wag-877-420043

I wouldn't consider this a spoiler: funniest, most incisive, best sci-fi futuristic line I've ever heard in the entire series or most others, for that matter. These three characters from the 20th century who have been cryogenically frozen for 400 years are thawed out and there is one exchange that is priceless:

L.Q. 'Sonny' Clemmons (pointing toward computer screen on wall): Let's see if the Braves are on. How do you turn on this TV?

Riker: TV?

L.Q. 'Sonny' Clemmons: Yeah, the boob tube. I'd like to see how the Braves are doing after all this time. Still prob'ly findin' ways to lose.

Data: I believe he means television, Sir.That particular form of entertainment did not last much beyond the year 2040.

And yet, tonight when I watched this on BBC-America, whatever imbecile edited it for time chose to remove this, the best line I ever heard, by Data!

I watched one of these out of curiosity and thought it was the worst thing I had ever seen, but it must have been the pilot or something, because the other episodes were all much, much better. Glad I gave it a 2nd chance because it became a source of fun, something to watch while eating my grapefruit on Sat. mornings. Especially nice to see Noah Beery, who played "Rocky," Jim Rockford's dad, on "Rockford Files." He made a superb clown and key character in "Circus Boy." It took me a few weeks to recognize the main character as Mickey Dolenz of the Monkees. He was billed with a different name in the credits. I kept thinking he was familiar and one day "got" who he was and went and looked up the show online and sure enough, I was right. Most of these, of course, are a trip through time but they also have some interesting stories, not badly produced. I give it a high rating overall. The only negative was in the first few episodes where they obviously were painting freckles on young Mickey's face to make him look more "gawsh, golly gee" boyish. He looked ridiculous, like Howdy Doody.

Maybe it was because my expectations were low, but saw this on "Svenghoulie's" show and enjoyed it as an old black and white creepy movie from the late 1940s just as a Saturday night sort of thing. Not great but had some especially bright spots and a pretty decent cast and storyline, and kept you wondering what the outcome would be right up to the end. I kept expecting the story to fall apart at some point as it usually does in the ones shown on this show, but it kept continuing to be fairly engaging and had some cultural references to the art world that kept it fun to watch. I liked the portrayal of art critics and the art theme, and fun to see the actor who played "Big Jim Champion" on "Circus Boy" in a lead role, along with the monster dude who was an interesting character and had an interesting life story outside of the movie. All in all, fun to watch if you like old movies from the '40s and just want to see something not too deep or demanding that might remind you of a past era you find yourself able to get lost in.

Jean Shepherd has got to be spinning in his grave. I haven't read his books, but we've watched the original "A Christmas Story" 20 - 30 times. To say it is only a movie or forget about comparisons and just take it as something new and just 4 fun is a symptom of a society that has lost its soul. The richness of the writing of the 1982 original (somebody mentioned there are parts of #2 that are taken from Shepherd's stories, and I think I can guess which--I would bet the visit to the dentist, one of the few funny moments) is not just a hard act to follow, but a national treasure. The original transports us back to another time when the world and especially this country were qualitatively different than it is now. Every detail, the cast, every nuance, the whole aesthetic, gels to remove us from the cynicism and political correctness and every other aspect of Today to a world that some of us can remember, almost remember, or at least, imagine we remember. The would-be sequel fails completely to understand, much less appreciate, the beauty or depth of this magic. The cast is all wrong. Crudeness was a part of that era, but it was configured in a totally different way from the 1-dimensional postmodern context which this one is locked into. The demon White Male stereotype this buys into is devoid of any comprehension whatsoever of the character Darren McGavin so perfectly portrayed. The costumes are still from 5 years earlier, not counting Ralphie's 1980s giant eyeglasses, which didn't yet exist in the years this story is supposedly set in. This one was cranked out by commercial crapsters incapable of escaping a temporal tunnel vision that has no business attempting to recapture any era that has gone by before their own time. The acting is mostly godawful. Seems like the only times it improves a bit are scenes where it appears that they finally got a bit tired of yelling their lines. The meanness of some of the acting or characters in the original was purposeful--it showed a child's perception of them, not actual cruelty. In this one, it's all just crude and stupid. The only reason to see version 2 is as a kind of cultural monitor, to compare and contrast, hopefully to learn the differences between great art and a total failure to grasp what art is.