edshifres Reviews

Time After Time (2017)

Stay focused on time travel, not unneeded humor or turn into a soap opera

[5/10 · 7 March 2017]

ABC's Time After Time is a TV series based on the wonderful 1979 feature film by the same name. I watched the two hour pilot and it was mediocre at best. I think the largest hurdle for this series will be keeping the episodic story lines challenging, interesting, clever and fresh. The pilot and the overall series episodes has H.G. Wells chasing Jack the Ripper through time. There was one stop in time far in present day America in the two hour pilot thus far.

I am trying to find a really good new time travel series and such a search is elusive. That is why I keep watching reruns of the 1966 ABC-TV series Time Tunnel. It was acted and written seriously, focusing on science, cost, theory of time travel, and not at all like today's time travel series (i.e. NBC's Timeless and this series) unnecessary humor and intricate personal lives of the regular cast. I will continue to watch Time After Time unless the writers take the easy way out by writing a soap opera of personal lives and subplots using time travel as a front, losing its focus on being played seriously and not having clever writing on the intricacies, science and fascination of time travel. If I want unending humor I can watch a sitcom; if I want to learn about the personal lives of the characters I can watch soap operas. I want intriguing, clever and believable episodic story lines focusing on scientific explanations about its main topic… time travel. Time After Time needs to avoid the excess humor and soap opera nonsense or it will lose its audience; its ratings will quickly fail; and cancellation will be toute de suite.

Timeless (2016–2018)

Timeless ...it had the potential as another exciting TV series into the realm of Time Travel

[5/10 · 4 October 2016]

Timeless is a fabulous concept reduced to absurdity. The stereotypical unnecessary humor; uninteresting and unnecessary personal lives of the lead characters; quick one-liners rattled off so fast in dialogue that the viewer can't even understand what they are saying; implementation of the Rittenhouse conspiracy which is nothing more than a convoluted Bilderberg method of trying to add subplots because it is easier for the writers as opposed to explaining theory of time travel and the intricacies of it. Quite frankly, this series had great potential but the writing is deplorable as are the actors. I am starting to laugh at the constant facial expression of the Rufus character. His absurd expressions as if he is always in pain is deplorable. Timeless is a soap opera using time travel as a front. If you want to watch a terrific time travel series, watch ABC's 1966 series Time Tunnel. Despite its lack of technical accuracy, it was played and written totally seriously with understandable dialogue, focus on how and why the Time Tunnel was created, interesting explanations of time travel, good story line, no unnecessary personal details about the lead characters lives; great music, and focus only on the story line of the time, place, and events. Time Tunnel was quite intriguing to say the least. It represented the fabulous writers of the 1960's TV vs today's writers and their pseudo- adage, "if you can't convince em' confuse em'." - Ed Shifres

-------------------------------------------------------- Original review:

Like any Time Travel TV or film concepts, it is a very difficult subject to pull off successfully because the toughest challenge is being believable. Timeless is interesting and effective in the genre primarily because the concept of the heroes [ a historian, scientist, and soldier) vs the villain ( effectively and seriously played by Goran Visnjic) trying to change history via a chase through time is exciting. We all know the settings and historical events (i.e. Hindenburg, Lincoln Assassination, etc.) so there is no lack of historical fascination. Just the usual problem for time travel writers as they never can explain the physics as to how the time machine works or how they can send the machines to a specific time and place and return safely to the present time. Writers rely more on special effects and a youthful audience, many of who have limited patience for explanations anyway. What I found laughable was how quick the heroes just accepted and ended up in the past without the shock and awe anyone would sensibly and naturally have if actually able to visit a place in the past encompassed by a historical event. Of course a one hour drama doesn't have the "time" to focus on said emotions. In addition, the proverbial yet unnecessary humor in today's supposed serious dramas is now stereotypical.

While I do like Timeless and will continue to watch the series, I'd like the writers to focus on writing these dramas without the unnecessary character cockiness, jokes, and rattled off one-liners acting so calm and unconcerned as if they were about to spend the day at the beach. Goran Visnjic's portrayal of villain Garcia Flynn is effective because he plays his role seriously, as he seems to do in all his roles. The actors who play the historian, scientist, and soldier should play their roles the same serious and focused way. Afterall, we are talking about possibly changing history.

Take a look at the ABC-TV Time Tunnel series of the 1960s. While it was not a masterpiece in accuracy, at least it was written and acted in totally serious fashion with more detailed explanation and explained in the opening pilot-episode how the time tunnel was built, the cost, and at least a valid attempt to explain how time travel concept works…or may work. One never knew anything about the personal lives of the lead characters. The writing was focused only on the subject matter of the specific episode, as it should be. If writers want to focus on the jokes, innuendos, and humor, they should write sitcoms; if writers want to focus on the intricate personal lives of the characters, they should write soap operas. Put more emphasis on time travel explanation as believable and less on unnecessary foolish dialogue.

Ed Shifres

Lost in Space (1965–1968)

The Most Fascinating series in TV History

[10/10 · 27 February 2015]

The Lost in Space (1965) TV series is my very favorite TV series of all time and always will be my favorite.

When I first saw the CBS-TV promo spots in the Summer of 1965, I was immediately consumed by this concept of a Swiss Family Robinson in space. The concept was intriguing: Family (which represents warmth, love and survival) in the environment of Space (cold, vast, mysterious).

All through my life, I have never been fascinated by any series or film more than the first five episodes and first season of glorious black & white. While the second and third seasons were in color, the story lines took a more campy route for better ratings competition with ABC's Batman - a higher rated series. Lost in Space's first season was nothing short of fabulous. In my opinion, the original concept was magnificent and unmatched by any science fiction concept...ever. From the fantastic and charismatic cast, to the beautifully haunting Bernard Herrmann incidental music within the episodes, to some wonderful guest stars such as Michael Rennie, this series has given me some of the greatest joy of my life...and always will. I had the privilege to have met June Lockhart, Bill Mumy, Marta Kristen, and Bob May...all were so gracious and appreciative of their fans. I so much loved this series and its history, I regarded the Robinsons as "my second family" and I had a need to write a book about it, so I authored Space Family Robinson: The True Story (Windsor House, 1996) and the success led to a republish as Lost in Space: The True Story (Windsor House, 1998).

Ed Shifres

Casino Royale (2006)

Good action film...but where are you, John Barry?

[7/10 · 18 November 2006]

For those devoted Bond fans who year after year hope to see a resurgence of the unmatched Connery-styled OO7 films with John Barry's fabulous soundtrack scores, it isn't going to happen. Today's filmmakers are catering to today's generation, who are interested only in action and special effects, not clever dialog-hidden innuendos, charismatic ambiance, or memorable John Barry incidental music throughout the films.

Now the good news. Casino Royale (2006) is a terrific action film. More of an action than adventure film. Much credit has to be given to Daniel Craig's OO7, as he successfully and comfortably fits the role. Craig is a good actor who should repeat the OO7 role in many more Bond films. While he is not what I regard as handsome (albeit 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder') and a blond OO7 is not what most people would have in mind, his distinguished acting ability, hard-edged persona and well-built physique more than qualifies him as the new OO7 for today's audience.

The storyline isn't a maze of interlocking clever twists, the characters are not that memorable, and the opening score "You Know My Name" by Chris Cornell is one of the worst, as it does nothing for the emotions. If you don't get goose bumps from the beauty of the opening score, the score fails.

Despite the pitfalls, overall, Casino Royale works effectively for today's OO7 market. Unfortunately, the charismatic early 1960s OO7 films such as Goldfinger and Thunderball are no longer being made, but their "shelf life" will exist in perpetuity, unlike today's OO7 films.

Ed Shifres

Night Stalker (2005–2006)

Night Stalker More Of An X -Files

[15 October 2005]

Once again TV tries to cash in on previous successes because TV has seem to run out of original ideas. This version of the Night Stalker more closely resembles X Files than the original Night Stalker films and series with the wonderful Darren McGavin as Carl Kolchak.

While the story lines are reasonably realistic and interesting, the primary problem with this series are the lead actors. The ever-present cocky, arrogant personalities in today's TV series ruins a series, and this series is no different. Stuart Townsend is about as interesting as watching the proverbial paint dry, and he seems confused about what to do with his role. His co-star Gabrielle Union is worse and completely unbelievable as she seems to be posing for the camera with a constant smile as if to say, "Oh, good. Another scene I am on camera and I just love it." Eric Jungmann isn't much better as a sidekick and his and Townsend's disgusting George Clooney/Nero-like hairstyles are ridiculous and old already.

I will continue to watch the show because of the interesting X-FILES story lines, style and concept, but Townsend and Union are no Mulder and Scully, and the overall acting is poor. Cotter Smith does little in his role as Tony Vincenzo, which was fabulously played in the original series by Simon Oakland.

While this Night Stalker is trying to capture something in between the original series and X-Files, it fails on most levels, including lack of memorable opening and closing theme music, which seems to be non-existent in all TV series today.

Ed Shifres

The Time Tunnel (2006 TV Movie)

A poorly done pilot with a great concept but nauseating characters

[4 September 2004]

The Time Tunnel concept is fabulous, and I would love to see a new series, but the 2002 un-aired pilot is the typical today's sci-fi, which focuses more on the proverbial arrogant, cocky characters and the "beating-around-the bush" storyline, with an overindulgence of bad humor. Too many of today's yuppie scriptwriters have no care nor understanding of quality writing and engaging characters. The Time Tunnel (2002) unaired pilot, unlike the original 1960s Irwin Allen series, has unlikeable, cold characters and horrendous acting. It does have an interesting storyline but is far less suspenseful than the original Time Tunnel series because this new version doesn't have Doug and Tony lost in time, but can return them to the tunnel at any time.

The un-aired pilot's best attribute is a nicely done war scene with incidental background music that challenges the emotions, and snow flurries that enhances the scenic setting landscape of war.

Overall, there is no comparison between the poorly produced Time Tunnel (2002) and the fabulous Time Tunnel TV series of 1966.

-- Ed Shifres

Die Another Day (2002)

Masterful Techno-logy

[23 November 2002]

Die Another Day is a techno-thriller at its best. A super-paced adventure that finally fits Brosnan comfortable as 007. DAD's primary strengths are its unmatched action and technology, but as all current day 007 films lack, and in my opinion its most vital element, is memorable and fabulous incidental music played throughout a Bond film (i.e. capsule in space music in the teaser opening to You Only Live Twice, or the music throughout Goldfinger and Thunderball using atmospheric musical elements from the main title music themes, or the wonderful skiing scene music from On Her Majesty's Secret Service).

DAD has an okay storyline but lacks the clever dialogue that permeated Connery 007 films, and lacks the Connery story-twist elements dialogue.

Welcome to today's 007 generation which caters mostly to those who only want action, gadgets, and special effects. DAD's locales are excellent as they are very diversified - North Korea to Cuba to Iceland...can't get much more diversified that that! The Bond girls do well. The lead villain (Toby Stephens) plays his role to the hilt.

Elements of past 007 films are evident as in Halle Berry's emerging from the ocean, unsuccessfully trying to replicate Ursula Andress from Dr. No; and there is one very brief use of music from Thunderball as a glacier is falling; and a very good plane sequence reminiscent of Goldfinger.

Madonna's opening song is good. But it is even better as played during the closing credits.

Overall, Brosnan is super as 007 and John Cleese is well-cast as the new Q. I think that DAD has rejevenated the Bond series and is thus far Brosnan's best outing.

No one did it better than Connery and no one ever will, nor will there ever be better 007 films than Connery's 60s 007 films, but DAD is terrific as a techno 007 film.

-- Ed Shifres

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

It is my very favorite film of all time and I feel that it is the greatest sci-fi film in the history of Hollywood.

[10/10 · 25 February 2000]

There has never been a motion picture that has captivated my interest more than The Day The Earth Stood Still. I first saw the film on tv when I was about six years old. I am now forty-three and it still remains my favorite film and what I regard as the best sci-fi film in the history of Hollywood. Firstly, the opening eerie theme musical score by the legendary Bernard Herrmann is unparalelled. The use of the Theremin created the eerie ambience of the otherworldly. That captivating score immediately set the stage for a realistic, believable, and tantalizing film. Michael Rennie's portrayal as "Klaatu" was totally convincing, coupled by his charismatic voice...one of the most memorable in Hollywood. The serious storyline, characterizations, and incredibly realistic special effects even as far back as 1951 - one of the first feature sci-fi films - still fascinates me today, far more than today's so-called sophisticated special effects which look more like the computer-matted sfx images that they are. In a nutshell, between the opening score, Rennie as Klaatu, Herrmann's incidental music throughout the film, the special effects, and undoubtedly Klaatu's mesmerizing closing monologue - which I have personally memorized verbatim and recite during acting monologue auditions - a monologue which still holds merit even today - gives The Day The Earth Stood Still a top-notch quality unmatched by any other sci-fi film. It stands all by itself. An absolute masterpiece with excellent direction by Robert Wise. I established this film as my favorite when I was a young boy, as I feel now, and as I shall as long as I live.