ANDREWEHUNT

As a kid growing up in the 1970s, I was addicted to paranormal documentaries. Documentaries such as Mysteries From Beyond Earth (1975), docudramas such as The Legend of Boggy Creek (1972) and TV's Project UFO (1978) and TV documentaries like In Search Of... were the kinds of shows I lived for. Recently, while wandering around on YouTube, I found the opening segment of one of my all-time favourite 1970s' paranormal documentaries, Bigfoot: Man or Beast? (the release date is often mistakenly said to be 1972, but it was actually released in 1975). Unfortunately, YouTube only features the first 10 minutes of the film (you can watch the first 11 minutes 48 seconds of the film on Google Video). Apparently, you can watch the entire documentary online at The Film Wall (http://www.thefilmwall.com), although the poster they feature on the Website is for a different Bigfoot film and the website asks for your credit card #, even though it insists you can watch movies online for free. It looks pretty dubious to me.

Bigfoot: Man or Beast? is a beautifully made documentary with outstanding production values, compelling footage and, at the risk of being accused of hyperbole, I consider it a work of art. Sadly, this outstanding documentary has not found its way to DVD. Many of the old- timers in the film are now, alas, no longer with us, so the film is also a very important historical document about early twentieth century sightings.

The film holds up beautifully today. The last time I saw it was on TNT back in 2000. Too bad it hasn't been released on DVD, because there is definitely a niche audience for this film and I think it would sell fairly well. The location filming and gripping eyewitness accounts combine to make this a remarkable film. If you see it, do not miss it. The sound of the screaming Bigfoot in the film (based on eyewitness descriptions) is chilling and worth the price of admission.

UPDATE (April 26, 2014): The movie is now available on DVD, as well as YouTube. Check it out if you get a chance!

This episode is clear evidence that The Simpsons - once the very best show on television - has way overstayed its welcome. Everything about it was awful. The gags fell flat; Homer as a grunge rocker (with a far bushier mop on his head than he ever had in the 1960s or 1970s) was mind-numbingly unfunny; the band Sadgasm was a stupid "spoof" of grunge; the use of the Verve's Bittersweet Symphony puts the action in 1997, a year when some of the best Simpsons episodes were actually made; the character Professor August adds nothing to the show and the subplot involving Marge attending university was pointless. Clearly, The Simpsons has been on television too long. Either it needs to go off the air or it needs fresh writers who can bring back the show's edgy 90s humor. Watching this episode reminds me of the bad old days when we were subjected to some of those later Happy Days episodes or reruns of Archie Bunker's Place or the final season of The Love Boat. Some critics were upset by the fact that "That 90's Show" more or less subverted the entire Simpson family history time line. For example, the episode invalidates just about all of the flashback episodes, including the classic "Homer's Barbershop Quartet," which was set in 1985 and showed Bart as a little kid. But this is not what offended me about the episode. It was tired. It lacked creativity. It didn't even have as much edge as your typical Suite Life of Zack and Cody episode. What a sad assessment of a show that in its heyday used to excite TV viewers so much with its splendid subversive humor.

This is an unusual film, to say the least. Chained For Life (1951) is the story of Siamese Twins Dorothy and Vivian Hamilton (interestingly, Daisy and Violet Hilton get to keep their initials in the film), one of whom -- Vivian -- is accused of shooting her sister's lover. We see their story in flashback form: Dorothy falling in love with a nasty, two-timing sharpshooter Andre (Mario Laval); Dorothy and Vivian singing (they sound like the Andrews Sisters) in a vaudeville act; Andre falling for Dorothy as part of a publicity stunt cooked up by their manager; oh, and did I mention the endless vaudeville scenes in the movie? One of the reasons the film falls short of its potential is because there are too many vaudeville scenes -- too much sharpshooting, too many stale jokes, too many music routines -- and they severely undermine the film's pace because they drag on so long. There are some terrific moments in the film, though, especially the dream sequence where Dorothy -- well, actually, a double playing Dorothy -- is separated from Vivian and dances outside under the starry sky, meeting her dream lover (in this scene, we only see a close-up of Dorothy behind some tree branches, which conceal Dorothy/Daisy's twin, Vivian/Violet). Another memorable scene is a profoundly humane speech delivered by a blind minister condemning bigotry. It is interesting that a blind character can see the world more clearly than the characters with 20/20 vision. Overall, this is a compelling film that keeps you watching. I agree with one poster who expressed regret that the movie is not a more faithful account of Daisy and Violet's actual story. The twins lived a deeply troubled life and it is amazing to see how much they have aged in the 19 years since Freaks (1932) was made. They look old and tired in this film -- even older than their 43 years. They have wrinkles under their eyes and they seem like they've seen it all. They've lost their youthful vitality and innocence they had in Freaks. And some of the acting in the film is pretty iffy. But this film deserves a higher rating than what it gets on IMDb. This reviewer gives it a 6/10. It is well worth your time. And it is now included in an excellent four-DVD set of exploitation films called "Cult Classics," released by Mill Creek Entertainment. See it if you get a chance.