Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Disappointing once you know the twist, but GREAT the first time around
20 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
WOW!! -- That is what I, and no doubt many others, said upon seeing this episode for the first time. Insanely good twist ending.

My advice -- definitely watch this one, you will be impressed... the FIRST time you see it.

Unfortunately, once you know the twist ending, you WILL want to watch it again, to see if you can spot the major plot point ahead of time.

Well, I can tell you, you will not. Watching both main characters intently, there is no way the twist could be possible. I can list over 20 examples to back this theory up, and that is a big shame.

Back in 1955 when this aired, I am sure that there was no thought given to people ever seeing it again, as there were no VCRs back then, so they figured they were safe with this one-off. Modern technology has allowed us to see the story again, and its flaws are all too apparent.

The tragic part is that these problematic instances could have been eliminated entirely if they just took more care in blocking/direction. Sadly, that is not the case.

Bottom Line: watch it once, in awe... then skip it.
19 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Leave It to Beaver (1957–1963)
9/10
Great show, but it leaves many unanswered questions
9 September 2007
LITB is one of my favorite shows of all time, yet it is rife with quandaries and questions: Does Beaver have one independent bone in his body? What a follower – and ALWAYS with bad results. Why is Judy Hensler 6 feet tall? Why is Whitey such a shrimp? Why is Larry Mondello's mom 58 years old, and why does she look even older? Will Wally ever grow into them 2 big teeth in front? Has Gilbert ever been diagnosed as sociopathic? June sure has some sturdy, square jaws for a woman – hhmm… It's sad that Eddie's parents obviously despise him – and this coming from someone who despises his character! Maybe Ward works for the CIA or FBI, and moonlights as a nude supermodel on the side. What kind of a name is Whitey? What kind of an ugly name is Tooey? I always see it spelled that way, but I think maybe it could be the last name Touhy. I dunno. Why doesn't SOMEONE just sucker-punch and bitch-slap Eddie into next week? Gus the fireman is so hideous he should wear a bag over his head – Uh oh, THERE'S a fire hazard… I'm a woman, and even I have a big crush on Miss Canfield – and Miss Landers ain't far behind. Why do we never see, yet always hear about, Angela Valentine? Why do I find Fred Rutherford (amongst many other things about the show) totally hilarious? RAT RAT RAT!!!! Why do I still smile every time I hear: "He's just giving you the business"/"on account of…"/"Beaver, ya goof!"/"creep," etc. Aunt Martha should be shot. Did Ward or June have ANY 'hanging out' clothes? (Didn't think so.) What's up with Wally's nose scratching (although I think it's adorable)? Mrs, Rayburn looks like she could be a prize fighter. Wally's dreamgirl Jenny Townshend has a horse face. DON'T call him Lumpy! Is it me, or are the layouts for both of the Cleaver's homes kinda confusing? Why does Eddie call Wally by other names, including Gertrude? Why does June prance around in heels and pearls when nobody's gonna see her except for the kids and Ward? Whatever happened to June's parents, that she was raised by clueless Aunt Martha? In his later years, did Larry become a hardened coffee smoker, or what? Why did Gwen Rutherford take a real shine to the pet rat? (Oh, wait…!) Where in the living hell is Larry's father? Just what does Larry's sister look like? THESE THINGS ARE KEEPING ME AWAKE AT NIGHT! Man, I could go on forever, but I think you get my drift -- however, I just may be back with more.
6 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Double Indemnity (1973 TV Movie)
3/10
Completely Unwatchable!!!
21 February 2007
Utter dreck. I got to the 16 minute/27 second point, and gave up. I'd have given it a negative number review if that were possible (although 'pissible' is a more fitting word...). Unlike the sizzle you could see and practically feel between MacMurray and Stanwyck in the original, the chemistry between dumb ol' Dicky Crenna and whats-her-face here is just non-existent. The anklet becomes an unattractive chunky bracelet? There's no ciggy-lighting-by-fingertip? And I thought I'd be SICK when they have a mortified-looking (and rightly so, believe you me) Lee J. Cobb as Keyes practically burping/upchucking his way through the explanation of his "Little Man" to Mr. Garloupis. No offence to the non-sighted, but it looks as though a posse of blind men ran amuck with the set design of both the Dietrichson and Neff houses. The same goes for those horrid plaid pants that Phyllis wears. And crikey, how much $$ does Neff make, that he lives overlooking a huge marina? This, folks, again, all takes place in the first 16 and a half minutes. If you can get through more of it, you have a much stronger constitution than me, or you are a masochist. But please, take some Alka-Seltzer first, or you WILL develop a "little man" of your own that may never go away. Proceed with caution, obviously.
14 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Phantasmagorically terrifying! A truly disturbing experience.
11 October 2006
I saw this on PBS when it first aired. I was 25. I was prompted to watch it due to the tile, as I figured it must be a remake of The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari (another scary film). Lo and behold, it pretty much was.

13 years later, I have NEVER forgotten how scary this movie was. Every so often in passing have I seen in my mind the special effects that fill this film.

Halllucinatory, phantasmagoric images encompassed every single corner of the screen during much of the film. That chant scared the wits out of me as well - yet the totally silent scenes were that much worse. Kudos to everyone involved in the movie -- it has a long-lasting effect on the viewer, which cannot be said for too many movies.

I think that the images were provocative and came off the way schizophrenics may see the world -- non-stop slants, twists and unsure footings. For these, the camera angels were put to excellent use. Mikhail, Joan and Peter were all great. I could go on and on about this film, so I'll just keep it short, lest I get exhausted. I do hope that, if this ever plays again, that I will have heard about it because I'd love to get a copy of this. A truly disturbing experience. Highly recommended!
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Thirteen (2003)
3/10
Very terrible. A 10-car-pileup of a movie.
28 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Crikey, but this was a terrible film. How in the world did Holly Hunter get herself mixed up in this mess? Her acting was very good, thank God, as it's pretty much THE only thing that redeems this 10-car-pileup of a movie.

"Written in 6 days by a 13 year old girl." It shows, honey, it shows! Unintentional laughter abounds.

There is only one character in the film that I liked even slightly, and that was the mom's boyfriend. He started out as a potential "baddie," but he was the only one who actually had any character development. We saw that he could indeed be level-headed -- heck, he was "the voice of reason" in this barrage of hedonistic, narcissistic, infantile, clueless bunch, so you can just imagine how pathetic the rest of them were. I really like the way he walked up to Hunter toward the end of the film with the collapsible cat - signifying the downward spiraling level of chaos within Holly's household.

Extremely silly and unbelievable is the 2 girls becoming such good friends so fast. Hilariously inept! "I totally just stole this wallet..." WTF??!! Moron, she gave you a fake phone number! Then 29 minutes later both of you are satisfied w/becoming (more than) friends? Come on!

I could perhaps see maybe 16 year olds doing what the girls did, but 13? That is highly doubtful. Like other posters, I was really hoping both girls would commit suicide, but alas...

And it was only supposed to be a 4-month relationship with the girls? Puh-leeeeeeese!

And that last bit w/Tracey on the spinny thing screaming. Oh, how art-house we are! And the pretentious "shock" of Brooke cutting her ears off? Van Gogh is turning over in his grave. Vomit-inducing from beginning to end. I beg thee, give it a miss.
12 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed