Reviews

211 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Really, really bad.
22 August 2019
This film's title should've been the Ayan slab of beef with a machiavellian wife

This film makes the truly evil, truly... creative (in some of the most inhumane ways imaginable), noting more than a testosterone-fuelled brainless boob, who - solely at his wife's instigation, got to where he was.

I'm a student of history - I've read many books over the years, and in all my readings of Heydrich and his role in the Third Reich, nowhere was this dual-headed hydra of evil mentioned.

The real Heydrich was terrifying in his utterly blandness; from his appearance - somewhat delicate features, but in the manifestation of Mr Jason Clarke (in a terrible bleach blond wig, which only accentuate good heavy brutish features, he looks like a steroid-fuelled Hitler youth leader, whereas the real Heydrich looked like he could be a librarian, but, in fact, thought up a plan to exterminate millions.

While many films about this period have been made - and have been made with casts from all over the world, this. almost 'it's a small world' group of actors - all with different accents (I could've sworn that when 'Heydrich' was the defendant at a case brought against him when he was a member of the navy, his commanding officers spoke with Dutch accents - and it seemed he did as well - at least for that scene), the overall effect was very jarring.

Usually a cast - no matter where they're from - all seem to audibly blend into 'this is how Germans will sound in this film', but here, that important 'curtain' is 'raised', and doesn't let the viewer forget they're watching ''actors'.

The only person who's performance was of any note was Stephen Graham as Heinrich Himmler. Himmler is someone who's appearance is much more familiar to people than his actual voice - his public speaking was not something which either he (the real one) needed to do, professionally (as head of the SS) or personally (to be adulated by the roaring masses). . I really wished this film wasn't so terrible as it ultimately is, as I think the person of Reinhard Heydrich is not very well known, since he died several years before the end of the war, and therefore he never was brought to justice. He was a very important figure in the Third Reich, but, was - by necessity - a person, who - though he was a major mastermind of the Final Solution, he was a shadow

That film on that real - very quiet-seeming, but extremely dangerous person is must definitely not this one, it still hasn't been made.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Payday 2 (2013 Video Game)
More killing. More video crime for amoral losers.
27 June 2019
Unbelievable. Some fool gives this a '10'; A VIDEO GAME - of crime. I'd bet ANYthing that he (or anyone else who spends all their time with mental masturbation such as this) would poop in their pants if this were really happening around them.

First, I didn't know this was a 'game'review - I was looking for a review of the FILM (this was - last time I checked - IMdB; 'internet MOVIE database', and NOT IVdB, NOR IM&VdB, but M-O-V-I-E.

Then I saw it's 'Payday 2', and as the film was made in 1973 (yes, I know; 'ancient history to most of you), I was like; WTF? Why would they make a sequel almost a half-century later?'

Then I saw this (as well as plain old 'Payday' (from 2012), and thought, 'ok, so they remade it and this is a sequel to that...' , but I still was like...'why?'

Then I read the first tiny bit of '10' (the review), and thought; something's really f'ed', and after a bit more, I found out these are both the 'Payday from 2012, and this) are both swill for people who really have no lives, or given up, or never TRIED.

Yes, I can make assumptions, and I'm not going to go into them, but this '10'-person - who's so enthralled with this dreck..

It's good to have hobbies. It's good to have daydreams, fantasies, as a kid, and yes,, even as an adult, but the thing is, when you grow up (I know; it does suck), one's supposed to EXPAND their minds, lives, likes, etc., and NOT just a continuation of their prepubescent selves. That's really sad (it reminds me of a terrific air from the original Saturday Night Live. The host was William Shatner. They did a Star Trek-related skit; Shatner's at an engagement of some kind and there's all these Trekkies present. He asks if anyone has questions - they do - they're all Star Trek-related. Finally, Shatner says; 'do any of your have lives? Have you ever even kissed a girl?' it was hysterical (though some Trekkies got offended. Frak them. I love the series and I have a sense of humour).

My point is, you need to get out of your 'basement' - you need to do...ANYthing, because there's lots of real problems (yes, violent ones!), and this planet NEEDS a lot of fixing - and fast.

I'm not a kid. I'm not '100', which I'm betting some of you think (born in the last decade of the previous century). I may not like them myself, but, I can respect anyone's hobbies. But; when they become all-encompassing to a person, and they don't do anything else, that's scary.

Try reading a book, or spending time (NOT playing video games, and DEFINITELY NOT 'SOCIAL media'!!!) with people. Hey; you don't have to do anything Allthe time - just TRY it.

As my mum told me, 'a little bit more than the day before'. She's annoying, but she's right - and the 'it' in this sentence is irrelevant. Just try anything, do anything.

Who knows? .

Join the real world
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If your can see it, you should
27 June 2019
Many films which are hard/possible to see/find are more interesting in the stuff you hear about them. The actual film is a letdown.

Not so here.

This film (which stars people who I know, from the lead, on) is really quite good.

First, unlike the others who've commented, I'm not one who acts like viewing it is akin to attaining a 'power-up', or such from a video game, and in that beir, alone is worth seeing. The entertainment business if my bread and butter (who I am is irrelevant. Don't try to figure out from my name).

Saying this, even though I'm not impossibly old , I think the business has fine siren the toilet in the past couple of decades - how, why, I'm not here to discuss that, either - and I find watching films made from the beginning (yes, currently I'm studying early films), up to the early 80's is my forte.

I can't stand any films made based upon comic books (though I DO read and enjoy - primarily Neil Gaiman), or that are mostly dpendent upon effects.

The route of films I miss are adult oriented (not porn. Think anything from a Douglas Sirk, a Marcel Ophuls, etc)- they have a story, emotion, gravitas.

I'm a grown-up, and I want to be emotionally touched and moved - bit by whizz-bang b.s.

That sort of brings me back to why I really admire this film.

Yes, it is a gimmick, in that is a very good... recreation of a 1930-40's film (it includes hundreds of clips - primarily used as establishing shots - from genuine films of that period, and I think that to get clearance in them all is the rain it's not seen). There's several moments I even had to hit myself (metaphorically) to 'wake up', and realise I'm not watching a film from back then.

From the opening - a pre-code MGM logo - the fun really plays with you, time-wise. I never saw more than a tiny bit of Woody Allen's Zelig (made around this time), which also plays with tune (he is 'inserted'into old film, and remember; this was before digital effects, the end-result was really amazing looking. Same here).

The film's story you can read about anywhere. I'm amazed at how I was repeatedly 'lost' as to what I was watching ('wait; is this an old 40's film?'), and had to pinch myself.

If you can see it, do so.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Us (2019)
Over-hyped over-exposed non-talents of the year
19 June 2019
Just because someone's a specific (fill in a race) doors NOT mean they're AUTOMATICALLY bad/good. That comes through work.

Those director's previous film was also a way over-hyped piece of trash, but because of the outcry (mostly from people NOT in the industry), the studio's looked around for ANYONE they could find who met the criteria; black, was/wanted to be/had some experience directing, had a project ready to be filmed/edited/shown, and voila instant totem.

Yawn.

In a way, he's no worse than anyone else - 99% of the (American) films are trash (secret; I work in this, and I'm just in it for the money, at this point. It's depressing).

Unfortunately, the entire industry has continued to sink - for a very, VERY long time, but, unlike an addict, who's supposed to 'hit bottom' and begin the process of healing, the 'bottom' of Hollywood keeps sinking - and sinking.

So, here's a director who's sole claim is he's black. This means of you say anything negative, you're automatically considered 'racist'. Monies ae bit cheap to make, so, one has to really question what would motivate any studio - when hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line , to let (the equivalent of a student driver) to not just be allowed to take our the multi-million dollar automobile, supervised, but to say, 'screw it; he'll do fine. when his stats show he's in the 'just barely passing' range?!?!?!

Dumb, dumb, DUM.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Twilight Zone (2019– )
Momentary 'it' boy/flavour-of-the-month can't reinvent the wheel... (no suprise there)...
12 June 2019
Here's the standard m.o.; take something tried and true, give it to someone who just had a success (bear in mind that winning an Oscar, esp. for best film does NOT mean it was - far from it. I'm not going to go into how the academy awards work, but, if you're curious, check Mr Rex Reed's prescient explanation from an episode of the Dick Cavett show. It's in YouTube, and he got it right. I DO know; this is my business) - the fact that the 'success' is of a comparable area to the project is only better.

Then, sit back and watch...

I'm sure the hacks have had enough of a hand print the correct words in the correct mouths, i.e., 'it's an amazing coincidence, but Mr Peel has always been a fan of the Serling classic series', and other fodder - true or not.

9.999 out of 10 of these are disasters.

The new... 'auteur' tires to remake whatever in their way, and they throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. They never grasp what it was which made the original so will loved, remembered.

Very rarely, it works - brilliantly.

One which comes to mind is Battlestar Galactica, which, prior to its airing, fans of the original were already decrying it - over casing a woman (NOT a 'female'. A woman is what they are) in the role of Starbuck.

'Heresay'., They yelled.

But, very soon, thereafter, they stopped yelling. They sat there - mesmerised - by the 'reimagined' series.

As someone who remembered the original as a hackneyed television rip-off of Star Wars (why wear a rip-off of almost everything... I'm not a fan of it), I accidentally tired in to an episode, one day, and was entranced by it.

It was intelligently written, well-acted, and the SFX were out-of-this-world, good.

The reason we one man; Ronald D. Moore, and why is the big clue as to why it succeeded.

Mr Moore was a fan of science fiction since he was a kid. As an adult writer, about a decade earlier, when he was still very new, professionally, had taken what was then, the moribund Star Trek: TNG, and gave the series sing it had lacked'til him; a purpose.

Is fair to say that had but Mr Moore come to that site when he did,, it would've more than likely been cancelled, and poorly remembered.

Another series Mr Moore cared about as a kid, was the Iris Battlestar, but, he thought it was hokey. He did what others dream; 'one day, when I'm a grown-up writer, I'm going to bring this series back and do it right.

And he truly DID.

'Ao. what's this gotta do with this Peel-helmed Twilight Zone', I'm sure most are wondering.

Mr Moore wanted to do what he did. Mr Peel was... 'packaged' with Twilight Zone.

Whereas the reimagined BSG had plenty of time prior to it ever airing (think about it; he had all those years to tinker in his mind with it, before anything was even written down, let alone, filmed), whilst the total time Mr Peel was connected with this TZ was months - not only that, most people think they can do an equally good job ('multitasking') on several things at once, but the truth is the opposite. Mr Peel - in addition to having to be the creative force, as it were, of this TZ, had other projects he had to contend with.

Remember, his reputation of being some 'terrific film maker' is rely just got air. Look at this way to understand; Stanley Kubrick had made SEVERAL well-recieved pictures prior to his iconic 2001: A Spsfe Odyssey. He had NEVER won an academy award, not did his films win, either. He WASN'T hailed as a 'genius' by everyone and their mother, so-to-speak, and his royal output - for his whole career - is relatively a psaltery few.

But, people know Mr Kubrick we a true film innovator, and brilliant director - in SPITE of never having won the award which confers this honour.

On the other hand, Mr Peel made a film which isn't very original, isn't very (in terms of direction) innovative. It's all perfunctory.

Mr Peel was in the right position at the right time (depending upon how you look), asks as the time ebbs away since his Oscar-winning picture, more of the people who had initially said how 'brilliant' he and his film were are less apt to.

If anything, Mr Peel - career-wise - was/is in an unenviable position, because he took the 'bite' of the proffered 'apple' - attention, fame, etc., without realising that what it means is he became an instant 'totem' - to be watched immediately. To be offered tonnes of protects, simultaneously, all hoping they'll 'benefit' from the mojo he got with his film.

But it's simply not possible

All's it's also a terrible position for anyone to be in.

Too much, too soon.

If Mr Moore's reading this, could you please lend Mr Peel a professional shoulder and ear, because it's not a good feeling to end up with egg on one's face, and while I don't know Mr Peel, if he could just take a breath and learn how to delegate and succeed, who knows - at least he'd be in better footing.

Right now, all the new TZ is, are 11 new veins odd classic episodes, and all this means is they're in UHDR colour.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Madame X (1966)
This film SCREAMS, 'I want Douglas Sirk'
9 June 2019
From the film's opening, in which the font is the same as Ms Turner's Sirkian classic, Imitation of Life, this film is a Sirk wanna-be.

I love Mr Sirk's work; the melodrama is overwrought, the colours - drenching the gorgeous Technicolor print, the gowns (in Imitation, as here, by the inimitable Jean Louis), make a soufflè of a film.

But, under Sirk's ministry, any ingredient can overpower - the trick is; proportion.

Yes, Madame X appears to be Sirk, but the proportions are off - not an awful amount, mind you, but, enough so that - rather than having an airy confection, we're left with a film which weighs heavily.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Render tower great Laugh-In moments, with Robin Williams? Ms..Haddih (WHO?!?!), and..l
8 June 2019
'Still' begins with the 2 hosts, the when come out, declaring herself a 'star', then swigging down 'champagne' (dollars-to-donuts it was more like Champale, or malt liquor), then benching.

It gets even better...

I didn't know Mr Williams was a never of the cast - oh, he was, in the 1977 attempted relaunch of the series, with no one - other than the aforementioned - in the cast.

This is yet another attempt to tasks something which didn't need ANY help ('help' meaning putting people no one's ever heard of, people who aren't comedians, comics, whatever, and simply adding them as a pathetic attempt at 'updating', giving some colour to the tried and true.

I'd totally lived the series, or if you've never seen it, do yourself a favour; go online and watch summer old episodes, or watch them on one of the streaming services. Anything but this hackneyed bit of yeah which is 99% filler crap, 1% the series.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Black Mirror: Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too (2019)
Season 5, Episode 3
Many people miss the message (because they think the episode's 'message' is it. It isn't.
8 June 2019
I've watched Black Middle e since it first went on the air (that's on the Beeb for that in the States, who think it 'started' there).

It was a show which looked at the new technology with a jaundiced eye.

It's frightening how fast how society has succumbed to mass stupidity - not questioning anything.

The most prescient forerunner for toady is the highly prescient series, Patrick McGoohan's, The Prisoner (1967) (if you've never seen/never heard of it - watch it!)/

This episode - Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too (2019) is the second episode of the series 5th year..

This episode features Miley Cyrus, who is someone you either like (or hate).

I admit, I'm not a fan, and this is where this episode comes into play - it shows the power of how accepting people are for really nothing substantial - be it a contrite 'apology', or a stint in 'rehab' (and they've nowadays got rehabs for everything).

The story (initially) follows Rachel, who lives with her dad and sister in a new home, following the death of her mum. As (was) typical, Rachel's new to the school, new to fitting in, and feels like an outcast; no friends, etc.

Her sole release is her idol, pop star, 'Ashley O' (Miley Cyrus) - who's a pre-fab, prepackaged celebrity - created (marketed, exploited by her aunt),with pink fluffiness, pop 'songs' - treacley 'self-empowerment' repetitive opuses', which robotise and pound into the listener something which makes one long for Muzak (or death).

Ashley introduces a new AI doll; 'Ashley Too', which is a pint-sized 'mini-me', which quickly becomes Rachel's new friend, and her sister, Jack's nemesis.

We see that shiny pop-princess Ashley feels more like Rapunzel; a money-churning prisoner for her aunt, and her aunt's accomplices -the...'handlers'; a doctor, bodyguards, the studio A&R-man/Svengali.

The episodes are 1-hour long, and I started to work on this when I'd seen just the first 25 minutes, or so, and at this point, I was finding it a parable of Ms Cyrus' life - one which though I couldn't care less, have - even in my purposefully Isolated world.

At this point, I was going to say this episode had (I hate this term) 'Jumped the shark' - harkening back to a classic forerunner The The Twilight Zone (1959) episode, (with Telly Savalas), Living Doll (1963), and I was going to say 'rehash, time to move on'.

But, then it flipped - and turned into something else (something no less predictable to me, just different), and it seemed that it had an almost schizophrenic feel.

But, here's the thing; by the end of the second part of the episode (I say it this way because it wasn't a 2-part episode, but, it felt that way), I felt slight ...like for Miley Cyrus, but, then I realised something;

THAT was the (career-purpose - the publicist's idea) in the first place - to shed the annoying 'tongue-Cyrus', with a new 'street-cred' Cyrus', and I don't like manipulation.

Yes, manipulation's been done many times before, but - it's so blatant today - almost like, 'new album? New look! New husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/dog? New hair colour!'

This is what this episode ultimately does - it's supposed to make Ms Cyrus 'acceptable' to 'us' - those who found her nothing but a momentary 'blip', a(n) Ashley Simpson ('member THAT one?!?! Her little 'hi-dee-ho, shuffle-off-to buffalo' tuber on SNL?).

The small screen's story IS the larger, real-life story, and it's that's part which got to me.

In retrospect, I don't like manipulation, and this episode - if it's goal was to get people to wake up to manipulation, then it succeeds because this episode WAS a manipulation.
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sad, but I must say...
2 June 2019
Let me first say this, so you understand where I'm coming from.

I'm not any adherent of any religion. If someone wants to believe in something, then, that's fine.....

But;

A person's belief is between them and their belief.

It's not for "prosteletysing', or whatever they - personally - believe in, and try in any way to foist it on others.

I'm not writing this to speak about religion, per see. Instead, I ent to discuss this veritè documentary alt these pole who believed what some man named Camping said was going to happen on 21 May, 2011. One interesting point not mentioned in this film; with utter gravitas, Mr Camping had previously predicted the end of the world" other dates; 6 September,1994 (changedmatter this failed to the 29th of September), 2 October, 2005.

This alone should serve as a good example of why one should never put their... Faith (pun intended) in someone they don't know.

If one is interested in how, what people get conned, look no further.

But, again, aside from putting one's deluded faith into this person, that's still not what interested me about this film.

In every piece involving religion, the people shown are typically not very bright, and fanatics - see veil violent.

Not these people.

They all seemed to be ... if not the proverbial 'rocket scientist', not that dumb. They all had very nice homes (at least they did. All of these people shown were spending every last bit of money they had - while they still could). None of them seemed to fit the 'fanatic' mould. I'd go so far as to say I'd really like to meet these people - talk with them, find out how they're doing.

For me, that's a big step, because in not one who likes many people. I won't say they touched me, but I could identify with them as few humans, ad's not some brainwashed automatons.

I haven't seen the whole film yet, so I don't know how it'll end - for them, that is.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've been saying this for a long time now...
25 May 2019
Chillingly accurate.

My Curtis is probably the most accurate - devastating documentarist I've ever seen.

I think Mr Curtis' ouvre is a visual record on part with the witness of Malcolm Gladwell, and though they're interests differ,, these 2 are supporters of the tent poles which hold us up - personally and as a race.

Watching, I find it difficult to not watch, but, for every brake in his narrative, I'm almost fearful to continue watching.

I've always said there's nothing more chilling than realty.

If you're sometime who wants to begin to understand, 'wtf is going on with this works and how had it happened?' here it is.

I don't want to say to much, aside from this is truly the real 'Shock of the New (to borrow, from my favourite art historian essayist, and general bad boy, Robert Hughes).
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
All considered, quite entertaining
24 May 2019
This is a 'recreation' of an actual event. One which didn't shake the world (although Ms West was in her, 'shake it up baby note', rock phase at this time), it's about the meeting if 2 very individual, totally opposite women; Bette Davis and Mae West.

Though the acting is complimented by the audio taped voices of the actual speakers, their lip-synching abilities -admirable, are still not a match for the genuine women.

It's very funny for any fan of either (or both) of the women to watch; Ms Davis had an almost professorial-like fascination with all things Mae West. Ms West (who arrives to the dinner, by showing only get feet - which made me laugh even harder as I recalled a description of her from a couple of years later - while making Sextette - as being in these 'towering heels' and 'tottering' on them) is mostly a very good reactor; she's sparse of words, letting Ms Davis (who's very 'fortified' with her...'orange juice' - code for vodka & oh), as she does most of the talking.

It's a lot of fun. Silly, unimportant, but, it's made by people who obviously have affection for these two.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Doris Day Show: Dinner for Mom (1968)
Season 1, Episode 1
All the more bittersweet because....
13 May 2019
Today's one of the saddest days. Ms Day has left us, but she did have a long life and she's left us so many memories.

I've been making today by watching all things Doris, and I've put off watching her series for a while, now, and as my day of remembering, and celebrating her, this episode is one of the last things I'm going to see today.

The reason I said it's bittersweet is Ms Day had recently celebrated her birthday, and watching this - remembering when I was a 'young man', and I, too, wanted to do something similar (no, I didn't do what her son's did, and watching them do it - no spoilers - gave me palpitations, thinking; 'what would I do in this situation?''

This series would mark Ms Day's final professional appearance, and seeing her transition from the 'girl singer' and her early film appearances, through her wonderful (and very funny) late 50's-early 60's comedies into a character who's now settled, is truly a joy.

Ms Day's character, here, is closest to 'Abby', the widow she played in her last film, With Six You Get Eggroll (1968), which was a 'quieter'-type of comedy than her previous ones. The humour's there - it's just more gentle, and I guess that's just a reflection on a level of Ms Day's maturity at this point in her career, and in her life.

This series first year is sort of an 'anti' I Love Lucy-type of show, whereas one would actually laugh out loud at some of Lucy's zanier stuff (and also Lucy and Desi kept their private lives - and problems - or of the spotlight), when Ms Day started work on this show, it was right after the death of her husband, and get finding out here left her in final tatters, so even though she didn't play up on this, we - the viewer - knew of her pain and the difficulties she was facing at this time, and watching this - especially moments like the one in this episode where she says she wishes 'Steve', her (recently deceased husband) were there to see their boys taking her out on their first date, she stares into space, and was she totally acting at this moment, or was she - even a tiny bit - lost in her memories of her real loss.

I don't know.

I do know as a fan who wasn't yet born when this series first aired, I'm touched by her, and this series, and this 'birthday' episode were the perfect way for me to say, 'thank you'.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Saint (I) (2017)
Jingoistic, mitaristic garbage
12 May 2019
Since the 2000's, and staying under the American, b-sh deux, the role of the military had gained an almost Soviet/nazi-esque like importance in societies, which only a few years earlier, had been put where they belong; the back burner.

Since this time, it's become dear riguer that even is a military person poops it's 'heoic'.

Gimme a break. The last time any misty did anything important was during world war 2; everything since had been a game of chess being played for real.

Any movie, or show which glamorises such nonsense is designed to attract the most feeble-minded dullards (usually Americans from their Southern and Midwestern tier states; the ones where the entire intelligence of everyone wouldn't add up to that of a flea.

If that's you, I don't feel bad for you. You're already brain-dead, and military garbage is just as important to your as video games, guns and hunting (or rather, 'huntin') yippy-ky-yay.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Chilling
22 April 2019
I'm sure there'll be those... less educated, PC-crazed (I'm referring to so-called 'm-ll-n--ls), who have the foolish audacity to 'compare' another time's culture another time's public figures and make moral holier-than-thou judgement calls.

These people forget several things; 'those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it' (Santayana. If you sunny know who he is, you're in trouble), and the difference between a smart person and a dumb one is a dumb one thinks they know all they need to, whereas a smart pertain knows; one never stops learning.

I say this before I say anything about this film (which I've just first seen this week), because one must evaluate things in context, in this case to the geopolitical situation which had engulfed the world (erm, it's WWII, for those who only know what their iPhone tells them), as well as EVERYTHING this meant.

I'm sure there'll be those who'll watch this and say it's full of 'stereotypes', which I sunny argue, but, just as the West would make propaganda, so did the axis powers.

The most vicious nation of the modern era is without a doubt, Imperial-era Japan, which has been conveniently swept under the rug, so you speak, but for the MINIONS who were VICIOUSLY, and many will rightly say, sadistically killed and tortured, there's no comparison between what they did, and what the Nazis did (I'm NOT making light of what the Third Reich did. The wholesale slaughter which took place is indefensible, but for sheet barbarity, Japan is of epic proportions).

This film is a dramatisation of an actual event. There really were American soldiers who were tried in a propaganda (show) trial, with Japan purposefully disregarding the Geneva Convention's rules of how POWs of all sides in a military conflict are to be treated.

I'm sure by this point they'll be some people who read this and assume I remember this time. I wasn't born'til 3.5 decades after the ending, but as I said, learning is very important, and I'm a student of history, and I put off watching this for almost a decade because I didn't think I could watch it and fully understand it - fully be able to grab grasp how people felt.

I can't pretend to put myself in another's place, but, even in my 'view', it's chilling to watch, to see these young men who think they're going to be treated fairly. I know what it feels like to put faith in someone - whether it be a parent or whomever, but sometime who you believe has your interests, or at least the idea of fairness in mind, only to have the rug - and with it, their very lives - extinguished.

Brutal.

I'm not from the states, nor am I some right-wing loon. 'All of this had happened before - and will happen again', a line from Battlestar Galactica sums up how I view this, and I'd say that unless people wake up and stop worrying about such nonsense as name calling and other juvenalia, and realise that it's very easy for this situation to happen again, well...
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hickey (2016)
This is a 'FAKE ' FILM!!! STAY AWAY
18 April 2019
This is something IMDb (which is OWNED BY AMAZON) Must crack down on.

Lately, people with NO affiliation with ANY ACCREDITED UNION, STUDIO, are making what is nothing more than a FAKE movie.

While creativity always good, to these people are operating under FAKE products.

IMDB should REMOVE ALL OF THESE, AND BAN THE PEOPLE FROM EVER POSTING AGAIN,

As Shikande who actually works in this business, I do know unions can be a catch-22 to get into, but all of these MIUST BE STOPPED
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I Spy: The Loser (1965)
Season 1, Episode 6
Ms Eartha Kitt - what a treat!
10 April 2019
I've always been a fan of Ms Kitt success in was little, and I'm just now watching this episode of I Shot which features her as Angel, a drug addict and a nightclub 'chanteuse', in who's dressing room, Scotty's being held captive.

What's terrific about this, is the episode was shot around the same time Ms Kitt was 'purrimg' her way on AbC's Batman, as the fabulous feline, Catwiman, and here, she gives a stellar performance which is about as far as one could get. She's a summer who's so obviously just barely holding on - she performs a few terrific numbers, and her portrayal of Angel, who's a junkie is so spot-on (I know, I once had a bad habit myself), that is palpable.

Along for this episode are a couple of standout performances by Jacki Sheldon (a real trumpeter, who's best known for being a member of the NBC Orchestra under Doc Severinson, as well as School House Rock (Mr Motion, I'm Just a Bill, just to name a couple), and Albert Paulsen.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Never Forget...
9 April 2019
Something many people - primarily westerners - don't know; Japan, to this day, has never - EVER allowed students to know that is was they who were the aggressor, and with it, the horrors unleashed by them, are still unknown by many.

Today, with now people than ever making idiotic, snap judgements, without knowing any facts, is very, very important to understand.

There's a dictum; history is written by the victors, and though this issue true, what happened during the last hundred years, the first time where so much information had been captured, saved, disseminated, that is the first time, in which all sides are able to speak.

I think people (mostly the group known as 'm-ll-n--ls') will come away from watching White Light/Black Rain, with the (false) belief that the 'evil West' inflicted such hospital on the peaceful, loving people of Japan, arms as I said, almost 3/4 of a century after this, Japan has done very little to either explain to its people, to educate, nor have they apologised to any people (Chinese, Koreans, Pacific islanders) to whom they inflicted horrors, upon which even the Nazis were sickened.

I say this..'preamble' because I hope that anyone who watches this - admittedly touching documentary featuring the voices from the very few survivors of (let's hope) the only time nuclear warheads will every be used (upon civilians) - will understand that this is only part of the picture.

Hindsight is wonderful, but it's not reality.

In in the many years since these events, people have said that japan's war efforts were faltering, and using such weapons was unnecessary.

There's others who concur, but, they say that - knowing of the almost maniacal sadistic-Ness gf the imperial military, Japan -in spite of eminent loss - would've initiated a 'scorched earth'-like policy, and anywhere the military was withdrawing from, they would've killed, brutalised, destroyed everyone, everything.

I come away from WL/BR with (admitted) empathy for these people, and for the horrors they lived through, as well as the pains - egotistical and physical - through which they've endured these many decades. It is heartbreaking. I wish I could say - to each one of them - in-person ; I'm so, so truly sorry. I know my words can never be anything but trifle, but there are many who wish - like a parent, who's child has hem injured - that they could magically take away all the pain, all the suffering, because not one of these people deserved any of it.

Not one.

I mean I every words I've just said.

I mean it ; now of that people deserved anything, but I also mean that imperial Japan's military was one of the moray barbaric entities imaginable.

How am I able to take these 2 -apparent cowardice thoughts and believe them both? Because, I'm capable of separating the 2 groups, andi have one question; would it have been possible to have dropped the bombs on Imperial Japanese military targets, such as their ports, etc. ? P yes, civilian casualties would've still happened, due to the immense amount of energy released during fission as well as fusion (an aside; the amount of nuclear material used in one of these bombs is frighteningly small, whereas the devastation if caused is beyond scope. Moreover, the bombs of today are now powerful - unimaginably so, through there are small... 'targetable' nuclear 'bullets' so to speak, which can be much more precisely targeted. The bombs used here, would be - analogously-speaking, comparing strength between an ant and a thoroughbred).

2 cities-worth of civilian citizens were - not just killed, but yp many were vapourised - those few 'fortunate' enough to have time through this, but leaving a.. 'reminder' of their mere existence, left nothing more solid than a nuclear blast 'shadow' - a slightly darkened area, in the form of a 'person'; exactly like the shadow one sees of themselves as they walk outside on a sunny day. As ephemeral, but that's all their is.

I would make the viewing off WK/BR mandatory for all history students - everywhere, including that in Japan (its actually nor funny in the open Ng of this documentary when various young people in both cities are asked if they knew what happened on the dates the bombs were dropped - and NOT ONE knew. That'd fighting, because as another group who was massacred during WWII has made a very important almost mantra-like statement; 'NEVER FORGET'. Sadly, in the very heart of what is ground-zero of the centre of the nuclear arms race, it's clear, teaching what had happened and what could - again - it's separated by a layer so imperceptibly thin.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An utter RIPOFF, terribly drawn and soulless, charmless.
21 March 2019
First, I'm NOT a parent of a small child, now did I purposefully get this... short.

Instead, it was.. well, the best way to describe what is purpose was is as a promotional piece (again, NOT for this... short). . I had no clue what it was, never heard of it, but I had a few minutes to kill, and I said, 'why not'.

Anytime who stumbles into this piece of garbage will think they've seen this before... 'assume animals, and a 'precious... walnut'??

No, it was an Acorn, I believe in those Ice Age films, and rather than some cute prehistoric, goofy-looking (is it still allowed to make such a reference to animated characters?) squirrel, it's a morbidly obese..'rabbit' (or 'bunny', as the title says), who awakens from a slumber, scratched his fat rear, and Gorda after some terribly drawn critters.

This is as much I could stomach.

There's a simple rule which applies to music and film (or TV), and that is one must be engaged as quickly as possible. It's gotta have some sort of 'gotcha' to make your want to stick around and watch or listen. This made me want to wretch.

Aside from the unbelievably cheap-looking animation, the dearth of anything remotely close to a story didn't help, nor did the grossness of this porcine, repulsive looking leporidae (rabbit family). . Yes, I know it's a cartoon, and I'm the last pain to say anything positive about the paucity of decent cartoons having been made since... well, since the days of Warner Bros,, Walter Lantz, Frank Tashlin, et. al

I sunny know what the purpose of this so-called 'short' was, but, the cartoons of which I've just mentioned would all be classified as 'shorts' - they were all under 10-minutes, and they were shown in theatres, to audiences of ALL ages; from kids to seniors, and they ALL loved them.

Why?

What's the reason for these classics to entertain all ages, but the minute some puts on something made recently - most people over 5 and/or with a Britain to match will RUN - FAST or of the room?

Simple; unlike today, where your have paranoid lunatics (aka nazi-like thought police, or simply 'parents'), who'll watch some cartoon and see (I'm just making this up as an example) some young girl riding a broom, they'll see a little girl brunt impaled with an 'artificial phallus'. , And on and on.

They'll yell that showing this 'trash' to small ... 'innocent' (LMAO) children will... traumatise them.

I'm actual fact, N-O - it WON'T, and the reason is people of different ages, different levels of (physical and mental) development will only understand what they're capable of .

Even if a small child saw Bugs Bunny in drag, all they'd take away from it was the 'funny bunny active silly'.

Which leaves us in this diluted, flavourless, colourless works of today, whew everything's watered down.

Another problem is there's now so many outlets for content that creators are limited ever more.

It used to be that of there was a good movie in the theatres one summer, your could bet money that all 3 networks would have a show based upon it that fall.

If your unfortunate enough to have been given this by someone, take it as a sign they hate you. I'm going that Mr go-d-g-b-r- (the writer AND director of this disaster) is NEVER allowed to FIND ANYTHING - EVER AGAIN.

Hopefully you'll quickly realise that you've got something now important to do (like taking the dog to get de-wormed, or you spending time at a distant relatives' funeral) ANYTHING but watching this C-R-*-0
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is NOT something which should even be allowed on IMDb
30 January 2019
'Who is this person', and why is he/this here?'

That's a totally valid question.

This is IMDb; internet M-O-V-I-E database, and neither this person, nor his homemade video have anything whatsoever to do with actually being as film.

This is yet another example (which IMDb/Amazon should remove and bam) of some person who - having the p unfortunate modern ability of filming with ease, this any utterance or of their mouths is actually relevant, much less, important.

It's neither, nor is he.

Here's something to think about; how a person devices the income fun which they live on is their...'career'.

Many prior who've said they're'actor, sheet, dancer, model', are in fact a wait-person.

One may how to have a career in film (why?!?!), but, liking watching them, isn't the same thing.

If you see anything posted here, such as this garbage, contact IMDb, tell them to REMOVE it, and BAN the poster.

Do not waste your time with garbage like this
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mars Attacks! (1996)
People with simple minds think this is 'classic, har-har' funny. It's far from it.
11 January 2019
I'm not amazed at the large number of people who think this 'schmutz' is 'great, brilliant, misunderstood, date', etc.

It's NONE of them.

Tim Burton IS very talented, but this is a sad example of a runaway project. I'm sure that - in the beginning of this disaster, Tim had a good idea of a campus, retro-y send-up of 50's 'space Invaders' flicks, doing it with the magic (early 90's) modern computer tech could give, and populate the film with a broad cast of actors - the whole gamut from 'a-listers', to b-schlock actors, blaxploitation stalwarts and whether they were integral or had a funny line or 2, the whole thing would gel as one of those great films people go to because theirs 'someone and something for everyoneany, many more

But then, Burton's idea became weighted down - first by the studio talking heads, and then by the very people hired (or 'suggested be hired') to bring this film to life.

First up; that actor who was in everything during this period, Jack Nicholson.

Personally,other than his work in several (very) few films, I've never liked (despised?) Jack Nicholson. His stick has served him long and well, but, by this point in time (he'd recently done a Burton Batman in which he was - who else - the Joker (ugh).

By this point in time, he's become an acting equivalent to the so-called rock 'supergroups' of the early 70's - the ELPs and the ilk, which engendered so much hatred, such dislike with their endless, monotonous, rambling 'solo' parts; a 15-minute of mindless flute playing, or a drum solo, or whatnot.

All done - not in service of the music, nor fans, but, in service to themselves - 'it's ME', this drivel said, amplified, and echoed throughout many stadiums - full of bic lighter-waving mullet-haired boys (and girls).

In rock, this egotistical nonsense was enough to fury the genesis of punk music.

Nicholson wass a dinosaur by this point ('his best performance' during this time was in Heathers, played with gusto by Christian Slater), and watching him (in a dual role, nonetheless!) only serves to show how out of control a 'talent' such as his can go.

Compare his tired, meandering, pointless hamming, with Peter Sellers in Kubrick's legendary Dr Strangelove, in which Sellers performed 3 totally individual characters, while Nicholson - 'plays' 2; a vaguely... Nicholson 'president', as well as a prosthetic-laden Southern (?) 'rich guy' in Las Vegas. Both of them are 'Jack as president, Jack as Southern guy', which isn't acting, is just a guy saying; 'look at me!'

Why was out necessary for one actor of limited reach to try and attempt to play 2 characters who are polar opposite? Who knows. Who cares.

I really do like Tim Burton, a great exclamation I was taught - in relation to a different arena was that a true talent is able to make a new 'world', and in this world, the rules - whatever they are - must be followed. This is an analogy, folks, not literal, but, either way, there must be logic - no matter how bizarre - that is filled in it.

In Burton's case, he had created a ''universe', and all the films and all the characters in them fill it, and all make sense in that universe.

That is truly talent!

But, I think this film could've fit into the Burton universe a helluva lot better than it is, but it became so bloated (by rampant egos) as it moved down the production line from inception, development, to fruition, it became a mess.

To run a 'universe' automatically means one MUST maintain rigid control over it, and not sure others who don't fully 'get it' to 'add stuff'.

People - whether they're brilliant record producers (like the amazing Phil Spector), to film makers (Fellini, Orson Welles, etc al), tend to work with a core-group - actors (or musicians), cinematographers (or engineers), all working in harmony to create a single vision.

It got out of Burton's control here.

The cast - for me it falls into 2 very diametrically opposite groups; actors I really like, and those I despise (guess which one both jack's after in 😉).

For the life of me, I can't phantom why S.J. Parker has a career. When she was young(ISH) - in Square Pegs, she was cute. Boring, but cute. She quickly morphed into a hideous, taughtly pulled, leather-skinned harpy-like creature, and other than seeing 'itself' on the screen, can anyone recall JUST one film in which 'it' 'became' the character, and you believed her (please; automatic 'fail' if you mention anything to do with the truly wretched 'sex and the ...'' sh-t-) Why on earth does she ever get ANY work!?!?!? I will say one pleasant moment is seeing her nauseating head where it belongs; stapled to a chihuahua's body (she really is a 'beyotch'), and even though I know it's just a film, I feel bad that anything had to suffer for this - Mr Broderick's beard (wink-wink, nudge-nudge).

You've the lovely Sylvia Sydney as the out-of-it grandma to a family which consists of the inimitable cracker crumbs and cheez-whizz in the bed (LMAO) Joe Don Baker ('Mitchell!' I keep hearing Crow T. Robot and Tom Servo yelling out), and several others. Pam Grier's wasted, as are so many others - all at the expense of letting the '2 Jacks' have more screen-time

It's like a truly wretched faux-camp 'It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World' of cameos, simply for the sake of people going, 'wasn't that....?'

It's very possible there might've actually been a script - a story, but, it's been so subsumed by mugging, corpsing, and general rampant ego, that there's nothing really coherent left. As the film's title says, Mars attacks, but, it's really 'ego attacks', because nothing's fleshed out, instead it's just half-baked ideas, none of which comes to a conclusion, so you just have lots of bits and pieces, i.e., wouldn't it be funny if Rod Steiger plays a gung-ho, crazed military guy (again, with shades of George C. Scott in the aforementioned Kubrick film), and he's constantly wanting to 'crush, kill, destroy' (a quote from the quintessential campy space-with-monsters TV series, Lost In Space), yet nothing develops.

The one interesting image is played by Burton's longtime girlfriend, Lisa Marie (no, not 'Presley'; just Lisa Marie), as a silent.., character. Her look is striking.

I don't 'miss the point' I get it. I have a (very) dark sense of humour (hell; I 'got' - and love Showgirls, while most people think it's 'bad', it's brilliant). There's 'bad-good', and the much more common; 'bad-bad', which this, sadly, is.

That's it. This is another massive waste of a lot of money - the end result of it all is nothing.

I'd wish that Burton (and directors in similar situations) would, someday be able to rework films that had veered far off the originally projected mark - perhaps recut it - redo the effects (not make them more 'realistic', make them look more bad-REAL-istic, I'd your understand, and hopefully, in all the cans of film shot, come up with something watchable, but for now, I'd say to potential viewer's; go watch Dr Strangelove, and an(y) episode of Lost In Space. By doing so, you'll 'hit' all the marks this mish-mosh meant to, but failed - miserably, and didn't.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mars Attacks! (1996)
A sad mess, where Tim Burton's film was subsumed by rampant egos (i.e. Nicholson) corpsing for the camera. Terrible😩
11 January 2019
Other than his work in several (very) few films, I've never liked (despised?) Jack Nicholson. He's an acting equivalent to the so-called 'supergroups' of the early 70's - the ELPs and the ilk, which engendered so much hatred, such dislike with their Whitehall, rambling 'solo' parts; a 15-minute of minorities flute playing, or a drum solo, or whatnot.

In rock, this nonsense was the genesis of punk music.

Nicholson is a dinosaur, and watching him (in a dual role, nonetheless!) Only serves to show how out of control a 'talent' such as his can go.

Compare his hamming with Peter Sellers in Kubrick's legendary Dr Strangelove, in which Sellers performed 3 totally individual characters, with Nicholson - playing a vaguely... Nicholson 'president', as well as a prosthetic-laden Southern (?) 'rich guy' in Las Vegas.

Why? Who knows. Who cares.

I really do like Tim Burton, I think the 'world' he creates are interesting. I think that this film could've been much better, but it became a bloated (by rampant egos) mess.

The cast - for me is Apple into 2 very diametrically opposite groups; actors I really like, and those I despise (guess which one both jack's after in 😉).

For the life of me, I can't phantom why S.J. Parker has a career. When she was young - in Squatter Pegs, she was cute. Boring, but cute. She quickly morphed intoa hideous, leather-skinned harpy-like creature, and other than seeing herpself on the screen, can anyone recall one film in which she 'became' the character, and you believed her? Why on earth weighs she ever get ANY work!?!?!?

You've the lovely Sylvia Sydney as the out-of-it grandma to a family which consists of the inimitable cracker crumbs and cheez-whizz in the bed (LMAO) Joe Don Baker ('Mitchell!' I keep hearing Crow T. Robot and Tom Servo yelling out), and skinned others.

It ostensibly that there might actually been a script - a story, butt, it's been so subsumed by mugging, corpsing, and general rampant ego, that there's nothing really coherent left. As the film's title says, Mars attacks, but, nothing's fledged out, instead it's just half-baked ideas, none of which comes to a conclusion, so you just have lots of his and pieces, i.e., wouldn't it be funny if Rod Steiger plays a gung-ho, crazed military guy (again, with shades of George C. Scott in the aforementioned Kubrick film), and he's constantly wanting to 'crush, kill, destroy' (a quote from the quintessential campy space-with-monsters TV series, Larry In Space), yet nothing develops.

The one interesting image is played by Burton's longtime girlfriend, Lisa Marie (no, not 'Presley'; just Lisa Marie), as a silent.., character. Her look is striking.

That's it. This is another sad waste of a lot of money but the end result of it all is nothing.

I'd wish that Burton (and directors in similar situations) would, someday be able to rework their misfired films - perhaps recut it - redo the effects, and hopefully, in all the cans of film short, they can come up with something watchable, but for now, I'd say watch Dr Strangelove, and an episode of Lost In Space, and by doing so, you'll hit all the marks (comedy, camp, thrills) this mish-mosh meant to, but failed - miserably, and didn't.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What A REALLY special on-the-road-type documentary!
11 January 2019
I love many of the documentaries I've seen over the years from NFB (National Film Board - Canada, for those who don't know).

This one isn't 'about' legendary comedian Buster Keaton, instead, it's a working across the nation (via a train) with Mr Keaton and a crew who were writing with him to film several television promotional pieces.

As we journey, Mr Keaton is tasked with making these bite-sized films - things which are in their modern sense are adverts, but, when he started his career, a silent film could be any length, but the big thing was, as there's no dialogue, you had to be able to grab a viewer's attention - and quickly, and Mr Keaton (aka the 'great stone face, noted for his blank expression as chaos ensured around him.

Though I wasn't around during this time, my father (who wasn't, either) - who loved these films, shared many of them with me when I was little, and I love them.

We get to watch Buster and his crew work out what are simple, yet brilliant simple visual 'stories' some quite dangerous (Mr Keaton is well-known for- amongst other things - standing as the framing from A HOUSE FELL around him (he survived, having worked out where he should be; where the window would go).

Today, no studio would allow their talent to partake in the things Buster did - and DOES. They'd have an understudy - and now, digital (ugh) effects.

This is ALL real, and the fact that Buster - who'd die within less than a year after this (as a reformed smoker, watching Mr Keaton with his ever-present cigarette holder, smoking one after another of lung cancer, I think THAT was truly 'scary' for me), and it's doing all of these gags (in one, he's in a teeny-tiny little hands car HIGH atop a bridge - with NO safety anything. Truly nuts, but all Buster Keaton, and as someone who never got into video games, this film, and those moments are a million times more adrenaline pumping than anything one can play today.

Watch it, learn and be amazed by a true master of mayhem. You'll love it.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Replicas (2018)
This sounds am awful lot like Battlestar Galactica (minus the good stuff)
9 January 2019
Here's the plot; after your die, your consciousness is downloaded into a brand-new body, and... wait; I've heard this before.

Lemme try again; . There's this scientist guy, and he's a family of 4 - all ('cept for him) are killed. But, he can bring them back to 'life'. But, he's gotta make a choice. A 'Sophie's choice'....

Wait!

There's this fit, and he thinks that everything around him isn't quite right, so one day, he recieves a packet, and when he opens it, there's a 'futuristic' Nokia slide-phone, which is ringing.

No!

Isn't seeing films in the 21st century terrible? Choose which comic book film your want. Have it cost your a fortune, and have the depth and breadth of a puddle.

There's nothing - not in this film (nor pretty much any film made in the States) which isn't bankrupt odd ideas, of maturity.

Yes, you HAVE seen this plot done better before. Watch the rinsings Battlestar Galactica, and Sophie's Choice. That is this dreks plot.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Radio Flyer (1992)
One of the earliest puff-reaity films...
21 October 2018
Say, do you suffer from trauma? How about brunt physically abused?

Feeling a bit down?

Then watch this, take a gallon-full of sugar, and it'll help the medicine go down!

Yrs, all those horribly sappy films which H'wood had been cranking it began with things like this. Escaping croon really, and thinking,.I'll just with it away', which has lead to today - almost 21/2 decades later, where people- who once raised children to become adults, now had become the tune where (physically mature, i.e., adult) peyote have the emotional maturity not much above a small child who doesn't understand that 'wishing it away' will make their being overdrawn at the bank go away, not still the creditors Fein foreclosing in the house they could ill-afford, and all the other myriad of things, which aren't 'our' fault, no!

Films like this, and the plastic, treacle they espouse teach that one can run away from reality - it'll 'magically' fix itself!

Sigh.

To think that the back story of this film was at Inge time, a accept which every studio salivated over.

And on to of all this tooth-crumbling, sugary sweetness is a 'cherry on top' - if one thinks anything with Tom H-nks is actually something which will be remembered in the future ('Fatty who? Tom who?').

What you should do - if you feel a need to see this, and you have small children, is to watch a cartoon first, and then this, then right after, explain to them - there's good and bad and one can't wish bad away like happens in films and cartoons, but they can deal with it by being honest with you - and YOU them.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Nichols: Eddie Joe (1972)
Season 1, Episode 14
This is my first episode of the series I've seen..m
16 October 2018
A little background about me, so you'll understand why I'm going to say what I say; . I'm a huge James Garner fan. One of the first shows I remember watching every week was The Rockford Files. I was about 6-7 years old, but my mom liked it, as well, so, wed watch it together.

Move forward in time to the present day, and one of the few things I live about modern (media) tech is the ability to get those shows we all loved. Growing up, VCR's were just hitting the market, and I never had one, so, the best thing I could do was make a( audio cassette) recording of something I wanted to save (I still have them - it's fun to hear me, with my squeaky, young voice. It's not gotten much deeper, though). I stream my media, and this gives me much more control of what's on.

One thing I set up was a hard drive which contains nothing but TV series I loved. Some might find certain series silly, but, hey; that's why I like it. I have all the Rockford Files episodes, so, now I'm in charge of 'MyTV', as it were.

I read about this show - here, on IMDb. In several reviews of Rockford episodes, There's mentions of this series. The now I read about it, the more intrigued I became.

One thing I live about Mr Garner; he was a true class act. If he worked with someone, and found it a good experience both personally and professionally, he'd make sure he'd work with them again.

While watching Rockford episodes, I'd come across actors who had worked many times previously with Mr Garner - on Maverick, as well as Nichols. As anyone familiar with both Rockford's and Nichols knows, the time between the end of Nichols and the birth of Rockford meant that people who were on Nichols became part of Jim's Rockford family.

First and foremost, the incomparable Stuart Margolin, who would go in to become Jim's erstwhile friend, Angel Martin, is here as Mitch, Jim's, er, 'erm, Nichols' sidekick/deputy.

As I said, this is my first episode of the series I've seen. As it began, I opened up IMDb to the episode's page, and saw that it only has a '6.-' rating, so, I thought to myself; 'sigh, ok, this'll be kind of q drag to watch, but, I'm only at the midpoint of watching it, and I'm really enjoying it. The writing's really good - nothing like some of the more artificial, stilted-sounding series (esp. westerns) of this time. The cast - series' regulars Messrs Garner and Margolin as well as guest stars Messers Winfield and 'Scatman' Crothers, all work together like a solid engine (to put in a Rockford-ish type reference) - they all perform in a way which doesn't 'feel' like this is a performance for us at home, but, rather, us, viewers are somehow glimpsing the actual goings-on in this small, turn-of-the 20th century.

All I can say is in really, really happy to have come across Nichols, and I'm really excited that I have a whole new series - featuring a cast (I know I'm not alone when I say this) of friends, who are so welcoming, is go anywhere with them - from Jim's trailer, back in time, because I know where they go, I'll have a smile on my face.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed