tmitch-1
Joined Jan 2005
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews6
tmitch-1's rating
Did you ever notice that nearly EVERYONE who becomes buddies with Steve Austin ends up having the same sort of devestating triple-amputee accident that nearly finished him off in the first place? Jaime Sommers - Pro tennis player and extremely hot babe. Becomes enganged to Steve Austin... Splatto!! - loses three limbs and an ear in a sky-diving accident.
Michael Austin - Test pilot, estranged son of Steve Austin. Re-united and reconciled with his estranged dad, Steve Austin... Whammo!! - loses three limbs and an eye in a crash nearly identical to Dad's mishap.
Maximillion - Jaime's dog. Yes, that's right - even DOGS who get mixed up with Steve or Jaime end up on the operating room/chop shop table.
Michael Austin - Test pilot, estranged son of Steve Austin. Re-united and reconciled with his estranged dad, Steve Austin... Whammo!! - loses three limbs and an eye in a crash nearly identical to Dad's mishap.
Maximillion - Jaime's dog. Yes, that's right - even DOGS who get mixed up with Steve or Jaime end up on the operating room/chop shop table.
The 1976 version of "King Kong" and the very first (I think it was 1979) big-screen adaptation of "Star Trek" are two of the very first movies I can recall seeing in a movie theater. I think I was about eight when I saw "King Kong" and about ten when I saw "Star Trek: The Motion Picture." And I vividly remember sitting in the theater silently for several minutes after both films ended with my jaw open - unable to put into words the immensity of my disappointment. I couldn't even summon the strength to get up and leave until my mom prodded me several times.
Although I knew I felt let down by both the "King Kong" remake and the first "Star Trek" movie, it wasn't until some years later that I realized just how similar my disappointment was in both cases.
The 1933 release of "King Kong" and the 1960s "Star Trek" TV series were two of my all-time-favorite childhood entertainment staples. I loved both despite their flaws, and maybe even because of them. They had become like an old friends whom you learn to love all the more for all of their goofy quirks and frailties. The over-dramatic acting, cheesy special effects, and thunderously melodramatic music of both the original "King Kong" and the original "Star Trek" just made them all the more endearing. Like a good friend, they weren't perfect, but their hearts were always in the right place, and you never got tired of visiting them over and over again.
So, when updated big-screen adaptations of "King Kong" and "Star Trek" came out, I of course assumed that I would love the new versions for the same reasons that I loved their predecessors, and that the only difference would be that the new offerings would be even better.
And, boy, was I blown away. And not in a good way.
In place of the lovable - if overly earnest - characters of the originals were either hollow, soulless shadows of their former selves (as in "Star Trek"); or stupid, annoying, completely unlikable jerks (as in "King Kong).
Instead of the fast-paced and engagingly simple story lines of the originals, we got slow, uninteresting, and hopelessly convoluted story lines that no one could possibly care about - even if they could actually follow what was happening.
And worst of all, I realized with rising dread as I sat through both movies that I just didn't like what these old friends had become. And not just in the sense that I didn't want to spend time with them anymore; I literally didn't like THEM. They used to be honest and forthright; now they were dodgy and self-delusional. There was a time when they never took themselves too seriously, and never passed on an opportunity to laugh at themselves; now they were self-important, arrogant, and took themselves deadly seriously. And where you once felt they were happiest when they made you happy; they now had become the center of their own universe, and seemed to believe that it was your job to revolve around them - no matter how boring and uninteresting they had become.
Well, I gave my old friend "Star Trek" another chance, and apparently it was just an adolescent phase she was going through. She was back to her old self by the time "The Wrath of Khan" came out. Now she's getting up there in years, but she's still the same friend from my childhood. I don't always like spending time with her, but I always like her.
After 29 years, I'm anxious to give another one of my childhood friends another chance. Thanks, Peter Jackson.
Although I knew I felt let down by both the "King Kong" remake and the first "Star Trek" movie, it wasn't until some years later that I realized just how similar my disappointment was in both cases.
The 1933 release of "King Kong" and the 1960s "Star Trek" TV series were two of my all-time-favorite childhood entertainment staples. I loved both despite their flaws, and maybe even because of them. They had become like an old friends whom you learn to love all the more for all of their goofy quirks and frailties. The over-dramatic acting, cheesy special effects, and thunderously melodramatic music of both the original "King Kong" and the original "Star Trek" just made them all the more endearing. Like a good friend, they weren't perfect, but their hearts were always in the right place, and you never got tired of visiting them over and over again.
So, when updated big-screen adaptations of "King Kong" and "Star Trek" came out, I of course assumed that I would love the new versions for the same reasons that I loved their predecessors, and that the only difference would be that the new offerings would be even better.
And, boy, was I blown away. And not in a good way.
In place of the lovable - if overly earnest - characters of the originals were either hollow, soulless shadows of their former selves (as in "Star Trek"); or stupid, annoying, completely unlikable jerks (as in "King Kong).
Instead of the fast-paced and engagingly simple story lines of the originals, we got slow, uninteresting, and hopelessly convoluted story lines that no one could possibly care about - even if they could actually follow what was happening.
And worst of all, I realized with rising dread as I sat through both movies that I just didn't like what these old friends had become. And not just in the sense that I didn't want to spend time with them anymore; I literally didn't like THEM. They used to be honest and forthright; now they were dodgy and self-delusional. There was a time when they never took themselves too seriously, and never passed on an opportunity to laugh at themselves; now they were self-important, arrogant, and took themselves deadly seriously. And where you once felt they were happiest when they made you happy; they now had become the center of their own universe, and seemed to believe that it was your job to revolve around them - no matter how boring and uninteresting they had become.
Well, I gave my old friend "Star Trek" another chance, and apparently it was just an adolescent phase she was going through. She was back to her old self by the time "The Wrath of Khan" came out. Now she's getting up there in years, but she's still the same friend from my childhood. I don't always like spending time with her, but I always like her.
After 29 years, I'm anxious to give another one of my childhood friends another chance. Thanks, Peter Jackson.