Bats_Breath

This show is too fake for me to take seriously. I don't get why other TV shows can be done in other decades (i.e. 1960s or 70s) and not have to constantly drop mile a minute pop cultural references but a proper 80s show/movie is so hard to do. The way people dress on The Goldbergs is kinda fake. Nearly everyone looks like an extra from Miami Vice and most every girl is a Madonna wannabee. Or if you're an "older character" you are wearing one of those funky Bill Cosby sweaters. While yes it's true some of this stuff was around, not everyone was wearing this crap all the freakin' time. Not everyone in the 90s walked around looking all grunged out, not everyone in the 2000s walked around saying "Hey we're in the 00s!, lets dress like Usher!" I mean come on people. Go watch Family Ties, Growing Pains, The Cosby Show or Full House to see how it was in the 80s. Sure the gaudy over the top 80s fashions were there, but most of the time people in daily life wore casual stuff that could be worn in 2015 and not gotten a second glance.

Yes that's right, they should have landed somewhere in 1939, perhaps not Idlewild Airport (JFK), but somewhere, find a way to steal some gas...A LOT of gas for that jetliner and then take another shot at the time travel with the supernatural jet stream that time jumps them. Why risk being thrown backwards in time again and continue being low on fuel? And worst comes to worst, 1939 is a better alternative to people from 1960 then prehistoric times. It would have been great to have a sequel episode to this in one of the modern Twilight Zone revamps, with Flight 33 being confused as to why Idlewild airport is now called John F. Kennedy airport.

The first film Tim Allen did in this series, "The Santa Clause" was not a great movie by any stretch, but it was an entertaining film and one of the more imaginative and clever Christmas movies ever made. That film dealt with what it would be for a regular guy to be Santa Claus. That was a new idea! It was witty enough for adults and cutesy and fun enough for kids. Bam, the perfect mix for a "family" movie. The sequels (well OK I guess SC2 had some moments) have just been a mess. The filmmakers spend far too much time in the ridiculous North Pole, show us all the other mystical figures of legend (Mother Nature, Father Time, the Easter Bunny) and completely forget that Scott Calvin is supposed to be a regular dude that just happens to be Santa Claus. This movie is too stupid for anyone over the age of 11 and at times too filled with adult complexities for children to enjoy. The only parts that evoked a feel of the 1st film were the Canada jokes and Scott going back in time to the events of the first film and returning to Scott Calvin, corporate toy maker again. Otherwise this is a waste. Forget this film and go watch the 1st one.

And this is one of them. Yes it is a bad movie. But it is certainly not a terrible film. It's not a good film because it lacks a cohesive plot, the narrative sorta just plods along and we never really learn much about Lyle Swann, the dirt biker part of a motor-cross marathon that accidentally gets sent from 1982 to 1877. We don't learn much more about the characters he interacts with either, and no one seems to change or grow at all by the end of the movie. The film seems to end rather abruptly, and on a somewhat bittersweet note.

The biggest complaint I always see about Timerider is that Lyle Swann is pretty stupid about what happened to him. He doesn't seem to put together that he went back in time till literally the very last scene, even the moments leading up to that last part don't give a hint that Swann had realized he was sent back to the 19th century. Yes this was annoying. Though I do find it believable that most people would not suddenly think "hey I went back in time" simply because they are lost. Swann's interaction with the old man in the desert or the villainous Reese and his crew would probably not be enough for him to make that connection, but I think that by the time Swann had reached the small village something should have sparked in his mind that this was not right. Too many people were reacting with hysteria and fear upon seeing him in his red dirt bike dear and Yamaha bike (or machine as they start calling it). By this point Swann should have seriously wondered about why people continue to assume he is some demon.

I want to echo the sentiments of another poster, some of the stuff I really enjoyed about this movie was the raw unapologetic presentation of 19th century America. For PG standards anyway. There was nothing romantic about THIS Old West. People were dirty, dingy, nasty cruel barbarians with guns. Apart from Claire, who had her hair done up and wore nice make up (this was forgivable since she was hot), everyone else was presented as a grimy, yellow teethed, uneducated lot of folks that likely did inhabit the real 19th century. Most of these people probably never or rarely saw a dentist, and bathing was a luxury. I really liked this, when I saw this movie for the first time as a small child this struck a chord with me, as I don't think I had seen too many films up to that point that presented the old west like that. These issues also illustrated how radically different the culture of the late 20th century was from previous eras. Simple things we take for granted such as good hygiene, were in the 19th century, almost assuredly reserved for the wealthy who had the means for such dalliances. You certainly would not want to live in Timerider's Old West, there is no compulsion to sit and write poetry or muse about the old American frontier, no the director makes you feel just as eager as Swann does to get the hell out of there. If there was a least believable aspect of the film, it's that Lyle gets shot at repeatedly but never once gets hit. Nevertheless, catching this movie on a lazy weekend on a syndicated channel back in the 80s was always a treat and it's still good viewing for any rainy day.

Kermit the Frog once said "it's not easy being green", from the endless growing up Indian movies lately, it's not easy being brown either. There have so many of these "growing up brown in America" movies in the last decade, mostly low budget flicks that don't get a whole lot of press. The premise has nearly been run into the ground, traditional over bearing parents that are always in the wrong, rebellious kids who want to fit and date like everyone else and always in the right. One thing these movies have taught us for certain is this, if you're brown and growing up in America, you have a harder time assimilating into the mass culture then lighter skinned people. We've been told this over and over and it really does get tired. For young Indian Americans these films may perhaps be of deep cultural significance, loaded with in jokes that non-Indians may not get.

For much of white America, they will strip the film down to it's basics and call it a "country mouse meeting city mouse" story and think "meh, what's the big deal?" Probably gutting the Indian Americans who think they struck comic gold showing off the cool Indians vs. the over exaggerated fresh off the boat (FOB) immigrant Indians. This story is going to simply come across as a country kid moving to the big city to mainstream America, only with East Indians in it, and they will likely miss the deep rooted angst and confusion that Indians want to convey. The movie shows the Indian Americans as self assured, cool and all around well adjusted while the immigrated FOB Indians are socially clueless. Nevermind that the character of Hari as presented in this film would probably be considered a moron even in India, the filmmakers know they have to make Hari that silly of an FOB Indian to justify his mistreatment by the Indian Americans. To make more of the desired impact that the Indian American culture so desperately seems to want to make with mainstream film goers, a more concrete and weighted story has to be delivered with far more sincere actors. It would be interesting to hear what real people in India think of this film, as about 1 billion people are being derided and made out as ridiculous caricatures. Of course a braver movie would show regular Indian Americans mistreating and not including normal behaved and decently dressed immigrant Indians in their social activities for the sole reason of their own xenophobia and insecurities...but that would be hitting too close to reality and I doubt any writer/director would be that brave.

Crooked small town cops, evil business men in three piece suits, roundhouse karate kicks, these are the trademarks of any number of 80's action adventure TV shows. You also know you are dealing with an 80s TV show if there are a lot of stories about revolutionaries in Mexico or some unknown Latin American country, cattle rustlers, or if there are plenty of car chases using cheap looking 1970s styled cars. Nearly every TV show from 1977 to 1986 featured these plot devices. Knight Rider may very well have been the silliest of the bunch.

Before David Hasselhoff became an embarrassing alcoholic, and even before his Baywatch years with Pamela Anderson in the 90s, the man played Michael Knight back in the early-mid 1980s. Teamed up with a talking super car named KITT, the two battled evil forces in California and it's nearby surrounding states. Distinguished actor Edward Mulhare brought some respectability amid all the stupidity. The episodes tended to be consistently formulaic, with next to zero continuity between episodes, characters often said and did things that directly contradicted the previous week's episodes. One episode had Knight's boss Devon tell us that Michael better be careful because he is about to tangle with the man that ordered the hit on Knight when he was previously known as "Michael Long". Yet in the pilot episode of Knight Rider, Michael Long was merely an unlucky police officer who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time out in the desert, thus why he was murdered. There was no "hit" ordered on him. Does anyone remember that episode of Knight Rider where Hasselhoff's character orders a hamburger and then just leaves? Germans love David Hasselhoff, but he was a star for NBC from 1982 to '86.

This right wing propaganda movie would have you believe that President Bill Clinton hijacked all 4 planes on 9/11 and flew them into their targets. He somehow magically escaped death of course. This film is being passed off as "fact", despite that it DIRECTLY contradicts many of the findings by the 9/11 Commission. Even the CIA and many involved with the real events dispute what is being presented in this movie. My goodness Harvey Kietel, one of the actors in the movie even tells us that the film has many inaccuracies! But according to Republicans, this is the way it happened. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have already pre-ordered their DVD copies. Save your time and watch a cheap J-Lo movie.

"Happy Days" was on the air for a ridiculous 10 years, but the first 2 or 3 years were really good. The series was a 50s nostalgia show made in the 1970s. It was about a geeky, apple pie (but tall and atheletic in that good white bred way) high school kid named Richie Cunningham, his best friend Potsie Webber, and their other friend Ralph Malph who always cracked stupid jokes. Then there was the greaser Fonzie who rode around on a bike. The first couple of years took great pains to show the 1950s accurately, with the actors dressing and looking the part. Fonzie was just an ordinary greaser. The show was so good in those first couple of years, that you never questioned why Fonzie who looked about 22, was being a loser and hanging around a bunch of high school kids and hitting on under age high school girls.

But then the last 7 or 8 years of Happy Days became just utter camp. Potsie went from a normal guy to a total idiot, and somehow Fonzie got superpowers where the mere snap of his fingers would cause all sorts of magical things to happen, including women/high school girls flocking towards him like lemmings. The 5'6 Fonzie also could suddenly beat anyone up and not break a sweat. I also hated how the studio audience would cheer for 3 or 4 minutes when an actor would walk on the set. The actors would even have to pause and let the audience cheers and applause die down, "Hey Mr. C, [audience erupts in applause, cheers, and screams].....I just came down to tell you". It was just stupid. This is an overrated TV series, "Three's Company" was the far better 70s show that still holds up today, at least that show never betrayed it's original premise.

I think this line by John Hughes in The Breakfast Club really hit the nail on generational gaps. Keep in mind it was written back in 1983 or 1984. The principal played Paul Gleason, thinks that his students are the worst kids ever. Carl the wise janitor tells him otherwise.

Principal Vernon: "Carl I've been teaching for 22 years, and each year....these kids get more and more arrogant!"

Carl the Janitor: "Awww bullsh*t man. Come on Vern, the kids haven't changed, you have!!"

Principal Vernon: "These kids turned on me. They think I'm a big f*cking joke"

Carl the Janitor: "Come on. Listen Vern, if you were 16, what would YOU think of YOU!!?????"

EVERYONE take a long pause and think about this scene. Think about the words written by John Hughes around 1983/'84. Kids don't change, WE do. We get older. Kids get older. Kids become adults, adults become anal and uptight about everything. But a new batch of kids come along, and they are still.....well kids.

So all you people ragging on the kids today, oh come on now. Shut up about how awful the kids today are, and how violent and messed up they are. "These kids today, all they do is hang out at the mall, play video games and shoot each other". My god the same thing was said about teenagers back in 1983. So all you former 80's high school grads, and even many 90's high school grads, stop acting like crusty old Principal Vernon. Gen Xers were the whipping boys for the Baby Boomers for years, and now here we are putting down the next crop of kids, the Gen Y and Gen Z. Even most teenagers and pre-teens today buy into the nonsense that they have changed and are so different and original with their bad ass selves. Kids are kids, no matter what era. I mean I was an early-mid 1990's teenager, and even many kids around today think they are so different from when I was a kid some 7-12 years ago.

Do we really want to be Principal Vernon? Kids don't change, we do.

Whatever you do, don't take children to see this movie. I took a bunch of 4th graders to see Hulk, and halfway through the film, they demanded to leave the theater. They weren't the only kids that couldn't stand this film. I saw many other kid walk outs. Another class of kids was in the theater with us, and they actually left before we did.

So I am just warning everyone here, if you think Hulk is some kind of cartoon kiddie friendly movie, you are sorely wrong. Children will be put to sleep with the Hulk. This movie is VERY SLOW, and extremely dull and meandering. The lumbering pace bored many adults, so I can understand why so many kids hated this movie.

Voyager was a piece of sh*t show that only lasted 7 years because it had "Star Trek" in front of it. This was an unbelievably stupid and campy series filled with bad actors, large breasted women, and hokey space villains. Star Trek produced 3 previous great shows with The Classic Series, The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. But Voyager, or "V'Ger", was lifeless turd that ruined the once almighty Trek franchise. Hardly any of the storylines will captivate your interest, and you'll barely be able to sit through an episode of this horrible series.

And most importantly, nothing about this crappy show made sense!! These people and their little starship were stranded 70,000 light years from home, yet they were functioning as well as any typical starship near Earth. They had fully functional holodecks, more then enough food and water, and a spotless starship with not a scratch on it. Destroy a shuttle? Well V'Ger had another one just magically appear. WTF!!???? Where was the believability and truthfulness to the basic premise that this show put forth to us? I mean, even on "Gilligan's Island", you didn't see the Skipper and Gilligan sitting around in the Minnow watching CNN or HBO on a brand new color TV.

"Starman" was a good, quality series. I loved this show back in 1986, and I became so used to the Robert Hays version of Starman that I remember when I looked up the 1984 Jeff Bridges/Karen Allen movie, I had a hard time accepting Bridges as Starman. And I wasn't as blown away by Bridges performance as others seem to have been. Bridges's was actually nominated for an Academy Award in acting in that 1984 John Carpenter film.

Robert Hays does an excellent job bringing the Starman back to life. Starman isn't as uncomfortable with his human body as he was in the film, and Hays brings a great gentleness and warmth to the character. Hays doesn't try and copy Bridges, but he brings a different but similar take on the Starman character. Like Bridges, Hays plays the character as if he has an IQ of 60, but at the same time possesses the genius of Albert Einstein, Mahatma Ghandi, and Stephen Hawking combined. But thankfully Hays doesn't do the annoying bird like head movements Bridges does, and he doesn't speak with the motor neuron time delay that Bridges did in the film. You can believe that this is the same alien from the movie, but one that has learned things from his first time on Earth. He's still innocent and naive, but he's been around the block a bit more. In the pilot, Hays briefly played Paul Forrester, the photographer Starman cloned to use as a human body. There was a great contrast in the performances of Forrester and Starman as Forrester. So if Bridges could be nominated for an Oscar, why couldn't Hays have been nominated for any Emmy?

I also prefered the TV series to the movie because the show was far more funny and lighthearted then the dreary and depressing movie. I think a lot of this has to do with the addition of Starman's 14 year old son Scott Hayden, played wonderfully by Christopher Daniel Barnes. In the movie, Starman gives Jenny the sphere and tells her "the baby will know what to do with". We get this sense that the baby will be born a genius and be just like Starman, a weird alien. But Scott is just a typical human kid that has a hard time accepting he is half alien. Back then, Barnes was was known as "C.B. Barnes", who for a while was a very low level teen heartthrob. In the 1990s Barnes got some mild fame playing Greg Brady in the "Brady Bunch" movies and doing the voice of Spider-Man in the Spidey animated series.

Sure the John Carpenter/Jeff Bridges movie had some funny moments, but I felt that the movie was really depressing and gloomy. It was just this gigantic tragic road love story with such sad, sad, SAD music. The TV series has Scott Hayden to let the air out of it all and there are some hilarious exchanges here between Scott, his father and the people they come across in their quest for Jenny Hayden. I highly recommend this funny, warm and intelligently written series. It was a shame that ABC gave this series the shaft after just 1 year and 22 episodes. They never gave the show any good time slots anyway. They were always yanking "Starman" around on different nights, and always putting the series up against the heavyweights of the day like "Dynasty" or something like that. Yes Sci-Fi channel IS airing "Starman". It comes on Sunday/Monday morning at 2 AM Eastern/1 AM Central.

"The Cosby Show" was a great, funny TV sitcom. But only the first 4 years were that way. This show should have been canceled in 1988, because that's when the show became terrible and people started talking about how desperate the series became with all the stupid gimmicks it was pulling. Instead "The Cosby Show" needlessly dragged on for 4 more years. It really should have been canceled then in '88 or maybey '89, sometime in the late '80s instead of dragging on into the '90s.

When the show finally was canceled in 1992 it was just God awful embarrassingly bad, and it was a very out of date series from the '80s that was just plain unwatchable. Believe me, it truly was unwatchable in it's final 3 years. This series really OVER-STAYED it's welcome.

Unlike many other hit sitcoms, "The Cosby Show" doesn't do well in reruns at all, and I think it's because people are afraid they may tune into one of the terrible or unwatchable last 4 years, instead of the really great first 4 years.

This is one of the more famous cartoons of the '80s. Like He-Man, Thundercats, G.I. Joe and Transformers, this cartoon was pure '80s. The difference here is that Smurfs was a Saturday morning toon, opposed to being an after school weekday toon like the others. And it was probably the best made Saturday morning toon of the '80s. Waking up at 6 in the morning to see these toons was a treat that kids in the '80s will always remember.

Wow I feel old because I actually remember watching the very FIRST episode of Smurfs as it originally aired in 1981. I must have been about 5 or 6 years old. It's a vague memory, but it's there. My older sister who was 11 at the time watched it with me with just as much passion and awe.

I'm really surprised to find out that this series ran through the entire '80s and even into 1990. That's really something. No wonder this show has so many fans that are a lot younger then me. I always wondered why this series has so many fans so much younger then me, and finding out that "The Smurfs" ran into 1990 explains that part. I guess I thought this show must have been cancelled around 1986 or 1987, because I remember I stopped watching this show at that time when I was around 11 years old. It's a great toon and it's too bad they don't release these on VHS or DVD.

One thing about teenagers----they can't EVER imagine their own parents were teenagers. Children maybey, but not teenagers. Hell they usually forget their older brothers and cousins were teenagers too. One of the universal truths about being a teenager is that you always think you and people close to your age where the first teens to EVER exist on planet Earth. Teens always believe that what they are going through is so different from anything anyone else ever went through. The reality is that 98% of what teens go through, EVERYONE before them went through as well. Remember the 16, 17 year olds complaining and moaning about how they are different and misunderstood during the Columbine shootings in 1999? Well they're 20 years old now in 2002, or will be 20 later this year. So they can't complain about anything anymore. So why did they complain about being misunderstood? Perhaps now they're adults that are misunderstood? j/king ;)

In "Back to the Future", a typical 17 year old from 1985 is just, well a teenager. Marty McFly is always late for class, he likes to hang out with his girlfriend at the mall, he's absorbed into his heavy metal music and he doesn't really know too much about what happened in the world more then 4 or 5 years ago. Marty is self absorbed, but very hip and resourceful. He's also confident and street smart. On the other hand, his father George McFly is a complete loser. George is 47 years old and constantly being bullied by his mean boss Biff Tannen. Marty's mother Lorraine is an overweight alcoholic, and his two older siblings are 20 something losers like their parents.

In BTTF, through a series of strange events, Marty accidently travels back to 1955 and meets his own parents as----gasp---teenagers!!! And while they may not have the technology, fashion and music that Marty has in 1985, they are teenagers just like him. They are going through the same trials and tribulations of being a teen that Marty is in 1985. And like typical teens, they think they are the coolest teens to ever exist on planet Earth. At the end of the film, Marty says it's been "educational" and has been for the audience as well.

By the way I'm not that "old" myself, I'm only 26, but I get sick of teenagers always acting like they are so different and cooler because of the superior technology they have grown up with. But that's part of being a teen. I have to remind myself that back in the early and mid '90s we teenagers acted and complained about nearly all the same stupid stuff the teens today complain about. I thought and acted exactly like they did until about 1995 or 1996.....something strange happened to me then, I entered my 20s and became an adult, and I had no more excuses to complain about being "misunderstood". :)

So far, this '80s Hulk series remains the best animated Hulk series ever produced. Like all '80s animated series, this show had the BEST MUSIC ever. The music is basically similar to the two '80s Spider-Man cartoons. The mid-'90s Hulk series had better animation, but the stories just flat out sucked. The '90s series was not consistent either, as it had Banner going through several different annoying Hulk phases. And the worst thing about the '90s was how much air time was given to the stupid She-Hulk.

The '80s series perfectly captured what the Hulk was about. Betty Ross was in it, Rick Jones was in it, and the Hulk was being chased by the army led by General Ross and his "Hulk Busters". This series also correctly portrayed the Hulk as a brute savage with VAST superhuman strength, opposed to the '70s TV series with Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno. In that '70s/early '80s TV series, Ferrigno's Hulk just had some superhuman strength on the power scale of Spider-Man. This '80s animated Hulk was like the comic book Hulk. He could land on a tank and smash it, throw cars, tanks, planes and boats with ease, flick missiles with just his pinky, and cause the ground to rumble by 'smashing it'. The Hulk's power is on the scale of Superman's, probably more so since the "madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk becomes!!"

But as much of a brute and dumb savage as the Hulk is, he is still influenced by Dr. Bruce Banner's good natured persona. So the Hulk never intentionally hurts or kills anyone. But the series still hints that Banner and his wild experiments with gamma radiation might make him more dangerous then the Hulk ever could be. The animation isn't as stupid as the laughable '60s cartoon, where some lazy artists put a still photo drawing of the Hulk onto a comic book background and had him "move". This '80s series had animation that is decent and at least watchable. Pretty typical of '80s Saturday morning cartoons anyway, kinda cheap looking, but not so distracting and stupid as '60s and '70s cartoons as to be totally unwatchable.

The only really stupid part of this series was how Bruce Banner's clothes mysteriously morphed back to him whenever he changed from the Hulk back to Banner. That was hard to swallow even when I was 6 years old. I guess that was done to keep Banner's "secret identity" from General Ross and the military, which would always be called into question if he is routinely found walking around without his shirt and wearing only ripped pants. If you can overlook that, and the somewhat kiddie nature of this series,(it was obviously aimed at people 9 and under) then you will enjoy this show. The stories were simply fantastic. The only thing the '90s series had over this one was more maturity and better animation.

This movie is very underrated. It's highly imaginative, creative and clever. It's just plain fun and in my opinion this film tops the first one. But the film was forgotten when it first came out, and became even more overlooked as the years passed. "Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey" also bombed at the box office, whereas the first one was a pretty good hit and very popular.

I think the problem may be that this film was just released a couple years too late. In 1991, Bill and Ted already seemed "so '80s". Even though the '80s were only a couple years ago back at that time, the landscape of the music and style for kids had changed so radically with gangsta rap, hip hop, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, grunge and the Seattle sound. Bill and Ted with their Ozzy Osbourne, Van Halen and Guns N' Roses music along with their '80s style seemed so out of place and very outdated in '91, and I think that's one BIG reason the film bombed at the box office. Nobody but surfers were still saying stuff like "excellent!" and "bogus!" in 1991. "Gremlins 2" which also came out in the early '90s suffered a similar fate of being a good film that bombed at the box office because it was too associated with the '80s. The transition from the '80s to the '90s was a much faster change then now with the '90s and '00s. 1991 was nothing like 1988 or 1989, whereas right now, 2002 and last year 2001 still looks/looked like 1995 or 1996.

If only "Excellent Adventure" which was made in 1988, was released THAT YEAR instead of 1989, and "Bogus Journey" was made quickly and released in 1989, then it too would have probably been just as wildly received as the first.

This was one of the WORST interpretations of the Superman mythos I have ever seen. Simply put, this show flat out sucked. This series was an attempt to do the first live action Superman based on John Bryne's revamp of Superman from 1985. During that comic book titled "Crisis on Infinite Earths", many loose ends about Superman were tied up, and many things were changed and updated for the Man of Steel. Kal-El was now more Clark Kent then Superman in the Post-Crisis Superman. Whereas before he was Superman and Clark Kent was his disguise. In the Byrne revamp, Superman is the disguise. Also Clark's human parents remain alive and well in Smallville, and Clark is more protective of his personal life then he was before. Byrne's revamp also had Lex Luthor be the richest man on Earth with a public persona of a humanitarian, while behind the scenes he is the evil tyrant we know him to be. This was a nice change from the old Luthor who was a mad scientist that always cooked up hokey plans to take over the world. Also, Superman's powers are considerably watered down and limited as to before. I have always liked the Byrne revamp, as the Post-Crisis Superman could be silly at times, juggling planets and moons around the way he did. So when they announced back in 1992 that a live action Superman would be done based on the Byrne revamp, I was truly pumped up. But what I saw in Lois&Clark was a MAJOR LET DOWN.

Dean Cain is a terrible, TERRIBLE Superman. Who cast this guy in the lead role? He's a little 5'9 midget that doesn't look remotely the part. He's also the first Asian Superman. WTF!? Cain never even bothered to separate his Clark Kent from Superman. He acted the same way when he was playing both roles!! When he changed into Superman, all he did was slick back his hair and stand there with his arms folded and deepen his voice to sound like a retarded John Wayne. We're also talking about a guy who is a washed out second string football star that barely made the Buffalo Bills. Before he landed the role in Lois&Clark, Cain's biggest acting accomplishments were a couple of stints on Beverly Hills 90210 and Melrose Place. When Dean Cain flew, it looked like they had him standing upright with his arms extended out, he couldn't even "fly" right. And yes, as Christopher Reeve, who was a hang glider showed us all, there is a believable way to "fly". I'll admit that Dean Cain's Clark Kent is kinda OK, but he his the worst Superman I have ever seen. Kirk Alyn and George Reeves far out class Dean Cain. And ofcourse, Christopher Reeve still remains the definite Superman, by which all others are judged.

Teri Hatcher played a rather whiny Lois Lane, and while she used to be a hot woman to look at, Hatcher seemed to attend the same school of acting that Dean Cain did. Sure she was hot back in 1993 and 1994, but by 1995 she started to look like Skeletor from He-Man and she has gotten uglier every year. In one year she went from cute babe to the Grim Reaper's wife. I think she starved herself or something. Anyway, even if she kept her looks, Hatcher is terrible actor, like Dean Cain.

The flying SFX for Lois&Clark were INEXCUSABLY BAD!!! This show ran in 1993-'97, but it boasts flying SFX from 1973-1977. All they did most of the time was have Dean Cain hop out of the frame and hop back in. The producers even called them "cape outs", where Cain flapped his cape in front of the camera and jumped out of the frame while some flying noise was looped in. We then see the actors looking up at remarking about Dean Cain flying. SHOW US him flying!! We the audience rarely got to see Clark or Superman fly in this series. The Superboy series from 1988 had FAR SUPERIOR flying SFX then Lois&Clark. Even The Greatest American Hero series from the early '80s had superior flying SFX then Lois&Clark. What is Superman unless we see him fly? This was sheer laziness and total incompetence.

The highlights of Lois&Clark are probably John Shea who played Lex Luthor and Lane Smith who played Perry White. Both of these guys pulled of their roles superbly. I've ragged on this show a lot, but I will admit that the 1st and 2nd season were at least watchable. The 3rd and 4th seasons are just pure garbage. This show went from bad to terrible when Lois found out that Clark was Superman. Hopefully one day a better version of the John Byrne revamp of Superman from 1985 can be pulled off, rather then this horrible nonsense. Let us pray we do get a better Post-Crisis Superman then Dean Cain and his stupid Lois&Clark show.

As it stands, even though Christopher Reeve is Pre-Crisis Superman, he OWNS the role in the same way that Sean Connery owns James Bond. Reeve IS Superman both on screen and in real life, and "Superman: The Movie" is still the definitive version of Superman.

This is the best comic book to movie EVER. But I do realize that this film really doesn't appeal to anyone born after 1981. Granted, I was born in 1975, and I myself really can't remember when this film first came out in 1978, BUT, this movie and the sequels were still very popular in the early and mid '80s---which I do remember. ABC reran the Superman films till about 1986 or 1987. Every year kids and adults could count on seeing Superman and/or Superman II roughly twice a year. It was a cool little event for us. People born after 1981 really would have missed that time when this film and it's sequels were still on a high. They were just too young. I realize that that there are people born after '81 that are Superman fans, but usually they fall into two categories:

A)They are film students and realize what a MONUMENTAL accomplishment Superman: The Movie is and how underrated it is. After all, this film had legendary cinematographer Geoffery Unsworth, Marlon Brando, Gene Hackman, Trevor Howard, Jackie Coooper and Star Wars designer John Barry working on this film. Also featuring Juliard trained actor Christopher Reeve and respected director Richard Donner.

B)Someone somehow exposed these films to them at a young age. Maybey throught video tape or for whatever reason they weren't as superficial as their peers.

Even by the late '80s, I remember kids my age already began dissing Superman The Movie, because the Tim Burton Batman film was coming out and this film was seen as dated. Now those were kids MY age. We grew up with this film. So I know most people younger then me hate this film and rip into Superman for being dated from the late '70s and early '80s. As for people my age, I know that even when they dissed this film in the late '80s, everyone my age or close to my age will always have special place in their heart for Superman The Movie.

Finally, when I went to buy the Superman SE DVD back in May of 2001. I went to my local Best Buy and the 17 year old clerk at the counter said "Suuuuuuuperman" very sarcastically. I embarassingly said, "Yeah it's cool, you should check it out". I guess I figured he may be my age or at least close to my age. He slammed his scanner thingy on the counter, looked up at the ceiling, rolled his eyes and began bobbing his head as he said, "Uhhhh, well you see Superman is a bit before my time. Superman seemed more like an '80s thing. The only Superman I know of is that Lois and Clark show". He then handed my bag to me in disgust and said, "I was only born in '83". I restrained myself from beating the kid seneless. Weird thing was I worked at the same Best Buy only 5 years ago when I was 20. This 17 year old kid was quite a bit younger then me yes, 7-8 years, but he we weren't 15 years apart or something like that. He treated me like a 50 year old man buying a Beattles CD or John Lennon or something. Anyway, this encounter confirmed what I always knew----very few people born after 1981 like Superman The Movie. To them it's "Eaaaa--aaauuuu, the '80s!"

When "Friends" came out in 1994, I was still a teenager around 18 or 19. Right now I'm already 26 years old. My younger cousin is already 20, she'll be 21 later this year. She was like 12 when this show came out. Hell Britney Spears will be 21 later this year!!! So exactly how old are these characters on this show supposed to be? They're supposed to be single 20 somethings? Yeah right. These guys have to all be in their late 30s, slouching towards middle age. With the exception of Jennifer Aniston. And do they ever discuss age and getting older on this show? I've been worrying about turning 30 and getting older since I was 23, yet the characters on "Friends" are perpetually stuck at age 20 or 21.

I also want to talk about my cousin and his friends. They are wannabe thugs. They drive around listening to Tupac, DMX, Dr. Dre and all kinds of gangsta rap. They also talk like they grew up in the ghetto, like Compton or Harlem. Then they go home to their White upper middle class suburban homes and watch "Friends". It's been their favorite show for years. Whatever.

By the way I have always hated this show. It's so fake and stupid.

Maybey I shouldn't even call this a children's series, because the show was written on a more adult level. One of the reasons for Transformers success was that while it was written for kids and had plenty of corny dialogue, for the most part the series was written on a 13 year old's level. Other '80s cartoons like He-Man, She-Ra, Voltron and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were written on a 6-8 year old's level. It makes a big difference for a shows longevity.

Those of us that grew up with Transformers can STILL watch the show into adulthood, while it's harder to watch a show like He-Man when you're all grown up. The '90s had the same mistakes, making the Power Rangers written on a even lower level, probably that of a 4 or 5 year old. But the Transformers having a 13 year old's mentality is what made this show a success. It had well developed characters(for this genre anyway), interesting story arcs, humour and great dialogue.

Even now at 26, I thoroughly enjoy Transformers. Heh, I was 8 years old when the toy line came out(before the TV show) and 9 years old when the show premiered in 1984. I watched this series all through elementary school from 4th-6th grade. This series was completely aimed at people my age and/or around my age. It wasn't until the MOVIE came out in 1986 and I was 11 years old that I realized that I was one of "the older fans". I felt the need to mention that, because I realize that many of the Transformers fans are about five or six years younger then me. Not that much of an age difference now I know, but back then it was a big difference. I was born in '75, and during the theater showing of the MOVIE('86), there were indeed plenty of kids my age(10, 11, 12, 13 and even 14) and/or around my age(7, 8, 9) in the theater, but the auditorium was loaded with 3, 4 and 5 year olds who missed the series original run, but were there for the MOVIE.

Lots of kids that were born in the '80s most likely missed the shows original run(or ability to truly enjoy them) because they were like 1, 2, 3 or 4 years old when the TV series came out. However they were old enough to see the MOVIE in 1986 because they were then 4, 5, 6 years old......but these guys missed out on the great discussions an 8, 9 and 10 year old can have on the toys(which came out first), well written stories, humour and finely developed characters of Transformers. There are advantages to being one of the "older Transformer fans". :)

I remember watching Arsenio Hall when the show first came on in 1989. Lots of kids these days probably don't remember Arsenio and this show, but back in '89 when I was 13, this was considered the coolest show EVER. People would talk about nearly every show the next day. I remember how everyone in my school were talking about his verbal sparring with Madonna(which always seemed staged to me) back in early 1990.

Unfortunately, only 1989 and 1990 were good to poor Arsenio. The guy and his show stayed true to the old adage, "the quicker you burn, the faster you fade away". The blush went off the rose very quickly, and from 1991-'94, Arsenio limped along with his lame jokes and Eddie Murphy wannabe routines. I remember I stopped watching when I was 15 or 16 sometime in 1991 anyway. During the shows run during the rest of the '90s, people wondered when Arsenio would finally get cancelled, instead of talking about each show like it was an event. I'm not sure, but I think that like M.C. Hammer, Arsenio became very "1989". When the show finally went off the air in 1994, I don't think anyone even cared. I also think this show only receiving only 3 or 4 comments speaks volumes about Arsenio and his show, people have forgotten completely about him. Nevertheless, during 1989 and 1990, Arsenio Hall was a household name.

I remember when this show started I was around 11 or 12. It didn't end till I was about 19 or close to 20. It wouldn't GO AWAY. It was a terrible show and it was on forever. My friends and I would always wonder when this show would finally go away, but it never would. It was always on the air for some mysterious reason. The early years of this show were kinda OK, but it became the same old garbage year after year after year. It made semi "stars" out of the Olsen twins, for just being babies while this show was on. I mean what else are they famous for? You just know that the Olsen twins will do a Playboy or Penthouse spread in about 3 or 4 years when they hit 18, just to prove they are adults and shock the world.

Obviously I related to D.J. the most, since we were the same age. Which brings up a question. Why did Bob Saget's character have 3 daughters so spaced apart in age? First he has D.J., then 6 or 7 years later he has Stephanie, then about 5 years later he has Michelle. What the hell? The age for the character when the show started, 30, didn't fit his daughters' ages, unless he started having kids(D.J.) when he was 18, 19 or 20. I'm surprised to find out that the actress who played Stephanie was only 5 when the show started out. For whatever reason I figured she was just a little younger then me and about 8 or 9 when the series began. She did a magnicent job for a 5 year old. Anyway, even though D.J. and her pretty friend Kimmy where there for me, it always seemed to this reviewer that this show was clearly intended for younger kids around 3-8 years of age. The silly humour, bad writing, bad acting and stupidity of "Full House" could only be appreciated if you are that age.

I was a little older then most of the people that first saw this film. I was already 9, 10 years old when this movie came out in 1985. I was at an age where I was pushing the age limit to watch a movie about reading and writing, but I was still young enough to appreciate Big Bird and Sesame Street. I was also still young enough to go watch this movie without getting my butt kicked by other kids!! Lots of people around my age actually have fond memories of this movie and everyone talks about going to watch this film.

Even though I was around 10, I honestly thought Big Bird was missing! The promos for this film billed it as if Big Bird was truly lost, and they played it straight!! So naturally I bought it. I mean they said "Big Bird is missing" with such dead seriousness, that even though I was 9, 10 years old, I still wondered what the hell was going on here.

If only this movie came out 4 or 5 years earlier! Or rats, just 3 years earlier!!! Alas, since I was already 10, I didn't have the super "magical" quality with this movie that a lot of kids who were 3, 4 or 5 had when they first saw this film. Nevertheless, this is a treasured piece of my childhood.

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** I remember watching this made for TV movie when it first came out in 1997. I believe it came on the USA cable network. Just by seeing the previews and hearing the title, it was easy to figure out there probably wouldn't be much of a good story to this movie. And I was right, the story just flat out sucks. Looks like this movie was penned by ex-Baywatch writers. To sum it up, a rich dude has a heart attack, pretty nurse(Rachel Ward) takes care of him, rich dude then dates and marries said pretty nurse. Nurse then has an affair with her stepson who is an incredibly good looking young stud. Young stud and the hot older nurse who is also his step mom then get entangled in a murder plot that involves young stud's father, aka her husband, blah, blah, and more blah blah. To show you what I mean by the awful writing, they have the stepson ride up on horseback to reinforce his "studliness". Oooooh look the writers are giving us symbolism!!! This kind of lazy and incompetent writing is just flat out insulting. So the plot is forgettable.

BUT, I was hoping this film would make up for lack of a good story with some steamy sex scenes with gorgeous Rachel Ward! Unfortunately, there are barely any sex scenes in this film. I realized we wouldn't get any nudity in this made for basic cable TV film, but I thought there could still be some passionate moments with Rachel and Joshua Morrow. Again, what they do show is very dissapointing and mostly takes place off screen with the characters. There's barely any sex or moments of passion in this film. It is interesting to note that Morrow who played Eric was only about 21 or 22 when this movie was made! That's 18 years younger then Ward herself!! Anyway, if you were hoping for some steamy sex scenes from a hot older woman and a good looking younger guy, like I was, then you will be VERY dissapointed. There's barely anything here to get excited about.

Oh and the plot? Well like I said, it's just a big BLAH.