Reviews

Ten years after this show's brief run, here I am watching it for the first time. I enjoy(ed) many WB shows, but missed this one, and seeing it now certainly makes me nostalgic for the good old days before The WB became the vastly inferior CW of today. The WB shows had more heart. And they weren't quite as incessant with their product placement, and thus weren't as focused on the lives of the rich and vapid.

Black Sash is refreshing by comparison, since it deals with Troubled Teens from a less privileged economic bracket. I know nothing about martial arts and can't tell you how realistic the portrayal may be. But it was nice to see such a diverse cast, and 3 generations interacting instead of focusing solely on teens. (Whoa. An actual *elderly* person on TV! I'm talking about Master Li, of course.) I also appreciated the attempt to actually send young viewers positive messages. That's right, Black Sash is kinda heartwarming, with it's main character trying to reconnect with his 12 year old daughter (Ha! Good luck finding a *pre*-teen on a CW show! If they can't be shown having sex yet, The CW ain't interested in 'em, basically), and being a father figure of sorts to his students as well. Not just a martial arts instructor, Tom Chang is a mentor who goes above and beyond, taking in an abused teen, and helping them all out of various predicaments.

Of course that's partly 'cause we have to showcase the star, Russell Wong (and his students, to some degree) kicking butt at least once per episode. So they all regularly get into dangerous situations, which may seem like overkill within a mere 6 episodes, but hey, I can deal with this contrivance. At least the fight scenes depict some struggle and feeling of realism in that the kids don't defeat the Bad Guys *too* easily. Fans of the Canadian band, Spirit Of The West, keep your eyes peeled for lead singer, John Mann, as one of these thugs. Poor guy kinda looks the part and gets typecast. He was also a shady underworld figure on Stargate SG-1.

I wonder about the comments I've read, disparaging Black Sash for being more of the same typical teen angst/high school drama. Is it so common for teens to be framed for murder, or to have to deal with gangsters and thugs coming after them because of their shady parent's criminal dealings? I *hope* it's not a "typical teen experience" to be stalked by a potential rapist? (Nice job showing the girls fighting back and protecting each other, btw... nowadays they'd probably just fall in love with their stalker.) Well, despite these dramatic sounding plot lines, Black Sash is pretty down-to-earth and feel-good entertainment. I know many people today balk at anything "too preachy" and prefer soulless anti-heroes and serial killers, but I'm hoping folks get sick of that trend soon. Maybe return to shows with likable protagonists - decent people trying to make a difference? It's so rare today, it would actually be a "daring" and "edgy" choice, TV writers! :P Btw, those of you comparing Black Sash to truly preachy, nauseatingly narrow-minded and just plain badly written junk like 7th Heaven, need to broaden your TV horizons and gain some perspective. There's a difference between a teacher providing guidance but helping teens gain self-esteem and encouraging them to do what's right for them... vs. being a religious nut who won't tolerate other ways of doing things and looks down on/pressures kids to conform to your belief system. Also... good kind of message: if a guy stalks you, be creeped out, not charmed. Learn to defend yourself if attacked by would-be-rapists. Bad kind of message: Never have sex before marriage! No abortions allowed! Even if you're raped! I know which show I'd rather watch. Hint: the one that doesn't hate women.

Of course the show had it's flaws, like pacing issues and trying to juggle all those characters. Bryan never really got a backstory. Nick vanished, rather implausibly. Trip had nothing to do in the last few eps, becoming irrelevant after his story with his Dad wrapped up...which happened too quickly, really. A lot of the character development (and romances) happened too quickly. Is Allie shy or not? Inconsistent characterization, or a fast-tracked character growth arc? I guess the showrunners knew they had only a 6 episode order, so they crammed a lot in. I read that there were a couple other unaired pilots that were reworked due to last-minute character changes, and you can kinda see some remnants from those "earlier drafts", if you squint.

At least the last episode ends with a feeling of hope, despite some unresolved story lines. I was half-expecting a horrible cliffhanger with everyone's life in jeopardy. So many writers continue to believe cliffhangers will get their shows renewed, but then they get cancelled anyway and leave fans in traumatized limbo forever. Yet another thing that makes Black Sash feel like a breath of fresh air now, to jaded TV viewers like me. I can live with the ending. Still it's a pity this series was cancelled so early. Six measly episodes, but the writers and actors managed to make me care, and I enjoyed these 6 eps more than a bunch of shows I could name which have inexplicably lasted for years. Too bad the suits at The WB didn't really give Black Sash a chance, nurture it, and have a little more patience - despite Mr. Chang's lesson on that very subject in the finale. :P

Even a weaker B-movie like "Calm Yourself" is more entertaining to me than your average blockbuster of today. However, the humour is rather frantic and forced, as other reviewers have mentioned - plus that unfortunate blackface gag must bring the rating down.

Madge Evans deserved to be a bigger star, and deserved better scripts than this one. I enjoy Robert Young in anything, but he plays a slightly less likable character here than usual. Preston (Young) comes across as rather callous in switching from one fiancée to another, even taking into account that this is standard behavior in screwball comedies. However, I did enjoy the fact that he made romantic doodles about both women...you know, the kind we usually see adolescent girls scribbling in movies, writing their names in combination with the names of their crush-object.

My main beef is that Preston shows no qualms or regret about sabotaging the potential relationship between a father (Ralph Morgan) and daughter (Madge Evans), who don't know each other. Although initially working at the father's request (he's trying to keep his daughter away until he can muster the courage to tell his young second wife about the existence of a grown daughter - and thus, his real age), Preston goes a bit too far in deceiving both of them and badmouthing each one to the other...apparently for purely mercenary reasons. But of course it all works out in the end, and I'm definitely taking this silly movie too seriously! I should, ahem, calm myself.

Of course, the original My Man Godfrey from 1936, starring William Powell and Carole Lombard, is an absolute masterpiece, and never should've been remade. But I do like June Allyson and David Niven, so I had to see this 1957 version.

It completely lacks both the laugh-out-loud hilarity of the original, as well as the more serious social commentary resulting from being set during the Great Depression and dealing with "The Forgotten Man". Godfrey's backstory has been altered to one of hiding in fear of deportation, having arrived in America illegally, for rather contrived and convoluted reasons. I don't really understand why someone of his wealth and position couldn't just go through the proper channels. As far as I can tell, the character's not making some sort of statement, there's no real point to the story, and the whole thing seems devoid of drama.

What's left, but to focus on the love story here, although that doesn't necessarily make it more convincing than the Powell/Lombard version. Still, the lack of a larger message does leave the remake more time to devote to the relationship between Godfrey and Irene, and some viewers might prefer that. (His somewhat paternalistic fondness of this prattling child - who is somehow also maternal and domestic! - feels very 1950s to me.) Whereas 1936 Godfrey was sort of swept away by whirling dervish Irene, against his will, 1957 Godfrey seems to be making a more conscious choice to be with her. He also seems more amused by her family, less stunned by their behavior... but then, they come across as only mildly eccentric in this version, despite a fair amount of re-used dialogue. Must be because the pacing is more sedate, and most of the actors are calm and subdued.

It's interesting that the first film is stronger in both the comedy and the drama... Perhaps you can't experience such highs, without addressing the lows? Basically, the remake is more bland, and more of a conventional romance. Lacking in substance, but it's pleasant and enjoyable enough, if you can forget the madcap brilliance of the original. David Niven and June Allyson are charming, as always. They deserved better than the thankless assignment of appearing in a destined-to-be-forgotten, watered-down remake of a classic film they must've known could never be surpassed.

Is Cliff a sympathetic figure or a monster? A wronged man, looking for redemption and something to believe in? An idiotic weakling who lets himself be led astray? A calculating criminal mastermind plotting the murder of innocent people who have only been kind to him? These questions might intrigue you, but don't be fooled. These questions come up because of bad writing, that's all. It's no wonder the protagonist is written inconsistently (not even taking into account the scene where it turns out he's dreaming) with new scenes being shot around footage cut from another movie - as other reviews have explained - "Destiny" has an interesting history - more interesting than the story the movie actually tells, about a cynical ex-con, constantly being duped and drawn into crimes. The dumb schmuck even drives a known robber to a bank, and waits for him to finish what he foolishly believes is an innocent transaction - this after the guy already got him into trouble with the law and sent to jail. Naturally he's just using Cliff again, as a getaway. Hard to have sympathy for someone so stupid. The opening police chase reminds me of an Ed Wood movie. It certainly looks low-budget. Most of the actors are Ed Wood-calibre as well. Alan Curtis seems to be attempting a Chester Morris impression, which only makes me want to re-watch some of Chester's great gangster movies.

I suspect the writer or director of "Destiny" was influenced by Disney's "Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs". I'm thinking of the best sequence in "Destiny", wherein Cliff (after killing her father with a hunting rifle) chases Jane, and her apparent power of nature causes the trees to aid her by entangling him and delaying his pursuit. This is reminiscent of Snow White running in panic through the forest after the Huntsman tries to kill her, and she imagines that the trees come alive to attack and thwart her escape. The villain (Cliff) even falls into deadly water during a raging storm, similar to the demise of the Wicked Queen from "Snow White". Jane is quite like Snow White, both being incredibly innocent and good. Birds even land on Jane's shoulder. And she sings operatic arias while she works!

I'd like to respond to a few things in Tom Barrister's IMDb review. Although I agree with him that Gloria Jean gives a fine performance (making the best of a super-saccharine role as a cheerful blind girl who communes with nature and prays a lot) and the tacked on footage brings down the quality of the film, I question his conclusion that Deanna Durbin is responsible. According to his review, "Years later, it was stated that an unnamed major Universal stockholder wanted Gloria's sequence cut from Flesh and Fantasy" - and I ask, it was stated by *whom*? He also claims Deanna "was jealous of anybody else who cut into her fame." This seems like a baseless generalization. What are his sources? How on earth can he possibly know this about Deanna? Especially considering how reclusive she's been since retiring, rarely giving interviews. I respect her desire for privacy, so refreshing in this age of obsession with celebrity. I don't see how anyone can come to decisive conclusions about her character or state of mind, when Deanna's such a mysterious figure. However, I'd conclude that she cares little about fame, since she willingly left it behind.

I admit, as a fan of Deanna's talent and on-screen charm, I don't want to believe her capable of viciously sabotaging anyone's career. But I also have a hard time believing she could, even if she wanted to. One thing that *is* well-documented about Deanna Durbin, is her frustration with Universal typecasting and giving her poor-quality (in her opinion) scripts. That's why she retired so early, while still a major box-office attraction. The one interview she's done since then, discusses her desire for script approval, which she couldn't get, despite making tons of money for Universal. But this was a common complaint in those days when the studios pretty much owned the stars under contract. Bette Davis, Olivia de Havilland, Tyrone Power, etc, bemoaned the movies they were forced to do. Even Oscar noms/wins were no guarantee an actor would receive better material next time. So I find it improbable, this accusation that Deanna Durbin had the power to dictate the quality of Gloria Jean's scripts, when she was powerless over her own, and quit for that very reason. This alleged jealousy of anyone she might perceive as a threat to her fame, seems unlikely coming from someone who chose to give up the spotlight while still in her prime, and who gives no indication that she wants to change her current obscure status. From what I can tell, Deanna values integrity, privacy and her family, over the pursuit of fame.

Why was Gloria Jean's segment cut from "Flesh & Fantasy"? My personal theory is that preview audiences or studio execs found it too bleak & frightening as it originally was. What with the attempted sexual assault and murderous chase of a sweet innocent blind girl, the murder of her father, and a total lack of redemption for the criminal. I can see how it might be an awkward segue into the happier segment that was to follow. Although Edward G. Robinson's segment in "F&F" also deals with murder, the tone is more black comedy, and it's just not as upsetting as watching poor Gloria's character terrorized in "Destiny". In the classic era, many movies with downbeat endings were re-shot due to audience reaction. It seems plausible that altering it in order to soften Cliff's character, make the worst of his actions only a dream, and contrive a happy ending, required a full-length film. It's too bad they didn't spend more time or money on the new footage, but Universal could be cheap. Deliberate sabotage or incompetence/carelessness on the studio's part? Guess we'll never know for sure.

Although I've come to appreciate Amanda Bynes' talent and general likability in the movies She's The Man and Hairspray, I dismissed The Amanda Show as way too broadly acted and juvenile in it's humour, much like Lizzie McGuire, That's So Raven, and all those other tween-girl shows which I've channel surfed quickly away from.

Recently I came across positive comments about one recurring segment called Moody's Point, which sounded interesting - intended as a spoof of teen soaps like Dawson's Creek. That actually has the potential to be funny (although I don't dislike the Creek). So I thought I'd give The Amanda Show another chance. Luckily all of Moody's Point can be found on youtube.

Unfortunately, I was disappointed. Like many so-called spoofs, Moody's Point fails to address (and mock) the actual conventions of the genre or specific show/whatever it's supposed to be mocking. Instead of being a clever satire, the writers rely on easy gross-out gags and slapstick. They don't even bother to recreate famous moments from Dawson's Creek and put their own (hopefully humorous) spin on them. With the exception of the opening credit sequence. It seems clear to me that the writers/producers aren't very familiar with Dawson's Creek, and probably never watched an episode all the way through. I guess they never got past those opening credits.

The "characters" on Moody's Point are ciphers, not clearly defined or recognizable archetypes. Meanwhile, the storyline... emergency surgeries/heart transplants, babies switched at birth/mysterious parentage ... all of these things are staples of daytime soaps for housewives. Not primetime teen dramas. With all the silly hospital hijinks and medical mix-ups on Moody's Point, I figure The Amanda Showrunners were inspired more by that Muppet Show sketch "Veterinarian's Hospital" (no doubt a staple of their childhood), moreso than Dawson's Creek or any other teen soaps.

In any case, The Muppet Show was much funnier, Moody's Point was a waste of a good idea, and I still don't like The Amanda Show. Oh, she deserves her own show, but with better writers.... and better supporting actors. The rest of the Moody's Point cast was horrible. Amanda's the only one who realized that she should play her character earnestly and seriously, in order to best capture that teen angst mood. The other actors were so over-the-top with their exaggerated screaming and crying, they belonged in a spoof of I Love Lucy instead. (I realize that Amanda's a fan of Lucille Ball, but, whatever, I hate Lucy.) At least Amanda seems to understand that you don't need to bleat and bray and generally make an ass of yourself in order to be funny. The best comedians are equally good at drama/tragedy and can convey pathos. Bill Murray, for instance, or Charlie Chaplin. And (while I'm not saying she's the next Chaplin!) I thought I saw a bit of that in Amanda's performance, especially the scenes involving meeting her birth parents/saying goodbye to her old life. Glad Amanda Bynes said goodbye to this show, and hope she keeps moving on to bigger and better things.

Well, I couldn't even finish this movie, which is very unusual for me since I normally *have* to know how a story ends. I only got as far as the funeral and following hospital scene where Liam Neeson's character is an unidentified patient. Some will say that means I'm not qualified to review the film. But I'm not claiming to be a professional critic - I'm just a viewer who's entitled to stop watching a movie in disgust, and give my reasons why, because it feels good to vent.

Basically this movie's too sadistically violent and misogynistic for my liking. The filmmakers seem to have a great love of brutality, and great contempt for women. Sometimes the two go hand in...fist... as in the opening scene when a gangster cracks a joke about breaking a woman's leg. Speaking of that opening, with two gangs battling for dominance - does it have anything to do with the plot? Is it truly necessary in order to establish the gang leader's ruthless character? I think not. The next time the gang appears in the film, the same point is made, while moving the story along.

The attack on Liam, in his lab, also seemed unnecessarily vicious. The thugs got what they came for, so why did they linger to cause extreme pain? It's not like the document had been stolen from them, and they were motivated by revenge or something. So, why? Sure some people are just sadists who love to torture others, but it still seemed gratuitous on the writer/director's part. (And how did the gang even know who had the document when Liam didn't know, himself? No explanation. Let's just get to the extreme violence; never mind if the script makes sense.)

Even worse, to me, was the message Sam Raimi seemed to be sending about women. I don't know if it got better later (doubt it - there probably aren't any other significant female characters in the film), but the first two women we encounter are demonized. Although one is more sympathetic, on the surface, as a "love interest" who can be "redeemed" since she hasn't become totally "unwomanly" yet.

Liam's girlfriend's carelessness is indirectly to blame for his being viciously attacked in his lab. The implication being that she should've thought more of him/her romantic relationship instead of focusing on her career...emphasized by the fact that she resisted her lover's attempts to delay her from going to work (and a man's need for nookie should always come first, right?) *and* dared to ask for time to think of his marriage proposal instead of jumping at the chance. Uppity bitches! Thinking they can have careers and valuing their independence! Well, we'll show her. She'll regret that decision when she thinks her boyfriend is dead! Having her show up to witness the apparent death, felt like a cruel "punishment".

The second, more obviously "Evil" Woman, is the doctor in charge of Liam's case, after his burned, unrecognizable body is brought to a hospital. We see her taking interns on a tour and treating Liam's character callously, like a speciman she's exhibiting, smugly bragging about her treatment of him, and insensitively talking about him like he can't hear her. Including making a tasteless joke about his condition. This extremely unprofessional and cartoonishly nasty portrayal of a doctor, was really the last straw for me. The writers chose to make her a female physician, and then chose to ram home the Heartless Career Woman cliché for the second time in this movie.

This hateful characterization might be an unconscious bias against professional women. Still, it sickened me. Sexism and misogyny are sadly widespread in movies, but when it's *that* blatant, I can't concentrate on anything else the story might be trying to tell me, or derive enjoyment from other aspects of the movie. I don't want to stay in that world another minute. Might as well just live in our real world and not watch movies at all.

(And this Raimi guy was hired to adapt the relatively light-hearted and kid-friendly Spider-Man comics for the big screen? Wow. Hollywood is weird.)

So this haunted house gives people colds and swipes money from their pockets like a mischievous prankster? Oooh, spooky! I liked Amityville 3 better. At least I felt sorry for some of those characters. And Lori Loughlin was great. Why was the first Amityville a bigger hit? Because of the lie that it was based on a true story. Without that thought to creep you out, this is a pretty incompetent horror movie. I'm not one who craves blood and gore, and I appreciate more subtle, slow-building movies like The Haunting (directed by Robert Wise). But The Amityville Horror is not in that league at all. The characterization is non-existent, and the pacing... my god, the pacing. It's not a good sign when even the edited-for-TV version of this movie feels *way* too long. Was the extra time devoted to making us care about the characters? Nope. I kinda hoped they'd die, particularly the whiny kids. Especially the little girl who seemed more creepy to me than any ghostly presence that may have been haunting the house.

The evidence: She calmly leaves her babysitter locked in a closet and is totally immune to her hysterical screams. Oh sure, her ghost pal wouldn't *let* her open the door. But I didn't see her trying to change ghostie's mind, or feeling remorseful afterwards (or even reacting normally with fear/disgust when babysitter comes flying at her with bloody fists). Also, Little Miss Innocent seems smugly satisfied at the thought of her dad being in danger. And *then* the little brat sends him back into the house for the freakin' dog. I'm supposed to believe this demon-child who hasn't cared about anybody else, cares about the dog? Not only that, when they're all escaping at the end, she's got a choke-hold on Margot Kidder's neck, slowing her down, while her brothers slip and slide down the bloody stairs by themselves. So why does the little girl need to be carried, huh? Evil! Oh, almost forgot: right after bugging his sister by dangling a fake spider through a window, who should happen to get his hand smooshed in that window? Coincidence? Ha!

Ahem. Anyway, I couldn't root for the parents either. James Brolin's possessed...by the Spirit Of Wooden Acting (An affinity for wood may explain the constant fireplace-gazing and axe-chopping). Margot Kidder takes forever to actually try to *do* something. Like, the obvious things a horror movie character should know to do right away: talk to a priest and do some research about the real-life murder that took place in your house. Duh! She waits 'til the last minute.

The best thing I can say about this movie is that the tagline is very appropriate, because you too will find yourself screaming at the stupid characters to just Get Out Of The House already. Much is left unexplained, and I'm pretty sure it's a result of bad filmmaking, as opposed to scenes cut for time in the TV version. Or, y'know, trying to build mystery/create suspense.

Why does James Brolin's co-worker's wife/girlfriend suddenly switch from "I can't go in the house...bad feeling! I'll just shiver in the car, okay?" to "Ooh, let *me* lead the Scooby Gang down to the basement, which my psychic sense tells me is the source of all evil. Whee, this is exciting!" Why does the dog keep digging away, with bloody paws, to uncover the Tunnel To Hell, and then as soon as it's uncovered...what? He whimpers and hides? Why'd you wanna get in then, boy? Huh, boy? Come to think of it, I'm not a dog-owner, but I hear they can be indecisive about going outside for a walk/to do their business...pawing at the door and then changing their minds after it's opened. So I guess the dog behaves most realistically of all, and I'm glad he survived.

Why does the younger priest not try to help Margot Kidder when she's looking for the older priest who's a friend of hers? I mean, the guy *knows* Rod Steiger wanted to warn Margot's family about the house, and was supernaturally foiled in his attempts to reach them. So, even if he doesn't want to disclose Rod's location, why not pass the message on, since she's so conveniently shown up? Not that she shouldn't be able to figure out that they should move out of the house, without being told by a priest, but still. Why does the cop want to talk to the priest, and then just give up? Why does the cop station himself outside the house and then just disappear? Why the pointless scenes that go nowhere? Why such incompetent filmmaking?!

The movie fails to scare, but I fear these questions will haunt me and keep me up at night. Not really.

Well, I've finally seen Curly Sue, the notorious flop widely considered The Worst John Hughes movie. I was curious, but kind of dreading it. I'm not really a fan of Cute Moppet movies and find most child actors irritating.

The good news is, I found Alisan Porter to be a much more natural child actress than, for instance, Shirley Temple or the girl who played Annie. Alisan was cute without being obnoxiously cutesy. Most of the time she comes across as a Real Kid instead of one who's been coached too much and never had a normal childhood (which often results in creepy and/or annoying mannerisms - most child actors just can't "act natural".) Except for her singing, which has that somewhat cheesy Broadway style and sounds overly trained. (The way her singing was shoe-horned into the script, was pretty contrived.) Still, it's a pity her career didn't take off after this performance... although she might be better off *not* having become a big star, when you consider the messed-up lives most child stars lead.

As for the movie as a whole... I can understand why it flopped. Sentimental family films are not very popular anymore. I know it's been said by others, but Curly Sue really is an old-fashioned movie that feels like it should be set during the Great Depression (like Annie and all those Shirley Temple movies were). The fact that it's set in modern times makes it harder for today's audience to accept. Many movies from the 1930s were a mixture of the gritty side of life with down-on-their-luck characters (Homeless drifters! Plucky orphans!) in poverty-type situations, and fairytale wish-fulfillment. Audiences needed that at the time when so many were down-on-their-luck themselves. (Having a rich and poor person fall in love despite class differences, was another common element in films of the Depression, however unlikely this may seem now.) When Curly Sue was released, this sort of escapist fantasy didn't seem relevant to most viewers, I guess.

I enjoy many movies from the 1930s/40s and I love Frank Capra... as did John Hughes, I hear. Capra's idealism is not considered "cool" today either, unfortunately. I don't mean to say that Curly Sue is in the same league as Capra's classics. Jim Belushi is no Jimmy Stewart. (Or Bill Murray, although he may be trying to do an impression of him since I kept picturing Bill in the role - interesting to read on IMDb that Murray was offered the part first!) Belushi's character doesn't ultimately accomplish great things, or even attempt to fight the system like most Frank Capra heroes. His lifestyle as a con artist could be seen as rebellion against society, but the writing lacks depth. We don't understand why he'd choose to avoid gainful employment, and even resort to injuring himself in order to con a free meal out of someone. Not when he displays skills, such as piano-playing. It's not very plausible, especially since the movie does *not* take place during the Great Depression when unemployment was not a choice, but an inescapable fact.

In it's depiction of women, this movie also reminds me of many post-WWII movies Hollywood made in an attempt to send women back to the home so they wouldn't "take jobs away from" the men who had returned after the war. Kelly Lynch's character is a hard-hearted career-woman who instantly melts upon meeting this child, and ends up giving up her job in favour of motherhood and marriage. She is not so much depicted as conflicted over the moral problems inherent in being a lawyer, specifically, as she is portrayed as unfulfilled and "unnatural" until she becomes more "womanly". There is even a subplot where this lawyer counsels a client who is half-heartedly seeking a divorce, and switches gears from advising her to bleed her cheating husband dry, to supporting the woman's inexplicable desire to stay with the man who doesn't love her and in fact, wants to get rid of her. This reminded me of movies from the 1940s, such as The Women, with their less-than-empowered messages. At least the Hays Code can excuse those films, but in this day and age...not so much.

I can't argue with people who dislike Curly Sue for being unrealistic, or sentimental/sappy/corny. Personally I prefer uplifting movies with happy endings and I think more films should be made that the whole family can watch together. However, I don't love Curly Sue - maybe because I've seen it's familiar elements done in many other movies, and done better. Much of the criticism I've seen, I agree with. The pacing *is* slow. The plot *is* predictable. The slapstick is too silly and feels out of place. But it's not as bad as I'd expected, based on it's reputation. The acting is decent. Nice music. You get to see Viveka Davis, the charming actress from Student Exchange! (Wish her part was larger.) There are far worse films...many of which have a higher rating on IMDb. Still, I can't rate it higher than a 4, knocking off some points for the flaws mentioned above, and because it's merely average compared to others of it's type... including other John Hughes films, which I've found more heartwarming and humorous than Curly Sue. (But it's not The Worst John Hughes Movie either - it's better than Weird Science!) Don't let my rating discourage you, if you're also curious, as a John Hughes fan, or looking for feel-good family films.

Apparently a B movie ...B must stand for Better acting and a Better message than we get in big budget "A" pictures today. Modern-day movies aimed at young women, surely aren't designed to encourage depth of character over shallow self-serving behavior... or increase the self-esteem of young girls who don't conform to "feminine" standards. (After all, criticizing the fake and flashy, like this movie does, ain't gonna help sell more products that depend on girls *not* being satisfied with their natural attributes or inner beauty.)

Laraine Day is lovable as a mechanically inclined tomboy who "bounds" into rooms and confesses to an inability to flirt. She bonds with Robert Cummings due to similar interests, a shared sense of humour, and her honesty, loyalty and good friendship, which he gradually comes to value over the superficial "charms" of her selfish glamour-girl sister (who only brings out his own selfish, reckless playboy tendencies).

Although Laraine is outwardly beautiful as well, it's refreshing to see inner beauty valued more, and the depiction of true friendship leading to the most fulfilling romantic relationship. I wish young girls (and guys) were getting this kind of down-to-earth message today.

Maybe if Hollywood returns to making "B" movies again, with modest budgets, and tries to be content with modest profits... what am I saying? Sacrificing the blockbuster mentality to create something sincere on a smaller-scale, would be like expecting a guy to give up the shallow sexpot for a sweet girl who really cares about him. That's crazy talk.

Please, somebody invent a time machine already! I belong in 1940.

I'd rate this movie higher, but the ending is a bit too abrupt, and perhaps lacked sufficient indication of Robert Cummings' change of heart. (I like the fact that B movies are short & snappy, not bloated & self-indulgent, but this one might've needed more than 70 minutes.) Also found it somewhat unrealistic that a widow and young children would be so unaffected by a sudden death in their family...or be so forgiving of the one who caused it. I mean, I guess it's *nice*, but a little more grieving or bitterness would've been only natural. Maybe a deliberate choice to make this family act lighthearted about their loss, to lessen the impact of the tragedy and make sure *we* forgive those involved in the death - since it's just a plot device anyway, not the real point of the film. Still strange though.

The opening credits of this movie really had me fooled. So many names that led me to expect delightful entertainment. OK, Wayne Morris is obnoxious with his immature, boisterous, steamroll-over-everyone-with-no-regard-for-their-feelings, routine. But this movie's also got: Priscilla Lane, who's always charming. Penny Singleton, very funny but sadly underused apart from the Blondie series. Hugh Herbert, that giggly goofball. Oh yeah, Humphrey Bogart's in it too. Plus, the script is based on a story by Faith Baldwin, and I've enjoyed other movies based on her work.

So I was all set to enjoy this one, until I realized early on that it was gonna be one of those movies where the Ambitious Career Gal is taught to stop fighting her True Womanly Nature, which of course means she lets an aggressive doofus wear her down 'til she agrees to marry him, then sublimates and channels her ambitions through him, to help him get off his lazy butt and make something of himself. 'Cause women should stand by (and behind) their man and use their intelligence and talents to help *him* succeed. Be content in your supportive role and never seek glory or take credit. Also, be a mother to your infantile husband. Sounds fun, right? Nice moments of truth where she expresses her boredom with suburbia, the cozy/stifling home, and simple-minded neighbours inane converstions she must put up with. She's wasted there. Her brains and vitality require big-city opportunities and more stimulating company. After he squanders an opportunity she's arranged for him, she leaves him, supposedly to make him take *his* career more seriously and win her back. What then? He'll have more drive, and make her "proud", but she'll still be bored hanging around the house waiting for him to return from work. (And can't even help him openly because his ego must be preserved!) Wouldn't envy and frustration set in? Living vicariously through somebody else is never a good idea. I did like that she wasn't portrayed as a Greedy Wench, pursuing wealth. They were comfortable. Which was part of the problem because she didn't want to be comfortable or complacent. She was bursting with ideas, ambitious to DO something, to create, invent, give life purpose and meaning. And then - inexplicable, implausible "love".

Probably the most disturbing thing about Men Are Such Fools, is the way Wayne Morris "woos" Priscilla Lane. Basically he's abusive but we're supposed to find his persistence cute. Pursuing the poor woman no matter how often she says no (girls never really mean "no", they just wanna be chased!) and acting like a petulant child whenever she pays attention to something other than him. But my favorite example of his touching devotion? Maybe the part where he risks her life driving like a maniac and ignores her pleas to slow down. She'll have to agree to marry him first! Tee-hee! Followed by the scare-tactic of stopping the car on the train tracks, just as a train's coming. But don't worry, he knows the train will stop before it hits them. (He didn't know another would come along from the opposite direction and almost kill them for really-real, but it's still funny right?) If the silly stubborn female would just know what's good for her and do as he says, he wouldn't have to go to these lengths! He finally wears her down in this hilarious, heartwarming scene: They're at a pool party and he dunks her *repeatedly* underwater until she agrees to marry him. Any possible humour you might find in this situation is undermined by the fact that he's yanking her roughly by the HAIR and barely giving her time to breathe between dunks. While the other partygoers stand around laughing. Nobody seems to think this might be a tad dangerous or, um, PSYCHOTIC. It's truly disturbing to witness. Trust me, the level of brutality in this scene goes WAY beyond "playful" pool hijinks.

After literally making it impossible for her to breathe, he takes her breath away some more, by forcing a kiss. Naturally, she's starry-eyed and ready to set a wedding date! So we get a nice juxtaposition of sex & violence with that wonderful message that women are slaves to their hormones AND enjoy being roughed up - This is the best way to make a woman obey, er, I mean, show a woman you love her. Yes, women stay with abusive men and believe their possessiveness/controlling behaviour/violence = love. Gotta blame movies like this one, for helping to brainwash both men and women into thinking these kinds of relationships are, not only normal, but *ideal*. I just love being confronted with disturbing, depressing issues in romantic comedies!

It's bizarre how this couple alternates between excessive "comic" violence/forced almost manic "joy", and other moments where they glare at each other with what seems to be intense hatred/resentment. I wonder if the author or actors were trying to sneak in subversive hints that this is indeed a scary, unhealthy relationship...under the surface veneer of obeying the Hays Code and enforcing gender role "norms" and the illusion of romantic comedy. I'd like to think so! I only recommend this movie to fans of the cast/crew, or students of film history. My goal is to watch every single (existing) movie from the silent era to 1959. Everyone needs an ambition in life, right?

Having only basic knowledge of a few of these characters (Thor and The Hulk), I watched this movie on a whim. I enjoyed it more than I expected, although I was a bit confused at first, trying to figure out "who's that and what's their motivation/ability?" - but I understand there wasn't enough time to go into every character's history. Plus the target audience is probably familiar with it all and impatient to get on with the action. Still, Black Widow, Giant Man and The Wasp especially needed more screen time and fleshing out.

Much of the time and development is devoted to Captain America and I just fell in love with this character! First the movie grabbed me with an audio excerpt from Command Performance radio show and an awesome WWII opening sequence - I'm a big fan of this era and immediately perked up. I was impressed by the battle scenes, which reminded me of many live-action war films from the 1940s. It felt authentic... well, until we find out that the Nazis were in cahoots with...aliens! :)

Anyway, Captain America's character is very sympathetic and I really felt for him - the storyline of an old-fashioned hero, a decent guy from the past, who has to adjust to modern times, just resonated with me. I'm sure part of that is because I can relate a bit, due to my own feeling of not belonging in this time period - but part of it is the truly good writing and voice acting. Not only does Cap have to deal with culture shock, but the fact that many of his friends are dead, and other loved ones have aged and moved on with their lives without him. This is really only touched on in a few minutes, but manages to be very moving nonetheless.

The majority of the film deals with Captain America becoming the reluctant leader of the Avengers, a group of superheroes who aren't used to working as a team, and whose personalities, of course clash. They must combine their powers to deal with a major threat to the world ... those pesky aliens again!

This basic idea reminds me of the Justice League animated series' pilot - but I enjoyed the execution of Ultimate Avengers much more! I bought the JL DVD containing those first few episodes packaged as a mini-movie, and I remember finding it...boring. Dull characterization and just not emotionally engaging. It did not make me interested in watching the rest of the series. But if Ultimate Avengers was the pilot for a TV series...

Another sympathetic character here is Bruce Banner, who is desperate to find a way to control The Hulk and harness his violent strength for good. I liked the fact that he turned out to be the *real* threat at the movie's climax, rather than those paper-thin aliens. I sometimes get annoyed by tragic backstories and inner demons and so on - sometimes you just want a black and white, clear-cut good vs. evil story (like I said, I belong in the "good" old days with the Nazis! Well, not *with* them exactly, but youknowwhatImean) - but Ultimate Avengers' treatment of The Hulk was a great exception. Just enough angst to give him depth. I didn't find him too whiny like some people apparently did.

I'm not sure I like this treatment of Thor though. Seemed like the writers just weren't respecting him enough - what with the other characters thinking he was delusional and not a real God... and calling him a chick, and all. And doesn't he have anything better to do than hang around wharfs threatening fishermen?!

Although the female characters were underused and underdeveloped, it was nice to see Black Widow and Betty Ross make significant moves to help end the final fight.

Last but not least: the animation. I don't know why some reviewers found it lacking. At no time did I think to myself "oh it's okay...for direct-to-video." Seems to me it would be more than good enough for a theatrical release. (I actually assumed it *was*, until I came online and read otherwise.) Cool character designs, some great background art, nice effects, and just the right blend of traditional hand-drawn animation and CGI. I hate the overuse of CGI these days, preferring subtle enhancements that aren't too distracting.

Mainly though, the story is the thing. And, despite the flaw of having too many characters to develop in such a short running time, I found Ultimate Avengers a lot of fun. Not perfect, but better than the average action/adventure/superhero movie. Better than most animated OR live-action films in general, from this disappointing decade.

After reading quite a bit about how Friday Night Lights has quality writing and acting, with several people saying it's the most realistic TV show since My So-Called Life, and reassuring non-sports fans like me that "it's not really about football...it's about life"...I caved in and watched the first few episodes.

Are you people nuts? Football *IS* their life. Not my life. There is nothing I can relate to, and nobody for me to care about.

If there was true depth and analysis going on here, I guess I could stomach watching a show about annoying football fanatics in Texas who constantly burst into public prayer. Maybe. But the storyline (that I've seen so far) is clichéd & predictable, the writing provides no insightful moments, the characterization is superficial, and the acting is unremarkable...from what I can tell, although it's not easy to judge the level of the actors' abilities when the camera refuses to stand still for a minute and let me SEE the performance.

I don't like pretentious documentary/indie-style camera work. Luckily I don't get sick from shaky-cam, but the same cannot be said for certain members of my family who get headaches/nausea trying to watch that sort of thing. Luckily they're not missing much by avoiding FNL. Is there a good reason for the jumpy camera-work and quick cuts/zooms? A reason that serves the story? I think not. They're just trying to be edgy or fit in with reality shows, I suppose.

Here's why Friday Night Lights is NOTHING like My So-Called Life, OK? (Despite the fact that Jason Katims has written for both and W.G. Snuffy Walden has written music for both)

1. MSCL has real cinematography. It's like a beautifully shot film. Gorgeous framing of characters in shots, innovative transitions from one scene to another, stunning dream sequences, etc. Many people have admitted taking ideas from MSCL, like the director of Jerry Maguire, and Joss Whedon. Most importantly the visual style and techniques used on MSCL actually have meaning and purpose in telling the story and helping you understand the characters.

2. MSCL is not afraid to use silence and stillness. MSCL allows the viewer to breathe and to think.

3. MSCL has excellent writing. The characters are not stereotypical or one-dimensional. They have layers, and their development is never contrived. The dialogue is memorable, and the observations are smart and TRUE.

4. MSCL has a spiritual element without being preachy or emphasizing a particular religion. MSCL encourages compassion and understanding among different types of people. On MSCL you'll find gay people and other minorities. Not portrayed as villains or comic relief or there to be politically correct either. Just real people.

I could go on. Let's just say I never had any of the following reactions while watching MSCL:

"She can't act. What a grating voice. And ridiculously cutesy dialogue. Barf."

"Cliched black guy. Wow, they're really portraying him as a selfish opportunistic jerk who's totally heartless about his paralyzed teammate and...Wait, did his mom actually diss "that white girl" her son was making out with? So she's a tramp but he isn't? Nice way to deal with racism (I didn't know blacks persecuted whites in Texas) AND offend feminists at the same time."

"Are there gonna be ANY female characters on this show whose function doesn't revolve around providing support/sex/baked goods to the men? Really not a show for feminists. The Coach's daughter doesn't count since they're telegraphing it pretty plainly that she's gonna end up with the replacement QB and so her anti-football player stance is just a "cute" obstacle...bleh."

"How did I know the star would get injured and the backup QB would save the day?"

"Why is the camera taking a stalker's viewpoint in this scene between the Coach and his wife?! Lurking, peering around corners...it's not supposed to be an ominous scene. Do they want us to feel like uncomfortable voyeurs? Guess so, 'cause now there's a totally unnecessary extreme closeup of them kissing! Back up, back up! I reeeally don't need to be that close!"

"I'm bored."

Peter Lawford sheds his usual light leading man persona to play a creepy stalker obsessed with a movie star (Esther Williams) engaged to someone else. When she rejects his advances, he kidnaps her and flys her to a remote island. Lawford's performance is chilling. He combines disturbing single-minded intensity with a sort of blank expression (some may mistake this for wooden acting), which perfectly conveys the emotionless lack of conscience typical of a true psychopath. I'm surprised Peter didn't receive an Oscar nod!

Esther Williams also shows surprising depth in her role as a self-absorbed movie star who (in a truly twisted plot twist) becomes attracted to her abductor! An interesting commentary on the deep-seated insecurities and desperate need for attention which motivates many actors and celebrities. Soon Williams is pathetically dependent on her obsessed stalker. You'll have to watch to find out what happens when Lawford becomes distant and spurns *her* advances! Oh, it's a sick relationship. Sick, I tell you!

But what I don't understand is... why is this movie categorized as a romantic comedy/musical? Hmmm. Very strange. How sad that some people can't distinguish between love and unhealthy obsession. Why, I do believe the filmmakers might've been making an ironic statement about that very thing! That's why "On An Island With You" contains so many songs and dances, appearing on the surface to be fluffy feel-good escapist entertainment. Only viewers of superior intellect will detect the unadulterated EVIL hidden behind the happy, wholesome veneer!

"Citizen Kane", "Sunset Boulevard" and the like - your reign at the top of the film critics' lists must come to an end. Make way for "On An Island With You"!

P.S. Believe it or not, I *am* a fan of musicals, and like Peter Lawford well enough. But this movie...well, it's not on my list of desert island picks, let's put it that way. Great dancing by Cyd Charisse though.