose track of them. It's really irritating that Batman never considers staking out the entrance. The final installment of this serial is really entertaining and my favourite chapter, probably because it highlights all of the flaws I have just mentioned. Batman finally decides to wait outside the entrance to the secret lair, follows one of the henchmen in and DEMANDS that he bring him to the Wizard. Lowery is REALLY cool in this scene.
I think that Lowery and Duncan would have been great for a 1950s Batman TV show, along the same lines as the first season of 'Adventures of Superman', which was incredibly dark and full of gangsters and murderers. Single episodes would suit the characters better than drawn-out serials, purely because they could display their power in full, rather than having it frustratingly neutered and saved for the finale, as happened in this serial.
Nevertheless, I would definitely recommend this serial to all fans of Batman. Personally, in spite of its flaws, I find it to be far more enjoyable than the 1966 show, which while excellent, was just a big joke. I prefer the unintentional, kitschy humour of this serial, not to mention the performance of Lowery who is probably my favourite live-action Batman before the blockbuster movies began (and frankly, I'd rank him above George Clooney, easily).
A rushed, shoe-string budgeted blurb of a film, with some small saving graces
I only discovered this film after searching through Wikipedia for information on Michael Jackson (which is most certainly what millions of others are doing, in the wake of his highly publicized death).
The film is an exploration, not of Michael Joseph Jackson's life, but of his fame; particularly following the Earth-shattering success of 'Thriller'. It mostly skims over these years (but then, just about everything in the film feels 'skimmed over'), but there are some interesting developments, such as the beginning of Michael's supposed troubles with the vitiligo disease as well as the infamous Pepsi Cola accident, where he was badly burned (this serves as a segue into Jackson's near-obsession with cosmetic surgery).
The majority of this biopic is based in the 1990s and portrays in brief, the countless occasions where the media clashed with Michael Jackson, particularly the child-abuse allegations of 1993. His friendship with Liz Taylor is decently established (although the actress is sub-par) and throughout the film, Michael's kinship with someone by the name of 'Bobby' (who I can only assume is his bodyguard or housekeeper or something) is probably the highlight of the film (along with something that I shall mention later on in the review). Michael's relationships with Lisa Marie Presley and Deborah Rowe, the two wives he had in the 90s are explored with the former being an impressive recount (if slightly historically inaccurate, if accounts from Presley herself are to be believed) and the latter being a pathetic footnote. The film concludes with Michael being accused once more of child abuse, and choosing to fight the charges (rather than trying to avoid them, as he did in 1993).
This is not a very well-made biopic. It is not 'Walk the Line' or 'Ray' and I would hesitate to say that it is even as good as TV movie-biopics such as 'The David Cassidy Story'. It employs very 'hip' directorial methods, that one would expect from CSI and other such programming. The acting ranges from above-average (Flex Alexander is quite good) to absolutely dire (the actress who played Janet). The most noteworthy criticism is the make-up, which was uncomfortably off throughout the film. The film makes some efforts to show Jackson's transition from the fresh-faced, very black young man of 'Thriller' to the tanned (but still obviously African American) 27-year-old of the 'Bad' era to the ghost-faced Jackson of the 1990s. For some reason, the film awkwardly chooses to keep Flex Alexander in the 'Bad'-era makeup throughout most of the second act of the film, throughout years where Jackson was very obviously not black (such as his marriage to Presley, for example). This takes viewers who are even only slightly somewhat familiar with the man's history out of the experience. It makes little sense when Flex Alexander goes from being a black man with some chalk lightly pasted on his face to being a very, very white man with features that have been utterly, surgically overhauled.
In all honesty however, the film has some very interesting ideas about Jackson and its ending is almost a saving grace in how it ties together two of the most recurring themes of the film: Michael's fear of failure (in the eyes of his father and the media) and his undying love and respect for his fans, the people who would never leave him. It is clear that the ending was probably the one very clear idea the writers and director had while making this very obviously rushed, low-budget film and it stands out as a noteworthy highlight for a fairly mediocre film.
In conclusion, fans of Jackson could do worse than to watch this biopic, particularly those who mourn his passing. Taken with a pinch of salt, this is a fairly decent film with interesting ideas.
Power Rangers DinoThunder (2004)
The closest thing to a genuinely serious, contemporary Power Rangers show that can be enjoyed by audiences older than 5 years old.
I (like most other people my own age) grew up with the original Power Rangers series and lost interest soon after Zeo, when Tommy and the rest of them left. I came back into it a few times over the years, when my younger brothers got into it as all kids do, but overall, it faded into my childhood and I always dismissed it as something that couldn't truly be enjoyed by someone older than 5 years old.
I found out recently that Jason David Frank (the legendary green, white and red Ranger from the first five seasons) returned as the 'mentor' character in Power Rangers: Dino Thunder. I decided to check out an episode, purely for the entertainment value of getting to see my old favourite get back into action. Funnily enough, I found myself enjoying it more than I thought I would and between downloads and DVDs, I ended up acquiring nearly a third of the whole series.
My thoughts? Well, it's still pretty silly. All of the exaggerated motions, the over-acting and the campiness one would expect from a Power Rangers show is all present, but for some reason it's toned down immensely. The main villain Mesogog, is dead-serious and so is his henchman Zeltrax. Neither of these characters are ever viewed as comic relief. Also, the Rangers are more three-dimensional than ever before. Instead of being a group of pure, wholesome best friends that constantly get straight As, the three main Rangers are a group of misfits: the jock, the alternative singer and the neurotic geek. The show actually shows them develop into true friends and better people over the course of thirty or so episodes, something that would be unheard of in the one-dimensionality of earlier series'.
The return of Tommy Oliver to the Power Rangers universe is just the icing on the cake. If this show wasn't as good as it was, it wouldn't have worked as well, but luckily, this was the perfect show to have Tommy come back to guide a new team. Tommy's character is slightly darker than the wholesome, gushy character we saw years ago. Tommy is well-versed in the kind of trials and tribulations that Power Rangers face, so he acts as a teacher to the younger, newer Rangers. Then of course, to please the fans, Tommy gets his own morpher and Powers early on in the series and becomes the Black Ranger (as cool as he's ever been).
The acting is somewhat above-par from what you'd usually expect from a Power Rangers show, but that's not to say that it's in any way decent. Frank plays the part he played for years well enough, Emma Lahana is fine as the spunky chick and Kevin Duhaney makes a decent nerd. Unfortunately, James Napier isn't exactly stellar as Connor McKnight and the Australian actor's American accent is horrible. It's as if he watched a western once, years ago, and based his accent off that. Throughout the series, evidence of his true heritage pops out blatantly in mid-speech, to the point where one wonders why he even bothers trying with the accent.
Overall, this series is a lot of fun and isn't nearly as garish and offensive as other Power Ranger incarnations. Definitely one for all the family to watch.
Rocky Balboa (2006)
One of the most inspirational films I have ever seen
I have nothing but praise for Sylvester Stallone, a man I once likened to as an actor who is 'so-bad-he's-good' (a la Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme). This film isn't just inspirational because of Rocky Balboa's comeback, it's just inspirational because of Stallone's comeback as a serious, respected actor.
The film shows Rocky pushing sixty following his beloved Adrian's death in a surprisingly undetermined year (most of the Rocky films are products of their time. This one was fairly timeless). Following a computer-generated simulation of what would take place in a battle between Balboa and the new heavyweight champion Mason 'The Line' Dixon, Balboa wins the fight and a media circus as well as Rocky's instincts tell him to rejoin the world of boxing. Along the way, he bonds with his son as well as making new friends in 'little Marie' from the first film and her son 'Steps'.
On an acting standpoint, the film mostly excels. Stallone perfectly portrays a wiser, grown-up version of the lovable simpleton he created in the original films. Burt Young returns as the troubled Paulie, Rocky's best friend and Adrian's brother. The best newcomer in the film is easily Geraldine Hughes, who plays Marie who is well into her forties in this film. Marie is a soft-spoken, pleasant character who has a positive attitude toward life, even if it hasn't been so good to her. I for one, hope Hughes breaks out into more serious roles in the future as she clearly has talent. Antonio Tarver gives a worthy and unique portrayal as Mason Dixon, especially considering the fact that Tarver is a boxer in real life and not an actor. A very nice touch to the film was the inclusion of Tony Burton, Apollo Creed's trainer in the original film and then later Rocky's trainer in subsequent films. From the promotional material, I was very afraid that Stallone was going to jettison anything positive that he generated from the Rocky sequels and just try and pay homage to the original (where Burton didn't really have that big a part) but he is clearly relishing the fourteen-year saga he created and Burton's casting further proves this. The only disappointments from an acting standpoint are the actor who play Rocky's son Robert and the actor who plays 'Steps'. In Rocky V, Robert Balboa was played by Sylvester's real-life son, Sage Stallone and while he wasn't stellar, he was decent and the father-son chemistry between the two was perfect. In this film, however, neither the actor nor the chemistry are particularly good and I spent much of the film wishing that Sage had returned. The actor and the character who played 'Steps' had very little to do in the film and I often wondered why the character was included at all.
The film suffers from minor pacing problems, especially at the beginning where Rocky spends about fifteen minutes of screen time moping about in remembrance of Adrian. Also, Rocky only fights once in the whole film, and that is in the climax. Nevertheless, the fight is truly breathtaking and not since the second Rocky film have I been so excited and enthralled by a climactic boxing fight.
Above all, this is a truly inspirational film that gives Stallone's most enduring, lovable, unique character, an exit worthy of a king. I recommend this film to anyone who has ever had a dream and anyone who has ever felt insignificant. It'll turn you around.
Casino Royale (2006)
Arguably the greatest Bond film ever
This film is a reboot of sorts. After the clichéd 'Die Another Day' in 2002, with its plethora of explosions and ludicrous gadgets (the invisible Aston Martin really pushed the meter), the producers decided to do away with the bizarre, fantastic and conspicuously repetitive trappings of the traditional Bond film and start again, focusing on the character and the plot, rather than weird and wonderful gizmos and set pieces. Basically, the aim of this film was to bring Bond into real life.
And by God, how it succeeded in doing just that.
The film opens without the traditional gun-barrel sequence and instead starts with a eerie, film-noiresque black and white sequence, showing Bond doing away with a rogue Mi6 agent.. It is apparent from the very start that this Bond is fairly different to the Brosnan version and is willing to kill callously. The title sequence is great as it drops the semi-naked CGI women, in favour of a more sinister montage of cards and a very cool animation of Bond fighting hand-to-hand.
The film is gripping, throughout. It is one of the first films I have been to in a long time where the fight sequences were very tense and organic and I was unsure whether or not the hero would make it out. The plot jumps around a small bit, but not too much to annoy the viewer. I often worried that the low-key plot of the novel might out-date the film, but the filmmakers worked around this, expanding the novel and giving it a modern edge.
In terms of acting, this is easily one of the best 007 films around. Daniel Craig is simply marvelous as Bond and makes him very three-dimensional. In this film, Bond is not the all-knowing, all-powerful secret agent he was in previous films. Bond makes mistakes in this film, and spends much of the film dealing with these mistakes, growing into the agent we all know and love. Craig personifies this perfectly and it is difficult to envisage Brosnan performing some of these very dramatic scenes. Eva Green is a very competent Bond girl and shares real chemistry with Craig's Bond. The fact that she is not cavorting around half nude like many Bond girls would, helps the audience to take her seriously and understand why Bond would actually fall in love with this woman.
If there is any problem with this film is its shameless use of product placement. It is wrong to say Bond is without gadgets in this picture. Sure, he doesn't exactly have the laser-watch or the exploding key chain, but he has just about every real-life gadget Sony makes. Bond or another character is shown using a Sony Ericsson in most scenes and Sony laptops, Mp3 players and any other whatnot the company could throw in are in full view throughout the picture. It takes away from the realism of the film, when every character has the same brand of telephone.
Anyway, this is a bold and brilliant Bond film, with a fairly perfect star. I find it difficult not to call this the greatest Bond film of them all. Go and see it.
For some reason...it rocks your socks off!
I think of this show sort of the way I think of Tim Burton's Batman. Burtons' Batman focused a lot more on visuals and preferred to explain the story through actions rather than words. Nevertheless, people dug it and flocked to see the film(s). Superboy was much the same. The acting is nothing to write home about, the dialogue is 50/50 at best and the stories are awfully stereotyped comic book stories. Nevertheless, something about it just kicks ass. Maybe it's the fact that it's the only Superman experience ever that features a bang-on 100% accurate version of the costume. Maybe it's the fact that even though the plots are awfully stereotyped and clichéd, it really is the only show that has those plots anyway. I don't know, maybe it's just because it's fun and it doesn't make you depressed with all of the pain and anguish and darkness of the modern day Superman shows like Smallville.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with Superboy, originally he was just a spin-off of the Superman comic, showing Clark's adventures as a fully powered teenager. Well in the 80's, they got rid of that character and had the teenage Clark more along the lines of the character you watch in Smallville (which is getting steadily crappier). Now, when those crazy Salkind guys bought the rights to Superman, they also bought the rights to Supergirl, Superboy and (sigh) Superpup. Well, to make a long story short, the Salkinds sold the rights to Superman to those fools who made Superman IV. But they still had those rights to Girl, Boy and Pup. In 1984, Supergirl tanked, so that was no-show. They'd have to be pretty thick to make a live-action show about a dog with super powers, so they also gave that one a miss. But what about a boy? Better yet, a teenager, or better still, a college student with super powers? That could work...
And so, a show was born.
The first season saw John Haymes Newton as the boy of steel. Many claim that Newton was a bit too one-dimensional in terms of acting despite the fact that he looked like he had just walked off the face of a comic book. The stories in the first season generally revolved around social issues, largely because there wasn't much of a budget for fancy special effects (I'll get to that in a sec'). A lot of these episodes were also based upon events that happened in the comics or even in the movies. For example, just like in the comics, Lex loses his hair in a chemical accident and just like in the movies, Kryptonite is discovered in Addis Ababa. Another thing I liked about the first season was the fact that it was really 'Generation X' in the sense that it really tried to appeal to teenagers as well as the traditional Superman audience of kids and adults. If you listen to the first season Superboy theme tune, there's a really cool guitar solo in there. It also really reflects the style and tone of the late eighties which is kind of cool. The other seasons were more timeless and didn't have that eighties feel.
The second season brought in Gerard Christopher as Superboy because John Haymes Newton had portrayed Superboy as too much of a 'badboy' (which I kind of liked, but anyway) and he had also been getting in a bit of trouble with the law off screen. Gerard Christopher played Superboy as the Superman stereotype. He was cool, calm and collected and only ever got angry around villains. His Clark was a clumsy goofball, much the way he was in the movies, only more so. A new, older Lex Luthor was brought in as well, to tie in with a really silly story about Lex making himself look a famous inventor so that he could steal the inventor's weapon and (you guessed it folks) kill Superboy. Because the first season had brought in a bit of dough, the second season had more of a special effects budget and here's where things get really interesting. We got to see villains like Metallo and Bizarro for the first time ever off the pages of a comic. Sadly, we also got a load of silly villains like Dracula (?) and Microboy (a rival superhero in a big yellow foam suit), which made the second season look like a cross between the old Batman show and Power Rangers.
The third season became really dark and sophisticated, despite the fact that it was a show about a cheerful hero. This tone was probably to do with the release and success of Burton's Batman movie. It worked quite well, because it made Superboy look sort of out place (which is sort of cool, because Superman is out of place in today's modern, vice-filled society of sex, drugs, rock and roll and computers). The fourth season was probably the only season which didn't bring anything new to the show. The episodes were in the same dark tone as the third season, but if it counts for anything, they were written better and the overall acting was improving. But then, Warner Bros. came along and got rid of the show, because they didn't own it and it was starting to make some serious money. They took it off the airways for good and it is quite likely that it will never be seen on television ever again. But there is talk of bringing it out on DVD, so don't despair.
Overall, this show is quite good and it is worth noting that this is the last show that focused solely on a character that has been appearing in comics for over sixty years. Lois and Clark and Smallville are both attempts at updating this timeless character. It is definitely worth a watch if you can find some episodes of it.
Batman Begins (2005)
The Nipples Died Seven Years Ago.
The nipples, campy quips, and any remnants of the campy 60's Batman television show died with the woeful 'Batman and Robin'.
From the ashes of the Caped Crusader's death, rose the Dark Knight...
A force of good...
A force to be reckoned with...
This film is pure perfection. It is the comic book movie that fans have dreamed of for over seventy years. Unlike Spider-Man or X-Men, who regard themselves as comic book movies, not to be taken seriously, this film regards itself as a great movie about honor, justice, courage and above all, revenge.
As a child, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) witnesses his parents murdered by a desperate mugger and from then on falls into a dark persona of hate and fear. Upon witnessing the mugger's death almost ten years later, Bruce realizes that the justice system just can't work in a city as corrupt as Gotham City. He travels the world, studying the criminal element for himself, almost becoming a criminal. He is saved from a Bhutanese prison by a man known only as Ducard (Liam Neeson). The training begins.
Upon Bruce's return, he enter's a cave where he was frightened almost to death as a boy. It is a cave plagued with bats. He embraces his fear (in a beautiful scene), turning it into power. Using resources from his family's company, he becomes the Batman.
Christian Bale's performance as the Batman is exquisite. Absolutely perfect. Unlike previous incarnations where actors were unable to play the dual identities of Bruce Wayne and Batman, Christian Bale has come to the realization that this is in fact three characters. Bruce Wayne, the rich playboy who dates famous women and parties all night long, is a disguise. Batman, the dark knight who preys on evil, is a disguise. The man trapped between the two is the lead character in this film and is known only to the people Bruce loves the most.
Michael Caine's performance is also quite effective as his character is given far more attention than before (Michael Gough's Alfred of the previous films was more of a doormat than an ally) and the scenes between the two are remarkable.
Gary Oldman's Gordon is also given more screen-time than Pat Hingle's was in previous films. Oldman plays a dramatically different character, who is far more accurate to the character that appears in Batman comic books. Oldman is the one good cop in the city of snakes and he is about to give up, when the Batman convinces him that you can never give up hope.
Liam Neeson's Ducard/Ra's Al Ghul is probably the finest Batman villain since the Joker. Director Chris Nolan cleverly pretends that Ra's Al Ghul (supposedly played by Ken Watanabe) and The Scarecrow (played effectively by Cillian Murphy) are the central villains of the piece however, by the end of the film, Ducard reveals himself as Ra's himself (Watanabe's then dead character was actually a decoy) and Batman must make the crucial decision as to whether or not he can defeat his master. Neeson's portrayal of Ducard is far superior to that of Qui-Gon Jinn in the Star Wars Prequel. Ducard is angrier and is not as gentle and frustratingly annoying as Jinn.
I cannot stress how superior this film is to any superhero films you have seen before. It is on a par with Superman itself. Granted I am a Batman fan, and have been since the age of three, naturally I thought it would be good and I was right. However, my friends, who dislike comic books, wholly agreed with me, one of them even remarked that it was one of the greatest films she had ever seen!
The nipples on the batsuit are gone. The Caped Crusader is dead. The Dark Knight lives. Embrace the franchise's return.
The Mask of Zorro (1998)
Impressive and enjoyable interpretation of a timeless legend
'The Mask Of Zorro' is a fine example of what Summer Blockbusters should be...but generally aren't. Of course, 'The Mask of Zorro' is based on a timeless character that existed long before the likes of 'Mr and Mrs. Smith' or 'Spider-Man'. Zorro has been the subject of over 40 different films, perfect at best, hideous at worst.
Rather than simply creating a new franchise, with a story showing how Don Diego de la Vega became the original Zorro, this film focuses on the fact that Zorro, unlike other heroes, is a legend, and can live through generations.
Anthony Hopkins plays an aging de la Vega, who is caught out by his enemies and is subjected to twenty years imprisonment before escaping. Upon his escape, he finds that his gaoler, Don Rafael Montero, has returned to California, with evil plans no less. De la Vega finds troubled bandit Alejandro Murrieta (played with comic charm by Antonio Banderas) seeking to avenge his brother's death and Murrieta's training to become the new Zorro begins.
Unlike Zorros of the past, this film had a far more lenient budget, giving way for wire effects and stunt men, so that the film could stretch to its fullest. However, at the beginning of the film, when we see Hopkins in his final days as Zorro, it is slightly laughable, as the camera films a slightly pudgy old man before the shot changes and he transforms into an athletic youth (clearly a stuntman), leaping around the scenery and jousting at his foes. Hopkins' acting skill definitely paid off in the role of De la Vega, however he did not have the physical presence of Zorro in his old age. Then again, finding an athletic sixty-year old who can pass for a thirty-year old and still act to his fullest is probably easier said then done.
This film is visually and audibly breathtaking, also, with James Horner's impressive Hespanic themes and beautiful landscapes. One particular scene which compliments both musical and production design is an impressive, however slightly erotic, tango scene between Banderas and Catherine Zeta Jones' love interest.
Overall, this is a highly enjoyable family film that will appeal to all who love adventure.
Better than your average comic adaptation
There are numerous reasons I believe DC Comics are better than Marvel comics. This is not the place to explore them all, however one of the central reasons is that DC's films will always be remembered as more than just comic-book films. Superman is fondly remembered as one of the greatest films of all time. And Batman by Tim Burton is remembered as one of the most Gothic, and grim blockbusters of all time.
This film is not an origin story in the truer sense of the word. It doesn't show how Bruce Wayne, millionaire industrialist actually became Batman. Rather, it throws us right into the action, with a beautiful opening scene. Batman scares a couple of punks into submission before Keaton delivers the epic line, that practically torpedoed all memories of television shows starring Adam West: "What are you?" "I'm BATMAN!" The film's plot is quite thin and is more based around the rivalry of Batman and his arch-nemesis The Joker (played to perfection by Jack Nicholson) but the visual aspect of the film makes up for it.
The only true downfall of this film is that Batman is not the main character. That right belongs to Jack Nicholson. This annoyed me somewhat, what with Keaton's scenes being so breathtaking (especially considering that there's such a small, slight man underneath all of that rubber!). Despite this fact, this is one of the better comic book adaptations you will ever see.
Far superior to the original
"Saved By The Bell" was a ridiculously wacky and zany affair, what with its occasional science-fiction oriented episodes (I recall one episode where Screech developed the ability to read minds!) and the acting was atrocious. The sets were horribly plastic and you could tell that you were watching a TV show. It never felt real.
"Saved By The Bell: The College Years" is quite a sophisticated situation comedy that doesn't always follow the same formula, as the original mostly did. Unlike the original, the characters develop throughout the series, and their strengths and weaknesses are drawn out more consistently. Also, the 'girlfriend of the week' plot tool is completely thrown out. Zach is never seen with a girlfriend who has been dumped by the following episode.
My theory for the cancellation of this above-average show is that unlike the kiddy-oriented original, this series was far more sophisticated and probably had a hard time finding its audience, which led to its cancellation.
The result was one final crack: a TV movie. Heinous at best, crap at worst.
Nevertheless, this series is definitely worth watching.