Change Your Image
wjspears
Reviews
Vertigo (1958)
A contrary view
SPOILERS
Vertigo is often rated as Hitchcock's masterpiece, I can't agree for reasons I will explain (that necessarily will contain spoilers).
I have a lot of respect for Alfred Hitchcock as a film director. (I would say that Hitchcock's masterpiece is Notorious, with many others coming in closer behind, such as Rear Window).
The problem I have with Vertigo is that, as a mystery it has too many implausible situations, For fans and critics who love Vertigo, they tend to shrug and claim that is a trivial criticism, and ignores the brilliance of the psychological nature of the story.
I seriously disagree with that view. Hitchcock did not have to make Vertigo a murder mystery. But having done so, I expect a serious director like himself to craft a believable and plausible mystery. (I won't go into detail on the numerous plot holes and implausibilities. Anyone interested need only go to the 2 star reviews on IMDB to read entries cataloguing these).
There are only 2 points I wish to make.
One, outstanding psychological mysteries exist that brilliantly and successfully address both deep psychological issues and mystery plots--Roman Polanski's Chinatown comes to mind immediately.
Two, if a director is going to introduce a mystery plot, he or she needs to complete it, one way or another. In Chinatown, the main villain and mastermind is seen getting away with his horrendous crime. In Vertigo, the main villainous mastermind Gavin Elster, is never shown afterward or his fate addressed.
For Hitchcock it clearly doesn't matter--the focus is on the aftermath and effect events have on Scottie. That is deeply dissatisfying--to me anyway. And negatively effects my opinion of the film-- particularly as Kim Novak's fate is so final and fatal.
This is not a "one-off" for Hitchcock either. A couple years earlier, in The Man Who Knows Too Much, nothing is ever mentioned or shown of the fate of the mastermind of the attempted assassination in that movie either.
It is hard not to come to the conclusion that Hitchcock is not interested in such mundane matters as wrapping up loose ends. Are we just to assume that justice is served in both cases?
In Hitchcock's masterpiece, Notorious, that movie ends with a poisoned Ingrid Bergman being put into a car by her lover and rescuer, Cary Grant. We, the viewer, don't know if she survives or dies. That, I would argue, is a perfectly satisfactory ending, even if it is a frustrating one for us, because Hitchcock is showing us that an effort being made.
Bluebeard's Eighth Wife (1938)
An enjoyable movie
Screwball comedy is my favorite Hollywood movie genre. Bluebeard's Eighth Wife can, I believe, be classified as a screwball comedy, which is probably why it is seen by so many reviewers here and movie critics as a "lesser Lubitsch film".
The famous "Lubitsch Touch", it seems to me, is made up of four parts. First is its sophistication of style. Second, it is the charming characterizations throughout. Third, is a sort of whimsy that permeates so much of the film. And fourth is the wit on display. Movies like Trouble in Paradise, Design for Living, and Ninotchka are great examples of that "touch". (there are likely many others examples, particularly early or silent pictures, that I have not seen).
The point being that this movie has more of a screwball mentality--combative relations between the sexes, which is seen as more low brow. For myself, I see the characters as different than in some of Lubitsch's films, but not as lesser. There is a lot of wit on display, especially in the last two thirds of the movie.
The movie begins to become wittier and more enjoyable as soon as Claudette Colbert learns to her astonishment that she will be Gary Cooper's eighth wife, when she marries him. Colbert's pride wounded, she says no to the marriage.
When the wealthy and clueless Cooper entices, informing Colbert that all his ex wives receive $50,000 a year in settlement, she approaches and repeats "no". But then adds to the deflated Cooper, "Not for anything less than $100,000 a year!" When Cooper complains that that is "Quite a jump." Colbert announces, "Decide quick. In another 30 seconds it will be $150,000!"
From that point on, the screwball nature of the comedy comes in, and both Claudette Colbert and Gary Cooper--proven masters of screwball--are a delight to watch try to out maneuver each other.
Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Disappointing for a Tim Burton film
I found this to be a surprisingly tepid production of the Lewis Carroll classic. It is a reimagining, of course, much like Burton's earlier Sleepy Hollow reframing. But the differences between the two films is telling, I think.
Both films feature Johnny Depp. But in Sleepy Hollow Depp is the star. Here Depp is a major character, but not the lead. So maybe it is not fair to compare the two. But Depp as Ichabod Crane is an much more interesting character than the Mad Hatter is here--and there is no apparent reason for why that is so (he is, after all, "mad")
The problem that I see with this retelling of the Alice story, is that so much of it is action filled, and so little of it is witty and clever, either in dialog or visuals.
The best way I know how to express it, is that Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is frequently weird, but almost never surreal Burton clearly knows the difference since Sleepy Hollow--all by itself--is testament to Burton's surreal sense of style.
Some reviewers blame Mia Wasikowska for being boring, and bringing the movie down. There is some truth to that, I think, in the beginning of the movie, but as it went on, I found her performance more enjoyable. But part of the problem, again, was that too little effort seemed to be made to make the characters bright and express attitude.
I agree with most of the folks who pointed to Helena Bonham Carter's Red Queen being the most fun character in the whole movie (a sad commentary on so many of the characterizations in the movie).
Lastly, visually the set designs and CGI creations were very well done. For some reviewers that may be enough to bump the rating up a couple more stars.
The Odyssey (1997)
A decent production for its length
It looks to me like many of the low ratings for this production of The Odyssey, are from students who had to watch this for a class assignment. I also would probably rate this much lower if it were assigned for a literature class.
This is strictly Hollywood movie entertainment. As such, I found it to be a decent adaptation of the Epic poem by Homer. It is condensed for time and substance, to be sure. The main events of the epic poem are mostly covered, There is little doubt, however, that if The Odyssey were produced today for television, it would be a much longer mini series, and likely much truer to Homer.
But the pluses are worth repeating from other reviews here. Armand Asante was an excellent choice to play Odysseus. He shows a range of emotions. Regal demeanor, rage, lust, awed fear, anguish, even a certain wistful quality sometimes.
Greta Scacchi is a bit more of a problem for me. While she is part Italian, she doesn't look the part for me. However, she handles her own range of emotions and plot twists well.
In general the mini-series was well cast. I particularly liked Eric Roberts as the villainous, Eurymachus, and Isabella Rosselini as Athena were very good. I also found the actor playing Telemachus, an unknown Alan Stenson to be well cast, particularly after Odysseus arrives home on Ithaca.
My recommendation would be to check The Odyssey out if you want to watch a light "sword and sandal" movie. It is a step up from the usual Hollywood fare in that film genre.
If, on the other hand, if you are looking for a faithful visual representation of Homer's The Odyssey, this isn't likely to satisfy you.
Hitman (2007)
Olyphant was a poor choice
I enjoy Timothy Olyphant very much in most of what I see him in, but I am afraid that Olyphant was a poor choice for this role. He is too subtle an actor in his demeanor and voice for what was needed for the part. The part was evidently originally offered to Vin Diesel. Diesel would have been much better choice for the role of Agent 47--a "dead inside", trained-from-birth assassin, who develops something of a conscience by the end of the picture.
I'm not sure that I would have enjoyed the movie any more with Diesel starring, but he would have been more "believable".
This would seem to be one of Olga Kurylenko's earliest movie roles, playing a character that she would perfect later in countless parts as a pretty party girl who is being victimized, one way or another.
The main problem, for me anyway, is the non-stop killings. By the end of the movie, Agent 47 (Olyphant) has racked up well over a hundred dead.
I understand that this movie is modeled after a video game, of the same name. This violence no doubt mirrors the violence in the game itself. But this movie seems to prove that game violence cannot be the same as movie violence.
In the better action movies, there tend to be set-ups for violence, a suspenseful build-up that leads to the explosive violence--at least until the last violent scene that often is "over the top".
Here, we just have a pile up of one violent episode after another that becomes mind numbing. Partly because of the ridiculous body count but also because Agent 47 (Olyphant) comes out of each episode virtually unscathed. That may work in a video game. It doesn't work in an action film, no matter how awesome the anti-hero is.
Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941)
Hitchcock's limitations
This movie, classified as a screwball comedy, is really not very good. The fault for that, I'm afraid, falls mostly at Alfred Hitchcock's feet.
Carole Lombard was surely not to blame. Lombard was still in top form. Her next and sadly very last picture, Ernst Lubitsch's To Be or Not to Be would show her comedic brilliance still in tact, which was produced the following year.
Movie notes suggest that Cary Grant was sought for the part of Mr. Smith, but was unable to commit.
That was regrettable. I believe Robert Montgomery was too staid for the role of the put upon husband. As in most good screwball comedies, the husband plays reasonable at first, but becomes increasingly frantic as his fed up wife refuses to accept his reasonableness.
But Montgomery did show some flair for comedy, particularly in the night club scene. The main problem, in my view, is that Alfred Hitchcock had no affinity for comedy, which was odd since he certainly could display comedic moments in many of his suspense movies.
As a simple example, after the night club scene where Robert Montgomery ends up making a fool of himself,, Carole Lombard goes with her prospective beau, Gene Raymond, to a Fair where they get on a large Ferris Wheel.
The Ferris Wheel gets stuck at the top. Time passes, and eventually it begins to rain on the two and both are soaked.
In virtually any good screwball comedy, this would be the scene where the female protagonist begins to realize her mistake, --usually after having some sort of a frustrated outburst. Cinematically, the scene is meant to match the comeuppance that the male has experienced, thereby creating a sort of balance or equilibrium.
But for Hitchcock this is a scene that honestly goes nowhere emotionally for Lombard. Instead, it is simply a prelude to a scene at Gene Raymond's apartment, where Raymond's lack of tolerance for alcohol becomes the comedic event--and not very funny, at that.
There is a rhythm to screwball comedies, even mediocre ones, that is sadly almost completely lacking in Mr. & Mrs. Smith.
Hitchcock was surely talented and intelligent enough to figure out that rhythm, and make, at least, a decent screwball comedy with a master like Carole Lombard at his disposal.
It is a kind of mystery how and why Alfred Hitchcock, the master of suspense and mysteries, could not create a better comedy. But it is also unfortunate, since this proved to be one of Carole Lombard's last pictures.
A Countess from Hong Kong (1967)
IMDB rating is regrettably accurate
A Countess from Hong Kong is unfortunately not a very good movie. If you are like me, a great admirer of Charlie Chaplin, and something of a "completist", then I suppose you owe it to yourself to watch this movie. But for others, you won't be missing much by skipping Chaplin's last picture.
For much of the film, it is a bedroom farce taking place on a ocean liner in the present time (1966/67). The frantic fleeing through different doors--a staple of farce--is amusing to watch, if predictable. Both Marlon Brando and Sophia Loren commit to the leaping at interior doors whenever someone unexpectedly knocks from outside the room.
For me, the funniest scene of the movie, is when Brando has commanded his valet (Patrick Cargill) to marry Loren for expediency sake. For appearances sake, the valet will have to sleep in the bedroom as Loren, but in separate beds.
Both are a comic delight to watch. The valet's imagination is running wild, and Loren's beautiful dark eyes are wide with suspicion and later amazement as the valet tries to be coquettish.
Sophia Loren was an decent choice for playing the stowaway countess. My only problem was that her coiffed short hair style in the movie did not make her look particularly "put upon" as a woman who would do anything to escape Hong Kong. But throughout the movie she committed to whatever Chaplin seemed instruct her to play, whether alluring, petulant, or resigned..
I cannot say the same for Marlon Brando. Wikipedia writes that Cary Grant and Rex Harrison were both offered the role before Brando. In my opinion, either of them would have been a better choice than Brando. He played the character stiff and humorless for the most part, and displayed as little chemistry with Sophia Loren on screen, as he apparently had off-screen with the star.
Of the last four movies Charlie Chaplin made after The Great Dictator in 1940, only. Two--Monsieur Verdoux (1947) and Limelight (1952)--are worth checking out if you have your expectations lowered.
Pink Cadillac (1989)
A fun piece of light action entertainment
Having watched this movie again last night, I feel compelled to defend it from the awful review it gets on IMDB (5.4), and the general trashing it got at the time of its release.
The most frequent criticism I see from IMDB written reviews is that it is much too long, coming in at just over 2 hours. I can't really disagree with that criticism. 2 hours, frankly, for most action movies is too long, imo.
But for roughly 90% of that time Clint Eastwood and Bernadette Peters are on screen together. With Bernadette at 5.3, and Clint at 6.4, they make a hilarious team just to look at.
Bernadette Peters holds her own beautifully with Eastwood on the screen--not an easy thing for any actress to do. Sondra Locke was about the only actress I ever saw be able to reliably hold her own against Eastwood's presence.
Eastwood is always fun playing the man of few words and even less patience. Pink Cadillac is often grouped with Any Which Way but Loose, and Every Way but Loose. For my money, Pink Cadillac is the best of the three.
Bernadette Peters always has that quality that Lou Grant (Ed Asner) (from the Mary Tyler Moore show) always said he hated so much--spunk!
Here, along with spunk, Bernadette Peters is believable playing scared, as well as aching to have her baby back. But most of all, Peters is very funny playing sassy, reminiscent of the female stars from the Screwball Comedy days of the 1930s/40s.
One of my favorite moments in the film, is midway through, Bernadette's character has convinced Eastwood to use her to capture a bail jumper in Reno.
Peters looks deadpan at Eastwood as he rehearses with her again the one line she has to say: "Hello Jack. I'm Miss Reno Casino" and then pucker her lips. Peters repeats the line to Eastwood, and then puckers those cupie-doll lips she is noted for and holds the pose.
The lips may be inviting to Eastwood, but the eyes are disdainful, and the tone in Peters' voice suggests that she doesn't need lessons from Eastwood on how to appear seductive. Eastwood wisely excuses himself to go looking for his target.
Despite the sour reviews, if you are looking for a light action movie, I recommend Pink Cadillac.
Night Shift (1982)
A Disappointing Re-watch
What I recall most fondly about this movie is the introduction of Michael Keaton to my viewing experience. Keaton showed an anarchic energy that was similar to Jerry Lewis, but a lot less juvenile.
Keaton's performance--the highlight of the movie-- holds up somewhat on later viewing. But, even Keaton was much better a year later (1983) in Mr. Mom.
No one, I think, comes off very well in this movie, not the actors or the writers. Lowell Ganz the very next year, (1983) is a co-writer for Ron Howard's Splash, which was, again in my opinion, a much, much better movie than Night Shift.
I think the actor who comes off the worst is Henry Winkler, which is a genuine shame, since I think he is a talented and intelligent actor. It would be many years before Henry Winkler dipped his toe into motion pictures again, preferring to stick to television acting. Perhaps though, that was a decision made for reasons other than disappointment.
Checking IMDB, Night Shift was directed by Howard while the TV show Happy Days was still ln production. It is hard not to believe that Winkler's character in Night Shift, wasn't being written as a showcase for Fonzie fans, of the "acting range" Henry Winkler had.
Unfortunately, it was a poorly written character--dull, and self-pitying. Winkler's character was constantly overshadowed by Keaton's throughout the movie.
To highlight one more time the year 1983. That was the year Risky Business premiered, which had pretty much the same plotline. A good hearted, well intentioned novice tries to set up a "safe" environment for "women of the night" to ply their trade. Once again a much better movie experience than Night Shift.
As I said at the beginning, it has been decades since I've seen Night Shift. Maybe I've changed, or the movie hasn't aged well. Either way, this is not a diss on Ron Howard who has, for my money, made a number of very good movies since his initial outing here.
Killer Elite (2011)
Impersonal and disappointing movie
Generally speaking, action movies tend to have emotion to them. It may be primitive emotions like anger and revenge or greed, but at least they are identifiable emotions.
The background for the story is brutal British governmental killing years earlier in Oman, and the ensuing cover-up.
But rather than a movie about exposing wrong doing, it is a movie about folks being paid to kill specific British SAS soldiers, and other SAS soldiers determined to prevent such killing--not because anyone knows anyone else. It is all simply business.
The only emotion in this movie is between Statham and DeNiro. Jason Statham's devotion to his captured mentor, Robert DeNiro feels real. But the plot makes it so that Statham and DeNiro are largely separate for around the first hour and a half of this movie. A huge filmmaking mistake, imo.
There is a love story between Jason Statham and Yvonne Strahovski who is back home in Australia. But it feels tacked on, almost as an afterthought.
DeNiro is involved in protecting Strahovski in Paris, which has emotional heft to it, making us mostly regret that DeNiro has been so absent from the movie, thus far.
But Statham's other partners, the SAS victims being targeted for death by Statham's crew, and the former SAS Feathermen who is bent on preventing such killings, are these guys are mostly blank and emotionless characters. Killing is their job, and this is just another day of work.
There is an attempt with one of Statham's cohorts, Davies (Dominic Purcell), to give him some personality as a "good old boy" Welshman -a guy with a large mustache who likes his pints.
Clive Owen character rarely speaks, he simply explodes violently and particular moments in the move. A real waste of a good actor.
Like all of Statham's movies, the fight scenes are impressive, especially one between Statham and Owen . But even here, the businesslike nature of the fight--Statham and Owen have never even met before--deprives it of pretty much any emotion--the opposite of what we feel in so many Statham fight scenes from other movies.
Almost everyone on all sides, is a blank slate, only about doing his job--which happens to be killing. Greed doesn't even enter in until the very end, for Clive Owen's character.
But like in so much of this movie, emotion is too little, too late to save a flat movie experience.
Wonder Woman: Wonder Woman vs Gargantua (1976)
Wonder Woman versus a gorilla
This is probably the best of the campy episodes that represented Season One of Wonder Woman.
Personally, I am much more a fan of the episodes from Season 2 & 3, because the producers veered away from campiness--even if those seasons had some of their own problems.
This episode was a hoot.
While the giant ape getting Wonder Woman in a bear hug no doubt made the "YouTube" clips, I actually found Gargantua's goo-goo eyes at Wonder Woman to be the more memorable part of the encounter between beauty and the beast.
As always, Lynda Carter's ability to show Wonder Woman's sincerity and concern, and make it feel believable, is truly the biggest wonder of the show.
A couple of the set-ups for the episode deserves special mention..
First, borrowing from the opening scene of the James Bond movie, "From Russia With Love", we believe we watching James Bond being killed.
Here, we believe we are here watching Wonder Woman falling victim to an attack by a giant gorilla. In both cases, it is someone else disguised as our hero, who is being defeated.
Second, the scene where Gargantua climbs a 5 story building to kidnap a Nazi traitor is directly borrowed from Edgar Allan Poe's "The Murders in the Rue Morgue". In the Poe novella, a giant orangutan accomplishes a similar feat, with deadlier consequences.
The stunt was just as preposterous in 1841, as it is here, in 1976. But credos to the Wonder Woman staff for producing such a fun scene!
Robert Loggia was great as one of the Nazi villains. I actually wish the producers could have had him escape capture, so that he could face off again against Wonder Woman and the War Department!
Wonder Woman: The Man Who Wouldn't Tell (1978)
"Radar O'Reilly guest stars!
As most reviewers note, this was more of a lighthearted episode.
At first, I will admit to having groaned when I saw Gary Burghoff in the opening. Sure enough, Burghoff played a version of the character he played on MASH for 7 years. (I have to think he was getting a little tired playing sweet and naïve. I wonder if he did it somewhat as a favor to friend, and one time bandmate, Lynda Carter--MASH was still on television when this episode aired in 1978).
In any event, Burghoff proved, that he could play the hapless sidekick better than just about anyone else (Burghoff's character had more depth to him than Ed Begley Jr.'s recurring character of Harold Farnum ever had).
The episode also featured a young Phillip Michael Thomas, about 6 years before he made it big on Miami Vice. Thomas was convincingly slimy here as an unscrupulous corporate CEO, and fun to watch, especially given what we know he will do a few short years down the road.
And finally, there was Michael Cole, 5 years after his brush with TV stardom on Mod Squad. Cole played it convincing, as a fairly humorless and threatening henchman for Paul Michael Thomas.
All the episode guest stars--past, present, and to come--played their parts believably, with Burghoff being given the most screen time.
I found the love story behind the main story to be sweet and enjoyable. I would say that this was mainly due to Gary Burghoff's acting talent, no doubt honed on MASH, from playing funny and touching, in equal measure at the same time.
As far as Wonder Woman herself, I am continually amused by how exasperated Diana Prince gets with her human counterparts. The villains are always trying to betray her, and the victims are always fleeing from her sincere offer of help.
While as Wonder Woman, I find myself continually amazed at her self restraint--after all, she could make anyone into a human pretzel if she wanted to.
In this episode, Wonder Woman foils a female villain's attempt at sabotaging a car. Wonder Woman, quietly but firmly, leads her back to her own car, puts her into the driver's seat, and proceeds to pull out all the door handles inside the car.
Then gripping the steering wheel, the speechless female watches Wonder Woman wrench the steering wheel off its mount, and toss it across the parking lot, Sealing the driver's door then, so it won't open, Wonder Woman walks away as the annoyed villain cries out, "Hey! What am I supposed to do here?"
All in all, an episode I was surprised I liked as much as I did.
Wonder Woman: Seance of Terror (1978)
Wonder Woman and the supernatural
A couple of the reviewers mention enjoying the scene where a tied-up Diana transforms into Wonder Woman as she's hurtling down a conveyor belt to her doom. I agree, that was a good scene.
But the scene that "sold me" was when Diana was driving toward the house where the evil séance was going to occur.
Diana's her car suddenly stalls, begins shaking violently, and spooky voices call for Diana Prince to turn back, save herself.
Diana quickly jumps out of the car and flames suddenly shoot up all around her and her car.
Diana transforms into Wonder Woman and leaps over the flames. Standing in front of the flames over her head- her arms at her side-Wonder Woman calls out in an authoritative voice:
"Whatever you are, mortal or otherwise. I challenge you to show yourself!" Wonder Woman's bravery and willingness to confront what she cannot understand was on full display. Lynda Carter's acting made that scene both believable and moving.
The story itself was interesting and entertaining.
Thankfully, there were no attempts at explaining how the boy could conjure up images of dead relatives on photos, for people he had never met before. It was just a given. Which was fine with me. Plus, there were no clumsy henchmen, this time, to distract from the action.
This, for me, was one of the better episodes of the latter half of Season 2.
Wonder Woman: Death in Disguise (1978)
Not bad, but with a wasted George Chakiris
This is the episode where we learn that Wonder Woman can travel 47 miles in less than 4 minutes.
Which begs the nagging questions, why would Wonder Woman ever need a motorcycle? How and why could any villains ever escape Wonder Woman's grasp?
The more serious question is: why George Chakaris is so poorly used in this episode? 17 years after West Side Story, Chakaris looks as handsome and debonair as he did in 1961.
The producers basically make George Chakiris the "comic relief" of the episode, which feels like a real waste of Chakiris's charisma and talent.
The plot itself, while unduly complicated by too many villains running around. It was also marred by a pair of bubblingly ineffective henchmen, who serve mainly as more comic relief.
Still, this episode had an interesting plot, with a twist of dyslexia thrown into the mix at the end, that was cleverly done.
Feeling generous, I give this a rating of 7, but 6.5 would be more accurate.
Wonder Woman: Light-fingered Lady (1978)
WW in a heist movie
While I gave the two part episode, "Mind Stealers from Outer Space" a positive review, I added that it didn't need to be a two part episode.
I would suggest that this episode, "Light fingered Lady" could have benefitted greatly from a two part format.
As It begins, Diana Prince has already been brought on board (literally, actually) by a love sick hunk to conspire to rob the vault of a mobster.
A prelude showing Diana prepping for this deep undercover assignment, and some tense moments that typically feature in the beginnings of heist movies, would have been a welcome change from what is typically featured on Wonder Woman. I have no doubt that Lynda Carter would have been up to the challenge of the more complex story line.
A missed opportunity to take Wonder Woman into a more complicated plotline.
Wonder Woman: Diana's Disappearing Act (1978)
Sad decline
This episode, and the one before it "Screaming Javelins", marked for me a change in storytelling style, that was not for the better. The storytelling became more "tongue in cheek", a sort of "wink, wink" to the audience, rather than simply telling a story.
Having former Laugh-In alum Henry Gibson be the primary villain in Screaming Javelins, and comedian Dick Gautier be the villain in this piece were a sure sign that the producers decided to go with a more campy style. The addition of Ed Begley Jr. As Diana Prince's unwelcome helper and comic relief, just added to the pain of this episode.
What makes this even more unfortunate is that the episode previous to these two, "Light-fingered Lady" was actually a surprisingly well constructed story, that's main flaw was that it should have been a two part episode to add more depth to Diana Prince's deep undercover assignment.
Season 3 of the New Adventures of Wonder Woman went back to a less campy format, but, in my view, the damage had already been done. As IMDB ratings show here, none of the rest of the episodes in Season 2 rise above a 6.8, except for one, "The Girl from Ilandia", which had a bit of a supernatural bent to it that was appealing, and played fairly straight, and not for laughs.
Justified: City Primeval (2023)
Disappointing sequel
From my viewpoint, this sequel to Justified, the outstanding series that ran from 2010-2015, suffered from several flaws that doomed it to being seriously inferior to the original series.
First, a decision seemed to have been made by the show runners to make this version of Justified into a version of film noir, with dark visuals--either due to being filmed at night, or in dimly lit rooms like lounges. The other feature of much noir, featured here, is mostly depressing and unreliable characters on both sides of the law. The smiles that Justified episodes so often brought to us, even in the midst of chaotic violence is largely absent here, in favor of a downbeat view of Detroit, Michigan.
I believe that this was a serious mistake on the producers part. Elmore Leonard was perfectly aware of noir, both in film and in pulp fiction. He deliberately fashioned his stories to take elements of noir, but add eccentricity and humor to the mix.
The producers of City Primeval apparently decided to toss out most of the eccentricity (or make it more threatening in the case of Clement) and made, unfortunately, largely unsuccessful attempts at humor.
Second, the Elmore Leonard novel, City Primeval, is one of Leonard's earliest attempts at the mystery genre (he did mostly westerns previously). City Primeval was one of my favorite Elmore Leonard mystery novels. But it wasn't really suited to the Justified formula.
Like the television version, the novel is focused almost solely on the loner character of Clement Mansell. Having a loner as the villain loses much of what made Justified such a on-going success. Each season of Justified had a villain with a posse of malcontents and misfits that were often as entertaining as the villain himself or herself.
Lastly, just in general, Raylan Givens was really the only fleshed out character, on either side of the law. Again this is very unlike the original series.
Clement Mansell, the major villain, was far too erratic to ever get to know--as he was written in the original novel. Clement's relationship with his girlfriend, Sandy Stanton was never understandable from either character's point of view, and was always borderline creepy and anxiety inducing--which was exactly how Leonard portrayed in the the novel. Both Clement's character, ( Boyd Holbrook) and Sandy's character (Adelaide Clemons) were well played by the actors.
But I don't believe that Clement's story was strong enough to carry the load for 8 one hour episodes. (Again, like the novel, City Primeval, has only the one story. However, the novel was considerably shorter than most of Leonard's future novels, which had more complex characters and plots).
A lot of reviewers have criticized the introduction of Raylan's daughter into the story (played evidently by Timothy Olyphant's own daughter). I actually found the introduction of Raylan's daughter to be a plus--Justified always made attempts to ground Raylan Givens into some kind of life outside of police work.
The problem I saw with Willa was that the writers simply made Willa into an annoying, self-involved teenager like so many mystery shows do. Her character quickly became boring, and once Clement zeroed in on her, it was more or less inevitable that she was going to be written out of most of the story. This left Raylan was one sole personal relationship, his inexplicable affair with Clement Mansell's Defense Attorney.
Finally, the ending shot that so many reviewers found delightful just left me cold--Boyd Crowder has escaped custody and is on the loose--threatening Raylan's retirement plans.
I bow to no one in my appreciation of Walter Groggins playing of Boyd Crowder. But after 5 seasons of Justified, isn't that character explored and dissected enough?
Given how poorly conceived and written this season of Justified: City Primeval was, I have very little confidence in the producers ability to create something, new, exciting and delightful by bringing Boyd Crowder back into Raylan Givens life.
Wonder Woman: Mind Stealers from Outer Space: Part 2 (1977)
Much better than the reviewers are giving it
I am not particularly a sci fi fan, so this episode had limited appeal to me. But the wholly negative reviews here are slightly eye rolling to me.
Comparing this with Star Wars, or complaining that the effects or the costumes are inferior to Star Wars is ridiculous. Have none of these reviewers ever watched an episode of the original Star Trek? Or Doctor Who? Fans of those shows love those shows despite the obvious budgetary restraints in place.
As far as the creature, Zardor Nip being a rip-off of Star War's Darth Vadar, there certainly was a resemblance, but it is completely superficial. Darth Vadar talked. Vader's voice was one of his scariest quality.
The giant creature just grunted. He reminded me more of Gargantuan, the giant ape from the first season of Wonder Woman. And Zardor functioned pretty much the same way, a powerful creature trying to squeeze the life out of Wonder Woman.
The one criticism I would agree with is that this could have been a single episode, and did not need to be drawn out into a two-parter.
Dack Rambo as Andros was, I thought, a better choice for Andros, than Tim O'Connor in the first season episode that introduced Andros, during the throes of World War II.
The possibility of Wonder Woman having romantic feelings for Andros was present in both seasons' episodes. But I found it much more believable in this version than the earlier one.
The intergalactic council was irritatingly bureaucratic, as they always are in sci fi movies. But their viewpoint sort of made sense, to me anyway, even if it sucked for us humans!
Again, sci fi is not my favorite movie or TV genre, by any means. But I found this to be a decent episode, if a bit too long and drawn out. As far as I am concerned, it certainly equaled many of the original Star Trek episodes I watched back in the day.
Wonder Woman: I Do, I Do (1977)
Implausible, but fun
I disagree with most of the negative reviews here. For a 1970s TV show, this was well plotted and decently acted, for the most part.
The "implausible" is that Diana Prince would have to get married- to some guy she barely knows--so that she could infiltrate a spa where IADC suspects that treasonous activity is going on. This sets up several awkward conversations between Lynda Carter, and the hapless groom, John Getz.
Were this filmed today, there would be no need to set up such a silly and phony wedding and all the rigmarole, that went with it.
That said, the spa setting was a good one for action--such as Diana in a sauna, and sleeping gas being pumped in to subdue her.
Henry Darrow, who has played heroes and villains with equal skill, was good as the sleazy and sneaky villain, David Allen--who prefers to have his henchmen do the dirty work, but looks quite capable of doing it himself if needs be.
And Celeste Holm as the high class Washingtonian, was enjoyable and believable as the taken for granted wife, and miffed foil for David Allen's traitorous schemes.
Revisiting season 2 and 3 of Wonder Woman, I have the same observations, episode after episode. The writing is plodding and unimaginative, as most 70s and 80s dramas were--which is, I believe why cable was such a welcome addition to so many American viewers.
Second, beyond Lynda Carter's undeniable beauty, she was, week after week, the most committed and believable performer on that show-as both Wonder Woman and as Diana Prince--always a pleasure to watch act and react to events and people around her.
From my point of view, "I Do, I Do" was one of the better episodes of the New Adventures of Wonder Woman.
Nikki & Nora: Sister Sleuths (2022)
Enjoyable Hallmark mystery
This was a well written and well acted Hallmark Mystery show. Hunter King as Nikki, and Rhiannon Fish as Nora are believable playing fraternal twins, who have a rocky relationship.
Like all of the best Hallmark mystery shows, there is a pleasing blend of lightly staged mystery, intelligent characters, and a healthy dose of humor to keep things moving and lively.
As an example of the show's humor, late in the movie, Nora's police officer friend, Robby, remarks, "Can I trust you two to stay our of trouble until--I don't know--lunch?"
From opposite sides of a kitchen, Nikki and Nora both turn and give Robby the same silent stare.
Robby winces, while putting on his jacket, "I can finally see the family resemblance!"
For anyone who enjoys Hallmark mysteries, this is a good entry into their video library. I certainly hope they produce another Nikki and Nora mystery, with the same cast and much of the same writers.
The Dancing Detective: A Deadly Tango (2023)
Dance and detect
This was an enjoyable Hallmark mystery, lightly plotted with fun and interesting lead characters. Also, pretty much like all Hallmark mysteries, it is a pairing of a male and female who are typically "oil and water" at the beginning, and gradually come to respect one another, and their different approaches and perspectives.
When these Hallmark series work, it is usually because of the writing and the chemistry between the male and female leads.
Lacey Chabert plays the stiff, loner detective very well. Her character is polite, but tightly wound, and serious minded. Lacey does a good job playing gradually loosening up. Her reveal of her mother's death at 14, and how that affected her ever after, was very believable.
Will Kemp, who I was not familiar with, was equally good, playing a character that could have been written, and acted, as a caricature in so many different ways. Kemp kept the character grounded, while also making him funny, intelligent and charming.
The other feature of Hallmark mysteries that often makes or breaks the show is the banter between the lead characters. As another reviewer mentioned, Detective Bailey, calling the dancing instructor by different fictional detective names every time she wanted to bring him back down to earth, was funny, and gradually became sweet as their partnership grew.
The mystery itself was okay. But the setup really made no sense. No police detective would ever have an unknown civilian as a partner in an undercover operation, never mind the added complication of making them husband and wife.
There were other implausibilites. But all that is just nit picking, so far as I am concerned.
As long as the mystery itself is agreeable, and the solution doesn't strain credibility, I'm generally content with Hallmark mysteries. As I said, it is the writing and chemistry of the performers that matters most to me.
And The Dancing Detective delivers on both counts.
The Flight Attendant (2020)
Season One review
I am rating this based only on Season One (the reviews for season two look pretty awful, so I'm guessing that I'm going to skip it). I would rate it more like 6.5, but upped it to a 7.
My problem with the show was Cassie's alcoholism, which ran rampant throughout the entire season. It lost appeal for me, as it was portrayed either as a plot mover or as an amusement after about the end of second episode.
How does a main character, who is clearly intelligent overall, but feels scared that her own life is in danger, keep drinking herself into delirium or blackout? Stress and fear can explain that behavior for a couple of episodes. But eight episodes?
Even a raging alcoholic--which Kaley clearly is not, since she is normally able to perform her job as flight attendant-- would make an attempt to stay straight, I would think, so she could get a handle what's happening around her.
She would very likely "fall off the wagon" in the process. But that, in itself, would be more interesting than what the writers dreamed up for Kaley to play. (Check out the Jane Fonda movie, The Morning After, for a different "take" on much the same plot).
It seems to me that the reason the writers kept Cassie's alcoholic binges, was so they could have Cassie's interior monologues with the hallucinatory murdered Alex. That worked for me also for about two episodes.
Then I was hoping for more genuine relating between Cassie and some of the interestingly written secondary characters: like Cassie's best friend, Annie (well played by Zosia Mamet) or her older estranged brother, Davey. One of the most pleasing parts of the whole show was when Miranda, (played by Michelle Gomez) becomes a more complicated--if not entirely plausible--ally of Cassie's.
The show's success and enjoyment comes from Kaley Cuoco, who has immense appeal as a performer. It also benefits from some well written secondary characters and an initial set-up that was intriguing. I just wish they had dialed back a bit on the binge drinking angle and the hallucinogenic conversations with the dead Alex.
Miss Scarlet & the Duke (2020)
A show 4 decades too late
Miss Scarlet & the Duke would have fit right in with the popular mystery shows of the 1980s.
Shows like Scarecrow and Mrs. King (with the former Charley's Angel, Kate Jackson, and Bruce Boxleitner), Remington Steele (with future James Bond, Pierce Brosnan and Stephanie Zimbalist), and of course, Moonlighting (with a young Bruce Willis and Cybil Shepherd).
The whole ongoing subplot of all these shows, and others like it on broadcast TV was "Will they or won't they" (with the answer being: "Of course they will, if the show isn't canceled first!)
I always found the melodramatic subplot annoying pretty quickly. But the chemistry between the two leads could often sustain my interest for a season or two.
That has been the case, for me, with Miss Scarlet and the Duke. (with the added twist that the show was being set in 1882 London, with an intelligent and strong willed young woman wanting to be taken seriously as a detective).
The first season was pretty decent. It held my attention because of the characters and the setting.
The second season was tolerable, but getting old with the contrived melodrama surrounding Miss Scarlet and the Duke, and will they or won't they.
At the end of the third season, the show has worn out my patience. I no longer care if they "do or not do it".
I believe that shows that had these types of melodramatic subplots were easier to keep going in the era of broadcast TV dominance. The melodrama could actually work to keep people tuning in, even as it might tax the viewers' patience. But that was in an era when there were few other options on television.
Today if people become impatient with a subplot that seems never to progress , they tend to move on to another show. One rare exception I can think of is NCIS, where the ongoing melodrama involving Tony and Ziva, never seemed to hurt the ratings).
Reading other reviews here, I can see I am not alone in my complaint, and I suspect the audience ratings would bear out my complaint, as well.
It is a bit of a shame though. The storyline of a woman in late 19th century London trying to make her way as an independent private detective was an interesting one, I thought.
Oh well, on to the next show!
Harry Wild: A Corpse In My Soup (2022)
Don't drink the water!
I find it amusing that an episode, the whole show in fact, rates much higher by the IMDB raters, while the reviewers rarely seem able to give this show much more than a 6. Oh well.
What makes this show stand out is the cast--which I guess in the case with most television shows. Jane Seymour as Harry Wild is terrific, and Rohan Nedd as Harry's partner and foil, Fergus Reid, is a wonderful as well.
The mystery plot of who killed the lady of the house, Melissa Cavendish was finely written and acted by everyone in the cast.
I had two problems with the episode, one plot driven, the other character driven.
The plot driven problem was how. New detective Vicky Boyle, was so dead set on arresting and incarcerating Harry. This was explained as Vicky being eager to impress her colleagues and superiors on the police force. It was an interesting development, I suppose, plot-wise. But highly implausible on a number of different levels.
The character-wise problem has to do with Harry's moral compass--which seems to be all over the place.
On the one hand, Harry is considerate, encouraging and even sweet with Fergus (as well as her friend, Glenn). But Harry takes up with her son's police detective superior, Ray, who is married to an even higher-up superior on the force.
I am sure this conflict will be dealt with in a future episode. At the moment, Harry's poor judgment appears to be attributed to raging hormones, mixed in with a bit of an alcohol problem.
Much of the tension of this episode hinges on Harry being unable to provide an alibi for herself, since she was with Ray at the time in question, and Ray, of course, is being mum.
Neither of these issues really affect my enjoyment of the episode. But they do feel needlessly melodramatic for a show that is intelligently and interestingly written otherwise.
Maigret: The Lost Life (1963)
A lonely girl is murdered
Having read maybe half of Georges Simenon"s Maigret novels, and watched all of the French 1990s Maigret series starring Bruno Cremer, I have my opinion on what I like about the character of Maigret, as portrayed in the novels and on television.
Maigret explains several times in different stories that his preferred method for solving murders is to get to know the victim, as intimately as possible.
To my mind, showing this method of detection on television generally requires that the episodes be of a longer length than one hour--most have been in the hour and a half range. The longer format allows for a more leisurely pace, where Maigret is among witnesses and possible suspects, and simply talking and observing, seemingly in a random manner--but that never actually being the case (a style Peter Falk perfected in Colombo).
This BBC production is only an hour, and does not generally have a leisurely style to their episodes. For me, what makes up for the more rushed nature of the stories is the cast. Rupert Davies (Chief Inspector Maigret) is wonderful, playing the older wiser Maigret. He has no intention of running after fleeing suspects (in one episode he watches a suspect running down the road and mutters "imbecile!"). But from his office, Maigret is not averse to pulling "all-nighters" that will leave him disheveled, which Davies plays beautifully.
I especially like Ewen Solon (Sergeant Lucas) He is intelligent, extremely respectful and admiring of "patron" (Inspector Maigret). As written for this show, Lucas is a multifaceted character that I often find to be the most interesting character in an episode. Always interesting to watch. But really, all the regulars in the cast were brilliantly chosen, as far as I am concerned.
This episode, "The Lost Life", did an especially good job of capturing the Maigret style of detection I mentioned earlier.
The producers did so, I believe, by contrasting Maigret's slower meditative style with the hurried maneuverings of Inspector Lognon, (Henry Oscar), who has been in several episodes previously.
In the past Inspector Lognon has generally been portrayed as bungling, and uncomfortable, maybe even resentful of Maigret, who Lognon seems to feel is looking to interfere with him
In this episode though,, the producers tone down the ineptness, and play up more the resentful, secretive side of Lognon, which I thought was an improvement.
Lognon rarely seems to share with Maigret the leads he is following up on, as if it was a competition they were engaged in.
By the end of the episode, Inspector Lognon is in Brussels following up on a lead, as Maigret is in his office wrapping up the case and rounding up the murderer--who is in Paris!!