cwstone

The Hunley is a type of entertainment that we unfortunately don't have anymore. Ambitious made for TV movies that dramatize historical events and the people involved. Did they all succeed? Of course not. Even in their heyday most were mediocre at best. But the fact that they were made in the first place is reason enough to respect their attempt.

Having not seen The Hunley since it premiered on the TNT network in 1999, I was revisited it with a blank slate. I'll be honest, my expectations were not very high. But The Hunley surprised me and I love when films do that to me. This is a solid and entertaining historical drama. It's also one that carries very real levels of historical and educational value.

The story of the HL Hunley is a smaller and lesser known chapter of the American Civil War. Made for television movies often had to deal with monetary and time restraints. This was before the time streaming services and channels like HBO were willing to drop serious cash on their own original programming.

The Hunley isn't a masterpiece and its limitations are often apparent. But this actually makes me admire it all the more. The filmmakers involved are clearly trying hard to do justice to the story. To make the best movie as was possible.

The Hunley's direction is quite good. Some of its CGI is less than great but par for the course at the time. The characters are kind of interesting but Armand Asante's character gets most of the attention. I thought he was fine in the role and brings a humanity to the role that I found convincing. The historical authenticity is over all pretty good but it gets shaky at times. It's depiction of Charleston South Carolina circa 1864 looks quite good.

The Hunley works best during the underwater scenes. The claustrophobia and fear of the men operating that death trap is palpable.

Any student of the Civil War knows the story of the HL Hunley and won't be surprised by the ending. Nobody knows exactly what the last moments were like for the crew of the Hunley. This film takes a stab at it. The scene in which we part company with our characters was, in my opinion, a real gamble for the filmmakers. If read on paper it would seem mawkish and corny. The scene could have very easily been bungled. But it isn't, they were able to pull it off. In fact there's some real emotional heft to the scene and I found myself genuinely touched by it. That's no mean feat either.

So I say kudos to the makers of The Hunley. They did the very best job they could with the tools available. The results are truly admirable.

The Battle of the Bulge (BOTB) was released in 1965. Unfortunately the sweeping "War - Epic" genre was officially on life support. Times they were a changing. Films like BOTB were losing their power to satiate a rapidly changing palette of mainstream movie audiences. Perhaps 1962's "The Longest Day" was the high water mark. A wonderful film; unapologetically grand in scope, scale, and star power. It also very wisely took a semi documentary approach to the subject matter. But by 1965, cultural shifts were leaving audiences hungry for different types of movies with different types characters. Kelly's Heroes, MASH, and The Dirty Dozen shortly became the torch bearers. For better or worse lol.

Supposedly BOTB usurped another film about the same battle which was to be made by another studio (Columbia?). It would have had the backing of the US Defense Department with some of America's most prolific veterans as technical advisors. Ike, Omar Bradley, you name it.

Yet this is the film that got made instead and that's very unfortunate.

But I can't in good conscience advise you to stay away from BOTB. As far as straight up entertainment, you could do a whole lot worse. On a very superficial level it can be enjoyed. But if historical inaccuracies were a crime, BOTB would probably get the electric chair.

The real battle was fought during one of the worst winters on record. The film, shot primarily in Spain, is almost devoid of ANY snow. I could spend hours listing the downright infuriating liberties taken by BOTB. But I won't do that to you.

So go ahead, have a watch and enjoy yourself. But just keep in mind how wrong this movie gets it. Watch BOTB then please, please, please, do your own research if so inclined. Reputable books about the battle (and much better movies) do this great battle the justice it deserves.

When even the trailer can't make a supposed "comedy" look funny, red flags get to flying, But I did my due diligence in attempting to be objective. There are good films / series out there with trailers that either suck or mischaracterize the story. Again, I really tried to not be biased. Especially due to the fact that I either dislike or am indifferent toward the "talent" involved in this project. Mel Brooks (who I love), is of course the major exception. I was truly hoping Mel would flex his comedic muscles and find a way to force these people to bring the funny. Pipe dream? Yes. But one can never totally give up hope.

Well unfortunately what I knew was going to happen ended up...happening. There is nothing funny about History of the World Part 2. Every shot at the basket is a brick. This "style" of comedy doesn't even offer a whiff of Mel Brooks. It's just manifestly unfunny people being unfunny. What's more baffling is that these idiot's apparently think they nailed it. Any rational minded actor / comic would fall over themselves trying to change their credit to Alan Smithee.

It's all just so embarrassing and ultimately depressing. Our society has suffered many cultural casualties since HOTW Part 1 was released in 1981. One of them is that comedic giants no longer really exist. Funny people used to be able to go out there and be funny. Nobody can take a joke anymore. So it's really no mystery as to why comedy is dead. This garbage showed up DOA, it never had a chance.

I'd only recommend it to Nick Kroll super fans. I'm sure both of them would love it.

YUCK.

Of course Freddy Got Fingered isn't even close to being a 10/10. All that is sane and rational within me demands I hate this film. But I'm not totally sane or rational, nobody can make that claim. We all have some loose screws rattling around upstairs. Some we'd tighten immediately if given the chance. Others, well, we're content to leave alone. Freddy Got Fingered has, for whatever reason, gained more and more purchase in me over the years. Yes, I think it's a hilarious film. Why? Because it scratches a totally bizarre itch that even I'm not 100% sure I understand.

Freddy Got Fingered is completely on its own wavelength. There's nothing else that even remotely resembles it. In a sense it's a true original. Critics of course hate it, and I can't really blame them. FGF is like a Sasquatch. An animal guys like Roger Ebert and Leonard Martin didn't think could possibly exist. Here is a film that is simply impervious to rational analysis.

FGF is 90 or so minutes of pure anarchy. Allowing Tom Green to direct a film is tantamount to letting a seriously disturbed mental patient run his asylum for a day. The result is some of the purest most unadulterated insanity I have ever encountered in film. FGF is an unapologetically vile exercise. In cockeyed sort of way its hostility toward the viewer is fascinating. It's aggressively and hypnotically offensive and bizarre.

FGF may not sound user friendly, maybe it isn't. But if you walk in prepared to give yourself completely over to the insanity, you might find yourself laughing.

Unfortunately I have to echo the sentiments of my fellow reviewers. I kept an open mind going into The 1000th Show even though I had a pretty good idea how it would turn out. I was actually surprised that this is the only episode shot in Seattle proper. Frankly this is probably the reason for its less than stellar execution. The episode feels like the creators and writers made a decision to finally throw Seattle a bone. The special guest star of the 1000th Episode is really the city itself. The plot is a clothesline to hang it on. We get lots of great Seattle location filming but it lacks the humor and charm of the more conventional episodes. But I believe in the idea that games can still be won in the later innings. Frasier manages to pull out a "W" in the last couple minutes of the episode. It's a later scene where Frasier finds himself in conversation with a limousine driver. A nice guy who is working out some personal problems and truly needs a sympathetic ear. It's been an episode long odyssey for Frasier to finally arrive at his destination. But the episode ends with Frasier making the decision of where he really needs to be at the moment. It's an incredibly well handled scene and I actually got a little choked up.

Frasier was well into hitting its stride by season 4. We're starting to see our characters developing in a meaningful way. Mixed Doubles isn't the best episode out there but it's certainly an important one. It's essentially the first episode to seriously address the plausibility of a future Niles / Daphne romance.

It's a good episode with some solid laughs. I particularly like the scene when Frasier and Niles see Daphne's unfaithful boyfriend at Cafe Nervosa. Frasier's very unique objection to Niles fighting the guy is hilarious.

I've noticed some people find the ending of this episode depressing / sad. I respectfully disagree. It's bittersweet to be sure. But I personally found the ending to be more poignant than anything. There's a cautious optimism to it that I found very satisfying.

.

Give most television shows enough time and eventually they will become a victim of their own success. Even very good ones like Emergency! Have a shelf life. Season 5 isn't bad or unenjoyable, but the cracks are definitely showing. In the case of Emergency!, it's mostly in the plot department. It's not the fault of the creators / writers, new ideas were simply becoming more and more scarce. But I honestly think the creative team recognized it and chose to up the ante in other ways. Emergency! Episode plots were (for the most part) always pretty thin. But by season 4 and 5, it was the quality of the firefighting / rescue scenes that would make or break an episode. Such is the case with "To Buy or Not to Buy." It doesn't spend too much time in Rampart and the action scenes revolve around Roy looking to buy a new home. Meh, not terrible but not that good either. It's the big rescue at the end that distinguishes this episode. I won't spoil anything but it involves a boy who climbs up a very VERY tall bridge span. Details emerge that time is of the essence. Waiting for a Ladder truck is no longer an option, so Roy and Gage go to work. It climaxes in a heart stopping moment that is both amazing and frighteningly convincing. No CGI back then and Randy Mantooth did all his own stunts. It's one of the most technically impressive scenes in the entire series. Check this one out.

I'm tempted to write a brief synopsis but it would be a waste of time. But there is the old adage: the best way to criticize a movie is to make another movie. The order may be backward but Brian De Palma already did that for us in 1976. There's a lot of dumb stuff in Carrie (2013) but on its own merit maybe it's on the lower end of mediocre. But that's the problem. It's a reboot that tries to incorporate a little more material from King's novel while at the same time totally apeing Brian De Palma. My most common reaction to this film was "(sigh) that was handled so much better in the original." De Palma's beautiful camera work, the brilliant buildup to Nancy Allen pulling that rope, the split screen sequences. Not to mention Sissy Spacek who was perfect in the role of Carrie. At the film's climax, her psychokinetic rampage feels more primal and raw. There's the sense that her control over she is doing isn't careful or refined. It's the result of Carrie being broken and going off the deep end. In the 2013 movie. Carrie controls her power too well. She chokes people like Darth Vader and acts with deliberate malice, not insanity. This reboot can't stand on it's own feet let alone coming close to touching the craft De Palma brought to the table. Carrie 2013 is simply a movie that shouldn't exist. It's superfluous and utterly inconsequential. The cars are different and kids have cell phones. That seems to be the only reason why a perfect film just HAD to be remade. Yuck.

Paul Thomas Anderson is somewhat of an anomaly to me. His credibility as a filmmaker has remained intact for well over two decades. Unfortunately he's an exception in that respect. Films like Inherent Vice, The Phantom Thread, and now Licorice Pizza demand a certain level of respect and admiration. Their greatest strength is that they are helmed by a director who is in total control of his craft.

As directors age and mature in their profession, their overall approach to filmmaking evolves as well. Unfortunately PTA's trajectory has yielded mixed results at best. And there lies the paradox of this improbably talented director. Despite his greatness, he hasn't made a great film in quite some time. Is he a more mature and confidant director than the kid who made Boogie Nights? A film powered by that special excitement and exuberance only young and infinitely ambitious filmmakers seem to possess.

Licorice Pizza may be the result of PTA's maturity. But when stacked up next to Boogie Nights or There Will Be Blood, it isn't much of an achievement

PTA was able to strike a truly magnificent directorial balance in his earlier films. They were ferociously ambitious but also exuded the heedless enthusiasm of a born filmmaker intoxicated by the opportunity to ply his trade.

Licorice Pizza is of course impeccably directed and it's not a bad film. But this is the third or fourth time I found myself asking the same question after watching a PTA film: It's a well made film with fine performances, but who cares? What is the purpose, the reason for being, of these interminable and completely shapeless films?

I don't understand it and not for lack of trying. When PTA is at least somewhat focused and directing with a semblance of purpose and urgency, the results are downright brilliant. When he chooses to amble and chase his own tail, we get beautiful films of absolutely no consequence.

I would still recommend Licorice Pizza because at the end of the day it isn't a super hero cgi crap fest. It's not very good but it's at least honest filmmaking from a great director.

There are many reasons to admire the Last Voyage. The practical effects and the use of a real passenger liner range from impressive for its time to downright breathtaking. The story and the characters are uncomplicated, which is fine, because Last Voyage works surprisingly well on its intended level.

It's a movie about a passenger liner sinking and a man (played by the reliable Robert Stack) trying to save his family. It's very matter of fact film that goes right to work. No screwing around, no supporting characters with their own unique dead end subplots.

The Last Voyage does manage to step in a few bear traps on the way. The Captain of the ship is very cliched who somehow manages to be incorrect about everything. Who gave this guy a giant ship?

But watching the disaster below decks unfold, grow, and metastasize is exciting, scary and at times harrowing.

The standout character in The Last Voyage is definitely Woody Strode. He plays an engine room crew member who serendipitously crosses paths with Stack and ends up helping him save his family. Too many Modern films cast actors of color simply to be woke and check off boxes. I find it patronizing and phony. But The Last Voyage does something that really needed to be done in 1960. Casting the incredibly talented Woody Strode was a smart decision. But Giving him a well written leading role as a normal guy who becomes a hero is downright admirable. This was not considered "normal" when The Last Voyage was made. Major kudos to the filmmakers and writers for that one.

I say grab some popcorn and get to watching!

Some fans of the Drew Carey Show think this episode marked a change in its overall trajectory. A show that was more or less grounded in reality started moving into much whackier and unbelievable territory. Truth be told that is probably a valid argument. But let's face it, the vast majority of tv shows start to stagnate to some degree after four seasons. They have to adapt or become repetitive and lazy. And considering there are more than a few less than great episodes in the "grounded" seasons, shaking things up like this wasn't a bad move imho.

But luckily the Drew Carey Show still had plenty of gas in the tank. This episode is pretty out there but it's funny so who cares?

Lewis using Drug CO's retinal scan to open the door is by itself worth the trip lol.

This episode basically finishes off the Drew and Nicki romance / engagement story arc. The overall plot structure of this one is an interesting departure from the usual episodes of Drew Carey. The episode begins with Drew and Nicki making their own "adult" video tape and ends with the audience actually seeing what ended up being recorded.

What finally happens isn't a huge surprise. We've seen this coming a mile away for most of the season. But it's the reveal at the end that makes this episode unique. As a huge fan of Drew and the show, it's easy to forget we're watching actors. The amazing chemistry between Drew, Kate, Oswald, and Lewis is really the engine that drove the series. It's fun show and you can tell the actors are having fun too. It's hard not to walk away from each episode with a smile.

I wasn't smiling at the end of this episode.but that's not a criticism. In fact it's kind of a nice reminder of how much we actually care about Drew's character. It's nothing over the top or excessively mawkish. It's a quiet little moment of reflection. Without a word spoken we can read Drew and know exactly how he feels.

Very Well done.

I deployed to Afghanistan twice with the 173rd Airborne. It's painfully obvious "The Kill Team" had no technical advisors or anyone even remotely acquainted with the Army involved in the production. It's distracting as hell when a film about a subject has no feel or understanding of the people involved. The endless technical inaccuracies aside, it's depiction of US soldiers is totally phony. These soy based actors don't talk, act, or carry themselves like Soldiers, especially guys deployed in a forward area.

As to the accuracy and veracity of the events depicted, who knows? We all know poorly led soldiers, yes even Americans, are capable of falling into this type of darkness. But once Army CID, plea bargains, and the top brass starts scrambling to cover their butts...the truth goes bye bye. The Army Judge Advocate crew are even worse than civilian lawyers. They will do anything to secure convictions. But they also receive the full blessing and support from the Pentagon to create narratives and railroad service members. Anything to get the spotlight away from them.

I spent a lot of time in the worst parts of Afghanistan and I never saw US personnel indulge in wanton acts of barbarism or murder.

The soldiers in question were in all probability the product of a breakdown in the command and control of a military unit in combat. If these morons deserve jail time then so do their platoon, company, and battalion leadership. A combat unit doesn't degenerate like this overnight, there needs to be a vacuum of leadership. When this occurs in the face of constant exposure to combat, the anger and resentment that can and does build inside fighting men boils over.

As previously mentioned, I never came across an outlier unit like this in Afghanistan. This was not a systemic issue but a tragic incident. I did however very often witness the systemic barbarism of the insurgents we were fighting against. Murder, rape, mutilation, torture...it was all in a day's work for them. When saw the aftermath of their crimes, which were so heinous and bizarre, I couldn't help but be awe struck by them.

I found myself often wondering: "What kind of human mind could conjure up THIS method of killing another human?" I'm not saying these soldiers don't belong in jail because they probably do. We don't take kindly to bad soldiers bringing dishonor to the uniform, it's simply unacceptable. But let's look at the big picture instead of posturing like WE were the bad guys over there. When I personally stack up what these guys did vs. The universe of suffering created by the Taliban and insurgents...how should I be expected to feel? A couple of fingers hacked off and the extrajudicial killing of some locals who were clearly aiding the insurgents? I'm sorry but I've stared into the abyss too long and too often to have my hair blown back by that.

I don't know why that title popped into my head but it's the best way to for me to describe Black Mass. It's disappointing because many of the ingredients that make a great film are there floating around. But Black Mass ultimately just kind of lies there; expecting a great performance and decent production values to carry the load. The director seems like a nice guy who sincerely wanted to make a great film.

I wanted to be captivated by Black Mass. I wanting to be pulled into this story. But it all feels so familiar and superficial. There's a lot of material in this movie and it scrambles to check off the boxes. But it's broadness exceeds its grasp and therefore nothing is very satisfying. I get the feeling a better script with a different director might have made a huge difference.

I would recommend a 1973 film named The Friends of Eddie Coyle starring Bob Mitchum. Both are essentially stories about criminals in the Boston area. After seeing both you may better understand why one film works and the other does not.

Black Mass therefore finds itself in a somewhat unique category. Less than great films containing great performances. Just like Morgan Freeman in Street Smart. An A+ performance in a C- movie. I don't think I'd rate Depp's performance quite that high but he is genuinely great as Whitey.

Ultimately I must recommend Black Mass. Depp makes it worth the trip and the film itself, to be fair, isn't an abject failure,

Jason Lives is, for my money, the best in the Friday the 13th series. So I give it 10 stars based solely on that opinion. This isn't King Lear but it is an uncommonly clever slasher film. It's stark contrast to the other installments is what ultimately puts it over the top. Jason Lives' director wanted to try something different from that tried and true formula that would have normally apply. That in itself commands a certain level of respect. Luckily in this case he really is able to pull it off. Now, there's nothing wrong with dopey fun slasher movies. They don't ask for much and the successful ones deliver what we ask of it. Insane violence, a good villain, and a healthy dose of good looking ladies sans clothing. I enjoy the other Friday the 13th films (even though after this one they really started to go downhill). Jason Lives appeals to me but just in a different way. It's tongue and cheek approach to the story is kind of endearing. The explicit violence and the self seriousness of the other films is left behind. In its place we are given a healthy dose of tongue and cheek winks at the audience and self referential humor. It's a lot like Scream in that respect but Jason Lives did it first and better in my opinion. This is a film that acknowledges its ridiculousness and what were, even at the time, considered to be played out horror tropes. In not taking itself too seriously it shows us a certain level respect. I find myself even more willing to go along with it. Typical horror fare does not concern itself with catering to our higher levels of thinking. And as I said, that's perfectly fine too. Jason Lives has some legitimately funny moments but it also doesn't play around. Jason is still mean as hell and the end body count reflects as much. But this is a film that seems to take better care of us than say Friday the 13th Part 2 (which I also like). Many of primary characters here aren't the typical scumbags living and working in Crystal Lake. Even the pissed of Sheriff is sympathetic. He cares about his daughter's safety and very reasonably believes that Tommy is dangerous. The counselors mostly come off as nice kids and seem interested in the welfare of their charges. They don't fit the stereotypical horror characters who are usually, at best, selfish and self indulgent. We don't feel bad when they die, we just enjoy the process. But here we have characters whose deaths are sometimes kind of bummer. The actors who plays Tommy and the sheriffs daughter especially have us rooting for them to survive! We don't miss the excessive gore because this installment is able to be effective without it. Although damn, some are pretty brutal. Add some breaking of the fourth wall, nods to the old Universal horror films, good characters, decent story...this feels like the best rounded of the series. Jason 6 is not anything brilliant, but it took an established horror franchise and tried a different approach. It works and I think it will work for you as well. Have fun!

Social distancing from their mansion in Martha's Vineyard. Will Amy learn to cook and save herself and husband from certain starvation? Blech. I watched an episode with my fiancé and man oh man, painfully unfunny. Half the episode wasn't even about cooking! Her husband seems on point but Amy just...does what she does. She's not an organically funny person and this is probably the worst venue to to showcase her "comedy." Very uncomfortable This time slot would be much better served with re runs of Molly Yea's or Kardea Brown's show.

Whoever came up with the premise of Comrade Detective deserves The Order of Lenin. It's a sublimely clever concept for a TV series. Just reading the description was enough to make me chuckle. But right off the bat I realized the creators had made a giant miscalculation. It's a flaw on the most fundamental level: Comrade Detective doesn't understand its purpose. It's not so much that it misses the mark, but rather at which mark is it aiming? Parody? Satire? a semi serious drama? From an aesthetic level it's entirely unconvincing. Yes locations are appropriately authentic but the production itself is too slick, too polished. Comrade Detective is glaringly western in appearance. It doesn't look like a program that would exist in the 80s...forget about Eastern Bloc Hungary. The production value would have been atrocious and to western audiences completely bizarre. This show looks far too recognizable. There is satire but it broaches far too infrequently. One character questioning why another character would want to read a book when chess is on the television is, in theory, very funny. In execution, it feels like we're being thrown a satirical bone to gnaw in for a while. There are brief glimpses of the potential Comrade Detective had to be a scathing and laconic indictment of both Capitalism and Communism...but it never goes all in. It takes itself too seriously to succeed on any level. Since the crappy 80s buddy cop genre is basically an American invention, one that exists circa 1983 Hungary would have to be a rip-off. I think that's probably how the show was originally conceived but they appear to have chickened out. Ask yourself, what would Miami Vice or Lethal Weapon look like behind the Iron Curtain? If the Communists reverse engineered them and repackaged it for their own citizens. Comrade Detective should have been an absolute comedic gold mine. But instead we're left with a dog chasing it's own tail. What a waste!

This is a hard film to figure out. It's begins with promise. The Warsaw Uprising is a great source of Polish national pride and rightfully so. As an American, I have great love for Poland, it's people, and it's history of unbreakable resistance. I wanted to love this Warsaw 44, but I didn't. I wanted it to be the excellent film the subject matter deserves, but it isn't. The raw material is certainly present but it too often is either unused or mishandled. The filmmaker is clearly a great talent and from a technical standpoint there are moments of Warsaw 44 with great power and imagination. But the varying stylistic approaches taken by the film are almost schizophrenic in nature. There are sequences in this film that are so jarring and tone deaf that it makes me wonder if they weren't shoehorned in during post production. That scene when the main characters (both improbably good looking of course) share their first kiss made me literally slap my forehead. Any credibility Warsaw 44 had earned up until that point completely vanished. Just watch it, you'll see. It never recovers because it keeps repeating the same mistakes. There's some good stuff in this film and the subject matter is important enough to give it a go. But I would earnestly encourage any viewer to immediately find a good documentary or book about the Warsaw Uprising afterward. But ultimately my opinion on this film takes a backseat to that of a Polish man or woman. This is their story. It was made by and for Poles. Most important, in my opinion, is what they think. Is Warsaw 44 adequate in depicting this crucible in their nation's long struggle for freedom? Their answer is what matters most to me.

Adam 12's Reed and Malloy (McCord and Milner) are great characters. But their encounters with lowlifes, specifically hippies, aren't nearly as entertaining or unintentionally hilarious as, say... Joe Friday. The ever laconic LAPD detective who uses his acid tongue with machine gun speed to verbally eviscerate hippies, acid heads, pill freaks, or some combination. Adam 12 is played more for realism, or what passed for it at the time. Reed and Malloy handle hippies in a more matter of fact albeit less entertaining way. This episode has different threads but the glue sniffing hippies hanging around a park is worth the price of admission. Adam 12 was Webb's brain child and its depiction of the anti social elements of the day were more or less the same. One of the hippie ringleaders perfectly reflects Webb's sometimes muddy depictions of those who viewed cops as "the fuzz." In a major wtf? moment, he stands there accusing Reed and Malloy of being Nazi stormtroopers, even using a German accent. Yet the hippie is wearing a Nazi helmet and uniform jacket. What is that supposed to mean? lol. It's a completely bizarre moment and quite hilarious.

The King of the Hill episode "To Kill a Ladybird" is truly a gem. I'm hard pressed to recall any that delivers laugh out load moments so consistently. When it comes to KOTH I'm not sure it gets much better than this one. The plot involves Bobby befriending a raccoon eating out of the Hill's garbage When Hank discovers the animal's presence his initial reaction is hilarious; it's pure Hank Hill. Dale is put on the case and needless to say things don't go very well. The neighborhood eventually finds itself searching for a potentially rabid Ladybird and Dale. The 4th Season KOTH was, in some ways, the high water mark of the series. The show was firing on every cylinder with writing to beat the band. "To Kill a Ladybird" has a storyline that is unique compared to most KOTH episodes. There isn't really a B story (I'm not counting Dale's bizarre exploits in the woods). Everything is directly related to the main plot. It's actually something KOTH should have done more often. It's clear the episode's writers knew they had something good and used every second to tell the story. It's more or less Dale-centric which is usually a very good thing. Good TV, just like good films, is about creating moments and this episode happens to have a lot of them. I won't spoil anything by providing context but the humor, subtle and overt, lands just about every time. Hank's alternative to throwing a full can of Alamo, an aborted attempt to find the raccoon à la Ridley Scott's Alien, a "rabid" Dale getting caught after breaking into his own home to prepare food, a mushroom induced psychosis that turns Dale into a low rent Colonel Kurtz.... I could go on all day lol. "To Kill a Ladybird" distinguishes itself as an apex predator amongst the entire 13 season run of KOTH. If I was to introduce the series to someone unfamiliar with it, this is probably it the one I'd choose. It somehow manages to encapsulate just about everything that made KOTH click so wonderfully on a comedic level.

This episode is KOTH at its very best. Hank's choice of words when he expresses initial disbelief about Bobby's diagnosis, a Rascal scooter, a singing toe, finding comfort in "New York" style food....there's a lot that recommends this episode. KOTH's ability to take the truly bizarre, make it hilarious, and keep the story firmly rooted in some type of reality impresses me even today. KOTH was usually successful in refusing to compromise our affection for its characters. Some of the show's contemporaries took that path or were never on it in the first place. Yeah they could make me laugh, but they couldn't make me care. KOTH had great heart to it and this episode wears it on its sleeve. The ending in particular is almost disarmingly sweet. Put it all together and it makes for damn good tv that still holds up.

Clean and Sober is not a "feel good" movie. It doesn't have Improbably beautiful actors going through the stereotypical and cliche motions seen in other films about addiction. Michael Keaton is astonishingly believable as a smooth talking drug addict whose talents for manipulating others is surpassed only by his own self deception. Keaton's performance resonates as a man fueled purely by need. The essence of addiction is viscerally on display as he desperately tries to mitigate the trouble in which he now finds himself. The walls are closing in all around him and we feel not only his desperation, but also his inability to recognize it as such. Morgan Freeman is in top form as usual in an early performance in his film career. A former addict now sober and working in a rehab he has a proud weariness to him. A kind man but also one who knows Keaton's number and isn't afraid to tell him as much. But ultimately this is Keaton's movie...a testament to the greatness of his performance. The supporting cast is very genuine and their stories are tragically believable. M. Emmet Walsh in particular stands out as a success story for a recovering addict. He has no problem admitting that putting down one addiction sometimes requires picking up another, albeit much less harmful The story itself is familiar enough. Keaton is a business man in a lot of trouble for a lot of reasons. Drug rehab is seen as sanctuary; a place to lay low while he frantically tries to fix the problems he has created. Getting sober is not a straight line for anyone. Keaton's journey is one that at he doesn't always know he is making, Luck, timing, fate, and tragedy all play a part in keeping himself and drugs separated. Clean and Sober really is a fine film and all too often overlooked. It's not cute and it doesn't let us off the hook. But it's that uncompromising honesty that makes it so incredibly moving. Life can be cruel. We can lose ourselves but also muster the strength to find ourselves again. Sometimes we have to prematurely say goodbye to those we love. But through sorrow strength can also be found. Strength to carry on even when surrender seems so seductive. Clean and Sober hits some very powerful notes. We should always dare to hope for a better day. In the end key words are spoken by Keaton that perfectly encapsulate his situation. A sense of defiant optimism in the face of great difficulty is the fuel that helps us achieve new heights. And from there, to go ahead and reach a little higher.

An interesting premise and top notch actors degenerates into merely a clothesline in which to hang far left politics. It figures that a lot of the 10 star reviews basically begin with: "I'm an atheist but I really like this movie." Uh huh. If I was an atheist I'd think this is a pretty swell movie too. It depicts an institution that has been historically opposed to left wing ideology now telling them exactly what they want to hear. Pope Francis is like the Cousin Oliver of the Catholic Church. Bad ratings and repetitive story-lines means a new character is shoehorned into the cast. It's a desperate attempt at damage control. What exactly has the Catholic Church gained from putting a Marxist in the Vatican? Non Catholics and atheists aren't going to sign up for Catholicism just because The Pope is a nice guy who likes pizza. Catholics do not find endearing a Pope who tells the, that basically everything they have been taught by the Church is now wrong. Trying to please everyone will end up pleasing no-one. So basically this is a highly fictionalized "true" story about a crusty conservative, played by Hopkins, being shown the light by a socialist. It's a film that makes sure to let us know that walls are not Christian, as if the creators actually care about what it means to be a Christian. But not every wall, certainly not the one that protects the Vatican. The only evil wall seems to be the one separating the US and Mexico. Okay Pope, whatever you say pal.

Even watching it via MST3K / Rifftrax is an incredibly painful experience. Radical Jack is basically Road House and an episode Walker Texas Ranger mixed together and filtered of ANYTHING that could be possibly considered watchable. It doesn't even work on the "so bad it's good level." It's so bad, it's just bad, Billy Ray Cyrus plays a former Navy SEAL who has hazy flashbacks of fighting in a war that occurred outside an abandoned rural motel. He's our protagonist I guess, despite being imminently unlikable. Buck Flower shows up as the bad guy. His off the rack Ill fitting suit jacket and the prom limousine the producers rented for an afternoon makes it clear he's very rich. I can only assume Buck had a late alimony payment and needed a couple hundred bucks. I could go into plot but who cares? Bar fights that look like they were staged by an Amish person. A town sheriff that drives a station wagon. Country music so bad that could be used as psychological warfare against Vietcong guerillas. Billy Ray's upsetting mullet. Radical Jack is offensively and aggressively bad. It makes Future War look like Citizen Kane. To watch it is to risk eye cancer. The only practical application of this movie would be to air drop copies of it on ISIS training camps in Syria.

Blind patriotism may be the mark of a fool but films like this are endemic of something I find far more sinister. I was a combat medic and served / deployed during OIF. For all the difficulty I have experienced both during and after my time in the Army, I remain defiantly proud. I couldn't have asked for better men to serve alongside. America is very lucky to be protected by men and women who not only have guts but also some of the biggest hearts I have ever seen. I would never say bad apples can't be found in that barrel nor can I always attest to the wisdom of our civilian leadership. But America will always be a great country because we have the moral courage to question decisions we have made. Sometimes we fall short, but the resolve to do better is always a priority. Oliver Stone's Platoon for example is an excellent film about soldiers at war. It's greatness lies not just in its brilliance as a work of film, but also as an opportunity for Americans to look at themselves in the mirror. We need films like Platoon just like we need spell check on Microsoft Word. It is highly critical of the military and our involvement in Vietnam. It's brutal, uncompromising, and heart breaking. Stone holds up the mirror and we can decide whether we like what we see. That's the hallmark of an honest anti war film. But just like we need Platoon there is nothing wrong about films that serve as testaments to the bravery and fidelity of our fighting men. Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down are fine examples. Good Kill doesn't fit anywhere in this equation. It's not an anti war film, it's a hit piece. It's a film with a palpable hatred for America, the armed forces, and the men and women who serve. They couldn't even be bothered with seeking out technical advice. A film that doesn't understand its own subject matter is already in big trouble. How am I supposed to take it seriously if there is zero authenticity to it? The technical gaffs could fill an encyclopedia. Good Kill's greatest sin however its unapologetic lazy. This could have been a better film with a different script and director. There is material in this subject that could potentially raise very interesting questions. Good Kill can't be bothered with anything that approaches objective thought. It repeatedly rams the "message" down our throats and then kicks us in the ass for good measure. It typifies the fundamental stupidity of the hate America crowd. They don't want to be challenged and can't handle ambiguity. They have a hawk's eye for human weakness but no stomach for it. The idea of a drone pilot arguing with a CIA officer over an intended target is just ludicrous. Good Kill promulgates the theory that our military will gladly waste billions of dollars worth of missiles for the soul purpose of hunting down innocent civilians as if it were sport. This may exist in some Leftist's wet dream but here in reality its simply laughable. The fact of the matter is that I am alive today and have a beautiful family. On multiple occasions I, and many others, would be dead had there not been a drone pilot watching our back. They saved a lot of lives but the type of crowd that enjoys this type of rubbish probably sees that as a bad thing.