ChrisB13

Barbie & Ken were just a bit after my time in La-La Land adolescence but not by much. Critics are alluding to the well educated Greta Gerwig, the Writer/Director of this film, as being someone very special in cinema however I would strongly disagree. The film is as confusing as it is gnarly and prone to the most dreaded conclusion of all...it's an absolute bore. There is nothing here any young "gurl" can aspire to be nor is it a film that would conjure up memories of innocent or youthful fantasy. It has a few moments where one might chuckle but overall it is not at all comical. Ken has been relegated to the "cheap seats" of Barbie-land which seems housed in an alternate universe while the various iterations of Barbie, are consumed by thoughts of politics, art, science, law, bad breath and flat feet! It has made tons of money and I don't wonder why. Every young girl who had a Barbie Doll when she was young ran to see it and those that only heard of her, tagged along to see what the big deal was. I'm still wondering. I guess even nostalgia AIN'T what it used to be.

I think I've seen every Western ever made and own many of them. There is something about Lonesome Dove that is very special and yet, if I were asked to point out that something special I would have to say this: it isn't only one thing, it's everything. From the superb casting, the total understanding of Larry McMurtry's wonderful story, the writing of the screenplay, the careful direction of it, to the scenery to the smallest detail, this is an all encompassing tale which covers the lives of two "Rangers" and their part in taming the West. It is simply a stellar "Mini-Series" that will keep you in your seat for its entire length. Kudos must go out to Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones for their excellent portrayals of the main characters. I've "known" Tommy Lee from off Broadway in the late 1960's and have followed his career from that moment on. Robert Duvall deserved this role and I'm am gratified by his many achievements before and after this wonderful film. Both actors are solid, as is the story they bring to life on screen. Don't miss this one!

I thought Brad Garrett was a stand-out as Jackie Gleason and the film filled in many blank spots about his life. I did love "The Honeymooners" but I never cared for Jackie Gleason as a stand-up comedian. He came off as mean spirited, was far too angry and couldn't easily get away with that type of humor. On the other hand, and a few years later, Don Rickles came onto the scene and could throw insult after insult because his demeanor was totally different from Gleason's...and Rickles could also be apologetic!. Gleason was a hard-head and apologized to no one but in those early days, when no one had a clue about television, he got what he wanted and gave us "The Honeymooners." In this film, should you see it again, notice the inside of front door to the Kramden apartment. The handle is on the right side..it should be on the left. That's why Norton was able to slip into the hallway so easily. I'm shocked no one noticed it or thought no one else would. I considered it a thoughtless error on the part of production! As to Gleason as a man...why any woman would see him as an object of desire escapes me but they say that for every pot there's a lid..and Gleason had his share.

While the story has its basis in truth, the acting is not up to par. The casting is questionable and, sad to say, that is not rare when produced by the many of the streaming services now available. The dialog is certainly NOT spoken in the manner or syntax of the period in which this drama takes place. Unfortunately it did nothing more than grate on my nerves. I may be a bit biased on this since I do come from the Golden Ages of Hollywood. There were decades of fabulous films when actors were chosen not only what they could do for the studio bottom line but chosen for the ways in which they could bring character and texture to the characters and story being presented. I find it beyond difficult to settle for a piece that comes off more like community theater than a story that could have been told in a more believable fashion by more seasoned actors. Had they cast each role carefully and properly it would have been a valuable addition to the history of that time and, therefore, worth watching.

The reason I gave this only 3 stars is to extend a nod to those who created the special effects. Outside of that, I had no interest in a story that means absolutely nothing in my cinematic world nor an interest in people able to glide up and down walls at will and traverse great expanses in the same manner. If Li Mu Bai wished to end his bloodied career as a master swordsman and the "Green Sword" passed on to rest for posterity, there is no further story. What did the sword represent outside of the person possessing/wielding it being a master swordsman? Outside of it being a symbol of the mastery of an ancient art that question was never answered in a way that I could comprehend. The dialog is difficult to understand at times and the sub-titles, all too often, do not match the dialog. I found that far to disconcerting and the story uninteresting. Since so many people loved this film I can but conclude the Wuxia genre is simply not to my taste.

I purchased the "Trilogy" as they were released but did not view them until March of 2023! That may seem strange to whomever reads this review but it's not strange to me! I am a film buff who is a fan of film from the '30's, '40's, '50's and '60's...along with many from other eras but have not always been a fan of Fantasy, Science Fiction, Futuristic Doomsday Melodrama and the like. These films could sit on the shelf until the mood struck. I'd all but forgotten I own them...but when a dear friend began talking about them, the mood did strike and I am so happy that it did. What I have just seen may not have struck the note that was likely intended or made as much sense to me back then. For me, these films represent what the world has gone through since time immemorial but most especially since 2016! The proverb, "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" is shown here as never before in allegorical terms. Power has always corrupted the hearts and souls of mankind. Perhaps it always will but it need not be our destiny! What is depicted in the series and most especially in "The Two Towers" ignited within me the hope that dwells within each of us; that all things can and do change. It reminded me, once again, that when people are oppressed, fearful and almost at their psychological and physical end, yet understand that change can only be implemented if one aids in bringing about the change they need or seek. If they understand what is afoot in their world, communicate with one another and come together...when the quest for decency and humanity obliterates all else, people can and will conquer evil. And THIS was ever evolving and undiluted evil that had taken centuries to unfold and come to the point of total annihilation. Peter Jackson is the genius who directed these films and must be given kudos for the gifts he has given us. The entire cast of these films is to be lauded as well. Each member poured forth every ounce of their formidable talents to deliver performances of a magnitude rarely seen in film. I am both astounded and gratified that I finally allowed myself to be convinced, at long last, to watch these magnificent films.

I'd not seen this 2010 film until 2023. After viewing it, I understand why I'd never even heard of it! My overall impression is this; What could and should have been a soul searching, enlightening and splendid film was anything but. While there is nothing at all wrong with the cast and their performances in my opinion there is much wrong in the handling of the material and the direction of this film. I do not believe Ryan Murphy was equipped to manage what is such a multi-layered and multi-faceted undertaking. When a person begins to question their life and wishes to discover what is missing or what is making them so unhappy at their very core that they are willing to leave all they know and love behind...it is a very serious and earth shattering experience! This woman was successful in all she undertook...she was not a person whom one might consider to be a "loser" on any level or in any way. People such as this will often go where they need to in order to discover if they can "find themselves" somewhere...anywhere! They must search for the answers to questions that may not be altogether formulated. You know you're terribly unhappy and perhaps unfulfilled but cannot always say why or what is at the root of it! I was thinking of another film in which Tyrone Power took on such a journey...and that film was titled "The Razor's Edge." It was a powerful piece and a great film. The journey of a lifetime requires more information and subtle nuance. It needs attention to feelings, thoughts, discoveries made along the way and the many questions that come with that type of experience. Each detail is part of the journey and each should be given its weight in the telling of it. Mr. Murphy has given us nothing to ponder. He has only given us pause to ask the question; "Why on earth did you make this film in this manner?" As an openly Gay man you should be familiar with much of this territory and yet, somehow, you could not find a way to articulate it and get it across to your audience. You wrote the screenplay and yet, didn't understand one iota of the original premise; "I'm so very unhappy and shouldn't be. Everything seems perfect and yet...I want out of the life I am now living! What am I going to do and how can I change this?" Mr. Murphy had a great cast and I am pleased to be able to render KUDOS to Julia Roberts, Javier Bardem, Viola Davis and Richard Jenkins. Mr. Murphy, you had it all right at your fingertips and at your disposal. You blew it...totally!

Renee Zellweger cannot hold a candle to Judy Garland. Not in personality, performance, stature and most certainly not in vocal ability. Zellweger looks nothing at all like Judy Garland and she doesn't "act" like Judy Garland. There is so little emotion her that it's astounding in its absence! With all the technology available in the world of today, the producers, directors, writers and production crew simply sat back and let the chips fall where they did...and they fell with a resounding THUD in scene after scene! They did not avail themselves of any pertinent information in any way whatsoever. Whomever it was that conceived of this travesty, should be ashamed of this debacle and made to do the research that should have been the foundation of this film. In the end, the casting amounted to a total miscast and this film is not worth a brass farthing. That Zellweger won an Academy Award for THIS performance, shows me, once again, how far down Hollywood and filmdom has fallen into the abyss of mediocrity. When all is said and done you will still have no idea who the greatest entertainer in the world was, how she became what she became or why it was so important to produce this piece of trash. I imagine they thought they'd cash in on the name alone! Renee Zellweger is not at all remarkable in a positive way...she is only remarkably bad! Shameful.

We have all been so used to Hollywood's interpretations of Biblical epics that I believe we'd not thought of a very different perspective on the events surrounding what is generally known as "The Passion" and Jesus of Nazareth. From a period of suffering close to the time of His Crucifixion, Martin Scorsese's take on the novel written by Nikos Kazantzakis gives us another view and a fresh representation of those events. A more earthbound, human view and one that the Christian Church will likely argue over through the ages. The Gospels according to Kazantzakis deliver the stories we all have learned and presented in a way that is stunning to the heart, mind and soul as well as to the ear! No one in the cast feigns accents other than their own and that does take a moment or two to digest and say OK to! Overall it is a provocative and brilliant film.

In 1997 Christopher Plummer too the world by storm in his "One Man" production of "Barrymore" on Broadway. It was recreated for film in 2011 and what a film it is. A new "profile" has emerged from the ashes of the much celebrated John Barrymore and that is the profile of Christopher Plummer. Here we see the full spectrum of his remarkable talent. It is an unusual piece since it does not depict his life span or years in the sun. This is Barrymore at the end of his career seeking that one last role that will catapult him, once more, into lost fame and footlights giving him an opportunity to redeem his reputation and his craft. It is a must see for all who remember him and an absolute for those who treasure great performances...thank you Christopher Plummer and John Plumpis, who plays Frank, his much needed prompter, offstage.

The only reason I gave this a 5 Star rating is because of those who starred in it. As always, Gable is Gable and Shearer is Shearer and they are always good together, however, this has to be one of the misbegotten films I've seen from the golden year of 1939. The cast is stellar and what should have been a comedic romance with serious overtones is an unbelievable hodge-podge of oratory from Shearer and Vaudevillian idiocy from Gable. It may be the only time you'll ever have seen him dance and sing but it's truly not worth the time it takes to watch it to its drawn out conclusion. The story is jagged and lacks plot. Burgess Meredith gives a fine performance as an anti-war minister of little consequence and Joseph Schildkraut is perfect for his role but the rest are meaningless in the grand scheme of the film. I cannot think how Clarence Brown imagined that his direction was necessary or salient. For me, this was a clunker.

Although Rhapsody in Blue is billed as a biographical musical, it had many flaws in depicting George Gershwin's life. Hollywood studios took many liberties in the telling of every biographical film. I loved the film and every talented star in it...especially Joan Leslie and Oscar Levant among others... but there is one moment in the scene at the premiere of Rhapsody in Blue presented at Aeolian Hall that people need to HEAR. The opening notes are, of course, played by Clarinet, however, as many times as you've heard it played you've not heard it played to perfection. In that one scene you will hear a Clarinet so distinctive and pure, it will make the hair on the back of your neck rise to the occasion. I don't know who that small, dark haired Clarinetist was, but whomever Paul Whiteman had in the orchestra and played that extraordinary glissando, made it his own. It is very rare that the glide is played to perfection from the bottom all the way to the top but in that one scene you will hear it and every other rendition you've heard will pale by comparison.

When I see any film, especially one such as this, I expect to be told a story. Whether true or fictionalized, I do wish to know how the protagonist arrived at the point which we are seeing that person now. In this case, I knew nothing of Mary Ann Cotton (1832-1873) before I viewed the film. I'd not even heard of her. Mary Ann Cotton was alleged to be "Britain's First Female Serial Killer" but at the end of the film I knew nothing more about her life or motivations outside of the fact that she came from a poor family and her father was killed in a mining accident when she was 8 years of age. Mining accidents were hardly uncommon in the regional collieries during that time and I wanted to know what had formed this woman. What was her background and what drove her to do what she had allegedly done? In an interview on "This Morning" on ITV in the UK, Ms. Froggatt stated that she really wanted to know what happened to this woman...why Mary Ann Cotton may have killed between 13-21 people! Well, Ms. Froggatt, it seems I would like to know the same things! In my opinion, outside of a strong performance by the entire cast, that mission was not accomplished. The good parts stand outside of that mystery insofar as the rest was very well accomplished. Sets, locales and costuming were wonderfully authentic and detailed for the period. A special shout out to Caroline McCall, of Downton Abbey fame, whose thoughtful attention to detail in costuming was, once again, beautifully done.

I will not regale you with the beauty of the production, the amazing writing, spectacular costuming as well as make-up and hair along with the perception for this true Masterpiece. I will not comment on the individual stories contained in a series that ran for SIX years, however, I would like to call out one of the most experienced and loved figures from both stage and screen. That person is Maggie Smith. Without her presence and acting acumen this continuing saga would not have been as magnificent as it was. I truly believe her astounding skills allowed every other player rise to the heights and harmony they achieved. Thank you Maggie Smith...for once again, allowing us to experience the essence you bring to every performance. Yours is a rare combination of humor, dramatic touch, reaction, timing, nuance and heart that audiences have honored continually through these many years.

Joan Plowright as Mrs. Arthur Palfrey and Rupert Friend as Ludovic "Ludo" Myers are strangers who meet quite by chance and begin a friendship in which two seemingly disparate hearts and souls are forever entwined. Each is on their own journey...she nearing the end and his just beginning. Neither seems wanting yet both do want something more and form an unbreakable bond that overshadows past and future. There is only today and now is the time for these two hearts and minds to merge giving us a tale and union that surpasses time itself. Their journey is one that will make you laugh, cry, love, feel, wish, ache and ponder all relationships as you never had before. It is a joy to watch them grow and to understand that, in life, nothing should ever be dismissed or left from the table.

We've seen the story more times than I can count and yet, this one takes the prize in senseless murder, confusion, contrived circumstances and just plain bad performances. The only credit I'll give are to Val Kilmer who plays Doc Holliday, and Sam Elliott who plays Virgil Earp. Val Kilmer gives the character an air of sophistication combined with an intelligent form of anger and yet, once again, it is not the "Doc" we had come to know through past films. Sam Elliott makes a stronger Virgil Earp than we have seen and in many ways seems stronger than his brother...the main character, Wyatt Earp! Sam Elliott is always professional and beyond good, no matter what role he is given and yet we've never seen his "temper" flair as it does here as Virgil. I'd say it's a typical 1990's film that represents an era of Hollywood type reality which does the story no good at all. It's worth a glance but no more than that.

Hand-picked by Aretha Franklin, Jennifer Hudson has given us a tour de force performance with every fiber of her being. I believe this is the performance that will define her film career. Her voice is such that it encapsulates the indefinable magic Aretha had and I believe Ms. Franklin recognized that. Jennifer Hudson brought us back to the time when Aretha Franklin searched for her voice in music and at long last, hit her stride in the industry. She began a rise to fame to became Music Royalty and an Icon for the ages. Jennifer Hudson has given us her all and Liesl Tommy has carefully and methodically directed a film and tribute that will live in the annals of filmdom forever. From sets to costumes to supporting cast, the attention to detail is beyond stellar. There is no member of the cast and crew that didn't mesh perfectly but it is Jennifer Hudson & Liesl Tommy who brought it all together. The general public knew little of Ms. Franklin's life and her inner struggles but this film has given us the salient details and yet is still simply an overview of a life we'd wondered about through the many years she was with us. This is the stuff Academy Awards are made of and every award it is nominated for and receives will be well deserved. I have followed Ms. Hudson's career from her first performance on American Idol. I knew she was very special from the moment I heard that incredible voice. She is gifted! RESPECT and Kudos to Jennifer Hudson, Liesl Tommy along with the entire cast and crew with special mention to Forest Whittaker for what had to be a difficult role to portray as her father, Pastor Clarence L. Franklin.

I would agree with Martin Scorcece's review but for one important point. Bringing the entire written story to the screen would have been insurmountable. It was hardly possible that Akiva Goldsman could make this film without culling out the one thread that would bring an audience to theaters...and that is the love story. The Mark Helprin book is over 700 pages in length and encompasses two distinctive, fantastical themes; the triumph of love over adversity and that of evil, as it exists in all of mankind, and the struggle to defeat it by coming to terms with it. The love story has a beginning a middle and an end...and yet, does not conclude with the death of Beverly Penn. Peter Lake's quest for understanding the image he holds is realized when he discovers the "Miracle" he was sent to bestow. Yes, belief systems people hold must be suspended in order to fully appreciate what Akiva Goldsman has brought to us, however, the "White Horse" will take you there...with ease.

If Erik Jendresen, who wrote the screenplay and Meg Ryan, who directed and portrayed Mrs. Macauley, sees this story as darkly as they have, I can but feel sorry for both.

Outside of the name of the town as well as the names of the characters, this film bears no resemblance to the well rounded and splendid version of "The Human Comedy" released in 1943. In fact, characters of some import are missing in this film! If anything, I consider it the darkest side of that story which relates more to the mindset and attitudes of today rather than those of 1942-43.

The threads that bound the original story together are absent. There are no threads that bind in this film...not in the story or the characters. Everything seems far too superficially developed, insights discarded, small town togetherness, familial feelings and thoughts are simply not present. Outside of Sam Shepard, who portrayed Willie Grogan, the casting is dead wrong and for the studio to hawk this as a Meg Ryan-Tom Hanks film is no less than cheeky. In my opinion, they sought to make a buck using their names.

I cannot recommend this film to anyone for any reason. For me, it has no saving grace. That Meg Ryan undertook its direction and "bought" the screenplay is sheer folly. I truly do not believe that Ms. Ryan or Erik Jendresen understood the people, characters or period in which this film takes place. Being familiar with the music of the era, I did not hear one piece that touched on it.

Had Ralph Fiennes thought just a bit more broadly in terms of audience appeal and an appropriate ending to a film depicting the defection of Rudolph Nureyev, it should have concluded after his first performance as a FREE MAN. He was the most important and heralded person to defect from Nikita Khrushchev's Soviet Union. The audience knew of his defection and it was WORLD news. In fact, I remember it very well. To have Nureyev simply walk behind the backdrop of the stage before he danced and ending it there...was a faux pas that will cost him the Oscar! Fiennes was stellar as Alexander Ivanovich Pushkin and his Russian seemed authentic and flawless. All performers were terrific but that ending...OH MY!

With rave reviews and a cast which includes Anthony Quinn as Zorba, Alan Bates as Basil, Irene Papas as The Widow, featuring Lila Kedrova as Madame Hortense as well as other Greek actors and the people of Crete, the viewer would think they're in for a real treat. From the opening scenes the entire story makes little sense. A shy and reserved Englishman on his way to Crete to claim a mine he inherited meets an older, unkempt, seemingly poor and boisterous man named Zorba who claims all manner of talent from cook to miner! Zorba is Basil's opposite and he hires him but exactly why he hired him is anyone's guess and left to the viewer's imagination.

As we begin to meet the inhabitants of the village including "The Widow" (Irene Papas) who rarely speaks and "Madame Hortense" (Lila Kedrova) who never seems to stop speaking, we begin to be absorbed into a world of bizarre people and odd events that don't connect and make little sense.

I think it's worth seeing because of its strangeness...I cannot say more lest I give whatever plot there is away.

I have always been a huge Jacqueline Bisset Fan and believe my opinion of her was sealed when I saw this wonderful made for TV movie in 1985. Many women have tried to capture the essence of Anna Karenina but most have never captured all of it. I believe Ms. Bisset has achieved that and the psychologically dependent, multi-faceted Anna is totally believable in Bisset's hands as she agonizes over the choices life is now presenting her with. On the surface, the differences between Karenin and Count Vronsky are clear and yet...divorce was anathema for women living in that era. Paul Scofield is superb as Karenin and no one has done it better than he! So too Anna Massey, Judi Bowker, Joanna David and Ian Ogilvy are quite creditable in their roles. The only drawback for me was the casting of Christopher Reeve as the "dashing" Count Vronsky. He did not have the "dash" or flair and certainly did not possess the acting chops to handle such a stylized, European role. As tall and as handsome as he was, he never had the finesse necessary for such a piece and outside of the terrible coincidence involving the accident with his horse, which paralleled his real-life tragedy...I do not believe he should have been cast.

Growing up during the time period of Caryl Chessman's incarceration and execution, I remember him quite well. In fact, I was fascinated by his intellect and this story. He wrote four books during his time at San Quentin, including his best selling memoir, "Cell 2455, Death Row." It was the talk of the nation and many prominent people from varying avenues of life urged the then Governor of California, Pat Brown, to grant him clemency!

Born in Michigan on May 27, 1921, the Chessman family relocated to Glendale, California in 1922. Coming into his adolescent years when the Great Depression hit, the young Carol (his real name) was in constant trouble during that time and was in and out of reform schools throughout his teenage years. Involvement with local gangs of young men upon his release, he continued his criminal ways throughout the 1930's and 1940's. It seems he was particularly fond of stealing cars! When a string of robberies began occurring in the Los Angeles area in early 1948, the incidents began as simple hold-up type robberies, however, compounding the crimes and confounding the police was a sudden change in method. The thief, or thieves, had also stolen a car and had, on two occasions, resorted to sexual assault. Were the police looking for two different criminals or was it only one who was at large?

News media dubbed the thief "The Red-Light Bandit" because the car that was forcing people to pull over just before they were robbed and/or assaulted used a flashing red light similar to that used in police vehicles. People thought they were being stopped by police and they simply pulled over! Some time during this string of robberies, Chessman had been seen driving a car similar to the description given of a 1946 or 1947 tan or gray Ford coupe that had been stolen and was being used in the crimes. Police spotted what they thought was the right car, pursued and arrested Chessman and another man on the 18 counts of robbery, kidnapping and rape! After 72 hours in custody, Chessman confessed to the crimes but later recanted indicating he was beaten and tortured by police. He was, however,also positively identified by both women!

A petty thief and low-level criminal, Chessman had never been involved in anything having to do with sexual assault or kidnapping. Outside of the alleged torture by police, he had actually proclaimed his innocence from the moment of his arrest thinking he could never be found guilty of anything having to do with kidnapping and rape! It was simply not his M.O. and he was depicted, in the film, as being insulted by the charges! After a three week trial, during which he defended himself, Caryl Chessman was found guilty on 17 of the 18 counts and was sentenced to death! After successfully arguing on appeal, he subsequently won 8 stays of execution before being led to his death in the gas chamber on May 2, 1960. The way the laws were applied at that time accounted for the death sentence. The court ruled that dragging one of the women only 20 some odd feet away from her car was sufficient to qualify for kidnapping under the "Little Lindbergh Law." This also made the two incidents Capital offenses to which the death penalty could be applied. Charges made against his "accomplice" were thrown out of court and he, alone, was incarcerated!

Alan Alda,still in harness playing "Hawkeye Pierce" in the hit TV series,M*A*S*H* stars in this 1977 TV movie. Nominated for a Prime-Time Emmy for his remarkable portrayal of Chessman, Alda, along with Talia Shire, John Hillerman, Barnard Hughes and John Randolph were among the supporting players that brought this film to life. Talia Shire did an admirable job as the sympathetic attorney who helped handle Chessman's many appeals. Chessman did the research and wrote all of those appeals while Ms. Asher acted on his behalf within the legal system. The film shows the alleged "crimes" along with any similarities to Chessman as well as the mindset of police at the time but the real action focuses on the trial and the subsequent legal remedies open to Chessman as he traveled toward his execution date. The arrogant Caryl Chessman was, in the final analysis, a brilliant man who studied and mastered the law during his long incarceration. It is most unfortunate he didn't use that fine mind in other pursuits prior to this. I was thoroughly convinced of his innocence and so were many, many other people but nothing and no one seemed to be able to sway the court.

I cannot fathom why it is not available on DVD or even the old VHS format. I have never seen it being aired on any TV or Cable station after that time period but I'm almost certain it must have been. There is another, more recent, film by the same title but it has nothing whatsoever to do with this story. I can but highly recommend that if you ever have to opportunity to see this one, do so. Perhaps someone you know recorded it when it aired! If they did, be sure and watch it...It is riveting.

I got to watch Mr. Hockey just the other night for the very first time and although I am not a hockey fan, found the film quite appealing and interesting. I am not altogether out of touch with the game and do, therefore, recognize one of the greatest names ever to play the game. I may have come in knowing next to nothing about him but I came out the other end appreciating, very much, the type of man, player, husband and father he was and, in my opinion, I think Michael Shanks did a stand-out job portraying Gordie Howe.

I cannot however, say much about the production of this film or the bulk of the cast either. Shanks was the only character that completely inhabited his part. Kathleen Robertson was good but far too young for the part of the 40 year old Colleen Howe. In my estimation the production was an unprofessional shambles from the rest of the casting to the direction and writing plus the clothing, make-up and hair styles of the era in which Gordie joined his sons in signing on with the WHA and the Houston (Howeston) Aeros team in 1973. Colleen Howe looked to be about 22 years of age instead of 40, which she would have been in 1973 having been born in 1933! We first see her in 1973 wearing a pair of gray suede heels designed in the next millennium! An obvious oversight?!?! The make-up used was all wrong for her and she wore an excruciating amount of it for the time. Instead of aging her a bit they made her up as though she were a flawless Barbie type Kewpie doll...and it was a huge mistake! The polyester clothing was particularly bad and out of step, even for the 70's and the fright wigs, especially the one donned by Bobby Hull, were annoyingly laughable rather than in any way real.

This was film designed to depict one year of his life...the 1973 season. He was only two years out of retirement but was severely out of shape. The thing I didn't quite comprehend was this...Colleen Howe seemed to be an absolute and borderline OCD perfectionist in every way! She ruled Gordie and the entire household with an iron fist and knew every nuance of everyone's life within the family unit. Why she didn't say something to him and why it took so long for it to dawn on Gordie that at age 45 and two years after retirement he could not get away with simply re-signing to play the game again is beyond me. The boys, his teammates, might have clued him in as well but didn't. They were both just OK in their roles but you had absolutely no sense of them as members of that family or as players at all. The daughter was OK too but she was stuck in between them somehow. The only other person I can say did well in his role was Howe's former teammate, Bill Dineen, played by Martin Cummins, who "defected" to the WHA and who hired Gordie as well as drafted the boys. Tom Anniko who played Bruce Norris was pretty darned good as well...at least he was good enough to hate for his treatment of Howe after Gordie went to the WHA to join his boys on the ice!

Howe is the only player in the history of the game to compete in 6 decades of his life...he last took the ice at about age 70! I think it's a great little film for the sake of nostalgia but for my money, they gave Gordie Howe pretty short shrift! They might have given this icon of hockey a bit better script, story line and a decent production team to get this film done properly. They only had 14 producers on the film...and was this ever a case of too many cooks spoil the soup! It's worth a watch even if it's only to see Shanks in the role and to learn just a bit about the great Gordie Howe.

I hadn't really remembered who Frances Farmer was until this poignant film was made. This is a rags to riches to insanity true story of Farmer's life. Lange is supported by Kim Stanley who plays Frances' mother Lillian (both were nominated for a 1983 Academy Award!) and Sam Shepard, who plays Harry York. Frances Farmer was ahead of her time in the ways she opinionated herself and the outspokenness with which she lived her life. Treated very badly by the same studio system that made her a star and her own mother's betrayal, Frances' descent into madness and Lange's impeccable acting makes this movie a must to see and, perhaps, own.