klantry

Bakshi staged a Mighty Heroes reunion when he revived Mighty Mouse in the 80's. Mighty Mouse needed help on a case, and he turns to Man, Man, Man, Man, & Man, CPA's for help. The accountants are the Mighty Heroes gone middle aged.

By the end of the episode, Diaper Man has graduated to Training-Pants Man.

Don't waste your time. Honest.

French Stewart trying to play Daniel Stern's character, and no one trying to play Joe Pesci. Say no more.

SPOILER:

Grownup is locked in a basement by bad guys. Has cell phone. Does not call police. Don't just suspend disbelief, put it into orbit.

There is nothing in this movie that you can't see in the TV show. I was more entertained by the "making of" special on Animal Planet than the movie.

Maybe this is unfair, but since they managed to work in a lame (and I mean cart it away in a wheelchair lame) "Raiders of the Lost Ark" parody, they couldn't find a "Road Warrior" or "Babe" joke?

If I had one question for Steve Irwin, it would be this: When your father was teaching you to handle animals, did he ever say, "Be quiet, Steve, you're scaring the animals!"

Somewhere in this 104 minute movie is a great, 30 minute Twilight Zone episode struggling to get out. You catch on fairly early that someone is not what they seem, but then you spend an hour restraining yourself from hitting the fast-forward to find out the answer.

The Fury contains a number of excellent scenes and sequences -- Kirk Douglas evading capture in Chicago, the sequence at the amusement park -- but put the parts together and the movie is just too muddled.

Keep eyes open for NYPD Blue's Dennis Franz.

Broad comedy, minimized violence, recognizable stars - drop the kids off at the matinee and you're in good shape.

If you go along with them, you can play spot the movie connection. Half the movie is set at Universal Studios Los Angeles. Aside from the obvious (character walking past the Norman Bates House, etc.), the producers left dozens of props from other movies lying around. (I already submitted the cars from "Back to the Future" and "How the Grinch Stole Christmas".) It's almost like the movie is one big plug for the Universal Studios tour.

Speaking of plugs: Note the obvious ones for Coca-Cola and the E.T. re-release.

Parental Guidance note: Please be sure to explain to your kids that a) Hollywood is not a nice place to run away to, and b) they shouldn't expect to get hugs and encouragement after they run away.

Hitchcock's version was very stagebound, and, except for the assault on Grace Kelly, practically a drawing room mystery. This one adds two more, including one seemingly necessary to create a closure.

Why does the movie go to the trouble of creating Detective Karamor (David Suchet), the archetypical intrepid investigator, then leave the necessary detective and confrontation work to Emily? His sole function seems to be to let Emily know about the missing key. Even his work with the phone records has holes in it - the police should have been able to trace the call to a cell phone and found some details. Knowing that the call came from an unregistered or falsely registered phone should have raised suspicion about the nature of the attack.

Much is made of the fact that this was a Stanley Kubrick project that ended up being a Steven Spielberg project, and that fans of each will be disappointed by the compromises made by the other. However, there is one element that I think Kubrick would have done differently, and the film is saved by excellent performances that save the change.

After David is abandoned, the movie suddenly shifts to Joe, the android gigolo. We learn why he does what he does, without having to get into too many details. Then, just as abruptly, Joe is apparently set up for murder, to place him in "big trouble" and oblige him to turn fugitive. All this is done to support his meeting up with David, and providing a motivation for him to help David.

I think it would have made more sense for the plot to go like this. We do not meet Joe until David meets him, while both are in the woods with the other fugitive androids. After Joe and David escape, David would learn about Joe's work first hand, because Joe would "work" to get them money and/or transport. This would likely have been a lot more graphic and disturbing, and would have pushed the movie into "R" territory.

Much is made of the fact that this was a Stanley Kubrick project that ended up being a Steven Spielberg project, and that fans of each will be disappointed by the compromises made by the other. However, there is one element that I think Kubrick would have done differently, and the film is saved by excellent performances that save the change.

After David is abandoned, the movie suddenly shifts to Joe, the android gigolo. We learn why he does what he does, without having to get into too many details. Then, just as abruptly, Joe is apparently set up for murder, to place him in "big trouble" and oblige him to turn fugitive. All this is done to support his meeting up with David, and providing a motivation for him to help David.

I think it would have made more sense for the plot to go like this. We do not meet Joe until David meets him, while both are in the woods with the other fugitive androids. After Joe and David escape, David would learn about Joe's work first hand, because Joe would "work" to get them money and/or transport. This would likely have been a lot more graphic and disturbing, and would have pushed the movie into "R" territory.

Much is made of the fact that this was a Stanley Kubrick project that ended up being a Steven Spielberg project, and that fans of each will be disappointed by the compromises made by the other. However, there is one element that I think Kubrick would have done differently, and the film is saved by excellent performances that save the change.

After David is abandoned, the movie suddenly shifts to Joe, the android gigolo. We learn why he does what he does, without having to get into too many details. Then, just as abruptly, Joe is apparently set up for murder, to place him in "big trouble" and oblige him to turn fugitive. All this is done to support his meeting up with David, and providing a motivation for him to help David.

I think it would have made more sense for the plot to go like this. We do not meet Joe until David meets him, while both are in the woods with the other fugitive androids. After Joe and David escape, David would learn about Joe's work first hand, because Joe would "work" to get them money and/or transport. This would likely have been a lot more graphic and disturbing, and would have pushed the movie into "R" territory.

I was very disappointed with the how the film turned out -- compared to the book, which may be unfair. Shelly Duvall's performance was so strained I wouldn't blame anyone for wanting to murder her.

Only original touch: "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy."

I remember when this movie was first broadcast on the ABC Tuesday Movie of the Week - a 90 minute slot, so you basically had to produce a 75 minute or so movie. It was also out at a time when disaster movies were gearing up. Except for the junkie committing suicide, it worked well.

A lot of good movies were produced for that slot. Most notable: Steven Spielberg's "debut", "Duel". Also notable: "The Night Stalker" and "The Night Strangler", featuring Darren McGavin as reporter Carl Kolchak. The character was subsequently given a weekly series.

One other note: I believe there was an alternate version I saw on cable, where the disaster is given an explanation: A radical group planted a series of bombs at locations that caused the survivors to keep hitting dead ends. It detracted by adding unnecessary padding, and taking us from the survivor's point of view.

Top of the list: My 4-year-old loved the movie. Problem: He can't go to see it by himself, but wouldn't wait for the video release.

The basic flaw of this movie is that the original Thomas stories and the television versions are compact, mostly self-contained stories that can play out in less than 10 minutes - perfect for the attention span of a 4 year old. To make the quantum jump to feature length was just too much.

In fairness, I fell asleep for part of the middle of the movie. However, I do recall Peter Fonda delivering a line that began "I can't..", then having to bite my tongue to fill in the pause by shouting "ACT?".

During all the hoopla for the "voyeur" shows "Survivor" and "Big Brother", I remembered this movie, and realized that geek shows are nothing new. A group of people willingly degrades themselves in front of an audience in hopes of winning a big cash prize, for the profit of the promoters and the entertainment of the paying audience. The promoters even set up special challenges to raise interest and speed up the elimination process.

Watch this movie, then ask yourself the question: If "Survivor" and "Big Brother" persist, what will happen when someone drops dead mid-show?