dubchi

As the Perry Mason series wound down many episodes had conclusions which were very shallow.Sadly this episode is one of those which does not have a credible ending.If we are to believe that a highly rated radio personality murders his boss after being threatened with replacement or being fired then Howard Stern would have murdered 9-10 times by now.A successful radio personality can always find another job.The poorly thought out ending makes this an extremely disappointing Perry Mason episode.It's no wonder that Burr and Hopper were unhappy doing the show at this point.The quick,very poorly written ending ruins the episode.

The basic concept of Route 66 was to be the adventures of two young,totally unattached young men.They were both without parents,siblings,wives,girlfriends,children,property,business careers or any other ties.They were "chasing a star".Searching for the right place to build a life and/or girl to marry.The early episodes were faithful to the series' concept.Tod and Buz and what happened to THEM were the story.As the series went on many of the episodes had Tod and Buz as mere peripheral players to the stories (see "A Bunch of Lonely Pagliacci's" as an example).The illness of George Maharis which caused him to be unable to work (he missed 8 of the first 79 episodes and quit after episode #79) and the generally mundane acting ability of Martin Milner led the producers to focus less on the adventures of the principals and more on "message" stories.As the series continued,many of the "message" stories became darker and less optimistic dealing more and more with death and the future being grim for the characters Tod,Buz and Linc encounter. Maharis as "Buz Murdoch" gave a John Garfield-ish dramatic quality to the stories which balanced the lukewarm Milner's "Tod Stiles". Late in the series,the replacement for "Buz Murdoch","Lincoln Case",was even less true to the series concept."Linc" was far from unattached (both of his parents were still living,married and residing in the family home) and despite having the background of being a Vietnam combat veteran his character was usually even more sedate than Milner's "Tod".Glenn Corbett played the part woodenly and showed very little acting ability. All in all,the initial concept of the series was brilliant and while many of the "message" episodes were quite good,the series became overly talky and less about the experiences of "Tod","Buz" and "Linc"."Message" became more important to the producers of the series than the "search for a place in this world".

COMMENT,NOT A REVIEW-The fourth and last (they also appeared in three previous "M Squad" episodes) Whitney Blake/Lee Marvin collaboration is the best. Blake,a pretty woman who rarely had any real chance to show her dramatic acting ability,was given sufficient screen time in this episode to convincingly show her "Laura" (or "Sheba") both loathed and was dangerously attracted to Marvin's "Woody",a slick and deadly admirer. Blake showed she was quite talented and underutilized by Hollywood. Marvin here was an interesting,quirky "bad guy" ala his "Violent Saturday"/"Bad Day at Black Rock" past. It is a shame the two never worked together in a full length "noir" film.

I had not seen this movie again for 25-30 years until recently. For all the praise it has received,it is disappointing. The story concerns three married men (Marshall,Blyden & Murray) and an unmarried man (Warden) all treating a co-worker (Abbott) to a bachelor party on a Thursday night in Manhattan.The married men want to go out to get away from their humdrum life.The unmarried man is simply out to have a good time.As the evening unwinds we learn the married men are basically unhappy and feel pressure to buy houses,raise children,earn more money,etc..They feel trapped but are resigned to their fate.They wish they were outgoing and free like the unmarried man.The prospective groom is unsure about going through with the wedding which takes place on Sunday.He wants someone to agree with him that the wedding is a bad idea.Then at the end all of a sudden the story changes-the unmarried man is to be pitied because his life is empty and meaningless and the married men are to be envied because they have their wives and children.This ending seems tacked on as if just to quickly end the film.The sudden married "joy" of the Murray character is simply ridiculous which is why ultimately the film is disappointing.The circumstances of his and his friends' marriages do not make this ending believable. The other disappointment was the short use of "The Existentialist" (Carolyn Jones).Her character was interesting but had so little screen time that the viewer is unsure about whether what she had to say had great meaning and insight or was simply gibberish.

It was interesting to see another Gunsmoke chapter.However,with a few changes this could have been a joy to watch.The storyline itself is very good.The poor set lighting (particularly on night and interior shots) is way too dark and makes viewing a chore.The Long Branch scenes really suffer due to this problem.In 20 years of the TV series the production quality was excellent.This made for TV movie looks amateurish due to the dim lighting. James Arness needed drastic makeup help.He looked like someone out of a horror film rather than the clean cut Matt Dillon we knew for 20 years.The Dillon character would not have changed his grooming habits at his age. With better lighting,makeup and camera angles Amanda Blake would have benefited as well. Where the production really missed was in casting.The character Earl Holiman played (Matt's friend) should have been cast with Ken Curtis as Fester Haggen.This would have made the entire story and movie more satisfying.That character's motivation would have been stronger and we the audience deserved as many familiar Gunsmoke regulars as were still living (if Curtis absolutely refused to appear then Dennis Weaver as Chester Goode should have been cast as the friend.Why were Ted Jordan and Tom Brown excluded also?) Steve Forrest as Mannon did the best acting whether in flashback or present.He was a real scene stealer. I agree with the IMDb review that Miss Kitty deserved more than she got at the end from Matt in the final scene. This could have been a much.much better movie.Why wasn't it?

While the novel by Mildred Savage contains plot lines the film simply could not cover due to time constraints,the beautifully photographed "Parrish" is very enjoyable if you have read and loved the book.Some of the deletions from the novel tightened the storyline though at least one section (where Judd swindles Parrish on a boat deal) should have been added to the film to provide better character motivation and audience understanding.However,at 138 minutes (most prints) already this was not practical.To appreciate the novel and film, the time and place the story takes place (late 1950's rural America) must be taken into consideration.This was a much more innocent time.The actors/actresses used by Producer/Director Delmer Daves are a near perfect fit to reflect the authors intention;a mixture of attractive,unsure,inquisitive,opinionated and passionate teens/early 20's making their place in an adult world.Troy Donahue,not an actor of great expressiveness and polish,had the part of a lifetime as his limitations were the same as the title character.He became Parrish. Karl Malden as Judd Raike was brilliant. I wish there had been a sequel!