Retro Television Reviews: The Love Boat 1.25 “Pacific Princess Overtures / Gopher, the Rebel / Cabin Fever”


Welcome to Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past!  On Wednesdays, I will be reviewing the original Love Boat, which aired on ABC from 1977 to 1986!  The series can be streamed on Paramount Plus!

The Love Boat

Today, we wrap up season one of The Love Boat!  All aboard!

Episode 1.25 “Pacific Princess Overtures / Gopher, the Rebel / Cabin Fever”

(Dir by Alan Baron, originally aired on May 20th, 1978)

As I sat down to watch this episode on Paramount Plus, I was once again confronted with that weird commercial featuring P!nk and Michael Phelps tossing a big red COVID germ at each other.  I’ve seen this commercial a few times.  It’s popular not only on Paramount Plus but also on Hulu and Peacock.  For a commercial that’s all about the terrors of COVID, I have to say that representing the risk by using a big rubber ball feels a bit …. well, counterproductive.  (Actually, perhaps silly would be a better way to describe it.)  To be honest, P!nk and Michael Phelps look like they’re almost having too much fun tossing COVID at each other.  Someday, someone will actually take a serious look at how and why the combined efforts of the media and the advertising industry struggled to convince people to take the vaccine and this commercial will hopefully be remembered.  Considering that it’s the elderly who are at the greatest risk when it comes to COVID, it’s interesting that almost all of the vaccination commercials that I’ve seen have been stylistically aimed at older millennials.  Michael Phelps saying that his depression puts him at a greater risk of COVID is not the sort of thing that’s going to convince an 80 year-old to get a booster.

Speaking of commercials, the first season finale of The Love Boat featured Antonio Fargas as an advertising exec named Lee Graham.  When we first see him, he’s saying goodbye to his wife as he boards the ship.  He tells her that he’ll miss her and that the only reason he’s going to be on the boat is because he’s working on ad campaign for the cruise company.  Of course, he’s lying.  He’s actually taking the cruise so that he can spend some time with his mistress, Andrea (Jonelle Allen).  Lee and Andrea are excited to finally have a few days where they can be with each other without feeling like they have to hide for everyone.  However, Lee soon discovers that his nosy neighbors (played by Kaye Bass and Elias Jacob) are also on the boat!  As a result, Lee doesn’t get a chance to cheat on his wife and, at the end of the cruise, he and Andrea realize that they don’t want to continue their adulterous ways.  Fortunately, it turns out that Lee’s wife already knew about the affair and is incredibly forgiving.  I’m not really sure why she’s so forgiving but hey, it was the 70s!  It’s not like The Love Boat is going to end with a divorce.  That’s more of a 90s thing.

While this is going, ruthless business tycoon Mr. Yamashiro (Pat Morita — yes, you read that correctly) is determined to convince Ruth Newman (Diane Baker) to sell him her late husband’s factory.  Yamashiro even orders his assistant, Ken Davis (Gary Collins), to trick Ruth by pretending to fall in love with her.  However, Ken really does fall in love with her and he loses his job as a result.  Fear not, though.  Ruth hires him and agrees to invest in a special, voice-activated word processor that he’s created.  Yamashiro is so impressed that he agrees to invest as well.  Yamashiro says that they can consider his investment to be a wedding present.  Ruth and Ken have only known each other for a few days but sure, why shouldn’t they get married?  I mean, it’s the 70s!  People get married about knowing each other for a weekend and then they forgive each other for cheating.  Love is all around, no need to waste it.  They’re all going to make it, after all.

However, none of those stories can compare to what happens to Gopher.  After starting the cruise in a bad mood because he feels that Captain Stubing doesn’t respect him,  Gopher falls for a young communist named Vanessa!  And Vanessa is played by Eve Plumb.  That’s right!  This episode features the original Jan Brady filling Gopher’s head with a bunch of Marxist nonsense!  Vanessa is traveling on the boat with her wealthy father (Don Porter) and she sure does resent all of the money that’s being spent on the cruise.  When she tells Gopher that he should stop taking orders from the Captain because, as “members of the Personhood,” no one has any right to order anyone else around, Gopher takes her words to heart and he ended up getting fired for insubordination!  Fortunately, it doesn’t take long  for both Vanessa and Gopher to see the errors of their ways and the Captain hires Gopher back, with the understanding that Gopher will never again bring a certain impractical economic theory.  It’s a bit like that episode where the Captain told Isaac that he was spending too much time learning about black history.  The Captain’s not going to let his purser go down the Marxist rabbit hole!

And so, the first season comes to a close.  This was a good episode with which to end the season.  Though his storyline was undeniably icky, Antonio Fargas proved himself to be a talented physical comedian as he tried to keep his neighbors from noticing his girlfriend.  The second story was a bit bland but Pat Morita transcended his stereotypical role.  And seriously, how can you not enjoy Eve Plumb radicalizing Gopher?

When The Love Boat began, the crew was unsure of how to react around Captain Stubing.  As the first season comes to a close, they’ve learned that Stubing will always have their back, as long as they don’t talk about Black History or Marxism.  What will the crew discover about their captain during season 2?  We’ll find out soon!

Retro Television Reviews: Fantasy Island 1.12 “King For A Day/Instant Family”


Welcome to Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past!  On Tuesdays, I will be reviewing the original Fantasy Island, which ran on ABC from 1977 to 1986.  The entire show is currently streaming on Tubi!

This week, Mr. Roarke proves himself to be the expert at granting fantasies and teaching lessons.  One group of visitors deals with international diplomacy.  The other group deals with taking care of children.  It’s time for …. FANTASY ISLAND!

Episode 1.12 “King For A Day/Instant Family”

(Directed by George McGowan, originally aired on May 6th, 1978)

There are a lot fantasies in this episode.

For instance, Ernie Miller (David Doyle) is a plumber who wants to be treated like a king.  When he arrives on Fantasy Island, he is informed that he is now the King of Carpathia and that he is married to Queen Auroroa (Diane Baker).  What Ernie doesn’t realize is that there actually is a country called Carpathia and that he just happens to look exactly like the nation’s recently deceased king.  It turns out that Aurora is not just an actress hired to pretend to be the Queen.  Instead, she actually is the Queen!  Aurora had a fantasy of her own.  She wanted the king to come back to life so that he could prevent the country by being taken over by the sinister Ambassador Soro (Theodore Bikel).

Roarke combines their two fantasies into one.  Ernie gets to become king, on the condition that he abandon his former life and identity.  (That’s something that Ernie has no problem with and, quite frankly, actor David Doyle wasn’t exactly the most convincing plumber that I’ve ever seen.  Some actors were just meant to play men who wore suits to the office and David Doyle was one of them.)  Aurora gets her husband back, except of course it’s not actually her husband.  It’s just someone who looks like him.  But Aurora is cool with that.  This is kind of a weird fantasy.  One has to wonder what would have happened in Ambassador Soro had announced that his fantasy was  to conquer Carpathia.  WHAT THEN, MR. ROARKE!?

As for the other fantasy, it involves a woman named Gail Grayson (Melinda Naud), whose fantasy is to get a job working for the world’s number one expert on how to raise children.  Gail, it turns out, has written a thesis about how housewives are unnecessary and how being a mother isn’t as difficult as everyone says.  (It’s hard for me to imagine any woman actually writing something like that but whatever.  We’ll just go with it.)  Gail gets to put her thesis to the test when she discovers that she’s been hired to act as a babysitter!  It turns out that the world’s number one expert on raising children has several unruly children of his own.

Accompanying Gail is her mother, Mildred Grayson (Jane Wyatt).  It turns out that Mildred didn’t appreciate Gail’s thesis (and really, who can blame her?) and her fantasy is for Gail to discover firsthand just how difficult it is to take care of a house and several bratty children.  Again, Mr. Roarke decided to combine everyone’s fantasies.  Gail gets to work for her mentor and Jane gets to watch as Gail is humiliated by the children.  Eventually, Mildred comes to feel guilty about wishing so much trouble on her own daughter but everything work out in the end.  Gail gets her dream job and Mildred gets to say, “I told you so.”

Yay!  Everything works out for everyone!

This is one of those episodes where you really have to wonder if Mr. Roarke actually had a plan or if he was just making it all up as he was going along.  If Ernie hadn’t agreed to become the king in real life, Carpathia would have been conquered by the communists.  If Gail hadn’t realized her thesis was wrong, one of the children could have died on the island.  Sometimes, I just think that there are better ways to teach people a lesson than taking them to a mystical island that is ruled in a somewhat arbitrary manner by a friendly but occasionally condescending host.  That said, I would totally go to Fantasy Island if it did exist.  I imagine the same was true of the majority of the people who watched the show when it first aired.

After all, who doesn’t have a fantasy or two?

Retro Television Review: A Little Game (dir by Paul Wendkos)


Welcome to Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past!  On Sundays, I will be reviewing the made-for-television movies that used to be a primetime mainstay.  Today’s film is 1971’s A Little Game.  It  can be viewed on YouTube!

Twelve year-old Robert Mueller (played by 13 year-old Mark Gruner, who would later go on to play one of Chief Brody’s kids in Jaws) just hasn’t been the same since his father died.  Robert idolized his father, who was an architect who built bridges and reportedly pushed his workers to take a lot of dangerous risks to get the job done.  Perhaps that explains why Robert is not getting along with his new stepfather, Paul Hamilton (Ed Nelson).  Robert’s mother, Elaine (Diane Baker), is convinced that Robert will eventually come to accept Paul but Paul isn’t so sure.

Robert is a student at a private military academy.  When he comes home for the holidays, he brings his “best friend” with him.  Stu Parker (Christopher Shea) is friendly and polite but he’s also easily led and has a difficult time standing up for himself.  Paul immediately sees that Robert is bullying Stu.  Elaine, however, thinks that Paul is being too critical.  That’s just the way boys are!

In his diary, Robert has written that he killed someone and that he’s sure that he got away with it.  When Paul comes across the entry, he worries that Robert might be telling the truth.  Paul goes as far as to hire a private detective (Howard Duff) to investigate whether there’s been any mysterious deaths at Robert’s school.  Stu, meanwhile, explains that he and Robert sometimes play “a little game” where they imagine that best way to murder someone and get away with it.  But Stu assures Paul that it’s just a game.  They don’t actually kill anyone.

Is Stu telling the truth or is Robert just as dangerous as his deceased father, a man who Paul claims was a psychopath?  Or is Paul himself the one who has become delusional with jealousy of his stepson?

The answer to those questions is pretty obvious from the minute that Robert and Stu show up at the house.  In fact, it’s so obvious that it kind of leaves the viewer wondering how everyone else in the film could be so clueless.  On the one hand, it’s understandable that Elaine would not want to admit that there is something seriously wrong with her son.  On the other hand, how many times can anyone close their eyes to a very obvious truth?  From the minute that Robert shows up, wearing his uniform and curtly ordering around the family’s maid (played by High Noon‘s Katy Jurado, who deserved a better role), he might as well have psychopath tattooed on his forehead.

That said, evil children movies are always somewhat effective, even the ones that are a bit too obvious in their approach.  Psychologically, we’ve been conditioned to always associate children with innocence, optimism, and hope.  Children are the future, so the saying goes. As such, it does carry some impact when they’re portrayed as being a force of danger.  As I watched this film, I did find myself wondering if there was any hope for Robert.  With all that he had done, could someone still reach him and turn him around?  Or was he destined to go from being an evil child to an evil adult?  It really does get to the question of whether evil is a real, almost supernatural force or if it’s something that’s created by a combination of environment and social taboos.  Was Robert born evil or did he become evil?  A Little Game doesn’t answer that question but I doubt that anyone could.  Some questions are destined to be forever unanswered.

Cleaning Out The DVR: The 300 Spartans (dir by Rudolph Mate)


King Xerxes (David Farrar), the ruler of Persia, is leading his armies across the ancient world, conquering every nation that he comes to. Xerxes is quick to proclaim that his vision is to have “one world ruled by one master” but really, he’s mostly just trying to prove that he’s as fearsome a conqueror as his father was. Like most authoritarians, he’s really just dealing with his own psychological issues.

When Xerxes sets his eyes on Greece, he assumes that he’ll easily be able to conquer the country. Greece, after all, is divided into several city states and everyone knows that the cities are rarely willing to work together. However, 300 Spartan warriors — led by King Leonidis (Richard Egan) — are willing to stand their ground and hold off Xerxes’s forces for as long as possible. Despite the fact that they’re outnumbered and have no way of knowing if reinforcements will ever arrive, the 300 Spartans are willing to do whatever it takes to protect their freedom. They know that they probably won’t survive the battle but none of them are going to surrender. Better to die than be enslaved.

If the plot of 1962’s The 300 Spartans sounds familiar, that’s probably because it’s based on the same historical events that inspired 300. The 300 Spartans essentially tells the same story and even has many of the same themes as Zack Snyder’s later film. The main difference, of course, is that The 300 Spartans tells it story in a much less stylized manner. Indeed, while 300 tended to kind of take place in a dream-world, one that was designed to highlight the legendary elements of the story, The 300 Spartans very much takes place in the real world, with the actors playing the ancient warrions standing on the same ground that Leonidis and his 300 Spartans once stood upon. It’s a choice that works well, giving The 300 Spartans a far more authentic feel than a lot of the other historical epics that came out in the 50s and 60s.

The 300 Spartans has everything that you might expect from a film like this: dancing, harems, swords, armor, a lot of talk of omens and honor, and of course several speeches about the importance of freedom. That said, even if some elements of the story are predictable, the film is well-acted with Richard Egan giving a strong performance as Leonidis while David Farrar turns Xerxes into a villain who you’ll enjoy rooting against. Anne Wakefield is also well-cast as Artemesia, Xerxes’s consort and his main advisor. Perhaps best of all is Ralph Richardson, playing the general Themistocles with the grim determination of a warrior who has learned better than to depend on omens and prophecy.

At the end of the film, the narrator grandly declares that the actions of the 300 Spartans were more than an example of Greek bravery. They were also, “a stirring example to free people throughout the world of what a few brave men can accomplish once they refuse to submit to tyranny!” Maybe a few years ago, I would have said that the narration went a bit overboard but, after the past few years, I’m now more convinced than ever that a lot of people would be fine living in an authoritarian state as long as their side was the one with all of the authority. At a time like this, any film that celebrates freedom is to be appreciated.

TV Review: Night Gallery 1.6 “They’re Tearing Down Tim Riley’s Bar/The Last Laurel)


The first season of Night Gallery came to a conclusion on January 20th, 1971.  Though the first season was undoubtedly uneven, it did end on a high point.  The first segment in the 6th episode, They’re Tearing Down Tim Riley’s Bar, is widely considered to be the best episode of Night Gallery and one of Rod Serling’s best teleplays.  It also brought Night Gallery one of it’s few Emmy nominations when it was nominated for Outstanding Single Program of the year.  (It lost to The Andersonville Trial, a theatrical adaptation that was produced for PBS.)

They’re Tearing Down Tim Riley’s Bar (dir by Don Taylor, written by Rod Serling)

They’re Tearing Down Tim Riley’s Bar tells the story of Randy Lane (William Windom).  In 1945, Sgt. Randy Lane returned home from serving in World War II, a war hero who had a wonderful future ahead of him.  He had just gotten married.  He had just gotten a good job at an up-and-coming company called Pritzker Plastics.  When he came home, the first place he went was Tim Riley’s Bar, where his father and the other bar patrons toasted him and told him to look forward to the future.

Twenty-five years later, the middle-aged Randy Lane is looking at his life and asking, “Is this as good as it gets?”  He’s now a sales director at Pritzker Plastics but his boss (John Randolph) doesn’t appreciate him, his assistant (Bert Convy) is plotting to steal his job, and the only person who seems to care about him is his sympathetic secretary (Diane Baker).  Randy’s wife died in 1952, while Randy was out of a sales call.  Randy now lives alone.  Even his neighborhood bar — Tim Riley’s Bar — has closed and been abandoned.  With the bar schedule to be torn down, Randy wonder what happened to all of the promise and happiness of the past.

When Randy goes by the deserted bar and looks through the front window, he’s shocked to see all of his old friends and his father waving at him.  But when Randy rushes into the bar to join them, he discovers the bar is deserted.  Later, Randy is at work when suddenly, he sees Pritzker Plastics the way it was back in 1948.  Even later, when he enters his house, he finds himself standing in a hospital hallway in 1952, once again getting the news that his wife has died.

In many ways, They’re Tearing Down Tim Riley’s Bar is an atypical Night Gallery segment.  Though there are hints of the supernatural throughout the story, it’s hardly a work of horror.  Instead, it’s a rather melancholy meditation on aging, disappointment, and regret.  Is the past forever lost?  Can things ever be as good as they once were?  These are the questions that are raised in this well-directed and well-acted segment.

The Last Laurel (dir by Daryl Duke, written by Rod Serling)

Clocking in at 8 minutes, The Last Laurel is yet another segment about a bitter man (in this case, Jack Cassidy) who suspects that his wife (in the case, Martine Beswick) is cheating on him with his doctor (in this case, Martin E. Brooks) so he teaches himself a supernatural skill in order to get revenge.  In this case, it involves astral projection.  Not surprisingly, it ends with a twist that’s pretty much dependent on one of the characters doing something extremely stupid.

The Last Laurel is well-acted but predictable.  It’s not bad but, especially when compared to something like They’re Tearing Down Tim Riley’s Bar, it feels rather insubstantial.  It feels like filler.

The first season of Night Gallery came to an end with an excellent episode.  Starting tomorrow — season 2!

Previous Night Gallery Reviews:

  1. The Pilot
  2. The Dead Man/The Housekeeper
  3. Room With A View/The Little Black Bag/The Nature of the Enemy
  4. The House/Certain Shadows on the Wall
  5. Make Me Laugh/Clean Kills And Other Trophies
  6. Pamela’s Voice/Lone Survivor/The Doll

Lisa Reviews An Oscar Nominee: The Diary of Anne Frank (dir by George Stevens)


From 1942 to 1944, a teenage girl named Anne Frank lived in hiding.

She and her family lived in what was sometimes called The Secret Annex, three stories of concealed rooms that were hidden behind a bookcase in an Amsterdam factory.  At first, it was just Anne, her older sister Margot, and their parents.  Eventually, they were joined by another family and eventually a dentist, with whom Anne did not get along.  Life was not easy in the concealed space and tempers often flared.  As the months passed, Anne had a romance-of-sorts with Peter, the teenage son of the other family, but she wondered if she truly felt anything for him or if it was just because they were stuck together.  Anne looked forward to someday returning to school and seeing all of her old friends, again.  However, she knew that she could not leave the Annex until the Nazis had finally been forced out of the Netherlands.  She and the other occupants had to remain in hiding and they had to remain perfectly quiet eight hours a day because they were Jewish.  If they were discovered, they would be sent to the camps.  So, they waited and Anne kept a diary.

Tragically, the Nazis did eventually discover the Secret Annex.  Of the 8 occupants, only Anne Frank’s father, Otto, would survive the war.  The rest died in various concentration camps.  Anne Frank’s mother starved to death in Auschwitz.  Her older sister, Margot, was 19 when she fell from her bunk and, because she was in such a weakened state, was killed by the shock.  Anne Frank, it is believed, died a few days after Margot.  She died at the Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp, one of the 17,000 prisoners to succumb to Typhus.  Before she died, Anne Frank spoke with two former schoolmates who were also being held at Bergen-Belsen.  She told them that she had believed her entire family was dead and that she no longer had any desire to go on living.

However, Otto Frank did survive and, at the end of the war, he returned to the Secret Annex.  That’s where he discovered Anne’s diary.  After editing it (a process that Anne, who aspired to be a journalist, had already started doing shortly before she was arrested), Otto arranged for the publication of the diary.  The Diary of A Young Girl (or, as it was titled in some countries, The Diary of Anne Frank) was a bestseller and has remained one ever since it was first published.  Along with being recognized as being one of the most important books ever written, it’s also been adapted for both stage and screen.

The first such screen adaptation was in 1959.  It was directed by George Stevens and it starred 20 year-old Millie Perkins as Anne.  (Perkins bore a great resemblance to Audrey Hepburn, who was reportedly Otto Frank’s preferred choice for the role.  Hepburn turned him down, saying she would have been honored to have played the role but believed that she was too old to believable as a 14 year-old.)  Joseph Schildkraut played Otto while Diane Baker played Margot and Gusti Huber played Edith Frank.  The Van Daans were played by Shelley Winters and Lou Jacobi while Richard Beymer played their son (and Anne’s tentative boyfriend), Peter.  Ed Wynn, who was best known as a comedian, played the role of Albert Dussell, the dentist to whom Anne took a dislike.  (The surviving family of Fritz Pfeffer — who was renamed Dussell in Anne’s diary — objected to the way he was portrayed in both the book and the film.)

As a film, it has its flaws.  George Stevens specialized in big productions but that was perhaps not the proper approach to take to an intimate film about a teenage girl coming-of-age under the most difficult circumstances imaginable.  Because this was a 20th Century Fox production from the 50s, The Diary of Anne Frank was filmed in Cinemascope, which made the annex itself look bigger than it should.  Scenes that should feel claustrophobic often merely come across as being cluttered.

But, in the end, the story is so powerful and so important that it doesn’t matter.  Though the Annex was recreated on a Hollywood sound stage, the exteriors were actually filmed in Amsterdam.  When we see the outside of the factory where the Frank family lived, we are seeing the actual factory.  When we see repeated shots of the uniformed Nazi police patrolling the streets at night, we know that we’re seeing the actual view that Anne Frank undoubtedly saw many a night from the Annex.  And because we know the story, we begin the film knowing how it’s going to end and that adds an even greater weight to each and every scene.  It’s impossible not to relate to Anne’s hopes for the future and it’s just as impossible to not mourn that Anne never lived to see that future.

Stevens originally planned for the film to end with a scene of Anne at Bergen-Belsen.  To their discredit, 20th Century Fox removed the scene after preview audiences complained that it was too upsetting.  People should be upset while watching (or, for that matter, reading) The Diary of Anne Frank.  Even today, there are people who still seem to struggle with acknowledging the enormous evil that was perpetrated by the Nazis and their allies.  As a result, it’s not uncommon to find people who, when they don’t outright deny that it happened, try to minimize the Holocaust.  It’s a disgusting thing.  There was recently a viral video, which was released by NowThis that featured a student at George Washington University saying, “What’s going to happen if there’s another Holocaust? Well, we’re seeing what’s happening. We’re seeing people die at the border for lack of medical care. That’s how Anne Frank died. She didn’t die in a concentration camp, she died from typhus.”  NowThis later said that the student meant to say that Anne Frank “didn’t die from a concentration camp, she died from typhus,” and you really have to wonder just how fucking stupid someone has to be to think that 1) that’s somehow an improvement on what was originally said and 2) that typhus and the concentration camp were not essentially the same thing.  Even if one accepts that the student misspoke, it would seem that her main complaint was the the concentration camp didn’t have proper medical care, as opposed to the fact that it was specifically created to imprison and kill Jewish people.  It’s an astounding combination of ignorance and antisemitism.  NowThis later edited her comments out of the video, which again seems to miss the point of why people were upset in the first place.  Instead of just saying, “Hey, this idiot is a Holocaust denier and, regardless of whether she hates Trump as much as we do, we want nothing to do with her,” NowThis instead said, “Well, if that comment offends you, we’ll take it out and you won’t have to hear it.”  To me, that’s why The Diary of Anne Frank is still important and why it should still be read and watched and studied.  There are too many ignorant people and craven, weak-willed organizations out there for us to turn our backs on teaching history.

The Diary Anne Frank was nominated for best picture of the year.  While Shelley Winters won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, the Best Picture Oscar went to Ben-Hur.  Interestingly enough, Ben-Hur’s director, William Wyler, was originally interested in directing The Diary Anne Frank before George Stevens was brought on board.

Lisa Reviews An Oscar Winner: The Silence of the Lambs (dir by Jonathan Demme)


Oh, The Silence of the Lambs, I have such mixed feelings about you.

On the one hand, I’m a horror fan and Silence of the Lambs is a very important film in the history of horror.  Back in 1992, it was the first horror film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture!  It even made history by winning all of the big “five” awards — Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, and Adapted Screenplay!  It was the first film since One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest and It Happened One Night to pull that off!

Beyond that, it’s one of the most influential films ever made.  Every erudite serial killer owes a debt to Anthony Hopkins’s performance as Hannibal Lecter.  Every competent but untested and unappreciated female FBI agent owes a debt to Jodie Foster’s performance as Clarice Starling.  Even though the whole criminal profiler craze probably owes more to Manhunter (a film to which Silence of the Lambs is a sequel, though that often seems to go unacknowledged) than to anything else, this Oscar winner still definitely played a part.  I mean, how many people watched Manhunter for the first time, specifically because Lecter mentioned the events in that earlier film in Silence of the Lambs?

Plus, this won an Oscar for Jonathan Demme, one of my favorite directors!  And while I’m sure Jodie Foster would have gone on to have a strong career regardless of whether she had played Clarice Starling or not, it’s generally acknowledged that Silence of the Lambs revitalized the career of Anthony Hopkins.  So for that, we should all be thankful.

And yet, it can be strange to watch Silence of the Lambs today.  All of the imitations (not to mention some ill-thought sequels and prequels) have lessened its bite.  I can only imagine how it must have freaked out audiences when it was first released but I have to admit that I was slightly disappointed the first time that I watched the film.  Looking back, I can see that disappointment was due to having been told that it were one of the scariest movies of all time but, because, I had seen a countless number of imitations, parodies, and homages, I felt as if I had already watched the film.  So, I wasn’t shocked when Lecter turned out to be ruthlessly manipulative and dangerously charismatic.  Nor was I shocked when he managed to escape and poor Charles Napier ended up strung up in that cage.  I’m sure that audiences in 1991 were freaked out, though.

Actually, as good as Foster and Hopkins and Scott Glenn are, I think the best performance in the film comes from Ted Levine, playing Buffalo Bill.  Seriously, Levine’s performance still freaks me out.  It’s the voice and the way he says, “Precious.”  Levine’s performance, I found to be a hundred times more frightening than Anthony Hopkins’s and I think it’s due to the fact that Hannibal Lecter was clearly an author’s invention while Levin’s Buffalo Bill came across like he might very will be hiding in an alley somewhere, waiting for one of your friends to walk by. (Interestingly enough, I had the same reaction when I first saw Manhunter.  Brian Cox did a good job as Lecter but he still came across as a bit cartoonish.  Meanwhile, Tom Noonan was absolutely terrifying.)  Levine has subsequently gone on to play a lot of nice guy roles.  He was a detective on Monk, for instance.  Good for him.  I’m glad to see he was able to escape being typecast.  Admittedly, I do kinda wonder how many serial killer roles he had to turn down immediately after the release of The Silence Of The Lambs.

Still, it’s a good film.  Time may have lessened it’s power but The Silence of the Lambs is still an effective and well-directed thriller.  It’s impossible not to cheer for Clarice.  It’s impossible not to smile at the fun that Anthony Hopkins seems to be having in the role of Lecter.  Jonathan Demme creates a world of shadows and darkness and still adds enough little quirks to keep things interesting.  (I especially liked Lecter watching a stand-up special in his cell.)  It’s the little details that makes the world of The Silence of the Lambs feel lived in, like Clarice’s nervous laugh as she gives a civilian instructions on what to do in case she accidentally gets trapped in a storage locker.  Even the film’s final one liner will make you smile, even though it’s the type of thing that every film seemed to feel the need to do nowadays.  It’s still a good movie, even if it no longer feels as fresh as it once may have.

The First Police Story: Slow Boy (1973, directed by William A. Graham)


Long before The Wire, Homicide, Chicago PD, NYPD Blue, or even Hill Street Blues, there was Police Story.

Co-created by cop-turned-writer Joseph Wambaugh, Police Story aired on NBC from 1973 to 1978.  It was an anthology series, with each episode following a different member of the LAPD as they deal with crime and social issues in Los Angeles.  For its time, it was ground-breaking in its realistic approach to the life and work of the police.  Interestingly, the show wasn’t always blindly pro-cop.  Often the cops featured were deeply flawed and the war on crime was frequently portrayed to be unwinnable.  Over the course of its run, Police Story was a regular Emmy nominee and won the award for Best Drama Series in 1976.

Police Story started, in 1973, with a two-hour TV movie.  At the time it aired, the pilot was called Stakeout but it has since aired in syndication under the title Slow Boy.  Vic Morrow stars as Sgt. Joe LaFrieda, a plainclothes detective who can’t keep his marriage together but who can take criminals off the street.  LaFrieda is the second-in-command of a special squad of detectives who specialize in watching and taking down high-profile criminals.  Their methods frequently come close to entrapment but they usually work.  Their current target is Slow Boy (Chuck Conners), the son of a mafia chieftain, who enjoys robbing stores.  When LaFrieda’s first attempt to put Slow Boy in jail is thwarted by a liberal judge and departmental bureaucracy, he and the squad come up with a second, less-than-legal plan to take Slow Boy down.

Considering the involvement of Joseph Wambaugh, it’s no surprise that plot is secondary to exploring the day-to-day lives of the blue-collar cops trying to take Slow Boy down.  The heart of the movie is in the scenes of the cops shooting the breeze and trying to keep each other amused during length shakeouts.  Their humor is often grim and the fascinating dialogue is cynical, dark, and, even by today’s standards, surprisingly raw.  One of the detectives (played by Harry Guardino, who specialized in loud-mouth city cops) is an unapologetic racist.  Though he gets a comeuppance of sorts, the way the film and the rest of his squad handle his racism will undoubtedly make modern audiences uncomfortable, even if it is authentic to the era in which Slow Boy was made.

The underrated Vic Morrow gives one of his best performances as the tough but sympathetic LaFrieda, who is bad at everything but his job.  He is ably supported by a host of familiar character actors.  Ed Asner plays LaFrieda’s reactionary lieutenant while Sandy Baron is great in the role of an informant.  Diane Baker was also perfectly cast as LaFrieda’s potential girlfriend.  (She first meets the detective while Slow Boy is holding a gun to her head.)  Finally, Chuck Conner is as intimidating as always as the sadistic Slow Boy.

Slow Boy is a tough and uncompromising police procedural and it provided a great start for Police Story.  Reruns of Police Story currently air on H&I on Sunday morning.

Halloween Havoc!: Joan Crawford in STRAIT-JACKET! (Columbia 1964)


cracked rear viewer

It’s time once again to revisit Joan Crawford’s later-day career as a horror star, and this one’s a pretty good shocker. STRAIT-JACKET! was Joan’s follow-up to WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE, the first in the “Older Women Do Horror” genre (better known by the detestable moniker “Psycho-Biddy Movies”). Here she teams for the first time with veteran producer/director William Castle , starring as an axe murderess released after twenty years in an insane asylum, becoming the prime suspect when people begin to get hacked to bits again.

The film itself begins with a 1940’s prolog depicting the gruesome events that occurred when Lucy Harbin (Joan) catches her husband (Lee Majors in his uncredited film debut) in bed with another woman. Joan, all dolled up to resemble her MILDRED PIERCE-era self, grabs the nearest axe and CHOP! CHOP! CHOP! goes hubby and his squeeze into itsy-bitsy pieces. The act is witnessed…

View original post 371 more words

Lisa Cleans Out Her DVR: Hemingway’s Adventures Of A Young Man (dir by Martin Ritt)


(Lisa is currently in the process of cleaning out her DVR!  It’s going to take a while.  She recorded this 1962 literary adaptation off of FXM on January 30th!)

Hemingway’s Adventures Of A Young Man is one of those films that you just know was made specifically to win Oscars.  It’s a big prestige production, complete with a historical setting, an epic scope and big, all-star cast.  That most of those stars appear in relatively small roles was undoubtedly meant to evidence of the film’s importance.

“Look!” the film seems to shout at times, “This is such an important film that even Paul Newman was willing to stop by for a day’s work!”

The film is based on ten short stories by Ernest Hemingway and, loosely, A Farewell to Arms.  The stories all dealt with the early life of Nick Adams, who was a literary stand-in for Hemingway.  Since the Nick Adams stories were autobiographical (and, for that matter, so was A Farewell to Arms), the film can also be viewed as biopic.  Richard Beymer (who, a year earlier, had starred in West Side Story and who is currently playing Ben Horne on Twin Peaks) may be playing Nick Adams but the film leaves little doubt that he was actually meant to be playing Ernest Hemingway.

The film opens with Nick hunting with his father, Dr. Harold Adams (Arthur Kennedy).  He is present when his father travels to an Indian camp and helps to deliver a baby.  He respects his father but Nick wants to see the world and the film follows him as he explores America, working odd jobs and meeting colorful characters along the way.  Paul Newman shows up as a punch-drunk boxer and proceeds to overact to such an extent that he reminded me of Eric Roberts appearing in a Lifetime film.  Nick meets rich men, poor men, and everything in between.  He works as a journalist.  He works as a porter.  Eventually, when World War I breaks out, Nick enlists in the Italian army and the film turns into the 100th adaptation of A Farewell to Arms.

And really, I think it would have been an enjoyable film if it had been directed by someone like Otto Preminger, George Stevens, or maybe even Elia Kazan.  These are directors who would have embraced both the pulpy potential of the Nick Adams stories and the soapy melodrama of the war scenes.  A showman like Preminger would have had no fear of going totally and completely over the top and that’s the approach that this material needed.  Instead, Hemingway’s Adventures Of A Young Man was directed, in a painfully earnest style, by Martin Ritt.  Ritt tries to imitate Hemingway’s famously understated style with his understated direction but, cinematically, it’s just not very interesting.  Ritt portrays everything very seriously and very literally and, in the end, his direction is more than a little dull.

Sadly, the same can be said for Richard Beymer’s performance in the lead role.  Beymer comes across as being the nice guy who everyone says you should marry because he’ll be able to get a good and stable job and he’ll probably never go to jail.  Two months ago, when I watched and reviewed Twin Peaks, I really loved Beymer’s performance as Ben Horne.  He just seemed to be having so much fun being bad.  Unfortunately, in Hemingway’s Adventures Of A Young Man, he never seemed to be having any fun at all.  No wonder he temporarily put his film career on hold so that he could fully devote himself to working as a civil rights activist.

In the end, this is a movie that’s a lot more fun to look at than to actually watch.  Visually, the film is frequently quite pretty in an early 1960s prestige movie so sort of way.  And there are some good performances.  Eli Wallach, Ricardo Montalban, Susan Strasberg, Arthur Kennedy — there’s a whole host of performers doing memorable supporting work.  Unfortunately, even with all that in mind, this well-intentioned film largely falls flat.