kkmwills

It did female officers dirty.

The episode is a standard Jack-the-Ripper story, with good creepy atmosphere. Then the officer that is part of Lt. Nelson's protection detail is given a one two punch that got me mad.

1) Officer Valerie Kemmet is good enough to be on Lt. Nelson's detail, but *her* going rogue is unacceptable to Dan?! How rich. Nelson's admonishment in the stinger makes sense since Kemmet's a cop. But Dan totally blew Valerie's plan by yelling at her to make *him* comfortable with her plan. Unfortunately, that leads into...

2) the writing "ran out of time" and made Kemmet stupid and useless. Dan was so concerned about the policewoman he was situationally dumb? Idk. Anyway, neither thought that a Jack-the-Ripper copycat, already spiraling faster than the O. G. Jack, might find a way to hide in the *publicized* room!

Then Kemmet allows this armed killer to walk over to her hidden tape recorder without a fight, running out of the room, or anything. Yes, fighting is not always the answer, but this guy was deep into killing women. All so Dan, who I like already writers, can play hero to a police officer? Valerie doesn't even feel a need to bring in the man who tried to kill her, when Tanna goes after folks he has grudges against all the time.

Also? Apparently every male cop and P. I. have a back-up weapon, but Kemmet didn't get the memo.

Other than seeing Pamela Hensley in a "quieter" role ( I remember her as Princess Ardala from BUCK ROGERS IN THE 25TH CENTURY) or you're a completist, I don't recommend.

It was an okay episode, though I found the mystery easy enough.

I was disappointed in Tom and Tracey: Moko realized and took proper action when he discovered something. Neither P. I. is shown thanking Moko when it is reasonable. Very disappointing.

For an episode centered on Kim, there is barely more than a regular episode! Also, the show portrays Kim as street- and people-smart, yet the script does what it does.

It was interesting to watch, but it could have been even more interesting.

Deacon's side-eye of Hondo was wonderful! To get to that delightful moment, you have to go through one of the big tropes of cop shows on the late 60s to mid-70s: the student police officer coming to loggerheads with fellow students ( who are all stripes of Strawman activitist or just criminals using honest activists as cover.) Jim Street is the designated officer for this story.

I am not interested in discussing the positions the students had ( the episode wasn't), but I liked that officers were shown to be interested in continuing their education. For Street, it was night classes.

Rod Perry, while not super chatty in this episode, was clearly enjoying parts of filming. Deacon's side-eye comes as Hondo is going over The Plan. Hondo doesn't remark or react, but it doesn't matter-- Deacon is the audience in that moment. Also of note, Deacon's takedown of a thug with the drop on Street. The sequence was almost gleeful for Deacon. A surprise bit of character love. The end with Deacon and Hondo's sandwich is cute and makes me ponder about current portion sizes.

The episode was fine and could've scored higher if not for the "comic" subplot of Luca dating T. J.'s sister. Which was dropped in the ending stinger.

Still, it's a recommendation.

We get three POVs : Luca's, the widow's and a freelance photographer's (he had shown Luca an exit that the suspect did end up taking.)

Luca was pretty straightforward, the widow painted Luca as a cold killer and her estranged husband as about to surrender, while the photographer was a little mix of the other two and a pinch or two of self-involvement. The truth comes out and the series ends.

Before that, we get a mean-mugging son (who stalks Dom), a photographer who tells Hondo that he disagrees with SWAT on general principle yet gets angry at the idea of Hondo thinking that the photog is okay with Luca going up for potential manslaughter.

Also, no one takes the photographer's camera and bag, even though he is a material witness! Luca, of course, mentioned him, yet the widow never mentioned him. The photographer was supposedly interviewed 20 times( granted, possibly exaggeration) and no one- not even the DA/ADA thought to get the bag, photos and camera?

We start the episode with a woman's estranged husband shooting her boss because the husband believes she's sleeping with the boss. He makes ugly statements about her; I don't entirely believe that she'd be so unforgiving to Luca.

I know things were drawn out a bit more at the time. It doesn't mean that story beats couldn't be tighter and give us episode characters a bit deeper than half a sentence.

Still, it was O. G. S. W. A. T. I'll still watch it.

The shorts premise ( study Industrial Arts to help you in the future) is a fair one. Being made in the Fifties, of course women aren't encouraged to study them.

The basics of using tools and knowing the differences in quality goods in that sector seem to be a good thing. Being able to repair or make things you want/need seems to be a great skill set for *anybody*.

Sadly,industrial arts are still given short-shrift as careers, generally. Even today. (See: for-profit "vocational schools")

The info was given relatively painlessly and it was a short that lived up to that designation.

While I haven't been interested in raising livestock, this is a nice look at a state fair's competitions. I currently live blocks from fairgrounds, so there is still interest in livestock and produce being judged.

Winning livestock may have been able to garner some good money.

Things look a bit rickety on the midway. Not ideal, but also something facing us today.

I wish that this short had gone deeper into the family getting ready for the fair, all the fair competitions, or how the judges decide on winners/ what the standards or criteria are.

Better with MST3K, but not a lost cause without them.

An Idaho trooper gives a driving safety lecture to a farmboy who just got his license.

Some of the things pointed out: * Speeding, drunk driving, not stopping at stop signs and restricted speed zones *Crossing double white lines, first accidents can also be last accidents * Road signs are there to inform you,nights can be more dangerous if you ignore signs *Fatigue can be deadly, lack of attention to the road ahead, make sure your car is clear of highway traffic *Respect the potential lethality of trains

People can talk about the acting and the obviousness of the information, yet car accidents and deaths are still plaguing the U. S. 63 years later.

Watching the MST3K version helps keep this from being too self-serious, though the short tries.

I understand the premise of the short ( compare/contrast Peggy & Liz), but Sue, the high schooler from "Are You Ready For Marriage?", has more maturity.

I just don't see that Peggy understands what life as a pro-footballer's wife will entail, even if he makes a team. Especially in that era.

Yes, there are plenty of elopements that work out. I think my feelings come down to why is the question framed in a binary? You're either mindlessly horny or willing to wait for variables to meet your societal needs, according to the short.

I enjoyed AYRFM much more!

Yes, it's set on a college campus, but maybe this was for college-bound high school seniors or for freshman orientation at colleges. I think that due to how the young woman is shown at the end, placing items she just used in her closet. And the advice/ warning to not use someone else's hygiene products.

As to a reviewer's question about the "wrongness " of those slingbacks: they were considered kinda slutty. The post-WWII allergy to female sensuality posited that due to the shoes being easy to remove, the only reason to wear them was for...springtime fancy-ing.

I rated it as I did because the actual information, not the body-shaming bs or conformity status quo-ing, was interesting and the sweat presentation was a little fun.

As always, when you can take with MST3K, do so.

If you aren't up for a snapshot of the old version of America's supply chain, food-wise.

MST3K articulates points, as well as well-aimed barbs, about how everyone gets year-round vegetables. Not everyone *today* is conversant about what grows in what season, so highlighting the work that folks in the 50s did was good. (If you run/work at a community or neighborhood garden? Much respect for your efforts.)

If I was a history or science teacher, I'd use this as a jumping off point for discussions.

Not a terrible short, but better with MST3K.

If you enjoy today's world of skating, in all of it's types, then this is an interesting look at a show put on by talented regular folk ( with at least one exception.)

If you have ever seen a musical of the 30's, heard a song from the 1910s, watched a TV show from the 50's, then this is like that- a moment that we have built on or moved past. It can be fun to see what was considered thrilling then.

The riffed version the guys from Best Brains has its moments, obviously.

Still,not a bad sit for 8 minutes, imo.

A pretty straight-forward appeal to younger school kids to help keep themselves,their playthings and their rooms neat. While not asking kids to take on grown-up responsibilities, it lays out some ways kids can be mindful,as well as helpful (like fixing toys yourself, where you can.)

This was obviously made in different era, but the base idea is still valid. ( Even with the highlighted family probably what would be classified as working poor today.)

This is a pretty dry health film from the early 50s. Good posture *is* helpful due to the spine being central to various regions of the body. No one promised fame, success, or power if the student had good posture.

I thought it was interesting to have a posture-buddy; it was nice to see support among the "worst" posture kids, as there was no promise of any of them would be chosen. Yes, this is a fictional story, but not all four kids *had* to be chosen.

The teacher/ class was going to choose the most improved posture by naming two boys and two girls in a "court" situation not too different from a prom king and queen. There seems to be more of a court in high school than for these 3rd graders, though.

It was a short that was okay by itself but, again, better through the MST3K lens of silliness.

While I wasn't there in it's heyday, Cypress Gardens was a cool place to visit. This short was about how *fun* water skiing was and how they, CG, were teaching young students in safety and techniques.

I saw the MST3K version and enjoyed it on both the base level and the riff.

I saw this short rifled on by the RiffTrax guys. That is the only fun you'll get from this work. Also, you will see that inane comparisons, politically-speaking, have been around for quite some time.

We are expected to believe: * infants are addicted to teethers *a small child injuring herself climbing after cookies is the same thing as a drug addict trying to find more drugs *drugs are like Legos in that both are colorful *playing "step on a crack" or similar games become a habit, just like drugs; also biting fingernails and twirling hair *an athletic child twirling in a playground swing (to make him "feel funny") is the same as, well, you know *taking one piece from a perpetual motion machine, " for kicks",is just like using drugs

We, the audience, are told the barest amount of facts. Yes, if you do not check a rope swing at a lake, it could break on you. Swimming too far, like across a lake, may be too difficult and put you in danger. Habits are easy to start and hard to stop.

If we took this short at face value, cars would be outlawed due to the POTENTIAL of getting into an accident. We would be unable to plays sports after one twirl in a swing, which gets us dizzy. ( It is implied through a montage that the kid cannot swing a bat, catch a ball *or* run to a base due to being so dizzy.)

Nothing about helpful drugs, like the ones that help a boy in a leg cast. Nothing about talking with your parents about any of the supposed points of this short. I was disappointed to see that grants from The Corporation for Public Broadcasting went to this. (This is a short from 1969; the money is spent.)

The RiffTrax version is the best way to watch this. They point out all the stupid and the maddening repetition.

Overall, a dry poultry-centric short. Funded by a division of TEXACO! Because, as the guys point out, we Americans *needed* to be convinced of trucking items either to market or supermarkets in the post- WWII Era.

Kevin Murphy made this silly thing one of my favorite shorts.

...I would have bumped my score up a couple of notches, at least. While I do have problems with the script being unwilling to present the story that was laid-out pretty well in the comics, I feel that the production was a try at getting as many name stars of the franchise together in a "last ditch"-feeling effort to jump-start or revitalize this franchise. Get the big stars before they are too expensive. Highlight characters that aren't highlighted in the actual story that goes by the title used.

Still, there were moments in the movie that I actually enjoyed, the main one being the "Time In A Bottle" sequence. Evan Peters is a remarkable gent, when given the good stuff to play. Also, the fight in the present/future. The effects were fun to watch.

I think that my disappointment, even more than deviation from the source material, is that the movie I ended up watching was so very paint-by-numbers. Of course Plot Point 4v happened, that's how it always happens in these movies. If I wanted predictable, I would stay home, save the $12 of buying a ticket and concessions, and watch a classics station running older TV shows. I don't pay to see Sir Ian, Sir Patrick, Ms. Lawrence, Mr. Fassbinder, Mr. McAvoy, Ms. Page and Mr. Dinklage be predictable, not when they can be gloriously dynamic.

I am disappointed in the filmmakers, not the cast, but I am not wishing for that amount of time back. It entertained, the least I ask of something that I pay to see. That's why the rating of five. It did not outrage or enthrall. It was whelming.

First: Burt Reynolds is the king! :) Cool and cheesy like a Shatner marathon.

Secondly, there is enough eye candy for everyone.

I didn't think I'd find a hidden Oscar-worthy film, but I knew I might have a great time hootin' at bad lines of overwrought dialogue. I did, but I also found myself following a nice B movie story with various nits to argue with friends(Why the women are mostly wasted in their roles, another talky villain?, mostly dropped plots suddenly found, but only for fight scenes), but still? I'd recommend this for a weekend matinée or a dollar movie selection.

I rank THE DIRTY DOZEN and MAGNIFICENT SEVEN as a tie for my favorite overall movie; This Chinese offering is a very close second or third.

While Sammo is using a basic pattern from the DOZEN (military cons to do-good for their country for personal freedom), he added some elements that I absolutely fell for and love no matter what anyone says.

The three female resistance fighters have to be some of the toughest gals on film, period. Sammo's leaf weapon! A small bit by Dr. Haing S. Ngor! The eventual comradeship the growing and shrinking group had. It was corny and cheesy, but in this combination, it worked, at least for me.

I give it a 8 due to how much more it was than advertised. You go in thinking it's gonna be IL' Sammo giving us a bunch of great kung-fu, which he does, but the movie catches you up ,like TDD or TMS, and gets you to care about whether this group survives to the end.

And if Wah Yuen is the general I'm thinking of, why isn't he a legend here, in the US? The tiny, skinny man who can kick anyone's ass is an amazing guy to watch and I've enjoyed him in several films. He's equally wonderful as the villain in this film.

I first saw this on VHS bought at a "nice price" and low expectations. I have become a Sammo Hung convert as a result. This is very much worth at least one viewing, though it is very HK with the gore and realistic war injuries. This is totally not for those with weak stomachs.

Okay, it's a bit more than that, but not by very much! The delectable Mr. Weaving and the too-good-to-be-real Mr. Everett star as a lower class working man and an idly rich scion of Autrailian society, respectively. There is a girl, of course, and a tragedy that places all three in awkward new dynamics.

It is a bit over-the-top with the melodrama, but I knew that going in. (I was on a Hugo Weaving video binge!) I was happily surprised by how much I enjoyed Rupert Everett's Lord Harry, which could've been a tiresome guy to hang around with for the length of the movie. I believe this was the movie where I realized I would be a fan of his no matter the movie he was in.

Hugo Weaving's man of the people/salt of the earth/been there-done that role could have been tiresome as well. Actually, he sort of is, but this is a soapy vehicle, so everyone must change to a degree, and Ned Devine does.

Sadly, I wasn't fond of the female lead at all, the character not the actress. Catherine McClements was lovely and reminded me that I need to exercise more, but Sarah was not a lead female I liked very much. The sad thing is I can't figure out why. Was it due to the writing, the acting, or that the men were shown and written as more fun to hang about with? Still, it was advertised as soapy good guilty fun and it was!

Why can't folks who are going to make crap fantasy movies just leave the nice trademarked names alone? Why do they have to try to drag a 30-plus year franchise into the muck with them? You can see where someone, somewhere, had the class to try to dovetail the basics of the classic role-playing game to the fantasy genre movie. Yet the end product is a sad, goopy mess and lots of missed opportunities for what looked to be a solid, if not great, cast. I mean, really- did we NEED to see Jeremy Irons in yet another over-the-top villain role? With badly written dialog to boot? The folks who made this didn't use the conventions set down in the game. The dragons were used as mindless pawns, easily controlled and controllable, where in the game they are one of the deadliest creatures around precisely BECAUSE they are insanely brilliant and canny. There are "good" dragons and "bad" dragons and some are able to have magic used against them, yes, but the movie was very cavalier about that point.

The eye-rollingly tiresome stereotypes of dwarfs and elves showed such a lack of originality, that it was hard to give a flip if they were able to work together to stop...whatever they were along to stop. Not that the dwarven/elven sniping should stop, but it should make more sense than "You're a [], therefore I must hate you blindly and blusteringly say I hate you even when I am grudgingly finding you not so awful." That's something you can't find in a TV sitcom, is it? *sigh* The ending made no sense, even when trying to leave "possibilities" for another movie. If the PTB had just read the sources (only about three 300 page books to look through, minimum), and respected the audience they tried to reel in, there could've been a minor hit. Instead, they TPTB poop on their cast and audience and are surprised at the reaction.

I just hope some bright filmmakers aren't scared off by how this was made and try their hands at a REAL D&D movie, unlike the folks who put this together.

I went into this picture unsure whether I would even get through it. I hate scary films for the most part, and my husband isn't a big fan of that style either. But we were both pleasantly surprised with this movie! It is a pretty basic formula- Master teaching students how to fight Evil- but there is a humor that is consistent and leavens the spooky parts and the Big Bads. The two "pet" ghosts were a hoot too! I know that I may have enjoyed it more if I knew more about the culture and/or the two previous movies, but it was a fun/spooky ride! If you have kids that regularly take in Halloween or Scream-type movies, this will either be a massive bore or a fun change of pace.

I had read a brief synopsis of this and went in hoping for some laughs, a couple of good scares and to be entertained. That is exactly what I got, which is not an everyday occurrence!

...save your cash for a Walker, Texas Ranger marathon; it'll have more "facts" than this pile of crap.

For a Western with pretty men, prettier ladies, and ugly sons of guns as the Bad Guys, this is okay at it's best. For this to try for the "based on" style? Uh-uh.

The dialog was sad, the situations as predictable as a TV-movie, and the biggest sin of all- it was draggy. Not slow paced, but deadly dull with talking heads you don't really care too much about.

As a Texan, I was upset for how the real Rangers were shown. While I know that not all early Rangers were men of sterling character, I sincerely hope that they were more than this group of navel-gazers.

... and you want to know a bit more about it, watch this doc. It's got as many of the surviving cast and crew talking about their experiences while making the film. It's a bit like an after-dinner mint after a funny, satisfying meal- I watched this after seeing the movie on DVD.

It's very cool to see Nanette Fabray, Cyd Charisse, James Mitchell, and Comden & Green speaking about the times they had before, during, and after the movie shoot. Nanette even divulges her special "escorts" to the premiere of the movie- let's just say, it was a dream date for sure! Also included is the commentary by the son of one of the songwriters, whose songs are the basis of The Bandwagon, not unlike the songs of Singin' In The Rain. He gives much credit to the man who arranged the music for the movie, which is a generous thing to do.

Liza Minnelli, who was about six during the shoot, reminisces about being around her dad while he directed, and a couple of other sweet stories.

It isn't the most expansive documentary on a classic musical, but it's like the movie it was about, a feel-good look behind the scenes.

...it was a super summer action movie. It just wasn't anywhere close to Dr. Asimov's stories, which I think would make a pretty fine movie.

(The following opinions may contain SPOILERISH ELEMENTS, so please DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED THE FILM. THANKS)

If the characters were given other names, the film titled something else, I might have given the movie a higher grade. I'm not a purist when it comes to adaptations. Still, You don't make Harry Potter movies with puppy familiars and Headmaster DJ Jazzy Jeff (though Hogwart's would be pretty rockin' if they did. *g*) You make a film of Asimov's robots, most folks familiar with the story expect a more mature( at least mentally) Dr. Susan Calvin and robots who aren't out to destroy humankind. This is the ANTI-Asimov adaptation, really.

Despite my massive disappointment, Will Smith is a charismatic actor I'll continue to follow and root for in the future. He's a good fit as a leading man.

Alan Tyduk? He does manage the tricky feat of just emotionless enough to seem benign. He then turns that benignness into a terrifying thing- the utter could-care-less-ness when the robots are attacking; the most polite of killers seen on-screen.

Shia LeBeouf is gonna break hearts and take names before things are over,career-wise, I am pretty sure. He's been great as sidekicks (see also CONSTANTINE), so I am hoping to see him just floor me in a movie someday.

Bridgette Moynahan did the best with the castrated version of Dr. Susan Calvin that she was given. I look forward to seeing her take on better roles.

If this film was called "Will Smith Saves the World Again. Some More.", I would've easily given it a 7. As it tried to dress a bear in a pink tutu and crappy party hat and make it dance as well? It gets that 3 for what I DID enjoy.