dcorr123 Reviews

Walking with Dinosaurs 3D (2013)

Looking forward to the DVD so I can watch it without sound

[6/10 · 20 December 2013]

I found this movie visually stunning. It's the best dinosaur CGI yet...better than Jurassic Park or the Walking with Dinosaurs documentary series. Although it uses the "Walking with..." name, and apparently was produced as another film in that series, it is really much more akin to Disney's 2000 film Dinosaur. That also had talking dinosaurs as well as the same "young dinosaur coming of age and becoming leader of the herd theme". The dialog and voice acting in Dinosaur were much better than this one though. I found both of these in Walking with Dinosaurs quite annoying. I liked John Leguizamo as Sid in the Ice Age movies, but quickly grew tired of him in this movie. I should note that, as of this writing, I've only seen this in the 2D version. I plan to see it also in the 3D, which should be even better visually. Maybe I'll take some headphones so I don't have to listen to that dialog again ;)

WALL·E (2008)

WALL-E is an environmental criminal

[8/10 · 10 May 2012]

The first half of WALL-E is wonderful in all respects. It has visually beautiful animation. WALL-E, and his pet cockroach are engaging characters. Then we arrive at the Axiom. It's all downhill from here. WALL-E ends up helping the human inhabitants of the Axiom return to re-colonize the Earth, although the 'evil' ship's computer tries to stop the return. These super obese human slugs are the mindless descendants of those who wrecked Earth's environment and then abandoned it. They now live in 'blissful' ignorance, entirely dependent on the ship that has been their home for centuries now. These are the last beings that have any business being allowed to settle on a still fragile and barely recovering Earth. WALL-E, however, makes it possible and effectively facilitates the final destruction of Earth's environment. The human slugs of the Axiom should have remained to live out their pointless existences, as wards of the ship's computer, until their own final extinction.

War of the Worlds (2005 Video)

Much better than I expected...closest I've seen to novel.

[7/10 · 1 April 2012]

With the low rating this has on IMDb, I expected this to be pretty bad. Actually, while it was obviously not a big budget production, I think it was pretty good. Not as good overall as either the Tom Cruise or Gene Barry versions, but it is closer to the novel than either of those. The alien craft look like 6 legged crabs, borrowed from some 50s giant bug movie. Spielberg got the closet to Wells' description, even though his came out of the ground. The lead character, H.G. is given a wife and son he is trying to get home to which makes him more sympathetic than his portrayal in the novel. The pastor and the soldiers H.G. has dealings with are also close to those in the novel.

The Outer Limits: Specimen: Unknown (1964) Season 1, Episode 22

Plot is a ripoff of Day of the Triffids

[4/10 · 6 October 2011]

This episode is essentially a simplified version of Day of the Triffids. In this one, the Triffids are brought to Earth by returning astronauts. In the 1962 movie, they arrived on a meteor shower which also blinded most of humanity. In the original 1951 novel, their origin is unknown but speculated to have been part of a Soviet experiment. That's 1951 thinking! Like the triffids, these flowers spray poison and kill animals, including humans. Also like the triffids they are spreading all over the world, seemingly unstoppable. That comes to an end with a rain storm. Apparently, like the Wicked Witch of the West, water destroys them. In the 1962 movie, it turned out to be salt water that was their doom.

Helmer & søn (2006)

Way to go grandpa

[9/10 · 17 February 2007]

Since not even a plot outline has yet been included, almost anything I say could be taken as a spoiler. First, it is not a drama; it is a comedy. Helmer is in a nursing home and won't come out of a closet. The nursing home calls in, first his son, then his daughter (with her teenage daughter in tow) to try to talk him out. It is well written and is well acted by all characters. The credits, as of this writing, lists Ditte Hanson as *the wife*. I am not familiar with Ms. Hanson, or any of the other performers for that matter, but there is no *wife* in this movie. I assume she is one of two characters, but I won't say more because that could give away too much.

Dreamchild (1985)

Eventually emerges as a good movie

[7/10 · 12 January 2007]

The central story is excellent. Coral Browne, Amelia Shankley and, of course, Ian Holm are all excellent. Too much time is spent is spent on Alice's assistant, Lucy and reporter Jack Dolan. In my opinion, they're uninteresting and irrelevant. Although many people apparently like the Jim Henson creations for this movie, I find them inferior copies of the Tenniel illustrations and even more poorly "operated". There has been much discussion about the question of Dodgson's feelings for Alice. One thing has been left out of these discussions or perhaps reviewers are not aware of. Even if Dodgson's feelings were sexual, that would not have been regarded as especially inappropriate in Victorian England. The Victorians might have had what we would consider repressed attitudes towards sex, but that did not extend to age differences. The age of legal consent was 12 and men often married girls much younger than themselves. The only real impropriety from the Victorian viewpoint was that Dodgson wasn't considered the social equal of the Liddell family.

Princess Mononoke (1997)

not a review, just a few of my favorite images

[10/10 · 10 January 2007]

The *cinematography*: wind blown prairies and lakes, morning sunlight filtering through the forest, sudden, brief mountain showers: Hiroshigi as an animator! Too bad they didn't work in a snow scene too; the Emishi lived in the north of Japan which gets plenty of snow.

Iridescent dragon flies.

San pre-chewing food for Ashitaka: moving and erotic.

The Great Forest Spirit/Deer God as the Night Walker: Liquid Godzilla.

Vegetation springing up in footsteps of the Great Forest Spirit and butterflies feeding in the tracks afterward.

The Great Forest Spirit's pool and the islets within: a graveyard littered with bones.

Dead Kodamas falling from the trees like autumn leaves.

One objection: The apes. They appear in three separate animation styles, the first two being well below the standards of the rest of the movie. Only in their last scene are they even convincingly apes, although even then they are not the right kind of ape. Japanese macaques are instantly recognizable with their bright pink faces and bushy gray-blond hair.

Apocalypto (2006)

A visually stunning picture of the Mayan world

[9/10 · 15 December 2006]

I divide this movie into three segments. The first presents a vivid picture of ordinary pre-conquest Maya. Although it's relatively short, it packs quite lot of, surprisingly accurate, *information* on their culture in that time; much more accurately than 13th century Scotland is presented in Braveheart! The society and the individuals presented are believable and engaging.

The second segment we are now exposed to a much less engaging aspect of Mayan culture. It provides, never-the-less, in my opinion, some of the most stunning visuals in the history of motion pictures. In doing so, it also continues the presentation of a lot of cultural *information*. The scale of sacrifice looks more Aztec than Mayan though and I would expect the use of cenotes (limestone sink-holes) for disposing of bodies).

The third segment replaces that fascinating, surreal and horrifying world with a heart pounding, non-stop chase, recalling Cornell Wilde's *The Naked Run*. While I also like that movie, and the pursuit is almost the whole movie, I tend to agree with those, that the chase (in Apocalypto) could have been shorter and was, at times, a bit unbelievable. Nothing individually that couldn't happen, but…

Of course, like so many movies, what we are presented with is a skewed view of a culture. In reality, most days of, probably most whole years of, an average Maya's life would have been like that presented in the first half hour. Movies that concentrate on the day-to-day doings of a society, e.g. farming, don't generally play too well, although I would recommend *Hadaka no shima* to anyone.

Regarding the arrival of the Spanish, some reviewers are stating that is erroneous history, that the Mayan civilization came to and end centuries before. That is incorrect. Only the Southern Lowland centers of the so-called *Classic* era collapsed. Highland Maya and Northern Lowland centers continued to flourish in the *Post-Classic* era until and after the arrival of the Spanish. The Spanish, under Francisco Hernandez de Cordoba, first contacted the Maya in Yucatan in 1517. Their description of a Maya city that they dubbed El Gran Cairo, led to Cortez's expedition of 1519 that eventually conquered the Aztecs, although his first landing was in Tabasco where he fought an indecisive battle with the Chontal Maya. The last Maya kingdom to be conquered, the Itza in northern Guatemala, fell in 1697, 180 years later!

Regarding the little girl's rash: I'm of the impression that is supposed to be smallpox, which would be appropriate with both her predictions and the movie's ending, however it actually looks a lot more like leprosy. The pustules formed by smallpox are smaller, rounder and much more abundant.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Not only better than the 1953 film, also better than the book

[10/10 · 26 July 2006]

In the book the story is being told, in retrospect, by a survivor, a writer of works of a philosophical nature, presumably Wells himself. In spite of the hardships and moments of what must have been extreme terror, he seems remarkably unemotional. The result is that you don't get any real sense of the horror of the situation, nor do you, at least I don't, particularly care about the protagonist's fate. The 1953 movie improved upon that, giving us the plight of Gene Barry and Ann Robinson to care about. But with the 2005 film, the focus is on a single family, in particular, Ray Ferrier and his estranged children and their experiences. Yes, Ray is lacking as a father and doesn't have his children's respect. Note that throughout the early part of their ordeal, Rachel looks to her brother for comfort and protection, not her father. However, great disasters can bring out the best as well as the worst in some people. In this film we see Ray grow as a father and with that his children's love and respect for him also grows. This gives you characters for whom you can really care and makes for a much better story. Ray's attempt to sing a *lullaby* for Rachel is at once humorous and touching.

The alien machines are much more menacing than those in the 1953 movie. They largely fit the description in the book, but in this film's depictions, they are truly terrifying. Not only their general appearance, but especially, their movements and *behavior*. Wells himself states how *natural* their movements were and that those writing from second hand experience could never fully appreciate that aspect. Also, the various *tentacles* that they are equipped with are also from the book. The scene where Ray and his children look back out over the river, from which they have just escaped, seeing the tripods *fishing* the river, while still other tripods stalk the shores, zapping everyone in sight, ranks as one of the most chilling moments in any science fiction movie.

Yes, I agree that the 1953 version of War of the Worlds is one of the best science fiction films of that decade. There is no way, however, that it is superior (IMDb 7.2) to the 2005 version (IMDb 6.7). Even more inexplicably, although it has as 6.7 rating overall, for some reason, IMDb seems to have a preference for listing mostly bad reviews up front. The first 50 reviews listed have an average rating of 3.5, with 20 of these having a rating of only 1 out of 10! For those who may wonder if there is something *wrong* with them because they like this movie, take heart. Three percent of the IMDb voters give Casablanca a score of 1 out of 10! There are times when the critics need critiquing.

First of all we have the usual crowd of Tom Cruise and/or Steven Spielberg *bashers*. Nothing much is going to please these people. Worse yet, there are even, apparently, Dakota Fanning *bashers* as well, may they burn in Hell.

There are, of course, *plot-holes* and scientific inaccuracies. I haven't see a science fiction movie or read a science fiction novel that didn't have a fair number of these and there are very few that I haven't seen or read.

Some objectionable objections: 1. The wrong side of the bread sticking to the window. Wrong, we are not seeing into the room from outside. We are seeing Ray's reflection in the window, looking out. You can tell that by the visual *echoes*.

2. Ray's *silly* choice of Boston, as if it would be any safer? Until he met the camera crew at the plane crash, he thought there was only the one tripod. Moreover, as Robbie pointed out to Ray, the only reason he went for Boston is that he thought he could *dump* the kids on their mom.

3. Boston is relatively untouched. Possibly. In the book, the entire invasion was limited to southeastern England. They *breathed a sigh of relief* in Paris and elsewhere that the Martians were stopped in England.

4. Dakota Fanning's *constant* screaming. Review the 1953 film. Use a stop watch if you want. You'll find that Ann Robinson screams just as often, perhaps more so as a percentage of total dialog, and she's older than 10! If this were reality of course, you'd find Gene Barry and Tom Cruise screaming just as often.

5. Stephen Spielberg's *silly* snake like probe. No! That was H. G. Wells' *silly* idea. Apparently *silly* enough to be included in both versions of the movie.

6. For no particular reason the aliens suddenly turned into vampires? Read the book. That's what they were in the book. In fact, it turned out that the aliens had no digestive system at all and took blood in direct intravenous transfusions. The *red weed* by the way is also in the book, although there it is not a *crop* but apparently only a *hitch-hiker*, i.e. a *true* weed.

7. The aliens were not *smart enough* to realize that there could be potentially deadly germs. That, again, is another element from the book as well as the 1953 film. In the book Wells had an explanation for that. Autopsies of the aliens revealed the presence of only common Earthly bacteria. Apparently there either never was any bacteria on Mars or the Martians had eliminated them so far back in time that they were no longer aware of the existence of such life forms.

Firefly (2002–2003)

FOX didn't exactly go out of their way to promote this show

[9/10 · 4 February 2006]

Reading the posted comments, I notice one difference between them and myself. I never even heard of this series until it was too late. I'm not exactly a heavy TV viewer, but I do watch it often enough, including FOX because I like their sitcoms, that I would have thought I would have seen the show advertised. I'm rather certain if that had happened I would have watched it and been hooked from the very start. This is far and away, in my opinion, the best Sci-Fi series that has ever been produced on Television. For that matter, it's very close to the top of all genres. It contained some of the most intelligent writing I've ever seen on television an the most interesting cast of characters. I saw the movie Serenity and liked it a lot. I subsequently bought it on DVD as well as the Firefly TV series. The Television series was even better than the movie. I would really have liked to have seen how the characters would continue to develop. Ending the series so abruptly was like being pulled away from really good sex prematurely.

The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002)

ignore the bad votes, this is actually a good movie

[8/10 · 24 December 2005]

** Contains spoilers ** I don't know why so many reviewers are giving this movie such low ratings, including those cretins that give out the Razzie awards. Some of them obviously have no idea what movie they're reviewing. This movie actually has good performances, good dialogue and very good visuals. It's certainly an order of magnitude better than puerile junk like "The Spy Who Shagged Me" which seems to get lots of high ratings.

There are, contrary to what some say, quite a few fresh ideas, e.g.: the guy who created a whole basketball team, by cloning one old player, called the Air Jordans or: if you're getting a body alteration, you get scanned and then pose in front of what looks like a mirror, with various new bodies or: illegally imported freeze-dried chihuahuas. Also, if one payed attention, the gravity situation is "explained" up front: the "Welcome to Little America" sign also notes "Prepare for Full Gravity". This is at least better than the apparently universal one-G gravitation found on every planet or moon in "Star Trek" or "Star Wars".

Leonard Part 6 (1987)

I lived through Leonard Part 6 AND Kazaam back to back

[2/10 · 30 November 2003]

Although Kazaam is rated #17 and Leonard #18 in the 100 all-time worst movies (as of this writing) I have to say in fairness that Kazaam is an order of magnitude better than Leonard. It's really a fairly decent movie in spite of its IMDB rating. I actually give it an average 5 out of 10 rating. Shaq's acting, while far from Oscar caliber, is much better than many other athlete turned actors (and governors) early effort. At any rate it is far better than Cosby's performance in Leonard (or for that matter the rest of the cast in Leonard). Not only is the acting awful in Leonard, the writing is probably even worse. I give Leonard a 2 out of 10. I don't give it a 1 out of 10 because I reserve that for real trash (i.e. porn).

Soylent Green (1973)

Even with its faults, I'm addicted to this movie

[9/10 · 20 March 2003]

This movie has very good acting by virtually all the cast, a gripping story with a chilling ending, great music, and excellent visuals without significant special effects. It is interesting to note though that, like so much science fiction, its predictions for the future don't appear likely to come to pass as early as depicted. That's not to say we're out of the woods yet, but 2022 is now obviously too soon to be in this condition. It shares this failing with a fairly illustrious list of science fiction classics: "1984", "2001: A Space Odyssey (compare its space station with our International Space Station) and Isaac Asimov's "I Robot" (positronic brains were to have been invented in the 1990's).

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

The Growth of a Masterpiece Continues, *Spoilers*

[10/10 · 10 January 2003]

Many reviewers, professional as well as us amateurs, have commented that *The Two Towers* departs much more from the novel than did *The Fellowship of the Ring*. I have gone over both movies comparing them with the novel and don't find this to be the case. One difference between the movie and the book is organizational. In the book, all of the events involving Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, etc were told as a continuous story followed by the events involving Frodo, Sam and Gollum even though these events were taking part concurrently. The movie instead interwove these. This gives the appearance of being more of a departure than it was and actually I find the movie approach in this respect more satisfying. Presumably, this approach will continue into *The Return of the King*.

Another seeming departure is that the last 4 chapters of each of these halves of the story were excluded. That much of this will be presented in *The Return of the King* is fairly certain. Gollum, e.g. does say that She will be able to help him recover the ring, referring of course to Shelob. I assume that the chapters after the defeat of Sauron will greatly reduced. Except for the very important *Scouring of the Shire* most of these are rather anticlimactic.

Faramir's behavior is different than in the book. In the book he never attempted to take Frodo and the Ring back to Gondor. However in the movie he does, in the end, realize the *truth* and lets Frodo continue his mission. I find this probably more believable behavior than the more noble image depicted in the book.

To some extent the same can be said for the Ents. In the book, Treebeard was well aware of Saruman's crimes against the forest and I find it unlikely that he had to wait until the coming of a couple of Hobbits before he felt motivated to take action. On the other hand, I find it also unlikely that, as in the movie, he would have been unaware of Saruman's crimes. Either way, this part still leaves me a bit dissatisfied.

I did find the addition of Aragorn's plight, after falling over the cliff and being presumed lost, a bit contrived. I assume that's so they could add more of the Aragorn/Arwen romance to the story but maybe they could have found a better way. And talking of Arwen, the movie gives the impression that she has, after all, taken the ship over the sea. That could of course lead the way open for Aragorn, instead of Faramir, to marry Eowyn. That would be a significant departure. My bet is that Arwen will prove not to have sailed after all.

Further speaking of Elves, I was glad to see Elves, lead by Haldir, come to the aid of Rohan at Helm's Deep. The Elves after all ultimately had a large part in bringing all these troubles about to begin with even if that's not apparent in LOTR.

The highlight of this movie for me is Gollum. I've always regarded him as the most interesting character in LOTR anyway and was hoping they would do his part well. Not only was it done technically superbly well but they capture much of the combined revulsion and pathos of Gollum. I'm in the ranks of those who would like to see an Oscar for Andy Serkin.

Finally there is the battle of Helm's Deep. This was done as spectacularly as I anticipated (based to a large extent on the short battle scene presented as a prologue to *The Fellowship of the Ring*. Many have hailed this as the most spectacular battle scene you will ever see in a movie. Maybe to date, but this is but a skirmish compared to the Siege of Gondar/Battle of Pellanor Fields in *The Return of the King* ! Prepare to be blown away by that one.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Some thoughts on a great movie. *spoilers*

[10/10 · 10 January 2003]

I must first confess my own bias: I've been a longtime fan of LOTR, having read the work several times since the 60's as well as other Tolkien works.

When I first heard of the project to make the movie, about a year and half before its release, my initial thought was: New Zealand?, Egad! That's where the Hercules and Xena TV series were made. What was produced, instead, far exceeded my expectations. Thank you New Zealand and Peter Jackson.

I won't attempt rating LOTR against movies like The Godfather or Casablanca. That would be comparing apples and oranges; but within its genre LOTR stands alone. Concerning length: We live in an impatient world. If one finds three hours too long for a movie, how long will it take them to read the book. For myself, I was amazed that three hours went by so quickly.

Concerning cliches: Many negative reviewers complain of this. All cliches have a point of origin, at which time they are not cliches. If one didn't take that into consideration, much of the World's great literature would be regarded as collections of cliches, e.g. the works of Shakespeare. At the time Tolkien produced his works fantasy literature hardly qualified as a genre. Most of what existed was from ancient or medieval sources. The enormous subsequent growth of the genre, as well as Dungeons and Dragons games and such is a product of Tolkien's influence.

Concerning faithfulness to the original: I have seen few novels, or even short stories, faithfully adapted to the screen. Some, in fact, are hardly recognizable as the original story. This movie is a more faithful adaptation than most works. Indeed, I have seen few movies based on *actual* history done with much accuracy to historical fact, including *Best Movie* Oscar winners.

I see nothing wrong with substituting Arwen for Glorfindel in *Flight to the Ford*. Glorfindel had no subsequent relevance to the story and there's nothing wrong with introducing more romantic interest into the story.

I do wish *The Council of Elrond* was longer. At 32 pages, it is the longest chapter in LOTR and, in my opinion, has much of interest even if lacks action. Of course, since they already showed Saruman's treason as a separate scene, that part isn't necessary but there was a great deal more in that chapter. In fact, now that I write this, it occurs to me that some of the other events discussed in the Council could have been treated in a like manner thus illustrating the breadth of the threat.

I have mixed feelings about excluding Tom Bombadil. His nature and role in the story have long been the subject of speculation among Tolkein *scholars* and there have been reams written about that subject.

One part that does bother me a bit, is the gift giving in *The Farewell to Lorien* (which is in the extended DVD but not the theatrical release). In the movie Galadriel gives Sam a coil of Elven rope as his gift. In the book, coils of rope were part of the standard equipment. Sam was instead given a box of the soil of Lorien and a seed of a mallorn tree, appropriate for a gardener. This would become a great boon to Sam's work of restoring the damaged Shire in the last chapter of LOTR. My initial thought was that this indicated that last chapter would be cut from *The Return of the King*. It is anticlimactic for modern audiences. I did notice however that Sam's daughter Elanor is listed as a character in the final movie. Hopefully Galadriel will yet give Sam that gift.

Concerning casting: I initially had reservations about the casting of Frodo. In the book Frodo was 50 (although that's equivalent to early 30s for a human) and Hobbits are described as having faces that are *good natured rather than beautiful*, etc. Elijah Wood pulled it off very nicely anyway. While I concur with the praise for Ian McKellen's performance, I would like to say that I thought Ian Holms' performance as Bilbo was even better, even if it was a smaller role. I also much liked Sean Bean's performance as Boromir.

Chintao yôsai bakugeki meirei (1963)

fascinating and little known historic event

[8/10 · 19 April 2002]

I have given this a tentative 8 although actually it has been many years since I saw this movie (dubbed in English). To my recollection it was quite well done. Its interest though goes beyond production values and should be of interest to anyone with any interest in history related to either World Wars as it deals with an episode of World War I with interesting relevance to World War II. *** WARNING SPOILERS *** Most people are not aware that Japan fought in World War I, on the allied side. Germany, like other foreign powers, had a foot-hold in China, at Port Arthur on the Shantung peninsula. That's where Ching-Tao beer is brewed incidentally, a legacy of the German presence. Their colony was protected by Fort Bismark which was, in turn, protected by some very large guns built into seemingly impregnable bunkers. Japanese ships could not get into firing range for their own guns without being blown out of the water. They hit upon the idea of eliminating the German guns by bombarding the ammunition trains supplying the guns from the air, launched from ships modified as aircraft carriers. This of course fore-shadows Pearl Harbor. It should be noted also that as a result of Japan's participation in the war, they were awarded the League of Nations mandate over the former German Pacific Island possessions, i.e. the Mariana, Caroline and Marshall island groups. These would become major battle grounds for the U.S. marines during World War II.

Wild Wild West (1999)

Not great, but entertaining

[7/10 · 21 December 2001]

There seems to be an intense, even unreasoning, dislike for this movie among many people. A fair amount seems to be Will Smith bashing. Much seems to be by comparison to the original TV series. Why? The TV series wasn't all that great either, and yes, I watched it and enjoyed it regularly. It certainly was no less believable than this movie, especially those episodes featuring the late, great Michael Dunn as the original Dr. Lovelace. Lighten up folks, the TV series was at its best when it didn't take itself too seriously. This is just escapist entertainment. Will Smith and Kevin Klein turned in good performances. For me, Kenneth Brannagh really stole the show.

Men in Black (1997)

while we scurry about in short, pointless lives...

[10/10 · 21 December 2001]

A constant stream of wit from "God damn bugs" through "not much of a disguise". Just about every alien contact/conspiracy theory pop-culture urban legend comes under their sharp gun-sights. An excellent cast. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones proved to be as good a team as any since Robert Redford and Paul Newman or Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau. It would be nice to see them teamed again. Vincent D'Onofrio was great as the "bug".

The Bob Cummings Show (1955–1959)

One of the brightest sit-com's of the 50's

[8/10 · 27 August 2001]

I watched this show when it first aired and in many reruns over the following decade. Bob Cummings demonstrated impeccable comic timing while supported by an equally outstanding ensemble. Especially noteworthy for me were Dwayne Hickman, Ann B. Davis, Nancy Kulp and King Donovan. This show has often been criticized as "sexist" whereas it was, in fact, just the opposite. The primary theme of the show centered around Bob's constant womanizing which almost always ended in his getting his comeuppance. Bob often poked fun at himself in this series for example: making fun of health-foods through Nancy Kulp's character even though he was himself a health-food "addict" long before such became fashionable or portraying himself (i.e. Bob Cummings the actor) as an arrogant egotist. I strongly disagree with the "if you liked this" suggestions. This is hardly in the same category as Mr. Ed. Better choices would be Dobie Gillis or the Phil Silvers show.

Gladiator (2000)

Where was all that money spent-a big disappointment

[7/10 · 25 January 2001]

I didn't watch this movie expecting great acting or literate writing. In this I certainly wasn't disappointed. I also didn't expect to see any real history presented. Even otherwise great movies take more than a little liberty with historical fact but this one was so far off they might as well have used completely fictional characters. The real disappointment is with the much praised visuals. When Maximus and the other gladiators enter the coliseum it is announced that they are going to present a re-enactment of the siege of Carthage. In the REAL coliseum they presented such shows with casts of hundreds of gladiators complete with elaborate staging. Parts of the coliseum were even flooded to support ships for naval battles. You would think that with a huge budget and modern effects capabilities they could have done much better.

Ben and Me (1953)

Franklin was a phony, we owe it all to a mouse

[9/10 · 30 July 2000]

Amos is as poor as a church mouse, if fact he is a church mouse. He leaves home to seek his fortune is 18th century Philadelphia, finding employment with a news publisher, Benjamin Franklin. Amos rides about in the brim of Ben's tri-cornered hat; and you thought those hats were only for style. Amos, it turns out is the real source of many of Franklin's inventions. Possibly a spoiler if you ever get a chance to see this film: Eventually Franklin sends Amos on a kite ride, ostensibly to gain a new perspective on news gathering. When Amos learns the "shocking" truth he's led to drastic measures. Franklin is reading Amos' declaration as Thomas Jefferson is fretting over how to word his own Declaration...The rest is history. I wish Disney studios would someday release this little gem to tape.

Between Time and Timbuktu (1972 TV Movie)

Write a jingle and win a trip into space

[7/10 · 29 July 2000]

NASA decides to launch the first "ordinary" man into space, based on writing a winning jingle. Our astronaut gets more than he bargained for with a bizarre trip through space and time. For myself the most memorable parts include: 1) Bob and Ray's ongoing commentary and their attempts to remember Armstrong's "one great step..." line and 2) a future in which the government tries to make everybody equal by reducing them to the lowest common denominator of abilities. It's a real trip watching a ballet performed in which the dancers have to wear weights to make themselves clumsy.

Panic in Year Zero! (1962)

An honest look at a post-nuclear holocaust

[7/10 · 29 July 2000]

A family struggles to survive the anarchy in a world devastated by nuclear war. This is a believable story by the standards of the time it was produced; the possibility of a nuclear winter had not yet been considered. There are no bands of mutants roaming around eating the survivors, just ordinary criminal types. Yes, I'm afraid that circumstances like that do bring such people out of the woodworks. Ray Milland's character makes intelligent, and sometimes hard, decisions to ensure his family's survival.

Inherit the Wind (1960)

Two of the greatest actors of all time

[10/10 · 29 July 2000]

While this movie is outstanding across the board: writing, set designs, cinematography, supporting cast (even the uncredited actors are good) and Leslie Uggams rendition of "Give Me That Old Time Religion", I barely notice those things in this movie. This movie, for me, is a two man show. Spencer Tracy and Frederic March play off of each other to perfection. Tracy received a much deserved Oscar nomination for his performance but I think Frederic March was probably even better. Later versions, e.g. the recent made for TV one with Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott, pale in comparison with the power these two great actors bring to their roles. I rank their performances with those of Anne Bancroft and Patty Duke in "The Miracle Worker".

Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend (1985)

Better than it gets credit for, but then I'm prejudiced

[7/10 · 28 July 2000]

Let me confess at the start that: 1) I'm definitely fond of dinosaurs and paleontology in general. This interest LONG predates "Jurassic Park". If a paleontology major had been available in my college, in the early 60's, that would have been my choice. 2) I've also ALWAYS been a big fan of animation and related effects, such as the dinosaurs. This movie had by far the best dinosaur effects of any prior to "Jurassic Park", even better than in "The Valley of Gwangi". The baby brontosaurus (actually apatosaurus) was perhaps a little too cutsey with its blinking eyes but otherwise the film captured details of movement, including musculature and skin, very well. This was at its best when the mother dinosaur was chasing the bad guys in their vehicle. Needless to say I was very sympathetic with the efforts of the paleontologists to rescue the dinosaurs. I also enjoyed some of the people "antics" such as the natives spitting out the granola bars (hippy food) from the sides of their mouths while pretending to like it. An enjoyable movie if a little saccharine.