NellsFlickers

This had to be the worst Simpsons episode I've ever seen. Perhaps it is funny to younger people who love modern streaming TV, but I found it extremely unfunny, poorly written, and unnecessarily violent. I think it was the first time I didn't even chuckle during an episode. I certainly wouldn't want young kids to watch. There are no real jokes, no running gags, nothing. Even the Fat Tony scenes, which I always like, were bad. I don't know why the show now shows blatant, bloody, not innocent-fun violence like on Itchy & Scratchy. A very depressing episode, and try as I did, I couldn't get through Part 2. I'll stick with the old episodes...

YES, I saw this concert during one of the many never ending PBS pledge-weeks. I am a casual Beatles fan, and really don't know many of Harrison's solo songs. I was NOT planning on watching this memorial concert as I can't STAND it when 10 guitarists stand on stage "playing together". Why? Because they never play TOGETHER, they always try to show off and the result is usually a muddle of guitar notes and egos bouncing around your ears.

This concert was different.

Each musician played WITH each other. Despite the multiple guitars and drummers, they were TIGHT and not at all muddled. Even the various singers were good, though Ringo isn't exactly the world's best. But he's RINGO, how can you fault the man?? Just look at him at the drum kit... he seems to always be having fun!

Paul McCartney, not quite so much...

George's son is the splitting image of his dad, which makes the whole experience a tiny bit creepy, but at the same time very sweet. I don't know how they all stayed dry-eyed after only one year without George.

So if you HATE concerts with too many ego-driven musicians, give this one a try. It was rather impressive! (And you may need a tissue at the end... )

I've always been a car gal, so I knew the gist of the Ferrari vs. Ford story way before this film was made. When it first came out, I thought maybe I'd like to see it, but I can't STAND modern special effects, and modern films as a whole. So when I noticed it was going to be on TV recently, I DVR'd it. I could type quite a lot, but will try to keep this as short as possible.

Firstly, I have owned 4 Ford vehicles so far, and they are my favorite current American brand. BUT, my favorite racing cars are vintage Ferraris. So I was conflicted before I even hit PLAY.

I'll get my brutally honest negative opinions done first. The film is WAY too long. Most of the family scenes should have been edited out, as they only slow the plot down. Just because modern audiences expect women to be in a movie, doesn't mean they should be in every one. This is the story of Ford, Ferrari, racing, and the 1960s. Sorry, but women didn't play a pivotal role in the actual events.

It felt like I was watching a video game instead of race scenes. Granted, the effects are of high quality BUT they just feel fake. Go watch "Le Mans" or "Grand Prix", and you will FEEL the difference between CGI and the real thing.

Why didn't they even show the other two GT40s (black & gold) during the Le Mans race? I already knew about the 1-2-3 photo finish, and it seems to me the other cars should have at least been shown during the race. Otherwise those cars and drivers aren't of any importance at all.

Half of the actors were mis-cast, either not looking anything like the real men (a buff Iacocca??), or just plain over-actors.

The soundtrack could have been SO much better, too.

Stuff I DID like were details like the little lights which illuminated the cars' racing numbers at night. Engine sounds seemed accurate. I like how they showed the progression of the prototype cars, from the first GT to the MkII and onward. It was good to see Shelby driving an AC based Cobra, not a big fat-fender kit car like I'd expect Hollywood to give him. I did see what looked like a bad replica Ferrari 250GT California in one shot.

Matt Damon is SO not Carroll Shelby, but his acting was good nonetheless. The actor who played the lead mechanic sounded just like Dennis Weaver!

So basically everything put in the film for car buffs, I generally liked, though CGI will never win me over. Everything in there for female viewers (of which I am one) I thought was a total waste of film. A better soundtrack, some better veteran actors, and some more inspired direction would have made me happier with the film.

BUT who am I, after all?

Many of Chaney's films had borderline verboten relationships, but this time the father/daughter bond is displayed in a way that is, in my mind anyway, a bit too "adult". At first, I thought the daughter was the wife! The mother character is a real (insert nasty word here), but every performance lacks real depth and emotion. Even Chaney seemed to be holding back. The story itself is textbook. If you just plain want to watch a late silent drama, then by all means watch this one, but it is far from the best of Lon Chaney's films. I'd like to know who designed the eye makeup for the actress who played the wife... the whole time I tried to figure out if the was really Asian or not!

This film deserves a better overall rating. Perhaps modern audiences are becoming too far removed from the WWII era to appreciate the plot? Its a no-nonsense film for the most part dealing with a complicated subject. Many familiar faces, perhaps a touch too much Hollywood here and there, including a love story sub plot to slow things down and make it feel more story than documentary. Good use of original test footage and actual bombers. There is more emphasis on the negatives of atomic weapons than the fact the two bombs actually saved lives in the long run, but to some that is just fine.

I just watched about 3/4 of this film (I missed the beginning) and I have to be honest, I don't quite understand the hype. Unpleasant people doing unpleasant things in unpleasant locations. Even the costumes/wardrobes are mostly blah for such a colorful era. Way too pretentious feeling, and not even close to being a mystery, I'm not sure what the appeal is. Perhaps to the eyes of it's contemporary audience it was bold and daring, but to me today it was drab, dull, and pointless. Some scenes didn't even require acting, just staring at photo "blow ups" forever, or standing around looking quizzical. The soundtrack caught my ear, the Rolls Royce my eye, the rock band my attention, but the rest... well... even Peter Bowles, who I usually like, was unpleasant. Maybe I'm just a square...

Is a little girl sick because of polio? Or did she get fed up with her clean-eating parents and their rules and have a hot dog from a food truck? Whatever you do, don't eat the piccalilli! Rafferty's nurse has more to do than usual in this episode.

The storyline with young, deaf Dewy and a paralyzed older patient helps this episode. But the pregnant airline hostess who may have been exposed to radiation on a plane should have been left on the cutting room floor. Though we do get to see Rafferty contact what must be an Army intelligence man... all very hush-hush but not written very well. Rafferty once again shows us he seems to like children, and definitely likes to bend rules. Dick O'Neill and Janet MacLachlan, both of whom would later appear in Cagney & Lacey, also add to the episode.

Rafferty once again pokes his nose into other people's maladys. The script bounces around like a rubber ball, but as it does, we learn that Rafferty seems to be very well versed in classical music as well as medicine. He also seems un-phased by lawsuits. And fans need to pay close attention to his visit to a lady lawyer he is acquainted with.

This episode seems to have had a better than average script. It flows a bit better than others and keeps your attention more as well. Some of McGoohan's mannerisms will (finally) feel familiar to fans. At the same time, Rafferty's comment to a man about certain pills he has been taking was unexpected and made me chuckle. While still not Emmy Award winning stuff, I actually enjoyed watching this installment.

This third episode of Rafferty continues with more rather improbable plot points. But the supporting cast is good in this one, and McGoohan actually has some dialogue longer than a grunted word or two. Talent wasted... We also get to see that the doctor's Mustang convertible is a bit of a lemon!

Being a teetotaler, I appreciate anything that shows excessive drinking for what it can really become. This aside, Weekend is a good movie overall, though for my taste Milland at some times says his lines slightly too fast and hammy (especially when in the bar explaining his drinking to the bartender). But all in all a well made film, obviously! I actually knew the film from Milland's appearance on the Jack Benny radio show after winning his Oscar, before seeing the actual movie itself. If you want a good laugh, look for it on any OTR website who offers free shows.

In this episode Dr. Rafferty deals with a couple who's daughter needs a kidney transplant, and a family of young black children who's mother left them months ago for no known reason. His interactions with the "man of the house", played by Erin Blunt, show Rafferty seems to like kids better than adults! But the show's script is just too far-fetched. And let's face it, even "back in the day", doctors didn't have the time to meddle in their patients' lives the way Rafferty does. When this second episode first aired, viewers must have been still trying to figure out Rafferty's character... sometimes nice, sometimes, not. Seems to care about people, seems to be indifferent. Talks too much, talks too little!

A mix of humor and drama, with the flashback scenes being weaker than the rest. Laughton and Lanchester are excellent, Tyrone Power seems overrated, and Dietrich is a bit TOO icy. And YES, you need to watch it until the very end, though the ending does seem slightly rushed and gimmicky. Overall worth a watch.

If you are looking for an actual history of blue jeans, don't bother with this "documentary". Instead of a history covering all aspects of the topic, this show spends more time discussing a one-sided social and political aspect of jeans. Instead of discussing how they have been manufactured through the years, we are told about slavery relating to Indigo dye. Instead of discussing the history of the major manufacturers, we are told they either were or were not made by black labor. One moment they say jeans were almost exclusively worn by black slaves in America, then we are told EVERYONE did, even the Chinese railroad workers. Wearing jeans were a symbol of rebellion for civil rights fighters in the 1960s, were a slap in the face to rich whites when worn by rappers, etc. What about jean culture in other countries? Not covered. While it is good to learn different things about a topic, it is very obvious that in this case PBS cared more about race than the overall history of blue jeans.

In this first episode, McGoohan plays Dr. Sid Rafferty as almost the opposite of John Drake, aka Danger Man. His personal life seems to be a bit of a mess, he is a bit sloppy, speaks in a higher pitched Irish-tinged American accent (WHY did he have to do that??), and deals with all sorts of people, from patients to co-workers to lawyers. There are some faults in the script that make you go "wait, how did... what about..." It may also be the fault of the script, but it is difficult to warm up to the admitted curmudgeon. As much as I love McGoohan as an actor, I don't think this was the right character for him. He must have had lots of high-hopes for Rafferty or else he would never have gone back into a TV series. But Jack Klugman's Dr. Quincy came across as far more natural and believable, and in the end Rafferty just didn't work out. A shame...

This was recently shown on TCM and both my mother and boyfriend wanted to watch it a second time, they thought it was so funny! I actually remembered bits of it from my days in front of the TV as a kid, which is amazing as I hadn't seen it in about 30-35 years! I don't want to ruin it for anyone, so I'll just say if you love puns, even old ones, you should love this cartoon. Even if you've never heard of the sayings they use, the "descriptions" are funny enough to make you laugh!

I don't know why this film isn't rated higher... I rank this as Brook's BEST film. Great direction and production, good script, perfect casting, and fun even if you don't catch all of the Hitchcock references. I don't know why people think Brooks shouldn't have played the main character... he IS Dr. Richard H. Thorndike! He looks like a mild mannered Jewish psychiatrist who gets a bit wacky at times, even letting loose at a piano bar. Excellent film.

This Brooks film is more appealing to lovers of classic comedy than modern audiences with their short attention spans. Some will have issues with the silence and having to read title cards. The story is somewhat irrelevant to the gags, and some of those gags get repetitive, but having Brooks paired with his old boss Sid Caesar is fun to see. Guys will no doubt love looking at Bernadette Peters. Light viewing.

By far WAY funnier than most of what I call the "later" Brooks films. Not as raunchy, lots of great sight gags and in-jokes, along with the usual Jewish-related gags. To this day, I still use quotes like "when will then be now?" in casual conversation. Rick Moranis is PERFECT and a real hoot. I have never been thrilled with Bill Pullman in this but then again, Harrison Ford wasn't that great in the first Star Wars, either! The "bad guys" scenes are far better than those with the "good guys". Rather impressive special effects for a Brooks film. Recommended... unless you prefer the more raunchy style of Brooks film.

I have watched this film twice and liked it better the second time. I love Charley Chase, even when he wasn't at his best (or healthiest). His actual gray hair helps make him a more natural character. His (too) short solo scenes made me chuckle, especially when he is alone in his drug store after Cecil's disastrous first fight. He is also funny when Carl 'Alfalfa' Switzer needs to "get back" his swollen coins. But alas, he wasn't the best choice for the role. His comedy wasn't loud and overly frantic, and Patsy Kelly was way too loud to be mated with Chase. We DO, though, get to see him dance!

Guinn Williams was mediocre. Patsy Kelly did a fine job IF you like her style of comedy. Edward Brophy and his "thugs" are good. There are way too many back-projection scenes and use of doubles that give the movie a low-budget feeling, THOUGHT they did use a lot of real people in the fight audiences. OH, and a lot of farm animals...

Patsy's last CAR, on the other hand, I absolutely LOVED: A Duesenberg.

So while not the best film of 1936, it is decent and you need to watch it if you are a Chase fan, even if he simply wasn't in enough feature films.

I enjoyed this Chase short, probably because I am a car gal! While not as good as his silent work, there are some cute gags and I'm sure plenty of people during The Depression understood the jokes regarding "accessories" and, of course, "the collection man". It's a shame the scenes on the trolley weren't all filmed on a real one. But this WAS Columbia, after all... Enjoyable, especially compared to other Chase shorts from 1939.

Any 1950s McGoohan television appearance is a rarity to see, so I had to watch this one!

In short, the first half is a bit slow, but once you see the whole show you understand why. The whole idea of Smurch being "what he is" has to be established before we actually meet him.

Patrick McGoohan's Smurch is surprisingly hilarious. He should have tried more comedy! His American accent is a cross between Marlon Brando and every dummy-character from the radio days. It is, while over the top, by far one of his most believable American accents. His delivery and expressions are a hoot! Not sure how many sticks of gum ended up in his mouth, but it looks like a LOT!

Pleasence and some of the other actors aren't the most convincing Americans, and in a way the whole story seems ever-so-slightly anti-American, but all in all it is an interesting premise and most of the performances are good, especially given the date and format.

A fun little story, a bit dark, but the ending is entirely worth a viewing!

I have seen "Alcatraz" MANY times through the years. I recently watched it yet again, with slightly older eyes, and never realized how little dialogue it has. Which helps explain why I always liked it, despite not being a big Eastwood fan.

It is gritty without being super-violent, is anti-prison without being preachy, deals with race but doesn't pander, and is about a true event.

Eastwood does a great job as Frank Morris. Quiet and brilliant, always thinking, yet perfectly able to take care of himself in a fight. Hankin as Butts is perfect as well, though the Anglin Brothers seemed slightly miscast. Comments in iMDB state they were cast due to their physical abilities, which they did seem to have.

The English character has plenty of "status", yet we doesn't act like a tough guy. He is also quiet and smart.

Other than English and Morris, the character with the most dialogue is The Warden, played by Patrick McGoohan. He almost seems to not be wearing any makeup in this one. He is very plain, very subdued, yet very cold and business-like. He has a caged parakeet and a small fish aquarium in his office, which make him seem almost human But but he shows no feelings whatsoever for his inmates (though he does seem rather pleasant when he asks Morris about his accordion). McGoohan did long, technical dialogue well (like when he meets Morris in his office) and also scenes which require little dialogue at all (like the ending).

So if you don't need lots of talk, even soundtrack music, this is a movie you will like. If you MUST have lots of yammering and explosions and padding, you may not enjoy it. But it looks good, has good acting, and is based on fact.

Yet another Patrick McGoohan film I had to scratch off my "To Watch" list. I had already formed an opinion of it thanks to female fans' comments regarding his kissing scenes, McGoohan's own opinion of his Rank films, and even one newspaper editorial from years ago where a woman was rather upset at his non-Secret Agent-like character. I found a copy of the film posted online and gave it a view...

In summary: the two lead characters are, well... CADS. It is very hard to be sympathetic to either of them. They both ask for what they get. Mercouri seemed to be pushing the whole sexy-thing a bit too much. Her whole performance was a bit over the top. McGoohan's character, Jess, one minute seems almost nice, then nasty, then a bit of both, then also a cad. He looks darn sexy in his beard, and HOW does he get onto that horse like that??

The "nice" characters are pretty run-of-the-mill, though Flora Robson was a bit of a stand-out.

I was semi-impressed by the "look" of the film, with colorful sets and costumes, outdoor scenes, etc. It didn't look cheap. But the plot looses you after a while, and the ending is... well... trite...

Watch it if you must, but have a good reason to, like I did...

;-)