ExPresidents

Why is this movie so highly rated? Because Harry Dean Stanton died two weeks before it was released. That's it. If you watch closely, and listen, you'll realize it's a very shallow, sentimental story. In fact, it's bad.

The director never made another film, and the writers never wrote anything else, before or since. This should tell you something.

If you see a scene here or there, it's okay. But as a film, it's garbage. Hot garbage. In fact, the worst part is the town folk: nowhere on earth do people care for their fellow man, especially drinks in a bar.

This entire thing is an exercise in maudlin sentiment. Go watch Straight Time: that's Stanton's masterpiece.

It's quite simple: when you make a documentary, you better have a great narrator.

If said documentary is told in the first person, and that person is dead, and you must hire a voice to sound out his loves, laughs, and Lives, you better make sure that voice is immortal. John Facenda, maybe; Peter Facinelli, no.

God no. Please K-I-double hockeysticks me he is bad, so bad I now hate Douglas Fairbanks. And he's from the silent era? Great, now all his movies have the taint of Facinelli's voice all throughout.

This is why Prime should be free. Because this is garbage, and require no Money. Ever.

Stay away.

.....over 20 years after the episode aired, which I find very suspicious. Also, they seem to.have the same stylogy and grammar usage.

Clearly 80% of the reviews are left by one deranged person, one not even psychiatric meds can alleviate I'm afraid.

All the positive reviews we left years apart, too l, by the way, and seem to be written with wildly different styles and rating numbers that actually differentiate.

The only thing that puzzles me as to why someone would systematically abuse the rating system over a 20-year-old episode of a children's show totaling no more than 22 minutes.

That's the real f--ing mystery.