Change Your Image
asrexproductions
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Farscape: Taking the Stone (2000)
When Do You Ever Get This Much Character in a Sci-Fi Series?
Seriously, when has sci-fi ever given this much?
"Taking the Stone" begins with a busy Crichton (Ben Browder) blowing off Chiana (Gigi Edgley) while she's clearly in pain and in need because he's preoccupied with repairing a piece of equipment. Hurt, Chiana runs off to a planet where a group of nihilistic youngsters make risky jumps off a cliff, hoping they're caught by a force field that's possibly activated by taking a stone before they jump. Crichton attempts to apologize and talk some sense into her but Chiana is too hurt, determined to jump because she thinks she has nothing more to live for. Will Crichton convince her that her life is worth living because he cares about her? That's the essence of the episode.
What's beautiful about it is that it illustrates why Farscape works. Watching it the second time around, I cared nothing at all about the stone plotline and it's resolution, and more about how Crichton goes out of his way to save his friend and how Aeryn (Claudia Black) goes out of her way to help because she cares about him. Heretofore we've seen that Chiana stays with our heroes because she knows they're good people and Crichton cares about her, having saved her life in the past. As soon as that seems to have ended, she lays the whole thing bare: logically speaking, why SHOULD they stay together? They don't know where any of this is going. They're being hunted at every turn. Why should they stay? How and why did they even become friends in the first place?
The answer is simple: they stay because Crichton cares about them, and their adventures teach them to care about each other.
This is a universal truth about our existence. Intelligent organic beings NEED each other. They live when they care for one another, and that caring is what inspires people to push through, no matter how hard it gets. Without that, there really is no logical reason to keep going when the going gets tough. We do it because we care about our fellow beings, and that makes all of the difference.
Pretty heady stuff for a show rife with laser guns and alien Muppets, no? ;)
Dark Side of the '90s: The Rise of Rush Limbaugh (2022)
Biased But Accurate Explanation of How Limbaugh's Ideas Came to Define the Modern Republican Base
"The Rise of Rush Limbaugh" chronicles how relatively affluent (I learned) radio enthusiast Rush Hudson Limbaugh became the popular defining voice of Conservative politics throughout the '90s, whose influence continues to this day. From his humble ambition to be a top-40 DJ to one of the most successful talk radio hosts ever, we see what made Rush tick and how various audiences responded to him over the course of his 30+ year career. Most of the talking heads in this episode are anti-Rush (this is DARK side of the '90s, after all), so as the rare Liberal who religiously listened to Rush from my teens to early twenties (even getting on the air three times) let me say this:
I found this episode mostly accurate, with two noteworthy exceptions: 1) Rush's most frequent enemy was the media more than Clinton, which Rush saw as just Left wing propaganda, and 2) Rush's racism. While I do think Rush was a racist and hateful person, I also think that he and most Dittoheads would argue that it wasn't overt, which it wasn't. They'd likely argue that his call screener, James "Bo Snerdly" Golden was Black and that Limbaugh loved Clarence Thomas and other Conservative African Americans. I however, think that most white people, like Rush, don't believe in unconscious racism. This is why I think Rush didn't see the racism inherent in criticizing Donovan McNabb in terms of his race, or describing the NFL as a battle between the Bloods and Crips (as this episode points out). To me, this is the heart of our race problem in this country, and I fear most Conservatives will criticize this episode based mostly on that and the lack of many voices speaking out on Rush's behalf.
That said, I do think Rush was good at what he did (even though what he did wasn't very good), and I feel like this episode of "Dark Side of the '90s" was itself good at captured that. Most importantly, I think it shows that what he unleashed on our society is undeniable, and if it bothers you as much as it bothers me, a very dark side of the '90s.
Silver Spoons: Pilot (1982)
Surprisingly Good Pilot For a Very Middle-Of-The-Road Series
It's fun to watch the first season of "Silver Spoons" as an adult, and this first episode is a classic example of why.
Edward Stratton III (Joel Higgins) is a grown up who refuses to grow up. His house is like a playground, with a train you can ride, video games everywhere, silly looking dummies dressed up like soldiers - basically anything a kid would like. That's lucky for him, because a kid he didn't know he had (Ricky Schroeder) shows up and declares that he'd like to live with his dad. Being a completely irresponsible millionaire toy manufacturer, Edward just doesn't think he's up to the task, but luckily for Ricky, he discovers that his father's irresponsibility has caused him to overlook the fact that his business manager (Robert Picardo) is robbing him blind. Ricky makes Edward aware, and the elder Stratton can't resist - he now has a precocious son, and the rest is sitcom history.
What I think sets the pilot and first season of "Silver Spoons" apart from other 39 year old shows as of this writing is that to me it held up well. Despite being squeaky clean, the jokes in its early going actually made me laugh. I attribute that to a the writing of future "Married... With Children" creators Ron Leavitt and Michael G. Moye, who were clearly masters of the sitcom before they deconstructed it with "Married." More than that, the series was blessed with noteworthy supporting cast members that later went on to do bigger and better things. Jason Bateman and John Houseman appeared reguarly in the early going, and later Alfonso Ribeiro did too. I thought Erin Gray was also surprisingly good in a comedic role, and proved not to be just another pretty face. This pilot itself moves fast, is simple enough that a kid can understand it, but has great dialogue and a charming premise. Though it declined towards its end of its run, it's nice to watch "Silver Spoons" in syndication, and the pilot well-illustrates why it lasted as long as it did.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: For the Uniform (1997)
You Get That He Wasn't Going To Actually Do It, Right?
I'm writing this review to correct what I believe is a misconception I'm seeing in other reviews, so I'll be brief, but first a plot summary for those that haven't seen it.
"For the Uniform" is an episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" in which Capt. Benjamin Sisko (Avery Brooks) finally catches up to his former subordinate Michael Eddington (Ken Marshall) that betrayed his duties in a previous episode. He pursues in vain however, as the clever Eddington seems to have Sisko and his crew beaten at every turn, and continuous to conduct rogue activities with a rebel group. Eddington taunts Sisko throughout, forcing Sisko to take seemingly drastic action in order to bring the arrogant former officer to justice. Will Sisko's gamble pay off, or will he put his own ethics and duties in jeopardy in the process? That's the episode (making sure not to spoil anything).
I'm not writing this review to contradict anybody's opinion on the episode's quality, as taste is ultimately subjective, and you are all free to dis / like what you want. What I want to draw your attention to is a key scene, in which Sisko meets with Dax (Terry Farrell) and goes deep into Eddington's psychology. In that scene, Sisko realizes that Eddington sees himself as a Romantic hero, in the tradition of Sydney Carton of Charles Dickens's A TALE OF TWO CITIES or Rick Blaine in Michael Curtiz's CASABLANCA (1942). In other words, Eddington is willing to make a "noble sacrifice" in the name of being the hero and protecting the innocent, as a Romantic hero would do. I believe THAT is why Sisko does what he does, confirmed by the conversation he and Dax have to close the episode. As she suggests, Sisko gambles on Eddington not calling his bluff because in Eddington's mind, Sisko is more a villain than a Federation officer because Eddington sees himself as the hero. As a result, Sisko doesn't have to actually go to the extreme he suggests, because he knows Eddington's warped self-image will validate the sacrifice Sisko's forcing him to make.
Or put another way, it's called "For the Uniform" for a reason - Sisko's loyalty is to his; Eddington has proven that his loyalty is to that inflated sense of self. The crew go along with it because they're gambling on THAT.
Daredevil: The Man in the Box (2016)
Poorly Directed / Written Episode of a Heretofore Great Series
If you were going to jump off this train, I think this is the place to do it.
"Man in the Box" opens with the city on a manhunt for the Punisher (Jon Bernthal), who we last saw escaped from maximum security and a near execution orchestrated by the Kingpin (Vincent D'Onofrio). Now it seems like he's out for revenge, although Karen Page (Deborah Ann Woll) doesn't buy it, as the random and seemingly indiscriminate violence throughout the episode isn't really his M.O. In the B story, Dardevil (Charlie Cox) attempts to figure out what weird plans the Hand or whoever has in store for a series of individuals it seemed to have been bleeding last episode - literally. He gets him to his former would-be paramour Claire Temple (Rosario Dawson) at the hospital where she works, but that only heightens the mystery - and worse. Will Daredevil figure out what's going on in Hell's Kitchen? And will Karen save the Punisher from a city that's against him? That's the episode.
And for me it was a disappointing one, because besides copious uses of the word "shit" (which sticks out like a sore thumb for me when there's no other profanity), I thought the action sequences - particularly in the battle at the end between Elektra (Elodie Yung) and a mysterious opponent played by Gilles Marini - were poorly shot, and thus clearly choreographed and boring. I found this particularly noticeable when compared to the exceptional directing of the previous episode, and the science fiction-esque ending put the stamp on my feeling that this series may have run its course. I think it's worth watching because it moves the story along, but between all these and a somewhat embarrassing scene between Daredevil and the Kingpin early on, it makes me nervous for Daredevil's television future. Hoping it pulls back together before this season is done, because any more of this will have me wishing it was me that was blind.
Michael Jackson: Searching for Neverland (2017)
A Heartbreaking Chronicle of the Tragic Final Days of Once The Most Successful Pop Star of All Time
Before I talk about this film, let me give it some context by talking about who Michael Jackson was, from a historical perspective.
Michael Jackson's "Thriller" album sold 46 MILLION albums. That's 46 times platinum. Not one. Not ten. 46. There is no album that has come close yet, unless you count his "Bad," which was once the #2 selling album of all time. I once read an article where they interviewed several record executives, on the condition of anonymity, to comment on the top artists in music that year (sometime in the 2010s). It became clear to me that the goal of the record industry is to recreate Michael Jackson. Madonna and Janet are female Michael Jackson. Usher and Chris Brown (before Brown screwed it up) are seen as "Michael Jackson types." So is Justin Timberlake. The Weekend. The whole music business in the latter part of the 20th century, was about trying to recreate Michael Jackson, as many times as it could.
And how did he end up? Penniless and essentially alone, struggling to raise his children, according to this riveting film.
MICHAEL JACKSON: SEARCHING FOR NEVERLAND (Dianne Houston, 2017) struck me as a heartbreaking chronicle of a person living strictly off of his fame, but unlike Kim Kardashian or Donald Trump, not being rewarded for it, just using it to survive. Told through the eyes of his personal bodyguards and assistants in the waning years of his life (Chad L. Coleman and Sam Adegoke), Michael Jackson (Navi) struggles to find a home where he can safely live with his children (Aidan Hanlon Smith, Taegen Burns, Michael Mourra) without having to dodge his agents, his fans, maniacal detractors, stalkers, and even his own family, all either trying to live off or destroy him. Throughout all of this, his bodyguards faithfully stay by his side out of pity, even when the money dries up and their own families doubt their sanity for staying so long in a job that simply doesn't pay. I feel the film makes it very clear that Jackson truly was a prisoner of his own success, long after he had stopped being successful. More oddity than King of Pop, the Michael Jackson of MICHAEL JACKSON: SEARCHING FOR NEVERLAND is a broken and tragic figure, buoyed by the love of his children and the last two people who seemed to care. For as the film notes in its final moments, for all the people that spoke highly of him at and after his funeral, no one was there when Jackson died, nor were there for him while he was going through it, struggling to raise his children as any single father might. To the film's credit, I felt it did a good job of showing Michael as flawed, even culpable for his own condition, but hardly deserving of what he got. I feel that it isn't the Michael Jackson story for the casual fan, rather it's a cautionary tale for those seeking to be the Michael Jackson of the future. Despite a performance by Navi that did leave something to be desired (he clearly had a British accent, doing what I felt was at best an adequate job of representing Michael), I personally feel that it effectively humanizes an individual considered a legend in his own time, and serves as a powerful commentary on the cult of celebrity. For me, MICHAEL JACKSON: SEARCHING FOR NEVERLAND is moving, mesmerizing, and difficult to forget.
Scorpion: Scorp Family Robinson (2017)
Stupid, Unrealistic, and Childish
"Scorp Family Robinson" is a continuation of a two-part season finale (I think) for Season 3 of "Scorpion," which begins with our team trapped on a desert island, after a routine mission immediately following Toby (Eddie Kaye) and Happy (Jadyn Wong)'s wedding goes awry. As a result of those complications, Team Scorpion finds themselves stranded with an injured pilot (Rockmond Dunbar, in my opinion the highlight of these two episodes), a destroyed plane, and despite their miraculous ability to work together like a well-oiled machine, suddenly unable to bend the rules of science and logic, and get themselves out a jam they would in any other situation. This time, they just fight amongst themselves, to the point that their human calculator Sylvester (Ari Stidham) gives up and instead chooses to write the tale of what he sees as their final hours, and being his usual negative self. The group splits, coming up with two competing plans: leader Walter (Elyes Gabel) and Happy want to cause a ripple in the magnetic core of the Earth, which is apparently constantly monitored and would thus bring investigators, while Tony and Paige (Katherine McPhee) want to build a raft and use it to escape. The disagreement also leads to a lot of bickering, and threatens to break up the whole group. Will our team escape the island and keep Team Scorpion intact? That's the episode.
And to me, it's one that illustrates much of what's bothered me this season, specifically what I see as a move away from well-explained, and thus plausible hi-tech plans in favor of wrong-headed and unrealistic character development. Regular viewers will recall that this season Paige was romanced by a military man (Scott Porter), who was in every way the kind of man most women would want - smart, confident, and knowledgeable in the norms of courtship - but lost him when he had an opportunity he couldn't pass up, and it became clear to him that Paige really wanted to be with Walter. Walter treated her badly when he didn't see this however, and yet he and Paige recovered, despite no significant change in his personality that I could discern. No scenes of Walter making Paige laugh, no scenes of Paige gazing at him longingly as he took exceptional care of her son, no Walter doing anything but being well, Walter, and she falling in love with him anyway. It's a perfect nerd fantasy to me - "I can be my usual, awkward, self-centered mess that has no idea how to treat a woman, but I get the gorgeous girl anyway." Why? Because he's a character in a television show, of course. None of that ever works for the rest of us.
Worse, we were told at the beginning of the series that Paige's son Ralph (Riley B. Smith) was maladjusted due to his tremendous intelligence, but benefited from being around adults who were as intelligent as he was, particularly Walter. I thought this worked nicely in the beginning, with Ralph struggling with other children but gradually coming out of his shell with these adults, especially Walter, thus giving us a way in for Walter and Paige to get together. Instead, I feel like what's happened over time is that Ralph has become a 100% normal kid that just has amazing intelligence, one that can make sarcastic jokes like "amazing" in this episode when his teammates' plans fizzle out. I use the term teammate because Ralph now strikes me as just an additional genius for the writers to use to get stuff done, even now helping to execute Scorpion's plans rather than bring Walter and his mom together, though as we've also seen this season, he knows how to do that too. The kid is socially and intellectually proficient. I think they might as well give him the team.
Worst of all for me, this episode again struck me as downright childish in the way it teaches its lesson about the team having to work together and the parallels between "Palter" and "Tappy." Two budding relationships, isn't it hilarious that the couples are on opposite teams, but that they (spoiler alert!) help each other in secret. Isn't it adorable how Toby learns outrageous things about Happy but learns to accept her, the way Paige learns to accept and even become sexually attracted to Walter's social awkwardness, how convenient. It all works out of course, leading to a final scene that felt totally unmotivated to me, unless again you count the fact that these are TV characters and the writers have been hitting us over the head with their would-be relationship from day one. As much as I hate "will they or won't they," I hate when characters hook up "just because" even more. Blech.
"Scorp Family Robinson" struck me as by-the-numbers as its unimaginative title, and really made me question if I'll be sticking with the show much longer, and I think that's too bad, because at its best, it really has been one of my favorites, a throwback to "MacGyver," and other TV adventure classics of the past.
At this rate though, I think I might end up just going back and getting those old shows on DVD or something.
Scandal: A Stomach for Blood (2017)
Aw, C'mon!
I really wish I had the constitution of a TV civilian. I get squeamish when I see dead or dying animals, let along corpses, as Abby does here.
"A Taste for Blood" is the episode of "Scandal" that sort of ties together many of the current mysteries of Season 6 - Did Cyrus (Jeff Perry) actually kill the President-elect? And if not, who did, and why? This episode tells you. Well, maybe not so much the "why" just yet, though it's possible they revealed this in a previous episode and I just forgot, because frankly, this show has taken so many twists and turns this season that it's starting to feel like a parlor game to me, like "Lost" at its most irritating. For some, that may be what makes this show fun. For me, it was just exhausting.
The key character in all of this, we discover, is Abby (Darby Stanchfield), and I won't spoil this episode by telling you why she's important to this elaborate plot, but suffice it to say we learn more - a LOT more - about how she spent that fateful election night when Frankie Vargas (Richard Chavira) was murdered, including some omitted, behind-the-scenes details of things we already saw in earlier episodes. Abby, it seems, was put in an untenable situation, and in trying to untangle herself from it, she put a lot of her friends in danger despite not really planning to. We see all that play out in this episode, including a gruesome scene in which she handles Vargas's corpse and goes to great, and what I found unrealistic lengths to keep the whole charade of the episode going. Abby does many things here that I think most would find downright criminal, and while her character heretofore has been as tainted as all of the leads in the "Scandal" universe, I found myself constantly asking, "are they THIS tainted?" And moreover, "could this REALLY happen?" I realize that it probably couldn't, as couldn't many things in "Scandal" or any other nighttime soap. Still, I always found the series plausible at least, if a bit over the top, and now I'm not so sure it can even qualify as that. I can accept a lot of things done for shock value, but when it starts to feel cartoonish to me, I start checking out, as I did here. I'll stick with it to see how the characters dig their way out of this, but if you've never watched this show before, this episode wouldn't make me recommend it, and that's why I rated it so poorly. Worst of all though, I think it does fit nicely into the extreme tone of this entire season thus far, and that doesn't really make me optimistic for my continuing to watch. I can't help wondering if others might feel that way eventually too. You can't skip this one if you've stuck with Scandal 'til now, but once this runs its course, will you really want to keep going with it? Abby's actions, and the sequence of events in "A Taste of Blood" left me really unsure of how to answer that.
American Horror Story: Afterbirth (2011)
Worst Episode of Any Show I've Ever Seen, And I've Been Watching TV My Whole Life
There are movies and TV shows that are dissatisfying, not exciting / scary / happy / whatever enough, or poorly acted / directed /shot / whatever, as I said. Sometimes there are plot points that make no sense; sometimes there are characters who behave in unrealistic or unbelievable ways. I have never EVER seen an episode of a professionally produced television show however, that I felt didn't seem to understand how to TELL A STORY at all until this "Afterbirth" episode of American Horror story. I'm absolutely dumbfounded.
Those who have been watching "American Horror Story" Season 1 know the basic setup, and it gets reviewed at the beginning of this episode if you don't: Philandering therapist Ben Harmon (Dylan McDermott) moves into an old mansion with his wife (Connie Britton) and daughter (Taissa Farmiga) in an attempt to repair his marriage after his wife Vivien (Britton) finds out about his infidelity. Unfortunately for all of them, the house is haunted, and over the course of this season, the ghosts have tortured and toyed with all of them, in ways that I won't spoil for the uninitiated, but have now left us with Dr. Harmon in great danger and a new baby, with his wife and daughter trying to help him. Will he escape? In any other normal series, that would be the whole premise of this episode. Here however? HO-Boy...! Again, without spoiling it as best I can, suffice it to say that what WOULD be the major conflict of the story gets wrapped up in the first act, in a way that I think anyone with a literary or television or BASIC STORYTELLING background would agree makes the whole first season seem pointless. From there it becomes a gimmicky scare-fest that felt to me like an attempt to turn it back into a horror story, and not just ghost science fiction (complete with an explanation of the rules of how the world works, in the aforementioned first act, preventing the audience from figuring it out on its own and taking satisfaction from that). To me it just meanders aimlessly from the second act onward, ending in what struck me as a too-little, too-late attempt to be creepy that couldn't possibly work on me because I'd already stopped caring. I love the cast, including perennial favorite Charles S. Dutton in a minor role, but they're given a story that really feels to me like something a sixth grader might have come up with. I've never seen anything like this in my life, and cannot understand why this show is so well-regarded today. I can only assume that it gets better in subsequent seasons but frankly, I loathed this season finale so much that I'm never watching this ever again. UNBELIEVABLY bad, in my opinion. Stay away from this first season at all costs!
Barney Miller: Rape (1978)
Still In Shock That a Show This Good Had an Episode This Bad
Never in a million years would I expect "Barney Miller" to make an episode this ghastly. In "Rape," a woman named Catherine Lindsay (Joyce Jameson) accuses her husband Marvin (Michael Pataki) of rape for having sex with her without her consent, and
there's actually doubt that he did it. Not because some of the facts are inconsistent, or because the men of the 12th Precinct decided, in this episode, to smoke every drug they confiscated off the street, or got struck in head with a large metal object, thus damaging their mental faculties, but because in 1978 apparently women were expected to have sex with their husbands regardless whether they wanted to. As a result, the episode is rife with the laugh track as this poor woman explains how her worthless husband doesn't treat her like a human being, and the DA (Linda Dano) arrives to defend her, saying this might be a test case to define the laws of rape the way they've since been defined as I write this in 2016. Since that wasn't the case then, the whole thing is played as a big joke, with William Bogart, of "Small Wonder," uh, "fame" as a shyster who swears up and down that Mrs. Lindsey has no case. I won't spoil how it ends, but just suffice it to say that I found it extremely difficult to watch, especially in "Barney Miller," the king of all multicultural shows, where the writing is usually above reproach. "Rape" just made me sick, and I spent the whole episode in utter disbelief, despite the fact that we just elected a President who bragged about being able to grab women by the crotch due to his celebrity. I'm a firm believer in not blaming the past for being the past, but there are many times when I really struggle with that. "Rape" is one of those times. Whether the jokes that aren't about rape were funny I couldn't tell you, and though the acting was as good as it always is, I found it incredibly difficult to care. All "Rape" did for me was illustrate how lucky I am to have been two years old when this episode aired. It's an episode I gladly doubt they could make today, one that I hope the writers of "Barney Miller" are ashamed of now. The fact that they did however, just reminds me that there are generations of men raised with this mentality, including the progressive men that wrote this show. I thought "Barney Miller" was great for reflecting how society had grown in the '70s. Knowing what we know about the world today though, it reminded me that even with a show like that, there was plenty of ground to cover that we're only scratching the surface of now. I just hope that it doesn't take another 38 years before we are able to wipe out all of the beliefs of those earlier eras that make me feel this much revulsion.
Family Ties: The Harder They Fall (1983)
One of the Best Episodes of Any Sitcom EVER, In My Opinion
If there was ever any doubt as to why "Family Ties" was one of the dominant, Emmy darlings of the '80s, in my opinion, this episode removes it.
It's parents night in this one, and the Keaton parents (Michael Gross and Meridith Baxter) go to meet with all of the kids' teachers, including Alex (Michael J. Fox)'s arrogant instructor Mr. Tedesco (Edward Edwards - seriously). Tedesco is so rude and mean to the parents that Elyse can't help herself, and does something to him she really regrets (being vague because this episode is funnier the less you know about it). Unfortunately, Alex really wants a letter of recommendation to Dartmouth from Mr. Tedesco, so Steven goes to apologize on Elyse's behalf, and hilarity ensues from there. It is a truly exceptional episode in an exceptional series, and that's why I had to review it.
Here's the thing about "Family Ties" to me - much like "Modern Family" today, the episodes of this show have not been replicated in many others, because I feel that few sitcoms have writers of this caliber. What happens in the average "nuclear family" sitcom is totally predictable to me, to the point that modern creators seem to either animate the show to reinvent it ("The Simpsons"), or make it multicultural ("The Cosby Show"), or completely transforming the nuclear family altogether, as "Modern Family" does, making original sitcom episodes seems very difficult to do. Watching "Family Ties," episodes like this, I totally get why. Though this episode has a creative and original twist, I feel that it still successfully reinforces the show's theme, of Baby Boomer idealists negotiating their beliefs in the '80s world, while still being hilariously funny, as the Keaton family twist in the wind to keep the peace in spite of Tedesco's raging obnoxiousness. I founds this episode ridiculously entertaining even watching it in 2016, and to me, that's only possible because the leads are as strong as the writing. This episode doesn't even end in the predictable way it seems to be going in at one point, emphasizing to me how confident these writers really were. It felt to me like they knew they had a great show, and approached it with just the right touch. "Family Ties" really was a watershed to me, and watching it as an adult, I appreciate it more than ever, especially when I see episodes like this.
Three's Company: Jack Be Quick (1983)
I Think You Can Really See The Series In Its Death Throes Here
It's been years since I've seen a "Terri" episode of "Three's Company," but as a child, I didn't remember hating them, and thought Priscilla Barnes was pretty. Now I see why my father kept saying it had gone downhill after Suzanne Somers left.
In "Jack Be Quick," Jack (John Ritter) has a new girl named Cheryl (Joanna Kerns) who pops the big question to him, or rather, A big question: will he father her child without marrying her or having any other involvement. It seems she has a successful and fulfilling career, and just doesn't think she'll have time to meet and marry, but she wants a kid, and sees Jack as having all of the traits she wants in her son. Will Jack do it? That's the show.
The problem for me begins when it takes forever to get there, with misdirection shtick about Larry (Richard Kline) convincing Jack that she actually wants to marry him. That ends early, in their first meeting, so Jack refuses her offer for now, but goes home to think about it. As he does, Janet (Joyce DeWitt) overhears half of a conversation where he tells off Cheryl on the phone, giving us misdirection shtick #2. #3 comes in the finale(I won't spoil it for you), but landlord Mr. Furley gets misdirected as a running gag throughout the episode too. It's misdirection upon misdirection, but by this point it felt old and tired to me. I thought this episode never really seemed to develop or get going, just zipped from misdirection to misdirection because the writers seemed to have run out of ideas, and were just phoning in the formula. Classic "Three's Company" knew how to be serious when it needed to I thought, while reiterating the idea that these young characters genuinely cared for each other. While we get that here, nothing feels "genuine" about it. It just struck me as a bunch of actors rehashing what they'd been doing for years, only with less enthusiasm or outrageousness as they had in the past. Priscilla Barnes does her best, as she always did, but the magic just didn't seem to be there for me, and so, I can't recommend this episode. Seasons 1-3. In my opinion, that's where it's at. And now I'm old enough to see why.
Lust for a Vampire (1971)
Unfairly Judged For Its Prurient Nature, But Poison in a Candy Coating, IMO
LUST FOR A VAMPIRE (Jimmy Sangster, 1971) was an adaptation of the legend of Carmilla the vampire from 1710 (here renamed "Mircalla"), where pagans at an English girls' finishing school must sacrifice a beautiful woman so Mircalla can inhabit her body and feed again. The film is full of gratuitous nudity, plays around with lesbianism, and is often cited as a sign of Hammer Films in decline. I saw this film in a class taught by critic Douglas Brode at Syracuse University, however, and was reminded that what I find great about B filmmaking is that as long as the filmmakers satisfy some mandate - in this case, gratuitous nudity, and the debut of a pop song ("Strange Love," as I recall) - they can make whatever movie they want. It also reminds me that for all of Hammer's greatness, it really was a B movie studio, beholden to the same mandates as every other. What Sangster and company here have done, IMO, is make a well-lit, well shot soft core porn movie that nonetheless has a compelling and interesting story. If you're watching it for the T&A, the cast and the cinematography will oblige you, IMO, but I feel that it will also give you more than the average movie of this type will. I've always felt that Joss Whedon later took this concept - creating works that were, on their surface, simple, lowbrow entertainment, but then writing them well - and made a career out of it, and in my opinion, this was one of the first examples of how that can be done. I evaluate every film based on if I think it will give its intended audience what they want, and if, like Woody Allen, you don't usually like your filth this clean, LUST FOR A VAMPIRE will disappoint. If you're a nerd, however, who is tired of seeing vapid B movies that don't even TRY to tell a compelling story, this movie will impress. Not for everybody, IMO, but honestly my favorite Hammer Horror Film.
Three's Company: And Justice for Jack (1980)
HUGE Disappointment!
This episode begins by suggesting it might redeem "Three's Company" for sexism, but then flushed that opportunity down the toilet.
Jack's first job out of cooking school is at a diner, where he's clumsier than usual because his boss (Ellen Travolta) keeps sexually harassing him. He confronts her about it, and she fires him. His friends (sans Susan Somers's "Chrissy" - I'm guessing this is when the contract disputes began) convince him to take the woman to court, and it rolls downhill from there.
The idea of illustrating sexual harassment through one of the most sexist "jiggle" shows in the history of television, with a plot about the MALE lead getting sexually harassed is genius. This episode, however, trivializes it from the beginning, making all kinds of sophomoric jokes about how silly it is for Jack to be complaining, climaxing in, as one might expect, a joke about Jack being gay. It's the same anachronistic crap that makes this show frustrating, because at its heart, as the story of three friends who live together and genuinely care about each other, played by truly talented actors, "Three's Company" is a classic for a reason. The thing is, through the lens of 2015, you just can't help noticing how juvenile and paternalistic much of it is. The gags in this episode are lowbrow, it implies that sexual harassment isn't a big deal, and it ultimately comes to an unsatisfying end. The fact that it sets up like we're going to see something special just makes it worse.
At least it makes me appreciate the times we live in. And if you want a more progressive version of this kind of show, there's always "Friends" and "How I Met Your Mother..."
Nightingales (1989)
The Only Reason I Cared About This Show Was Ken Auletta's Great Book on the TV Industry, THREE BLIND MICE
*sigh* The only thing I want to respond to are the comments about why this show was cancelled, that pretty much ILLUSTRATE why this show was cancelled.
As Ken Auletta explained in his book THREE BLIND MICE, Aaron Spelling pitched this show (from memory, so apologies if I botch this quote)as "student nurses sharing a house in California and the air conditioning doesn't work." As the people who had advertisers pull their support for this show (actual nurses) pointed out, the nursing was barely a part of this show (whose episodes you can all find on YouTube, perverts) pointed out, it was pretty nurses in various states of undress sharing what was essentially a sorority house, with Pleshette as "Mrs. Garret" to these girls. At a time when networks were trying shows like "St. Elsewhere," "LA Law," and "Hill Street Blues," this throwback to Spelling's jiggle era just looked silly. Comparing it to "Grey's Anatomy" is insulting, IMO, but then, I find the idea of couching softcore porn in a pre-internet age pathetic, but typical of the latter part of Spelling's career. The saddest part is, by today's standards, it's not even good at that (in other words, it's not even very sexy). Plots are juvenile, sensationalist at times, and melodramatic. The fact that people still think this was a great show pretty much illustrates how Donald Trump can do so well as a Presidential candidate.
Small Wonder: My Favorite Martian (1988)
A Surprisingly Well-Written Episode Despite Its Premise
I realize that "Small Wonder" is not for everybody... or MOST people, but if you can check your brain at the door and remember what it was like to be a kid, you can appreciate it, and this particular episode is a gem. Ted (Dick Christie) installs a hologram projector into Vicki (Tiffany Brissette), with which she tricks nosy neighbor (William Bogett) into thinking he's seen a UFO, and hilarity ensues as they try to convince him otherwise and keep the government out of it.
The fun of this episode are the darker wisecracks against the various characters and how human "Vicki" is in this episode. She gets a couple of good snaps in, often at the humans' expense, which is slightly wittier and edgier than the typical jokes on this show. It feels like at this point in the series, the writers knew what they had and were braver about playing around with the dialogue a little. I found it to be a pleasant surprise, but was disappointed that the writers didn't go on to do anything else noteworthy. Ah well.
Meeting a Bullet (2004)
The Only Thing You Need To Know About This Film Is That It Turned a Profit
I would like to call this movie the worst ever, except that this implies that it's actually a movie. Here's what it is: a character recites, in detail, what the plot is supposed to be (some crime plot, I believe it's a drug deal gone wrong - I barely remember). Then you see clips(READ: not actual SCENES, just clips) that pertain to what's just been described to you, set to music. This pattern continues throughout the "film" until it concludes. That's it. Looks like it might have cost $500 to make, assuming the filmmaker actually sprung for craft services or something.
Here is why this matters: I know someone who knows the filmmaker. He made $40,000 on this. How? A B distributor was trying to sell a crime film. Wal-Mart or Target or whoever the retailer was (I forget, again) felt the price was too high, so the distributor offered to make it a package deal - several crime films for that price. They agreed, so now the distributor needed to acquire some crime films to throw into the pot. He found this one, paid the filmmaker $40G's for the rights to his film, and that was it. The filmmaker turned a HUGE profit for garbage that involved almost no work.
If there was ever a good argument to become a B filmmaker, this is it.
House of the Dead 2 (2005)
Proof Positive That IMDb Reviewers are Lemmings
There are only four reasons to dislike this movie: 1) you presuppose that any B movie, particularly one made for the Sci-Fi Channel (or "Syfy," as it's now known) couldn't possibly be good, 2) you're closed minded, 3) you have some sort of mental deficiency, as evidenced by the fact that you like Uwe Boll, 4) you're a freaking idiot. Because anybody who knows anything about action and / or zombie movies couldn't possibly dislike this film.
HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: DEAD AIM is B movie master Mike Hurst's unrelated sequel to Uwe Boll's godawful video game adaptation. There "house" in question is a bunch of frat / sorority "houses" (ha ha), and there are a lot of undead, requiring a crack team including gorgeous and talented Emmanuelle Vaugier (sp?) to go in and stop them. And like all good action movies, it's that simple. It sets up during the opening credits. It totally understands what it is and the genre, hence Sid Haig himself and a dry and appropriate sense of humor - not Michael Bay styled out of place crap. The production design is fantastic. The action is actually exciting. It is the movie that the previous film should have been, had Uwe Boll not directed it. And I absolutely love it.
I won't go much further into it than that, because honestly, I haven't seen it in a minute. I just wanted to weigh in on the gang of idiots who somehow think that this is a bad movie. Either we watched different films, or the world is really full of lemmings. My experience favors the latter, so I felt I had to speak up.
If you're a true action movie fan, do yourself a favor and watch this movie. It's really well made, really fun, and really worth your time. If you find a way to dislike it, ask yourself if your dislike is based on the movie or your idiot friend. And then watch it again.
-AS http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/id/900752177/
The Simpsons: Homer's Enemy (1997)
DEFINITELY My Favorite Episode of the Simpsons Ever
I would give a testicle for John Schwartzwelder to write and create a show. Particularly "The Simpsons" *sigh* "Homer's Enemy" introduces Frank Grimes, a character to whom every bad thing that could possibly happen to a person has happened, causing Mr. Burns to hire him after seeing Grimes's story on TV. Of course, he forgets soon afterward, forcing Mr. Smithers to "stick him" in Homer's Sector 7G where Grimes meet Homer, the boorish oaf with a devoted wife, a brilliant daughter, and a family that loves him in spite of... well, everything. For this reason, I always thought this episode was John Schwartzwelder (far and away "The Simpsons'" best writer, bar none)'s commentary on the series as a whole, but nah, not that ambitious. Schwartzwelder was just so talented he could phone in an episode better than other entire series. When Grimes meets Homer, his sense of the unfairness of it all makes him declare Homer an enemy, to which gentle-hearted Homer goes out of his way to change his mind, with hilarious results.
Again, what boggles my mind is how many brilliant and genuinely funny, not just "clever," or "poignant" or "subversive" jokes there are in this episode. It's silly, it's amazing, it's downright transcendent. I could live to be 100 and never write anything as good as this. Schwartzwelder was a freakishly good talent, which is probably why he disappeared and has yet to be duplicated. "The Simpsons" in the '90's was by far the best show on television, and if not for the 2000's episodes and beyond, would go down in history as the best television show of all time. And I miss it SO MUCH.
The Cleveland Show (2009)
I Still Don't Get Why People Don't Like This Show
Watching the latest episode right now, and there are /so/ many clever jokes, far more clever than the jokes on "Modern Family", which I am also a fan of, so no, I'm not hating on that show. It's better than that new show with Christina Applegate (which I tried and hated), or "The Mindy Project", which I really wanted to like and couldn't. Honestly, from a writing perspective, "The Cleveland Show" is excellent, so much so that I almost feel like it really is racism that prevents this show from being more popular (either that or the time slot). I honestly DVR this show and watch it during "Bob's Burgers" so I don't have to watch that, and while I will admit I am in the minority on this, I like it more than "Family Guy" and "American Dad" too. Just never understood why this didn't catch on. Bugs me that it's now in danger of ending.
Star Trek: The Next Generation: Eye of the Beholder (1994)
So Much Potential; So Badly Done
It stinks that an episode with this much promise would be so poorly executed.
In "Eye of the Beholder", an officer commits suicide, forcing Deanna and Worf to investigate his death. This ultimately leads to their romance, one of the better, late story-lines of the series.
Unfortunately, it's hard to decide what's more annoying - the poor acting of the officer's fiancée (who apparently called it quits after '00, mercifully) or the clunky dialogue, surprisingly written by series wunderkind Rene Echevarria. Deanna and Worf's first love scene in particular seems to come out of left field, and ruins what would otherwise be a great one, with its intriguing plot and en medea res opening. A great story that ultimately goes to waste. Big disappointment.
Tanya X (2010)
Funny and Fun If You Like This Sort of Thing (Which I Do)
A soft core B movie can entertain you in a number of ways: if you like the girls, if you like the story, or if you just like how it's made. In the case of TANYA X (2010, Dean McKendrick), I liked all three.
TANYA X is a secret agent working for an outfit (pun intended) called BIKINI: Bureau of Knowledge, Intelligence, and Nonstandard Investigations, which apparently solves its cases by having a lot of sex with anybody they have to deal with. She's humorously played by Beverly Lynn, a veteran of several softcore features who has a tongue-in-cheek acting style that lends itself well to this comical Dean McKendrick material. McKendrick, for the uninitiated, is a humorist who frequently works with many of the stars of this movie, which includes Kylee Nash, Christine Nguyen, Evan Stone, and Randy Spears, among several others, all of whom play this script for laughs, which is a specialty for most, if not all of them. And because they're having fun with it, you often do the same even while you're being turned on, which is how it should be. To quote my ex, "sex is supposed to be fun!" She was right, except for the part about it not being fun with me. but I digress.
The result of this attitude is a movie which scores because Lynne (who also produced it) is cute and funny, as are her co-stars, and the sex scenes are all as sexy as they need to be. I am a big fan of all of the women in this, so I am biased, but it does a lot of little things well too, which makes it exceptional. A lot of the score consists of take offs on other famous "spy" music, like the "Get Smart!" theme, the "Dragnet" theme, "Secret Agent Man", Henry Mancini's theme for "Peter Gunn" (which we eighties kids know as the theme from the video game "Spy Hunter"), and so on. At one point, Tanya has to learn how to be a gangster, and acts like James Cagney, which underscores McKean's wit and pop culture knowledge. The whole thing is deliberately silly, but clever, and the story is consistent, if simple and implausible. A sex film always requires a lot of suspension of disbelief to begin with, but when it seems like everybody involved is in on the joke too, we can go with it. Again, this is McKean's style and it really works here.
Is it my favorite of his films? No. But I admire the ambition of this project. This movie was apparently the pilot for a proposed web series, which I'm not sure ever got finished, which is a shame. The cast are great, the fact that Lynne is in charge is inspiring, and the execution is top notch. I really enjoyed TANYA X, and again, if you're into these kinds of movies, I'm sure you will too. A.
(And no, I do not work for Beverly Lynne or anybody involved with this movie. ;)
-AS @ShyHustler