Reviews

I first saw this when it came out in 1980. I was 16 at the time; that was probably the perfect age and time to see it. I'd read the novel and the sequel, and liked them quite a lot. And this adaptation lived up to the books quite nicely.

Over the years I sometimes found the catchy musical theme momentarily lodged in my head, or spotted the novel in my collection, and wondered if the show had ever been released on DVD. Thirty-two years later, I got to see it again. And - Oh. My. God.

It's a lighthearted comedy, a romp of sorts, but it's AMAZING how incredibly inappropriate it seems today. There's enough of that 16-year-old male in me to appreciate it, sort of. But as a parent and inhabitant of the 21st century, I can't help but be appalled.

Take the comic relief, the repressed secretary. Ably acted, yes, and from some perspectives she's quite funny - similar characters were doubtless popular in the days of ancient Rome. But all she wants is to be raped! And while that sort of thing may work for some people these days on South Park, there's an odd *wholesomeness* to the humor that just seems horribly out of place - now.

The humorous side of rape is pretty much one of the major themes of the story. And rape doesn't really HAVE a humorous side (well, not for most people). Yes, in its day this was entertaining. And stopping time is a really neat concept, which is why it has been used so many times since. But I suspect that a lot of people these days would simply be stunned by the juxtaposition of lighthearted humor and a subject that is viewed far more seriously now than it was then.

If you can take that sort of thing, this is a more entertaining example of it than most. And there might almost be a sort of historical value to the show; it really does demonstrate the massive change in American mores and sexism over time.

I think the show would frankly stun most people under 30. It's impossible to imagine something like this getting on the air these days, unless it was handled in a very different way. Either the humor would be MUCH darker, or the whole thing would have been turned into sheer exploitation.

One side-note: for some reason the show reminded me of The Rockford Files, not in the rape-is-funny angle, but because it seemed to have a lot of actors and settings (CA) in common. The cinematography was rather similar, too. It also reminds me a little of the old Disney "Herbie" movies, although Walt would no doubt be spinning in his frictionless ice coffin to hear it!

I'm a perfectionist when it comes to children's programming. And my opinion of the genre is generally low.

That's why I was so particularly delighted to find this gem. It's charming and very true to the book. The voice acting is marvelous, although I have to wonder if whoever voiced Toad has a medical problem with his throat; I know from painful experience that it's really hard to sound THAT gravelly! But the voice is perfect for Toad. I just wish the IMDb's credits included the voice actors.

If you're looking for something for a child ages 2-6, I think you'll be very happy with this. It has a nice old-fashioned (but not stale or lame) claymation style, and is clearly a labor of love. It's nice to find a treasure like this amidst all the hyped-up commercial garbage that's being pushed on children these days.

You can also find some of these Frog and Toad episodes on the DVD "Curious George Comes to America", which is NOT the recent movie, but rather a couple of stop-motion animated episodes from the 1980s. It's being sold cheaply in stores right now (10/10/06). If you find it, grab it! Your child will love it.

I also hear that even more Frog and Toad episodes are on the Curious George collector's edition DVD, but I haven't seen that one myself - yet.

The series is supposedly set in Boston, but is about as authentically Bostonian as a Philly cheese steak (I think it's mostly filmed in Toronto - it's DEFINITELY not filmed in Boston). Apart from that, I found it painfully predictable. Some episodes haven't just *blurred* the line between real science and the supernatural, they've plowed up the ground that the line was drawn on and dynamited the underlying bedrock.

In other words, for a show which purports to have a mystery element, the writers simply don't play fair with the viewers.

The show also suffers from more than a tinge of "Providence" syndrome - the heroine is SOOO perfect (albeit in a "bad girl" way), almost always right when she bucks the system (except for a few "very special" plots where she makes a mistake and Learns Something About Herself), and every man is in love with her. Annoying! I did like the characters of Bug and Nigel. They were funny and well-acted. But they don't make up for poor writing and utterly stale plots.

Chalk me up as another view who saw this movie decades ago, and never forgot it. The parallels to the Bush regime are haunting.

Unfortunately I have it on good authority that this movie will NOT be released on DVD unless an independent company is willing to take it on, a la Shout Factory! and SCTV.

The problem is that SotL probably isn't well known enough. The potential sales are too low. On the plus side, the master film DOES still exist...and there has definitely been an increase in interest lately, thanks to Mssrs. Bush & Cheney.

It has been a long time, but I still remember the final scene, when the flag was raised...the hair on the back of my neck stood straight up. What a powerful moment!

A remake would be pretty mind-blowing, don't you think?

I'm rating it a "9", because it has been so long since I saw it. There's a lot that I don't remember.

Against my better judgment my three-year-old son was taken to see The Polar Express this weekend.

Five minutes into the movie he screamed and begged to go home. And he's not a particularly cowardly toddler.

This G-rated movie is incredibly LOUD, violently kinetic, and a total sensory overload - completely inappropriate for young children. I got to see the rest of the movie after my son was taken home, and time after time I was amazed by scenes that were far more frightening than the one that first terrified my boy. He'd never have made it through without major trauma.

Perhaps a five-year-old could handle it - but they would have to be pretty desensitized.

For myself, the virtual actors were creepy, the elves at the North Pole scenes were disturbingly reminiscent of Nazi propaganda films, and the writing was disappointingly poor. The whole thing felt like a very deliberate, cynical attempt to manufacture a Christmas classic, but throughout the movie it was impossible to miss the set-ups for future roller-coaster theme rides and products.

Why does Hollywood feel it necessary to blast moviegoers into insensibility? And why, why, WHY don't they understand that good writing is the core of a movie? The television version of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas!" was wonderful and heartwarming. The atrocity that was Jim Carrey's "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" was just awful. Why? Writing, more than anything. That, and the apparent belief that loud sounds and abundant special effects are all that's needed to make a good movie.

People in Hollywood need to be chained into a theater showing all the incredible, well-written movies made without seat-shaking audio and computer-generated effects: movies like Casablanca, The Third Man, A Christmas Story, and even relatively lowbrow (but well-written) movies like Used Cars. But of course, Roger Zemekis directed and CO-WROTE Used Cars. What happened? What's his excuse for The Polar Express?

Last night I watched LXG on HBO. Big mistake.

Why?

Two reasons: I'd read the graphic novel, and my IQ is over 73.

Just seconds into the film I was already shaking my head. Both in small details and large, they'd managed to completely botch the job. Painful dialog. Embarrassing special effects. Incredibly annoying characters. A script obviously written with dull-witted seven-year-old boys in mind.

I'm trying to envision the Hollywood idiots who sat around a conference table and destroyed Alan Moore's witty and intelligent graphic novel. But then I cringe, because by all accounts Sean Connery was one of them. He must be quite a bit dumber than I had hoped.

I can't remember which scene first made me say "Good lord, that's even worse than I dreamed possible!", but I know I said it more than once.

Oh, and "Venice". I've been to Venice, and Senator, that's no Venice. The one thing EVERYONE in the world knows is that Venice has no streets, only canals! So what do they do? Have a car racing all over huge, completely non-existent streets in Venice.

Why? What were they thinking?

So many other things to insult the viewer. A "graveyard" in Venice. The enormous Nautilus cruising easily though canals that in the real world aren't 1/100th wide or deep enough to fit it. I can't go on. It's just too awful.

Do yourself a huge favor and read the graphic novel instead of seeing this turkey.

Dreadful. Stupid. Boring. None of these words come even CLOSE to describing the horror of this 2002 A&E film which claims to be based on U.K. LeGuin's "The Lathe of Heaven".

It's not as if they didn't have an example to follow. The PBS production of Lathe is universally recognized as one of the best "thinking" science fiction movies ever made, and they made it for virtually nothing compared to the cost of A&E's dog of a film.

There is a lesson to be learned, here, folks, and the lesson is this: Hollywood is full of idiots. They remade Casablanca. They remade The Third Man. Why? And in the name of all sanity, why can't anyone STOP them?

Virtually all of the plot of the book and original movie are gone, as is all of the sense. The aliens? Gone. The grey-skin solution to race problems? Gone. The dissonance between the Western activist/technological worldview as opposed to the Eastern passive/natural worldview? Gone. Intelligent dialog, talented acting? Gone.

In their place we get some hot tongue action between Lisa Bonet and Lucas Haas. Not a good trade-off.

Ms. Le Guin was heavily involved with the PBS original, and not at all consulted about this remake. The director boasted that he hadn't seen the first movie nor read the book. He should have. If he had, perhaps he'd have recognized his own utter lack of talent and done the decent thing, which is kill himself before he made this monstrosity.

I only hope that new viewers aren't put off seeing the original by this bad, bad movie. Do yourself a favor: buy or rent the original on DVD! Even the special effects were cooler, and it was made in 1980!!

I borrowed a copy of the VHS tape from a friend recently, and persuaded my wife to watch it with me. I worried that it was too long and would bore her (she's not a particular fan of Westerns nor of Dustin Hoffman), but it didn't at all - we both watched it with great enjoyment.

The first western film with a conscience, presenting the Indian side of the Story of the West...I hadn't seen it in a while, and feared that it would be dated and moralistic. But it wasn't. The story moves along with no down time or dead spots, the dialogue is wonderfully written, and the cast is superb! Hoffman, Dunaway, Balsam, Jeff Corey, all were outstanding. Richard Mulligan gave (I think) the best performance of his life as Custer, and Chief Dan George simply stole the show.

WHERE is the DVD? This movie is crying out for a DVD release! And in widescreen, please - the video I saw was panned & scanned, which just didn't cut it.

One last thing: the soundtrack. Very bluesy, very appropriate for the film, and really good. It reminded me of "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" in that it was very authentic. And I found myself whistling the fife and drum tune of the cavalry for days afterwards...

What happened to Hollywood? Why can't movies like this be made any more? Perhaps it has something to do with the focus groups, and product placement, and writing-by-committee. Thanks goodness we can still see movies like this, one of the last movies with real heart. This may well be the best acting Tom Hanks ever did, simply brilliant -- in fact, "brilliant" is an understatement. And the writing never hits a false note.

What more can I say? Every time I've seen this movie I've been in tears at the ending. And I don't cry easily.

I hadn't seen Dreamscape for something like 15 years, but remembered it fondly. It's on my list of DVDs to buy, but I did suspect that it would turn out like a lot of other 80's genre films; better in memory than reality.

But I caught it on TV a few days ago, and I was *very* pleasantly surprised. The non-dream sections are pretty good, since Max Von Sydow and Christopher Plummer are always fun to watch. But the dream sections were outstanding! The essence of nightmares was captured particularly well, particularly in the way that authority figures who were supposed to represent security turned out to be completely useless. The special effects actually stood up much *better* than I remembered - compared to modern super-slick digital effects, they're much more dream-like. The train ride through the post-holocaust nightmare landscape kicked ass!

All around, they did an excellent job of capturing the feel of dreams and nightmares. It's a pity there aren't more movies like this...

People who like this one might also enjoy Altered States, Brainwave, and perhaps the Nightmare On Elm Street movies...