Reviews

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024) by George Miller was fine. It was fine. Fine. Did it hit the unbelievable emotive highs of Fury Road? No. Was it as fast-paced and thrilling as Fury Road? No? Did it still have the same aesthetic and compelling characters with shades of the aforementioned things? Definitely. And, to be honest, there's no way it could have lived up to the classic from 2015. So that's definitely the place to start.

I don't know if I liked the structure. For near on or over a year we've been shown Anya Taylor Joy as Furiosa and the movie drops and it takes over half an hour to actually see her. If this is the character I'm supposed to connect to, we need them to be there at some point. It doesn't help her that Chris Hemsworth's Dementus is the extravagant villain that he is (By the way, more hemsworth in villain roles, I enjoyed him in that).

I do love the aesthetic. The vast landscape of the wasteland, the sandstorm, and the big wide shots of the action sequences paired with the closeups are always things that will make me sit up in my seat. While, like I said, it isn't as full throttle throughout the film as Fury Road was, this did scratch the itch of what was expected within the film.

I think my biggest issue through the film is I kept wondering what happened after Fury Road. Furiosa is an interesting character and the prequel was a worthy story to produce, but sometimes you can see a movie or do something and realize the thing you actually wanted to see/do. That was part of the realization in this for me as well.

Overall, I had fun. I gave it a four out of five on letterboxd for that alone (critically it's probably closer to a 3.5). If you're looking for a good action film to watch on streaming in a couple of months (or even see in theaters this weekend - it's a quiet week), Furiosa is definitely a worthy option.

John Wayne and Anthony Quinn fight World War II on the backlots of RKO (subbing for the jungles of the Philippines) in BACK TO BATAAN, a stirring exercise in propaganda ripped from headlines of the era. The film was made to stoke audience's patriotic fires, and succeeds in it's objective. It's well directed and shot, has plenty of action, and superb performances by all, including a standout from 14-year-old Ducky Louie.

Wayne plays Col. Madden, assigned to train Filipino freedom fighters (try saying that three times fast!) to battle the invading Japanese. Quinn is Capt. Bonifacio, grandson of Filipino revolutionary hero Andres Bonifacio. He's having issues with his girlfriend Dalisay, who's the island version of Tokyo Rose (what he doesn't realize is she's secretly sending coded messages to the Allies through her broadcasts). Madden and his ragtag crew are out to destroy a Japanese gas depot, but first they encounter schoolteacher Bertha Barnes and little Maximo, whose village has been taken over, and whose principal refused to take down the American flag, and was hung in it's place in a gruesome scene.

The resistance fighters come across the infamous Bataan Death March, where Bonifacio has been taken prisoner. They free him, and Madden wants the men to rally around their former leader's heir. He's reluctant at first, but comes around and they make things hot for the Japanese. Little Maximo returns to his village and is tortured by the cruel invaders, but refuses to talk, and ends up sacrificing his life for the cause of freedom. Soon, the Americans are coming to the Philippines, and Madden and his guerilla band hold off the Japanese while the incoming Americans land and release the natives from their bondage.

John Wayne, complete with scruffy beard, is his usual heroic self, and Quinn has never been bad in anything (although he has made some bad films, he always rises above them). The two macho men compliment each other well, with Quinn's passionate Filipino trading off of Wayne's stoicism. Wayne and Quinn only made one other film together, the 1947 South American western TYCOON, and it would've been interesting to have seen them make more.

The wonderful Beulah Bondi shines as the schoolteacher, who's just as tough as Wayne and his men. Miss Bondi was a two-time Oscar nominee (for THE GORGEOUS HUSSY and OF HUMAN HEARTS); although she never won the award, she did receive an Emmy for her final role in a 1976 episode of THE WALTONS. Always a welcome screen presence, Bondi appeared in classics and near classics like STREET SCENE (her film debut), RAIN (with Joan Crawford), the fantasy ON BORROWED TIME, with Jimmy Stewart in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON and IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (both times as his mother), TRACK OF THE CAT (as Robert Mitchum's mom), and A SUMMER PLACE.

That embodiment of Imperial Japanese evil, Richard Loo is on hand as the rotten Major Hasko. Loo, who was actually of Chinese descent, cornered the market on Nippon bad guys during the 40's in such films as ACROSS THE PACIFIC, BEHIND THE RISING SUN, THE PURPLE HEART, GOD IS MY CO-PILOT, and FIRST YANK INTO TOKYO. Western fans will recognize Paul Fix (Micah on THE RIFLEMAN) as an American aiding the guerillas. And a young actor named Lawrence Tierney appears towards the end as Lt. Commander Waite, just before hitting it big in DILLINGER and other great noirs.

Then there's Ducky Louie, the boy playing young Maximo. Unlike a lot of child stars of the era, this kid had a natural acting ability, and holds his own with the pro cast. Ducky's career was brief, appearing in only six films (most memorably in CHINA'S LITTLE DEVILS as a resistance fighter again, and BLACK GOLD with costar Quinn). Young Ducky left show biz to become a dentist, and would be 85 if alive today (and if anyone can confirm whether he is or not, please let me know!). If his final death scene doesn't bring a tear to your eyes, you just don't have a heart or soul.

Director Edward Dmytryk and screenwriter Ben Barzman were the polar opposites of John Wayne politically, and I'm sure some sparks must've flew during shooting. Cinematographer Nicholas Musuraca lends his dark noir touches to the film, and Roy Webb's score "borrows" from KING KONG, as well as some patriotic tunes. At film's end, we're introduced to some of the real survivors of the Bataan Death March, marching along with the cast. Now if THAT doesn't get you up and saluting, I don't know what will! BACK TO BATAAN is a rousing actioner, depicting the brutal realities of war, and the brave men who fought for liberty and freedom during WWII. It's also a fine example of 1940's Hollywood filmmaking, and contains many outstanding performances, particularly young Ducky Louie.

When I found out that Fritzi at Movies Silently and Lea at Silent-ology were together hosting a blogathon spotlighting World War I films, I jumped at the chance to take part, but the question was, did I actually know any World War I films to review? Offhand, the answer was no; I had to find a list of over 150 examples just to remind myself of what I had seen: Wings, The African Queen, Lawrence of Arabia, and more recently, In Love and War. For the blogathon, I decided I wanted to try a movie that was not only new to me, but one that was close to the Hollywood mainstream, and featured a director and actors I knew and admired.

And that movie was The Fighting 69th, directed by William Keighley and starring James Cagney, Pat O'Brien, and a host of recognizable character actors, in a 'fiction-based-on-fact' account of the 165th Regiment, also known as The Fighting 69th, an Army unit made up predominantly of Irish-Americans from New York. Cagney plays Jerry Plunkett, an insolent wiseacre recently arrived at Fort Mills for training, who soon finds out he's not quite the tough guy he thinks he is. Eventually, his trouble-making and false bravado provoke the ire of his commander and his battalion, and it's up to Pat O'Brien's company chaplain, Father Duffy, to save him, and in more ways than one.

If I didn't know better, I'd think this was some sort of ersatz sequel to Angels with Dirty Faces, where Cagney portrayed a roughneck, smart-mouthed gangster and O'Brien a parish priest. In The Fighting 69th, Cagney essentially plays the same character-brash, confident, not one to be pushed around-who makes light of the preparations for battle overseas, much to the consternation of his superiors. The first half of the film seemed to promote this attitude, with soldiers trading jovial dialogue and comic one-liners, and treating their training as if it were a military frat party. It made me wonder: was this going to be a serious war film, or a lighthearted comedy with war used merely as a backdrop?

Nope, it was a serious war film, and that point was made perfectly clear with the regiment's arrival in France, and their dismal, muddy march to the front lines, where the tables were abruptly turned on our happy-go-lucky story. Suddenly, the war was shockingly real, as the Germans released a relentless and frightening barrage of artillery fire on the trenches and outposts of the 69th; most of the dozen or so characters introduced to us in the first half of the film lost their lives, and were sadly and unceremoniously gone from the story. And it was here the audience was handed another shock: the film was not about Cagney the hero, who saves the day with his fortitude and determination like you'd expect, but was instead about Cagney the coward, whose fear and foolhardy behavior gets many, many men killed.

It was an interesting dichotomy, these two halves of the storyline. Not only was there a sudden shift from breezy comedy to action drama, but a shift in audience allegiance as well; I found myself becoming more interested in the other soldiers of the 69th-who took their responsibilities seriously, and displayed true heroism and courage-and less interested in the yellow-bellied Plunkett, who did nothing but create and promote an alarming level of dislike towards himself, and paid for his dubious actions throughout most of the film. Frankly, it would come as no surprise if he were a victim of friendly fire, and in fact, Alan Hale's character amazingly hints to this very idea after another one of Plunkett's meltdowns.

However, none of this is meant to imply that I didn't appreciate Cagney's performance, which I wholeheartedly did: I thought he was great in a difficult role, and offered yet another dichotomy to the film by suddenly transforming from one type of unpleasant character to another. The rest of the acting was stellar as well, and though I'm not normally a fan of O'Brien's work, I really enjoyed what he brought to his role here; he was the glue that held everything-and everyone-together. The film also got a boost from Keighley's direction, which was not only solid, but his way of framing scenes and shots really held your interest, and his battle scenes were well-paced, exciting, and tense. And at times, incredibly real.

What also worked in the film's favor was the use of actual WWI situations, battles, and participants within the screenplay. The Fighting 69th was, and still is, a division of the US military, and some of the battles they took part in during the first World War were also depicted in the film. In addition, four characters were directly based on their namesakes: Father Duffy, Major Bill Donovan (played by George Brent), soldier and poet Joyce Kilmer, and Lieutenant Oliver Ames (played by Dennis Morgan). I liked this touch of realism, and though beyond the uniforms and trenches I was never able to fully grasp what era I was in, I still thought it was a convincing look at the trials and tribulations of war no matter what the time frame.

Oddly enough, it wasn't until the wrap-up that it finally dawned on me: the story wasn't centered on leading-man Cagney after all, but on O'Brien instead, and for good reason, since it was his character you cared about most. The film bore this out with a tribute to the real-life chaplain at the end, and as I discovered later, the original working title was, fittingly enough, Father Duffy of the Fighting 69th. And though the point of the story was about one man's cowardice and eventual redemption (a redemption that came far too late, in my opinion), I think I would've preferred watching the exploits of Father Duffy and the Fighting 69th without the distraction of a hopelessly unlikable Plunkett. Still, a worthwhile and entertaining experience, and another entry in my short list of WWI films watched. (7/10)

This WWII film is based on the autobiography of Agnes Keith, who was held along with other British civilians in Japanese prison camps (she was American-born, married to a Brit).

When the Japanese invade their area of Borneo, Mrs. Keith and her husband (Claudette Colbert and Patric Knowles) along with their young son George (Mark Kenning) are at first kept under house arrest and are later taken to prison camps (one camp for men, another for women and underage children). Col. Suga (Sessue Hayakawa), commander of the area occupation force and later commander of the prisons, is very friendly to Mrs. Keith. He'd been educated in the U. S., and he'd read a book by Mrs. Keith that was sympathetic to Oriental culture. Even so, he can't control all the actions of the men under his command. Camp conditions are difficult; and the behavior of the guards is unpredictable, ranging from random kindness to random brutality. (Hayakawa also played the camp commander in "The Bridge on the River Kwai.")

Content Warnings: Not for young children. This film isn't as harsh as more modern productions of its type; but there is a scene of attempted rape, a scene of mass killing of men trying to scale a fence, and the continual suffering (hunger, sickness, mistreatment) in the women and children's camp. Other than singing a hymn here and there, there are no noticeable expressions of faith in God.

Since it's a true story, I recommend this film for WWII buffs and for anyone interested in the general topic of courage under adverse conditions.

On the same theme: "Women of Valor" (1986), "Empire of the Sun" (1987), "Paradise Road" (1997)

Subbing in for Charlton Heston who was originally slated to play Col. William Darby in this Wild Bill Wellman military bio, is first time leading man James Garner assuming the title role.

When Jack Warner lost his temper over the percentage points Heston was to receive from profit participation, he promptly tore up Heston's contract only to be sued by Heston and his agent Lew Wasserman. Jack paid up and promoted assigned costar James Garner to the lead role. The rest is history. Heston is really the lucky one here. He got paid for a movie he didn't appear in and to top it off, Darby's Ranger's is really a dog of a film considering the talent involved.

With Jack Warden doing double duty as narrator and Garner's personal sergeant, our newly christened leading man is stuck behind a desk during WW2 and wanting nothing better than to lead a team of commando's into enemy territory. Pleading his case to Willis Bouchey's General, Garner gets the go ahead to train and lead a team of top tier soldiers to fight the Nazi's. For recruiting purposes and giving us some background on the lead actors of the Rangers, a few actors are featured in mostly comical vignettes as we get to know them. These include the Mayor of Shark City, Murray Hamilton as a quick tempered brawler, Stuart Whitman playing a skirt chasing soldier in jolly old England and Peter Brown as a green recruit.

There's plenty of grouching and complaining as the Rangers hit boot camp overseen by the English and drill Sergeant, Torin Thatcher. There's far too much romantic shenanigans going on for the first half of the film that seem out of touch with the subject material. The comedy isn't very funny and I somehow think that even audiences of 1958 must have felt that this film seemed outdated and better suited to audiences of the thirties.

By the time Garner leads the men into battle, the film proceeds to mix the action with some montages of actual WW2 footage which was fairly common during the era of filmmaking. Having left the women back in England including second billed Etchika Choureau who isn't even playing Garner's love interest the boys hit Sicily. She's hooked up with Whitman's rebel whereas Garner actually plays this one stag with no leading lady.

It's a march across familiar war torn territories including Anzio where some of the Rangers will be left behind before the team is disbanded as this two hour feature film comes to a close.

I somehow can't see this film going before the cameras as it is. Not if Heston had stayed on to play the leading role. He was an action star and there's very little action in here for Darby. I think the film might have been in for some major rewrites for good old Chuck. Likable as James Garner is, here he proves to be ......... well ...... likable. It's as if he's prepping for those Doris Day comedies to come. The film really did need a Heston or a Holden to lead this regiment into hell on the front lines and play tough to the very end. Garner wasn't quite there yet.

Now on to the positives. I'm a guy who likes to see my favorite character players and lesser known leading men on screen and when they turn up in the same film, all the bigger bonus. Torin Thatcher is one such guy.

To me he's always a hard ass or villain and though he's the gruff Sarge here, he's really an old softy.

Murray Hamilton is always a welcome site due to his playing that Mayor guy in 1975. Eventual leading man Stuart Whitman was always a favorite of mine growing up and I still welcome finding new films I've yet to see where he makes an appearance. Either in support or leading roles.

As for Garner himself, there's just no way not to like this guy. Another of those actors that I grew up watching thanks to his many films and TV work as Rockford. Lastly, let us not forget the GREAT Jack Warden. An actor who made everything he appeared in worthy of checking out. (I think)

In the end I think if I had to I'd rather watch Darby's Rangers again before having to watch Wellman's other film of 1958, Lafayette Escadrille. Neither one is much good in the end but both feature a solid cast of up and comers. Despite some truly great films from Wellman including Wings, The Ox Bow Incident and Island in the Sky, his career kind of wound down with a couple of forgettable titles. Despite living until 1979, Wellman never directed another feature film following this less than stellar year.

This is a movie unlike any other you will ever see.

In the early months of 1942, Japan launched an attack on the Philippines and, over the course of three months, they drove General Douglas MacArthur and his American forces right off of the islands.

Bataan is set during that retreat. A group of 13 men are assigned the task of blowing up a key bridge after the Allies cross it, and before the Japanese reach it. The 13 are castoffs and strangers to one another. In all the fighting they'd become separated from their original units. But now they'd been asked to come together and delay the Japanese advance for as long as they could.

The motley nature of this crew makes for some solid character-driven action but what makes this film so very unusual and exceptional is when it was shot. America had been forced out of the Philippine Islands, and those wounds still stung. This was not the seemingly invincible America that we know today, but was instead America the bloodied. It would still be a year's time before the US returned to the Philippines, and for Bataan's audience it was far from clear what the outcome of the war would be. The typical war film is about men facing incredible odds and eventually winning. They couldn't do that in Bataan, because it was about a battle the US lost. So, instead, Bataan was made as a pledge to honor the courage and sacrifice of men who died never knowing if victory would even happen.

The result is an emotional rollercoaster that keeps your attention right to the very end.

CAUTIONS

There is a lot of fighting in Bataan. And right from the opening - with the Japanese dropping bombs on the retreating columns of soldiers, Filipino families, and the wounded - there are a lot of people being killed. However there is very little blood. In the 1940s directors didn't feel the need to make things hyper-realistic, or depict killing blows in slow motion, so, compared to today's gore-fests Bataan isn't going to disturb adults.

But the sheer volume of killing makes this a film unsuitable for the very young.

CONCLUSION

This is one of the most memorable, and certainly the most unique World War II film I've ever seen. I'd recommend this for guys who have the patience to appreciate black and white films and who have an interest in learning about World War II from the films of the time.

Paths of Glory is not the movie I thought it would be. From the posters it seemed like it would be a straight up war film, albeit a straight up war film directed by Stanley Kubrick, which would likely be something special. And the first third is a standard war film. It's all trenches and explosions, this being WWI. Kubrick gives us the set-up: Kirk Douglas is told that he must take a German stronghold. He tells his superior officer, played by George Macready as an evil and power hungry man looking for his next star, that his forces are not big enough nor will they have enough support to accomplish their goal. This, of course, doesn't matter and although Douglas tries his damnedest to take the hill he barely makes it halfway through no-mans-land and a third of his forces won't even dare to leave the trenches. This sequence is just as intense as the opening section of Saving Private Ryan, though it is shot completely differently. Where Spielberg's movie is all shaky cam and tinnitus, Paths of Glory scrolls along, not shying away from the terror, but giving a continuous forward push. Is the camera following the soldiers or are they following it? It's amazing, actually, in such an action packed frame that we can pick out Douglas as he blows his whistle and climbs over dead bodies and artillery holes. At one point the camera zooms in to spot him and his glorious chin only to zoom back out and show how crazy this attack is. It is grimy to the extreme, at the same time as it is emblematic of Kubrick's complete control over his films.

After the failed maneuver, the evil General must cover his tracks. He sets up a court marshal in his ridiculously opulent base, a mansion with room sized paintings and marble floors. One soldier from each of the three sections of the troop will be tried for cowardice and shot if found guilty. Luckily, Douglas also happens to be the best lawyer in France, and he jumps to defend his men from the silly trial. To go any further into the film's plot would do a disservice to it. It is a Kubrick film and as such isn't exactly a rip-roaring good time. He films his characters with the standard detachment, though he allows them to be real people. You can sense the Douglas is pained and wants to do right by his men, not only from what he says but from how he acts. It's him against the world, Germans and French alike. The film is as much about the failings of military thinking as it is about the French vs. The Germans. Douglas rages against the machine but to little avail. It is only the final scene that changes how he views the world. It's a marvelous scene, at first terrifying, then strangely comforting.

As the second film in my 1957 marathon, Paths of Glory continues the year's excellence. Along with Throne of Blood, it shows that filmmaking was just as vibrant then as it is now. There're plenty of explosions and gunfire and later plenty of explosive dialogue and fiery speeches. It is at least as good as that other courtroom drama from the same year, 12 Angry Men. And you can imagine the entirety of War Horse happening alongside it! Both films rely on American and British actors playing foreign characters. Where are the cries of crass commercialism for Kubrick's film? Lost in the fog of war, I guess.

Alfred Hitchcock may have attained triumphant results for Rear Window in 1954, but Barbara Stanwyck also proved that she could surpass his record in a more thrilling production titled Witness To Murder, a suspenseful Film Noir that resembles Rear Window, also released the same year.

If it weren't for Rear Window that dominated box office popularity on it's release a month later, Witness To Murder would have been highly regarded by critics. At the time of it's initial release, Witness To Murder had everything running in it's favor. It highlighted a myriad of aspects that a cinematic staple contains, and unlike the latter it was shot in glorious black and white, and enhanced by superb cinematography and atmospheric vapors.

The films director, Roy Rowland is not as eminent as Alfred Hitchcock, nor has he had a successful string of pictures like Hitchcock. In truth, Rowland was only second rate compared to Hollywood's pantheon of directors, who spotlighted the entertainment industry with their commendable efforts in directing. For Rowland, Witness To Murder is what I would call his most effectual film. It provided him with the opportunity to explore heavy, solid material that is not only entertaining but rich and suspenseful in detail.

Witness To Murder was produced by Chester Erskine, with the screenplay by Nunnally Johnson, and featuring a stellar cast which includes, Barbara Stanwyck, George Sanders and Gary Merrill, who at the time of filming was married to Bette Davis.

Barbara Stanwyck headlines the production as the films protagonist. One cold, windy night in Los Angeles, Cheryl Draper ( Stanwyck ) awakens to witness a woman being strangled to death from her bedroom window. Shocked with what she just discovered, she immediately phones the police, but after Lt. Lawrence Mathews ( Gary Merrill ) arrives at the scene and finds no evidence of murder in the apartment of Albert Richter ( George Sanders ) he automatically believes that Cheryl dreamed the whole situation.

As time progresses, Cheryl still firmly believes that she observed a real life murder taking place, and is persistent in trying to get her point across to the police, but before she knows it, it's Cheryl's sanity that comes into question.

The similarities between Witness To Murder and Rear Window are more than evident all though out the film. Like Hitchcock's production, the films main prop to where the crimes are witnessed is the bedroom window, and to really resemble the latter, the object used to spy in the neighboring apartment to investigate the incident are a pair of binoculars, but while it contains many of the same elements as Rear Window, it also bares a startling analogy to Vertigo, North By Northwest and Psycho.

In Witness To Murder, Barbara Stanwyck has a role that's identical to James Stewart as the protagonist who witnesses the crime happening, and remains adamant in her beliefs about what she observed. Both characters experience trouble with the police, who won't believe them and start defending the antagonist, who in this case is George Sanders in a role that resembles that of Raymond Burr in Rear Window.

Alfred Hitchcock is truly a virtuoso of the film industry and Rear Window definitely warranted the critical acclaim it received, but in no means is a Witness To Murder a pale imitation of Hitchcock's masterpiece. Of course both films explore many of the same avenues and are similar in comparison, but audiences who favor the latter tend to forget that Witness To Murder was made and released before Rear Window.

In my opinion, Barbara Stanwyck is the greatest actress to ever grace the silver screen. In the annals of cinema history there is no other star that possessed the versatility that Stanwyck inhabited. From the moment she stepped foot on Hollywood soil, Stanwyck had been portraying a plethora of diverse roles in every genre imaginable. After her victorious results as the femme fatale, Phyllis Dietrichson in Double Indemnity ( 1944 ) Barbara Stanwyck's adeptness to Film Noir was well established, so much that she became accustomed to this genre during the 40's and the 50's.

Witness To Murder might not be considered one of Barbara Stanwyck's best works, but when you have an illustrious resume with a myriad of memorable roles, it's hard to choose what is. Stanwyck pioneered her way through a multitude of meritorious productions that are definitely worthy of an Oscar, in which she sadly never obtained.

I personally feel that Witness To Murder is one film that deserves more recognition. There is absolutely nothing that one could possibly dislike about the movie. It's abounded by a great script, an excellent cast, atmospheric cinematography, and a rising flow of suspense, resulting in a nail biting climax that will keep the viewer intrigued from beginning to end.

Apart from the many highlights, the cast is one exceptional feature. Barbara Stanwyck is laudable as Cheryl Draper, the indomitable, intelligent and independent woman who witnesses the murder and is determined to get the case resolved, even going as far as investigating the crime herself. She would do anything to prove to the police that she is correct, even if it means arranging a tour of Richter's apartment that is for rent so she can search for evidence, and when she finds a pair of earrings, she immediately takes them to the police to convince them she's right, but sadly for Cheryl this method is not effective.

Both George Sanders and Gary Merrill are magnificent. George Sanders is in full sneer mode as Albert Richter. To the police, he appears amiable and demonstrates that he would be incapable of committing such a crime, but in truth, he's a cold, ruthless murderer with a motive to kill.

The film is also packed with extreme punch. The scene where Cheryl is sent to the insane asylum is very intense and dramatic. In this particular part, Barbara Stanwyck as Cheryl Draper transforms her expressions into abysmal emotions as she is being swept into a mental state. Without having to resort to histrionics, Barbara is able to execute this scene perfectly by displaying such raw feelings and mountains of emotions.

Witness To Murder is the true definition of Film Noir at it's zenith. From John Alton's cinematography and the outstanding cast to the memorable chilling finale, this is one production that is not to be missed.

This is another American sitcom aimed at children that eventually came to this country. Clarissa Explains It All was originally shown on Nickelodeon, and it starred Melissa Joan Hart as Clarissa Darling, a girl in her early-teens. Now this was that age where Clarissa was beginning to learn about things in life including boys and spots, and she wanted to tell us all about it.

Most episodes begin with Clarissa breaking the fourth wall and directly addressing the viewers about what was currently on her mind. This would also occasionally be accompanied by some bizarre cutaway scenes. Clarissa also had a fondness for computer games, and we would see how she was getting on at Thomas Tupper Junior High School, it really was chaos. Vlcsnap-00296

We also meet Clarissa's family, her mother Janet who was a teacher, her father Marshall who was an architect, and her younger brother Ferguson. He was something of a swot, and there was a lot of sibling rivalry between the pair of them, meaning that they spent a lot of time squabbling. All of these situations helped to shape Clarissa's increasingly worldly-wise outlook on life. Vlcsnap-00300

The only other main character was Sam, who often entered Clarissa's bedroom through the window, which was always accompanied by a piece of music, and the greeting "hey, Sam". Now I always thought that he was going out with Clarissa, but it seems that he was just a good friend, because she was very well-behaved. Oh, and did they do an episode where Clarissa developed a punk alter-ego and a boy at school fell for her? Of course they did! Vlcsnap-00297

Indeed, although Clarissa had to deal with various things as her life changed, she seemed to be much more level-headed and less angst-ridden than most other TV characters (a more traumatic portrayal of what the teenage years can be like could be found in other sitcoms around at the same time including Married... With Children). An episode where she tried to bake a cake as a surprise for her parents' wedding anniversary was just about as difficult as it ever got for her.

Clarissa Explains It All did well for Nickelodeon, and there were 65 episodes in five series. It wasn't shown in the UK until 1994, by which point it had already ended in America, and it was originally shown as part of the Saturday Morning show Live & Kicking, before it moved to the main CBBC afternoon slot, where it would be repeated regularly until 1999. The show also had a distinctive "na-na-na" theme song (provided by Rachel Sweet) that it was difficult to get out of your head.

As far as 90s American sitcoms go, I don't remember enjoying it as much as Out Of This World, but it still contained some good moments. I'm fairly sure that it wasn't been released on DVD in this country though. Hart of course would later star in Sabrina The Teenage Witch, another successful long-running children's sitcom (I'll review that one soon too).

As many fans of Jane Austen must know, there have been several screen and television adaptations of the author's most celebrated novel, "Pride and Prejudice", published in 1813. I usually come across at least five of those versions - including the six-part BBC adaptation that aired in the U. S. in 1980. The miniseries was adapted by Fay Weldon and directed by Cyril Coke.

Only someone unfamiliar with Austen's story would not know that "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" told the story of Elizabeth Bennet, the second-born daughter of an English gentleman and landowner in Regency England. The story focused on the efforts of her volatile mother to find eligible husbands for Elizabeth and her four sisters. It is also a love story about Elizabeth's tumultuous relationship with a wealthy and haughty gentleman named Fitzwilliam Darcy. Through six episodes, the miniseries explored Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy's emotions, as their relationship went from mild hostility, misunderstandings and prejudice, to love, respect and marriage. Many Austen fans consider Weldon's adaptation to be the most faithful to the 1813 novel. After my recent viewing of the miniseries, I realized that I could never agree with that opinion.

I am not saying that "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" strongly differed from Austen's novel. But I can honestly say that it was no more faithful than the 1995 version. Only screenwriter Fay Weldon's variations differ from Andrew Davies'. In fact, most these differences were especially obvious in the segment that featured Elizabeth's visit to Hunsford, the Collins' home in Kent. But these differences did not lessen my enjoyment of the production. However, there were some aspects of the miniseries that did.

One aspect of "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" that annoyed me was its occasionally slow pacing. There were moments when I found myself wondering if I was watching a filmed play. Most fans would dismiss this complaint on the grounds that many BBC miniseries productions had been shot in this static style. True, but I have seen a few of these old productions that managed to maintain a brisk pacing. Another aspect of the miniseries that annoyed me was the internal monologues that expressed Elizabeth's thoughts. This was especially apparent in scenes that reflected Elizabeth's opinion of the letter she had received from Mr. Darcy following his disastrous marriage proposal; and in the sequences that featured her thoughts on her sister Lydia's elopement with George Wickham and her parents' marriage. Frankly, I found the use of this film device simply a cheap way to reflect Elizabeth's opinions on the subjects. And these monologues nearly bogged the series' pacing to a standstill.

But the real disappointment proved to be the miniseries' portrayal of the Netherfield Ball. The ball given by Mr. Darcy's close friend, Charles Bingley, was one of the novel's centerpieces in nearly every adaptation of "Pride and Prejudice". The ball was replaced with a garden fête in the 1940 version. But it still turned out to be one of the movie's centerpieces. So, why did Fay Weldon dropped the ball with this particular sequence? In this version, the Netherfield Ball segment lasted a little over six minutes. Elizabeth expressed her displeasure over Mr. Wickham's non-appearance and the prospect of dancing with Mr. Darcy. She danced with both Mr. Darcy and her cousin, William Collins. She traded barbs with Caroline Bingley. And Elizabeth also witnessed her mother's embarrassing boasts about elder sister Jane's romance with Mr. Bingley. By deleting Mr. Collins brief discussion with Mr. Darcy and the embarrassing behavior of the other members of the Bennet family, Weldon's screenplay seemed to have rendered the sequence half done. Worse, Cyril Coke shot the sequence at an incredibly fast pace. Between Weldon's deletions and Coke's pacing, the Netherfield Ball sequence seemed like such a disappointing affair.

When I first saw "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE", I became immediately enamored of the miniseries. As an adolescent, I thought it was one of the best things to come from British television. After my last viewing of the series, my opinion of it has somewhat diminished. But I still consider it to be very entertaining. Austen's wit remained intact. Well . . . Somewhat. Some of the jokes - like Elizabeth's comment about Darcy's and her penchant for "amazing" statements - failed to make any impact, due to Elizabeth Garvie's delivery of the line. And many of Mr. Bennet's witticisms seemed angry, instead of funny. But plenty of humor remained in the miniseries. Elizabeth's first meeting with Lady Catherine de Bourgh and a reunion with Mr. Darcy struck me as one of the miniseries' funniest scenes. Just about every scene with Mrs. Bennet or Mr. Collins provided plenty of laughs. The romances featured in "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" remained strong as ever, especially between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy.

I would not consider Paul Wheeler's photography for "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" to be that colorful. In fact, it looked slightly faded. One could attribute this to the fact that the miniseries has been aging for the past thirty years. Yet, I have seen other television productions made around the same time or earlier that looked more colorful. But I must admit that I enjoyed Joan Ellacott's costume designs. They were certainly colorful and properly reflected the characters' social status.

Any adaptation of "Pride and Prejudice" would be nothing without strong leads to portray the two main characters, Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy. The 1980 miniseries certainly benefitted from strong performances provided by Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul. Garvie proved to be a very soft-spoken Elizabeth Bennet, reminding me of Greer Garson's performance in the same role in the 1940 adaptation. Yet, beneath the soft tones, Garvie provided plenty of wit and steel. I found her performance very enjoyable. And David Rintoul definitely projected Mr. Darcy's haughty demeanor. Some consider his performance to be the epitome portrayal of Austen's famous character. Perhaps. Perhaps not. There were moments when Rintoul's Mr. Darcy seemed a bit too haughty - especially when the character was supposed to be falling in love with Elizabeth. But I believe he still gave a first-rate performance. And he provided one of the miniseries' funniest moments in a scene featuring Elizabeth and the Collins' first visit to Rosings Park.

The rest of the cast seemed solid. But I can only think of a few exceptional performances. One came from Priscilla Morgan, whose portrayal of Mrs. Bennet managed to be extremely irritating without her resorting to caricature. I was also impressed by Marsha Fitzalan, who proved that Caroline Bingley could be both subtle and spiteful at the same time. Tessa Peake-Jones gave an entertaining performance as the bookish and pompous Mary Bennet. Her portrayal seemed more subtle than other actresses who have portrayed the character. Peter Settlelen also gave a solid performance as George Wickham, but he came off as too hale and hearty for me to consider him as an effective villain. And Peter Howell was certainly hilarious as the boorish and obsequious Mr. William Collins, Elizabeth's cousin and Mr. Bennet's heir. However, there were moments when he seemed a bit over-the-top.

And then there were the performances that I found questionable. I must admit that I was not impressed by Natalie Ogle's portrayal of the childish Lydia Bennet. I found her acting skills somewhat amateurish. Claire Higgins, who portrayed Kitty Bennet seemed a little too old for the role. There were times when her Kitty seemed more mature (in a negative way) than the other four sisters. And Kitty is supposed to be the second youngest sibling in the family. Actor Moray Watson gave a sharp and entertaining performance as the Bennets' patriarch. But I found his wit a bit too harsh and angry at times.

"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" has its share of flaws, which I have pointed out in this review. But its virtues outweighed the flaws - the biggest ones being the first-rate performances of the two leads, Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul. Screenwriter Fay Weldon and director Cyril Coke did an above-average job in adapting Jane Austen's most famous novel.

Sadao works part time at a burger joint. He barely makes enough for rent. And he's the devil king, Satan. Or he was before the hero Emilia trashed his place and forced him to retreat through a portal. Now he plans on conquering the world a different way. One shift at a time.

Most of the violence in this show is slap stick, but there are a few more violent bits. Some blood is shown via punching and getting cut. Nothing too bad, but it's there

Despite having plenty of innuendo and fanservice moments, actual nudity is rather low in this show. One character is well endowed (isn't that always the case?) and her chest size is often the butt-end of a joke or two. Also, near the end, one enemy implies he means to rape a girl. He doesn't get the chance, thankfully.

This is gonna be weird, but remember: Japan. Okay? Right. So the "devil" in this show is not the one from western culture. Not even close (although at times they try to make it seem as if he is). The story sets him and "the church" in a different dimension. A whole other world. Biblical names and church history bits are used randomly in that world, but it often rings more Catholic in places and then just deteriorates out to whatever the show creators felt like that day. In other words, it tries at times to blend religion and magic and heaven knows what else, but in the end it's all pure fantasy with characters that have the same names as those found in the Bible and little else. This show is mainly focused on comedy and it doesn't ever forget that for long.

That said, if the mere idea of these things bother you, skip this one. The symbolism, however weak, is kept throughout. One character even falls in love with the "devil." It's not a "theme" that goes away (if you can even call a story element created simply to have characters put in the most awkward positions possible a "theme").

I found this show to be hilarious and looked forward to new episode uploads while it was simul-cast. The characters are mainly stereotypes, but it hardly matters when they're so bloody hilarious. While every once in awhile a point is almost made about judging others and such, that part is clearly the backseat passenger to the comedy (it's best not to dig deeply into this show. There's nothing to see).

The animation is decent and so is the music, although not spectacular in their own right. So long as you don't take things too seriously, chances are you'll find this show a fun ride. Just be sure you don't read into some of the "religious" implications too much. It's a labyrinth of half-backed research riddled with inconsistency. In fact, you might even say that it was done on purpose to joke on the many western myths and stories that conflict with each other. With a show like this, it's hard to tell.

Who would have thought that a movie about four senior citizens going into space could be so much fun? But that's exactly what the 2000 film "Space Cowboys" is all about: pure fun.

Directed and produced by Clint Eastwood, "Space Cowboys" starred Eastwood, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, and James Garner as four elderly ex-test pilots who are sent into space to repair an old Soviet satellite. The film's supporting cast included Marcia Gay Harden, William Devane, Loren Dean, Courtney B. Vance, Rade Serbedzija and James Cromwell.

At its core, Space Cowboys" is not a film solely about space. If anything, it's about a bunch of old prolific actors having a good time. I'm joking, of course, the film is really about former test pilots Frank Corvin (Eastwood), Hawk Hawkins (Jones), Jerry O'Neill (Sutherland) and Tank Sullivan (Garner) collectively known as "Team Daedalus." In the late 1950s, the four friends thought they were going to be the first Americans in space. But the group got screwed by their superior Bob Gerson (James Cromwell) who always had it out for them. When NASA is formed, "Team Daedalus" is not invited to join and America sent a monkey into space instead.

Fast-forward around forty years later when NASA is tasked with preventing a Soviet-era communications satellite named IKON, from decaying out of orbit and crashing to Earth. When initial attempts fail and IKON is deemed too big to be retrieved by a space shuttle, NASA decides to launch a mission to fix the satellite on sight. However, the design of the satellite's electronics is archaic and based on stolen blueprints. The only one who may be able to fix IKON is the guy who designed the original system, luckily for NASA Frank Crvin is still alive and kicking.

Space-Cowboys-2000-Donald-Sutherland-Clint-Eastwood-pic-9 Reluctantly, the head of NASA Bob Gerson (Cromwell) sends engineer Sara Holland (Marcia Gay Harden) and astronaut Ethan Glance (Loren Dean) to request Frank's help. Frank is initially hostile as he still despises Gerson for what he did decades earlier to him and his friends. But after thinking it over, Frank tells Sara he's willing to put aside his differences with Gerson to help fix IKON with one condition: Frank says he will only help NASA if "Team Daedalus" are the ones sent up to fix IKON.

With the clock ticking Bob Gerson agrees to Frank's terms, but only if all of "Team Daedalus" can pass the astronaut training program. Gerson isn't worried though, because he discreetly plans to have younger astronauts shadow the four so they can replace not Frank and his friends. However, when the press learn that NASA might send a bunch of senior citizens into space, it creates a lot of buzz around NASA and the mission. The Vice President of the United States convinces Bob Gerson that Frank's team must be part of the mission so that they can keep the good publicity going.

After five weeks of non-stop training the brand new Space Shuttle now named Daedalus successfully launches into orbit. Soon, the shuttle crew finds IKON but are shocked by its size. IKON if far larger than any communications satellite should be, but the Russians claim it's due to upgrades. Despite their feelings, the team secures the satellite with the shuttle's loading arm and prepares to begin repairs. But when Frank, Hawk, and Ethan perform a spacewalk, they discover IKON houses six nuclear missiles. Worst yet, if IKON begins to fall from orbit, its computers will automatically launch the missiles at predetermined targets. To see what happens from there, you need to see the movie to find out.

Space_cowboys_11_lrg "Space Cowboys" is a perfectly-paced film, with likable characters and an interesting premise. It may not be Clint Eastwood's best-known movie as a director, but it's definitely the one I watch the most. Eastwood put together a stellar cast from top to bottom. Heck, even Tommy Lee Jones looks like he cares. If I had to pick a favorite character, it would be James Garner as Reverend "Tank" Sullivan. The tank has some of my favorite moments from the movie, like when he helps Hawk lift weights and then says he's going to his room to cry. Or the time they're in a bar and he manages to win something from that evil claw game I sucked at as a kid.

The movie is funnier than you'd expect from an Eastwood film, but it's also suspenseful at times. Seeing the older guys stuck in their crippled space shuttle with malfunctioning computers and little fuel left was nerve-wracking. You could have heard a pin drop in the theater as the men try to figure out how to get back to earth in what is essential "A flying brick.". I thought Eastwood was smart to leave out all the unnecessary details we, the audience, don't need. The focus instead is on the events the actors are dealing with.

Another good thing Eastwood did was keeping other plotlines to a minimum. The other stories we get, like Hawk falling in love with Sara, and Jerry starting a relationship with the team's nurse, are all dealt with before the team goes into space. The only plotline that follows the men into space is the one where James Cromwell has "his man" onboard the shuttle. But that plotline is linked to the main plot of saving IKON, so it makes sense to keep it going. Through it all, the foul lead actors are terrific together and I got the sense they had a lot of fun working together.

It's funny, but it wasn't until I watched this movie that I realized how much space junk there is up there. It made me realize how much of it is old enough that the people who worked on it ma not be around anymore. So it wouldn't be shocking to see NASA call upon some of the old guards. But I'm pretty sure that's not what director Clint Eastwood was thinking when he made "Space Cowboys." From what I remember, Eastwood was inspired to make the movie when NASA sent John Glenn into space when he was 77 years old.

I love "Space Cowboys," but if I have one complaint about the movie it would be the opening sequence. While I like the idea of seeing "Team Daedalus" in their prime in the late 1950s, the thing that always takes me out of it is the actor's voices. For some reason, Clint Eastwood thought it would be a good idea to put their 2000 voices on their younger selves. Maybe he was trying to make it easier for the audience to tell who was who, but it doesn't work because why would they sound like they were in their 70s when they were 20 somethings?

Whenever I hear the voices of Clint Eastwood, Tommy Lee Jones, James Garner, and Donald Sutherland coming out of other actors, it throws me off. Luckily this stops after the opening sequence and didn't take too much away from me enjoying the rest of "Space Cowboys." The opening sequence is noteworthy for one other thing and that's because Toby Stephens plays the younger version of Clint Eastwood.

"Space Cowboys" turned out to be one of the most entertaining movies I saw in the summer of 2000. It may not be an award winner like some of Clint Eastwood's other films, but I think it's one of his better films because it shows Eastwood can direct all kinds of movies.

But what makes this movie work is the cast. It just goes to show you good actors are good at any age, and James Garner was an underrated comedic actor. If you haven't seen "Space Cowboys" go check it out. It's always on television, and it's probably streaming somewhere as we speak. As I said at the top, this movie is pure fun, and what more could you ask for from a movie?

Love Actually follows the lives of eight different couples dealing with their love lives in various ways in loosely interrelated tales set during a frantic month before Christmas in London, England.

This is a Christmas classic that I haven't seen until now, and it's probably weird to review a Christmas movie in mid-February, but it's a romance film, too, so I'm doing it anyway. Thankfully this is a film that I loved (I'm thankful for that because yesterday's Across the Universe was a doozy).

Richard Curtis' writing and great direction handles all the tales well and for the most part, they all feel like they have balance. They're all connected in some way and that makes the world building more interesting, though you'll need a map to remember how each person and each couple relates to each other. I also couldn't list the couples and their stories without looking at the cast list.

Love Actually article Rowan Atkinson in Love Actually. (IMDb)

What works best about Love Actually is that it's just a feel-good Christmas movie about love and taking risks around the holiday season. Some sub-plots are problematic, like the voyeuristic Mark (Andrew Lincoln), who's in love with best friend Peter's (Chiwetel Ejiofor) new wife Juliet (Keira Knightley). While you should take risks for love around Christmas, this whole sub-plot is the weakest of them all. Ejiofor is a great actor who gets very little to do here, and the only scene of worth in their tale is the "All You Need is Love" bit at their wedding.

The pacing in Love Actually is generally strong, but I think this is the only tale that I could justify taking out of the film so we can spend more time with the better characters. The only other tale I could try to make an argument for editing out is Colin Frissell (Kris Marshall), who can't find love and think his problem is the fact that he's just so basic in England, so he sets out for America to find a love there. I could make an argument for taking it out because it's one-note, but there are also a couple of good belly laughs and cameos here and has some smart humour from Richard Curtis.

Otherwise, everyone else's story feels justified here. I really liked the tale with Jamie (Colin Firth) and Aurelia (Lúcia Moniz) as I thought the language barrier was handled in a very creative way. Him staying in a cabin and their romance blossoming the way it does feels like it does a Nicholas Sparks movie better than Nicholas Sparks.

I loved the tale with the Prime Minster (Hugh Grant) and Natalie (Martine McCutcheon), because that's funny from the start and these two tales seem to get the most screen time. Their romance was also just generally engaging. I really loved Emma Thompson's character in this one, Karen, who is a main connector of some of these tales as she's dealing with her husband Harry (Alan Rickman).

I don't mean to be boring just listing each tale and saying what I like about them, but it's hard to talk about the charming Love Actually without going through its romances. It's interesting how it depicts non-romances too, like a singer Billy Mack (Bill Nighy) who's trying to be the No. 1 Holiday song with his new release "Christmas Is All Around," which is super catchy. His tale is hilarious and it's a lot about his friendship with his manager Joe (Gregor Fisher). The film also has a smart tale about young love with Sam (Thomas Brodie-Sangster), who's trying to get the attention of a girl at his school. His father Daniel (Liam Neeson) has also just recently lost his wife, so that's an enriching part of his character.

That's the thing with Love Actually, these characters all feel well-developed in their own ways and for the most part, they're all likable. Rowan Atkinson is a notable scene-stealer as Rufus, a jewelry salesman, and I would have loved to have known more about him. My expectations were met with this film because it made me laugh a lot and I cried, too.

There's one couple here that I've never heard anyone talk about and that's the romance between John (Martin Freeman) and Judy (Joanna Page). They're stand-ins for a porn film - so if people only see this on TV that's why they don't talk about it - and their awkward dialogue during their "scenes" are really funny. Love Actually is just generally funny, too, and I feel like it's solid Christmas entertainment that could be viewed outside of the Christmas season, because it's just about love, happiness and family and that's nice year-round.

T's funny, if you watch a classic film from before 1970, for the first time and nobody will bat an eyelid - in fact, they may even congratulate you for finally seeing these esteemed masterpieces. Watch one from the past 50 years for the first time however, and you are embarrassingly late to the party. To wit...

Late 1975 and heavyweight boxing champion Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) wants to hold a world title bout in Philadelphia to mark America's bicentenary, but his opponent pulls out due to an injury. With possible replacements either already booked or unable to take the fight at such short notice, Creed decides to give a local boxer a chance to create a media buzz and have an easy fight.

Creed picks Rocky Balboa aka The Italian Stallion (Sylvester Stallone), currently working as a debt collector for loan shark Tony Gazzo (Joe Spinell). He refuses at first until his trainer Mickey Goldmill (Burgess Meredith) and girlfriend Adrian (Talia Shire) build him up to help him realise his potential. Rocky takes the fight and causes a local media stir, but is very aware he is the ultimate underdog.

Parodied, copied, and subject to endless homage, Rocky very much fits the description outlined in the opening paragraph - a modern classic it seems every film buff has seen as a rite of passage, and it beggars belief that a serious film fan hasn't. For my part, it never appealed to me as I'm not a fan of boxing and Sylvester Stallone isn't exactly a must see actor for my tastes, although I did enjoy the Rambo series.

Sly reportedly wrote the original script in three days after watching a Muhammad Ali fight on TV and go help from Henry Winkler to ship it around. It was originally going to be a TV movie but Stallone insisted on be the lead which nobody would take the chance on. Can you imagine established names like Robert Redford or Burt Reynolds as Rocky? Me neither.

What is interesting is how little boxing there is in the film- just two fights - but it isn't really about that, it's about Rocky's journey from zero to hero. Living in near squalor in urban Philadelphia and making a living beating up debtors, Rocky is driven not by failure but the fear of failure, and keeps going regardless. For instance, Adrian works in a pet shop and he talks to her every day but she is so shy she ignores him, yet he persists.

Fortunately, Adrian is the sister of Rocky's pal Paulie (Burt Young), an uncouth butcher resentful of his sister for sacrificing his life to look after her. Because of her mousiness, Adrian is considered "retarded" and destined to be an old maid. Rocky eventually makes headway with her through his pugnacious determination and earthly manner, and gradually brings her out of her shell, and they make a logical couple.

Meanwhile, Rocky falls out with Mickey who feels Rocky is wasting his talent as a debt collector. Once word gets out the Creed fight, Mickey offers to be Rocky's manager, and after a harsh exchange, they reunite. Admittedly, this is a reductive recap of this scene, as my words can't do it justice; it's not your typical Hollywood moment, the crux being Rocky's impassioned monologue aimed at Mickey who has already left.

Quite a lot of the script is comprised of odd philosophical musings from Rocky, arguably the last person you'd expect to be a font of wisdom with his thick, lobotomised delivery, yet he makes so much sense distilling society's BS and making sense of it in a palatable form. This crystallises Rocky's character - he is humble, unaffected, and happy to have something rather than nothing, and ostentation is for others.

Thus the end of the film - spoiler for the few others who haven't seen it - is Rocky is just happy he got to have his big fight and survived. Winning was not expected; the script doesn't follow the hackneyed trope of an upset victory, and rightly so - that would have undermined the very nature of his personality, his simplistic sense of pride, humility, and lack of artifice.

At no point though is this ever about lack of ambition on his part - Rocky trains hard and has an innate belief something will happen if you put in the effort - but the showbiz side of things doesn't seem to hold any interest. His TV interviews are akin to a small child oblivious to the prestige of the moment, shrugging off important questions with a fey answer. It's so refreshing, it's actually endearing.

Everyone knows the training sequence and Rocky running up the steps of the Philly Art Museum set to the anthemic funk of Gonna Fly Now, yet for me it is the heart and home spun philosophy of the script and the domestic drama that is the most memorable and affecting part of this film. It did what it was designed to do - make me keen to see Rocky win the fight - yet all the while I was thinking "And this came from Stallone?"

Director John G. Avildsen deserves much credit too, keeping things commensurate to the gritty ordinariness of Rocky's ghetto existence then turning it up for the pomp of the big fight extravaganza. Let's not overlook the support cast either - Talia Shire's ability to shrink into herself to play Adrian is sublime; Burt Young's Paulie is tragically incendiary, and Burgess Meredith's Mickey is the definitive irascible veteran trapped within his past glories.

Rocky has achieved something I'm almost ashamed to admit - it made me realise how much I have underestimated Stallone for all these years. I've only know him as the meathead muscle guy with droopy eyes and incoherent speech which is unfair if he can create - and bring to life - something so viscerally soulful and life-affirming as this.

After the unexpected death of his father, Charlie Babbit (Tom Cruise) returns home to Cincinnati to try and capture the three-million-dollar fortune left in his father's will. Unbeknownst to Charlie however, the money has actually been left to the mental institution that houses Raymond Babbit (Dustin Hoffman), the estranged sibling of Charlie. Motivated highly by his father's money, Charlie checks Raymond out of the facility and the pair embark on a journey that may alter both of their lives. A great film that still manages to stand the test of time, despite being released over thirty years ago.

Winner of four different Academy Awards in 1989 and nominated for four others, Rain Main is an excellently crafted drama that manages to provide not only great acting performances over the course of its one-hundred and thirty-three minute runtime but also deliver the serious subject of autism to its viewing audiences. With the filmmakers giving autism such publicity in 1988, the flick with any luck helped to lessen the stigma brought on to those with this condition. Even today in August of 2022, the film does a solid job of providing key insight into the condition.

The filmmakers not only explore the subject of autism, but they also dive into the issue of relationships between people - more specifically the relationships between brothers. Over the course of the picture, the changes in relationship between the two main characters are subtle, done primarily through genuine character development and character interaction, using witty and effective dialogue throughout.

It's also worth stating how easy on the eye the film was. Released in 1988, it managed to capture America in its full glory, with various noteworthy filming locations on display - California, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Ohio and Nevada just to name a few. There was also a significant score too, with Rain Man being Hans Zimmer's first score for a Hollywood production.

In terms of the acting, Charlie Babbit was portrayed by Tom Cruise while Dustin Hoffman adopted the role of Raymond Babbit. Both performances were noteworthy and a key reason for the films huge success and longevity even until this day. It's worth noting too that Dustin Hoffman spent an entire year working with autistic men and their families to understand their complex relationships in preparation for this role.

All in all, Rain Man still stands up today as being a more than watchable film from the 1980's and is certainly one I'd recommend for people to watch. One minor gripe would be the long runtime, this could have been trimmed down slightly but ultimately speaking, that doesn't take much away from the film.

"I'm an excellent driver."

Hooo boy. This is a hard one to write about.

There's certain anime that you point to (if you're an anime fan) that you use to settle arguments about the quality of the medium. Conversely, there are examples of anime that completely and utterly destroy arguments about anime being a serious art medium.

And then there are the ones that fall right in the middle. These are anime that have interesting and distinct elements with great character moments but also simultaneously have some outrageous in them.

Jojo's Bizarre Adventure is such an anime.

Jojo's Bizarre Adventure began its run as a manga in 1986 and has continued to this day under the pen of Hiroko Araki. The story has permutated in many ways since its inception but it has never truly permeated the west until recently, despite attempts over the years.

Why is that? A couple of reasons really. Throughout the entirety of the manga run Araki has continually used the titles and names of bands as the names of characters in his manga. This is largely due to his great fondness for western music but, as you can imagine, copyright issues became a massive concern when porting over manga as well as game adaptations. Hence why several character's names get distorted accordingly.

The other reason is that the manga goes through several different story arcs migrating to new lead characters and story settings despite being set in the same world. Because of that, there is a massive tonal shift each time a new arc starts that crests of the previous one. Thusly each story becomes... well more bizarre then the one that precedes it.

So to say the least, it's a hard story to jump in on the middle of.

Prior to 2012, the only storyline to receive a anime adaptation was the third story arc Stardust Crusaders, arguably the most popular one of the franchise. Only recently has an anime been conceived that shows the first two arcs of the adventure.

Recently that anime began a sequel season covering the third arc and it isn't certain if it'll continue after that. But, because this is a manga that has an ongoing story dating back to 1986, I'm going to focus on the new 2012 anime that covers the first two story arcs of Jojo's Bizarre Adventure.

For my own sanity at any rate.

Jojo's Bizarre Adventure begins in 1880 in England. During a carriage accident the wealthy lord George Joestar loses his wife and almost his newborn son. A man by the name of Dario Brando comes by and attempts to rob it, only to realize that George is still alive. George, realizing what is happening takes pity on the man and convinces Dario that he; George, believes that Dario is here to save him.

As a result George makes a pledge, that he will adopt Dario's son and raise him along with his own son Jonathon Joestar (or Jojo for short).

It is a promise that condemns human history for one hundred years.

When Dario dies, his son Dio goes to the Joestar manor and begins a calculated campaign to destroy Jonathon's life and become heir to the Joestar fortune. This includes turning close friends against Jonathon, abusing young women and cooking Jonathon's dog in a fire.

Jonathon confronts Dio and assaults him. During that exchange Dio realizes that beating Jonathon head on is folly as his spirit is unbreakable and each adversity makes Jonathon stronger.

And that's when the vampire starts. Sort of. Let me explain.

In the background of all of this is an old ritual stone mask belonging to George. During that first fight Dio's blood strikes the mask causing spikes to come out. Examination of that effect by both Jonathan and Dio (separately mind you) over the next seven years reveals that the spikes will penetrate the human brain if the mask is worn. Both assume it is a mask for ritual sacrifice as a result.

Eventually both boys graduate college and return home. Dio has attempted to poison George and Jonathan has deduced it. In a drunken stupor Dio escapes as Jonathan goes to get evidence. Taking the mask with him Dio experiments on a drunkard only to learn that the mask turns the drunk into a vampire.

Dio barely survives the encounter but is saved by the sun. Heading back to the Joestar manor Jonathan confronts Dio and Dio dons the mask, killing George Joestar. And then goes sideways. As in Dio starts climbing walls because he's a vampire now.

The adventure goes from there, echoing shades of Fist of the North Star as Jonathan learns a martial art to produce sunlight in order to combat Dio. This first arc, titled Phantom Blood ends at episode 9 of the anime and volume 4 of the manga. I will not spoil the final encounter of Dio and Jonathan as it's something of a powerful moment that I don't think was truly executed in manga prior or since.

Part two of the manga and 2012 anime is Battle Tendency. Starting fifty years later in 1939 in America Jonathan is long past and his successor to the Jojo name, his grandson Joseph, is a Hamon prodigy and an all-around low brow flirt with a madman's genius.

Joseph is my favourite character if you hadn't guessed.

This arc deals with the origin of the mask as Joseph is forced to train his talents in Hamon and engage in a battle for the world with a new breed of vampires, stronger than Dio. Their names are Wam, AC/DC and Cars.

Not even going to make that up.

As I said there's a lot to compare the anime to that of Fist of the North Star, especially the Battle Tendency arc and that includes visuals and villain motivations. What makes the story unique is that of how vampires are used in their traditional fashion as horror creatures (especially in Phantom Blood) juxtaposed against the heroic anime protagonist archetype. Thusly you have the unique effect of having heroic moments buffeted and reinforced with classic horror tragedy. It's surprisingly effective.

Of the characters Jonathan Joestar is an ideal hero. He is noble, selfless, and well mannered. He is considered such a great spirit that bitter thieves become beloved friends and his tenacity earns the respect of his enemies. Even in battling the vampire Dio Jonathan is filled with regret at fighting someone he grew up with. He remains a character of great dignity and nobility throughout his story arc.

Joseph inherits the Joestar trait of righteous indignation against evil and tenacity in battle that triumphs over evil. Conversely he's a genius that loves to fight dirty to win. In his first battle with a vampire he pulls a tommy gun and covers the vampire in grenades.

He also tries to sneak into a Nazi base disguised as a woman. His failure is a blow to his self-esteem.

And then there's Dio. As cruel as a petty child with a genius mind to boot. Despite his assertions of his superiority Dio delights in wreaking pain upon anyone he considers his inferior. Which is anyone who isn't Dio. In fact, I think if he met another Dio he'd hate that Dio too for trying to imitate perfection. For Dio cruelty is the bonus for the way he conducts himself for victory.

Conversely the three elevated vampires (Cars, Wam and AC/DC) that fight Joesph, consider humanity little more than insects by comparison and view the murder of a human akin to stepping on an ant. Only Joseph really earns their respect and attention, at which point they view fighting him much like a cat playing with a mouse.

There are a host of other characters worth mentioning but length prohibits what I can say, (that includes talking about Lisa Lisa, the queen of cold hard badass and Joseph's teacher). Especially when I have to address the visual style and movement of the characters. The first two arcs represented in the anime reflect the manga's Fist of the North Star influence. What sets it apart is largely character posture which continues to be a presence as Araki developed his own artistic style.

Rather than have strong defiant stances, Araki's protagonists are often caught in fluid transition moments or wavy poses displaying their flexibility. As such there's a heavy implication in both the manga and the anime that Araki's true vision of movement for the characters is one well beyond conventional means to animate.

The series overall is one of great interest, especially if one has an appreciation for classic manga storytelling conventions of epic heroes and such. If that's within your disposition it's well worth the viewing.

So too does this work exist.