bbrebozo

I watched the first episode and the beginning of the second.

During the first episode, I kept thinking: "Didn't anyone tell these people that the original Frasier was a comedy?" The episode was more soap opera-ish than funny, and not in a good way. But I decided to be fair and try a second episode.

When the second episode started with a Baby Shark joke, I gave up. Yes, I remember when people joked about the popular yet annoying Baby Shark song - it was seven years ago. Why not reach into that dusty old trunk and pull out a few jokes about "Who Let The Dogs Out?" or how you "really really really wanna zig-a-zig-ah," while you're at it?

I liked almost literally every episode of Cheers and Frasier I, and hope that they work the kinks out of Frasier II. I'll give it another shot when the word out on the street is that they've finally found their rhythm.

It's been a while since I've seen a film that so deftly combined comedy and action. Maybe not since the Jackie Chan movies. I was laughing out loud one moment, at the edge of my seat the next. The violent, bloody scenes were almost always so exaggerated that they were more comedy than horror. To my non-professional eyes, the bear looked very realistic, much more so than in other films like The Revenant. And in this repressive day and age, I loved the scenes of children swearing, talking about sex, and trying drugs. The cast was perfect. Ray Liotta was a very believable villain, and my only criticism of the film is that there wasn't enough Liotta. Elizabeth Banks is a brilliant, courageous filmmaker, and I eagerly await her next film.

If you've seen the trailer, don't bother seeing the movie. All the best moments in the movie are strung together in the trailer.

The four stars are great -- how could they not be? -- but the plot is just a series of loosely connected and poorly set-up situations that the various actresses stumble into. The repeated appearances of two amazingly unfunny disc jockeys slowed things down considerably.

If he puts his mind to it, Tom Brady can do anything, so I'm sure he'll be a great actor in about 10 or 20 years, if that's what he wants to dedicate himself to. But giving him an emotional soliloquy at the end of this movie, that would have been challenging even to an experienced actor, was beyond Brady's current acting limitations.

Very improbable plot, which I suppose I should have expected, except that they've repeatedly emphasized that this movie is "based on a true story." Yeah, maybe like the Wizard of Oz is based on my recent flight from Cleveland to San Antonio.

I'd welcome another movie by these four extremely talented and engaging actresses. But one that very talented writers, producers and directors have given some thought to.

Oh, and if you absolutely insist on going to see this movie, don't watch the trailer. It's worse when you've already seen the best jokes.

I remember this movie was highly publicized in the 1960s, but it had no appeal to me then as a teenager. As an adult, however, I was pleasantly surprised. Natalie Wood plays an oddball 15-year-old. It took every ounce of her acting skills, since she was nearly 30 when she made the film. And it requires a willing - heck, make that mandatory - suspension of disbelief on the viewer's part. But it's worth it.

Wood plays against type, since she's not the suave glamor princess she usually played in other movies. And the movie itself is pretty odd, particularly in a scene where Wood's character has to repeatedly over-dub a musical number. And somewhat shockingly, during the otherwise serious dramatic arc of Inside Daisy Clover, you will suddenly be treated to several minutes of what is - at least in my dark-humor-loving eyes - one of the funniest, laugh-out-loud suicide scenes I've ever seen.

Particularly if you're a Natalie Wood fan, this film is quirky, fun, and worth watching.

When I was a kid in the 1960's, my father came back from Las Vegas smitten with a singer he had seen in one of the casino showrooms. Her name was Julie London.

I hadn't seen or heard of London again until I saw this film on TCM one night. I immediately agreed with my father. She, and the rest of the cast, were great in this movie.

Ed Wynn, who I also remember from my childhood as a comic fool on 1960's TV, turns in what in my opinion was an Oscar winning performance as the oddball manager of a religious radio station in a small town. His son, Keenan Wynn, turns in his usual loud, braying performance as an abrasive talent manager. And Jose Ferrer was impeccable as the man in the middle, who has to decide between honesty and cash.

I agree with another reviewer that the sound quality was terrible. I watched it with closed captioning, and the word "(unintelligible)" popped up more often than it should. But it doesn't distract from the context, which is fascinating. I highly recommend this forgotten gem.

This film is a forgettable piece of fluff that's perfectly fine if, say, you're sick in bed and don't have many other options. Paul Ford plays the classic 1960's successful businessman but bumbling husband whose home life is a mess, and Maureen O'Sullivan is his long suffering wife who's gets pregnant in, I don't know, probably her mid- to late-50's. Connie Stevens is their daughter and Jim Hutton is their son-in-law, who bounce back and forth between being supportive and argumentative, whatever each particular scene requires. And apparently, the moral of the film is that political corruption pays off in the end.

If this sounds good to you, then go ahead and tee up this film. But I have to warn you: For the sweet love of all that is holy, fast forward through the horrible, horrible theme song. When I heard the opening theme, I literally started hating the movie already. The same song repeats during the ending credits, so get ready with the kill switch then, too.

The good news: William Holden and Frances Dee make a perfectly believable couple, and the Wicked Witch's brief turn as a maid was a pleasant surprise.

But the plot wasn't credible, with the wife constantly keeping secrets from her husband for no clear reason other than to hold the story together. And the bit at the end, where the moving man casually admits that he regularly beats his wife and she bails him out and apologizes to him later, was creepy even for the era. (And keep in mind that the script was written by a woman.)

And what was the deal with the strawberries at the end? Did I miss something?

I guess this is one of those movies that people watched in the pre-television era, when they were starved for entertainment and wanted to get out. Fortunately, we have more options now.

I'm an old baby boomer, and have always been a little embarrassed that my generation's classic films were all about us, us, us, and made us the celebrated heroes of our own stories. (Exhibit A: Animal House.) I'm delighted that the up-and coming generations are much more open to questioning their own approaches and values, as well as those around them. (Exhibit B: Vengance.)

Vengence is extremely well written. I tried to remember some of the lines to share on IMDb, but I saw it in a theater, couldn't take notes, and unfortunately my memory isn't that good. It's a comedy, but with multiple dramatic twists. And it builds to an amazing conclusion.

Ashton Kutcher's role is a relatively small one, but I wouldn't call it a cameo. Like Jackie Gleason's role in The Hustler, it's actually central to the entire film, even though the character is only on screen for a few minutes. The rest of the film is very well cast.

Loved this film, and I'm looking forward to B. J. Novak's next one.

Here's my theory: The writers found out that they only had 45 solid minutes worth of script, panicked, and started slamming random words together. Take this example, from Myrna Loy, when the writers were apparently desperate and the two lead characters seemed to be having some kind of a nervous breakdown:

"Buy it? The very word. The word even. That awful word. Idea, idea, idea. All day long. You know what you look like when you say it? Like a foolish fellow with as much character as a lamppost. A lamppost fits it perfectly, Bill. It's very imposing when it's lit at night, but when it's daytime, it just goes out and looks like a silly lamppost. I'm sorry dear. I really am. That was silly of me."

The evil-looking Douglas Fowley was badly miscast as good-natured George, and Marjorie Main was wasted in an unnecessary and somewhat confusing role as a landlord. (Was she supposed to have had a crush on Robert Taylor?)

In fairness, Loy and Taylor pull out all their acting chops to try to sell the incoherent script. Blonde and Blackie, the two sales clerks, were very cute. Myrna Loy is an adorable drunk. And Charles Lane always seemed to do a great job of playing a crotchety old man, even when he was young.

If that's enough to carry you through to the abrupt and absurd ending, then go for it.

If you like movies where the women cry and the men casually punch each other, this is the film for you. Also a ridiculous plot line, where Robert Young and Barbara Hale repeatedly get together and then come apart, after every easily-explained mix-up either crops up or gets resolved. But the cast rises above the plot, and it's a pretty interesting look at Las Vegas of the 1940's. A bit tedious, but a decent if mindless old movie, if you're in the mood for one.

I stumbled onto this classic on TCM while impatiently waiting for an long overdue repairman to arrive. The wait turned out to be worth it.. The Petrified Forest is more than just a 1930's shoot-'em-up. Leslie Howard is far removed from his famous Ashley Wilkes character, essentially playing a dignified hobo. Bette Davis had already perfected her unique method of "eye acting." Watch her closely; each of her eyeballs should have gotten separate screen credits. This is my second experience with Humphrey Bogart as a villain and he's very believable. (As he was in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, my first experience.) There are some great performances by the secondary cast, notably the old drunk who seems to enjoy being taken hostage. And I was stunned by the light but serious treatment of women's and racial issues. If you haven't seen The Petrified Forest, please treat yourself.

Drive the last five minutes of this movie out of your brain. Forget the sappy, maudlin ending. If you do, you'll enjoy a well acted, well directed, well written film that is one of the first major movies to dive into the complexities of divorce. Bette Davis is a wonder: She plays a lighthearted young girl in one scene, then a bitter old crone the next - and everything in between during the course of the film. The direction is creative, with lighting during the transitions that is often eerie and almost theatrical. And the shots are often stark, as when a beaten-down Bette Davis walks into a room, looks up, and the camera pans up to a big sign that says "Good Luck!" Overall, a strong cut above a lot of the mindless Hays-Code-driven entertainment of the era.

I stumbled across this little film on TCM and loved it. Busby Berkeley in Technicolor. The dance scenes were spectacular, and Berkeley even managed to sneak a naked lady into one of the musical numbers. Okay, admittedly, it was a statue, but he was always scheming to find a way around the Production Code. Very able cast, including Edward Everett Horton as his usual pain-in-the-neck priss. I laughed out loud at Charlotte Greenwood dancing with the jitterbugger. And I loved the modern-dance, abstract creativity, and most of all, the disembodied heads of the Polka Dot Polka.

And what can anyone say about the one-of-a-kind Carmen Miranda? She's very much an acquired taste. It reminded me of the old Bugs Bunny cartoons, and at this point I think she was starting to parody the parody.

Don't look for a solid plot or satisfying ending. Come instead for the music, dancing, and the magic of Busby Berkeley. Enjoy it with a glass of wine.

"Bolder Dam" is a lot faster paced and more action oriented than many 1930's films. Solid acting, snappy rat-tat-tat dialogue. ("I'm a civil engineer." "Well, you might be an engineer, but you're certainly not civil.") But what was most surprising was the Shirley Temple-like optimism of the Depression-era characters, although with a more adult perspective. The men who work at Boulder Dam are all very proud of their jobs and what they're building, despite the fact that they're at constant risk of getting killed on their unsafe job site.

There are constant reminders that the 1930's were a different world than today's. When the lead character applies for a job at the dam, the application form has a space for Color. He casually writes "W". There were no visible "B's" in the workforce during the movie.. And, of course, no women. Also, watch in awe as the lead actress invites a strange man to sleep in a bed with her 10-year-old son. (No funny business, needless to say.)

Sadly, Ross Alexander - the very capable lead actor in this film - shot and killed himself less than a year after this film was released. Reportedly, word of his homosexuality had been getting out, and the studio executives didn't want to deal with it, so they quit hiring him.

Anyway, the unique 1930's perspective, combined with.some nice dialogue and strong acting, make this a film worth watching.

I'm old enough to have seen the original West Side Story when it came out in 1961, and was eager to see what Steven Spielberg would do with it. Could one of the greatest film directors in modern history improve on near-perfection?

The beginning of the 1961 film was legendary: Eight minutes of almost no talking, just dance and music and motion that set the foundation for the rest of the film. Well, the 2021 version did the same thing, differently but not necessarily better. Then Officer Krupke comes in to break up the near-rumble between the Puerto Rican and white gangs, and who's right behind him? A racist cop who is apparently Krupke's boss. He kicks out the Puerto Ricans, then tells the white gang that he doesn't like Puerto Ricans either, but that the neighborhood is soon going to be gentrified and full of rich white people, who won't give a squat about either Puerto Ricans or poor white kids after they move in. So here we go: The 1961 movie was about action, while the 2021 version is about lectures.

Arthur Laurents's 1961 script was significantly rewritten for the 2021 film, by someone who has no idea what 1950's street lingo sounded like. The dance numbers were good, although nowhere near Jerome Robbins level. But at least they seemed to keep most of Leanard Bernstein's music.

On the plus side, Spielberg is a very creative and colorful director, so the 2021 version is visually beautiful. It was great to see Rita Moreno return in.a substantial role, not just a cameo. And you have to give the new version credit for hiring actual Hispanics to play Hispanics. Casting Natalie Wood as Maria in 1961 was a poor decision, although that's not a criticism of Wood, who was as good as it was possible to be.

Overall, though, modernizing West Side Story didn't work. What's next, Hollywood? A remake of Gone With the Wind, where the slave owners warn the slaves that they're stuck in an economic and political system that will imprison them for decades to come?

The journalism in the New York Times is phenomenal, best in the United States, and tied with The Economist for best among English language news sources overall. And -- in my experience -- the further back you go into the New York Times, the better the journalism is.

Obit takes you way back, into the obituary pages of the New York Times. A front page obituary is rare, but in all cases there is a detailed process for selecting who will get an obituary, what will be said about them, and how it will be said. And there are valuable lessons to be learned in an obit. As one of the obit writers says, an obituary says very little about a person's death. It's mostly a celebration of their life.

There's also a lot to be learned about the care that Times reporters put into their work. The guy who runs the storage room full of old photographs and obit material casually told a lot of great stories about some of the old obits he's seen.

I'd happily watch a documentary about the Times business, sports, or entertainment sections. Or just about any section. But the obits seem like a great place to start.

Here's the basic premise of I, Tonya: (a) Tonya Harding knew nothing about the attack on Nancy Kerrigan, (b) her husband Jeff Gillooly just wanted to send Kerrigan some threatening letters, not attack her, but (c) Harding's bodyguard, Shawn Eckardt, unilaterally and insanely decided to turn the sending of letters into a physical attack on Kerrigan. Yes, it's stupid, but go with it, just for the two hours of this film. If you do, the film will be a rewarding experience, particularly for the outstanding performances of Margot Robbie and Allison Janney.

Robbie has the voice and mannerisms of Tonya Harding down perfectly, although as hard as she tries to dress down into a trailer park wardrobe, her beauty can't help but penetrate it. Allison Janney is physically unrecognizable as Harding's sociopathic mother, although the voice is still clearly hers. Their complex toxic relationship is at the heart of the film, and their performances make it worth watching. There are also some amazing skating sequences.

I went into this skeptical, and came out a fan. This film is definitely worth your time. But don't for a second think of it as a documentary. Even the producers display a bit of a caveat about the movie's credibility at the beginning of the film, so why shouldn't you?

I'm an old guy, and have always heard that real-world Lucille Ball was a far different person than the crazy redhead on "I Love Lucy." But Nicole Kidman really brought that difference to life.

Usually, fictional depictions of well known people are a huge disappointment. (See "The Eyes of Tammy Faye" for several examples.) But everyone in the cast of "Being the Ricardos" got it exactly right. And none more so than Nicole Kidman. She somehow pulled off an impressive Lucille Ball imitation, right down to the mild 1950's smoker's rasp that later became very sadly noticeable.

But it was more than just her skills as an impressionist. Kidman also completely personified the radical personality change between the fiery, uncompromising, courageous, temperamental, and occasionally irrationally-demanding offstage Lucille Ball, and the wide-eyed slightly goofy onstage character the world fell in love with.

The rest of the cast was perfect. For some reason, there was a lot of pre-production controversy about whether Javier Bardem could pull off Desi Arnaz, but he played the charismatic, philandering, hard-driven role perfectly. Nina Arianda was a surprisingly beautiful Vivian Vance look-alike, frustrated over playing a frumpy housewife married to a man who was old enough to be her father. And J. K. Simmons pulled up his pants, stuck out his stomach, and sold William Frawley as a hard-drinking, flip, sarcastic, but nonetheless caring member of the "I Love Lucy" family.

The plot didn't actually follow the real timeline, but for goodness sake what decent fictional account of a historical event does? From that perspective, I was only disappointed with one scene - the ridiculous phone call that Desi Arnaz puts on a speaker phone in front of the studio audience toward the end of the movie. On top of the fact that this never happened in real life, I couldn't help but wonder why the voice of the actor on the other end of the phone sounded absolutely nothing like the famous person they were supposed to be playing.

But other than that very small flaw, the film was great. I went into "Being the Ricardos" a bit hesitant over the mixed reviews, but ended up being completely captivated. If this entire production doesn't earn multiple awards, Nicole Kidman should at least win for her amazing transformations into both Lucy Ricardo and Lucille Ball.

I could happily sit on my couch, drink wine, eat potato chips, and watch Judge Judy reruns all weekend. So I eagerly dived into the new Judy Justice shows on Amazon Prime - but, unfortunately, got less eager with each episode, and finally quit after Episode 4.

The alternately curmudgeonly and witty Bailiff Byrd is gone, replaced with a colorless cast of three: a new bailiff, a "court reporter" (for a video-recorded proceeding, in a era when most transcriptions are automated?), and a law clerk. They all have one job: to smile broadly when Judge Judy makes a joke or a clever point.

Actually, I take that back. The law clerk has a second job: She sits in Judge Judy's chambers after each trial, and serves as her echo chamber while Judge Judy reflects on the previous case.

There are occasional flashes of the old Judge Judy, but the presence of the bloated cast slows down the pace of Judy Justice. Instead, give her just one (ideally insightful or funny) person to bounce her remarks off of. If Byrd isn't available, perhaps try resurrecting the body of Norm MacDonald, who did a great interview with her on his Netflix talk show a few years ago. But please, someone fix this!

I'm an American who loves British comedies, and this show hits the sweet spot. More subtle than the typical American sitcom, with its loud laugh track and here's-the-windup-and-here's-the-pitch delivery of punch lines. But less subtle that British humor, which sometimes requires three or four viewings before you catch it. Brilliantly casted. Well written. Love the little idiosyncratic spins, like the crocodile hand puppet. Very pleasant and largely upbeat comedy. What more could you ask for right now?

This 90 minute movie could have been over in 30 seconds, if Jim Fry had just gone up to his boss and asked why he wasn't invited to the luncheon.

As it stands, it feels like they really had to struggle to stretch this story out to an hour and a half. The first ten minutes is nothing but opening credits and a long pointless scene of Fry and his wife silently getting out of bed, having breakfast, and getting ready for the day. I was hoping their cars would crash when they pulled out of their garage in that weird way, so there would be some action.

There is no romantic spark between Jose Ferrer and Gena Rowlands, and the ending of the movie is blatantly spelled out for the audience about thirty minutes before the movie actually ends. For a "comedy," there are almost literally no laughs.

But on the plus side, I grew up in the 1950's, and I enjoyed seeing all the old appliances and cars and their dashboards and work desks without computers and even smoking in the office. So there's that.

Heath Ledger's performance was amazing and memorable, but beyond that I didn't get it at all. Lots of flashing light and fast movement and jumping from tall buildings, if you like that kind of thing. But it came at the expense of any plot coherence.

Why were the townspeople so upset with Batman? Why were they blaming him for all the bad stuff that was happening in their city? What was with Batman quitting and coming back and quitting and coming back over and over again? And the accountant that put together a feeble speculation about Batman's identity, and then tried to blackmail him, then apparently backed off, then maybe went public with it or maybe didn't - what purpose did he even serve in the film?

Also, prepare for a lot of pointless moralizing and philosophizing by almost all the major characters at the end. What was the bottom line - that there's a little bit of evil in all of us? We knew that two-and-a-half hours ago.

And when did Batman start flying through the air? I thought the whole unique attraction of Batman was that he didn't have any super powers.

And don't even get me started on that guy's stupid obsession with his two-headed coin.

I like movies that motivate me to suspend disbelief, not ones that force me to do it.

This was the best of all the Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, and I loved all of them. I'd never heard of Colleen Ballinger or Miranda Sings before, but I laughed out loud frequently during this show. The non-stop improv between Ballinger and Seinfeld was brilliant. This episode also highlights Seinfeld's very underrated skills as a straight man, which was a big part of what made his show so successful. I get that Ballinger's egotistical, near-rude "Miranda" character might put off some people. But not me. I'm heading to YouTube now to try to find more.

Without giving the plot away, this is a film about two amoral characters and the amoral people they surround them selves with. The two heroes of the movie use and then cast other people (and each other) aside like used sheets of bathroom tissue. Ethically, this film was a disaster. And yet ... for some reason, I loved it. So is there something wrong with me? Maybe. I think I liked it for two reasons.

First, because the two stars were so appealing. For U.S. viewers, the leading man reminded me of the likable Ray Romano. The actors were really terrific, and their characters were more than one dimensional, allowing their true emotions to occasionally show, finally breaking completely free at the end.

Second, the supporting characters were equally amoral and only one-dimensional. Again, great actors, but they were all rich manipulative b*stards, and you could fairly say they got what was coming to them. But we almost never saw their loneliness or heartbreak, so it was easy to root for the two stars.

So was I being manipulated, like most of the characters in the film? Probably. But if the movie was trying to make the point that we are all being manipulated toward the dreams and aspirations of those around us, it was a great success.

A number of people have referred to this movie as a "tear jerker," but the only thing that made me almost cry was the continuous background music that invaded almost every minute of Random Harvest. I couldn't get through this whole film, and had to stop after 45 minutes. The background music was giving me a headache. Almost literally every scene was punctuated with music to reinforce what you were supposed to be feeling -- happy music for happy scenes, funny music for funny scenes, sad music for sad scenes, romantic music for romantic scenes. And I could swear that sometimes the background music overlapped with the singing and dancing music of the club and bar scenes. Seriously, I've seen musicals with less music.

The movie was also sad because the background music distracted from what appeared to be very good performances by Ronald Coleman, Greer Garson, and pretty much the entire cast. Ironically, my favorite scene was the Scottish musical number that Greer Garson performed near the beginning of the film. But I couldn't figure out why Greer Garson latched onto Ronald Coleman in the first place. It seemed like they met, had a brief conversation, and instantly they were inseparable -- even though no sparks seemed to fly. There is possibly a surprise twist later that explained it, but I didn't get that far.

I watched this film because two very talented men I greatly admire -- Carl Reiner and Gene Wilder -- called it one of their favorite movies. R.I.P. gentlemen, you were legends in your own time, but I've seen better.