scowl

Literally the only episode of the Partridge Family I can remember seeing. Why? It's so reactionary to computers it paints them not just as a passing fad, but as a threat we must react to.

Who is willing to defend the future here? Keith for some reason. When the department store bill arrives announcing faster and better service in "the computer age", Keith oddly asks "I wonder what computer they're using." This is of course to set up something later. When they see they got a bill for $290 instead of $29, Keith again defends the heartless machine correctly explaining "It wasn't the computer's fault. It was the guy who programmed it."

We then travel to the department store and see the subservient man to the machine, a Mr. Byron Atwater who loves loves loves his new mainframe even though they've given him a cheap noisy teletype instead of a video terminal. We then move on to a young fellow named Tom Baker to solve the billing error. Even though he wears a lab coat in the computer room like a scientist, he explains "I feed the billing information to it through this typewriter here." Typewriter? You know it's going to go bad.

No surprise that Mr. Baker, oh I mean the computer, makes things worse obviously out of spite. The Partridge Family has now angered what someday would be called "The Beast". Computers everywhere have turned against them. They have destroyed the family's credit rating and identified them as deadbeats. Protesters put the war in Vietnam aside to picket the department store. After an apparent victory, the computers strike back and have their furniture repossessed.

While the situation being straightened out and their furniture is being returned, Keith decides to take revenge. He reads the computer manual (which apparently includes the billing software) and hacks into the mainframe. Since modems were too expensive back then, Keith's hacking is simply walking into the room that's labeled "Computer Room" and doing something while his sister lures Baker away for sex (implied!). Within minutes Keith has used the computer to steal $50,000 from the department store.

You might think stealing $50,000 would be a serious crime but the early 70's were a time of legal ambiguity, with the turmoil in the Middle East, Vice President Agnew's corruption and resignation, and of course the Watergate scandal. Crime was only a crime if it didn't lead to a happy ending for everyone involved. Even Shirley winks at her kids when she realizes they were behind the theft. What a time that was!

In his book "Film is Hell" Matt Howe who shot this and many other bad films for Sultan Films claims that this film is slightly better than the worst movie ever, Air Boss. Of course I had to decide for myself.

This film does have somewhat higher production values than Air Boss. Robert Davi seemed to have enjoyed the R.D. Crowley character, probably because he just had to sit around saying evil dialog and smoking a cigar and not doing much. He was entertaining to watch in the small doses we're given. Kayle Watson is given a good role meaning his dialog is all small words and short sentences which he can handle. J. Christian Ingvordsen (writer, director, etc.) who plays the evil German Heinz Dietrich is obviously copying Robert Shaw's performance in The Battle of the Bulge -- the squinting mannerisms and overdone German accent is completely identical, so at least he knew where to steal. Absolute Aggression also has a more linear plot than Air Boss which appeared to be (but weren't) three television episodes stuck together.

Unfortunately this plot is a blatant and shameless formula for collecting completely random footage as "virtual reality" scenes with reused locations, sets, costumes and even footage from other Sultan productions. The action scenes are disoriented with swords flying in random directions, guns shooting in random directions, and little to clue the audience into what's supposed to be happening. These scenes go on forever and could have been exciting if they had been choreographed properly. They're nothing more than a bunch of guys with fake weapons and no idea how to use them. And meanwhile there are actual stories happening in the plot which could have been interesting if a few more minutes had been given to them.

Matt Howe also outdid himself in the photography with his overuse of Dutch tilts. Far too many scenes are shot with the camera needlessly tilted. I'm guessing that Howe thought this would be a sign of good planning (you can't cut to another scene tilted in the same direction) but it quickly became a distraction instead of adding tension. It's not Howe's fault that Battlefield Earth would make the Dutch tilt a cinematic joke a few years later.

I would have to put Air Boss about a half point higher than Absolute Aggression. Both are shamelessly padded but Air Boss's episodic formula bothered me less than the long terrible action scenes in Absolute Aggression. I also had some understanding of the characters in Air Boss while Absolute Aggression had little character conflict other than that between Dietrich and Crowley.

In his hilarious book "Film is Hell", Matthew Howe claims that this movie he shot for Sultan Productions is the worst movie ever made. I've seen many awful movies and while this is one of them, it's certainly not the worst.

Howe's photography is quite good considering the low budget and time constraints. The real footage he shot on a carrier and in actual helicopter training are excellent stock footage although they don't fit into the rest of the film very well. Most of the shots are in focus with just one shot certainly out of focus and a few combat scenes that are strangely blurry. The locations (mostly run down industrial parks) are creepy and the hand-held camera motion is often very good. Some of the sets are not as bad as I expected and almost reach mid-90's cable television quality. And of course the explosions are so good you'll get to see them over and over. Producer/Director/Actor John Christian has a nice restrained acting style which I'm sure he refined over his many low budget productions. Several other actors put in adequate performances. I expected the editing and pacing to bother me more than they did.

What really kills the film is it's obvious that no frame of it was ever intended to be shown in a theater. It's shot full frame, the title cards were obviously added in video, and there are even long fade to blacks that might as well say "Airboss will be right back after these messages!" You never forget that you're watching the lowest-budget television imaginable. There are far too many closeups of actors pointing at stuff and describing it to us, strategically avoiding any background that could tell us where they are. Many scenes appear to be first takes with lots of panning substituting for coverage. The combat scenes have no direction with tanks moving around aimlessly and guns shooting in every direction.

Some of the acting and dialog is terrible. Kayle Watson is good looking but rarely delivers a line convincingly. His acting couldn't buy a role in a Lifetime movie. Caroline Strong has had some success in television but tries too hard with her "tough woman" act which is not helped with the terrible "tough woman" dialog she was given. The moments of painfully bad dialog are numbed by needlessly long scenes of dull exposition but the painful scenes still linger in your mind.

The plot is nothing more than a series of barely-related international crises designed to send our heroes to what appears to be the same location over and over to shoot bad guys, kidnap terrorists, and bring some American justice to the rest of the world. It repeats over and over until the movie is long enough to finally end. This formula is not much different from a season of "24".

I will not be watching any of the sequels.

This film should be used in film schools to show all the possible wrong things that could end up in a film and how they might be corrected. Examples:

1. How could Johnny's dialog have been written to sound like it was being spoken by a human?

2. How could the alley set have been designed to look real and not like a set in a Saturday Night Live sketch?

3. Why it is better to shoot on the roof of a building instead of using a green screen to make a parking lot look like a rooftop?

4. How would you decorate the indoor sets so they look like a people live there? Count the number of mistakes in the art direction starting with the television facing the wrong direction.

5. Why is it not a good idea to cut between two takes during a long dialog scene when one actor is picking up and putting down a wine glass after every sentence?

6. How did the disappearing characters and unresolved subplots serve to confuse the viewer?

7. Would the loss of a promotion and an unfaithful girlfriend be considered a mortally stressful situation to a character that has not been established to be suffering from emotional problems?

8. How would it have improved the story to tell the audience some back story on the characters (where they met, what their jobs are, etc.)?

9. Which responses in the dialog seemed inappropriate (laughing about physical abuse, disregarding a potentially fatal disease, shrugging off a person who just tried to kill someone, etc.)?

10. At what point do insert shots of San Francisco become a confusing distraction for the audience instead of serving to set up the next scene?

11. Which scenes would have worked better if they had been shot at exterior locations instead of on a cheap sets or an obviously fake roof top?

12. What would have made the simulated sex scenes seem closer to actual sex or at least closer to simulated sex?

13. Was Johnny's soliloquy about recording phone conversations necessary when it was done right before he walked over to the phone and connected a tape recorder to it?

14. When several characters are going to enter at the beginning of a scene, it is better to have them enter in a group, or have them enter one at a time with the door shut and reopened repeatedly?

15. When Johnny flips out and starts destroying his bedroom, why does it look more like he's just haphazardly looking for something?

16. When a gun is introduced in the first act, must it always be used?

Although this film is considered a classic, it's filled with political symbolism that is no longer relevant. When you subtract that, you end up with a 95 minute episode of the Twilight Zone. I was unable to have any compassion for the mysteriously trapped characters. I realize that their inability to understand why they are trapped is not supposed to be explained but it takes more adequate character development to make this an interesting situation to me. We only have moments of yelling, anger, frustration, non-sequiturs and unconvincing dialog. Supposedly there are moments of jealousy and betrayal but all this adds up to nothing. The ending is ridiculous without being funny and the ending after the ending was a predictable way to stretch the thin idea past 90 minutes.

Yes, Luis Buñuel had an interesting career but I don't know why people consider this his best work.

Sure, making thirty episodes a season isn't easy but this is the one episode in four seasons that really stands out for having borrowed plot elements from previous episodes to cobble together another episode.

Let's start with the wonderful Kim Darby who plays the daughter of a devout Christian who believes only God can heal people. In a strange bit of type casting, Darby had also played the blissfully naive niece of a faith healer in "An Apple a Day" from last season. As you would guess, a medical emergency becomes the major plot point in both episodes.

Kimble's occupation in this episode is an assistant to a veterinarian. If you go back to season one's episode "Bloodline", Dr. Kimble used his medical abilities at a kennel (yes, the Fugitive had an episode about the practice of fraudulent dog breeding). I guess they had to get Kimble to the farm to discover Darby's plight and they remembered how well his medical training worked in that episode so they quickly fitted those two pieces together.

In the end, a person sympathetic to the convicted murder purposely leads the police off Kimble's trail. Well, that same trick happened at the end of the first episode of the season, "The Last Oasis" so it was hardly a surprise this time around. The dismissed deputy tracking Kimble is also far too similar to the deputy with a chip on his shoulder who hunted Kimble in that earlier episode since their failure to catch him resulted in the same professional humiliation.

This is part of the fun of watching a hundred episodes of a television series over a few weeks. Naturally the writers would have to retread previous territory but this is the only episode where I saw everything coming because I remembered seeing it in earlier episodes days or weeks ago.

Of course this is a terrible movie, but perhaps it could teach other aspiring film makers who are short on cash to adopt its techniques more effectively.

Say your film is running short and you need some filler to stretch it out to 90 minutes. This film is your guide. Start the movie with a cold opening in what you will think will be the highlight of your film. Run it for about ten minutes before the audience has any clue what's going on and before the scene peaks, run the intro credits. Now you've just gotten ten whole minutes of movie for free and you've milked ten minutes of what will be the best part. Brilliant.

And those credits? Run them for as long as possible. If you give each name 20-30 second of screen time, you can squeeze another five minutes out of your production. While this may seem awkward, if you have sounds of action while they're on the screen, that is less awkward than if you show them with silence or some cheesy music. Just snip some sound clips from other parts of the movie.

Upscale action movies will use props which will crash and cause exciting destruction when our hero and the bad guy fight. While cardboard boxes do neither of these things, they are practically free. Tell your friends you're moving and you can fill your set just like this movie did. Most importantly they are reusable so feel free to use them in as many scenes as possible.

One problem this film had was the scale of the dinosaurs. One moment they're the size of buildings. The next they're about six feet tall. By the time they attack our hero, they were barely the size of a domestic dog. If you don't have a Ray Harryhausen at your disposal, don't stumble down this path. Use the monster technique that Spielberg did in Jaws and Ridley Scott did in Alien: less is more. If something is going to look cheesy, show as little of it as possible. The audience knows what dinosaurs look like so why disappoint them?

There are some other lessons like hiring attractive actors regardless of their acting ability but those are pretty obvious.

If you believe the British are at the cutting edge of workplace comedy after giving us The Office, this series will certainly surprise you.

Many Americans like me will find the laugh track even more jarring than the over-the-top characters. American television had left this insulting Pavlovian comedic tool back in the 80's along with the screaming close-up and the spit-take. Oh wait, the IT Crowd has those too. It looked like they were using the old Barney Miller set with shadowy overhead lighting and a pointlessly cluttered fake sound stage. Jen's office is even where Barney's was!

I found it to be slightly funnier with the sound off and the subtitles on.

If you look at both both girls' stories at the beginning, it seems like Megan had the best chance to fit back into society. Although she had a history of running away, her crime was not extremely violent (from what little we're told). She's energetic, driven, charismatic, fairly focused, aware of her family's faults, and could easily become a hairdresser or stylist which was her hobby while locked up. She's also beautiful and stylish which can make a difference when getting into that profession (and of course that's why she's on the DVD cover).

Shanae on the other hand seems unfocused and passive. She seems to have accepted her situation and is making the best of it. Her mother dies suddenly right when she's making great progress. And there's one fact that this movie glosses over repeatedly: she's a murderer. She stabbed a girl three times which killed her. While Shanae is going to the prom and enjoying teenage life, there's another girl in a coffin who will never experience that. If this ever occurs to Shanae, she never speaks about it.

The surprise: Shanae is the success story. She gets good grades, never gets into trouble again and has a lot of people proud of her. She even becomes more articulate, able to express complex ideas that the old Shanae probably couldn't have formulated. The director commentary said she's only had more success after the documentary finished. Despite being a murderer and losing her mother, she's everything we could hope for.

Megan on the other hand goes out of control. Her family only exists for her to yell at and blame her problems on which we get to see over and over. Her real family is her loser friends she hangs out with, whoever they may be on any given day. Her only apparent goal is to follow in her mother's footsteps, straight into jail. Her street "Bawlmore" accent becomes thicker and stupider and shows which direction he's headed. In the end the director asks her if she could have three wishes come true, what would they be. Megan, clearly under the influence of something, can't think of a single wish worth asking for. She's perfectly content at that moment and that's all she cares about.

If you watch it again with the knowledge of how things turned out, then you can see what was really going on. Shanae was quiet but that only hid her inner drive and confidence that we didn't know existed. Megan was a drama queen, faking sickness, seeking attention from everyone, breaking rules, and constantly manipulating the staff to get what she wanted. What looked like drive and energy would actually become weaknesses in the real world. Shanae returned to a family who cared about her and was proud of her. Megan went back to a surrogate family of clueless corner kids, a mother she has no respect for, and no one who really cared about her.

I wish they had given more information on the girls' lives before they were incarcerated from other more objective people. We know next to nothing about the crimes they committed. This made me feel like the director purposely downplayed these clues and withheld information in order to make the ending more surprising which isn't fair to the audience. All we hear are bits and pieces from the girls themselves and very brief titles saying what happened. For example Megan's habit of running away from foster homes was actually a strong clue of how her brain worked than was implied when she was released.

While this documentary may at first seem to be a "Trekkies" of classic video game players. it's actually a battle between two very different personalities in a very rarefied and unique crowd of people who don't just take video games seriously but even view the masters of these games as heroes and leaders.

The messiah of this strange subculture is Billy Mitchell who at 17 years of age achieved fame by setting several world records at various classic arcade games just as the video game craze had peaked. As these arcade games were replaced with more advanced games, Mitchell apparently lost interest in setting new records just as people lost interest in attempting to break his old ones. His records seemed to be unbreakable. No one was more certain of that than Mitchell.

When there was a sudden revival of classic arcade games in the 90's, Mitchell's nearly-forgotten records once again dazzled another generation of arcade game fanatics. Mitchell apparently had been unaware that he had ever left the public limelight and speaks to camera as if it were still 1982. Nothing about his appearance or behavior could have been changed to make him more villainous to the audience. His hair and clothes make him look like he had just stepped out of 1982 yearbook. He touts his ancient glories to the camera with sneering grins and the unblinking stare of a salesman who is trying to get you to spend a lot of money on something you don't want. His motives are completely transparent to the audience yet he's unaware of this. More disturbing, his fans are just as clueless. We realize we're seeing a personality cult straight out of a college textbook.

Then enters Steve Wiebe who has built a Donkey Kong game from spare parts in his garage and clearly breaks Mitchell's "unbreakable" record on it. Wiebe's personality could not be more different than Mitchell's. He is a smiling unassuming and somewhat introverted science teacher, a good musician and has an incredibly kind and supportive wife with much smaller breasts than Mitchell's wife's. Wiebe sends in the video tape of his record breaking game to the web site who keeps track of such things assuming that he would simply be awarded the new world record.

The results of this video tape could not have been anticipated by Wiebe nor anyone in the audience who is unfamiliar with the strange cult of gamers. The documentary has to unweave an odd history of rivalries, personality clashes, and bad blood going back decades to explain why this community had no choice but to claim that Wiebe's new score was a fraud. He was not part of the cult and even worse unwittingly made a connection to someone who is considered an "enemy" of this cult. For the record to stand, he must "redeem" himself by going through what can only described as an initiation ritual. Only then can he be considered someone worthy of having his name placed next to the name of Billy Mitchell.

It's clear that these men are not looking at Wiebe as someone has mastered Donkey Kong. They're looking at him as a potential new hero, a new idol, a new leader for their isolated subculture. Wiebe is not interested in worship; he simply wants his record to be acknowledged. This causes dissonance to the ranks because worship was all that Mitchell ever wanted from them. As Wiebe publicly demonstrates his mastery of Donkey Kong, Mitchell is shown actively avoiding Wiebe and his new fans and having a Svengali-like power over his most dedicated fans as he plots against this new interloper.

If all this sounds outrageous beyond belief then you simply must see this film. It shows how desperate some people are to be part of a community, how certain personalities can shamelessly control these people and make them say ridiculous things to the camera to show their worship and devotion, and how someone who enters the community and refuses to play by the unspoken rules can throw their make-believe world out of balance.

I see there are major fans of this movie but you'd hardly know this movie is about the end of the world. There is so much upbeat irrelevant material that I would almost believe that the human race ending in a nuclear war was just a minor subplot they worked in during a rewrite. They know all life will end in five months but no worries, mates! The late 50's will live on. Plenty of time to pad the film with cocktail parties, frolicking on the beach, and racing those fast cars (uh, didn't they mention a fuel shortage?). People will continue to live their normal happy lives. Oh some social malcontent might mention an unpleasant topic like r-a-d-i-a-t-i-o-n but when you have 400 bottles of Port to drink, the only thing to argue about is how you're going to drink that much in five months. Turn that frown upside down, go find yourself the thickest steak in town and wash it down with a Martini just like you always did. You'll have plenty of time to head up to the mountains for a few days, do some fishing and sing drinking songs which will be the perfect soundtrack for a whirlwind romantic adventure and avoid what the movie is supposed to be about.

If you're a fan of late 50's acting you'll probably enjoy this first hour. If you're expecting to see a chilling movie about how real people would face the ultimate demise of life on Earth, try another title. There's only one relevant subplot in the first hour and while it tries to get serious approaching the second hour, the romantic melodrama could have been pulled out of any random war movie where the soldier is about to head to the front. Nuclear war won't be all that bad as long as everyone finds a way to die with dignity.

If you've read the book, you know H.G. Wells wrote a lot of stuff about the Moon that would be ridiculous to modern audiences. It was more fantasy than science fiction especially the explosion of plant growth which was silly even when the book was written since anyone would have seen that through a telescope on Earth. They wisely left out almost all of these in the movie to make it somewhat more serious.

Most of the good parts have been left in. Cavor is just as eccentric as he was in the book. Wells' detailed description of the underground society is much too brief so many of the insights in the book are lost (perhap Henryhausen's Dynamation work was too expensive or they felt audiences would be bored) and nearly all of the adventures in the jungle of the Moon have been removed since the Moon in the movie has no atmosphere or plant life. The book's ending of course is entirely different here and while it's disappointingly familiar, it's certainly more of an ending. Sandwiching the original story as a flashback in a modern moon landing was very clever and worked perfectly.

Since every science fiction movie in the 50's and 60's needed a pretty woman to be saved by the hero from evil-looking aliens, they had to add the character of Kate Callender. Unfortunately she is a constant distraction from what was a more contentious and entertaining relationship between Cavor and Bedford in the book. They should have left her on Earth.

Another entertaining aspect of this movie is how they depicted a modern moon landing. The idea of landing a separate lunar module on the surface while the main craft stays in orbit around the Moon was just one of many ideas on the drawing board in 1964 (and wasn't yet the most popular). It's also amusing that the surface of the Moon is shown as a dark place with brown dirt and sharp peaked mountains instead of the blinding bright gray rocky rolling hills we saw in the real Moon landings. Fortunately NASA scientists knew about ladders so our astronauts would not have to dangle from a rope to be lowered to the surface.

Not many Americans have seen this show (and with only twenty episodes, that's not likely to change) so I thought I throw a word in. I bought the first season because I buy lots of DVDs in PAL format since they have higher resolution and cost just a few dollars more to ship overseas. I stumbled upon this show which sounded like a lesbian My So-Called Life, one of the most celebrated shows about teenage life that barely survived one season on ABC.

The first few episodes are not all that good. Kim is manipulative and kind of despicable but at least is honest to herself about it (thanks to the voice overs, another thing that made My So-Called Life wonderful). It's easy to root for her because she's pretty and surrounded by awful people. Sugar and her mom are sluts, her father is clueless and spineless, and her younger brother is suffering from mental problems so severe I can't believe I'm supposed to laugh at them. Kim apparently had a lot of friends recently (look at the numbers on her cell phone) but dropped them once Sugar arrived and getting her seems to be the only focus of her life. She has no interest in checking out the gay clubs in Brighton where even a closeted minor can socialize and find friends.

There are some good attempts at light humor as Kim manipulates her mom and Sugar or have events unexpectedly go her way (in the clever "crabs" episode for example) but a lot of jokes go flat (like the "date rape" episode). At that point it's not much more than a funny soap opera and I'm wondering if this show is ever going to take itself seriously. If the DVD set hadn't traveled thousands of miles to me, I probably would have lost interest in it.

Then, in a swirling scene, one of Kim's clever tricks pays off big time! The light humorous tone disappears and the show suddenly and completely comes alive. Finally, the drama I've been waiting for arrives and it's intense and believable. Kim's relationship with Sugar becomes dramatically real and we see just how much she's put her heart on the line for her. The motivations behind her mother's cheating come out and a real mother-daughter relationship develops. Her father becomes a stronger, more sympathetic character and less of a running joke. Even the humor improves. I've never seen a show take off like this.

Also, I'm glad to see a series that shows that color EXISTS in Britain. We Americans see so many drab-looking British shows, we all think every day must be gray and cloudy there (well, every day I've been there was). Nearly every scene is full of blazingly saturated colors (much like our Veronica Mars) and the outdoor scenes on the Brighton Pier are wonderfully colorful and beautiful.

The folks at MST3K are right. If you think this is the worst movie ever made, you are lucky enough to have missed some truly terribly made movies.

While the film was shot in a straight-forward low-budget manner of course, excluding the special effects, it's shot competently with sharp and consistent deep focus, smooth camera movement and perfectly acceptable lighting for the era. Compare this to dozens of poorly lit black and slightly-less black cheapo movies of the era. The editing is fairly well done with good timing and fades between cuts and only some small continuity problems and is superior to the long money-saving takes (often with flubbed lines) that other bargain movies of the time used to save post production costs. The print on the DVD has excellent contrast, solid blacks and the dialog, however silly, is perfectly clear and the stock music is actually appropriate for every scene.

The plot is only a notch or two below many Roger Corman movies made a few years earlier and possibly could have been salvaged with some script rewrites and professional actors.

Seen Wild Things? If you have unfortunately you'll know at some point not to believe or trust anyone in this one. At that point every plot twist meant to surprise you won't really. I checked the spoiler box because just mentioning the title of that great film would ruin what little this film has going for it.

Also this one has far less interesting characters (Steve Zahn is particularly irritating with his endless Charles Mason impression) and instead of peering into the lives of upper class and lower classes of steamy Florida, we hang out with some of the least interesting people of exotic Los Angeles.

It even copied the idea of throwing in extra explanatory scenes during the closing credits. It only made me appreciate Wild Things more.

Maryse Alberti went too far in trying to create a visual style in hopes that you wouldn't notice that this is just a videotaped play. Surprise, the quick pans, the quick cuts, and the dopey changes in perspective after every sentence just makes you more aware that this is a low-budget enterprise. Fortunately you hardly have to watch to follow what's going on so just don't look.

Since this movie is driven by dialog, that's the second weakness. The script is painfully padded with aimless dialog. It's obvious to anyone even listening to the film what's going on yet Jon remains clueless. He continues to ask Vince questions that will make your eyes roll: "What's that?" (pointing to the obvious plot point), "What's going on?", "Why are you doing this?" (repeated many times), "And that's worth more than our entire friendship?", "Why won't you give me the (plot point)?", "Will you stop being a dick, Vince?" and "What are you going to do with the (plot point)?" It's as if Vince needed to explain how blackmail works to Jon while he continues to laughingly attempt to persuade Vince to not blackmail him using insults, vague moral arguments (to a guy who has just snorted two lines of cocaine!) and more dumb questioning. Jon has made films but sure hasn't seen very many.

This film could have easily worked with more intelligent characters and more realistic dialog. This was more like a jerk and an idiot in a motel room.

I was relieved to read the plot summary here because after watching this film, I was certain that I had missed an important plot point. It turns out I hadn't. You can experience the excitement of this film by spending the next two hours reading the plot summary slowly, word by word. There are no spoilers there. That's literally all, folks.

It does get points for interesting framing and composition and for making ugly things appear even uglier in color That's what the director intended but does anyone really think pollution and disease are attractive?

Oh there is one thing that's not in the plot summary. The fable that Guiliana tells her son is wonderfully photographed and is more interesting than anything else in the film.

I won't reiterate all of the praise of this film except to say that if I had just few more spare dollars when it was released on laserdisc, I would have bought a laserdisc player just for this title (and 2001). Fortunately years later I've already purchased a DVD player and For All Mankind has finally been released on that format.

To me the defining moment of this film is the lunar lander slowly returning to the command module. At first we only see the cratered surface of the Moon moving below at incredible speed. Then we see a tiny motionless speck above it. Was it a defect in the lens? Of course not. It's the lunar lander slowly returning from the surface. It seems to take much longer than it really does because there are no cuts and no narrator explaining what we already know we're seeing. There's only a dot turning into a space ship. What more could you add to this amazing sight?

You've probably seen those black and white "art" films that were designed and approved by a socialist committee that are full of empty symbolism, pointless action and no plot. Although this movie may have inspired them all, it certainly doesn't belong in that category. Once I got past the now-cliched concept of a filming a film (about real life, get it?) this is the most interesting real life snapshot slide show stop-motion extravaganza I've ever seen. So much of what we associate with the pre-depression twenties is here: street cars, bobbed haircuts, dangerous occupations, recreation, sports, and blissful optimism. What really brings this movie to life is the incredible modern score. You'll be surprised how the music makes the blurry flickery images jump off the screen just like a movie released last week.